freaktown

User profile »

$17.76 For Obama

In honor of America's birthday, i'm looking to raise $1776.00 for Barack Obama.

I'm asking for donations in theamount of $17.76

Donate here.

The RNC and John McCain are busy raising money and the RNC has a huge money advantage over the DNC.

If Obama can't keep up, and with many of you threatening to withhold your money, its entirely possibly he won't be able to, then this country may be heading towards four more years of disaster. 

Since Obama has opted out of public financing, donors like you and I are the SOLE source of funding for his campaign. If you abandon him now, the consequences for our country could be dire.

Senator Obama often speaks of the "fierce urgency of now". He needs your support. And he needs it now.

Today.

Please, please give it to him.

Why Obama is Right on FISA

I've been debating with my fellow TPM'ers over this issue in the comment threads. So if you've been participating in this debate with me, there's probably nothing new here. Its just a compilation of my arguments and why i think Obama is right.

This bill does contain civil immunity for telecoms. However, it does not containt criminal immunity.

Obama has said he is willing to investigate his predecessor and his policies for any possible crimes. While he has not commented one way or another regarding this particular issue, one can assume, based on previous remarks, that it would be included in any investigation.

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.


Suing a multi-billion dollar telecom company in civil court will not be justice. Chances are, they'll settle. And even if they don't and the plaintiffs actually get a judgment, these telecom giants can replace that money in a matter of weeks or months. Does that sound like accountability to you? Does that sound like they will have learned their lesson? It sounds like nothing more than a slap on the wrist to me.

For those of you saying "Well, Bush could always pardon them." Yes. He could.

But, and this is a big but, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. This is the law of the United States (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States">Burdick v United States</a>). Acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt. Now, does this mean the person being pardoned has to actually confess to a crime? I'm not sure. But in the eyes of the law, if you accept a pardon, you are admitting guilt, whether or not you actually say you're guilty or not.

Also, if Bush does issue a pardon or pardons, he will basically be admitting that his whole anti-terror strategy was in blatant violation of the law, and that he and his administration are nothing more than petty criminals. While many of us already know this, its quite another thing when the President himself admits his critics were right. I mean, this is a man who couldn't think of one mistake he's made since he's been in office. You really think he's psychologically able to admit he broke the law?

And if Bush admits he broke the law, wouldn't that leave him open to prosecution himself? He certainly can't pardon himself, can he?

In fact, I think Obama has Bush boxed in on this.

If Bush signs this bill he and the telecoms can still be held criminally liable. If he passes the bill and grants pardons, he will admit his administration has engaged in criminal acts in blatant violation of the law.

If Bush grants pardons, he will admit his crimes and his legacy (whatever shambles are left of it anyway) will be cemented as nothing more than a petty criminal who trampled on the rights of americans and broke his oath to defend and protet the constitution.

If he signs this bill and doesn't grant pardons, great! Let's prosecute.

One last thing. I think people are confusing Obama's postion. His major hold-up on FISA was never civil immunity. Yes, he's against civil immunity, but Obama was always more interested in restoring oversight protections to the FISA court that have been lacking under this administration. This bill does that.

And, as a bonus, it also leaves open the possibility of a criminal investigation/prosecution. Given these facts, I can not understand why so many people are attacking Obama for his position. Especially considering that if they get their way and this bill is scrapped, do you really think the republicans in the house and senate are going to leave criminal immunity out of the next bill? So not only will they have civil immunity, but also criminal. 

If that happens, there will be absolutely ZERO accountability. With this bill, there's at least the chance of criminal prosecution.

Does it include everything we want? No. That;s why its a compromise bill. In compromises, not everybody gets everything they want.

Thats called governing. Get used to it. I have a feeling President Obama will be interested in governing and finding practical solutions with as broad support as he can get. Our country is in trouble right now.

We need solutions with broad support to help us out of this mess. Its the only way we're going to accomplish anything.


Why Obama is Right on FISA

I've been debating with my fellow TPM'ers over this issue in the comment threads. So if you've been participating in this debate with me, there's probably nothing new here. Its just a compilation of my arguments and why i think Obama is right.

This bill does contain civil immunity for telecoms. However, it does not containt criminal immunity.

Obama has said he is willing to investigate his predecessor and his policies for any possible crimes. While he has not commented one way or another regarding this particular issue, one can assume, based on previous remarks, that it would be included in any investigation.

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.


Suing a multi-billion dollar telecom company in civil court will not be justice. Chances are, they'll settle. And even if they don't and the plaintiffs actually get a judgment, these telecom giants can replace that money in a matter of weeks or months. Does that sound like accountability to you? Does that sound like they will have learned their lesson? It sounds like nothing more than a slap on the wrist to me.

For those of you saying "Well, Bush could always pardon them." Yes. He could.

But, and this is a big but, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. This is the law of the United States (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States">Burdick v United States</a>). Acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt. Now, does this mean the person being pardoned has to actually confess to a crime? I'm not sure. But in the eyes of the law, if you accept a pardon, you are admitting guilt, whether or not you actually say you're guilty or not.

Also, if Bush does issue a pardon or pardons, he will basically be admitting that his whole anti-terror strategy was in blatant violation of the law, and that he and his administration are nothing more than petty criminals. While many of us already know this, its quite another thing when the President himself admits his critics were right. I mean, this is a man who couldn't think of one mistake he's made since he's been in office. You really think he's psychologically able to admit he broke the law?

And if Bush admits he broke the law, wouldn't that leave him open to prosecution himself? He certainly can't pardon himself, can he?

In fact, I think Obama has Bush boxed in on this.

If Bush signs this bill he and the telecoms can still be held criminally liable. If he passes the bill and grants pardons, he will admit his administration has engaged in criminal acts in blatant violation of the law.

If Bush grants pardons, he will admit his crimes and his legacy (whatever shambles are left of it anyway) will be cemented as nothing more than a petty criminal who trampled on the rights of americans and broke his oath to defend and protet the constitution.

If he signs this bill and doesn't grant pardons, great! Let's prosecute.

One last thing. I think people are confusing Obama's postion. His major hold-up on FISA was never civil immunity. Yes, he's against civil immunity, but Obama was always more interested in restoring oversight protections to the FISA court that have been lacking under this administration. This bill does that.

And, as a bonus, it also leaves open the possibility of a criminal investigation/prosecution. Given these facts, I can not understand why so many people are attacking Obama for his position. Especially considering that if they get their way and this bill is scrapped, do you really think the republicans in the house and senate are going to leave criminal immunity out of the next bill? So not only will they have civil immunity, but also criminal. 

If that happens, there will be absolutely ZERO accountability. With this bill, there's at least the chance of criminal prosecution.

Does it include everything we want? No. That;s why its a compromise bill. In compromises, not everybody gets everything they want.

Thats called governing. Get used to it. I have a feeling President Obama will be interested in governing and finding practical solutions with as broad support as he can get. Our country is in trouble right now.

We need solutions with broad support to help us out of this mess. Its the only way we're going to accomplish anything.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The Supreme Court Erased 13 words from the Constitution...and nobody seems to care that much.

The Second Amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If, as the court said today, the right to bear arms is an "individual" right, then why did the founders bother with that whole spiel about "A well regulated militia being necessary to the securtiy of a free state?"

Why wouldn't they have just written "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

If that had been in the constitution, the i would agree with the court's ruling. However, that's not what the amendment says.

Can someone explain this to me. This seems an awful lot like "judicial activism" to me.  I mean, the supreme court just erased 13 words from the constitution.




Maury Povich Values

This is pretty disturbing, in my opinion.


As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies—more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year.
 
(snip)

All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together.

Then the story got worse. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy," the principal says, shaking his head.
So can I ask, just what the hell is wrong with these people? And what can we do to convince them that it is not ok to get knocked up just because you want someone to "love you unconditionally". Get a freakin' puppy if thats what you want.

But, what can be done? The efforts the've undertaken have been met with hostility and perhaps have even made the problem worse.


The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC.

(snip)

Dr. Brian Orr, a local pediatrician, began to advocate prescribing contraceptives regardless of parental consent, a practice at about 15 public high schools in Massachusetts. But the notion of a school handing out birth control pills has been met with hostility. Says Mayor Carolyn Kirk: "Dr. Orr and Ms. Daly have no right to decide this for our children."
Because your children have been such doing a bang-up job of making wise decisions in the first place...


Gloucester's elected school committee plans to vote later this summer on whether to provide contraceptives. But that won't do much to solve the issue of teens wanting to get pregnant. Says rising junior Kacia Lowe, who is a classmate of the pactmakers': "No one's offered them a better option."
A better option? How about NOT getting pregnant, and NOT bringing a child into the world that you can't take care of? How about working hard in high school and going to college? How about getting a job? How about getting some freakin' psychological help before getting knocked up(intentionally) by a homeless guy?

I'm the first to admit i'm not much of a policy wonk. And i have no special insight into "family planning" or "birth control" policy. But there has got to be something that can be done to stop this madness.

So. What's the solution? You can't stop someone from getting pregnant if they are absolutely determined to get pregnant. And it seems these girls are.

Is the solution psychological? Am i a sexist pig for thinking that anyone who wants to get pregnant at such a young age, when they can't even take care of themselves, let alone a baby who will be utterly dependent on them for everything 24 hours a day, needs serious psychological help?

Or is this just an unfortunate part of life that we have to live with, that we've always lived with and probably always will live with?

Or is the solution to somehow convince them that having a baby before you're ready will not make your life better and will greatly limit your opportunities and potential for future success? Isn't that a job for families and not school or public officials? And isn't that fact painfully obvious to anyone with more than half a brain anyway?

Slow News Day Open Thread

Is Friday the 13th really bad luck? No. Of course not. But they actually wasted time and money to conduct a study to prove it.


 Dutch statisticians have established that Friday 13th, a date regarded in many countries as inauspicious, is actually safer than an average Friday.

A study published on Thursday by the Dutch Centre for Insurance Statistics (CVS) showed that fewer accidents and reports of fire and theft occur when the 13th of the month falls on a Friday than on other Fridays.

Maenwhile, the sun is eerily quiet. Could it mean the beginning of another ice age?


The sun's surface has been fairly blank for the last couple of years, and that has some worried that it may be entering another Maunder minimum, the sun's 50-year abstinence from sunspots, which some scientists have linked to the Little Ice Age of the 17th century.
Turning to more earthly and slightly more irrelevant matters, my favorite guilty pleasure, 24has announced that John Voight (the actor!) will be playing a bad guy next season. I'm still kind of pissed that the writers strike left me without Jack Bauer saving the world this year by using tactics he learned on the set of The Lost Boys. But next season is definitely looking up.


In his first series role in 40 years, Jon Voight has signed on as a recurring character on the upcoming seventh season of "24."

On the Emmy-winning Fox drama, Voight will play the uber-nemesis of Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland), who is pulling the strings behind next season's terrorist threat.


Oh. And in case you didn't know, John McCain is old.

Strickland Removes Himself from the Veepstakes

He actually had a shot at winning it too.

I personally was never wild about the idea, but if he could help Obama win in Ohio, I was for it. But the Governor isn't interested.

Asked on NPR's "All Things Considered" if he is auditioning to be Obama's running mate, Strickland said, "Absolutely not. If drafted I will not run, nominated I will not accept and if elected I will not serve. So, I don’t know how more crystal clear I can be."

Looks like Obama is gonna have to win Ohio on his own, which I'm confident he can do.

The Not-So Straight Talk Express

via John Cole

John McCain on Tuesday of last week


Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received.
John McCain just three days later


Holly Bailey and Jon Meacham: Want to back up a little bit and talk about press coverage. One of the things that you mentioned in your speech in New Orleans was that you felt that the media hadn’t recognized or had overlooked some of the attributes that Hillary Clinton had brought to the race. And I wondered—

John McCain: I did not [say that]—that was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]—I’m not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage or not coverage.

John McCain: Change you can believe in!!

Spread the word.

But in all fairnes, at his age, you can't expect him to remember things he said three whole days ago.

Word Count

After going the entire campaign season without once uttering the word "gay" in public, Hillary managed to say it twice in her concession speech today. Once thanking her supporters, "gay and straight" and once in reference to "gay rights".

And it comes at the end of her campaign, when she has nothing left to lose. I'm sure its a coincidence though.


Payday Loans Law May Go to Voters

Via my local NBC news affiliate:

A payday loans industry group is considering a November ballot issue that would ask voters to repeal a new law that limits the interest rate charged by such lenders.

Columbus lawyer David Paragas is representing the Washington-based Community Financial Services Association in its fight against the bill signed by Gov. Ted Strickland on Monday.

It would cap annual interest rates at 28 percent, down from as much 391 percent charged currently.

If state elections and legal officials decide a petition is in order, backers would need to get signatures from 241,366 voters by Sept. 1 to put the repeal before voters.


Sounds like a great strategy to me. I'm sure voters would love to pay 391% interest as opposed to 28%.

Seriously. In what universe do these people live where they think voters will willingly force themselves to pay unconscionably high interest rates?

Hillary Clinton and the "Activist Base"

Hey remember this lie-filled rant?

“Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”

Just remember this when/if you even contemplate giving money to $100 Mill Hill  to "retire debt." I'm not telling you to give or not give, but just ask yourself if she really deserves your hard earned money.

There's something personally repugnant to me about someone who is uber-rich begging us pee-ons for money because they didn't make a wise choice in how to invest or spend their money.

"OH poor me. Instead of 100 million dollars, i only have 80 million now! How ever will i survive?!"

Hillary Clinton and the "Activist Base"

Hey remember this lie-filled rant?

“Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”

Just remember this when/if you even contemplate giving money to $100 Mill Hill  to "retire debt." I'm not telling you to give or not give, but just ask yourself if she really deserves your hard earned money.

There's something personally repugnant to me about someone who is uber-rich begging us pee-ons for money because they didn't make a wise choice in how to invest or spend their money.

"OH poor me. Instead of 100 million dollars, i only have 80 million now! How ever will i survive?!"

Hillary Clinton and the "Activist Base"

“Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”

Reason to Believe in America Again

In all the psychodrama of trying to figure out what Clinton wants, its easy to overlook a simple fact.

Barack Hussein Obama is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Just take a moment and appreciate that.

History will forever remember the date of June 3, 2008. And we were all a part of it.

I wish I was blessed with the talents of a poet to put into words exactly what this means and exactly how historic this is. But i'm not blessed with those skills.

I'll merely say this. During the course of the last eight years, there were moments when I lost faith in America and Americans. Over the last eight years, I've watched this country go from being the last great hope to a country that not only embraces torture and secret prison camps where "due process" is meaningless, but openly defies human rights and human dignity. I've watched our government go from one "of the people, by the people, and for the people", to one whose sole response to the protestations of its people is "So?".

But the wonderous thing about democracy is the ability to self correct. The ability of the people to grab the steering wheel and yank it in a drastically different direction just when you think we'll go over the cliff into oblivion.

Over the past eight years, it feels like we've forgotten what it really means to be Americans. We've forgotten that we faced down the British empire and won. We've forgotten that we overcame a divided union. We've forgotten that we've stood toe-to-toe with evil and came out triumphant before.

If over the course of the last eight years I lost faith in my country and my fellow citizens, my faith began to come back to me on a cold January night in Iowa when a young, unknown, upstart politician defeated the most dominant and powerful brand name in democratic politics of the last two decades.

And he did it by reminding us of our place in the American story. It doesn't begin with us, and it doesn't end with us. We've faced challenges and hardships before and we've come out stronger and more prosperous. And it is in realizing this, that we can begin to believe again in the possibility and the resilience of America. That while the challenges we face are tough, they are certainly no tougher than facing down Hitler, or overcoming a great depression, or staring down the Soviet Union with hundreds of nuclear missiles pointed at us.

But we should take a moment, and appreciate the awesomeness of an America where the impossible can still  happen if you work hard enough and are willing to do what it takes.

I am so very proud of my country right now.

More Entries »

Cafe Features



Cafe Features


June 30-July 4

Steven Greenhouse The Big Squeeze

July 7-11

David Sirota The Uprising

July 14-18

Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam Grand New Party

July 21-25

Bill Bishop The Big Sort

August 4-9

Book Cover

August 11-15

James Galbraith The Predator State

August 25-29

Book Cover







Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Al Shaw



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address