Archive
Tag "Barack Obama"

If you haven’t seen the 60 Minutes interview yet, it’s a pretty good one.  I just can’t help feeling great about the fact that he’s our soon-to-be President.  The guy is just 100% legit.  And, for that matter, so is Michelle.  She’s still just sitting there choppin’ him down a peg:

Kroft: You told me that when you went off to Washington and made the decision to live there and when you came back to Chicago you had certain chores that you had to perform. You had to wash the dishes and make your bed.

Mr. Obama: Yeah.

Kroft: Are you free now on that front?

Mr. Obama: Well, I…

Kroft: Certainly there’s gonna be somebody else to wash the dishes and make your bed.

Michelle Obama: Yes.

Mr. Obama: There sometimes it’s soothing to wash the dishes.

Michelle Obama: You? Since when was it ever soothing for you to wash the dishes?

Mr. Obama: You know, when I had to do it. I’d make it into a soothing thing.

You can watch the full thing, in segments, here.

Read More

I’ve been meaning to write about Rahm Emanuel for awhile now because I thought it was truly a brilliant decision.  There was a reason that this pick was derided by conservatives because it scares the shit out of them.  He didn’t get the name Rahmbo for nothin’:

Friends and enemies agree that the key to Emanuel’s success is his legendary intensity. There’s the story about the time he sent a rotting fish to a pollster who had angered him. There’s the story about how his right middle finger was blown off by a Syrian tank when he was in the Israeli army. And there’s the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting “Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!” and plunging the knife into the table after every name. “When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape,” one campaign veteran recalls. “It was like something out of The Godfather. But that’s Rahm for you.”

This guy is a giant asshole, which is great, because Barack Obama is not a giant asshole.  Barack will provide the soft velvet touch, while Rahm delivers the iron fist to your gut.  That, my friends, is how you get things done in Washington.

Read More

A collection of 24 high-quality dingbats featuring Barack Obama and various design elements! This collection is completely free for download, upload, distribution, use and modification. Use these dingbats to start creating your own Obama paraphernalia today!

http://jeffdomke.com/?p=374

Read More

I don’t know if anybody reads Men’s Health, but they had a good article about Obama “The Challenger” in their 20th Anniversary edition.  They list “9 Lessons in balance, love, and leadership from a guy who’s even busier than you are”.  It’s a nice look at Obama when he’s not just crushing a lot…  you know, bumming smigs, parent teacher conferences, all that jazz.  Here’s a snippit (for anybody trying to kick the habit):

Lesson 6: Quit smoking (as often as you need to)
For all of Obama’s physical credentials, he’s carried around the ultimate health taboo — smoking — for most of his adult life. And he inhaled, all right. Then word came that he’d quit smoking.

“There wasn’t some dramatic moment,” he says. “Michelle had been putting pressure on me for a while. I was never really a heavy smoker. Probably at my peak I was smoking seven or eight a day. More typical was three. So it wasn’t a huge challenge with huge withdrawal symptoms. There have been a couple of times during the campaign when I fell off the wagon and bummed one, and I had to kick it again. But I figure, seeing as I’m running for president, I need to cut myself a little slack.”

He does have advice for people, like him, who are wrestling with the dependency. “Eliminate certain key connections — that first cigarette in the morning, or after a meal, or with a drink. If you can eliminate those triggers, that should help.”

The same issue has a fun read on the ‘Value of Personal Authenticity’, and how it relates to elections.

The most authentic candidate from the past 8 years didn’t even make it to the general election in 2000 or 2004. I’m talking about the maverick senator from Arizona named John McCain, who ran against Bush in the 2000 primary. That McCain rode around on a bus called the Straight Talk Express, and straight talk he did. He ripped the leaders of the religious right as “agents of intolerance.” He pushed for campaign finance reform and sensible tax policy. He was that rare politician willing to buck his party. Moderate Democrats like me swooned.

Unfortunately for the maverick, authenticity in the primaries isn’t as important as playing to your party’s base, and McCain’s independent ways were too much for the more conservative elephants of the GOP.

Update:  They changed Obama’s title from “The Challenger” to “The President Elect” in the article.

Read More

Some more fuel for the fire:

Read More

First, the past:

Cheney and Bush, unlike any presidency in American history, have dangerously pushed constitutional government to the brink of collapse. They did not merely assert a unified executive in which actions and regulations reserved to the executive branch were kept free from Congressional and judicial tampering. That is a perfectly defensible position, especially in wartime. They did not merely act in the immediate Agabuse wake of an emergency to protect American citizens swiftly – again a perfectly legitimate use of executive power, unhampered by Congress or courts. They declared such power to be unlimited; they asserted also that it was as permanent as the emergency they declared; they claimed their dictatorial powers were inherent in the presidency itself, and above any legal constraints; they ordered their own lawyers to provide retroactive and laughable legal immunity for their crimes; they by-passed all the usual and necessary checks within the executive branch to ensure prudence and legality and self-doubt in the conduct of a war; they asserted that emergency war powers applied to the territory of the United States itself; they claimed the right to seize anyone – anyone, citizen or not – they deemed an “enemy combatant,” to hold them indefinitely with no due process and to torture them until they became incoherent, broken, brutalized shells of human beings, if they survived at all. They did this to the guilty and they did this to the innocent. But they also had no way of reliably knowing which was which and who was who. Never before in wartime has the precious, sacred inheritance of free people been treated with such contempt by the leaders of the democratic West.

They seized countless individuals with no trials and no hearings. They tortured dozens to death. They subjected many more to some of the worst psychological torture techniques devised by Communist totalitarians and the worst physical suffering devised by the Gestapo. They crossed lines no American president had ever crossed before. They withdrew the US from the Geneva Conventions – and did so Padillagoggles secretly. They tapped American’s phones without warrants, and forced many of their randomly grabbed prisoners into the black hole of insanity. They set up secret sites in former Soviet gulags to torture their victims. They single-handedly devastated America’s reputation for human rights and the rule of law in the minds of the vast majority of people in other Western democracies, let alone the developing world, let alone the millions of Muslims across the Middle East who now suspect that America is not really better than their own thugocracies, that America also tortures when it wants to, that the shining city on a hill is actually a place where men above the law can do anything they want to other human beings in their custody.

Then, the future:

It will not be easy. The world will soon remember why it resents America as well as loves it. But until this unlikely fellow with the funny ears and strange name and exotic biography emerged on the scene, I had begun to wonder if it was possible at all. I had almost given up hope, and he helped restore it. That is what is stirring out there; and although you are welcome to mock me for it, I remain unashamed. As someone once said, in the unlikely story of America, there is never anything false about hope. Obama, moreover, seems to bring out the best in people, and the calmest, and the sanest. He seems to me to have a blend of Midwestern good sense, an intuitive understanding of the developing world that is as much our future now as theirs’, an analyst’s mind and a poet’s tongue. He is human. He is flawed. He will make mistakes. His passivity and ambiguity are sometimes weaknesses as well as strengths.

But there is something about his rise that is also supremely American, a reminder of why so many of us love this country so passionately and are filled with such grief at what has been done to it and in its name. I endorse Barack Obama because I will not give up on America, because I believe in America, and in her constitution and decency and character and strength.

And the world needs that America now as much as it ever has. Can we start that healing, that rebirth, tomorrow?

Yes. We. Can.

Read the whole thing here.

Read More

Publius sums up my feelings about it:

Remind me to stop doubting the Obama campaign. I can’t seem to stop it — the doubt comes [start melody] regularrrr like seeeeeasons. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and each day publius doth worry about something stupid. Today’s worry was that the ad was overkill, that it was unnecessary, etc. It literally bothered me all day long.

But then I watched it — and I honestly thought it was great, and even sincerely moving at times (I’m basically a sucker for stories about his mother). Like everything else they do, it was pitch perfect. It wasn’t focusing on Obama (as I feared it would), but upon the struggles of working families and how an Obama administration would address them. I didn’t hear the word McCain once.

So I’m done doubting. I’m done saying Axelrod needs to do this or that. My measly pundit powers pale in comparison. I’m like a rope on the Goodyear Blimp.

In case you missed it:

Read More

Read More

Doug Holtz-Eakin, explains away concerns that John McCain’s health care plan would cause young and healthy individuals to drop out of group plans:

Younger, healthier workers likely wouldn’t abandon their company-sponsored plans, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s senior economic policy adviser.

“Why would they leave?” said Holtz-Eakin. “What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit.”

Haha.  Gee, maybe we shouldn’t tax those “way better” benefits, thus creating an incentive to participate in them.  Nah, let’s go with the way worse plan instead.  That oughtta do it.

Barack Obama, quick to pounce:

Read More

I just wanted to revisit all this redistribution talk with some comments around blogland…

Jonathan Chait

Need I point out that literally having every any government at all involves taking somebody’s money and giving it to somebody else? Even the more restrivtive definition of redistribution — using government to create a less unequal distribution of wealth — has been going on for a century. If McCain is really opposed to redistribution, then that means he thinks the rich should get back a dollar in spending for every dollar they pay in taxes.

Hilzoy

Some cities and towns are richer than others. Those cities and towns will be able to provide much better schools for their kids. And this means that kids from poor towns will be likely to have many fewer opportunities than kids from rich towns. If you care about equality of opportunity, you’ll probably think that this is a problem. One natural solution would be for states and the federal government help to fund education: in this way, funding levels for different school districts could be made more equal. But this involves, horror of horrors, redistribution: money from taxpayers who live in richer communities is being given to school districts in poorer communities.

The thing is: that’s what Obama is talking about. He’s not talking about cutting checks for the poor; he’s talking about trying to equalize funding across school districts. And his reason for doing this is specifically to “create equal schools and equal educational opportunity”, not to equalize wealth.

Andrew Sullivan

A simple question. I’m a flat taxer, because I don’t believe the government has any business punishing people for getting richer. But I don’t think that people who support the kind of punitive taxation that Obama does or Cameron does in Britain or Reagan did in 1986 is a “socialist.” Is it now the McCain campaign’s assertion that anyone who isn’t for a flat tax is socialist? I should add that if Obama is a socialist, Richard Nixon must have been a commie.

Sarah Palin

We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.

John McCain

This whole argument is just pure garbage.  Garbage.  And quite frankly, I’m sick and tired of it.  The McCain campaign had a better argument when they were attacking Obama over Ayers.  That’s how stupid this “closing argument” is.  Obama = Socialist is quite possibly the dumbest political argument ever assembled.  I mean, this type of stuff is supposed to be relegated to the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world.  When did this wingnut crap end up on center stage?

Well, I guess it took a maverick…

Read More

True.

Read More

He is a closet-socialist.  He said redistribution of wealth, right here!

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy and the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples…but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted and I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused. I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that. [...]

You know, maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way. Just look at the very rare examples where during the desegregation era, the court was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to a local school district and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially administrative and take a lot of time. The court is not very good at it and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that as a practical matter, our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.

See!  He’s a socialist!  He said redistribution like 5 times!  And he was talking about crazy redistributive things like funding schools in poor districts with some of other people’s money!  Let those poor folks pay for their own schools, dammit!  I want my school in my rich neighborhood to have a turf football field and chandeliers, while those lazy poor kids learn math without math books!  But worst of all, he’s arguing…against(?)…judicial activism.  And he wants us to enact these socialist policies through…um…democratic institutions…like the legislature…which we kind of already did…a little…whatever.  He’s still a socialist!

Btw, on a more serious note, this interview displays the more serious side of Obama-as-constitutional-law-scholar, which is a whole side of him that you rarely see on the campaign trail (it’s elitist to know a lot about constitutional law).  As a law junkie, I love it.  I mean, can you imagine Bush or McCain speaking substantively about the role of the Warren Court in the segregation era?  Yeah.  Thought so.

Read More

Let’s get to work.

Read More

I was at a bakery today doing some cake testing for my wedding, and they had these cookies with Obama / McCain on them. The baker went on to tell me that they are participating in an unscientific poll for the 2008 presidential election by selling cookies with the candidates on them. For every cookie purchased, they are counting that as 1 vote for that candidate.

While we were in there some lady walked in and purchased 4 McCain cookies. It was officially on at that point.

I’ll try and post the final results in the next couple of weeks.

Read More

Someone has some awesome editing skills.

Read More