Obama Election Day on The Huffington Post

Federico Manfredi: Cartel Warfare: How Mexico Lost Ciudad Juárez PART 2

2009-07-21T14:42:21Z

The hospitals of Ciudad Juárez bear the brunt of the deadly shootouts that rival criminal organizations unleash against one another throughout the city. "The authorities are failing us," an emergency room doctor at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social told me. "When more soldiers arrived in March, the city did calm down for a month or two, but now the violence is as bad as ever. It's as if the gangs had decided to wait and see what the army would do and then realized that they could carry on their business with total impunity."

As we spoke, two soldiers and a municipal guard escorted a man with gunshot wounds across the aisle and into a separate room. "We need security because otherwise the gangsters would finish off their victims," the doctor said.

A surgeon working at the nearby Red Cross described to me how in November 2008 a commando of six men wearing black masks stormed into the ward, ordered everyone on the ground, and mowed down an 18-year-old who had been wheeled in 30 minutes earlier with a serious gunshot wound. The surgeon remembered bitterly how the killers had had the insolence to say "adiós y buenas noches" before leaving.

As a result of this incident, the Red Cross now swiftly transfers all victims of violence to the General Hospital, where security is tighter. But even there professional killers occasionally succeed in eluding the soldiers and the police. A nurse told me that in September 2008 she witnessed hospital staff handing over a youth who had been shot in the face to "a group of men who looked like assassins," despite his desperate cries for help. When the nurse asked a doctor what was going on he answered brusquely: "Their paperwork was in order." The body of the young man surfaced a few days later in the desert outside the city.

Ciudad Juárez acquired the dubious reputation of wild border town during the Prohibition years, and has long been a major transshipment point for drugs entering the United States, but bloody struggles among rival cartels here are a relatively new phenomenon that stems from recent domestic and international developments.

During the 1990s the city became a magnet for poor Mexicans, who came by the tens of thousands seeking jobs in a series of newly established U.S. assembly plants known as maquiladoras. Rapid population growth in turn led to the rise of sprawling slums that the municipal government was unable to regulate or police. These rough neighborhoods became the ideal base for criminal organizations smuggling drugs across the U.S. border.

Meanwhile, the decline of Mexico's Partido Revolucionario Istitucional, which culminated in its loss of the presidency in 2000 after seven decades of uninterrupted one-party rule, shook the clientelistic networks that the historical crime syndicates had established with the authorities. Riding the wave of Mexico's democratic transition, new and more violent criminal organizations penetrated government institutions and challenged the old mafias, competing with them for political influence and for the control of key drug trafficking routes.

Internationally, the gradual dismantlement of the main Colombian cartels after the death of Medellín kingpin Pablo Escobar in 1993, coupled with a U.S. crackdown on smuggling routes across the Caribbean, strengthened the geostrategic leverage of the Mexican cartels. With more and more cocaine transiting through their territories, these organizations stopped charging transshipment fees and instead began to demand a share of the cargo, which they then resold in the United States for a greater profit. This strategy has allowed the Mexican cartels to emerge as wholesale distributors and capture the cocaine market in the United States.

"Ciudad Juárez is a very important plaza," told me the director of one of the city's hospitals. "Whoever controls the drug trade here also controls it in New York and Chicago. These wars will continue, until one of the cartels can establish its supremacy over this city and the routes around it."

Maryam Ishani contributed to this report.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Amnesty International: That Little Matter of Solving World Poverty, Mr. President

2009-05-28T12:49:18Z

By Larry Cox, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA

Amid the global economic crisis, who stole the spotlight? The Big Three car makers? The bigwigs and their bonuses? The big banks that caused all the trouble? That's where all of the attention has been focused. But what about the little guys, people whose individual stories we won't hear, but who will be living in poverty, due to the global financial crisis. Well, according to the World Bank, there will be 53 million more of them because of the economic collapse.

This kind of massive deprivation for basic needs - not luxuries like the Palm Beach condos lost in the Madoff scandal - cannot and will not go unanswered.

Some of the repercussions are already occurring: growing repression, racism and violence. The Amnesty International Report 2009: State of the World's Human Rights, released today, labels these brewing problems the "ticking time bomb" underlying the economic crisis. In Zimbabwe, hundreds of activists protesting economic decline and social conditions were arrested and detained without charge, with police using excessive force to break up protests. Refugees from Zimbabwe in 2008 faced racism and xenophobia in South Africa that led in one instance to 60 deaths and 600 injuries.

While world leaders are focused on attempts to revive the global economy, they are neglecting deadly conflicts that are spawning massive human rights abuses. Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan said that, "Ignoring one crisis to focus on another is a recipe for aggravating both. Economic recovery will be neither sustainable nor equitable if governments fail to tackle human rights abuses that drive and deepen poverty, or armed conflicts that generate new violations."

Good point. When John McCain tried to duck the first presidential debate, wasn't it Candidate Obama who said, "Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time"?

So, President Obama. In addition to running GM, appointing a new Supreme Court justice, winding down two wars, gearing up to advance your domestic agenda and closing Guantanamo legally and fairly (come on, you promised "in concert with our core values" ), can't you do something to help millions of little guys who need food, water, a roof over their heads and a job?

Yep, the United States is expected to exert leadership on every major world crisis. It's the responsibility that comes with that label we love: "world's sole superpower." And U.S. leadership and respect in the world needs a good makeover. Here's the perfect opportunity.

President Obama could ensure that the United States plays a leadership role in uniting world leaders to give sufficient attention not just to "trickle down" recovery, but to recovery that helps all people. Recovery that would comprehensively address the problems that lead to and keep people in poverty. That must mean addressing the underlying human rights issues that create and exacerbate human rights violations. His chums in the G20 would be a great place to start.

Come on, Mr. President. Yes You Can!

State of the World's Human Rights Highlights Video:

To read Amnesty International's new report, please visit thereport.amnesty.org, for facts and figures, images, graphs, audio and video news releases, and regional and country reports.

Casey Gane-McCalla: Malcolm and Barack

2009-05-19T15:44:49Z

Happy Birthday Malcolm

El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz

May 19, 1925 - February 21, 1965

Many people may see Malcolm X and Barack Obama as opposites of each other in the sphere of black political figures. While Malcolm pushed for black nationalism, didn't renounce violence, came across as very militant and scared white people, Obama has pushed for an inclusive nation that includes people of all backgrounds, pushed a message of hope and change, and came across as very amiable and acceptable to white people.

However the comparison cannot be as cut and dry as that. Are we comparing the militant Nation of Islam disciple Malcolm X who railed against blue eyed devils or the Malcolm X who split with the Nation of Islam and renounced racism and met with Martin Luther King?

Even if we were to compare the nation of Islam's Malcolm X to Barack Obama it is hard to cast them as opposites. Obviously one of the main differences between the two is the places and eras they grew up in. Malcolm X grew up in a time of segregation, police brutality, lynchings, and Jim Crow laws. These circumstances did a lot to shape his world view.

As someone whose father was killed by the KKK and whose world views were shaped by the NOI, Malcolm had a lot of hostility towards white people and America in general. Barack Obama grew up in the multiracial society of Hawaii and later in equally diverse, Indonesia, where he was minority in more ways than one, being both American and of African blood.

It wasn't until Malcolm X went on a pilgrimage to Mecca that he abandoned the principles of racism upon meeting people of all colors who prayed to the same God as him and saw that they were good and decent people. Barack Obama grew up within that same diversity, with two white grandparents and a white mother who helped raise him, as well as with people from all sorts of backgrounds so he probably came to the realization of the futility of racism earlier in life.

Malcolm X Grandson Breaks Silence!

However even the militant Nation of Islam has endorsed Obama. Farrakhan has spoken very kindly of Obama, even referring to him as the Messiah and the hope of the entire world. With the leading figure for black nationalism in America praising the man who is now the President of the country he once demonized, the black nationalism of Malcolm X may have been replaced by inclusion in the greater United States of America. This is not to say that the struggle is over, but that it has taken a different form and philosophy.

Obviously Obama's message of hope, unity and diversity counters against Malcolm X's 'blue eyed devil rhetoric.' However the views that Malcolm X had after leaving the Nation of Islam are more in line with Obama's. Here are some quotes from Malcolm after his epiphany of race in Mecca.

I realized racism isn't just a black and white problem. It's brought bloodbaths to about every nation on earth at one time or another.

In many parts of the African continent I saw white students helping black people. Something like this kills a lot of argument. I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then -- like all [Black] Muslims -- I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march.

I am not a racist.... In the past I permitted myself to be used...to make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt. Because of the spiritual enlightenment which I was blessed to receive as a result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy city of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true...Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenants of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people.

VIDEO: Behind The Scenes Malcolm Shabazz

The last lines that Malcolm X said sound like something out of the declaration of independence or a Barack Obama speech. Here Malcolm, like Obama and MLK is tracing his struggle to himself and black people in general to n American struggle, a struggle based on the same principles that America was founded on.

Many people have compared Obama to Martin Luther King. People have compared King to Obama on their similarities but most often compare King and X on their differences. Despite the fact that they employed different tactics and rhetoric, in many ways King and X had the same goals. Here are some things that X had to say regarding King

I'll say nothing against him. At one time the whites in the United States called him a racialist, and extremist, and a Communist. Then the Black Muslims came along and the whites thanked the Lord for Martin Luther King.

Dr. King wants the same thing I want -- freedom!

After leaving the nation of Islam, X decided that he would work with leaders in the civil rights movement but wanted it to become a global human rights issue, rather than a domestic issue. In many ways Obama's struggle for global human rights can be traced to Malcolm's.

Malcolm also was one of the first black leaders to talk about the importance of the black vote, claiming that it was it would take the ballot or the bullet to bring about true change. Malcolm also realized and preached about the importance of the black vote, one of the major factors that got Obama elected.

Malcolm's own family has come out publicly for Obama. Malcolm's daughter Malaak said

Actually, him and Michelle remind me of my parents, and what they have to face with children, and with the climate that we're dealing with politically. She's brilliant. My mother's brilliant. He's brilliant. My father was brilliant. And they're still sticking to the community. So, no, they are not Betty and Malcolm. But they are the present day Betty and Malcolm.

Obama himself has said that he admired Malcolm and even used some of his rhetoric. Obama used the 'hoodwinked and bamboozled phrase' made popular in Spike Lee's epic Malcolm X bio-pic. Spike Lee, one on the biggest proponent's of Malcolm's legacy, has been very enthusiastic of his support for Barack Obama.

Obama would talk about the impact of Malcolm X's Autobiography on his life and identity in his own Autobiography, Dreams From My Father.

Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. All the other stuff, the talk of blue-eyed devils and apocalypse, was incidental to that program, I decided, religious baggage that Malcolm himself seemed to have safely abandoned toward the end of his life. And yet, even as I imagined myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that tan through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged. I knew that, for Malcolm, that wish would never be incidental. I knew as well that traveling down the road to self-respect my own white blood would never recede into mere abstraction. I was left to wonder what else I would be severing if and when I left my mother and my grandparents at some uncharted border.

Reverend Wright, an important figure in his life can be seen as Malcolm to Obama's Martin. While the media may have put a wedge between the two, it is clear that Obama understands the anger that both Malcolm and Reverend Wright have displayed against America.

Reverend Wright obviously drew a lot of inspiration from Malcolm X. His whole infamous God Damn America speech drew from Malcolm's famous 'chickens coming home to roost' statement after Kennedy's assassination. Reverend Wright is not the opposite of Obama and definitely helped shape Obama's worldview as did Malcolm. After the controversy of Reverend Wright's statements, Obama spoke on the anger that both Reverend Wright and Malcolm X in his More Perfect Union Speech.

The anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

Maybe because Obama grew up vastly different than Revend Wright or Malcolm X he is less cynical about racism and believes that progress can be achieved.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

So in no way is Barack Obama the 'direct opposite' of Malcolm X. Rather the two are complimentary figures. Malcom's anger and militancy allowed white America to be more accepting of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Malcolm came around before his death to incorporate his idea of Black Nationalism into the Civil Rights movement that set the groundwork for Obama's presidency. Malcolm's struggle developed into a struggle not only for black people but for oppressed people, a struggle that Obama has continued. Remember, like Obama, Malcolm X had his roots as a community organizer.

Here's some final quotes to show the connection between Malcolm X and Obama

Malcolm X Was a Patriot and Died For This Country:

It is a time for martyrs now, and if I am to be one, it will be for the cause of brotherhood. That's the only thing that can save this country.

Malcolm X Realized The Factors For Change Before Obama:

Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.

OPINION: Malcolm X To Barack Obama, 44 Years Of Change

Mike Smith: David Plouffe: Just Wanted Obama Campaign to be "Credible"

2009-05-18T13:36:34Z

"Hillary Clinton was the strongest candidate our party had put forward in a decade," began David Plouffe, campaign manager for Obama for President. "Barack Obama offered an improbably candidacy. We had a full appreciation of her and we defied conventional wisdom."

Plouffe lead a discussion on promoting diversity in Advertising -- political or otherwise -- at the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A's) conference in New York this week. Moderated by CNBC host Donny Deutsch, the 4A's has collaborated with Howard University and the Center for Advertising Excellence to talk about a crippling issue of the lack of diversity in the ad business.

"Young people are truly color blind," said Plouffe, "so we ran a non-race-based campaign." The campaign and constituents knew the country wanted change. After a successful fundraising quarter and then the win in the Iowa Caucus, Plouffe thought: "This election mattered to people. We thought, 'wow' this is actually happening."

Donny Deutsch peppered Plouffe with insight questions. The chairman of the $2.5 billion in billings agency Deutsch and host of a new CNBC offering, The Entrepreneurs, is really a great interviewer. Deutsch had worked on the Clinton campaign in 1992, and believes the Obama speech on race in America was a turning point for voter acceptance in 2008. Still, he believed the Hillary Clinton campaign was a juggernaut.

"Most people thought Obama would be a non-candidate," said the campaign manager. "Our goal was to put up a credible campaign."

Calling political campaigning a "sequential set of contests," he added there seemed to be a focus on winning one state at a time. "We were a gathering storm," said Plouffe.

Deutsch segued deftly. He introduced two political campaign vets Cornell Belcher and Clifford Franklin, who had worked on polling and integrated marketing respectively for Obama. Finally, half way into the program on diversity, two black guys were involved! It was not lost on me, nor the crowd of perhaps 150 industry HR and executive leaders that the two main attractions were "white dudes."

"The new electorate is only 55% white but is also black and brown," said Pollster Belcher. "This is your new marketplace. Corporate American needs to re-set." He added the challenge for the ad industry is to see how Brands fit into this re-set. "If you don't re-set right now, your Brand is going to get left behind."

Cliff Franklin was hysterical in pointing up the ironies: "Flat is the new growth," in our economy. "We need some diversity of thought in advertising. Some of you are hip, and some are just not!" He said the Madison Ave. ad industry should take a lesson and create a model for Brand Ambassadors at the grassroots level. His final advice on building a career in advertising, "just get people that win."

Nancy Hill, president of the 4A's, took a moment to congratulate the industry for financial support for the Center for Advertising Excellence. She also thanked ad execs for turning-out in force to the first of Howard's John J. Johnson school of communications symposiums and fundraisers for CEA.

Chuck Porter, chairman and CEO of Crispin, Porter + Bogusky, and the newly elected vice chair of the 4A's said his number one motivation in taking the chairman posting next year is a full industry press on diversity. Not just for the "minority outreach" or multicultural grassroots divisions, but at the highest agency ownership levels.

Plouffe advised: "Don't hire just to reach black folks."

Marissa Moss: Tax Day, Conor Oberst Style - Give to Charity, Give Away a Film

2009-04-15T16:57:28Z

Today, Conor Oberst and The Mystic Valley band release their documentary "One of a Kind," which chronicles their journey as they record and create two albums over the course of the past year. What makes this different than other music films is that it's available for free here in a project with Causecast, in hopes that's you'll donate a few bucks to a nonprofit of your choice. So yeah, it's tax day, and you're sending off your money to a government maybe you support, or maybe you don't - either way, what better day to actually help out a charity or cause you know moves you, where you control where the funds go? And, hey, catch up with a great band along the way...

You can read a bit more on Causecast and the film here. This is the first in a series of documentaries featured on the site.

Conor and I had a conversation back before the election about his activism, politics, and, of course, the music. Here's the interview below:

For a good while, music and politics was all about Bill and that saxophone.

Years after the Vietnam War uprising, after Dusty Springfield, "Blowin' in the Wind" and Marvin Gaye, after the time when dissent was a fertile chorus, the music slowed. Something was happening here, all right, but nothing was playing at the same volume.

And then it came back. It trickled in bit by bit, dissent by dissent, bar by bar. Bring them home, stop the war, impeach the president. They sang and we sang along. Then came Barack Obama -- a particular man, at a particular place in time, whom has so enchanted and motivated such an eclectic and high-profile group of musicians: Bruce Springsteen, Arcade Fire, Dave Matthews, Eddie Vedder, even inspiring Bob Dylan to tell the Times Online that "[Barack's] redefining what a politician is."

One of Obama's most ardent supporters is Conor Oberst, the singer/songwriter best known for his band, Bright Eyes. If you haven't listened to a Bright Eyes record before, chances are you recognize Oberst from the day he played what was probably the most riveting and achingly honest "protest" song of the past few years, "When the President Talks to God" on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He swaggered on that stage, guitar in hand, a black cowboy hat tipped tongue-and-cheekily towards Crawford, Texas. It was with that song, and that performance, that permanently linked Oberst with a sense of activism and dissent.

But it didn't start there: Oberst has always been someone deeply passionate about participating in the political world, reflected not only in his lyrics but in dedication on both a public and personal level. His forthcoming album, Conor Oberst, gives a chance for him to explore different territory, at once apolitical and escapist while reflecting the perilous state of the country at large. It's time for change all around: this is his first solo release since his teenage years.

Recorded in Tepoztlan, Mexico with a crew of talented musicians and friends (Nik Freitas, Taylor Hollingsworth, Macey Taylor, Nate Walcott and Jason Boesel) who call themselves The Mystic Valley Band, "it's the most fun I've ever had making an album," Oberst says. They shacked up for two months in a makeshift studio in a town rich in myth, mysticism, and magic--the result should be an amalgam of all three.

While it's in foreign lands where Oberst finds inspiration, it's in Obama's campaign where he's found a new sense of hope. "I think that he is inspiring so many people and drawing in those that haven't even been involved in the political process before," Oberst told me on the phone from Omaha. He'd just gotten back from a week in the Black Hills, resting before he heads off to South America in July to start the tour. "And that's been translated into the world of entertainers and celebrities...Just the kind of reaction that he is getting has been amazing to watch and grow."

Nebraska is a historically red state. Because of that, do you try to be politically involved on a very local level there?

I try to be involved as much as I can. It's amazing -- there is a chance this year, since Nebraska splits its electoral votes, that it can be a "purple" state, which would be hugely symbolic. People are working really hard out here: Susie Buffett is doing a whole voter registration initiative in the poorer parts of Omaha. Which would be quite a moral victory for all of us that grew up here and felt a little bit like misfits.

I've always felt like a misfit--I've never actually voted anyone into office, and most people around our general age group who are democrats have never even had that feeling of actually voting for a winning candidate. So it's nice to see that there is still this sense of hope for Obama out there.

Yes--I really do think that he is visionary, he comes with an approach that is so broad as opposed to the Bush administration that is so tactile...there's no willingness to look outside and ask "what could the future be like?" It just resonates with everyone so well.

People are always looking back towards the Vietnam War and wondering, why can't we get together in the same way, when it comes to protest and music? But in a sense, it's happening now: just in a more positive sense.

It really is -- that's what is so incredible about it, I mean obviously Obama is the focal point but I think it's bigger than him -- it's just that everyone who has felt so disenfranchised the whole time of this administration, even people that at some point were aligned with Bush, older people or people in Nebraska, older friends of my dad, all these old time republicans are totally considering voting for Obama. They are scrambling: what are we doing? What do we believe in? You had to bottom out; it had to get bad enough before people realize what's going on. Obviously I wished that Kerry would have won but in a sense I think to have Obama be in the position he is now, we had to have eight years of basically a nightmare.

I asked Mac McCaughan, co-founder of Merge records (the label that will be releasing Oberst's solo album) about the role of politics in music, particularly in this election. McCaughan and his band, Superchunk, along with Arcade Fire, played a series of Obama Early Vote Rallies around North Carolina (another state that went to Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 elections). "I think artists in general are drawn to activism, or at least have powerful ways of expressing perhaps what a lot of people are feeling," he says.

"The thing about Obama is that he actually makes you feel like things could change -- not just who the President is, but the way things are done in DC, change the game for real. This is a frightening feeling frankly -- to actually be emotionally involved in a political campaign -- because I know what I felt like the day after the last two elections, and I don't want to think about what the world will look like should Obama not win the office."

Were politics a factor in bringing Oberst onboard to the Merge team? "Well, I thought just the fact that he went on TV and that was the song he did ["When the President Talks to God"], on a show as lame as Leno, was pretty wild. But the only factor we really consider when we're working with bands is, do we like their music and can we work with them as people," said McCaughan.

It may have been "wild," it wasn't always easy. While Oberst isn't afraid to express his hope and positivity for a better future, nor is he shy to discuss his political views, he acknowledges that releasing such a song changed a certain perception of him, for better or for worse.

What were the ripple effects of releasing "When the President Talks to God"?

I don't even know how much of a song it is -- it's more like a commercial to a point of view. I wrote it right after the 2004 election and it was a pretty desperate and angry time. I really thought Kerry was going to win and it was a really deep shock when Bush got re-elected.

I guess there was a certain group of my fan base, certain people who after I played it on TV really wanted that to be the entirety of what I was about as a person, entertainer, whatever. And that was just obviously something I couldn't do and didn't want to do. I don't really premeditate what I write my songs about, you know they just kind of happen, and I can't start writing songs to please a certain group of people or propagate a certain message all the time , that's just not how my songwriting works -- it just sort of comes out and the songs are what they are.

Do people try to read political messages into your songs, or try to figure out what the lyrics mean or if they reflect your personal life?

It's very strange when people get so focused on what a song means, what actual events inspired a song. That gets people really excited for some reason... But that's what's great about music -- however people interpret it, whatever they see, is what I want to be there for them. I don't think my ideas or interpretation of a song is necessarily the night one. I want it to be open to everyone, and that's kind of the conclusion I have come to after the years. There was a time when I was more concerned with people understanding what I was talking about, getting my specific notion to be understood. Now I'm happy with it being up for interpretation.

Are you ever hesitant about being involved in anything political because of your past experiences or interpretations?

Well, I think that all the little inconveniences or annoyances are nothing compared to the way I feel about Obama's campaign and the hope I truly feel now. It's been said a lot but it's really true, that the biggest difference now is that we all are voting and being for something rather than against it. The whole thing in 2004 was all against Bush -- it was all in reference to what Bush was doing. There was no thinking outside the box or in a broader way, and that's what Obama is all about. It's amazing to see someone that is thinking in a way that transcends our kind of politics -- the greatest thing about America is that we can reinvent ourselves and become better than what we were before. I think that he really represents that.

So is Conor Oberst about reinvention, too? "There's a lot of optimism in changing scenery, in seeing what's down the road," he says. He could be talking about Obama, his record, or life as an artist in a world of turmoil on the edge of hope. And maybe it doesn't really matter which.

The band's newest album, Outer South , will be released on May 5th on Merge Records.

Laura Liswood: Expectations for the New President

2009-04-13T16:48:46Z

On April 4, 2009, the Washington Post had a front page article with a headline of "Blacks at Odds Over Scrutiny of President."

The article stated that for many African Americans there was now a division between those who want to continue to praise Obama and his historic ascendancy and those who want to be more critical now that the election is over.

In the article, Patricia Wilson-Smith of Black Women for Obama says "it is way too soon for people to ask Obama to fix long-held racial disparities." And yet Jeff Johnson of BET is quoted in the same article as saying after the inauguration -- which thrilled him -- "Now what's he going to do?" reflecting upon, amongst other challenges, a 50% dropout rates for some high school students and high unemployment.

The Post article had a discussion about the expectations for this first black president by African Americans in the United States and perhaps globally. I was struck by the familiarity of this dilemma given my experience with women presidents and prime ministers.

I remember talking with Benazir Bhutto about what women thought would happen once she came to office as Prime Minister of Pakistan , which she did three times, the last resulting in her assassination in 2008. She understood that women thought that much would instantly change for their status and for the living conditions of women and girls once the leader was a woman. The expectations were enormous. And conversely they did not want her to fail because she represented "all" women and if she failed it would set women back in their pursuit of leadership. It would be like, "we tried a woman and she failed, so we won't try that again."

The fact was the Bhutto and other leaders as women cannot always, and probably never will be able to, fulfill this inflated belief that a woman leader can make substantial changes on issues that are deeply imbedded in culture. And that assumes they want to make the changes (see Margaret Thatcher).

In addition, taking Bhutto's example, there were no women in her cabinet in Pakistan, only three women in Parliament, and the literacy rate for women in rural areas was 17%. She might have wanted to change things but she had few allies and resources to do so.

A first-in-the-position woman leader also finds that she is under intense scrutiny. If she creates even a few programs or policy changes directed towards the benefit of women and girls her critics will say "she only really cares about women." Ironically, a male leader who does substantial programs for women and girls would be hailed as a hero.

Generally speaking, white male presidents don't get that same amount or kind of scrutiny .

It does not surprise me that the debate around President Obama includes the issue of how much to expect; what can change; and how critical the group he comes from should be towards him. Both women and African Americans belong to the historically out-of-power groups. There are pent up demands and desires for societal changes and a huge desire to see him or her succeed.

I believe we would be hearing some of the same dialogue and consternation if the president were the first woman.

Mario Solis-Marich: Some GOP Senators Still Believe They Are Right On Labor. Solis Must Be Confirmed

2009-01-26T02:56:39Z

Labor Secretary Designate Solis must be confirmed. The fact that the Secretary of Labor Designate is in the crosshairs of a couple of GOP Senators should not give us pause or come as a surprise.

The GOP has made economic policies its main platform plank for at least the last 40 years. While their results have been disastrous some Republicans are not ready to cut and run from the trickle down legend that has been the core tenet of their economic mythology.

The Department of Labor has long been a strange relic to economic conservatives. Where DC visitors to the DOL see an office building the GOP sees a wicked temple inhabited by evil wizards that actually count the unemployed and study statistics that often contradict core conservative economic superstitions. The questions to Solis were reminiscent of a witch dunking where there are no right answers. If Solis had drowned she would have been human and acceptable but her survival, due to her accurate and honest answers, indicated her pre-supposed guilt.

I reviewed the Solis hearing that seems to have befuddled the GOP inquisitors and found the Secretary Designate to be very even handed. Solis admitted that she sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act (apparently a type of anti-GOP spell) and that President Obama has endorsed it. However Solis also repeatedly indicated that she was not clear what her role would be in the coming debate surrounding the Act due to her potential new position and her inability to yet speak for the administration. Solis gave the same nuanced answers to Senate Democrats that wanted assurances about a host of progressive labor agenda items that she gave to the GOP. The Secretary Designate was trying to express and open mindedness to a middle ground while respectfully deferring to the new President (who by the way was still President elect at the time of the hearing.).

What gives some in the GOP the real jitters though is not the message as much as the messenger. Solis wears her working class roots on her blue collared shirt sleeve. Solis proudly embodies the current generation of blue collar workers yearning to become Obama's green collar wage earners. Solis will be hard to marginalize as an out of touch intellectual as is the customary right wing attack against economic progressives. In fact Solis as the face of labor will set GOP consultants struggling to find a whole new frame of distortion. What truly makes Solis's emergence remarkable is not only her Latina roots but also her working class background

The choice for some reason has been made to avoid another public hearing for Solis and offer GOP Senators one on one meetings with her. I say let this process see the light of day. Allow America's working families to see the GOP questioning of the Congresswoman that is now taking place in their secret Senate office suites. Allow Hilda Solis from El Monte to answer her critics publicly, straight from the very center of her working class soul. America's workers hunger for more than a champion that understands them; they desire a champion that is them. Let Solis be Solis and her GOP detractors be themselves and the choice will then be clear.

Mario Solis-Marich is a talk show host that can be heard on am760 in Denver and worldwide at www.GoToMario.com. Mario is editor of NuestraVoice.com and is no relation to Congresswoman Solis.

Robert Scheer: Time to Get to Work

2009-01-21T01:25:33Z

So, let's now heed the words of our new president and set aside childish things. Presumably that includes the $450 worth of designer Obama T-shirts that I got in return for a campaign contribution made two days before the election in a sudden panic that he yet might lose. That battle has been won, and the sight of the disgraced Dick Cheney being wheeled off the stage of history as Obama recommitted America to the vision of the Founders, who, "faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man," was nothing short of thrilling.

Tuesday was welcome theater, as profound as it gets, particularly in the unity of race demonstrated so visibly to ourselves as well as the rest of the world. In that sense the presidency of Barack Obama will always be marked as an enormous winner, even when things, as he predicted, at times go wrong. But today, as Obama has declared, begins a new era of responsibility and accountability, and it is time for this columnist to get back to work.

My concern is with the nation's two most serious flashpoints--the economic bailout and the war in Afghanistan--and on both the early actions of the Obama team have been far from reassuring. Instead of signaling a sharp break from the failures of the Bush administration in these two areas, the early indication from Obama is more of the same.

"Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some," he said. But why then has he backed a bailout program that rewards the greediest of bankers while ignoring struggling homeowners?

"Accountability for the Troubled Asset Relief Program" is the title of the second report of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), which Congress created to monitor the disbursement of $700 billion in bailout funds. That report concludes: "The panel still does not know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money."

This is because of what the panel of experts called "significant gaps in Treasury's monitoring of taxpayer money e.g. asking financial institutions to account for what they have done with taxpayer funds." As the panel noted: "For Treasury to take no steps to use any of this money to alleviate the foreclosure crisis raises questions about whether Treasury has complied with Congress's intent that Treasury develop a 'plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners.' " Yet Obama successfully lobbied for a quick payout of the second installment.

Obamaniacs should take to their crackberries to demand that something be done for homeowners before the last dollar of TARP evaporates. As Obama said in his inauguration speech, "a nation cannot prosper long when it only favors the prosperous," but that is what the bailout, which Treasury secretary nominee Timothy Geithner helped craft, has been all about.

On the foreign policy front, similar vigilance is called for, particularly regarding the determination of the new administration to sink deeper into what surely is a quagmire in Afghanistan. Obama already has committed to a major increase in U.S. troops on the battle front, where our main role has been to prop up the enormously corrupt and ineffectual government in Kabul. The only justification for entering even more aggressively into the civil war in that country is the simplistic identification of the Taliban with the remnants of Osama bin Laden's gang. The drawing of that link was never accurate: The Taliban is an outgrowth of an indigenous movement, originally stocked with CIA arms and cash, and even when bin Laden had the support of the Afghan group he was getting most of his money from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which along with Pakistan made up the nations that granted the Taliban diplomatic recognition. Why make the Taliban our permanent enemy while coddling the state players who sponsored it?

In language that echoed the hysteria of the Bush-era neoconservatives, Obama stated on Tuesday, "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." Nope, as Obama has acknowledged on other occasions, it's far more complex than that. Yesterday's enemy can be tomorrow's ally, as demonstrated by the fact that our economic solvency is now in the hands of the Chinese Communist government that was once our most feared enemy.

The good news is that we have a big-brain president. The question is: Will he use it? I will not deny that I shed some tears watching the inauguration. It was mostly wonderful, incredibly so, but now in the morning after, and as Obama requested, it's responsibility that we should be looking for.

Robert Scheer is editor in chief of Truthdig and author of The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America.

Joseph T. Waldo: Looking Back On Virginia's History-Making Election Day

2009-01-20T15:55:10Z

On Tuesday, January 20, millions of our fellow Americans will be
watching the Inauguration filled with feelings of goodwill, optimism
and a sense of new direction for what we hope will come. Many hundreds
of millions more will be watching from around the world enchanted by
this dramatic new course Americans have chosen for their leadership.

That leadership is the culmination of the super organized, determined
and reach-for-the-stars Obama campaign, which delivered a history
making mandate on Election Day. Working at a precinct in Virginia on
Election Day, I saw the evidence of the hard work of the Obama
campaign, and the overwhelming response of that one precinct.

Virginia was conceded by many to be a battleground state in the 2008
presidential election. The Obama campaign targeted the state early on,
and a mammoth grass roots organization descended on almost all of
Virginia's 2,349 precincts on Election Day. To insure that Virginia
did not become the Florida of 2008, the Obama campaign trained an army
of attorneys from around the nation to take a post at each precinct,
and I was thrilled to be included in this group.

At 4:59 a.m. on a rainy but warm Election Day, I arrived as instructed
at Union Chapel, Precinct 313, an overwhelmingly African-American and
blue-collar precinct in my hometown of Norfolk, Virginia. Even though
I am a Virginia practicing attorney, I specialize in property rights
and eminent domain law, so election law is foreign to me. But I was
eager to work and carried my 96 page Attorney Training Manual along
with various reference tools and documents. I had worked in local
campaigns and the famous 1973 Henry Howell campaign for governor but I
had never seen such planning, organizing and support in an Election
Day effort.

When I arrived at the small African-American church, I was surprised
to see ten or more citizens already lined up in the dark and rain
waiting to vote. Half sat in folding chairs and had been there for
hours. I could sense pride and excitement in their faces. When I said good morning they responded
with enthusiasm and pride. They told me they were making history!

I entered the community room of Union Chapel Church, which would serve
as the voting precinct, and reported to the head officer of election
for the precinct, Mrs. Pollard. Her regular job was working for the
local school system, but on Election Day, this short, polite but very
commanding woman assumed the role as head precinct official and
organized and managed a team of volunteers and citizen officers of the
election. My reception was cordial but distant at first. I knew Mrs.
Pollard and her small army of poll workers were suspicious of this
lawyer in his coat and tie. I presented my election credential letter
from the Democratic Party and for the next 45 minutes assisted in
setting up five voting machines, unsealing the poll books and
carefully laying out numerous forms and documents. You cannot imagine
what it takes to open the polls. It was furious and hard work.

At 5:45 a.m., Mrs. Pollard summoned her citizen officials and
volunteers to stand before her in a semi-circle, raise their right
hand and take an Election Day oath to carry out their duties
faithfully and impartially. The line of voters had swelled in the
pre-dawn darkness to a crowd bigger than little Union Chapel precinct
had ever seen. A number of them gazed through the community building
windows to see what was going on inside. What they witnessed resembled
a Norman Rockwell painting, as a dozen Virginia citizens stood at
attention, swearing an oath to assist in America's voting process. At
that moment I could only think of the thousands of precincts around
the nation getting ready to receive a tide of voters never before
witnessed in our nation's history.

When the polls opened promptly at 6:00 a.m., I counted 161 citizens in
line. Many would wait more than one and a half hours to vote, but none
complained. Outside the polls, forty feet back at all times, two
other attorneys trained by the Obama campaign had arrived the night
before from Washington, D.C., and were ready to assist voters and
insure everyone who could vote got that opportunity.

On that long day at least five citizens voted a regular ballot who
otherwise would not have. The regular vote is counted when the polls
close as opposed to a provisional ballot, which goes to the Board of
Elections and may not get counted at all. This emphasis on getting
citizens the regular ballot was the result of a carefully organized
Protect the Vote effort of the Obama campaign. One young woman was
initially refused the right to vote because the records showed she had
voted earlier in the day. I reminded the voting official that
according to law, if the voter swore an oath that she had not
previously voted that day, the problem would be documented and the
woman could vote a regular ballot. She was overjoyed. She had come to
vote and, like others whose votes were challenged that day, she was
determined to vote. You could detect the history in the making and
feel the voters' enthusiasm.

Throughout that twelve-hour day, the two other attorneys and I
collectively carried out numerous procedures and communicated to the
statewide campaign headquarters the vote count and the events
occurring at the polls. Our reports included the precinct opening
time, names of citizens who had voted during the day, and finally at
7:00 p.m., after the polls closed, a final report of the vote to the
Obama campaign (Precinct 313, Union Chapel, Obama 757, McCain 14).We
also sent voter turnout reports throughout the day so the Obama
campaign could remind registered Democrats who had not already done so
to get out and vote.

At 9:16 that night, I left, along with Mrs. Pollard and her small
battalion of officials and volunteers. Everyone was dead tired but
excited and optimistic.

On this very important election day, I saw in the people of this tiny
neighborhood great determination and a deep sense of pride as they
exercised their right to vote. Some came with their children, parents
or grandparents. A few came with apprehension, having never voted
before. Many came with expectations that something monumental was
about to happen. As I watched each voter leave the polls Election Day,
I witnessed on many of those voters' faces a sense of accomplishment
and satisfaction. These ordinary citizens, just like their neighbors
across America, carried out one of the single longest traditions of
our democratic and free society which, for all its faults, is still
the envy of the world.

David Rees: BREAKING: Bush Pardons Osama bin Laden

2009-01-19T22:55:36Z

WASHINGTON, DC: In a stunning late-hour development, President George W. Bush has granted Osama bin Laden a pardon for the murder of more than 2,700 Americans in the fall of 2001.

"This kinda came out of nowhere," said a White House aide who requested anonymity. "I wouldn't have put bin Laden on the short list myself. On the other hand, maybe this is the president's way of finding closure. Because ... y'know ... he wasn't actually able to kill bin Laden, or capture him, or even keep him from making all those (expletive) videos. I mean, jeez, let's face it: Osama bin Laden is basically a one-man Netflix of cave movies."

The aide paused, then went on to say, "Can you believe this dude (Bush) was actually president for eight (expletive) years? What were we thinking? Seriously, what the (expletive) were we thinking?"

The aide began weeping quietly. "May God have mercy on me for my role in the unfathomable travesty that was the Bush administration."

Conservative columnist William Kristol insisted the pardon made sense..

"George W. Bush is a brilliant strategist. I'm sure he has a good reason for this pardon. I'll figure it out."

Kristol sucked his thumb for a few minutes, lost in thought. He was then distracted by a brightly colored piece of string.

A passerby, told of the bin Laden pardon, offered a possible explanation:

"Maybe Bush is trying to smoke him out. Wasn't that the plan?"

Trey Ellis: New Year/New World

2008-12-23T12:10:32Z

Christmas and New Year are too close together. It's too much. You can pretty much sleepwalk through the rest of the year ("I can't believe it's already April. Where did the time go?"), but these end-of-year holidays, especially for a writer who sees everything as metaphor, freight even the simplest interaction. At Christmas I char the fried onions on top of the green bean casserole and instantly view their smoking remains as a symbol of the state of my career/life/inner being.

Perhaps the holidays was not the best time to start reading Cormac McCarthy's The Road , the tale of a constantly shivering and starving to death father and son wandering a post-apocalyptic landscape on the run from rampaging bands of steel-pipe-wielding cannibals.

Some days I feel that McCarthy's reality won't be all that far off the mark. The avalanche of bad news daily is profoundly unsettling. And yet other days I'm hopeful that Obama & Co. will turn this Poseidon back into the Mayflower and America will bloom again. I look around and wonder where I can lend a hand, or a shoulder, to hasten the coming renaissance.

I guess the important thing to remember is that no matter what the near future holds, that too will change. Krugman guesses the recession will start receding in about 18 months and he's been pretty reliable in the past. That is certainly some comfort. Sometimes, in the middle of a particularly persistent rain, it's hard to remember that the sun's gonna come out again. In Zen Buddhism this concept is known as "impermanence." In the words of Joni Mitchell, "Nothing lasts for long." Or according to Nina Simone, "Everything must change."

Whatever happens in 2009, it ain't gonna be boring.

Lauri Lyons: Flag International: Global Perspectives On The American Flag

2008-12-10T14:37:27Z

What is America?

It is a challenge to singularly define America because the country reinvents itself on a daily basis. Growing up I have been able to view America from several perspectives: Black, female, first-generation American, and a former military child. Always being on the move has made me curious about how people come to formulate opinions about themselves and others. As a college student during the Gulf War, it quickly became apparent to me how little my peers knew about the military's activities or the symbolic power of the American flag. From 1995 to 2007 I traveled via train across the United States and Europe photographing and interviewing people with the American flag. The culminations of my journeys are the books Flag: An American Story (2001) and Flag International (2008).

See the multimedia project I did here.

The Flag series reveals what is beneath the surface of the American dream by looking beyond statistics and into the minds of ordinary citizens--native born and naturalized -- whose feelings about America not only told the reader what the country is, but also what it should be. Through each subject's photographs and hand-written statements about America, the reader became aware of the beauty, violence, racism, hope, and inequity that created the American cultural fabric leading into the twenty first century. I concluded the first Flag book by stating 'As Americans, we are who we choose to be, and that may all change tomorrow'. That statement was published before 9/11, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Abu Ghraib, and the war in Iraq.

In 2007 all these events compelled me to ask, what has become of America? I began thinking about shooting Flag International and quickly formulated a list of destinations. It was paramount that I shot this story while President George W. Bush was still in office because his administration has played such a crucial role in international politics. My goal was to explore Europe with the American flag and investigate how the international community views the United States in the 21st Century.

Before departing for my trip I encountered a lot of well intentioned, but discouraging remarks from people in the U.S. Over the past eight years Americans have been conditioned to think the rest of the world hates us, the world beyond our borders is a dangerous place, and people want to kill Americans for sport. People told me I must be out of my mind for even thinking about traveling with the American flag at this time. I was also instructed to buy several 'back up' American flags, because surely the flag will be burned. Lastly, Americans generally believe they already know what other people think, so what's the point of asking them?

I walked throughout eight countries in search of people to interview and photograph.
Each of the subjects were approached on the street and handed a sketchbook to write their views of America, afterwards they were given the American flag and proceeded to pose whichever way they felt comfortable. Later they read their comments in their native language for audio recording. The entire process was captured on HD video. This was not a simple process. I was basically working as a one woman band, handling still photography, video, text and audio interviews. Did I mention I am only fluent in English?

One of my discoveries traveling through Europe was that there is a New Europe! The 'Old Europe' (which I was familiar with) was basically where you went to see 'Old Stuff' such as castles, and was comprised of a homogenous population. The New Europe is a dynamic, cosmopolitan, and ethnically diverse continent with a youthful push towards a unification of cultures and resources.

The New Europe reminded me of the idea of America, which constitutes a vast array of people striving to create a new way of being. While interviewing the international community, it was interesting to hear their expectations and frustrations with America. On the road I encountered Graffiti artists, Holocaust survivors, Iraqi women, street vendors, and even a Pulitzer Prize author, and many more, who gave me a piece of their mind while holding Old Glory.

In Berlin I met a former political prisoner who witnessed JFK speaking at the Brandenburg gate. He enthusiastically grabbed the flag and began singing "We Shall Overcome" at the top of his lungs. In Holland a store keeper remarked "Americans are a little bit crazy. They eat too much Mc Donald's and they work too much." A man informed me "I don't like Paris Hilton and I don't like Bush.' On London's Oxford Street, three affluent Muslim women wearing designer clothes wrote: "I like the U.S.A. I want to live in the U.S.A., but all the people in the U.S.A don't like Muslims. I hope to love them." But by far the biggest shocker of them all happened in France. While photographing a young man in the middle of a busy street, he proceeded to drop his pants and began wiping himself with the American flag. That was a pivotal moment for me, because in an instant I had to decide if I was really going allow the participants to freely express themselves without restrictions, as I had promised. I decided to keep my word.

As I continued to travel throughout Ireland, England, Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, I could not help but to wonder how the E.U. will deal with the same challenges facing America such as nationalism, immigration, racism, fundamentalism, and apathy. Will the opinions and concerns voiced by the people in Flag International, become self-prophecies for their own nation and unification? Only time will tell.

Once again the statement 'As Americans, we are who we choose to be, and that may all change tomorrow.' rings true. On Election Day Barack Obama became the new embodiment of the American Dream and the global face of change. Most Americans no longer assume that 'everybody hates us'. Now the assumption is 'everybody loves Barack, so that means everybody loves America, right?'
Only time will tell.

The intention of the Flag International series is to inspire a dialogue about cultural understanding within a global framework. Cultural understanding is not only how a people or a nation views itself, but also how the world views you.

Flag International can be purchased at www.laurilyons.com or www.blurb.com/laurilyons

Hagai El-Ad: The Right to Be Hopeful

2008-12-08T18:25:16Z

A powerful intersection between the personal and the professional can be good reason to pause, contemplate, and perhaps even try and conjecture an op-ed or a blog post. Such is my predicament, as I recall that striking talkback from a most thrilled individual writing from somewhere on this planet, featured on the New York Times website after Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States of America: "America, welcome back!" Whether America is "back", or not, of course matters a great deal -- globally, politically, and yes, also personally. You see, I've spent some of the most formative years of my life in the US, and these personal experiences still play a significant role in my identity. In addition, professionally speaking, being the director of an Israeli human rights organization, I'm excited by the possibility that this may indeed be a time for "opportunity and unyielding hope," when thinking globally about human rights. So, personally and professionally, I sense that it may indeed be the time to be hopeful.

From a human rights perspective, the following words from Obama's victory speech resonate strongly: "to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright -- tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." Truth be told, America's beacon didn't shine very brightly in recent years. If Lady Liberty stands tall for the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions, and torture -- then it is not only the US Constitution that hurts: the fallout is global, and quite devastating. If all this damage were to be reversed, as the president-elect has recently reassured, then that beacon might truly burn brightly again.

In Israel, of course, "the war on terror" -- and the extreme, dangerous legislation that it supposedly justifies -- did not begin on 9/11. But fighting such measures, in public and in court, became so much more difficult once similar examples were in effect in the USA. Some key examples from this part of the world include Israel's "Illegal combatants" law and draconian provisions for the detention and interrogation of terror suspects; the casual, almost normative, usage of secret "evidence"; the state's noncompliance with the Supreme Court's anti-torture ruling; and more surveillance powers, without proper judicial scrutiny.

Well, there's a powerful American who now proclaims that these kinds of policies cannot provide the basis for a nation's true strength. Perhaps now more Israelis will join the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in affirming that that logic, and that moral, applies globally, not only in North America but also in the Middle East.

That American has a background in community organizing; he also happens to be educated as a lawyer. To me, that sounds a lot like the people I have the privilege to be working with these days: attorneys, educators, campaigners and others, who gave up on potential lucrative positions, in order to work as part of a human rights community, promoting equality and liberty with "unyielding hope." Perhaps our work in the next four, or eight, years, will be somewhat easier.

I began with the personal and wish to likewise conclude. For me, it was in America, while in school in Boston, that I was distracted from my intended future in astrophysical research. It was then that I discovered the strength and potential of civil society non-governmental organizations. Where "working for a non-profit" stopped being a joke and became a potential reality. Where networking and fundraising for a cause you believe in became an opportunity to invite others to invest in promoting values, change, and hope. I guess that I will always be grateful for what I learned in that country during those years. It is with that gratitude, warmth, and optimism that I look forward demanding a current right to be hopeful, and wholeheartedly greet America: welcome back.

Monroe Price: Sarah Palin: the All-in-One Reality TV Show

2008-12-07T19:26:06Z

It's hard to have yet another Sarah Palin epiphany, but that's what happened as I was drifting happily through a conference called "Reality Worlds," organized at the Annenberg School for Communication by Marwan Kraidy and Katherine Sender.

Scholars devoted to the genre were generating all sorts of theories about these relatively inexpensive and ubiquitous program efforts. But what occurred to me (and undoubtedly has occurred to others) is how Palin's trajectory through the political campaign approximates the rhythm of makeover and other reality TV shows.

Palin is one-person reiteration of everything from "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" (early round dismissal?) up through and including "Survivor."

And then now, there's the story of Palin and her hair stylists, including Amy Strozzi, who received over $40,000 and was awarded an Emmy for her work on the show "So You Think You Can Dance." Shades of "Making the Cut," "Million Dollar $alon,"and "Top Hair."

Palin wasn't even mentioned in the Annenberg talks, but her arc during the campaign could have been a subtext for all the scholarly presentations.

Laura Grindstaff, for example, a professor at the University of California, hit a kind of proverbial Palin nail on the head when she spoke about how these shows seek out a center of American life, and engage in what she called the "production of ordinariness" through reality television.

Grindstaff was talking particularly about an MTV series called "Sorority Life" which chronicles the life of pledges as they move towards acceptance and initiation. I didn't ask, but it seemed to me that one could call Palin, whatever else she was, a kind of initiate, a rushee who among other things had to go through a process of hazing (did she make it? You be the judge.).

At the Philadelphia event, I talked with a very helpful Penn graduate student, Rebecca Pardo, who, like a lot of modern young scholars, has a slight and admirable obsession with "reality" filtered through this art form. She loves the work of Nicholas Couldry (a professor at Goldsmiths in London) and sees Palin as the embodiment of what Couldry has called the Myth of the Mediated Center.

Pardo also put me on to Justin Wolfe, who blogs about "The Hills," a reality show about life in 90210, hedonistic and pragmatic California. Wolfe has written , without, blogwise, using capital letters, about Palin and the process of candidate selection in reality shows:

"it's funny because the way sarah palin was chosen is, in many ways, just like the way heidi montag was chosen for the hills. if you strip all the fame away from heidi montag, if we pretend that she's just a normal girl what's special about her, what sets her apart? nothing, really, she's just normal. kind of pretty, sort of ambitious, but mostly normal. and, without the magic ticket she was given into the world of celebrity, into the show, that's how she would've probably stayed, a normal girl from a small town in colorado. If course, that's the Sarah Palin narrative, too: plucked from the relative obscurity of the alaskan wilderness into the national spotlight, with the barest of real experience or qualifications but with scads of those particular qualities that resonate with the american public: personality, relatability, normality.

"

As on some reality shows (take "Project Runway" for example), Palin was subjected to ingenious and daunting tests that would raise public anticipation about the outcome--triumph or failure. Would she make it to the next round? When Sarah met Katie Couric, it could have been one of these "tests" revealed to the contestant ("for your next challenge, you must go one on one with a noted anchor-person who will ask you questions you may have no way of answering"). Palin's life was a series of created melodramas with accompanying anxieties and the imminent apprehension of failure.

No reality show is complete without the backroom drama, as "Dancing With the Stars," illustrates through the elaborate process of trying to turn someone quite ordinary (in some respects) into the surprisingly gifted (the Pygmalion moment, the alchemy of transformation). Can you really make this person rhumba? Can he or she be trained to be a cook or a business executive (or an expert on foreign affairs)? We were all on pins and needles to see if this process would work with Sarah.

My mind drifted to one of my favorite shows I never watched in entirety: "Ladette to Lady," the story of a group of relatively inexperienced young women,who are given an old-fashioned five-week course in learning how to behave like a real lady. They are sent to Eggleston Hall, an English finishing school.

There was a lot of Ladette to Lady in the Palin tale, though Palin was not a Ladette, by any stretch. And the Republican National Committee wasn't Eggleston.

You could say that this wasn't a real reality show because it didn't have the panel of judges requisite in some versions. But I think of that curious crew of indifferent panelists Wolf Blitzer oddly and unrealistically named "the best political team on television." They could just as well have had cards and numbers; and Sarah (holding Todd's hand tightly) might have been seen on camera -- like frightened ice-skaters -- waiting for the results in an isolated room.

Zala Volcic, a Slovenian now living in Brisbane spoke, at the Annenberg conference (part of Professor Barbie Zelizer's Annenberg Scholars Program in Culture and Communications Program) about That's Me, a Big Brother style Balkan reality TV show which mixed roommates from all over the former Yugoslavia. The show was designed to "negotiate the struggles among religious, ethnic and national groups that still plague the region." That's Me was supposed to smooth conflict, and did not necessarily succeed. This was reality show as social engineering. Think Palin: The Message, energizing the base.

There was much talk at the Annenberg workshop about "parenting" as a persistent theme in reality shows. Mark Anthony Neal, the Duke scholar of hip-hop, gave an exuberant talk on Snoop Dog and his program called "Fatherhood." There and on so many other shows, the fragile nature of parenting--and the possibility of failing and the complexities of succeeding--were tracked.

Of course, the Sarah candidacy--right out of the box--was about mothering in American society--mothering and having a career, mothering and the extraordinary decisions about a child with Downs Syndrome, parenting and an unmarried daughter who discovers pregnancy--it goes on and on.

Much of reality television scholarship is about voting habits of the committed viewers. Stephen Coleman (Leeds), the guru of Big Brother voting, has concluded that there's not a gulf between those who vote in "real" elections and those who vote in "reality" elections. Aswin Punathambekar of the University of Michigan probably had a slightly different view. He spoke, movingly, about the temporarily intense political activity and rampant mobile phone voting in North-East India for the Indian Idol candidacy of Amit Paul.

And then, of course, there were the clothes. Palin and her relationship to clothing is Reality TV writ large. It's the epitome of the "makeover" story. One can think of the RNC operatives as channeling "What Not to Wear", the British show with Trinny Woodall and Susannah Constantine, even including those choice bits of surveillance where Trinny and Susannah view videos of the poor subject.

It's a small and maybe obvious epiphany--The Palin campaign as all reality shows rolled into one. The Annenberg conference luxuriated in phrases that resonated with the campaign like "cult of the commonplace." But mostly, it was interesting to see, through the Reality TV Show lens, what the Republicans -- McCain and Palin's handlers or the audiences reacting to her so enthusiastically -- were actually doing, thinking and reflecting this summer and fall.

Lea Lane: Moments with Odetta: Inspirational Singer, Beautiful Woman

2008-12-04T13:52:44Z

You may have never heard of her until now, but Odetta was one of the best known voices of the 1950s and 60s. She sang a mix of folk, blues and gospel in a soaring, classically trained voice -- nuanced, deep and expressive. And she made a difference:

--- Rosa Parks, who started the boycott of segregated buses in Montgomery, when asked which songs meant the most to her replied, "All of the songs Odetta sings."

--- The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to Odetta as "The Queen of American Folk Music."

--- Bob Dylan said in a 1978 interview, "The first thing that turned me on to folk singing was Odetta."

--- When she appeared at a Carnegie Hall tribute to Bruce Springsteen in 2007 and turned his "57 Channels," into a chanted poem, he called it "the greatest version" he had ever heard.

Odetta sang at the 1963 March on Washington, where Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech, and it was reported that she wanted to sing at Obama's inauguration. But she didn't quite make it; she died on Tuesday, at age 77.

Like the great South African singer Miriam Makeba,who died a few weeks ago, Odetta was a woman who inspired as well as entertained. (Listen for yourself at spiralfrog.com.)

When the Beatles came along, and after Dr. King was assassinated, Vietnam became the country's focus, and the civil rights-folk scene died out. Rock, disco, reggae -- onward and forward we moved along -- faster, louder, electrified, less idealistic, more narcissistic.

I didn't hear anything much about Odetta for years. She seemed to have become a bird caught in the honeyed amber of an earlier age. But through the years she did continue recording albums, and singing at music festivals around the world. And she still entranced the crowds who often came to hear others.

A couple of years ago I took a magical journey in the Blue Ridge Mountains of southern Virginia along a scenic byway called The Crooked Road. This is the center of Bluegrass music. I visited the Carter family compound where Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash used to live. I watched luthiers, skilled instrument makers who make guitars for clients such as Eric Clapton. I attended toe-tapping live radio shows featuring close-harmony quartets and exhuberant banjo groups.

The highlight of my trip was a concert in Bristol, considered the cradle of country music. And among the performers was Odetta. She was slimmer now, and remained seated when she sang. But she was more beautiful than ever, in her caftan and head wrap. Her comments between songs were insightful, and her warm personality, her phrasing and her sensibility were complex and shaded. Her wise interpretations of songs brought tears to my eyes, both for the past and the present.

The next day, I was sitting in a shuttle van waiting to go to the airport, and Odetta and her young manager entered the van. He was young and considerate. She was exquisite. I wanted to tell her how much her music was a part of my youth, but I didn't want to disturb her.

She immediately started asking me questions. Was I at the concert? Do I like bluegrass? Where was I from?

By the time we got to the airport we had already discussed single life. Odetta had three marriages and many relationships, and had been peacefully single for many years. "Men are like peas," she winked. "I've had enough peas."

She based herself in New York, but loved traveling and meeting people around the world. We exchanged emails. I wanted to interview her further for my Website, as a terrific role model for single women. But life got in the way. I got sick not long after that and spent a year recuperating. I thought of meeting with her a couple of times since, but knew we both traveled extensively, and I never followed-up. I just kept putting it off.

When I heard of her passing I thought of her gorgeous smile and found a photo of us connecting woman to woman. I was privileged to have heard Odetta's legendary voice on stage after so many years. And even more, I am grateful for experiencing her inner beauty, which I will never forget.

Odetta Holmes, Dec. 31, 1930-Dec 2, 2008

Obama's Inauguration: What To Expect At Washington's Woodstock

2008-11-21T00:54:01Z

Hollywood celebrities, Web activists and jet-setters from around the world are preparing to turn the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20 into a mix of Woodstock and Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 speech on the National Mall.

While the plans of many top politicians and entertainment stars hang on pending details about the Commander-in-Chief Ball and other official events that Mr. Obama is likely to attend, dozens of other big-ticket parties are already taking shape. The Creative Coalition, an advocacy group, will host a ball at the Harman Center for the Arts. Spike Lee will be at the event, Susan Sarandon is likely to attend and the group is in discussions with such musicians as Elvis Costello to perform. Tickets to the fund-raiser, where director Barry Levinson will be shooting final scenes for a film called "Poliwood," a documentary about Hollywood's involvement in the presidential race, are still available -- a $10,000 "bronze" package admits two.

Ricardo Rossello: Forces in Obama Landslide

2008-11-14T18:54:57Z

Ever since Senator Barack Obama's historic election as the first African-American President, the pundits have been trying to demystify the voter attitudes and behavior that led to this unprecedented outcome. Using a novel public opinion measurement methodology named Bullitics (www.bullitics.com) that I developed with Yosem Companys through our research at the University of Michigan and Stanford University; I was able to track in real time the micro trends that led to President-elect Obama's landslide victory on November 4. I present here the changes in people's perception of the presidential candidates and dissect the specific parameters that affected the results we observed on Election Day.

Here, we illustrate five key takeaways:

1. While everyone knows that the economy was an important issue that helped Senator Obama to win the election, few know the actual quantitative change and how the magnitude of this effect tilted voter perceptions in Obama's favor.

2. While pollsters guessed at the effect that the exclusion of cell phones in polls would have on the accuracy of those polls, we proved that cell phones had a significant impact and that people with cell phones (only) tended to vote differently from the larger population. While Senator Obama was in a virtual dead-heat with Senator John McCain among landline phone voters, he was ahead by nine points when cell phone voters were included.

3. Republican strategists and some pundits have been bashing Governor Sarah Palin, arguing that her pick led to the demise of Senator McCain's chances to win the presidency. In fact, the opposite is true. Governor Palin actually was a great pick for Senator McCain. She provided a bounce for Senator McCain that held strong well beyond her weak performances on network television bolstered her negatives in the eyes of the American people. Her initial impact made voters give McCain a second look... and some stayed for good.

4. Most pundits and pollsters assumed that all battleground states were created equal. While the states looked like toss ups, our novel analytics helped us differentiate them in greater detail from how committed people were to a candidate and how likely they were to change their preference.

5. A debate has raged on whether there was a Bradley effect (named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley who lost his mayoral campaign after the polls suggested he would win by a wide margin) or a reverse Bradley effect. Using our novel analytics, we found that the racial effect was negligible or at least small relative to other larger issues.

Let's explore these surprising findings in further detail below. As late as September 10, 2008, Senator McCain seemed well poised to win the election. This data was tabulated after the convention; thus, the data include the positive electoral bounces that Democratic and Republican candidates usually experience after their conventions. Our most likely scenario at the time had Senator McCain and Senator Obama tied at 269 electoral votes. This makes it an interesting starting point for the evaluation of factors as the tally between the two was electorally even. The five factors cited above, however, had a dramatic impact in the subsequent months, leading Senator Obama ultimately to defeat Senator McCain in a landslide.

1. The Economy
Once the economy started on a downward spiral, so did Senator McCain's numbers. In a study conducted over two months, our data suggests that Senator McCain's numbers were strongly correlated with market activity. As the markets dropped to historic lows, Senator McCain's support also experienced a steady decline. Moreover, voters who before September 10 thought the economy was the most important issue switched their votes from Senator McCain to Senator Obama at an alarming rate of 11:1. Among voters two weeks before the election who thought the economy was the most important issue, Senator Obama was the preferred candidate by almost a 3:1 margin (71%-29%). Amongst the "top issues" evaluated, Senator McCain only led Senator Obama with voters who felt that foreign policy was the top issue (68%-32%). These numbers imply that an economic disaster enhanced Senator Obama's candidacy, just as an international incident would have enhanced Senator McCain's position. Our study showed that the economy has consistently been the top issue for most of this election, but the margin increased significantly. For perspective; the ratio between the economy, health care and foreign policy for voters was 4:2:2 before September 5, 2008. By October 29, 2008, the ratio had ballooned to 7:2:1 (see figure). This shift is even more impressive as it can be categorized as an "intrinsic shift". In other words, the shift was consistent throughout all states, regardless of the distinction of blue, red, or battleground state (r^2=0.88).

2. Cell Phone Dynamics
The question of cell phones and the population that owns them and not a landline has been a key concern for pollsters this election cycle. Using our trademarked Quasi-Experimental Scientific Study (QESS) techniques, we segregated users based on exposure to a treatment. The result? We determined that there were a significant number of voters who owned cell phones but did not own landlines. In fact, the number of voters with these characteristics was significant in the 18-34 year-old demographic group. Our results showed that, likely, voters in this age group that owned cell phones and did not own land lines tended to favor Senator Obama by a two-to-one margin. This was about a 12% point shift from those within the same age group that owned landlines. When merged with all age groups, this shift was responsible for a 4 point shift in the polls (for a total of 8%).

View cell phone figure

3. The Palin Effect
Contrary to popular belief, the Palin Effect was a positive one for Senator McCain. While it is true that her favorability ratings dropped dramatically among voters after the first two weeks (see graph), Senator McCain's numbers experienced a significant increase after her nomination, and they remained high even as Governor Palin's numbers dropped. This suggests that Governor Palin's nomination made voters take a second look at Senator McCain, and those who were pleased with what they saw, stuck with him for the remainder of the race. A week before the election, Governor Palin's favorability numbers had dropped to the mid 20's, while McCain's hovered around 50. Thus, strategically speaking, the Palin vice presidential pick was a successful one and is unlikely to have cost Senator McCain in the voting booth.

View Palin's and McCain's favorability numbers

4. Volatility and Commitment Indexes
In a study of the 10 battleground states (name), we measured the volatility and commitment index of the voters as a function of time. Within these battleground states, we could assess those that were more likely to shift away from the current polling values, by assessing the following two factors: First, "how committed the voting population was"; and second, "how likely they were to shift their votes". These two parameters enabled us to rank the states according to a combined index. The result? All of the states, with the exception of Missouri and Virginia, shifted strongly towards Senator Obama; and all of the shifts were within the described volatility and commitment indexes. But why was the shift not seen in Virginia or Missouri? We turn to the next point to answer this question.

View combined volatility and commitment indexes ranking

5. Reduced Racial Bias
The so-called "Bradley Effect" was not as significant as many pollsters and pundits anticipated. In an experimental study, we gave likely voters the chance to switch their votes if they perceived their candidate as "lacking experience" or as "not knowing too much about the candidate". We surmised that these were two of the main reasons why voters might object to an Obama candidacy. We took the national average of people who picked Senator Obama, but who objected to a candidacy based on these two issues, and looked for any state that was 1.5 standard deviations above this mean. The only states that were clearly above the national average on this front were Missouri, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Two of these states tended towards Senator McCain relative to the expected spreads from the threshold polling numbers. These states were also significantly higher (more than 1.5 standard deviations) than the national mean when asked if "race could affect the election outcome." So although the racial impact was small nationally, one may interpret these results as being significant in some local areas. Coupled with the volatility results, this may yield some insight as to why MO and VA where the only two battle ground states that diverged from the general trend towards Senator Obama relative to the poll numbers.

3 days before election night, our system predicted the "best case" and "most likely" scenarios for Senators Obama and McCain. To obtain these numbers, we used a combination of our threshold percentage distribution (i.e., the polling numbers), coupled with our volatility and commitment indexes for each state. For the best case scenarios, we shifted all of the battleground states towards a 95th percentile shift for a particular candidate. For the most likely scenario, we coupled all our data, without shifting it in favor of any candidate; with the additional bias of our cell phone effect study. Our results were the following:

• Senator McCain's best case scenario: Obama 270: 268 McCain
• Senator Obama's Best case scenario: Obama 378:160 McCain
• Most Likely Scenario: Obama 364: 174 McCain

Thus, unlike many other Americans, we went to sleep soundly on election eve confident that Senator Obama would win the presidency and -- at worst -- win by two electoral votes.

Read more reaction from HuffPost bloggers to Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election

Erik Ose: Ten Chumps Who Helped Elect Barack Obama

2008-11-14T17:26:18Z

Barack Obama ran a great campaign. While shattering all fundraising records, he created a movement backed by small donors, not big lobbyists. Using community organizing techniques derided by his GOP opponents, he mobilized millions of supporters and gave them an ownership stake in his historic candidacy.

But he got some invaluable help along the way. With the post-election analysis season almost over, it's worth taking one final look at some of the characters who ensured President-elect Obama would make it to the White House.

This list is devoted to a special breed, seasoned political players and 15-minutes of famers alike, who did everything they could to stop Obama, only to see their efforts backfire. It's a bipartisan honor, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. For obvious reasons, this list omits the folks with the most to gain from Obama's defeat, namely, John McCain and Sarah Palin, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. Although they also deserve special recognition for trying every boneheaded trick they could dream up.

Jeremiah Wright - The good Reverend's sin was enjoying his turn at the microphone too much. From the start, he was a nuisance and distraction. Wright got irritated with Obama after being asked not to deliver the invocation at his 2007 announcement speech in Springfield, IL, and made sure the press knew about it. Rev. Wrong for Obama should have disappeared after tapes of his most incendiary sermons aired on national TV last March. But by resurfacing barely a month after Obama's masterful speech on race in Philadelphia, Wright tried his best to sabotage the damage control. And by continuing to draw attention to his outrageous beliefs in the process of defending himself, he allowed Obama to repudiate him entirely.

Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt - Joint acclaim for the two strategists who were initially hailed by the press as turning around McCain's campaign. They undid all their own hard work by advising McCain to pick Sarah Palin, thus undercutting Schmidt's strategy of painting Obama as too inexperienced to lead. They urged McCain to ignore his gut instinct to choose either Sen. Joe Lieberman or former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania. Together, their counsel trumped Mark Salter's preference of Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who would have been a formidable VP candidate. Pawlenty's only drawback was that he was sold to McCain as the safe pick, which left him out of step with McCain's need to gamble on a "maverick" choice.

Schmidt also deserves special props for convincing McCain to announce he was temporarily suspending his campaign and returning to Washington for what turned out to be bungled negotiations over the $700 billion financial bailout package. And Davis gets a shout out for signing off on TV spots attacking Obama over ties to former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac advisors, shortly before it was revealed he had been earning $15,000 a month as a lobbyist on Freddie Mac's payroll for the past several years.

Mark Penn - Assigning honors to Hillary's strategists is tough, because collectively they ran a criminally dysfunctional campaign unequaled in modern politics. But Mark Penn was at the center of much of the infighting and tension that plagued her inner circle. According to Newsweek's behind-the-scenes account of the election, Penn was suspected of being less than honest with the campaign team about polling results that were unfavorable to Hillary, which helped Obama catch them unaware and unprepared with his Iowa caucus victory.

John Edwards and Mike Easley - This pair of North Carolina pols each contributed an assist through the self-serving ways they tried to play the endorsement game. Edwards withheld his endorsement for months, until it was clear Obama would beat Hillary and be the Democratic nominee. Thus Edwards made sure he would not be identified as an Obama team player, and limited damage to the Democrats' chances when Edwards' own career went up in smoke in August in his self-inflicted adultery scandal. Outgoing N.C. Governor Mike Easley endorsed Hillary a week before the state's May 6 primary. In doing so, the unpopular lame duck enraged Obama voters in North Carolina, particularly African-Americans, and solidified Obama's support.

Joe The Plumber - By basking in his moment in the spotlight, and running his mouth about his far-right wing nutty beliefs, he was immediately discredited as a spokesperson for average working stiffs. The unlicensed plumber whose name wasn't even Joe and whose income level would qualify him for a tax cut under Obama's tax plans made a mockery of McCain's last-minute campaign gambit to frighten voters with the spectre of higher taxes.

Sheldon Adelson - The wealthy casino mogul behind the right wing 527 group Freedom's Watch was suspected of being the Republican sugar daddy who anonymously funded the Clarion Fund, which dumped 28 million anti-Islamic scare DVDs in swing states around the country through mailings and paid advertising supplements in newspapers. Adelson and similar fat cats who bankrolled GOP-leaning PAC's wasted lots of money producing an avalanche of hate propaganda - mailers, robocalls, even DVDs. But this campaign tactic has lost much of its effectiveness in a world where people have access to multiple sources of information on the internet, instead of being limited to what they see on TV, read in their newspapers, or find in their mailboxes. Should have spent their cash on registering new Republican voters at conservative churches, state fairs, and NASCAR races.

Geraldine Ferraro - The most prominent member of the Nobama Democrats, she gave credibility to the divisive, time-wasting efforts of pro-Hillary deadenders who clung to PUMA, Just Say No Deal, and other faux-grassroots groups after Obama clinched the nomination. Ferraro was forced to step down from her official role with the Clinton campaign in March after claiming, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," similar to comments she made in 1988 about an earlier black presidential contender ("If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race"). She reared her head again in May, quoted by the New York Times as saying she might not vote for Obama in the fall, because "I think Obama was terribly sexist."

Yet by refusing to cede her role as a Hillary surrogate, and tirelessly fanning the fames of party disunity, she helped keep media attention on the myth that there were legions of disaffected Hillary voters whose allegiance was available for harvest by any candidate in a pantsuit. Without Ferraro's efforts to keep the gender pot stirring, Sarah Palin might not have presented such a tempting opportunity for Team McCain to make a play for women voters.

Ashley Todd - It didn't get any uglier than this. Dishonorable mention goes to the mentally unstable McCain campaign volunteer with delusions of grandeur who thought she could scare America into believing she was attacked and robbed by a 6' 4" pro-Obama black thug who cut a (backwards) "B" into her face after spotting her McCain bumper sticker. Despite skepticism from police, the McCain camp rushed to exploit the situation, peddling breathless versions of events to the press that could not be confirmed at the time. McCain and Palin even called Todd to wish her well, guaranteeing the incident would receive widespread media coverage. Then Todd's story fell apart, as she admitted it was all a hoax and was charged with filing a false police report. The McCain campaign was left burned and looking even more desperate and unbalanced than they had before, with less than a week to go until the election.

Looking back over this parade of campaign horribles, it's no wonder the GOP blame game started long before election night, when the depths of McCain's meltdown became evident. There's a lot of credit to go around. But every fool on this list can rest assured that despite their worst intentions, they made a unique contribution towards helping the best man win in 2008.

Erik Ose is a veteran of Democratic campaigns in North Carolina and blogs at The Latest Outrage.

Hermene Hartman: The Day Everything Changed

2008-11-13T11:11:59Z

Barack Obama won the election on November 4, 2008. It was a historic day. The weather in Chicago was beautiful--unusually warm for a November day. It was a perfect day for voting. The weather cooperated in Chicago. The Windy City had virtually no wind.

The day God made was peaceful.

It was a superb day for winning an election.

A sea of people (250,000 people, some estimate) went to Grant Park to hear the president-elect of the United States give his acceptance speech not far from where DuSable, the Haitian fur trapper, first landed or where the southern black immigrants arrived at the famous 12th Street Station. Despite the large numbers, election night at Grant Park was calm and orderly. The evening had a spiritual essence. All kinds of people, the famous like Oprah Winfrey, Civil Rights leader Reverend Jesse Jackson, the ordinary, the powerful and those of foreign descent stood in wonder.

Many cried. Parents and grandparents witnessed the moment in satisfied disbelief because some never thought they would see that moment in their lifetime. Naysayers were converted into believers. Strangers hugged. High fives were in order. And when Obama came to the stage, applause erupted. When the applause died down and the president-elect began to speak with passion, the crowd grew still; you could have heard a snowflake fall to the ground as everyone listened intently. The change had come.

But what does it mean?

Chicago, the city by the lake, is a new city. Hyde Park is now Chicago's most famous community. The city shone on the day Barack won. City workers were out in force--policemen, traffic controllers and sanitation workers--for the most part, they were helpful, watchful and happy. People danced and strolled along Michigan Avenue (where T-shirts, hats and buttons were being sold) and after Obama's speech people went to restaurants and bars. A toast was in order. People partied as they watched the returns. People celebrated like it was a New Year's ball but it was even better because we all knew the celebration was for so much more. History had been made and we saw it happen.

Those who made it happen, the campaign workers, volunteers ... white ones, black ones, old ones, young ones ... all watched with us as it happened.

Barack Obama, whose hair is slightly grayer now, was elegant and majestic as he delivered a flawless acceptance speech; the victory was and is ours. The longest campaign ever had come to an end. The campaign was stellar, raising more money than any candidate in the history of American politics, and introduced a new technology of political marketing like no other. The campaign blazed new trails in cyberspace with daily messages and fundraising and opponents were never able to catch up. Obama connected with the young. The community organizer, who once worked the far South Side, reached his goal, did it his way and the world opened for him. Voting reached record numbers. He is the people's choice.

The job before him is tough. He will be lonely as he walks in the White House with the economy and the war as his burdens. Some will expect miracles from him but we all need to allow him to do his job. He will be a brilliant president. His style is to consult, listen and think a problem through. He will lead by example. The statue of black America rises. America will be united with him and the country's perception will change around the world as the "A" student assumes the powerful seat and the "C" student is removed. The made up, quick study, Alaskan governor who never made good sense goes back home. It's time to handle business.

The modern family with good old-fashioned values takes center stage. We will see darling little girls playing with their long-awaited dog playing in the White House.

They will be the first black American children to play on the front lawn and run through the halls. Michelle Obama takes her place and will make her own history. A new American woman emerges. She will be a fashion plate with values of substance. (I bet she will reach the status of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Princess Diana.) She will show some how to be a wife and a mother. We knew what she meant when she said during the campaign, "I have never been prouder of being an American." She had every right to make that statement. The Obama family has made us proud and will make us prouder in days to come as America's First Family.

Congratulations to all who voted, worked and donated. The people's trust in politics is restored. The country is united. Hope is revived. The dream realized. Chicago will step up to the plate. Black stereotypes will vanish. The minority notion will die. Decency will prevail. And all will be fine because of the man in the White House.

The next big day is January 20, 2009.

God Bless America, Chicago and The Obamas.

Page Gardner: The Lasting Lesson from Election '08: Deliver on the Hopes for Change That Led Unmarried Women to the Polls

2008-11-12T21:05:49Z

More than a week after a historic election, political analysts still are sifting through the results, trying to figure out how different segments of society voted, why they cast their ballots as they did, and what their political preferences and patterns of participation mean for the future.

But three lessons are inescapably clear: The electorate that changed America reflects a changing America -- younger, more racially and ethnically diverse, and less likely to be married. The largest demographic group within this new American electorate -- unmarried women -- played a pivotal role in electing Barack Obama as President, building a bigger margin for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and delivering the largest Democratic margins in national politics since 1964. And, for progressives from the White House to both houses of Congress, there is no more urgent challenge than addressing the needs of unmarried women -- especially for economic security - and ensuring that they continue to participate in the political process.

While they usually tend to register and vote less heavily than married people, unmarried women increased their participation this year. Indeed, 20 percent of unmarried women voters cast ballots in their first presidential election this year, compared to 11 percent of all voters and only 4 percent among married women. Similarly, unmarried women were more likely than other voters to have recently registered to vote, with 41 percent of these women having registered during the last four years. (Throughout this article, I am citing statistics compiled by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Women's Voices, Women Vote and Edison/Mitofsky.)

In addition to voting in numbers reflecting their presence in the population -- 53 million in all and 26 percent of voting-age adults -- unmarried women delivered decisive margins for Obama for president and Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, Senate, and public offices at almost every level of government. These women favored Obama over John McCain by a stunning 70-to-29 percent margin, while preferring Democratic candidates for the U.S. House by 63-to-31 percent and for the Senate. In a dramatic indication of how heavily unmarried women supported progressive candidates, Obama's overwhelming 70 percent share of unmarried women's votes was even greater than his 66 percent showing among young voters and his 67 percent of Latino voters.

Unmarried women's crucial role in electing Obama is underscored by the "marriage gap" between their political preferences and those of married women. While unmarried women supported Obama by 41 percentage points, married women favored McCain by 50-to-47 percent for a marriage gap of 44 points. By way of comparison, the gender gap between the preferences of women and men was surprisingly static at 12 percent.

Even more remarkably, in spite of the fact that they overwhelmingly believe that the nation has been "on the wrong track," unmarried women cast their votes in a spirit of hope and purpose, not anger and despair. Seventy-five percent of unmarried women agreed that "this election made me believe average people can help change the country." For these women, change means addressing the most important challenge in the lives -- pervasive economic insecurity.

In many ways, these single, separated, divorced and widowed women really are "women on their own." In an unstable economy, more than 40 percent have household incomes of $30,000 or less. In a discriminatory workplace, these women earn 56 cents for every dollar that a married man makes. In the midst of the healthcare crisis, these women are less likely than married people to have health coverage. In a society where it's difficult to balance work and family, more than 10 million are single moms with children at home. And, when they are too old to work, about 25 percent rely on Social Security as their only source of income.

Now, these women are on their own in a housing crisis, a financial crisis, and a deepening recession. They are more vulnerable than married people to foreclosures, layoffs and bankruptcies.

For President-elect Obama and the newly strengthened majorities in the House and Senate, the message of their mandate from unmarried women is clear: Address the issues of creating good-paying jobs, providing equal pay, expanding healthcare coverage, and securing retirement income that motivated these "women on their own" to register and vote in record numbers. For progressives generally, the lesson is even more emphatic: Our top priority must be to keep these women involved in the political process so that a changing electorate can continue to change America.

Page S. Gardner is president of Women's Voices, Women Vote, a national nonpartisan organization that seeks to increase unmarried women's participation in the political process.

Obama's Mixed Success Reshaping Electorate: In Some States, Fewer Blacks Voted

2008-11-11T23:24:47Z

Did Barack Obama meet his goals to reshape the electorate in key battleground states? Exit polls from 2004 and 2008 suggest the answer was yes in some respects, but no in others.

As the charts below demonstrate, the share of the vote cast by Hispanics rose substantially in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada -- all states carried by President Bush in 2004 that Obama captured in 2008. At the same time, Obama improved on the Democratic share of the vote among Hispanics in all three states, as well as in Florida, another 2004 red state that he captured this week.

Robert L. Borosage: The Center Left Nation

2008-11-11T22:49:45Z

Conservatives started spinning even before the dancing stopped on election night. Obama's victory is impressive, but "this is still a center right nation," went the mantra. "This was a good Democratic year, says Bill Kristol, "but this is still a center-right country. Conservative and the Republican Party will have a real chance for a comeback. National Review editor Rich Lowry is less sanguine, but concludes:

"Even in unimaginably challenging conditions for Republicans, the ideological composition of the election was essentially unchanged from 2004. Only 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals. The rest were moderates or conservatives. It is indeed, as conservatives have been insisting in recent days, a center-right country. The question is how to appeal to the center again."

Sure, this is a center-right country, but only if you substitute addition for analysis. There are more conservatives than liberals - as there has been for years. So add them to the 44% of the electorate that says they are "moderates," and you get a center-right majority.

But do a little analysis. "Moderate" isn't a place holder, as voters who describe themselves that way have attitudes on the issues of the day. And when you look at attitudes, rather than addition, there is no question: Conservatives have had their day. This is a center-left, not a center-right nation.

The Center for America's Future joined with Democracy Corps to do a nation wide poll on election eve (for full report and poll go here) and with an expanded sample, we could probe attitudes of voters by political identification. What we found was clear: on both values and issues, moderates line up with liberals to form a strong majority that isolates conservatives.

On national security, does our security depend on building strong ties with other nations or on our own military strength? Liberals say ties with other nations 76-20; moderates 63-31. Conservatives go the other way 51-43.

Should we begin to take troops out of Iraq or stay the course until we reach stability? Liberals 92-7 for getting troops out; moderates 64-33. Conservatives? By two to one -- 66-33 -- they would stay the course.

Does government regulation do more good or more harm? Liberals believe it does more good than harm by 75-18; moderates by 60-36. Conservatives go the other way, even after the financial collapse, 52-44.

Are you worried that we will fail to make investments we need to create jobs or worry that we will spend too much and have to raise taxes? Liberals worry about not making needed investments 73-23; moderates by 53-44. Conservatives worry about spending and taxes 69-29.

Did you worry more that Barack Obama would raise taxes or that John McCain would continue Bush's economic policies? Liberals by a margin of 58% worry about McCain; moderates the same by 29%. Conservatives by 46 - 70-24 - worry about Obama.

Should homosexuality be accepted or discouraged by society. Liberals say accepted by 82-17; moderates by 61-28. Conservatives want homosexuality discouraged by 63-31.

When we asked whether Republicans lost because they were too conservative or not conservative enough, or whether they should move to the center or reaffirm their principles and stay on the right, liberals and moderates were clear. They lost because they were too conservative and should move back towards the center. Conservatives, not surprisingly, reaffirmed the faith.

On issue after issue, moderates stand with liberals, not conservatives. This is a center-left nation.

Republicans are not only an aging, monochromatic, regional minority party. They not only must now suffer the circular firing squad that follows defeat. They not only struggle to find a compelling leader or a relevant agenda. They swim against the tide. They are a largely conservative party in a center-left nation. Obama's mandate is clear. And they'd be well advised to get out of the way.

Mark Konkol and Todd Fooks: Keeping Score In Chicago Episode 5: This is What Change Smells Like?

2008-11-11T17:09:03Z

President-elect Barack Obama declared victory in Grant Park amid celebration and the wafting scent of an herb now available for medicinal purposes in Michigan and our boy Fook caught the celebration on tape.

Hear it on this edition of Keeping Score In Chicago, along with Konkol's theory on who should replace Obama in the Senate and the guys talking about the house of (three) corpses in Evanston, the corpse quarterbacking for the Bears, why it's getting harder out there for a pimp and much more.

Be sure to check out Keeping Score in Chicago for more information and previous episodes.

Reese Schonfeld: Advice to Barack Obama: Be Modest in All Things

2008-11-11T17:04:14Z

This weekend, the Sunday morning chatterers bestowed their approval upon President-elect Obama's first press conference since his election. I was surprised, not so much because of what Obama said, but because of some of the words, the first person and the first person possessive, that he used time and time again. For a minute or two, if I had not known better, I would have imagined I was listening to Bush III in all his arrogance.

In his opening statement, Obama used the word "I" thirteen times. He used "my" five times -- once in reference to The Vice President, once in reference to the new Chief-of-Staff, in reference to the transition team, and once in reference to the Transition Economic Advisory Board he had just appointed. It sounded as if he thought he owned the people he selected or appointed to office -- and that's the way George Bush always sounded to me. And the way he acted towards most of his subordinates. (Not of course, including Vice President Cheney.) He threw in two "I'm"s and two "I've"s that didn't seem as annoying as the others.

Abraham Lincoln was able to get through the entire Gettysburg Address without using "I" once. John F. Kennedy, in his 1,366 word Inaugural Address used "I" only four times. Once as he took his oath of office, "For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago."; and three times when he promised to defend America, "In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation." He used it to acknowledge and accept a burden, not to glorify himself.

It was a different Obama, with a different voice, that I heard on Friday. He appeared to be flip and full of himself. His wise crack about Nancy Reagan's séances would have been a scandal had it flowed from the mouth of poor Joe Biden, but Obama was spared much press comment. (He did later call Mrs. Reagan to apologize.)

Now is the time for Barack Obama to appear modest and humble in the wake of his great triumph. John Kennedy and Barack share a speech writer, Ted Sorensen. It was Sorensen who has been given credit for the inaugural address. Both Barack and Kennedy were great orators, able to change men's minds with words. Kennedy often used words written by Sorensen. I think it would behoove Obama to do more of the same. Modesty is a virtue, even if you don't have anything to be modest about.

Scott Kesterson: A Moment to Reflect

2008-11-11T16:14:55Z

I need to take a moment to add a few comments about the soldiers I am with. I pride myself in telling the stories of the men and women that are deployed, with as little bias as possible. With a degree in History and as a Photojournalist, there is nothing greater in my view than recording the candid and often vulnerable moments that define us as people. The palette I have chosen at this juncture in my life is war, a challenging and at times treacherous environment that offers a view into the human soul in its full breadth of multiplicity and contrast. I enter each of these embeds with the understanding that I am here to record their story, good and bad, as it happens and as they experience it. As part of that, I work hard at holding my own opinions close.

In the past few days there has been a torrent of anger and hate written in response to a blog titled, "The Other Side of Paradise." I wrote that blog in two parts, showing two different reactions to the election. The posts came about from a direct query from Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post, asking for a submission on the reaction of those overseas to the Election Night results.

I let the soldiers know what I wanted to do, and they agreed to let me share their feelings with the world. There was no agenda. The blogs were written as snap shots in time, to offer a view of feelings and reactions to what was truly a historic election.

I have become deeply saddened by the hundreds of responses that have been so rife with contempt and character assassinations. What does all of this say about a country I love so much, or the view of the men and women who choose to serve a cause they believe in? Have we fallen to a repeat of Vietnam, lashing out through the Internet with the same hatred that was displayed through demonstrations and protests of the late 1960s and 70s? What does this say about us as citizens who have voted to embrace a new and better America under the leadership of a new President, that these soldiers who expressed their opinions have now been condemned for holding an opinion that is different than the election results? Have we forgotten the foundations that make our democracy strong... the right to voice what we feel with the freedom and security that we can do so without fear of reprisal?

The soldiers that are in our military are a melting pot of our culture. They come from all walks of life: some poor, some rich, others in between, all making a choice to serve for personal reasons, but ultimately embracing a common set of ideals to uphold and defend the values and way of life we hold so dear. I stand by the fact that these soldiers' opinions are theirs to have, even though they may be highly unpopular. Being unpopular does not, however, make their opinion any less valid nor criminal. And regardless of whether one agrees with the motives and ideologies driving these two wars, these soldiers have made a choice to serve this country and are doing so as they are directed to do.

As I write this I find myself reflecting on an incident that happened in Dallas, Texas over a year ago. A man, drunk and lost, began banging on the door of a house late at night. He had apparently mistaken the house for another. The owner of the home felt threatened, and fired several times through the door, killing the drunken man on his front steps. No charges were filed; it was considered self-defense. A soldier in either of the war zones that would dare fire and kill someone in the same manner would be investigated and most probably charged with murder. We hold soldiers to a higher standard than we do ourselves, always quick to send them out to do the dirty work, always quick to condemn them when they fail to meet the standards of perfection that few if any citizen could meet themselves.

So as we enter into this new period of change, I think it is important to recognize that not all will walk in unison to the same beat and drummer. We are a diverse culture and it is our diversity in race, religion, beliefs and values that makes us who we are. As I read through the hundreds of responses, I keep finding myself asking what this new vision of America is about, and where it will take us. Eight years of war has taken its toll, but I truly hope that the scars of war have not blinded us to the fact the we are all still Americans at the core. What that America will look like only time will tell, but through it I would hope that we will remember that being American is about being free to choose, free to speak, and above all, doing so with the respect and courage to honor the range of individuality that is the foundation for a healthy democracy.

Most respectfully,

Scott Kesterson.