A Week in the 2008 Presidential Campaign

As reported in the New York Times:

Monday, Jan. 28 - It's reported that Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama, spurning Bill Clinton plea.

Monday, Jan. 28 - Neocon columnist William Kristol says he's cancelling dinner plans for Thursday so he can see the debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:

"Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards? He wasn’t supposed to be in the game. But just as Hillary was supposed to be finding her own voice, Bill decided to barge in, and to do so with a vengeance. This has been no favor to Hillary. ...

"Right now, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls in almost all the big states voting. She is a tough and capable campaigner, and she may be able to hold on to those leads. But it is now clear that putting her in the White House brings a hyperactive Bill back in with her. Who needs it? Liberals and Democrats can get basically the same policies without the Clinton baggage, and in choosing Obama, they can nominate a more electable candidate....

"Meanwhile, [in addition to the Kennedy endorsement and a possible Gore endorsement,] Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader during most of the Clinton presidency, is actively supporting Obama. Talk to Democrats in D.C., and it’s amazing how many who know the Clintons well — many of whom worked in the Clinton administration — are eager that they not return to the White House.

"This week, the Clinton team will dump every bit of opposition research it has on Obama. We’ll see how Obama responds.

"But the moment of truth could come at the Democratic debate Thursday, in Los Angeles. Edwards may have dropped out by then. If so, it will be a one-on-one showdown.... Will Obama hold his own? ...

"[T]his could be the week Obama upsets the Clintons."


Tuesday, Jan. 29 - reporting on State of the Union address, front page center photograph shows Hillary reaching across Barack Obama to shake hands with Ted Kennedy while Obama turns away to speak with a Senate colleague.

Tuesday, Jan. 29 - Moderate-conservative columnist David Brooks suggests, "Something fundamental has shifted in the Democratic Party... [when l]ast week there was the widespread revulsion at the Clintons’ toxic attempts to ghettoize Barack Obama. In private and occasionally in public, leading Democrats lost patience with the hyperpartisan style of politics — the distortion of facts, the demonizing of foes, the secret admiration for brass-knuckle brawling and the ever-present assumption that it’s necessary to pollute the public sphere to win. ...

"And then Monday, something equally astonishing happened. A throng of Kennedys came to the Bender Arena at American University in Washington to endorse Obama.... The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness.

“'With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion,'” Senator Kennedy declared. 'With Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign — a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us,' he said.

"The Clintons started this fight, and in his grand and graceful way, Kennedy returned the volley with added speed. ...

"[I]n the speech’s most striking passage, he set Bill Clinton afloat on the receding tide of memory. 'There was another time,' Kennedy said, 'when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a New Frontier.' But, he continued, another former Democratic president, Harry Truman, said he should have patience. He said he lacked experience. John Kennedy replied: 'The world is changing. The old ways will not do!'

"The audience at American University roared. It was mostly young people, and to them, the Clintons are as old as the Trumans were in 1960. And in the students’ rapture for Kennedy’s message, you began to see the folding over of generations, the service generation of John and Robert Kennedy united with the service generation of the One Campaign. The grandparents and children united against the parents.

"How could the septuagenarian Kennedy cast the younger Clintons into the past? He could do it because he evoked the New Frontier, which again seems fresh. He could do it because he himself has come to live a life of service.

"After his callow youth, Kennedy came to realize that life would not give him the chance to be president. But life did ask him to be a senator, and he has embraced that role and served that institution with more distinction than anyone else now living — as any of his colleagues, Republican or Democrat, will tell you. ...

"Sept. 11th really did leave a residue — an unconsummated desire for sacrifice and service. The old Clintonian style of politics clashes with that desire. ...

"It’s not clear how far this altered public mood will carry Obama in this election. But there was something important and memorable about the way the 75-year-old Kennedy communed and bonded with a rapturous crowd half a century his junior.


Wednesday, Jan. 30 - Commenting on Obama's State of the Union snub of Hillary, Maureen Dowd writes:

"Nobody cared about W., whose presidency had crumpled into a belated concern about earmarks.

"The only union that fascinated was Obama and Hillary, once more creeping around each other.

"It would have been the natural thing for the Illinois senator, only hours after his emotional embrace by the Kennedys and an arena full of deliriously shrieking students, to follow the lead of Uncle Teddy and greet the rebuffed Hillary.

"She was impossible to miss in the sea of dark suits and Supreme Court dark robes. Like Scarlett O’Hara after a public humiliation, Hillary showed up at the gathering wearing a defiant shade of red.

"But the fact that he didn’t do so shows that Obama cannot hide how much the Clintons rattle him, and that he is still taking the race very personally. ...

"Their relations have been frosty and fraught ever since the young Chicago prince challenged Queen Hillary’s royal proclamation that it was her turn to rule.

"Last winter, after news broke that he was thinking of running, he winked at her and took her elbow on the Senate floor to say hi, in his customary languid, friendly way, and she coldly brushed him off.

"It bothered him, and he called a friend to say: You would not believe what just happened with Hillary.

"Again and again at debates, he looked eager to greet her or be friendly during the evening and she iced him. She might have frozen him out once more Monday night had he actually tried to reach out.

"But now Obama is like that cat Mark Twain wrote about who wouldn’t jump on the stove again for fear of being burned.

"It was only after the distortions of the Clintons in South Carolina that he changed his tone and took on Hillary in a tough way in the debate there. Afterward, one of his advisers said that it was as though a dam had broken and Obama finally began using all the sharp lines against Hillary that strategists had been suggesting for months.

"Why had it taken so long for Obama to push back against Hillary? 'He respected her as a senator,' the adviser replied. 'He even defended her privately when she cried, saying that no one knows how hard these campaigns are.' ...

"Obama is the more emotionally delicate candidate, and the one who has the more feminine consensus management style, and the not-blinded-by-testosterone ability to object to a phony war.

"As first lady, Alpha Hillary’s abrasive and secretive management of health care doomed it. She voted to enable W. on Iraq so she could run as someone tough enough to command armies. ...

"Obama is right to be scared of Hillary. He just needs to learn that Uncle Teddy can’t fight all his fights, and that a little chivalry goes a long way."

Thursday, Jan. 31 - Gail Collins writes that "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been extremely testy toward one another, but so far the rancor at the top has not trickled down. The Democratic voters haven’t seemed angry at all. In fact, it’s been a long time since we’ve seen such a chipper group. Racing to the polls in droves. Not a single reference to holding one’s nose or the lesser of two evils. “I want the Republicans to feel the way I did in 2004,” said Mike Sherzan, an Iowan who was for Edwards in the caucus while his wife was for Clinton and his son was with Obama. (Basically, everybody’s son is with Obama.)

"It would be nice if the two survivors could work a little harder on encouraging that mood. Anger is out. So 2006. So ... Tom DeLay.

"Hillary could start by purging her campaign of the lingering sense that the presidency is her due and anyone who stands in her way is a particularly mean chauvinist. You cannot run a campaign with the slogan: “Vote for Hillary — Think of All She’s Been Through.” ...

"Some of the Democratic resistance to Obama’s magic comes from people who are wary of politicians who want to win their hearts. Every great candidate has golden moments when the campaign merges perfectly into the zeitgeist of the people. But sooner or later it passes, and you’re left with a tired, flawed human being making a pitch to crowds of slightly deflated citizens. One of Hillary’s selling points is that we’re pre-deflated. We’ve known her so well for so long.

"The Obama let-down would be way harder to handle. Earlier this week, his campaign visited Barack’s sort-of ancestral home in El Dorado, Kan., a small town outside Wichita where the community college gym was rocking.

“'An hour-and-a-half wait. It was well worth it,' said Hardy Stegall of nearby Pretty Prairie.

"It was Obama’s first visit. His grandparents, the Dunhams, kept chasing the American dream west until they wound up in Hawaii. Stanley Dunham started out in El Dorado, where he managed a furniture store and, family legend has it, once decked the high school principal. At the rally, Obama told the story of how Stanley married a young woman from the right side of the tracks and how their daughter married a man from Kenya, who left her a young single mother whose son is running for president.

“'Their journey, like so many others, speaks to a simple truth ... the future is what we decide it is going to be,' he said.

“'I never thought he’d come here,' said Stegall, almost beside himself with pleasure.

"And to tell the truth, I never imagined sitting in a gym in small-town Kansas, watching people whoop for a black, Hawaii-born, grandson-of-a-son of the Kansas soil who promised to bring their hometown values with him to the White House.

"We may remember this as a great campaign, people. Presuming they don’t screw it up."

Friday, Feb. 1

The front page story reports, "Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama met for debate [in Los Angeles] Thursday, sitting side by side and sharing a night of smiles, friendly eye-catching and gentle banter. Cordial as the encounter was, the candidates did not mask their own divisions, even as they previewed the attacks one of them will ultimately make against a Republican rival.

"Still, it was almost as if the battle was to see which of them could outnice the other.

"At the end of the nearly two-hour encounter, as the audience of Democrats and Hollywood celebrities rose to its feet at the Kodak Theater, Mr. Obama held Mrs. Clinton’s chair as she rose. The two rivals, almost hugging, held each others’ elbows and whispered in one another’s ear, offering a striking image that captured the tenor of the debate." ...

"[The] tone Thursday night was largely friendly. Each candidate laughed agreeably and nodded at the other’s remarks, and they praised each other at different points and looked ahead to the battle with the other party.

“'They are more of the same,' Mrs. Clinton said of the Republican candidates. 'Neither of us, by looking at us, is more of the same — we will change our country.'


What's going on here? There's something in the air - maybe they won't screw it up.

Stay tuned for Super Tuesday.

Obama Momentum After Iowa

It's truly something to see a black man convincingly win the caucuses in 2% white Iowa. Question is - can Barack Obama's momentum carry through into New Hampshire and the early primaries?

Indications are that it can - it turns out that Obama is an extraordinary candidate.

As I've suggested previously, the man offers what no other candidate in this field (or any other candidate in any other field in a couple generations) does - hope for a way past the bitter partisanship and cynicism of modern politics. Oh sure - there will always be sniping and partisan gamesmanship, but Obama seems determined (and maybe, just maybe, he is able) to rise above the fray as a uniter instead of divider.

Listen to some of the comments in today’s New York Times. First, this from Bob Herbert:

“The historians can put aside their reference material. This is new. America has never seen anything like the Barack Obama phenomenon…. Mr. Obama’s message of hope, healing and change, discounted as fanciful and naïve by skeptics, drew Iowans into the frigid night air by the tens of thousands on Thursday to stand with a man who is not just running for president, but trying to build a new type of political movement….

“Shake hands with tomorrow. It’s here.

“Senator Obama’s victory speech was a concise oratorical gem. No candidate in either party can move an audience like he can. He characterized his stunning victory as an affirmation of ‘the most American of ideas – that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it….

“The Clintons, [by contrast,] especially, have seemed baffled by the winds of change. They mounted a peculiar argument against Senator Obama, acknowledging that voters wanted change but insisting that you can’t achieve change by doing things differently….

“However this election turns out, Mr. Obama can be credited with a great achievement…. More than anyone else, he has re-energized that process and put some of the fun back into politics. And he’s done it by appealing openly and consistently to the best, rather than the worst, in us.”

And this from Gail Collins:

“Nearly 40 years later [after Hillary Rodham (Clinton’s) now-famous Wellesley commencement address in which she denounced politicians as ‘always looking for some way to cut a grubby deal instead of setting their sights on the impossible dream’ and claiming that she and her generation were ‘searching for a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living’], here she is, … campaigning in New Hampshire … warning voters that the guy who is promising to turn the whole process into something that people could actually feel good about is peddling ‘false hopes.’

“Meanwhile Barack Obama gives his folks the ecstatic experience. ‘They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,’ he told them Thursday night, creating a patriotic lump in every throat in the room.

“How could you be 21 and not be for Barack Obama?

“How could you be 53 and not wonder how this relative stranger will hold up when the disasters arrive, when things get truly nasty and the crowd starts seeing him as mortal?

“But if she were around right now, Hillary Rodham the commencement speaker would probably be an Obama girl.”

Drawing the Line on the Obama Administration's National Security Practices

As I've stated here previously on numerous occasions, the Barack Obama presidency is a vast improvement over the disaster of the prior eight years of the Bush/Cheney administration. But nothing's perfect, including the Obama administration's positions on national security.

In particular, the Obama administration has shown a disturbing tendency to hedge on the core principles of liberty and due process that it espoused during the campaign; capitulating instead to a disturbing number of discredited Bush-era "war on terror" rationale for maintaining arguably unconstitutional practices.

Specifically:

1. "Prolonged detention" - President Obama has continued the Bush/Cheney practice of allowing indefinite detention without trial or proof of guilt. He should instead insist that all prisoners have access to a fair and speedy trial, as basic constitutional principles of due process require.

2. Transparency - President Obama showed good instincts in releasing the torture memos, but dropped the ball in blocking release of photos showing American soldiers' abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. When they were released several years ago, the Abu Ghraib photos exposed the systematic allowance, if not encouragement, by the Rumsfeld Defense Department (with Cheney, as usual, lurking) of a sickening culture of prisoner abuse. In that case, public outrage fueled reforms; if that needs to happen again, so be it - President Obama should stick by his commitments to transparency.

3. State Secrets doctrine - the Obama administration is perpetuating in the federal courts the "state secrets" theory developed by the Bush Administration. This doctrine holds that certain lawsuits, such as those involving allegations of extreme torture in the Bush/Cheney extraordinary rendition program, shouldn't ever go to trial, since even discussing the facts in court could threaten national security. This is ridiculous. There are all sorts of protections available to keep certain aspects of court proceedings confidential (e.g., in camera review of sensitive evidence, etc.) (When I blogged on this issue previously, in February, I was inclined to give the administration the benefit of the doubt; but no longer, given the administration's other equivocations.)

There is a temptation among supporters of President Obama to let these matters slide, on the rationale that the Obama administration's approach is, at its core, based on respect, decency and due process; and that they will not abuse the power that they are attempting to maintain.

But we must resist this temptation. We must be vigilant on these matters, and insist that the Obama administration not equivocate; because as the founders and framers well knew and repeated often, constitutional protections are not necessarily designed for the benign government (after all, the benign government will tend to respect peoples' rights and liberties), but rather for the aggressive government that tends to abuse the peoples' liberties. Lest we think the latter is not possible or likely, we need only remember Bush/Cheney, 2001-09. Bush/Cheney opened the barn door on these unconstitutional practices; Obama needs to close the door and rein in the horses before they permanently escape.

Yes, President Obama is a pragmatist by nature; and politically that's probably a good thing. But on the "liberty" side of the progressive-liberty equation, some things are non-negotiable, such as due process - and the sorts of issues upon which the president is now equivocating go to the heart of due process.

Specifically, the fifth amendment to the Constitution specifies: "nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." At the very foundation of the Anglo-American concept of due process (with roots in 1215 Magna Carta, the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1688 English Bill of Rights) is the principle that if the King/government is to hold a person against his or her will, the person must be given a fair and meaningful hearing. The Constitution memorializes this concept in a number of provisions, including the Article I, Section 9 habeas corpus clause; and the numerous criminal procedural provisions in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights. The practices now advocated by the Obama administration - indefinitely holding prisoners, keeping evidence secret, & preventing matters from going to trial - run disturbingly afoul of these core constitutional guarantees.

History will remember President Obama more kindly if he resolutely and unflinchingly restores American principles of liberty and due process; otherwise, by perpetuating the abusive practices initiated by Bush/Cheney, for history's purposes they become the Bush/Cheney/Obama practices.

Not the sort of historical association that President Obama should embrace.

Obama's Victory - What it Means

Reflections the morning after Barack Obama's historic victory - in what amounts to nothing less than a national catharsis.

What's most moving to me is to think of what this means to all of those within and outside of the United States who have long felt disenfranchised or oppressed by government tyranny. The United States was founded 232 years ago and the Constitution framed 219 years ago as a slave-holding country - and now a son of the formerly-enslaved peoples will be president of the United States. Amazing, ... and incredible. It redeems one's hope that America is not destined to go the way charted for it by George W. Bush and Richard Cheney for the past eight years, where torture is authorized and individual liberty stolen by overzealous government.

And what about overseas? It's deeply moving to see the images of celebration around the world in response to Obama's victory. America has long been a beacon of hope for people around the world, and its image has been severely tarnished in recent years. But the fact that the American people can elect an African American, a son of a Muslim, goes a long way to beginning to restore a bit of America's luster. It is possible for reason, and tolerance, to prevail; instead of arbitrary, meaningless judgments based on skin color, religion or the like.

The New York Times reports from Gaza this morning, in "For Many Abroad, An Ideal Renewed":

"From far away, this is how it looks: There is a country out there where tens of millions of white Christians, voting freely, select as their leader a black man of modest origin, the son of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth — call it America — where such a thing happens.

"Even where the United States is held in special contempt, like here in this benighted Palestinian coastal strip, the “glorious epic of Barack Obama,” as the leftist French editor Jean Daniel calls it, makes America — the idea as much as the actual place — stand again, perhaps only fleetingly, for limitless possibility.

“It allows us all to dream a little,” said Oswaldo Calvo, 58, a Venezuelan political activist in Caracas, in a comment echoed to correspondents of The New York Times on four continents in the days leading up to the election.

"Tristram Hunt, a British historian, put it this way: Mr. Obama “brings the narrative that everyone wants to return to — that America is the land of extraordinary opportunity and possibility, where miracles happen.”

"But wonder is almost overwhelmed by relief. Mr. Obama’s election offers most non-Americans a sense that the imperial power capable of doing such good and such harm — a country that, they complain, preached justice but tortured its captives, launched a disastrous war in Iraq, turned its back on the environment and greedily dragged the world into economic chaos — saw the errors of its ways over the past eight years and shifted course.

"They say the country that weakened democratic forces abroad through a tireless but often ineffective campaign for democracy — dismissing results it found unsavory, cutting deals with dictators it needed as allies in its other battles — was now shining a transformative beacon with its own democratic exercise.

"It would be hard to overstate how fervently vast stretches of the globe wanted the election to turn out as it did to repudiate the Bush administration and its policies. Poll after poll in country after country showed only a few — Israel, Georgia, the Philippines — favoring a victory for Senator John McCain.

"“Since Bush came to power it’s all bam, bam, bam on the Arabs,” asserted Fathi Abdel Hamid, 40, as he sat in a Cairo coffee house.

"The world’s view of an Obama presidency presents a paradox. His election embodies what many consider unique about the United States — yet America’s sense of its own specialness, of its destiny and mission, has driven it astray, they say. They want Mr. Obama, the beneficiary and exemplar of American exceptionalism, to act like everyone else, only better, to shift American policy and somehow to project both humility and leadership.
...
"Such contradictory demands and expectations may reflect, in part, the unusual makeup of a man of mixed race and origin whose life and upbringing have touched several continents.

"“People feel he is a part of them because he has this multiracial, multiethnic and multinational dimension,” said Philippe Sands, a British international lawyer and author who travels frequently, adding that people find some thread of their own hopes and ideals in Mr. Obama. “He represents, for people in so many different communities and cultures, a personal connection. There is an immigrant component and a minority component.”

"Francis Nyamnjoh, a Cameroonian novelist and social scientist, said he saw Mr. Obama less as a black man than “as a successful negotiator of identity margins.”

"His ability to inhabit so many categories mirrors the African experience. Mr. Nyamnjoh said that for America to choose as its citizen in chief such a skillful straddler of global identities could not help but transform the nation’s image, making it once again the screen upon which the hopes and ambitions of the world are projected.

"Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at the People’s University of China, said Mr. Obama’s background, particularly his upbringing in Indonesia, made him suited to understanding the problems facing the world’s poorer nations.

"He and others say they hope the next American president will see their place more firmly within the community of nations, engaging in what Jairam Ramesh, junior commerce minister in the Indian government, called “genuine multilateralism and not in muscular unilateralism.”
Assuming Mr. Obama does play by international rules more fully, as he has promised, can his government live up to all the expectations?

"“We have so many hopes and wishes that he will never be able to fulfill them,” said Susanne Grieshaber, 40, an art adviser in Berlin who was one of 200,000 Germans to attend a speech by Mr. Obama there in July. She cited action to protect the environment, reducing the use of force and helping the less fortunate. In essence, she wants Mr. Obama to make his country more like hers. But she is sober. “I’m preparing myself for the fact that peace and happiness are not going to suddenly break out,” she said.
...
"“Definitely, this will improve America’s image in Russia,” said Sergey M. Rogov, director of the Institute for U.S.A. and Canada Studies in Moscow. “There was this perception before of widespread racism in America, deeply rooted racism.”
...
"So foreigners are watching closely, hoping that despite what they consider the hypocrisies and inconsistencies, the nation they once imagined would stand as a model for the future will, with greater sensitivity and less force, help solve the world’s problems."

It is indeed a new, more hopeful, day in America - and in the world - today.

Obama the One?

If you're like me it's been hard to get warmed up yet to the presidential campaign, but now with the election less than a year off it's time to start paying closer attention.

In the cover story of the current Dec.2007 issue of The Atlantic, "Why Obama Matters," Andrew Sullivan offers a marvelous perspective on why one candidate, Barack Obama, stands out. Reproduced below are extracts from the article - take a look, see if you agree with Sullivan's persuasive conclusion that "We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama."

"Consider this hypothetical," Sullivan says. "It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."
...
Obama's appeal "has little to do with his policy proposals, which are very close to his Democratic rivals' and which, with a few exceptions, exist firmly within the conventions of our politics. It has little to do with Obama's considerable skills as a conciliator, legislator, or even thinker. It has even less to do with his ideological pedigree or legal background or rhetorical skills."

"Yes, as the many profiles prove, he has considerable intelligence and not a little guile. But so do others, not least his formidably polished and practiced opponent Senator Hillary Clinton."

"Obama, moreover, is no saint. He has flaws and tics: Often tired, sometimes crabby, intermittently solipsistic, he’s a surprisingly uneven campaigner. ...

But "the fundamental point of his candidacy is that it is happening now. In politics, timing matters. And the most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting. The moment has been a long time coming, and it is the result of a confluence of events, from one traumatizing war in Southeast Asia to another in the most fractious country in the Middle East. The legacy is a cultural climate that stultifies our politics and corrupts our discourse."

"Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you."

"At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce."
...
"This is the critical context for the election of 2008. It is an election that holds the potential not merely to intensify this cycle of division but to bequeath it to a new generation, one marked by a new war that need not be—that should not be—seen as another Vietnam. A Giuliani-Clinton matchup, favored by the media elite, is a classic intragenerational struggle—with two deeply divisive and ruthless personalities ready to go to the brink. Giuliani represents that Nixonian disgust with anyone asking questions about, let alone actively protesting, a war. Clinton will always be, in the minds of so many, the young woman who gave the commencement address at Wellesley, who sat in on the Nixon implosion and who once disdained baking cookies. For some, her husband will always be the draft dodger who smoked pot and wouldn’t admit it. And however hard she tries, there is nothing Hillary Clinton can do about it. She and Giuliani are conscripts in their generation’s war. To their respective sides, they are war heroes."

"In normal times, such division is not fatal, and can even be healthy. It’s great copy for journalists. But we are not talking about routine rancor. And we are not talking about normal times. We are talking about a world in which Islamist terror, combined with increasingly available destructive technology, has already murdered thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Muslims, and could pose an existential danger to the West. The terrible failures of the Iraq occupation, the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Pakistan, the progress of Iran toward nuclear capability, and the collapse of America’s prestige and moral reputation, especially among those millions of Muslims too young to have known any American president but Bush, heighten the stakes dramatically."
...
"Of the viable national candidates, only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge this widening partisan gulf. Polling reveals Obama to be the favored Democrat among Republicans. McCain’s bipartisan appeal has receded in recent years, especially with his enthusiastic embrace of the latest phase of the Iraq War. And his personal history can only reinforce the Vietnam divide. But Obama’s reach outside his own ranks remains striking. Why? It’s a good question: How has a black, urban liberal gained far stronger support among Republicans than the made-over moderate Clinton or the southern charmer Edwards? Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism. It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man. "
...
"The other obvious advantage that Obama has in facing the world and our enemies is his record on the Iraq War. He is the only major candidate to have clearly opposed it from the start. Whoever is in office in January 2009 will be tasked with redeploying forces in and out of Iraq, negotiating with neighboring states, engaging America’s estranged allies, tamping down regional violence. Obama’s interlocutors in Iraq and the Middle East would know that he never had suspicious motives toward Iraq, has no interest in occupying it indefinitely, and foresaw more clearly than most Americans the baleful consequences of long-term occupation. "
...
Moreover, Obama is not so calculated as his opponents: "[H]e is simply less afraid of the right wing than Clinton is, because he has emerged on the national stage during a period of conservative decadence and decline. And so, for example, he felt much freer than Clinton to say he was prepared to meet and hold talks with hostile world leaders in his first year in office. He has proposed sweeping middle-class tax cuts and opposed drastic reforms of Social Security, without being tarred as a fiscally reckless liberal. (Of course, such accusations are hard to make after the fiscal performance of today’s “conservatives.”) Even his more conservative positions—like his openness to bombing Pakistan, or his support for merit pay for public-school teachers—do not appear to emerge from a desire or need to credentialize himself with the right. He is among the first Democrats in a generation not to be afraid or ashamed of what they actually believe, which also gives them more freedom to move pragmatically to the right, if necessary. He does not smell, as Clinton does, of political fear."

"There are few areas where this Democratic fear is more intense than religion. The crude exploitation of sectarian loyalty and religious zeal by Bush and Rove succeeded in deepening the culture war, to Republican advantage. Again, this played into the divide of the Boomer years—between God-fearing Americans and the peacenik atheist hippies of lore. The Democrats have responded by pretending to a public religiosity that still seems strained. Listening to Hillary Clinton detail her prayer life in public, as she did last spring to a packed house at George Washington University, was at once poignant and repellent. Poignant because her faith may well be genuine; repellent because its Methodist genuineness demands that she not profess it so tackily. But she did. The polls told her to."

"Obama, in contrast, opened his soul up in public long before any focus group demanded it. His first book, Dreams From My Father, is a candid, haunting, and supple piece of writing. It was not concocted to solve a political problem (his second, hackneyed book, The Audacity of Hope, filled that niche). It was a genuine display of internal doubt and conflict and sadness. And it reveals Obama as someone whose “complex fate,” to use Ralph Ellison’s term, is to be both believer and doubter, in a world where such complexity is as beleaguered as it is necessary. "
...
"None of this, of course, means that Obama will be the president some are dreaming of. His record in high office is sparse; his performances on the campaign trail have been patchy; his chief rival for the nomination, Senator Clinton, has bested him often with her relentless pursuit of the middle ground, her dogged attention to her own failings, and her much-improved speaking skills. At times, she has even managed to appear more inherently likable than the skinny, crabby, and sometimes morose newcomer from Chicago. Clinton’s most surprising asset has been the sense of security she instills. Her husband—and the good feelings that nostalgics retain for his presidency—have buttressed her case. In dangerous times, popular majorities often seek the conservative option, broadly understood. "
...
In sum, "the paradox is that Hillary makes far more sense if you believe that times are actually pretty good. If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one, if you think that pragmatism alone will be enough to navigate a world on the verge of even more religious warfare, if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong. Clinton will do. And a Clinton-Giuliani race could be as invigorating as it is utterly predictable."

"But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable."

What "Obama" Means Around the World

Last November in "Obama the One?" I posted the following, discussing one aspect of Barack Obama's appeal: the rehabilitation it would do for America's image abroad.

In that post I quoted from an article in the Dec.2007 issue of The Atlantic, "Why Obama Matters," by Andrew Sullivan:

"Consider this hypothetical," Sullivan says. "It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

Sullivan continued, "the fundamental point of his candidacy is that it is happening now. In politics, timing matters. And the most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting. The moment has been a long time coming, and it is the result of a confluence of events.... At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable."

Come now June 2008, now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee after a testing primary battle, and we're starting to see the prescience of these words.

In today's New York Times, in his OpEd "Obama on the Nile," Thomas Friedman comments from Egypt: "Egyptians are amazed, excited and agog that America might elect a black man whose father’s family was of Muslim heritage. They don’t really understand Obama’s family tree, but what they do know is that if America — despite being attacked by Muslim militants on 9/11 — were to elect as its president some guy with the middle name “Hussein,” it would mark a sea change in America-Muslim world relations....

"It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats’ nomination of Obama as their candidate for president has done more to improve America’s image abroad — an image dented by the Iraq war, President Bush’s invocation of a post-9/11 “crusade,” Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the xenophobic opposition to Dubai Ports World managing U.S. harbors — than the entire Bush public diplomacy effort for seven years."

Friedman relates, "I just had dinner at a Nile-side restaurant with two Egyptian officials and a businessman, and one of them quoted one of his children as asking: 'Could something like this ever happen in Egypt?' And the answer from everyone at the table was, of course, 'no.' It couldn’t happen anywhere in this region. Could a Copt become president of Egypt? Not a chance. Could a Shiite become the leader of Saudi Arabia? Not in a hundred years. A Bahai president of Iran? In your dreams. Here, the past always buries the future, not the other way around.

"These Egyptian officials were particularly excited about Obama’s nomination because it might mean that being labeled a 'pro-American' reformer is no longer an insult here, as it has been in recent years. As one U.S. diplomat put it to me: Obama’s demeanor suggests to foreigners that he would not only listen to what they have to say but might even take it into account. They anticipate that a U.S. president who spent part of his life looking at America from the outside in — as John McCain did while a P.O.W. in Vietnam — will be much more attuned to global trends."


This is all fascinating - and very heartening - in a larger sense as well, in that it demonstrates that America still "has it" (or at least has the potential for "it") - i.e., the ability to behave in ways that give hope to freedom-loving people around the world; or, as Friedman puts it, "it reveals is how much many foreigners, after all the acrimony of the Bush years, still hunger for the 'idea of America' — this open, optimistic, and, indeed, revolutionary, place so radically different from their own societies."

This "idea of America" has existed from the time of the nation's origins. As Ralph Waldo Emerson stated in 1844, "America is the country of the future. It is a country of beginnings, of projects, of vast designs and expectations."

Friedman concludes, "That’s the America that got swallowed by the war on terrorism. And it’s the America that many people want back. I have no idea whether Obama will win in November. Whether he does or doesn’t, though, the mere fact of his nomination has done something very important. We’ve surprised ourselves and surprised the world and, in so doing, reminded everyone that we are still a country of new beginnings."

There's hope, there's hope.

Observations on President Barack Obama's Inauguration and Inaugural Address

Some observations on this amazing day of Barack Obama's Inauguration:

Chief Justice John Roberts chose a bad time, in front of millions (billions?) of people watching around the world, to mess up his recitation of the oath of office, saying: "I Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear" [Obama repeats], "that I will execute the office of the President to the United States faithfully," [Obama repeats, "that I will ...", then nods & waits for Roberts to correct himself, which he does, prompting, now accurately, "faithfully execute the office ..."], after which Obama too messes it up by placing "faithfully" at the end of the phrase, saying, "execute the office of the President to the United States faithfully." Oh well....

It was most refreshing to hear President Obama say in his Inaugural Address, "Our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers." How nice to hear acknowledgement of non-believers. For too long they have been outcast in this nation, which officially proclaims "in God We Trust," even though the First Amendment prohibits government establishment of religion.

Other memorable points from the speech:

-recognition of the significance of his election: "[It is remarkable that] a man whose father less than sixty years ago, might not have been served in a local restaurant, can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath. So let us mark this day of remembrance, of who we are, and how far we have traveled."

American character & challenge: "Those values upon which our success depends - honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is of us now is a new era of responsibility."

-appeal to reason & progressive government: "We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise healthcare's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories, and we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age."

-Hope: "Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions; who suggest that the system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done. What free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them; that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."

-appeal to the Muslim world: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy."

-appeal to despotic leaders: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit, and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history. But that we will extend a hand, if you are willing to unclench your fist."

-repudiations of the Bush/Cheney approach: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man; a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expediency's sake." And: "Those of us who manage the public's dollars will ... do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government"

-appeal to the world of America's leadership: "To all the other peoples and governments that are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is the friend of each nation and of every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more."

-American power & humility: "Earlier generations ... understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do what we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering quality of our humility and restraint. We are the keepers of this legacy."

And last, Reverend Joseph Lowry's inspirational words in the benediction summed up the mood of the day perfectly: "Help us to work for that day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation; when tanks will be beaten into tractors; ... when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.... In the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day, when black will not be asked to get back; when brown can stick around; when yellow will be mellow; when the red man can get ahead man; and when white would embrace what is right. Let all those who do love justice and mercy, say 'Amen.' Say 'Amen'; and 'Amen.'"

Amen.

Barack Obama Campaign Records Call

I admit I was a bit put off by the telephone solicitor for Barack Obama’s campaign who advised me the call was being taped.

“Taped?” I asked.

“Yes, but only for quality purposes,” she replied.

After telling her I wasn’t interested, asking her to remove me from the list and hanging up, I wondered about the call.

Why should Barack Obama’s organization want to tape a conversation with me? This feels very intrusive.... I know, I know - I can "just say No," and I did, but it's still irritating to have Obama's campaign soliciting me in my own home, telling me "this call may be recorded for quality purposes."

Please.

Obama World vs. Cheney World

In his column in today's Washington Post, Eugene Robinson nicely captures the juxtaposition of the choices offered by Barack Obama's world-view with that of the suddenly media-genic Richard Cheney:

"Which reality do you inhabit, Obama World or Cheney World? ...

"In Obama World, human beings are flawed but essentially decent and rational. Most will behave in a way consistent with enlightened self-interest. In Cheney World, humanity's defects are indelible and irredeemable. Absent evidence to the contrary, evil should be assumed to lurk in every heart. Better to do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you.

"In Obama World, choices are artifacts of reasoning and thus are only as valid as the logic underlying them. Security and freedom, for example, do not have to be seen as an either-or proposition. The nation never came to a fork in the road with one path labeled "torture" and the other labeled "disaster." In Cheney World, choices are binary and absolute. There's no wiggle room, no gray area, no time for second thoughts and no debate about how our options are framed. It's my way or the highway, citizen.

"In Obama World, objective fact matters. The failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is significant. The absence of any link between Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is relevant. In Cheney World, facts are based more on conviction than evidence. If it's possible to imagine "nuclear-armed terrorists," as Cheney did in his speech the other day, then they "exist" at least as a concept -- and this conceptual existence justifies torture, among other abuses.

"In Obama World, some "threats" can be recognized as no threat at all. Since there has never been an escape from the federal "supermax" prison in Colorado, and since it already houses plenty of terrorists, spies and other miscreants, there's no real reason to be concerned about transferring any of the Guantanamo inmates, even the worst of the lot, there.

"But in Cheney World, no threat, however remote, can be definitively ruled out -- especially if there's political hay to be made. And anyway, it's fun to scare people.

"Obama World buzzes with information overload: hundreds of cable channels, zillions of Web sites, constant "tweets" from Twitter. In Cheney World, it's pretty much Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, all day, every day....

"In Obama World, Americans have a sense of community and shared purpose. Those upon whom fortune has smiled -- through accident of birth, educational opportunity, career-enhancing connections or any other kind of "right place, right time" serendipity -- recognize that extending a hand to those who do not enjoy such advantages is not just morally right, but ultimately beneficial to all. They believe that Henry Ford was right to pay his workers the shockingly high sum of $5 a day -- so they could afford to buy the cars they were making.

"In Cheney World, sharing is for saps. Obtaining great wealth and power has nothing to do with being "fortunate," whatever that means. It's all about preparation, focus and hard work. The idea that luck or connections could possibly have anything to do with, say, becoming the lavishly compensated chairman and chief executive of a mega-corporation such as Halliburton? Preposterous and un-American.

"In Obama World, America exerts its leadership not just through force but through example. Our nation's exceptionalism lies in its ideals of freedom, justice and opportunity for all, in its decency and generosity, in its commitment to the rule of law and its zeal for self-improvement, in its willingness to examine its own flaws and work to correct them. These intangibles are backed up by the world's most powerful military, but it's the ideals that matter most. When we lose sight of them, we head down the path of inevitable decline.

"In Cheney World, ideals are nice and all that, but might makes right. We do what we want. Because we can. You got a problem with that?

"Obama World is an exciting place to live right now -- not perfect, to be sure, but full of energy and hope. If Dick Cheney wants to stay in his bunker, that's his business. Others might want to come up for some fresh air."

Obama's First 100 Days - Reclaiming the Constitution*

If James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, signers of the Constitution and primary authors of the Federalist Papers (the indispensable work of 85 essays which Thomas Jefferson described as “the best commentary on the principles of government which has ever been written”), were magically able to transport themselves 222 years forward in time to the present day, they would find a lot to like about President Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office.

Madison and Hamilton would welcome American government’s return, after eight years in the wilderness, to the core constitutional principles for which they so passionately argued.

First, Hamilton and Madison would admire Obama’s ambitious – even audacious - domestic agenda. “Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government,” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist 70.

Moreover, Madison especially would appreciate Obama’s understanding of the Constitution’s limitations on executive power, as shown in his early executive orders repudiating the Bush administration’s use of torture interrogation techniques in Guantanamo Bay and CIA secret prisons. In the Federalist 47, Madison spoke of the dangers of such a go-it-alone approach, explaining, “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Finally, Madison and Hamilton would approve of Obama’s recognition (as demonstrated by his early reversal of the Bush administration policy of hiding information, and, more recently, the release of the torture memos) that government serves at the pleasure of, and thus must be held accountable to, the people. “The genius of republican liberty,” Madison concluded in the Federalist 37, “demand[s] not only that all power should be derived from the people; but, that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people.” “[T]he power of the people,” Hamilton added in No. 78, “is superior to [that of government].”

Immortal words that President Barack Obama, the former constitutional law professor, understands well.

* This entry also appears on the Constitutional Accountability Center's blog, Text & History.

Obama Administration & State Secrets Doctrine

Big disappointment on Monday when a Justice Department lawyer, in arguing to dismiss a case against the government for torture, re-asserted a "state secrets" theory developed by the Bush Administration on the grounds that even discussing it in court could threaten national security.

Or is it? On balance I'm not so sure.

It is tempting on first impression to share the outrage of the ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, who commented: "This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again."

In any event, what gives? After all, some of Obama's harshest criticisms of the Bush Administration were reserved for this sort of issue. Even the judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were surprised.

"The change in administration has no bearing [on your argument]?," asked Judge Mary M. Shroeder.

"No, your honor," replied the lawyer, Douglas N. Letter. "[The argument was] thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration," he said, and "these are the authorized positions."

So why the shift? It is certainly understandable, as a Justice Department spokesman explained in justifying the government's position, that the government would want to keep information "that, if released, could jeopardize national security." The ACLU counters, though, that it IS possible to bring cases without facts being made public - courts should have a chance to decide what should be allowed to be discussed, based on classified information revealed to the judge(s) alone.

But the Justice Department lawyer, Mr. Letter, says that this is exactly what happened in this particular case. In urging the Ninth Circuit judges to review the same materials that led the Federal District Court (Judge Ware) to dismiss the case, Letter predicted, "you will understand precisely, as Judge Ware did, why this can't be litigated."

Talk about intrigue - it's hard to imagine what could be of such magnitude that would lead Barack Obama to do an about-face on such an important principle. It has to be the sort of thing that the Supreme Court envisioned in the Pentagon Papers Case when reviewing what it calls "prior restraints" on speech, commenting that the only time this most highly disfavored form of government restriction would be allowed is if the speech were the equivalent of threatening the lives of troops by publishing "the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."

All I can imagine is that the case at issue here is of that sort - and for the moment anyway, I want to have enough faith in Barack Obama to believe that he would only take this position if it were absolutely necessary. At the same time, I do maintain that the Justice Department should NOT rely on this blanket "state secrets" doctrine, which can be so egregiously abused in the wrong hands. Rather, the government should argue for the necessity of confidentiality on a case-by-case basis.

Dems' Day of Reckoning

So today is the Democrats' (latest) day of reckoning - this time in North Carolina and Indiana.

As the race for the nomination continues, we're getting a clearer picture of the character of candidates Clinton and Obama, and what we might expect if either are elected President. As David Brooks puts it in today's New York Times:

"Th[e] contrast between combat and composure defines the Democratic race. The implicit Clinton argument is that politics is an inherently nasty business. Human nature, as she said Sunday, means that progress comes only through conquest. You’d better elect a leader who can intimidate. You’d better elect someone who has given herself permission to be brutal.

"[By contrast,] Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way. Obama’s friend and supporter Cass Sunstein described the Obama ideal in The New Republic: “Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation."

"That’s regarded as naïve drivel in parts of Camp Clinton.

"Campaign issues come and go, but this is a thread running through the race. One believes in the raw assertion of power, the other the power of communication."

Brooks offers the rivals' differing appearances on last Sunday's talk shows as Exhibit A:

"Hillary Clinton went on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” incarnating her role as the first Democratic Rambo. The Clinton campaign seems to want to reduce the entire race to one element: the supposed masculinity gap. And so everything she does is all about assertion, combat and Alpha dog dominance.

"A few questions in, Clinton rose from her chair and loomed over Stephanopoulos. The country hasn’t seen such a brazen display of attempted middle-aged physical intimidation since Al Gore took a walkabout on the debate stage with George Bush. It was like watching someone get elbowed in a dark alley by their homeroom teacher.

"But her attempt to take over the show was nothing compared with her attempt to dominate the truth. For the first 30 minutes, she did not utter a single candid word, including, as Mary McCarthy would say, “and” and “the.”

"She peddled her sham gas-tax holiday and repeated her attempt to blame Indiana’s job losses on outsourcing and Nafta. Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.” ...

"Barack Obama gave off an entirely different vibe on “Meet the Press.” His campaign has been in the doldrums for the past few months. He’s never come up with an explanation about how he would actually transform politics, and his conventional substance is beginning to overshadow his unconventional style.

"But, as Sunday’s contrast made clear, Obama still seems like a human being. He still seems to return each night to some zone of normalcy where personal reflection lives. He wasn’t fully candid when answering questions about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but there are some inner guardrails that prevent the spin from drifting too far from the truth. Thoughtful and conversational, he doesn’t seem to possess the trait that Clinton has: automatically assuming that critics are always wrong.

"Obama still possesses his talent for homeostasis, the ability to return to emotional balance and calm, even amid hysteria. His astounding composure has come across as weakness in the midst of combat with Clinton, but it’s also at the core of his promise to change politics. He vows to calm hatred and heal division." ...

"Still, amid the storms of the presidency, their basic worldviews would shape their presidencies. Obama is instinctively a conversationalist and community-mobilizer. Clinton, as she says, will fight and fight. If elected, she’ll have the power to take the Hobbesian struggle she perceives, and turn it into remorseless reality."

So Democrats, and all Americans, do have a real choice - and having seen the candidates' behavior in this hotly-contested race, we'll get what we deserve.

Just Do It - Obama Needs Backbone for Meaningful Healthcare Reform, a la FDR

In "Roosevelt, the Great Divider" in yesterday's New York Times, Jean Edward Smith explained that much of the meaningful progressive reform accomplished during the New Deal was done by a pugnacious president willing to exercise his majority in Congress even though he knew he would be highly criticized by his opponents.

“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt said on national radio before the 1936 election, Smith recalls. “They are unanimous in their hatred for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

When he was seeking to make major progressive reform, FDR did not waste his time trying to work with the deeply entrenched obstructionist minorities interested only in maintaining an unjust status quo. He did not consult giant utilities, for example, when he sought to create the Tennessee Valley Authority which would provide affordable electricity throughout the poor South. He did not ask for the permission of Wall Street when he proposed the Securities and Exchange Commission to curb greed. Had he caved to the loud minority who believe that government has no role in providing a social safety net, we would have no Social Security. His arguments for maximum hours and minimum wage laws and the right to bargain collectively were over the heated objections of American business. And, to show that it was not always traditionally conservative vested interests that he faced down, organized labor was vociferous in its objection to the Civilian Conservation Corps because of the low wages paid by the corps.

In short, Smith explains, "majority rule, as Roosevelt saw it, did not require his opponents’ permission." He assuaged his Democratic colleagues to maintain his majorities, but "his Republican opponents were relegated to the political equivalent of Siberia.... [He] lambasted the 'economic royalists' who had gained control of the nation’s wealth. To Congress he boasted of having 'earned the hatred of entrenched greed.' In another speech he mocked 'the gentlemen in well-warmed and well-stocked clubs' who criticized the government’s relief efforts.... Roosevelt understood that governing involved choice and that choice engendered dissent. He accepted opposition as part of the process."

By contrast, President Obama's "fixation on securing bipartisan support for health care reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead." Smith suggests "[i]t is time for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and make some hard choices. Health care reform enacted by a Democratic majority is still meaningful reform. Even if it is passed without Republican support, it would still be the law of the land."

Really, what does Obama have to lose? Face it: the Right, marching to the tune of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Steele, is never going to play ball. Their main agenda is political - whatever it takes to bring Obama down, they're for. So Obama might as well stand up, like FDR, and say, "to heck with 'em - we're going to pass reform with teeth that will create the sort of humane society of which we are all worthy."

What does that mean? As David Brooks suggests in his column today, "Let's Get Fundamental": "There are many people telling [President Obama] to go incremental. They’re telling him to just enlarge the current system a bit and pay for it by pounding down a few Medicare fees. But did Barack Obama really get elected so he could pass the Status Quo Sanctification and Extension Act?

"This is not the time to get incremental. It’s the time to get fundamental. Reform the incentives. Make consumers accountable for spending. Make price information transparent. Reward health care, not health services. Do what you set out to do. Bring change."

Much of what has made America great was brought about by progressive legislation. If President Obama wants to be a great president who makes lasting, meaningful progressive change, he should stand up, be brave (in his own way, if not in the outright combative manner of FDR), and commit to a strong progressive plan. Accept that the ever-present regressive 40% of American society will bitch and moan about it (but of course they will take full advantage of its benefits once available) - they'll never change, so might as well just move forward despite them.

MoveOn.Org Members Endorse Obama 70 - 30%

MoveOn.Org Executive Director Eli Pareiser states, in a Feb. 1 2008 e-mail reporting on the results of a poll of MoveOn members favoring Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton 70.4 - 29.6%,

"Something big is clearly happening. A few weeks ago, MoveOn members we
surveyed were split. But with John Edwards bowing out, progressives are
coming together. Obama won over 70% of the vote yesterday, and he's moving
up in polls nationwide. As comments poured in from MoveOn members across
the country, the sense of hope was inspiring. Here's how Christine Y. in
New Jersey put it:

"'I've never felt so strongly about any one candidate in my entire life.
He's truly an inspiration to all of us--especially the younger generation.
I will stand by him 100% for as long as he's willing to stand up and fight
for this country!' ...

"To be clear, we won't always agree with all of Obama's positions. And
MoveOn members said overwhelmingly that, regardless of who wins the
Democratic nomination, we'll work hard to win the White House in 2008.
Whatever happens in the primary, we'll push the Democratic nominee to
campaign progressively and then we'll push them to fulfill their promises
after they win.

"The building of a progressive consensus around Senator Obama is tangible.
Earlier this week, John F. Kennedy's daughter Caroline Kennedy said Obama
is the first presidential candidate to be as inspirational as her father.
Yesterday, progressive magazine The Nation said that electing Obama is "a
chance we can't pass up." And then DailyKos.com, the most widely read
progressive blog, announced Obama won 76% in a reader poll this week.

"It's time to get to work electing a president who is inspiring a nation
and is talking about big, progressive change."

Obama's First Seven Days - Constitutional Freedom Restored

In purely constitutional terms, President Barack Obama's first days in office have been triumphant.

Leaving aside for the moment talk of stimulus plans, tax rates, etc. (all of which are discretionary political matters to be hashed out among the executive and legislature), on the separate matter of mandatory constitutional requirements - ie, those inviolable freedoms beyond the reach of the political process - Obama has acted swiftly and decisively to restore proper respect for core values eviscerated during the Bush/Cheney years.

Virtually daily during the President's days on the job we have seen important restorations of constitutional principle, both in word and action. Here's what happened in just the first three days alone:

Day One (Jan. 20, 2009 (Tuesday)):
-Rule of Law and Rights of Man: Before a worldwide audience during his Inaugural Address, new President Obama emphasizes, "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man; a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake." -American Power: He adds, "Earlier generations ... understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do what we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering quality of our humility and restraint. We are the keepers of this legacy."

-Suspends Gitmo proceedings: Late Tuesday night, the new administration orders an immediate halt to the military commission proceedings for trying detainees at Guantanamo Bay, to allow the administration time to assess detention policy, leading ACLU executive president Anthony Romero to comment that the move "reaffirm[s] American values and are a ray of light after eight long, dark years."

Day Two (Jan. 21, 2009 (Wednesday))
-Openness in Government: In recognition of the Constitution's core structural principle that government serves at the pleasure of the people, President Obama's very first executive orders reverse the Bush administration policy of resisting providing information. "Starting today," he says, "every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known." Among other things, these orders will allow reporters and historians access to Bush administration records.

Day Three (Jan. 22, 2009 (Thursday)) -Human Rights: surrounded by 16 retired generals and admirals, President Obama signs executive orders closing Guantanamo Bay within a year; ending the CIA's secret prisons; and requiring all interrogations to comply with the Army Field Manual (which forbids coercive methods like the infamous water-boarding).

-separately, Obama orders his administration not to rely on any legal opinions on the topic of interrogation issued from the Justice Department between September 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009.

All in all, it's a bright new day for the American Constitution.

Obama Election - A Rare Moment

Even in the midst of some of the predictable silliness following Barack Obama's election (such as the young woman proclaiming "Obama is Jesus" overheard by my son during a college street celebration), there's something pure about what happened on Nov. 4, 2008 where even the cynic can get a bit misty.

We're not talking if's and when's or "I have a dream" here, but rather that it DID actually happen that a black man was elected president of the country whose Constitution formally endorsed slavery and perpetuated separate-but-equal for nearly another hundred years after slavery was formally abolished. That our constitutional system can allow that to happen (not to mention repudiate the practices of the worst one or two presidencies in our history) is awesome. As Thomas Friedman said in noting that Virginia, the former capitol of the slave-holding South, went for Obama, "The Civil War is over. Let Reconstruction begin."

Even for the cynic the world changed Tuesday - as a white man, I can only imagine what it feels like to be a black person today. I canvassed for Obama on election day in Lansing with a young black woman from Detroit, and her excitement and pride was something to see; and then the day after I was in a meeting with a black colleague (who was also canvassing on election day), and he was just bursting. He said his frail 87 year old mother in Chicago is insisting that he take her to the inauguration in DC on Jan.20.

For those of us who've been eaten up by government malfeasance/tyranny, this, what feels like vindication of sorts, is worth a tear or two. Probably because things have been so bad under Bush (the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, with all the ill that they portended for American government, hit me hard), I didn't know if America had it in it to make such a statement - and it turns out it does. Amazing Grace.

True, there's bound to be disappointment - what comes next is going to be interesting, and there is sure to be plenty of criticism and disillusionment. But there's a difference between disillusionment borne of bad faith (see Bush/Rove/Cheney), and disappointment for good faith efforts that may nonetheless sometimes fall short (Obama, I think). Even if what comes next is just politics as usual (which I doubt), Tuesday alone will always stand as a momentous day for the sheer outpouring of hope and joy that millions (maybe billions) of people around the world experienced. Nothing can ever change that - not even over-the-top people who've drunk the Kool-aid like the "Obama is Jesus" person.

Supreme Court's Habeas Case - "Three Strikes and You're Out" for Bush

Yesterday, for the third time in four years, the Supreme Court rebuffed the Bush Administration's handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay (a strategy which has amounted, basically, to denying detainees the normal protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution), stating, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

The majority opinion in this case, Boumediene v. Bush, written by Anthony Kennedy, asserts, "Security subsists, [in addition to use of a 'sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our armed forces to act and to interdict'], in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. It is from these principles that the judicial authority to consider petitions for habeas corpus relief [ie, a person's right to go to federal court to demand that the government either justify their detention or set them free] derives.

"Our opinion does not undermine the Executive's powers as commander in chief. On the contrary, the exercise of those powers is vindicated, not eroded, when confirmed by the Judicial Branch.

"Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person.

"Some of these petitioners have been in custody for six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention. Their access to the writ [of habeas corpus] is a necessity to determine the lawfulness of their status, even if, in the end, they do not obtain the relief they seek...." (emphasis mine).

Good stuff - kudos to the Court, and Long Live the Constitution and the principles of Freedom and Liberty for which it stands.

The scary thing about the case, though, is that it was decided just 5-4. Who are these people who would dissent from the right of people to ask why the government is detaining them - some for as long as six years without due process?? It's one thing when justices disagree on more mundane things, but when we're talking about the most fundamental principles underpinning our entire Nation - i.e., Freedom, Liberty, Due Process of Law – one really has to wonder.

All the more reason it’s imperative that Barack Obama is elected president – with such a razor-thin margin on the Supreme Court, America cannot afford a president who would nominate another justice like those in the dissent here (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas). This Court already contains, by one measure published in U.S. News, four of the five most conservative justices to sit on the Supreme Court since 1937.

With a President John McCain, we are in danger of losing the most cherished principles of Liberty that we’ve held dear since the Nation’s founding (McCain “expressed concern” about the Court’s opinion in Boumediene; and has stated in the past he would use John Roberts and Joseph Alito as models were he to nominate a Justice.)

By contrast, a President Barack Obama would try to nominate a Justice who supports the majority opinion. Responding to yesterday’s decision, Obama stated, “[The decision is] a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo…. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.”

One final note: Justice Antonin Scalia's hypocricy was exposed yet again in his dissent, with his claim that the decision was based not on principle, "but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy." Next time Scalia writes or signs on again to an opinion striking down, for example, a state law of the sort passed by California in Raich v. California (where the California legislature had acted well within its authority in giving state citizens even greater liberty than the minimum required in the federal Constitution when they passed a law allowing medical use of marijuana), one must demand of him, "What about 'inflated notions of judicial supremacy' now??"

Contrary to the claims in Scalia's cramped sophistry, the framers’ true vision was of an expansive individual Liberty vis-à-vis a controlling Government.

The Audacity of Idealism - Great Week for Progressives

Progressives and idealists are pinching themselves after President Barack Obama's joint Address to Congress on Tuesday and the release of his ten-year budget on Thursday.

In his Tuesday Address he outlined the plans to view the nation's economic woes as reason to raise its sights, calling for bold new efforts to improve healthcare, education and energy policy.

"The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach," he said. "They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on earth.... What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more....

"We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.... And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

"Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is now. Now is the time to act boldly and wisely, to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jump-start job creation, restart lending, and invest in areas like energy, healthcare and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down."

Then on Thursday Obama's budget backed it up with numbers explaining how all of this can be accomplished. As Paul Krugman said in his column in yesterday's Times, "these new priorities are laid out in a document whose clarity and plausibility seem almost incredible to those of us who grew accustomed to reading Bush-era budgets, which insulted our intelligence on every page. This is budgeting we can believe in. Many will ask whether Mr. Obama can actually pull off the deficit reduction he promises. Can he actually reduce the red ink from $1.75 trillion this year to less than a third as much in 2013? Yes, he can.... [T]his budget looks very, very good."

And David Brooks, while more reserved in his overall assessment, commented, "Obama’s budget is far more honest than the ones that preceded it. It imposes real pay-as-you-go rules on future outlays. Intellectually serious efforts are made to pay for at least half of the cost of health care reform."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.... the plan raises annual deficits to their highest levels (as percentage of gross domestic product) since WWII, but the fact is that there's a responsible plan in place, as compared to the voodoo-economics of the Bush years, which turned a solid annual surplus in 2000 into record deficits by 2008. It will pay for itself, for example, by increasing taxes on rich individuals and polluting industries, and reducing war costs as well as subsidies on farm payments and the like. (Friday's worse-than-expected 4th quarter report from the Commerce Department that the economy contracted at 6.2 percent rather than the projected 3.8 percent gives sobering pause on the sheer scope the challenges facing these plans; and means that the administration will need to make adjustments.)

The Progressive's response to all of this: it's about damn time. For too long the country has suffered at the hands of people who justify smaller government under the perverse logic of screwing everything up and then using their incompetence at governing as justification for doing nothing. "See how government doesn't work?" they ask.

It's not about big government as an end in itself for the progressive libertarian, as readers of this page will recall; rather it's about government actually helping where it is properly equipped to help, but then staying out of the way in areas where it has no business - like matters of individual free-will and self-determination.

So far, the first six weeks of the Obama administration has come closer than any administration in several generations to realizing this appropriate balance between responsible progressive governmental activism on one hand, and libertarian governmental respect for individual freedom on the other.

In our constitutional system, some things (individual liberty) are non-negotiable; while others (economic policy) are properly delegated to the political process. In November 2008, the Progressive policy vision won. Now let's GO.

What is Government's Role? Progressive Liberty and Barack Obama

Much of my professional work in teaching and writing about Constitutional Law and Constitutional Theory focuses on what is government's role in America. Indeed, as I've discussed here before, the title of this blog, Progressive Liberty, relates to this issue.

First, "Liberty": America was founded, first and foremost, to preserve individual freedom from oppressive government - government must tolerate any personal idea, action or attribute that does no harm to another. America's founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - make this point clear: government must leave us alone. And when it does not, the judicial branch is there to correct the situation and preserve our freedom from overreaching government.

Second, "Progressive": This part IS negotiable - in a democratic republic, it is the will of the people what sort of society they will have. So long as the government is not infringing on individual freedom, it can set widely varying policy - anything from a minimalist caretaker state to a more progressive social welfare model of the sort seen in Western Europe (or indeed, something more different still than either of these). I happen to favor the latter - hence, the word "progressive." I believe it's the government's duty to enact humane policy that looks out for people who can't help themselves, and that provides equal opportunity to all - and I'll do what I can to try to influence the political process so that enough like-minded people will vote for representatives who will enact such policies. But if I'm unsuccessful, and we instead get politicians like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - well, our democracy has only ourselves to blame.

In his acceptance speech earlier tonight at the Democratic Convention, Barack Obama hit the nail on the head for what it is I'm talking about with "progressive liberty." He said:

"Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems. But what it should do, is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm; and provide every child with a decent education. Keep our water clean and our toys safe. Invest in new schools, and in roads, and in science, and technology.

"Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity, not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who is willing to work. That's the promise of America. That we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation. The fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper.

"That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now."

This is the president America needs.

Obama's Race Speech

Yesterday in his speech "A More Perfect Union," addressing the inflammatory remarks of his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Barack Obama offered a vision for how we might move forward past the pain, anger and frustration of generations of blacks and whites on the matter of race in America.

Acknowledging that this anger and resentment has "helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation" (a vast understatement, given America's slavery-past), he urged Americans to embrace "the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past."

Unlike other politicians, Obama speaks to Americans as adults instead of children. Human nature is complex - we are all possessed of both good and bad qualities. In refusing to throw his longtime pastor and friend under the bus when the latter's inflammatory comments created difficulties for him, he demonstrated admirable compassion. Just as he and we should be compassionate with the United States and not throw it under the bus when its leaders act in abhorrent fashion by invading sovereign nations on false pretenses and advocating torture techniques.

Obama demonstrates the sort of compassion and progressive thinking America desperately needs. There is good in all human beings, and there is good in the United States - now how are we going to work together to bring out our greater good?