Presidential Debates on The Huffington Post

Kate Kelly: The American Spirit Personified

2009-08-25T10:27:40Z

In what can only be described as a miracle of Internet connectivity, I have heard from a person whom I mentioned in a blog post I wrote last autumn about how and when the tradition of presidential debates began http://americacomesalive.com/blog/2008/09/long-history-of-debates.html. In the post, I noted that debates are a relatively recent phenomenon, originally suggested in 1956 by a University of Maryland student by the name of Fred A. Kahn, who was credited with the idea in newspapers of the day.

Kahn did what he could to get the idea rolling, but it was four years later when the League of Women Voters stepped forward to sponsor the first scheduled presidential debates in 1960. That debate, of course, was the precedent-setting televised debate between Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy.

About a month ago, I checked my In Box and found several e-mail messages from Fred A. Kahn. Because several months had passed, I did not immediately remember the name, but something caught my attention, and I opened the first message and realized who it was. Wow! This was thrilling! I quickly responded to Mr. Kahn, and set a time for a telephone interview. I wanted to hear about how the idea of the debates had occurred to him and what had happened to him since that time.

Kahn's story represents everything that is good about this country. Kahn was born in 1932 to Jewish parents in Germany, just 40 days before Hitler came to power. His parents fled to Belgium to escape the Nazis. Because traveling with a newborn would have put them all at risk, they left the baby with a childless aunt and uncle eager to care for him. The political situation did not improve so returning for their son became unworkable, but in 1938, with the signing of the Munich Pact (with Great Britain and France agreeing to many of Hitler's demands), circumstances for Jews in Germany became more dire.

Kahn's father worked through connections to arrange for a family friend, a Christian, to bring Kahn by tram to the German border where the family hoped guards would feel there was no harm in letting such a young child cross into Belgium without the necessary paperwork. The two countries had a "no man's land between them," and Kahn's father stood on the Belgian side imploring the guards to let the young boy cross, calling, "C'est mon fils!" Fritz, as he was called then, finally was permitted to cross to the father he had never known, and he went into hiding with his family. He and his parents survived the war but the aunt and uncle who had cared for him were killed in a death camp in Germany.

Kahn immigrated to the United States at the age of 19, and shortly after his arrival in 1952, he received a draft notice for the U.S. Army. Kahn reported for duty but when the officers discovered he was not yet a citizen, they discharged him. Kahn signed up anyway, eventually being assigned to Fort Bragg, the home of the 82nd Airborne. Because of his language skills he was given a role in military intelligence and sent to Germany.

By 1956 Kahn had received his citizenship papers, and he had returned to the United States. Though he was accepted at Johns Hopkins and wanted to attend there, the school was out of the price range of what the young man could afford, even with the help of the G.I. Bill. He enrolled in the University of Maryland where he became vice president of the International Club. It was from this position that he floated out the idea of presidential debates, inviting the 1956 candidates, Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower, to come to the university to discuss the issues.

"I wrote up ten reasons why there should be a presidential debate," explains Kahn. He approached members of both political parties for endorsement of the idea, contacting Eleanor Roosevelt to represent the Democrats, and getting in touch with the Republican Governor of Maryland Theodore McKeldin, who had nominated Dwight Eisenhower at the Republican convention.

"I also contacted the press," says Kahn. "I sent my information and the endorsements to the AP and UPI. [the major news services of the day]."

Unfortunately, the Maryland Board of Regents that oversees the university stepped in and ruled that no political speeches could be scheduled on campus. A previous experience with a politician who launched his candidacy from the University of Maryland made them gun-shy, and the administrators pointed out that most college students could not vote anyway (18-year-olds did not receive the right to vote until 1971).

But Kahn's idea took root. In 1960 the League of Women Voters began what is now regarded as a campaign tradition, though now the debates are overseen by a separate Presidential Commission.

Kahn graduated from the University of Maryland and was given a Woodrow Wilson fellowship which permitted him to get a graduate degree from his dream school, Johns Hopkins. He then went on to a 30-year career as a political economist, helping to create the Job Corps for the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity and then working for the Department of Labor. In 2005, the governor of Maryland appointed Kahn to a new state task force to implement holocaust, genocide, human rights, and tolerance education.

Now in retirement, he devotes his time to reminding people of the horrors of the Holocaust so that it will not be repeated. Kahn oversees a Yahoo group to that purpose, http://Remember_The_Holocaust@yahoogroups.com. Remember_The_Holocaust@yahoogroups.com.

A man who has chosen U.S. citizenship, served in our military, worked for the U.S. government, and donates his time to an important purpose, is a man who is a role model for us all. When I asked Kahn for his best advice to others, he replied without hesitation:

"Lots of people have good ideas but they don't always do what is necessary to get them out there," Kahn says. "If there is something that is important to you, get behind it -- pursue your ideas."

Telmah Parsa: Inside Tehran: Practicing Democracy, Iran Style

2009-06-12T14:10:03Z

On the eve of Iran's presidential election, the Islamic state shut off the text messaging services of all cell phones, and as I am writing this it is still impossible to text someone in Iran. Also, state-imposed "parasite" signals have been reported to be interfering with satellite TV channels particularly BBC Persian and VOA Farsi. The Iranian regime apparently has turned the country into a huge closed military zone. This odd situation is a good example of the Iranian style of democracy. Despite all the shortcomings though, today is a big day for democracy in Iran. The country is seeing record numbers of people stand in lines for hours to cast their vote for president. Here I report my personal account of this historical day:

Today I went to a mosque to cast my vote. The pile of shoes at the entrance indicated a large crowd inside (Muslims are not supposed to enter holy places with their shoes on). Amidst the rising heat, rotating ceiling fans wreaked havoc with the hems of the black chadors of the women standing in one line, alongside which men with visibly damp armpits formed a separate queue. Every now and then a surge of murmurs swept the interior of the mosque and then subsided.

"Would someone please open the window?"

A voice from the women's line piped up. A young man struggled with the handle of the rusty window and opened it. He was Amin, a friend. He noticed me in the crowd.

"How are you doing?" He asked.

"Cut the formalities! Who are you going to vote for?" I asked abruptly.

"Rezaii. He was the head of the Revolutionary Guards for so many years. He knows how to get us out of this mess."

Amin referred to the pragmatic-conservative candidate Mohsen Rezaii who is widely believed to have entered the race in order to cut back on Ahmadinejad's conservative votes. He owns the news website Tabnak. Its predecessor, Baztab, was closed down by Ahmadinejad's government for revealing 'undesirable' information.

"Do you think he can actually win?" I replied.

Here a man standing behind us interjected: "Of course not. But he's the best one among them all. All candidates proved filthy liars and corrupt in the debates."

The man seemed to have a very critical view of the debates. He probably had taken every candidate at his word and thus had come to this cynical conclusion. Of course he was not the only one who felt disillusioned with the Islamic system. For 30 years the Islamic Republic via its state-run TV has tried to instill the illusion of a perfect harmony among its loyal politicians. Khamenei, our Supreme Leader once said:

"We don't have good or bad choices in the Islamic state. These are for Western democracies. Here, all candidates have been approved. They all deserve being elected. The decision Iranians have to make is to choose the best among the good."

The televised vitriolic debates, however, gave a far different impression. In a short span of time the debaters crossed a slew of conventional redlines. Ahmadinejad accused powerful clerics - pillars of the Islamic Revolution, one could say - and their sons of being financially corrupt. Other candidates explicitly called Ahmadinejad a liar and a populist playing with figures and statistics.

Not surprisingly, many Iranians were shocked. My aunt, a teacher, turned red and almost cried in one of these debates. She could never imagine that there could be corrupt politicians in the Islamic Republic.

In the debates, Rezaii was the only candidate who tried not to get on Ahmadinejad's worst side. Faced with Ahmadinejad's financial graphs and histograms, he restrained himself from declaring Ahmadinejad an all-out liar. But even he was not spared from the incumbent president's attacks. Throughout the debate, Ahmadinejad addressed him condescendingly, forcing Rezaii to exclaim at the end that Ahmadinejad's main problem was that he assumed he was an expert in every field.

Ahmadinejad's unpleasant demeanor seems to have repelled many Iranians. My parents, while pro-Ahmadinejad, have said frequently that they would have voted for Rezaii in other circumstances. Many Iranians call Ahmadinejad a liar. An ad for Moussavi, Ahmadinejad's main challenger, reads: "On Friday, Pinocchio will be punished." It doesn't bode well for the Islamic state, which enforces strict moral laws on its subjects, that its head of government should be epitomized with mendacity.

The debates were but one of the unique aspects of this presidential election. There have never been so many text messages, blogs, and websites commenting on an election. Nor has there ever been such popular passion. At night, the honking of car horns in political solidarity has become a cacophony!

As I left the mosque after voting and searched for my sandals amidst the pile of shoes, I tried to send a text-message to a friend. It went nowhere. I had forgotten that the Islamic state had disabled the text-messaging services. I had forgotten that Iran has a far way to go before becoming a true democracy.

Obama Overseas Trip Behind The Scenes Photos (SLIDESHOW)

2009-04-13T12:02:17Z

President Obama's first major trip overseas has been over for almost a week, but some of the best photos from the eight day extravaganza came out today on the White House's website. These snaps are behind the scenes and capture some private moments between the President and Secretary of State Clinton, the staff on Air Force One, Obama's personal aide taking notes and the first couple talking to the Queen of England.

Scroll through to see the great photos all from Whitehouse.gov:

John Wellington Ennis: Obama Should Debate Rush Limbaugh

2009-03-29T16:47:33Z

As pointed out here on Huff Po by Earl Ofari Hutchinson, the drawn-out battle between the White House and Rush Limbaugh has served to expand Limbaugh's ratings numbers. Back in his sweet spot as an underdog, Limbaugh's ballooning numbers have matched his inflating ego ever since President Obama first suggested to Republican leaders: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

This frank acknowledgment to me indicates what a normal guy Obama is, still grappling with the Presidency that transcends him. This same simple talk slipped last week at his town hall when he stopped himself from referring to low-paying jobs at "Mickey..." (as in Mickey D's, how many other Chicagoans refer to McDonald's) then correcting himself to say "fast food."

Yet dignifying one heavyweight right-wing talk show host is not particularly presidential, though in the ensuing smoke-out of the GOP, their leaders have behaved as Keystone Kops in Brooks Brothers suits, chasing the case of "It's the Great Socialist, Charlie Brown!" In this leadership vacuum that even the most ardent conservatives deride, it is no surprise more disillusioned conservatives have gravitated to Rush's rants and Fallacy Fests.

At this point, there is a real disconnect brought on by the world as defined by Limbaugh to his Dittoheads (people who proudly adopt the nickname of "what he said, me too") and the world as it actually exists. What Limbaugh frequently charges the Obama Administration with would come out in the wash under the scrutiny of the mainstream press corps, however tabloid their tastes.

That is why I feel strongly that President Obama should take up Rush Limbaugh on his challenge to a debate.

What's more, I propose a series of debates. No hurry, I expect the time would be in late fall of 2012. By that point, Limbaugh would have secured the Republican nomination for President, and in the tradition of our great country, it would be his right to debate the incumbent president. Since Limbaugh has so much to say, I am sure he would be very eager for a face-to-face opportunity to tell the president, and the world, how he will lead the country in the right direction, back to 1981.

Of course, that assumes that Rush Limbaugh would dare step outside of the insulated radio studio where he famously talked himself deaf. This also presumes that he would survive the thorough vetting in the public eye, and will have satisfactorily explained his pill addictions, prescription shopping, and sex tourism, like when he bragged after being detained at a Palm Springs airport with illegal Viagra: "I had a great time in the Dominican Republic. Wish I could tell you about it."

It also should go without saying that the Republican Party would embrace their nominee despite his three divorces, his lack of religious conviction, his lack of a college education, his lack of political or campaign experience, and even his lack of actual debate ability.

Finally, Rush would have the opportunity to explain to all of America, not just his audience, about how he would be a better leader for America, because he hoped the current leader of America failed, as if it were a rival nation.

His campaign would easily be self-financed, since he has a $400 million contract, and many of his white working-class male listeners will still be unemployed thanks to the laissez-faire economics Rush preaches, the only French he knows.

And at that point, after decades of spewing attacks on our government and its leaders, will we get to hear what Rush Limbaugh would actually do besides eliminate his own taxes and take away welfare from poor people, because according to him, welfare destroys families because it makes them not rely on the father.

I think a lot of people would like to see this event. It might not be exactly what Rush envisioned, though. I suspect he fantasized that Obama would call in to his show, and he could put him on hold, and then tell his audience: "Look! I put the President of the United States on hold! I'm Rush Limbaugh!" Rush could then interrupt and re-direct the conversation with his sweeping unanswerable questions, like: "Where is the compromise between good and evil? Should Jesus have cut a different deal?" And then he could play his ring tone of "Barack the Magic Negro," and ask Obama what's so offensive about it.

Or, maybe not. Maybe Rush Limbaugh is a bitter, bullying, bloviating blowhard bent on bashing anything that allows him to argue arrogantly about any ideas that he can tie back to himself, without fear of accountability. Maybe given the opportunity to see these two men compared together, many other people would see that as well.

Louis Belanger: Are We Not Human? Diary from an Oxfam Aid Worker in Gaza City

2009-01-06T12:48:11Z

Here is the daily blog from my colleague Mohammed Ali, an aid worker with Oxfam who operates in the Gaza strip:

Gaza City: The air, the sea and the earth in Gaza city are now occupied by the Israeli military. They occupy Gazans' minds, nerves and ears too. In a bid to stop my children twitching, jerking, trembling and waking at every sound of an attack during their few hours sleep and their many waking hours, I put cotton wool in their ears - it has not worked. I wonder what damage is being done to my children's tiny hearts, theirs are not as big as mine, they can cope less with the stress that is being put on them.

We ran out of fuel for our generator, which meant that we were confined to a small room filled with eleven people, with little light for three days. We have not had water either; our well can only pump water if it has electricity which most of the Gaza strip has been denied since this nightmare started.

Unlike many other families, we were fortunate yesterday to find twenty litres of benzene to power our generator. No fuel has come in since the onset of this attack on Gaza so we had to pay seven times its usual price.

We have one day left of food and the nappies I bought two weeks ago are nearly gone. They are not good quality as little has been able to enter this strip of land since the blockade was imposed on us eighteen months ago. Bad quality nappies means unpleasant leakages, and for the last few days the little ones have had to be bathed in freezing cold water.

My sister recently decided to return home in spite of our protests. She feared that with food reserves running out we might have to eat one meal a day rather than the two we have been having of late. At home she has a little food left, enough to keep her and her family going for a while longer.

We are now eleven, huddled together in my parents' dining room. My brother and I and our families moved there, thinking that the first floor may be the safest option. There is a saying in Arabic, which says, ' death in a group is a mercy', I guess if we die together maybe just maybe we will feel less of the pain than in doing so alone.

I have had 8 hours sleep since the beginning of this conflict; we can hear attacks almost every minute.

I think to myself, if one of us is injured or needs medical attention what will happen? Ambulances are finding it difficult to reach civilians, roads are blocked by rubble, Israeli forces in their path...you could bleed to death... even if they did get to us, maybe we would be bombed on our way to the hospital...if we did reach the hospital there might not be enough room to treat us...little medication or equipment we need or any electricity to fuel the life saving equipment...we would not even be able to get out of Gaza for the life saving treatment we needed.

Hospitals are now running on back up generators making life even more difficult for the doctors who are trying to cope with the influx of those injured. If fuel runs out for the generators, those on life saving equipment will perish.

I heard a woman calling up the radio today, ambulance services could not reach her. I guess she thought the radio station might be able to do something. She was wailing down the phone "our home is on fire, my children are dying...help me! " I do not know what happened to her and her children, I do not want to imagine.

I spend much of my time thinking that this could be the last hour of my existence... as I try to fall asleep, I hear on the radio the numbers of people who have died rising by the hour ... I wonder if tomorrow morning, I will be part of that body count, of the next breaking news... I will be just another number to all those watching the death and destruction in Gaza... or maybe the fact that I work for Oxfam will mean that I will be a name and not just a number... I might be talked about for a minute and moments later forgotten, like all those other people who have had their lives taken away from them.

I am not afraid of dying -- I know that one day we all must die. But not like this, not sitting idly in my home with my children in my arms waiting for our lives to be taken away. I am disgusted by this injustice.

What is the international community waiting for, to see even more dismembered people, and families erased before they act?

What is happening is against humanity. Are we not human?

The Top 10 Political Upsets Of 2008

2008-12-29T09:38:37Z

Every election cycle has its share of upset winners, the candidates who pulled off long-shot victories that surprised the pundits, the political professionals and sometimes even themselves.

This year was no different -- and was perhaps even a little more eventful because of the dramatic presidential nomination battles in both parties.

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.

World Leaders, The Taliban Press Obama On Foreign Policy

2008-11-13T15:52:49Z

The Russians want him to hold off installation of a missile defense shield in Poland. The Europeans want him to renounce the idea of "regime change" when it comes to Iran, while the Israelis want to be sure he doesn't give Iran a pass when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Oh, and let's not forget the Taliban, which issued a statement this week urging him to "put an end to all the policies being followed by his Opposition Party, the Republicans, and pull out U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Iraq."

Obama Won't Silence Rush Limbaugh, Despite Right-Wing Claims

2008-11-11T18:03:26Z

Will the Obama administration force Rush Limbaugh off the air? Some conservative activists are claiming such a tragedy is nearly at hand, and they've been trying to whip up a frenzy. Limbaugh and his brethren believe Democrats are plotting a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, a controversial policy once enforced by the Federal Communications Commission to ensure broadcasters presented balanced views in their coverage of controversial subjects. While perhaps well intended, the Truman-era rule ultimately encouraged broadcasters to avoid touchy topics altogether, rather than seek out contrasting viewpoints. Many broadcast journalists saw the rule as a major violation of their free-speech rights. The FCC voted to abolish it in 1987. Democrats attempted to revive the rule, but President George H.W. Bush threatened to veto the legislation (as Ronald Reagan had in 1987), and those efforts failed. Since then, the Fairness Doctrine has largely been relegated to textbooks on media law--that is, until it was resurrected as the latest conservative bugaboo.

Robert Loerzel: When The World Watched Chicago

2008-11-05T18:37:43Z

As just about everyone pointed out on Tuesday night, Barack Obama's election as president was a moment of huge historical significance for the nation. Obama's eloquent election-night speech in Grant Park is also surely one of the great moments in Chicago history.

Forty years ago, when protestors and police clashed outside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago (including demonstrations in Grant Park), a catch phrase emerged: "The whole world is watching." The same thing was true on Tuesday, but this time, the world turned its eyes to Chicago with hope instead of alarm or shame. For the first time, an African-American had been elected president, and there he was on a stage in Chicago's lakefront park in front of an estimated 100,000 people.

Of course, how historians judge this moment will depend on what happens once Obama takes office, but it certainly felt like a turning point in American politics. And where will it rank among Chicago's most famous historical political events? It already belongs on a short list of signal moments when political events in Chicago affected the nation and the world.

The aforementioned 1968 Democratic National Convention is clearly one of the key events to take place in Chicago.

Another was May 18, 1860, when Republican delegates nominated Abraham Lincoln inside a big wooden structure called the Wigwam, built especially for the occasion at Lake Street and the Chicago River. "Last-minute backroom deals, plus a successful scheme to pack the galleries with holders of counterfeit tickets, brought unexpected victory to Abraham Lincoln," R. Craig Sautter writes in The Encyclopedia of Chicago. (Sautter also wrote Inside the Wigwam: Chicago's Presidential Conventions, 1860-1996 with co-author Edward M. Burke.)

The Abraham Lincoln's Classroom Web site quotes the Springfield (Mass.) Daily Republican's description of the reaction when Lincoln won the nomination on the third ballot: "The audience, like a wild colt with a bit between its teeth, rose above all cry of order, and again and again the irrepressible applause broke forth and resounded far and wide ... The Illinois, Indiana and Ohio delegates seemed wild. They acted like madmen. One smashed his hat on another's head, who returned the compliment, which was followed by a mutual embrace."

One of the most famous political addresses of all time was William Jennings Bryan's speech on July 9, 1896, at the Democratic convention in Chicago's first Coliseum on 63rd Street. Condemning the gold standard, Bryan thundered: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold." The speech catapulted the 36-year-old Bryan to the party's nomination, but he went on to lose three presidential bids. And as riveting as his speech may have been in 1896, it now takes some effort to figure out what everyone was so excited about back then. (A recent story on NPR's All Things Considered talks about the Bryan speech in more detail. A recording Bryan later made of the speech is at http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/.)

One significant speech in Chicago often gets overlooked. On April 2, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt visited Chicago and spoke to six thousand people who had crammed into the Auditorium Theatre. The topic of his talk was why he believed the United States needed a strong Navy to maintain peace in the world. Roosevelt used a phrase that he had come to think of a personal adage. In the past, he had called it a West African proverb, but few people had taken much notice of it. This time, he said: "There is a homely old adage which runs: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick: you will go far.'" The Chicagoans responded with vigorous applause. To some observers, it seemed as if they'd heard the aggressive half of Roosevelt's proverb more clearly than his call for speaking softly. In a front-page headline the following morning, the Chicago Daily Tribune cemented Roosevelt's phrase in the public's mind: "SPEAK SOFTLY; CARRY BIG STICK; SAYS ROOSEVELT."

Chicago continued to host many of the national conventions over the years, including the 1932 Democratic gathering at the new Chicago Stadium, where Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the first-ever convention acceptance speech. Addressing the great difficulties America faced, FDR coined the term that would come to define his policies. "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people," he said at the end of his speech. "Let us all here assembled constitute ourselves prophets of a new order of competence and of courage. This is more than a political campaign; it is a call to arms. Give me your help, not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people." (The text is at http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932b.htm, and NPR's Weekend Edition ran a story in 2007 about the "New Deal for America" speech.)

Chicago made history again on Sept. 26, 1960,when WBBM-TV hosted the first presidential debate at its studio, with John F. Kennedy famously looking better on TV screens than his rival, Richard Nixon.

These were some of the key moments when Chicago was at the center of America's politics. (I'd be glad to hear any suggestions for ones I've overlooked). I believe we can now add Obama's victory speech to the list.

Robert Guttman: Barack Obama: America's 44th President

2008-11-05T10:24:07Z

"There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America -- there's the United States of America."
-- Obama speech at 2004 Democratic Convention

The election of Illinois Senator Barack Obama as America's 44th president is astounding, historical, implausible, improbable and completely without precedent in the history of the United States.

The gifted orator from Abraham Lincoln's home state put together an impressive victory in the November election, convincing a majority of Americans that he was the person who could lead us in these troubled economic times at home and with our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan abroad.

A year ago, the conventional wisdom in the country was that Senator Hillary Clinton was too strong for any other Democrat to defeat for the Democratic nomination for president.

Yet the first term United States Senator from Illinois took on the Clinton machine and won the Democratic nomination. Not only did he defeat Clinton but he showed his incredible ability to raise money -- mainly from the Internet -- that will forever change the way presidential candidates raise money in future elections.

At a time of uncertainty in the United States and abroad, the American voter showed that he is willing to take a gamble with a relatively unknown and untested person to become our new president. Obama, who will become the first African-American ever elected president of the United States, put together a winning combination of liberals, traditional blue collar Democrats and independent voters in order to reach the White House.

Apparently the American voter agreed with the new president when he stated several months before the Iowa caucus in November 2007, "I'm asking you to stand with me...I'm asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept...In this moment, let us reach for what we know is possible. A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again."

And Americans who went to the polls in record numbers in November obviously decided to "stand with" Obama, the Senate's most junior member ranked 99th in seniority. The American voter took a leap of faith in electing a politician without years of experience on the national scene.

In fact, the new president was only a member of the Illinois State Senate when he spoke out against the Iraq War. His views against the administration's decision to invade Iraq won him respectability with the liberal Democratic activists he needed to win over during the primaries and caucuses. His opposition to the war in Iraq from the very beginning contrasted with Senator Clinton's vote to give the president authority to go to war.

Choosing Senator Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who has called America's involvement in Iraq "one of our country's worst foreign policy mistakes," helped him in the general election campaign. Biden provided the gravitas -- the elder statesman -- that Obama needed to overcome his lack of years in the national limelight.

Biden also helped win Pennsylvania and other key states which led to him become America's new vice-president. He will be extremely helpful working with the new president on foreign policy issues.

While Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq helped him win the Democratic nomination for president, it was the declining economy that helped catapult him into the White House. Senator John McCain, the defeated Republican candidate for president, ran for the Oval Office stressing his skills in foreign policy. The senator from Arizona and former POW during the Vietnam War readily admitted to the America public that he knew very little about economics.

With the failure of financial institutions, the huge bailout by Congress and the terrible days on the New York Stock Exchange and global markets, the popularity of President George W. Bush sank below 20 percent, one of the worst approval ratings in American history since polling began.

With the American voters criticizing the lack of financial oversight by the federal government, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the liquidity and credit crisis and an overall crisis of confidence in the Bush Administration and Republicans, Americans voted in record numbers to "throw the rascals out."

Historically, in tough economic times voters have felt the Democrats have better solutions to their problems. The new president does not have much of an economic background but he convinced the American voter that he knew what they were going through during these hard times and could "feel their pain" more than his Republican opponent.

Voters said the economy was the key issue of concern in the presidential campaign and Obama was their pick by a two to one margin to be the best person to solve our economic and financial problems. Analyst comments were that it was the economy that put Obama into the White House. And, not unlike the First One Hundred Days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Obama administration will have to find answers and find them quickly to justify his election as our new president.

Obama will have to work closely with the new heavily controlled Democratic Congress to enact legislation to give the necessary regulatory powers to the federal government to try to make certain this type of economic meltdown will never happen again.

The new president who campaigned on "Change We Can Believe In" will now have to deliver and deliver quickly on how this change can correct the American economy that failed so badly in the last few months of the Bush Administration.

Along with the staggering goal of fixing our economy and ailing companies, the new president will also have to make good on his pledge to pull out American troops from Iraq without a complete collapse of the military and government in that war-torn nation.

President Obama will also have to follow through on his statements about shoring up America's and NATO's position in Afghanistan. He called for more U.S. troops to what he sees as the center of terrorism -- Afghanistan -- during the campaign.

And, he also promised universal health care to all Americans during his race for the White House. Where will the new president find the money and the will to bring about this promise he made to the American voter?

Not many presidents have come into office with so many major problems facing the country. Never in recent times has the U.S. economy, been in such peril. Never have we faced two wars and a war on terrorism at the same time.

President Obama and Vice-President Biden will have their hands full, to say the least. They have the good will and backing of the American people and of people around the world who are glad that America has a new president who is not named George W. Bush.

President Obama ran a remarkable, skillful and, in the end, a winning campaign. It is now time to put his talents to work running the American government. Let us hope our faith in him was not mistaken and he can rise to the situation as well as Frankin D. Roosevelt did during the Depression.

As President Obama has stated, it is time to put partisanship behind and rebuild America -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- all working together.

Yes, we can. Let us hope that this is more than just a campaign slogan!

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

Michael DeJong: Daylight Savings

2008-11-04T13:09:29Z

"Daylight" can mean many different things. It can refer to a particular quality of light. It can also mean daybreak or daytime. More abstractly it can describe how facts are brought to the surface, an insight into obscure understanding or an almost indistinguishable bit of light between two things. But many of us think about it when it's tied to Daylight Savings.

What started as a lucky break for farmers, the clock "falling back" went on to enable many to have an early breakfast and then be off to industrialized work in the newly granted hour of daylight. And conversely, when the clocks "spring ahead," it offers children the safety of daylight while on their way home from school.

One of the added benefits that hadn't been considered at its inception is that Daylight Savings is also connected to energy-efficiency. Twenty-five percent of the electricity we use goes to operating the modern conveniences and all the high tech "stuff" in our lives as well as for the lighting necessary to see what we're doing. So by the mere fact of twice yearly adjusting the time forward or back an hour, we actually minimize the tons of electricity we gobble up in those hours.

In a perfect world, when we're cutting zzz's...most of us would shut off all unused energy zappers--unplug computers, TVs, cell phone chargers, etc. But not every individual or household has the same energy needs, or, for that matter, the same comfort level with limiting their energy usage.

For instance, I usually wander off to bed at 10:00-ish and my partner stays up watching anything political including the presidential debates, the "blah-blah-blah" pundit coverage before and after, and then reruns of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. We both use energy differently, as do probably most households with more than one person, and although the electricity not used because of Daylight Saving might seem miniscule, added up, household upon household, office upon office, street light upon streetlight...collectively it can add up to energy savings and carbon emissions depletion. While hardly enough to undo all the environmental damage already done, it is, however another tool in the arsenal of personal action steps for individuals who want to make a contribution to saving our planet.

What most people aren't aware of, however, is that among his many other brilliant achievements, the same person who wrote "Fart Proudly," Founding Father Benjamin Franklin was actually the first person to recommend daylight savings back in 1784. It wasn't, however, until much-much later, during WWI in fact, that it was finally mandated. But it was indeed Franklin who first saw the practical aspects of just one hour vanishing here and yet another hour materializing there.

Who knows...falling on the weekend before election day, it might even affect the daylight left to shine some light on the Obama or McCain campaigns. To paraphrase a clever remark by Barack Obama:

"Like George Bush, John McCain wants to keep giving tax breaks to oil companies, CEOs and companies that ship our jobs overseas; tax health care benefits allowing insurance companies to discriminate against people who need health care the most; privatize Social Security; and further reduce government regulation of business...when it comes to the policies that matter for middle class families, there's not an inch of daylight between George Bush and John McCain."

And much like Bush, McCain has absolutely no plan for how to get our military out of Iraq and into Afghanistan where they are needed most. (If the Bee-Gees had to write a campaign song for McCain/Palin it would sound like "Ah, ah, ah, ah...Stay in Iraq, Stay in Iraq.") It was Franklin who also said, "A penny saved is a penny earned," and the price of staying in Iraq saves nothing - not daylight, not our brave soldiers' lives, not our moral standing in the world...nothing.

In springtime, Daylight Savings means we move our clocks ahead. In the autumn we move them back.... some call it falling back. If John McCain wins on November 4th, it'll feel more like being held back!

McCain Vs. Palin: The Debate [VIDEO]

2008-11-04T11:45:57Z

If tonight's election results stay true to the way the race has been polling, the GOP will need to look ahead to 2012 to decide on a standard-bearer. Will it be Sarah Palin? And does she already have designs on the office? And if she does, has she been too transparent in her ambitions while supporting John McCain on the trail? And how does John McCain feel about all of this? The answers to all of these questions are TOTALLY GOING ROGUE. But! Via Boing Boing, here's a video that imagines McCain and Palin working out all of their differences with the help of Jim Lehrer.

Campaign Cool Downs: 10 Steps To Inner Peace (SLIDESHOW)

2008-11-03T15:40:44Z

When politically provoked, here are 10 no-fail ways to go from riotous to relaxed.

Debate parties starting to feel like World War III? Are you alienating friends and family with your staunch, hyper-educated self clad head to toe in campaign gear? Be proud. Now check your ego and be effective.

Politics are personal and that's why you feel like showering when you go toe to toe with someone whose opinions insight riot in your. Between the economic upheaval and the ecosystem's "debatable" fragility the hot button issues determining Election 2008 have some of us so heated up that we are lashing out. And it's not becoming or impactful. Where we need to spend energy is in how we elegantly express ourselves and become commanding orators not Dem-ish diehards. So how do you take ferocious passion and turn it into a beautiful, flowing dispatch that might just compel McCain's constituents to convert? A little bit of yoga.

It only takes 5 days for your typical boiling point to be retrained. A study from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Ministry of Education of China and the University of Oregon's Brain, Biology and Machine Initiative demonstrated that 5 days of relaxation training showed an increased ability to resolve conflict and lower levels of anxiety, depression, anger and fatigue than in the control group.

These 10 yoga tricks will increase your ability to see political differences as the perfect alchemy for a nation in need of respectful discourse in order to become dominant in peace brokerage, leadership and financial rejuvenation.

Related:

Women's Health Fitness Face-Off

Eat To Beat Stress

Live to be 100

The Home Stretch

Gloria Feldt: John McCain's Wrong Answers to Working Women's Questions--Now Give Him Your Answer at the Ballot Box

2008-11-03T10:13:21Z

By Carole Joffe and Gloria Feldt
Don't get excited. John McCain didn't respond directly to the questions about his positions on economic and reproductive justice we first put to him on Labor Day here at Huffington Post and have been asking him ever since.

Since then, he shocked even us with his over the top contempt for women during his third debate with Barack Obama. When Obama expressed concern over the Supreme Court's upholding a federal abortion ban because it didn't contain an exception for women's health, McCain made "air quotes"
around "health exception," and declared, " You know that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement to mean almost anything."

We could tell lots of stories about women whose lives and reproductive capacity have depended on their access to the banned abortion methods, but who could top Samantha Bee's
send up of McCain's insensitivity?

Turns out McCain's dismissal of the health issues facing real women in the real world is of a piece with his record on many other issues facing working women.

So now, as election day (finally!) looms tomorrow, and in the midst of an economic meltdown that disproportionately affects women , especially unmarried women, it's time to revisit the questions we asked John McCain on Labor Day and later expanded to include his running mate Sarah Palin. Below is the original post's questions with updates and additional links to the answers we found:

The frenzied media circus surrounding McCain's choice for running mate, Sarah Palin surfaced many questions, some of an unduly personal nature. But some of those personal matters, like her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-shoket/what-was-bristols-plan-a_b_123490.html , raise legitimate questions about McCain's policy agenda.

We take seriously Barack Obama's eloquent plea that candidates' families-and especially their children -- be allowed a zone of privacy. And we feel compassion for the two teenagers whose personal lives are being publicly dissected literally around the globe. But any candidate's positions on policy matters -- some of which in this case bear directly on the issues surrounding sex, pregnancy, childbearing, and family well-being-are most certainly fair game for discussion in this election. They affect every American, after all.

So while we agree that Bristol and Levi should be left in peace, John McCain's choice of Palin only intensifies our concerns about his responsiveness to serious issues facing most working women.

Yes, yes, we know that Sarah Palin is herself a working woman. A working woman on steroids, some might argue, given that she went back to work three days after giving birth to her son, Trig. We're an advocate and academic, respectively, with longstanding passions for economic and reproductive justice for women. We've come to understand the direct and profound interconnections between the two. There's good reason why the words "barefoot and pregnant" have been so frequently joined together historically.

It's positive news that Palin's candidacy has jettisoned these policy matters squarely into the public eye. For we haven't heard anyone question McCain from that intersection of women's lives during the hours of airtime, barrels of ink, and glut of blogposts that have been given over to the Palin family's predicament. So we are asking him these questions now, while the glare of voter interest shines light on them:

First, John McCain, do you think women belong in the paid labor force? This might seem facetious or rhetorical, but it's a very serious, core question. We know your wife, Cindy, chairs the board of her family's company. Until you asked Palin to be your running mate, which tells us you think it's right for women to hold the highest political offices, your most visible surrogate to women voters was Carly Fiorina, until recently a top corporate CEO. [Update: and now "until recently" a McCain surrogate, having too often spoken the truth.]

But surely you realize the overwhelming majority of women don't have the resources of these women. Teen moms in particular are more likely to live in poverty because of truncated educational opportunities. And many of these young mothers do not have a supportive family, with financial resources to help them, as Bristol Palin is fortunate enough to have. So they're going to have to enter the workforce to feed their children.

If you accept most women will spend some of their lives in the labor force, then, do you believe women should earn the same as men, for the same jobs? You have both opposed the equal pay measure stalled in Congress-the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act -- you say it's because it would "open us up to lawsuits". Open who up? And if you support equal pay for equal work, what would you do to guarantee it?

[Update: Just after you called your running mate the "direct counterpart to the liberal, feminist agenda", she made a speech in which she claimed to be a direct counterpart of McCain's view. Still, as Amie Newman reports:

Palin stood with McCain in support of the Supreme Court case that ruled there is a statute of limitations for bringing a suit against an employer for equal pay. It begs the question: why are women in the McCain campaign worthy of equal pay when the rest of American women are not?

Palin in fact proposed what seem to be concrete policy ideas that included "flexibility in labor laws so women could engage in more telecommuting and would push for a tax code "that doesn't penalize working families." She did not elaborate on how that relates to Senator McCain's overall economic plan that provides relief in the form of the largest tax cuts for the highest income generating families. In addition, in fact, McCain's plan allows for less tax relief for working families than does Senator Obama's.

Families where both partners are working for low wages, and especially families headed by single moms, deserve various kinds of support from a compassionate government. These families need access to affordable and high quality childcare. Most of all, they need affordable healthcare -- for themselves, but especially for their children.

But, Senator McCain, your voting history on children's issues is abysmal. Can you explain to us why you voted twice against a reauthorization of S-Chip, the immensely popular state children's health insurance program -- a program supported by many in your own party? Can you explain why your record on children's issues generally is so bad that the nonpartisan Children's Defense Fund in its 2007 Congressional scorecard on children's issues rated you the senator with the worst voting record?

In Palin's convention speech, she said that families with special needs would have a "friend in the White House". Why didn't you vote to increase funding for children with disabilities?

[Update: According to 9to5's former director Ellen Bravo, "Unfortunately, [Palin's] main proposal is more taxpayer money for private school vouchers, a program that has proven to be stunningly unaccountable and supports schools that exclude most special needs kids."]

And while we're at it, do you think it was right for Palin to slash funding for children with special needsin Alaska during her two years a governor, just as she also slashed funding for programs that help pregnant teens become self supporting. With friends like these...

But let's step back to where it all starts, or should start, with planning and prevention. To participate in the workplace, women must be able to plan and space their childbearing. A government study found that 98% of heterosexually active American women had used contraception at some point, and a Rand study found that five of six Americans support insurance coverage of family planning services. Access to contraception, clearly, is a deeply shared American family value.

[Update: Your running mate, Senator McCain, http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=ePBglj6_uQ4">told Katie Couric she does not support emergency contraception, which could prevent up to half of abortions. Do you?]

Your voting record reveals you've cast dozens of votes opposing contraceptive coverage for insured women and family planning funding for low income uninsured women. Yet when a reporter asked your position on contraception, you stammered you didn't remember and asked your aide to "find out how you had voted." On another occasion, you famously squirmed and mumbled "I'll get back to you" when asked to explain Carly Fiorina's perfectly logical statement that it's unfair for insurance companies to cover Viagra™ but not contraception. Did Ms. Fiorina fail to get your memo to that in order to curry favor with the Religious Right your campaign had to adopt a strict anti-birth control policy? Or perhaps the subject of sexuality is so uncomfortable for you that you think your votes for the discredited abstinence-only sex education program is a sufficient response?

If the stakes weren't so serious, your consistent stumbles -- whenever asked about family planning issues -- would be amusing. But it's no laughing matter that you would deny birth control access, quash comprehensive and medically accurate sex education and yet simultaneously move to outlaw abortion.

We've noticed your flip flops on abortion, by the way. You identify as "pro-life," as is your right. Still, why have you abandoned your once nuanced positions? In 1999, you were on record as not wanting Roe v Wade overturned, recognizing-correctly-that allowing criminalization of abortion would lead to many injuries, even deaths. Now, you've even picked a running mate who like you wants to see Roe overturned. Period.

In 2000, you challenged George W. Bush to justify how he could possibly support the Republican party platform that calls for outlawing abortion with no exceptions -- not for rape, incest, health, even life of the woman!

You were incredulous then that Bush refused to repudiate such extremism. And we are incredulous now, that in 2008, you don't push back against the extremists in your party who show such callous disregard for the lives of women.

[ Update: The nation was shocked to see you dismiss women's health with your "quotation" hand gesture http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=SGZOyxfiNoU in the third debate. Guess that's our answer.]

What's more You've chosen a running mate whose views on abortion are in line with those extremists.

[UPDATE: Since you've chosen a vice presidential running mate who affirms to the right-wing Focus on the Family's Rev. James Dobson that she supports the entire draconian anti-choice Republican platform, and so do you,] She's even said that if her own daughter were raped, she'd expect her to carry the pregnancy to term.

Senator McCain, where do you stand on these intersecting challenges facing women? Is it really your vision that women should be paid less than men, accept unsatisfactory childcare and healthcare for their children, yet have limited access to contraception and medically accurate, comprehensive sex education that could reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion, and risk possible injury or death, when -- if you are in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices --a bortion becomes once more illegal?

Because if that's your plan for women, you'll be taking "barefoot and pregnant" to a whole new level, and the women of America deserve to know that before they cast their votes.
It's time for real straight talk on how your policies affect real women, Senator McCain.

[Update: The best thing about such a protracted and visible campaign is that the answers have become unmistakably clear with or without your lack of direct response to our queries. Now it's up to the voters to give you their answer at the ballot box by pulling the lever for Barack Obama.]

Carole Joffe Is a Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Davis. Gloria Feldt blogs at Heartfeldt Politics . She is author of The War on Choice and former president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Former RNC Chair: Debates Helped Obama

2008-10-30T23:47:15Z

Reassurance was slow in coming. A week before Election Day, polls showed Reagan and President Jimmy Carter in a virtual dead heat. That was the date of their only televised debate. Before a huge audience, Reagan came off as everyone's lovable uncle. "There you go again!" he scoffed when Carter (quite accurately) described Reagan's past opposition to the Medicare program. At the end of the debate, in a closing statement, Reagan asked: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" The prime interest rate at the time was 14.5 percent; inflation was running at an unprecedented 13 percent. Almost no one in America felt "better off" than a year earlier.

With help from Iranian ayatollahs who refused to release their American hostages before the election, a landslide developed in just a few days. Reagan trounced Carter by nearly 10 percentage points. The debate made the big difference, Fahrenkopf says (and many scholars agree). "The country was reassured."

Grande Lum: How Obama is Mediating His Way Toward the Presidency

2008-10-29T11:03:03Z

In less than a week, our country will decide the next President of the United States. Having mediated and negotiated for many years, I am keenly sensitive to how the presidential candidates interact to deal with conflict and persuade others. What has particularly impressed me about Barack Obama is how he frames situations, utilizes language in conflict, and comports himself very much like a mediator. I am also astounded that this approach is winning over the American people as a whole.

One of the primary tenets of a mediator is to affirm what the other person just said, no matter how vociferously you disagree. Time and time again during the debates, Obama would initially start statements with how much he agreed with Hillary Clinton in the primaries or John McCain in the general election. Over and over pundits and supporters criticized Obama for not being tough enough. Yet the polls repeatedly showed Obama winning those debates and persuading more and more voters to his side.

Going up against Hillary Clinton particularly in the one-on-one debates; Obama certainly had to deal with potential for being perceived as the patronizing and aggressive male. Against John McCain, Obama has had to watch out for being goaded into an adversarial tit for tat confrontation and risk being perceived as an angry black man. Yet consistently over time, Obama has maintained his composure and created a slippery target for his opponents' attacks.

Each time Obama would simply step aside and let the attacks go by, leaving his opponents looking slightly unhinged and blustery. In the third debate, Obama provided his prototypical nonplussed statement. "What we can't do, I think, is try to characterize each other as bad people. And that has been a culture in Washington that has been taking place for too long.' McCain immediately leapt into a seemingly unprovoked tirade on Bill Ayers -- the "washed up terrorist" -- and ACORN. McCain like Clinton before him comes across angrier than he might otherwise, as Obama smiles and maintains an even speech tone no matter what these opponents do or say.

Like a professional mediator, Obama would repeatedly state, "You can disagree without being disagreeable" and then go on to model that quality in debates, press conferences and rallies. The Illinois Senator would evoke this calmness in stark contrast to the partisan rancor and slice and dice politics he faced. Repeatedly, he has been criticized as too cool, too Ivy League and too detached. Yet to his credit, Obama has never seemed to overcompensate in response to such perceptions. Similar to a mediator, he continually separates the people from the problem. As an objective third party does, he points out that disagreement need not be taken personally.

Obama's campaign was initially dismissed as utopian and overly idealistic; there was no red America, no blue America, only the United States of America. Yet he touched upon a common thread joining all Americans, that vision of a united America. A particularly potent example is his ability to activate the youngest population of voters, registering them at an unprecedented rate. Rather than slicing and dicing the electoral map, the Obama campaign has expanded the map to the point where previous Republican strongholds may likely go Obama's way. Instead of cutting up the pie like a traditional "adversarial" politician, Obama the creative problem solver has expanded the pie.

That Obama's father was a Kenyan immigrant and his mother was a white woman from Kansas has become an oft-told story. It is the common thread of his life. He grew up in multicultural Hawaii -- where Asian Americans were an eclectic majority. Obama lived in Los Angeles, Boston, New York and Chicago, cities that reflect the changing American composition. He can debate Ivy League intellectuals, talk trash with hoopsters and charm Florida seniors.

A politician by definition straddles many worlds, and Obama does so with a startling poise. He deftly maneuvers a minefield of critics who label him too exotic, too white and too black. At times he transforms the tightrope of politics into a wide open country road where anything seems possible. He exemplifies the American strength that comes from the plurality rather than any individual peoples.

Obama's consistent message has been change. While change is scary for many people, his temperament has gone a long way toward reassuring the American public. This is very much like the mediator who is often a stranger to the parties in a conflict. A mediator has to convey neutrality and concern to suspicious individuals. Obama has done so, comforting people on a national scale.

A mediator's strongest intellectual quality is understanding conflict from a number of perspectives. The conflict resolution specialist then applies that understanding in effective problem solving. The writer F. Scott Fitzgerald once noted, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." A President must reach beyond giving mere lip service to opposing viewpoints. Whether in his Philadelphia speech on race in 2008 or his DNC Convention speech in 2004, Obama consistently reveals a deep understanding of seemingly diametrically opposed groups. Conservatives like David Brooks, Christopher Buckley and Colin Powell are highly attracted to this quality, a lack of demagoguery that makes them go against their other inclinations.

Lastly, a mediator must be comfortable in his or her own skin to handle conflict well. Obama has not become defensive when criticized strongly by others, and he has appeared confident in his own perspective. One of Obama's strongest suits is his steadiness. He has generally not seemed to have changed dramatically during the succession of debates and he has maintained his composure throughout the election grind. Unlike Gore who never seemed quite comfortable in the debates and appeared to be adjusting his personality, Obama has stuck to his own nature, exuding a confidence that it would carry the day.

Obama is ushering in an age of reasonableness. The country's citizens are signaling that they are tired of the partisan rancor and the unfair attacks. This nation faces financial crises, international conflicts, and a wealth of other challenges. A President Obama would truly understand the complexity of individuals, groups and issues and mediate amongst them all to create the best possible solutions. I can't wait.

Judah Freed: 350 Still Images Illustrate McCain's Anger Management Issue (Video)

2008-10-28T08:26:00Z

One picture is worth a thousand words, and this is especially true when trying to understand the personality of a presidential candidate. Therefore, I invite you to view this video I've created from 350 still images of Sen. John McCain during the third presidential debate.

The third debate has evoked comments from both the left and right about John McCain's anger at Barack Obama. McCain's anger was most visible during the segment about negative campaign ads, diverse pundits observed, yet McCain seemed to convey an undertone of aggression throughout the debate.

Accepting that my perceptions may be mistaken, I decided to look closer at the video from the third debate.

Watching the video with the sound off was instructive. I could focus on the emotions conveyed in McCain's face and body language. My impression of McCain being angry most of the time during the debate was not mistaken, I concluded, yet I wanted to be more certain.

Facial expressions change too quickly for serious study. This fact frustrated me until I remembered one of my earliest photojournalism lessons. A still photograph often reveals more of the personalty than a motion picture.

Consequently, I've captured about 350 still image of John McCain from the video shot during the third debate. Keeping the images in chronological order, I created the video above by adding text at the bottom and music in the background.

You might wish to view this video at least twice. On the first viewing, just watch MCain's face. On the second viewing, read the text at the bottom.

Whether you agree with my text or not, John McCain's face speaks for itself.

Please draw your own conclusions about how much anger John McCain carries inside. Decide for yourself if you want to trust his anger management abilities as the president of the United States.

Muhammad Sahimi: McCain's Middle East Policy, Part I: Confusion About Facts, Clarity About War

2008-10-27T14:51:46Z

We are in the home stretch of the presidential elections. Although the economy has dominated the discussions since mid-September, foreign policy and how to deal with several important crises around the world will be at the top of the next president's agenda come January. Before the collapse of the stock market and the emergence of ominous signs of deep economic troubles ahead, John McCain's greatest asset in his run for the presidency was supposedly his foreign policy expertise and experience.

In his first debate with Barack Obama, McCain tried to beat him by talking about his experience and foreign trips, and by presenting two starkly different candidates: One, Barack Obama, whom McCain tried constantly to ridicule by claiming that he does not "understand" important issues, or does not "get" it, or is "naive." And the second, himself, a seasoned, foreign policy expert, respected by world's leaders. In reality, there was not much difference between him and Obama when it came to, for example, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

When they debated the deepening crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Senator Obama stated that if Pakistan is not willing or cannot stand up to the Taliban and their Pakistani sympathizers, and prevent them from staging attacks in Afghanistan, the U.S. should do the job herself. I do not believe that this would be wise, but that is beside the point. What is important here is McCain's solution for the same problems.

McCain ridiculed Obama for announcing his approach but, in order to differentiate himself from Obama, said that he may do the same, but would not announce it. Of course, since McCain has publicly said that he does not know how to use computers, he does not also recognize that in the era of internet and instant information one cannot do what President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger did to Cambodia in 1970-1971, namely, secretly attacking a country without the world knowing about it!

When it comes to foreign policy, nowhere in the world is currently more important than the Middle East. Although many pundits have praised McCain's experience and knowledge of foreign policy issues, his specific positions regarding the immense problems that the U.S. is facing in that region should be scrutinized more. The goal of this article and the next two is to do just that: to see whether a McCain administration will have a prudent Middle East policy. In this article, we focus on McCain's declared positions. Part II will describe the consequences of the Middle East policies that McCain has ardently supported over the past decade, while Part III will give a quick look at McCain's foreign policy advisors.

Alas, a close look at McCain's past statements and positions reveals that he actually does not know many of the issues and facts, from the simplest to the most complex and important:

(1) McCain has talked about the Iraq-Pakistan border, which does not exist, as Iran, a large country, separates the two. When asked about the problems in Afghanistan by Diane Sawyer of ABC's Good Morning America, McCain said, "It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we can do. We have a lot of work to do, and I'm afraid that it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border."

(2) McCain has consistently confused the Muslim Sunnis with the Shi'ites. The former are in the majority in most of the Islamic world, but not in Iraq and Iran (and a few other Muslim countries). Much of the factional fightings in Iraq have been between the Sunnis who controlled all levers of power, and the Shi'ites who were repressed, when Saddam Hussein was in power. The Shi'ite groups are allied with Iran.

(3) McCain has been confused about Al Qaeda in Iraq. During a testimony by General David Petraeus in the Senate, McCain asked him about whether Al Qaeda in Iraq was still a major threat, to which the General responded by saying, "It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago." McCain then responded, "Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi'ites overall ..." hence confusing Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, with Iraqi Shi'ite.

(4) McCain exhibited the same confusion about the source of violence in Iraq, and the non-existent relation between Iran and Al Qaeda when, during a trip to Jordan, he claimed that, "Well, it is common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran." The gaffe was so bad that McCain's pal, Joe Lieberman, had to whisper in his ear to correct him.

(5) McCain was totally confused about what transpired during Shi'ites factional fighting in Basra in southern Iraq between the militia of the firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr and the forces of the central government of Nouri al-Maliki. Sadr's militia had inflicted heavy losses on Maliki's forces. So, Maliki asked Iran to intervene, which Iran did by arranging a cease fire. But, McCain claimed that it was Sadr -- the victor -- who had asked for Iran's intervention.

(6) I am not trying to do hair splitting to criticize McCain. But while Americans have very negative impressions of groups such as Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, and though it is true that Hezbollah committed terrorist acts in the 1980s, they are political movements with deep support among the population of their countries. In fact, Hezbollah is part of the legitimate and democratically-elected government of Lebanon. Lumping these movements together with Al Qaeda, the true enemy and a terrorist group, is as dangerous as any mistake that one may make about one of the most volatile and important regions of the world.

(7) McCain was confused about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, a simple and basic fact. At a town meeting in Wisconsin in May, McCain said, "So I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels." This was totally wrong. The number of U.S. troops in Iraq at that time was 155,000, far above the 130,000 before the surge.

(8) McCain was so confused about what to do with Hamas that his campaign had to issue a statement. Two years ago, he told James Rubin of Sky News the following about Hamas: "They are the government. Sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another....It's a new reality in the Middle East." But, in May, after Rubin published an op-ed in the Washington Post about this, McCain's campaign issued a statement saying, "There should be no confusion. John McCain has always believed that.... Hamas must change itself fundamentally."

(9) McCain was confused about two other Islamic nations, the Sudan and Somalia. When he appeared on Straight Talk Express and was asked about the crisis in the Sudan, he said, "How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?" Somalia has not had a central government since early 1990s, and was invaded last year by Ethiopia which the Bush administration supported.

(10) Add to above list McCain's confusion about other issues, and one gets one confused statesman and foreign policy expert. For example, McCain has talked about Czechoslovakia, a nation that disappeared peacefully from the political map on January 1, 1993, and mentioned "President Putin of Germany" during a trip to Germany.

So, you would think that a man as confused as McCain is, or should be, more cautious when it comes to wars and violent conflicts. Absolutely not! He is crystal clear about how his heart warms up whenever there is talk of war. In fact, when it comes to the Middle East, McCain has developed a set of ten "principles." I do not use the "C" word for the ten, as I am afraid that I will be accused of being anti-something.

(i) They [all the regimes] are all in two groups: those that are with us, and those that are against us.

McCain has implied this division by suggesting the establishment of a "League of Democracies." In addition to the fact that this is an attempt to destroy the United Nations -- a long-time dream of right-wing fringe in the U.S. -- let's see what the implications of this League would be for the Middle East.

Except for Israel, all the regimes that are allied with the U.S. in that region will not be part of the League and, therefore, will be counted among the enemies. This includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, and Jordan. Other important allied regimes in the vicinity of that region, such as Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan will also be counted as our enemies. So, what will a McCain administration do to them? Attacking them? No, McCain will probably do something similar to what the apartheid regime in South Africa did. That regime wanted to have close relations with Japan. But, the Japanese people are not, of course, of the white race. So, the apartheid regime declared them "honorary whites." McCain will probably declare all these corrupt and dictatorial regimes as "honorary democracies," in order not to count them as enemies of the U.S.

McCain does not also see the irony in his proposal: He proposes to establish a League of Democracies, but does not respect the democratic aspiration and demand of the Iraqi people for the U.S. forces to leave their country.

(ii) They [Iranians and Syrians] are developing weapons of mass destruction.

McCain has repeated such baseless statements too many times. For example, in a speech to the AIPAC, the Likud/Israel lobby in the U.S., McCain said, "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable danger that we cannot allow." The International Atomic Energy Agency, and the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, have both said that there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon program. Syria does not have any nuclear program to begin with.

(iii) They are ignoring the international community.

On his website, McCain calls for international pressure on Iran and Syria to "change their behavior," since they are supposedly ignoring the will of the international community. He makes many unfounded allegations about both nations, such as Iran's alleged help to "the most extreme and violent Shia militias," an allegation repeated many times without an iota of credible evidence ever presented.

(iv) They support Hezbollah, Hamas, and terrorism.

In the same speech to the AIPAC, McCain said, "Iran sponsors both Hamas and Hezbollah. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq." There is no doubt that Iran (and Syria) has provided aid to both Hamas and Hezbollah. But, both are political movements with deep support that take the aids, but not orders from Iran. They pursue their own agenda. Saudi Arabia also supports Hamas. As for "extremists" in Iraq, see (iii).

(v) They are making trouble for us in Iraq.

For example, on his website, McCain says, "Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents..." The truth is completely the opposite. Syria has hosted over a million Iraqi refugees, escaping the slaughter and destruction in Iraq. It has tightened its border with Iraq, and has cooperated with the U.S. in not allowing its territory to be used by foreign fighters who want to go to Iraq. As for Iran, the accusations are by now old and worn out; see above.

(vi) They [Iranians] are making trouble for us in Afghanistan

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, William Wood, and some U.S. commanders have alleged that Iranian arms are entering Afghanistan and reaching Taliban. Such allegations have been routinely supported by McCain.

As anybody who follows the events in the Middle East knows, there is a vast market in the Middle East in which weapons made practically in any nation are sold and traded. This, of course, includes Iranian weapons. But, that is a far cry from accusing the Iranian government -- a bloody enemy of the Taliban -- to be involved in the arms traffic to Afghanistan. Iran played a fundamental role in overthrowing the Taliban regime; an indispensable role in the formation of the Afghan National Unity Government in December 2001 after the Taliban were overthrown, and next to the U.S. has made more economical investments in Afghanistan than any other nation.

(vii) Their populations [Iranian and presumably Syrian] want regime change [by the U.S.].

Although after Lieberman whispered into his ear, McCain corrected himself about the non-existent connection between Iran and Al Qaeda, his national security spokesman Randy Scheunemann, who was a spokesman for the neoconservative Committee to Liberate Iraq that advocated overthrowing Saddam Hussein, retracted the correction later and made the following statement to the New York Sun: "There is ample documentation that Iran has provided many different forms of support to Sunni extremists, including Al Qaeda as well as Shi'ia extremists in Iraq. It would require a willing suspension of disbelief to deny Iran supports Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Given both Scheunemann's and McCain's history of enthusiasm for the use of force, the retraction is important because the same "rationale' and non-existent connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were utilized to justify invasion of Iraq. Recall what McCain said in February 2003, a month before the invasion: "Only a regime change will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where a liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom."

(viii) They [Iran] are immune to sanctions.

McCain has consistently said that the military option against Iran should not be taken off the table. In the same speech to the AIPAC, he talked about imposing very tough sanctions against Iran. But, he has also mentioned actions that his administration would take that can be interpreted by any reasonable person as acts of war, including supporting a Senate Resolution (now tabled) that advocated imposing a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

(ix) They cannot be negotiated into submission.

Given McCain's bellicose tone when it comes to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinians, and Afghanistan, this does not need any explanation.

(x) Therefore, put more soldiers in the Middle East, keep them there for 100 years, and bomb, bomb, bomb them.

McCain's infamous talk of a 100 year war in Iraq is too well-known, as is his talk of bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. His solution for every conflict, not only in the Middle East, but also around the world, is putting soldiers on the ground. Recall what he said after the Georgia/Russia war broke out? "We are all Georgian."

Tomorrow: The consequences of the Middle East policies that John McCain has supported for a long time.

Cheryl Lubin: Teachers Can't Vouch for McCain's "Voucher Plan"

2008-10-27T13:47:21Z

In The Hollow Men, poet T.S. Eliot describes an apocalyptic desert where children spout eerie, blank chants about the cruel, "straw-stuffed" world they have inherited. Now, in a partisan world where pundit lions roar without substance, children are parched for heroes. Their icons have been spirited away to a stony landscape where nothing ever grows.

Sounds like eight years down the road, after a McPalin ascension, where the doddering granddaddy, the GILF, and their Secretary of Neocon Kool-Aid Elizabeth Hasselbeck take funds from schools to brand the system with their harebrained free market scheme. I am a teacher for Los Angeles Unified School District, and this is the specter of a pro-voucher world I live and see every day.

McCain's passion for vouchers will only make the wasteland more bleak and empty. In T.S. Eliot's vision, children lapse from nursery chants to sputtered prayers, trying in vain to chant The Lord's Prayer before silence reigns. Now, they may likely do the same because their overworked teachers preside over a class of 50 students in an under funded school where dynamic, caring educators take early retirement, battle grave illness on the job, or leave for the greener pastures of private sector work after a mere two years.

Although both candidates did address the issue of education in the third and final presidential debate, we have not heard much about this issue since. As a high school teacher who dips into my own wallet to buy paper and pencils for students in the second largest school district in the land, I recognize the dangers of a pro-voucher McCain administration. Vouchers are not, as Obama so succinctly put it, the panacea for failing schools.

I understand that voucher talk is a dull, unsexy topic. But we must realize that the emperor has no clothes: the free market voucher paradigm is a thinly veiled threat to public education. While the economy, health care, and foreign policy deserve our utmost attention, education is a vital issue for us to examine, and it is especially crucial for those fabled undecideds (who are they anyway?) to know before they head into the voting booth.

While I contemplate an expatriate life in France should McCain win, the truth is I love this country too much to not criticize it. So I teach during the day and campaign at night. I canvass, and I interview experts in the field. As a teacher, I challenge my students every day to think, reflect, and respond critically to everything they may read or hear (I dare not call my pedagogical approach the "Anti-Palin Doctrine", but I am sorely tempted). What I know, however, is that McCain's "voucher" plan is as wild a fantasy as my dream of renting a chateau in Provence for six years or so. Vouchers sell the fantasy to parents that they can eschew corrupt "public" education in favor of more rigorous and pure, profit-driven education.

Vouchers as educational saviors are a myth, a conceptual mirage that parents who want to save their kids from gritty urban schools will cling to like a superhero blanket. Draining funds from schools because the funds were never there and misdirecting them to schools that won't accept the kids is a farce, a faux rescue plan that will rescue no one and leave many more children behind. It is much more realistic to invest in schools, reroute funds from corrupt school bureaucracy to classroom books and technology, and support teachers so they remain on the job long enough to educate the next generation. McCain's plan to infuse free market principles into our public schools is about as realistic as my renting a Provencal chateau on the strength of fantasy. Better to just plan a trip abroad in about three years or so, when I have saved the money.

Vouchers: No Choice At All

McCain's statement during the Saddleback Church Faith Forum said it all: give parents more choices, and the school system will mystically rejuvenate itself through free market competition. What he neglected to mention is glaring gaps in logic and result that will make voucher success about as likely as my young daughter's paper airplane making a transatlantic flight. During the last presidential debate, he touted Washington D.C.'s "great success" with the voucher plan, neglecting to mention how untried it is, how small the district is compared to New York and Los Angeles, and how few students and parents can attest to any result.

McCain Voucher Gaffe/Gap #1: Parents Will Be Let Down, Badly

Vouchers will drain the coffers of public education, a disastrous move tantamount to dropping our youth off a cliff with no parachute in sight. Should parents karate-chop their way into securing one of the few vouchers in their district, they will quickly face a slew of abysmal realities: 1) private schools will raise their tuition to keep those kids away; 2) parents will have to cough up an extra $5000 or so a year to fill the cash gap between the voucher and the private school of their choice; 3) the private schools that are "low rent" (thus accessible to voucher parents) feature teachers who have not had to complete the sequence of courses and exams to obtain their credential under state law; and 4) the public school that these same would-be voucher kids return to will be the last refuge of corrupt administrators, paltry resources, and underpaid teachers. It may seem unfair and "elitist" (to use a term the neocons consider anathema), but the high-rent private schools will continue to service the needs of the affluent, much as any universal health care system will neither surpass nor supplant the "concierge medicine" (personal physicians who make house calls, etc.) that are the realm of the rich.

After combing through the campaign statements on education, I decided to consult the most ardent education activist I know: Richard Gibbons, a 25+ history teacher in Los Angeles, who also serves as the union chapter chairman for William Howard Taft High School in Woodland Hills. Over coffee in the cafeteria, I asked him why McCain's notion of vouchers is so problematic.

"What people don't realize" he said, is that private schools have raised their tuition in response to vouchers, making it impossible for middle-class families to afford the 'choice' praised by McCain." In other words, we are not talking about the schools the McCains consider for their offspring that charge the equivalent of my annual salary for tuition. The schools in large cities that would accept vouchers would, it seems, hire a geranium, or Palin, to teach.

McCain Voucher Gaffe/Gap #2: Less Isn't More: It Costs To Become "Highly Qualified"

Yes, it seems heartless to decry non-public education as the realm of unqualified teachers. After all, the deluxe private schools in our midst boast a truly impressive faculty who offer youngsters rigorous education. Yet consult the state requirements for teacher credentialing, and you will find an exhaustive list of requirements. It takes, in short, many graduate courses, entrance exams, student teacher months, and continuing professional development to even qualify as an applicant. When moving to California was once hailed as the Peter Pan frontier where winter never came, teachers flocked here - and soon realized that Sacramento had rightly upped the ante for becoming a credentialed teacher. A private school that operates outside the realm of such requirements will, quite simply, take whomever it can get - in many cases, teachers who are "passing through" the profession and would rather not bother with the tough licensing requirements.

McCain's Voucher Gaffe/Gap #3: What is a "bad" teacher?

Several years ago, an old friend with two young children told me that she was going to complete basic teacher credentialing requirements online in her state (not California) and "give teaching a try." When I asked why, she replied, "My schedule will be compatible with my kids' lives, and you get summers off." I inquired whether she had any real driving desire to teach, and she candidly replied "no". Keep your office job, I advised, and consider another lifestyle change if you can manage it. Even the most gentle high school students would eat her alive, I told her bluntly. She took my advice. During my tenure in teaching, I have seen teachers who should never have considered the profession quickly burn out, and I have breathed silent relief that future students are spared their incompetence. During the Saddleback Faith Forum, McCain cut Pastor Warren off before he could finish posing the question about education. "Get rid of the bad teachers," the dyspeptic warrior intoned. Whether McCain heard the same question posed to Obama a few minutes before or had a pat answer at the ready, I won't decry it as unfair. I will even embrace the idea that teachers who enter the profession without the passion, knowledge, or skills should be gently and firmly rerouted to another line of work.

So, McCain isn't entirely wrong. But to foreground the "getting rid of bad teachers" credo as the reigning mantra of education policy is to forget that the majority of us work and sacrifice hard on behalf of the students we serve. We eschew the "martyr" label and demand a living wage.

The Bell is Ringing

The bell signaling the end of our very short break was about to ring, so I asked Richard Gibbons what he would ask each of the candidates. His answers were succinct and compelling. "I would ask McCain why he thinks vouchers work, when there is absolutely no proof that they would do anything except......nothing" he replied. Although he supports Obama, he would try to convince him that the merit pay he has publicly espoused does not work. "There are too many variables in any one teacher's program to hold them all accountable for meeting the same criteria", he said. "Give me five classes of bright advanced placement students, watch them soar on the state tests each year, and I'm first in line for merit pay because 'I've' succeeded. But what about those teachers struggling with struggling students? How is that measured?" Lastly, I asked him exactly how No Child Left Behind has been under funded. "States have to absorb the cost of designing and implementing the tests that that federal law required," he said. "So, not only does NCLB NOT pay up, it actually takes money from the children it is designed to help." That, I wanted to add, is where fantasy derails into delusion. My witty comeback, however, had to wait for another day, because I had students waiting.

Obama and Vouchers:

Obama mentioned at the last presidential debate that teachers need higher pay, and hastened to add that vouchers are no panacea for our failing system. When I saw this, I cheered silently (actually loudly, to the annoyance of my neighbors), and beamed some more when Obama mentioned mentor programs for new teachers. I myself benefited from a mentor system in California that has since disintegrated due to lack of funds. When I was a first-year teacher with classes of 45+, I was drowning. My mentor was a living life raft, providing practical advice and daily morale-boosting talks as I struggled to stay afloat with violent kids in a crowded classroom. I have seen many teachers quit because they are faced with the same daunting set of problems, and they have no support (save for the on-the-sly, in-between-classes support I do my best to provide to this very day).

Ask any teacher why our system is failing, and we won't engage in finger-pointing, blaming "bad" teachers or "bad" students. That is a demonizing divide that does not hold up. No one is perfect, and teachers try our best. Students are not perfect either, but they deserve our respect. Our system, many concur, is failing because the brilliant math teacher next door to me quit after three years because his wife got pregnant and he knew he couldn't afford to turn down the private sector job that would help buy diapers and pay the mortgage in pricey Southern California. Our system is failing because, as I languish in a classroom with grimy floors, graffiti, and zero technology, the "coaches" and "coordinators" in our local district indulge in high-priced holiday parties to congratulate themselves on the "support" they never provide. They work fifteen minutes a day issuing memos that reflect their scorn of classroom teachers, and then indulge in long lunches .

Come to think of it, getting McCain to use his fabled hatchet to slash the jobs of these tedious, indolent bureaucrats and then using their salaries to buy books and more teachers to lower class size from 40 to 30 here in Los Angeles Unified School District would be a welcome relief. Palin, I have a post-election job for you, and it's nowhere near the White House. Come on over to L.A. and slash the office jobs, send those overpaid office drones back to the classroom, or fire them. You would certainly earn my praise for that.

Larry Gellman: Time For Hannity and Friends to Take a Xanax

2008-10-27T10:26:51Z

Every day I receive four or five emails from my Republican friends to make sure I haven't forgotten what a horrible socialist terrorist liar Barack Obama is and how the Democrats -- who have had essentially no power since 2000 -- are really responsible for everything that's wrong with America.

I appreciate that. Occasionally I forget. I hope and assume that in a week or so when the election is over that those emails will stop. I have already noticed that some of my friends have started to lose a little of their energy as it has become increasingly clear that the presidential race is already decided and Obama has not only won -- he has won in a landslide. Those who disagree are in luck. They can get 8-1 odds on McCain on intrade.com right now so if they bet enough, they can make back what they've lost in the stock market this month.

There are some diehards and true believers who think the game isn't over. That's fine. This is America. That doesn't bother me a bit. What does scare me are the vicious and hateful attacks against Obama that seem to be gaining in frequency and toxicity on Fox News, Townhall.com, and talk radio even as the math makes a McCain win a virtual impossibility.

When the McCain campaign first started going negative a few months ago, the party line was that Obama was too risky and inexperienced. He sat in a church for 20 years and listened to hateful sermons, he used to hang out with shady guys, but mainly he was not ready to be president or commander in chief on day one and McCain was. Obama put politics before country while McCain put "Country First" all the time. Many people found that to be both a compelling and encouraging sales pitch.

But look what has happened as the Straight Talk Express has become a train wreck. First McCain started calling Obama a traitor who tried to lose a war. Then Obama played the race card. Then Obama palled around with terrorists. Now, depending on which furious true believer you listen to, Obama is a foreign socialist agent who was not born here and wants to destroy America, Obama is a terrorist, Obama is a liar, Obama is a criminal, Obama supporters are big black guys who attack and carve their initials in the faces of McCain supporters, and so on.

Meanwhile, McCain has steadily frittered away all of his credibility. His "Country First" and "ready on Day One" credentials went out the window with his pick of Sarah Palin. Then he came across as frantic and very confused about the economy. In August and September, he echoed President Bush 17 times stating that the economy was fundamentally strong.

He proudly called himself a deregulator and stated firmly that he was against "the bailout of AIG or anyone else." Then two days later, he said we were facing the greatest economic crisis in 75 years and that he supported the bailout of AIG, the $700 billion rescue plan, and promised more regulation when he's president. Right after voting to socialize our banking system, he started accusing Obama of being a socialist.

During the three debates, he looked angry and confused while Obama looked controlled and presidential. All the polls showed voters thought Obama won each of the debates by a margin of 2-1.

Then, as a perfect metaphor for the whole campaign, McCain introduced us to Joe the Plumber, a guy who owns a business, makes more than $250,000 a year, and is upset that Obama will make him pay more taxes. Of course the guy's name isn't Joe, he's not a licensed plumber, he doesn't own a business, he doesn't make $250,000 a year, he is delinquent in his current taxes, and under Obama's plan he would get a tax cut. Other than that, McCain nailed it perfectly -- the new Straight Talk Express.

McCain hasn't been done in by the Left Wing media or by ACORN or by the economy or because he's a Republican in a bad year. Obama has had his own challenges since 33 percent of all voters have said they know someone who won't vote for Obama because he's Black.

Obama has won the election fair and square because he has been the more appealing candidate to most Americans and McCain has lost it. There are dozens of Republican and Conservative newspapers, public figures, and columnists who have announced during the last few weeks that they are supporting Obama or that they simply can't support McCain-Palin. They have all cited the sleaziness of McCain's campaign and the poor judgment he has shown on the economy and with his pick of Palin. There have been no such defections from the ranks of Obama supporters because they have no reason to defect. Obama has delivered and McCain has not.

It's over. The American people have spoken. If this was a basketball game, it would be time to clear the benches and let the subs play out the clock.

But instead, the fanatics on the Right -- particularly on Fox and the radio -- are committing hard fouls and trying to injure the winner. It's ironic since these are the people who claim to be pro-America patriots. Where I come from, patriots fight hard but when the game's over, they unite behind the winner and work hard to help him succeed. We're all Americans and in this together.

Because of all this hate and ugliness, what was shaping up as a Republican defeat is turning into a Democratic landslide that is spreading to Congress and might give the winners a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate. If that happens -- a thought that scares me as an Independent -- it will be a harvest reaped by the voices of hate. They have turned off, frightened, and disgusted not just the Left but also virtually every Independent and moderate Republican voter in the country. And it's getting worse by the day. The more vicious and loud they become, the further behind the Republicans fall in the polls.

I worry about the country and I also worry about Obama's safety.

Many of my Republican friends are also staunch supporters of Israel. When they are not reminding me how horrible Obama is, they are making sure I realize what a threat Islamic terrorism poses to Israel and Jews everywhere. There is certainly a lot of truth in what they say.

But what they seem to have forgotten is that the only Israeli prime minister ever assassinated was not killed by an Arab or a Palestinian terrorist. Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a ritually-observant Jew named Yigal Amir -- a young yeshiva honor student who listened attentively when his rabbis told him that Rabin was a traitor for negotiating with the enemy. So Amir -- a Jewish Israeli patriot in his own mind -- murdered Rabin.

Today, 12 years later, recent polls have shown that 38 percent of religious Israeli Jews consider Amir a hero and rallies demanding his release are held on a regular basis.

It's one thing to say the other candidate is not ready or experienced enough to lead our country. It's another thing to call him a traitor, a socialist foreign agent, a terrorist, and a person who wants to destroy our country.

This has been a tough and energizing campaign and it's about to be over. Isn't it time to start chilling out and cutting back on the most extreme and inflammatory of rhetoric and to get about the business of rebuilding and reuniting our country? Isn't it time for Hannity and Friends to go back on their meds?

All the pro-America patriots I know feel that way. There's probably a name for people who feel differently, but they're not patriots. Not even close.

Erik Ose: McCain and Palin Inciting Violence in North Carolina

2008-10-22T18:41:43Z

Forced to defend what should be reliable red state turf, John McCain and Sarah Palin finally showed up in North Carolina over the past few weeks. So far in October, the GOP running mates have appeared at four campaign rallies here. And in the wake of their visits, a string of election season crimes have occurred around the state involving violence, vandalism, and harassment.

First, a reporter was assaulted at a Palin rally held last Thursday at Elon College. Greenboro News & Record reporter Joe Killian was kicked to the ground by a Palin supporter as he was trying to interview protestors at the event who backed Barack Obama. From Joe's blog:

"Oh, you think that's funny?!" the large bearded man said. His face was turning red. "Yeah, that's real funny..." he said.
And then he kicked the back of my leg, buckling my right knee and sending me sprawling onto the ground.

An MSNBC sound technician was hit in the head by a rock thrown by another Palin supporter at this same rally.

Next, over the weekend, about 30 Obama supporters had their tires slashed while attending an Obama rally that attracted an overflow crowd of more than 10,000 at the Fayetteville Crown Coliseum. Among the citizens left stranded were a single mother and toddler. "This is an embarrassment to this city and to me as a citizen," said a nearby resident. "This is a crying shame."

After the rally finished, a mob of white McCain-Palin supporters jeered and harassed a steady stream of mostly black Fayetteville residents standing in line to vote early at the downtown Board of Elections office. According to the Washington Times correspondent who reported the story, "people were shouting about Obama's acknowledged cocaine use as a young man, abortion and one man used the word 'terrorist.' " In doing so, they almost certainly violated the Voting Rights Act of 1964, which states:

"No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote"

McCain supporters heckle early voters in Fayetteville, N.C., Oct. 19

And this Monday, a black bear cub was killed and left at the entrance to Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, with Obama campaign signs wrapped around its body, including two taped together over its head. Police reports are calling the incident a "prank," and claim seven students are being questioned. Whatever the motive, this latest development was met with immediate public revulsion and condemnation. As the Asheville Citizen-Times editorialized today, "It was an innocent bear cub that lost its life this time as some deranged person or persons expressed their political rage. Next time, it could be an innocent person."

These incidents have all been perpetrated by or linked to McCain supporters, and stirred up by McCain and Palin's angry, hateful campaign rhetoric. Like during Palin's first stop in the state at a Greenville rally on Oct. 7, when she continued trying to smear Obama over his tenuous connection to Bill Ayers. With uniformed service members standing in the crowd behind her, she again peddled her discredited attack line that Obama was "palling around with terrorists" by asking, "He didn't know that he had launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist?"

The McCain campaign is currently flooding the state with robocalls making identical false charges. The N.C. Republican Party is aiding the attack with a scurrilous mailer sent to N.C. voters headlined, "Obama has close ties to domestic terrorist," with mug shots of Ayers from 1968 and a recent photo of him wearing a Cuban national baseball team jersey. This is the same ridiculously far right state GOP party that ran an attack ad during the primaries tying Obama to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which McCain repudiated at the time.

Briefly, McCain realized the angry tone of his rallies was turning off voters, and rebuked an elderly supporter who called Obama "an Arab." Within days, he was back in the gutter at their final debate. Before 56.5 million people, he linked Obama to the community organizing group ACORN's voter registration efforts, and hysterically insisted ACORN was "on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."

On Saturday, McCain recorded a radio address in Concord, N.C. in which he made the racially loaded claim that "Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency," then appeared at a rally attended by several thousand supporters. There McCain was introduced by loony Republican Congressman Robin Hayes, who informed the crowd, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God." Hayes is locked in a tight rematch against challenger Larry Kissell, a progressive former textile worker who lost to Hayes in 2006 by only 329 votes.

Last week, Palin told big donors at a fundraiser in Greensboro that she was thrilled to be visiting the "pro-America areas of this great nation," a gaffe so ill-advised and guaranteed to offend that she actually apologized for it, a first for Palin. But it was entirely consistent with her worldview, which is warped and narrow minded, categorizing anyone who doesn't share her extreme beliefs as "haters" and enemies.

The same day, she was asked by a local reporter what she thought of the late Sen. Jesse Helms, who was the last unapologeticly racist U.S. politician of the segregation era, held legendary, disgraceful campaign rallies of his own, and whose ultra right wing views were cut from the same cloth as Palin's. No wonder she expressed admiration for the man, admitting that "I do respect those years of service that he had provided." She also did her best to whitewash Helms' shameful legacy by falsely claiming he had apologized for his past misdeeds.

Interviewed by the Washington Post for a recent story on McCain's early political career, former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party Jon Hinz gave some insight into why McCain shows little concern over his campaign stooping to such lengths to trash Obama. "He needs to make enemies of the people he's going against in order to get fired up," said Hinz.

The violent incidents we've witnessed in North Carolina are all lower than low, in fact, they're despicable. But McCain and Palin are to blame for creating an environment where their more unbalanced supporters feel these kinds of actions are legitimate.

Supporters line up for a McCain rally in Wilmington, N.C., Oct. 13

It shows what dangerous ground McCain-Palin are traveling by relying on increasingly desperate, unfounded character attacks on Obama in their attempts to distract our country from the ongoing economic crisis. Yet as polls continue to indicate, these attacks have backfired. They are contributing to voters' distaste for the Republican ticket.

And they're leaving behind a hollowed out party destined for minority status. As independents and moderate Republicans like Colin Powell abandon the McCain-Palin GOP in droves, all that remains are increasingly bitter, frustrated, far-right voters. This election's coming Democratic tsunami will exile Republicans to the political wilderness, where they will have to decide whether to keep clinging to yesterday's politics of fear.

As for John McCain and Sarah Palin, shame on both of them. After resorting to careless demagoguery and stirring up hatred and division so recklessly, neither deserves to hold public office.

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

Thomas Stern: A Kick In The Career: Negative Campaigning For Fun and Profit

2008-10-21T18:12:21Z

Ah, the pre-election, winding-down death throes of a long political campaign and the guaranteed finger-pointing nastiness that ensues as each candidate tries to smear the other in a thick coating of "unsuitable for office." It's a delightful tradition, and one to which the general public has become inured, even as we rail against the adolescent viciousness of the strategy. Well, rail all you want, gang: the strategy works. According to the Website CompleteCampaigns.com, hitting below the belt energizes one's core supporters and renews their commitment, at the same time as turning off those less likely to vote and potentially alienating people who are for the other candidate to the point where they might even choose not to vote themselves. So, it's get the base out while making sure nobody else but the base punches a Diebold touch screen. Talk about a win-win.

It's no secret that work, and even life, is becoming increasingly political. As the troubled economy keeps us all scrambling, we, as "candidates" for our own "office" will not be faulted now if we pull out all the stops and get the important people behind us while driving the ineffectual cogs away. And, fear not, this technique has an illustrious history. William Safire, in his 'New Political Dictionary,' points out the following phrase, which appeared in 'The Barber of Seville' in 1775: "Calumniate! Calumniate!' Some of it will always stick!" This was extrapolated from the even more ancient Latin motto, 'Fortiter calumniari, aliquia adhaerebit,' which means "throw plenty of dirt and some of it will be sure to stick.' By around the time of the Civil War, "dirt" evolved into "mud," and it is from this that we get the term "mudslinging" today. See? Simply by knuckling under and lowering your moral standards, you are part of something venerable and long-standing.

Here, then, are my suggestions for increasing your leverage in the world of work (and beyond) with the help of this heinous, but time-honored tradition.

#1 - GETTING THAT PROMOTION

Perhaps you cannot afford the team of spin-doctors that remain at the disposal of Messrs. McCain and Obama. No matter. The Internet is a valuable tool with which to seek out information on those competing with you for a coveted position, and it is very likely that a simple Google will provide you with a treasure trove of unsavory information. Not to mention; the industrious smearer can use the office gossip network as an invaluable source of potentially libelous material. So what if it's unsubstantiated! The point is to get your butt into that higher-paying chair, isn't it? The next step is to create an attack ad that guarantees you success. A suggested template follows.

"My opponent (insert name of employee competing with you here) claims that they are the only clear choice when it comes to getting the (insert job title here) position in our firm. But, what if I told you that their record on taking personal phone calls at work is embarrassingly high? That they consistently voted against our proven effective Monday morning brainstorming meetings? That they got so drunk at the last teamwork retreat in Branson, Missouri that Kenny Rogers took out a restraining order on them? Whereas the only truly suitable candidate for (insert job title here) is (insert your name here), whose estimable track record of reliability, dedication and comparatively minor incidents involving taking home a few pads of Post-It Notes and some Hi-Liters, leaving the paper jam for somebody else to fix and the occasional embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars through their own personal ingenuity and Internet hacking expertise, makes them the best choice to lead the (name of department) into the sun-drenched future."

#2 - KEEPING YOUR COMPANY ON TOP

Once they promote you to Executive Vice President based on your underhanded but perfectly acceptable tactics (see above), it is now your responsibility to make sure those who compete with your organization for consumer dollars are kept as far away from market dominance as can be.

"(Insert name of competitor here) will tell you that they are the superior provider of (insert your field or product here) in the United States. But did you know?

A. (Name of competitor) is known for physically beating anyone who dares to file a complaint about their business?

B. (Name of competitor) routinely hosts orgies at the stockholders' expense?

C. (Name of competitor) is internationally known for taking food out of the mouths of innocent, starving children?

D. And, perhaps worst of all, (name of competitor) charges a lot more for shipping than it actually costs them.

[NOTE TO SMEARER: It is very important not to go into great detail about any of the above; remember, the point is to energize your base.]

We hope you will take these very important factors into consideration as you choose (your company name here) for all of your (insert your field or product here) needs."

#3 - NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING IN THE HOME

Sometimes, the fight for dominance in the home can get as petty and unsavory as anything the world of business has to offer. There are many situations that may require a deft way with words, but here is just one example of how to use the tools available to McCain and Obama to your advantage not just in the boardroom, but in the living room, too.

"People say (insert your name here) is an annoying spouse. That they will always prioritize work over quality time with family. That they would surgically graft a Bluetooth to their ear if they could. That they consider falling asleep in front of the television foreplay. To those people we say: maybe these very things are the values that made this country great. Maybe someone has to work their butt off so all of you can eat well and shop at the Gap. Maybe creating a sizable nest egg in this scary economy is worth more than a little roll in the hay."

And then, you tag it all with a campaign slogan. Maybe something like: "(Insert Your Name Here). Stop Complaining and Let Me Work My Butt Off."

So, you can see how one can turn something on its ear and, no matter how responsible you are for the problem, make people think they had the wrong idea all along. Which, no matter who gets in, is probably what we're all going to be thinking a few months after November 4th.

Stephen Zunes: Obama's Missed Opportunity

2008-10-21T12:19:54Z

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama missed a number of key opportunities during the presidential foreign policy debate on September 26 to challenge the dangerous and reckless foreign policies of Republican nominee John McCain.

Obama did remind viewers that he strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. He pointed out that the invasion created a tragic situation in that country that McCain — who vociferously supported the invasion and defends his decision to this day — now claims he’s better qualified to redress. Yet, in what was perhaps his most stunning failure of the evening, the Democratic nominee effectively conceded McCain’s claim that President George W. Bush’s "troop surge" in Iraq — long advocated by the Republican nominee and opposed by Obama — brought about the dramatic reduction of violence in that country in recent months.

In reality, a shift in the alignment of internal Iraqi forces and the tragic de facto partitioning of Baghdad into sectarian enclaves contributed more to lowering the death toll, and the current relative equilibrium is probably temporary. The decision by certain Sunni tribal militias that had battled U.S. forces to turn their weapons against al-Qaeda-related extremists took place before the announcement of the surge, and militant opposition leader Muqtada al-Sadr’s unilateral ceasefire resulted from internal Shia politics rather than any U.S. actions.

Nor did Obama raise questions over McCain’s assertion that Iraq, as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation, was well on its way to becoming a "stable ally." McCain’s claims of stability are questionable. There’s an ongoing conflict between the two groups that the United States depends on to maintain stability — the Shia-led government and the Sunni militias of the Awakening Council. In addition, there are ongoing attacks by Sunni extremists and a continuing risk that the radical Shia Mahdi Army will once again end its ceasefire.

Nor should the United States consider the Iraqi government an "ally," given that the two largest parties in the ruling coalition have historically allied themselves with Iran. During Saddam’s rule, Iran recognized the largest party now in government, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (then known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq), as Iraq’s government-in-exile, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard organized and trained the Council’s militia — known as the Badr Corps — which fought on Iran’s side during the Iran-Iraq War. The Iraqi government identifies far more with the ruling Iranian clerics and other Shia movements than with the United States or with America’s traditional Middle Eastern allies. For example, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki strongly sided with Hezbollah in the 2006 conflict with Israel.

Falsehoods Unchallenged

A glaring failure of Obama’s during the debate was his unwillingness to counter some of McCain’s demonstrably false statements. On no less than three occasions during the debate, for instance, the Republican nominee claimed that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." In reality, Ahmadinejad never said that.That idiom does not even exist in the Persian language. The Iranian president was quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini from more than 20 years earlier when, in a statement largely ignored at the time, he said that "the regime occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time." While certainly an extreme and deplorable statement, the actual quote’s emphasis on the Israeli "regime" rather than the country itself and its use of an intransitive makes the statement far less threatening than McCain made it sound.

McCain even claimed that Ahmadinejad "is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the state of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map." In reality, in response to a reporter’s question while in New York to attend the opening of this year’s UN General Assembly session, Ahmadinejad used the analogy of the Soviet Union disappearing from the map. In other words, as with his previous clarifications that McCain deliberately ignored, the Iranian president was calling for Israel’s dissolution as a state, not the country’s physical destruction. McCain, however, unchallenged by Obama, was trying to make Iran appear to be a greater and more imminent threat than it actually is.

When McCain criticized Obama for his refusal to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which urged the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a "terrorist organization," Obama conceded that he indeed believed they were "a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so." Ironically, even the Bush administration has been unwilling to designate the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, which they correctly recognized as an irresponsibly sweeping characterization of the largest branch of Iran’s armed forces. Despite congressional pressure, the Bush administration only designated the al-Quds Force — a sub-unit of the Revolutionary Guards that has indeed engaged in terrorist operations, but doesn’t always operate with the full knowledge and consent of the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards or even Iran’s central government — as a terrorist group.

In another falsehood during the debate, McCain defended his support for Pervez Musharraf’s dictatorship in Pakistan by insisting that "there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there and knew about it, knew that it was a failed state." While the democratically elected civilian government of Nawaz Sharif was certainly corrupt and inept in many respects at the time Musharraf staged his 1999 coup, Pakistan didn’t fit the usual definition of a "failed state." This term is generally reserved for countries experiencing a near-total collapse of order and central authority, such as Somalia, Afghanistan, and such West African countries as Liberia and Sierra Leone during the 1990s. Again, Obama failed to call McCain on this rewriting of history.

Other Misleading Statements Unchallenged

Obama even failed to challenge McCain’s statement that "the Russians are preventing significant action in the United Nations Security Council" against Iran’s ongoing refusal to abide my edicts of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact, the Russian government agreed to support a U.S.-sponsored resolution that very day, which included the toughest language to date, to force Iran to abide by legally binding Security Council edicts.

McCain then launched into his proposal for the formation of what he referred to as a "league of democracies" to bypass the UN system due to the alleged failure of the Security Council to enforce its resolutions, such as those targeting Iran’s nuclear program. In response, Obama could have pointed out that the United States has blocked enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1172, which calls on India and Pakistan to eliminate their nuclear arsenals and their long-range missiles. Or that the United States has blocked enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Or that the United States has blocked the Security Council from adopting a resolution calling for a nuclear weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East. Or that, over the past 40 years, the United States has vetoed more Security Council resolutions than Russia and all other members of the UN Security Council combined. But Obama failed to do so.

Obama also failed to challenge McCain’s dubious statement that "Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans" and that "there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran." Despite repeated claims to this effect by both McCain and the Bush administration, they haven’t put forward any credible evidence to support them. Obama also failed to point out that the vast majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq have come from attacks by anti-Iranian Sunni groups, and that the political movements in Iraq most closely allied with Iran are part of the U.S.-backed government. Nor did he remind listeners that McCain had earlier made the ludicrous claim that the Iranians were bringing al-Qaeda forces into Iran for training and sending them back into Iraq to kill Americans, something that McCain himself eventually acknowledged was false.

When the Republican nominee characterized Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili as a "great young president," Obama could have pointed out that Saakashvili’s disastrous decision to launch a massive assault against South Ossetia prompted the devastating Russian attacks on his country. Doing so would have enabled Obama to defend himself from McCain’s criticism during the debate that Obama was wrong to have initially appealed to both sides "to show restraint" and that he should have instead placed all the blame on the Russian side for their illegitimate and disproportionate counter-attack. Obama could also have noted that Saakashvili responded to antigovernment protests within the Georgian capital of Tbilisi late last year with severe repression, shutting down independent media and detaining opposition leaders. Human Rights Watch criticized Saakashvili’s government for using "excessive" force against protesters and the International Crisis Group warned of growing authoritarianism in the country. Obama might have then been able to ask McCain what makes Saakashvili so "great" in his eyes and why McCain retains as his chief foreign policy advisor someone who served as the leading paid lobbyist for Saakashvili’s government.

Hawkishness Unchallenged

The hawkish approach of both Obama in particular and the Democratic party overall hampered his ability to more effectively challenge McCain during the debate on several key issues. For example, Obama couldn’t challenge McCain’s calls for increasing Bush’s already bloated military budget since Obama and the Democratic platform also calls for increasing the military budget. Most Americans are unaware that the United States, at less than 4% of the world’s population, accounts for approximately half of the world’s military spending. Military-related spending already accounts for a full 54% of the discretionary U.S. federal budget. Indeed, the only criticism during the debate regarding excessive Pentagon spending came from McCain, who challenged the waste caused by the cost-plus formula regularly awarded to military contractors.

When McCain insisted that the United States pursue a highly provocative policy of bringing Georgia into NATO, thereby risking embroiling the United States in the complex armed ethnic conflicts of the volatile Caucasus region, Obama largely agreed with the Republican nominee. He said that the United States should insist that Georgia be able to join NATO and that NATO "should have a membership action plan immediately to start bringing them in."

Obama couldn’t challenge McCain’s call to send more troops to Afghanistan because Obama himself has called for increasing U.S. troop strength in that country. To his credit, Obama has called for holding the Afghan government to greater accountability, curbing the poppy trade, and dealing more forcefully with Pakistan, which has provided support and sanctuary for Taliban fighters. Yet the reality on the ground in Afghanistan contradicts the shared assumption of the two candidates that additional forces would stabilize that country. The U.S.-led war has worsened the security situation and the American bombing of civilian areas has led to a popular backlash that has strengthened the Taliban.

Flawed Logic Unchallenged

Obama also failed to fully challenge McCain’s flawed logic on several points, such as his claim that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would pose an "existential threat" to Israel. While nuclear weapons controlled by any state can theoretically be an existential threat to anybody, the Iranians surely recognize that, given Israel’s massive nuclear deterrent capability, any such attack would be suicidal. If Iran indeed does have ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, they would most likely be designed to deter threatened Israeli and American attacks. It’s also noteworthy that, while both expressed alarm at a hypothetical Iranian attack on Israel, neither expressed any concern about a far more plausible Israeli attack on Iran.

Similarly, Obama didn’t challenge McCain’s claim that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would lead other countries in the region to "feel [a] compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well." Obama could have pointed out that Israel’s procurement of nuclear weapons nearly 40 years ago had not led to any other Middle Eastern countries acquiring nuclear weapons, nor had Pakistan’s procurement of nuclear weapons in the 1990s — after India already joined the nuclear club — led additional countries in the region to develop nuclear weapons either. Instead, Obama conceded the point, claiming that a nuclear Iran would indeed "create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East."

Obama also gave a surprisingly weak retort to McCain’s preposterous claims that meeting with a foreign leader would be "saying they’ve probably been doing the right thing" and it would "legitimize their illegal behavior." Obama could have pointed out that Bush and other U.S. presidents — as well as McCain himself — have met with foreign leaders who have also engaged in severe repression against their citizens and engaged in illegal behavior.

If Obama expects to defeat John McCain, who indeed has more foreign policy experience, he must be more willing to challenge his opponent’s record. McCain is in fact extremely vulnerable in the foreign policy realm. Obama, however, must be more rigorous in pointing out their differences and more effective in challenging McCain’s weaknesses.

Martha Burk: McCain Flatlines With Women

2008-10-20T18:05:15Z

Watching last week's debate on CNN, which had real-time tracking of how women and men were reacting to the candidates, I couldn't help but remember Ann Richards at the 1988 Democratic convention saying "Poor George [H.W. Bush]. He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." Well, it's poor John McCain's turn. He's got a silver foot in the works of his whole disorganized campaign. And it's kicking him in the tush daily. Not only did the women's tracking line on the screen take a nosedive when McCain talked about "Joe the Plumber," he rarely made it above flatter than flat on any other topic, particularly his VP's credibility and credentials.

Wait a minute -- weren't we all supposed to rush to McCain/Palin when Hillary folded her tent? After all, Palin wears a skirt (oh yeah, and high heels and lipstick), and McCain obviously figured we girl voters were too dumb to know the difference. But like so much else in his ill-fated campaign, the Palin ploy backfired. Even so, up to now it's been a few WASP (Women Against Sarah Palin) t-shirts, homemade signs, and street corner demonstrations.

Now a major new website and online organizing tool has gone up on the web (FeministsForObama.org), courtesy of the Feminist Majority, whose President is veteran feminist Eleanor Smeal. "We don't want a lingering doubt for any Hillary Clinton supporter or any independent woman about where McCain and Palin stand on women's issues," Smeal asserted.

The group knows Obama is ahead in the polls, but the site was launched to help drive up the margin of victory even higher for Obama/Biden, and just incidentally take out a little insurance against a repeat of Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004, when thousands of votes disappeared or weren't counted correctly. "Yes Obama is leading. But we can take nothing for granted. Too much is at stake for women. We must make sure the margin is so large it cannot be stolen this time," Smeal continued.

FeministsForObama.org, offers a side-by-side comparison of the Democratic and Republican nominees on four major women's issues: Violence Against Women, Abortion and Contraception, Women and Work, Breast Cancer, and Health Care. Because words aren't always enough, the Feminist Majority created three striking online videos that illuminate some of the grave truths about the McCain/Palin record on women's issues.

One in Six

"John McCain voted against funding to fight domestic violence."

Unholy Trinity

"McCain voted against a program funding breast cancer research."

Violation

"John McCain and Sarah Palin are running on a platform that seeks to outlaw a woman's right to an abortion even in cases of rape and incest."

The site is particularly aimed at younger voters who may still be wavering or think going to the polls is less important now that Obama is surging. "Forty years of women's progress is at stake. I wish I was exaggerating," remarked Smeal. "But more anti-woman appointments to the Supreme Court, such as Alito and Roberts, as John McCain promises, will do it."

Hooray for the Feminist Majority -- and that's what it is. Polls show that clear majorities of women and men identify with the feminist philosophy -- and now they have a place to go to prove it. Poor John. He never got the difference between a woman and a skirt, and that silver foot just keeps on kicking him.