Excellent discussion at table on the dem. nomination race. It would seem to me that although we have both Obama and Clinton supporters, that the Hillary people seemed more numerous tonight. Also, see blue Articles section for letters about this.
AND...don’t miss special presentation next Wed. on our misguided Drug War
Need I say it? VOTE on Tuesday.!
ellen
Is this a red flag? A deal breaker? Obama has heavy funding by nuclear power industry according to NBC (see YouTube clip) and is in favor of expanding nuclear power. See article below, and check Google “Obama Nuclear Power”. Ellen
..................................................................................
Salon Weekly
~ In 4 Color-Coded Sections:
- Table Notes
- Events & Opportunities
- Articles, Letters (“opinions expressed are not necessarily mine”...ellen)
- Books, Reviews, Films, Magazines
- Tri-State Treasures: events compiled by Jim Kesner
A Weekly Email Publication of The Lloyd House: Circulation: 613. Growing out
of the Wednesday Night Salon . For info about the Salon, see the bottom of
this email. Join us at the Lloyd House every week of the year at 5:45 for pot
luck and discussion. 3901 Clifton Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio. To Submit events
for the Weekly, send (not attachment) me email, subject line
"Weekly-Events:(description)", in Times New Roman font, Maroon color. FOR ARTICLES, send me, in Times New Roman, Navy color. to ELLENBIERHORST@LLOYDHOUSE.COM,. Saves me a
lot of work that way. Send submissions by Wednesday evening.
To: Friends on our Pot Luck Salon list (c. 600)... Now in our
seventh year),
(to unsubscribe see below, bottom of page).
................................................... Section One: Table Notes ............................................................................ (Note: these notes were taken at the table and have NOT been approved or corrected by the speakers. Reader beware of inevitable misunderstandings and misrepresentations. E.B.)
At the table Wednesday 2/6/08
Carolyn Aufderhaar, Mary Biehn, Rob Nendewaab, Steve Sunderland, Mr. G., Derek Lester, Roger Pamplas, Bob Witanowski, Spencer Konicov, Elaine Bradford, Ellen Bierhorst, Brooke Audreyal, Linda Gruber
Mary: Derek
Announcements at table
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brooke: coming up, Cardigan Sweater in honor of Mr. rogers.
Ellen the war protest on March 19
Elaine: laughter, “an instant vacation”. “What soap is to the body what laugh. Is to the soul.” Woody Allen: “I am thankful for l. except wheb milk comes out my nose.”
Spencer took me 13 min 47 sec to climb Carew tower, a tad worse than last year. I was the second oldest participant. The other fool is 69. Took him 15 min.
Mary Wall St. Journal. “...reduced testosterone is related to obesity, lowered sexual function, reduced muscle mass, etc. etc. ...”
Gerry I heard on NPR a review of a great documentary about the trial of the Chicago 8. Found an audio tape that the court reporter had. Sounded fantastic. “The Chicago Ten”. So relevant to today.
Spencer my impression of the review was that the defense atty was the only one acting professionally.
Rob I was there. At least was on the edge of the crowd and could run. It was a police riot. ... We were harrassed on route because we did not have Indiana tags. ... A british M.P. Was maced and arrested.
Gerry the Neighborhood Summit was good. For the first time it wasn’t the city telling us how to act, but really was the city listening to the people. There owas a session on schools, recycling, foreclosures. There is help! Cntact legal aid for help with foreclosures. Elizabeth Tull at Legal Aid. Also David at CUFA. (communities united for action).
Spencer a, salonista, mentored by me, has continued to negotiate with her mortgage co. and has been successful in negotiating a 3.8% interest rate for the next 7 years, saving her $1000/month! Before that she had started at 5.5%, ARM, they adjusted it up to 15% before the negotiation.
Banks would prefer to bleed a little every year rather than take a huge loss right now... She borrowed more than the property was worth.
Bob you can also cut deals with credit card companies to pay back the principle when you have outrageous interest rates.
TOPIC: the Dem. Nomination
Steve: I think it is over; Obama has won. Hillary blew herself up at the beginning of the debate last night. Hope she will be sec’y of state or VP. Think Obama will win Ohio, Tex. Or both. I am for him because he excites me more than anyone in the recent past. Sense of excitement in my students at UC. We need to be rejuvenated in this way... I am frightened for him and his family. I applaud McCain for his appology for Bill Cunningham (racism).
Hillary scored points only when she confronted O. on the Farrakhan issue; he agreed that he would end F.’s suposrt and endorsement of him.
Ellen: I have waffled back and forth. At the beginning of the race I was for Obama cuz I liked his speech at the Kerry nominating convention 4 years ago and Hillary never appealed to me. Then I read Gloria Steinem’s endorsement and became a Hillary supporter. I liked her website, it was very professional when Obama’s was not (yet). Then Monty Sher said you have to cop to Obama, he is really inspired, listen to his speeches. So I did, and then I was sold, and became an Obama supporter again. Last week my brother John Bierhorst said he is for Hillary because she is more progressive than Obama, who has voted the “wrong” way on many pieces of legislation. Also Susan Wooley, a brilliant psychologist and my friend, said she has followed the race very closely, watched every debate, and is for Hillary, says Hillary has transformed, is now in a state of grace, wants only to serve people. Also Susan mistrusts Obama, and fears that he does not have impeccable character. But here is my absentee ballot and I still haven’t filled it in. Suellyn Shupe told me she set hers in but then changed her mind, now has to go to the Bd. Of Elections and try and change it. Two weeks ago everyone I spoke to was for Obama, as was I. Now, the tide has turned to Hillary in the people I talk to. Lots of passion for her.
Spencer: unusual afternoon. My ex wife just dropped by. She was for Obama. She was turned off by Hillary’s aggressiveness. Are we so naïve as to not understand we judge women differently on aggression than men? I could not fathom that she would hold a woman to a higher degree of graciousness than she would hold a man. I saw the debate. I marveled at her ability to handle the Louis Farrakhan thing...stuck with the issue; kept going after hi to give him wisdom. I marveled at that ability. She took the time to do that. She could have let it hang .
We have had an actor for a president. We have had an economist, Bill Clinton who gave full employment, rreduced welfare roles, gave us a surplus budget. Now we have an opportunity to elect a very wise and competent woman who has an encyclopedic grasp of everything... Has an experienced mentor... If the American people pass this up to elect another inexperienced person would be a crime. You can volunteer to phone bank for Hillary Clinton by calling 821-8444, you can go either to the Central Pkwy phone bank or to the Wyoming phone bank.
Mr. G. My evolution has been similar to Ellen’s. I debated a long time, esp. on the electability issue. Then I decided I don’t want the contest to end prematurely. I went to the Obama rally, and it was like a rock concert. It turned me off. He bowls me over. And his tactics turn me off. I always questioned his depth, his honesty. I thought there were tell tale signs last night at the debate. E.g. “cherry picking” ... I found him looking like Kerry. Kerry lawyered too much. I see Obama a clever lawyer. If he is nominated I’ll vote for him. Perhaps he is the one who could beat McCain.
Rob I am still sitting on fence. In Sunday paper I saw article on foreigner’s perceptions. They see Obama as progressive, black man...
Gerry I support Obama. I hope nobody would ever accuse me of being anti-feminist, as having been a feminist always... But I think O. is smarter, thinks out of the box, not like insiders in Washington. There is nothing wrong with inspiring people with hope. Said he does support Israel. Wants to revive the Jewish Black coalition from the ‘60’s. I think h e is a better person. If we didn’t have O. I ‘d vote for H. ...bring the country together better. People don’t like her, for whatever reason. Is divisive in our country. Most of all, O is smart and creative. He doesn’t beat around the bush like H. did when asked if she would publicize her finances.
Steve I like what Spencer said, and also Mr. G. ... I don’t want to be saying that Hillary is a zero ... Has many positive qualities. I don’t see her experience playing a great deal in the white house during Bill’s years... I don’t see her bold leadership on big issues; is still too cautious on war, for ex. She is very smart, has critical thinking.
the last quesiton of the debate last night; O. said he had been sorry that he contributed to the Terry Schiavo mess. He voted with the majority; didn’t filibuster... It was expedient. I think he is a learner. Can he learn quickly enough?
I come back to Who would I want to be in the White House? I am much more drawn to O. Although I like H’s health care. But O. touches on the basic unfinished business of America, race, class, poverty. He is going to have to face the problems of elders as well.
(?) What about gender issues? More women than Blacks.)
Absolutely, another unfinished business, though it doesn’t equal the issue of race.
Roger: I appreciate Ellen’s earlier comments, that you were willing to share y our back and forth process. As for me I am a Hillary supporter. I know her, I feel comfortable with her, I have history with her. As for O. four years ago he was nothing and now here he is. I don’t know that he has ripened... I am not voting for a speaker, I am voting for a president. But with Hillary, I am very comfortable with her. I am not concerned about the Christian Taliban, they are not going for her in any case. I hope she stays in the race. I think the numbers are too close to call. They want a band wagon effect; we need to think with brains not emotions.
Marvin I was moved last night by something I heard a reproduction of the NY Philharmonic playing in N. Korea. This week. US anthem, then the Korean anthem. It was so touching; huge applause. Music, bringing these people in the “axis of evil”, ... Land this is what O. is all about. Bringing people together. “We should talk to our enemies.” the concert brought together people of two nations, through music. ... O. is younger than our middle son! Amazing.
don’t we live in a wonderful world: who would ave thought four years ago we’d be choosing today between a woman and an afr. Amer. ?!
Elaine I am thinking I do believe Barack will be nominated, don’t know if he will be elected. I do think H. is v. talented. But if president I don’t think she would be able to use fully her wonderful gifts. She’d become someone else’s pawn, because the agendas are too strong. Is better suited to doing field work in foreign countries, helping women. Grass roots work.
A cartoon that came my way: Barack’s first mandate in the white house is to change the name “the white house.”
Carolyn: I am for H. Intuitive. And because the pieces fit for me. But I don’t think she will get it.
Brooke: I am feeling lonely. I am not for either one of them. Have real concern. Don’t think the Dems. Are a shoe in by any stretch of imagination. H. is a corporate democrat. The things she and Bill did... In the past election Howard Dean had big success, brought in so many people. The Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC) was against that all along. Democracy for America is a real grass roots organization, still. We had some great victories. There was the Harris/Delay face off. In Texas. The DLC was against Harris.
Howard Dean as chairman has been working to build up the party again... The 50 state strategy. I.e. No longer going to be active only in the “blue” states, but all 50 states, and that contributed to O’s victories in places like Idaho and Hawaii. ... I doubt that Howard Dean will continue as chairman because the DLC is against him.
The corporate politicians in bed with the DLC people. I feel H. is more of that than O. Really sad to say that.
Hope that O’s inspiring speeches enter his heart. He has not been a grass roots democrat. They supported him (DFA) but he turned on them. Went to the table with the Nuke people in Il on nuclear regulations, and the Nuke people came out ahead.
I would love to vote for Nader... But I probably will vote Obama as support for Dean and the DFA, the DNC.
Gerry re. the nuclear thing in IL. Obama was not supportive of it but was outvoted in the state legislature which loosened the rules on Nuke plants. Surprised that current regs. Are much looser now.
Mary I support Hillary but haven’t decided who to support because I am not sure she can be elected
Linda undecided. Am I just voting for corps. In voting Clinton. Also think McCain has a good shot. I am leaning in direction of Obama but not certain.
Bob don’t like either H. or O. Don’t trust either. I think Nader would be good. Has good things to say. ... I don’t think I am going to vote for McCain!
Marvin Last nite H. said, and it bothered me, asked about her income tax return. Said I’ll do it before the dem. Convention. Pressed, she said, “We’re working on it.” I believe that she must have her return for 2006 by now! That maybe she is hiding something.
....
Marvin none of the candidates have really addressed the mortgage foreclosure thing.
Bob we haven’t seen the end of this yet.
Marvin we are just at the beginning! If you really investigate you will find criminal acting. No presidential candidate has discussed the issue.... Nor have they addressed the huge increase in utilities upcoming.
Gerry I heard on the radio the average home will have increase of $300 / month!
Brooke why is the government requiring that all TV go to digital, making it so everyone with an old TV will have to get a converter. The gov’t will give you $40 to buy a converter for your old TV.
Marvin: anybody pay $10/mo and get 78 channels?
Ellen you can get your internet and telephone service through the power lines
Bob only in certain neighborhoods.
Ellen understand your phone bill? Mine is 160. Business line.
Spencer: I have cell, two of them, 2,000 min., zoomtown internet, house line, unlimited long dist anywhere in US, for 108/month. And I can dial any Cinti. Bell phone at no charge.
Spencer I go to a good dentist on Padock Rd. in N. Avondale ... I have to have an extraction. Went to another dentist in Bond Hill... Excellent... New equipment... TV of what he is doing... Wow.
Only 108 for my tooth. Name is Crawley. Edwin P.
~ End of Table Notes~
Hugs to everyone,
Ellen
Section Two: Events & Opportunities
Presidential Candidates and other policymakers and candidates have been invited to hear THE PEOPLES solutions for ending Poverty as we know it!!!
Friday, Feb. 29 1:00PM at New Prospect Baptist Church, 1829 Elm St., Cincinnati 45202.
Sponsored by The Contact Center, Ohio Votes, IJPC, Cincinnati Women's City Club, Peaslee Neighborhood Center , Keith Kilty, Professor Emeritus, College of Social Work, Ohio State U., and many more.
Hear grass roots discussion of problems and solutions, as well as "expert" opinion. See you there.
Special Speaker at Salon Wed. 3/5: Chicago Attorney against Drug “Prohibition”
Ellen,
>
> James Gierach, one of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition best speakers,
> will be here in Cincinnati. He is scheduled to speak to the Cincinnati
> Rotary and the NAACP on March 6th.
The other night I spoke with Councilman Cecil Thomas. He is willing to
engage in public discussion on this difficult subject. Would you be
interested in having Mr. Thomas attend as well? (I wrote rob to say Yes to this. Ellen)
Below is a short description of Gierach for you.
Robert Ryan
Speaker Coordinator Assistant
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc
888-385-2843
--------------------------
James Gierach
"Prohibition - not drugs - is at the hub of most U.S. crises worth
talking about"
---------------------------
James Gierach is a practicing attorney who has experienced the effect
of the war on drugs from both sides of the legal system. As a Chicago
prosecutor in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in the early
1970s, Jim scrutinized and perfected search-warrant complaints for
narcotics officers to "make the charges stick" in court. He also worked
"homicide court" and witnessed the violence that exists as a direct
result of drug prohibition.
After 35 years of courtroom and broad-based legal experience, Jim has
concluded, "Not only does prohibition not work but it is prohibition
(not drugs) that is at the hub of most U.S. crises worth talking about:
gangs, guns, crime, prisons, AIDS, health care, corruption, and eroding
of our civil liberties."
As an attorney representing a "zero-tolerance" municipality, Jim once
dutifully advised an applicant for street-sweeper that because he
failed his drug test for marijuana he was ineligible for the job.
However, Jim noted, the test results would not disqualify the applicant
from running for President of the United States. In other instances of
drug-war irony: Jim has counseled a law-enforcement juvenile officer
who secretly maintained himself for years on a large daily-dose of
methadone; seen divorce clients use "zero-tolerance" as a weapon
against spouses in custody and visitation battles; represented a
millionaire drug dealer, not yet an adult, enticed into the drug
dealing because of the "excitement" offered by that life style; watched
as a client and business-owner in his 50s, with no criminal history,
was sent to the penitentiary because, as the client put it, he was
"lured into the drug business by our government, who gave me the chance
to make some extra money and I couldn't refuse"; listened to the
anguished story of a distraught mother explaining that her daughter had
turned to prostitution in order to afford her drug bills and had
eventually been "executed" for failure to pay a $25 drug debt.
Referred to as "Illinois' preeminent conscientious objector" to the war
on drugs, Jim spent the last dozen years fighting drug prohibition as a
candidate for Cook County State's Attorney and Illinois governor in
primary elections, and as an author, speaker, and attorney. He has
discussed and debated drug-policy issues on television, radio and in
many other venues.
FROM LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS:
ACTION ALERT: Stand Up Against Administration Fear Tactics
Your Representative in Congress needs to be encouraged to keep protecting America’s basic civil liberties against the administration’s fear tactics. The administration wants to continue warrantless wiretapping of American citizens and to let telecommunications companies off the hook for possible illegal eavesdropping.
The 110th Congress has already spent innumerable legislative hours discussing surveillance legislation. Earlier this month, the Senate passed S. 2248, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2007, which allows for limitless warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch and includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. These companies have allowed the administration to use corporate resources to spy on innocent Americans.
The House of Representatives voted to adjourn for the President’s Day recess without considering S. 2248, thereby resisting administration claims that this would leave America vulnerable to terrorism.
Take action today to encourage your Representative to keep protecting civil liberties by continuing to stand against the administration’s fear tactics! http://capwiz.com/lwv/issues/alert/?alertid=11046081&type=CO
Tell your Member of Congress to limit the ability of government agencies to obtain information about American citizens without the appropriate judicial constraints. While the intelligence community needs the authority to track terrorists abroad, this should be done without threatening our civil liberties.
TAKE ACTION
1. Contact your Representative now, by phone or by email, and tell him or her to continue to stand up against S. 2248. Tell him or her that warrantless wiretapping of Americans is unacceptable in a democracy and remind your Representative that blanket retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies is wrong.
2. Send this alert to other concerned citizens - your grassroots network, your friends and coworkers. Encourage them to contact their Representative today!
BACKGROUND
Learn more about what the League has done to protect civil liberties.
Sign up to receive Action Alerts directly by email. Don't miss an opportunity to take action! It's easy to sign up and the League will never share your email with others: http://takeaction.lwv.org/lwv/mlm/signup/.
For additional information, please contact LWVUS Grassroots Lobbyist Christina Vamvas at lobbying@lwv.org.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS FROM THE KRAUS’
Ellen -- The person Marvin said (At the salon table last night) to call for help in housing foreclosures or other housing financing problems is Dave Scharfenberger at CUFA (Communities United For Action). His telephone is 853-3947.
The persons to call for information about recycling programs at apartments and/or condominiums is Michelle Balz (tel. 946-7789) or Holly Christman (tel. 946-7734) both at Hamilton County Dept. of Environmental Services, Solid Waste District.
The discussion at tonight's Salon was very interesting and informative. Thanks for providing the opportunity for such discussions.
Gerry
ELLEN GOODMAN TO SPEAK IN CINTI 3/13
Woman's city club. Of Greater Cincinnati is a non-profit organization that works to bring justice in a number of areas. We work with "cease fire Cincinnati", have a tutoring program in Rothenberg school Over the Rhine, and have been working with CPS promoting Green schools, etc. See our website www.womanscityclub.org <http://WWW.womanscityclub.org> for info about our mission.
Every year we bring a woman who is known nationally to speak in Cincinnati. Last year we had Diane Rehm. This year we are bringing Ellen Goodman, who is a syndicated columnist featured in the Post. She is a long time feminist and author of many books. Ms. Goodman will be in Cincinnati to speak on
Thursday March 13, 2008 at 7:30
Plum Street Temple
Her topic is "The Political is (Too) Personal, the Media is (Too) Polarized and Television News is an Oxymoron"
Tickets cost $25
There will be a private reception following her talk. Tickets for the reception are available to anyone who contributes to the event at or above the "sponsor" level of $125.
To purchase tickets please contact Jill Bley 961-8788 or drjillbley@cinci.rr.com.
LOCAL PARENTS WORKING FOR SCHOOL LEVY
VOTE YES FOR #10
From: Denise Dal Vera [mailto:ddalvera@cinci.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:45 PM
Cc: Denise Dal Vera
Subject: Important Info. Please Help. Please forward.
Hi,
As a parent of a 5th grader in CPS Dater Montessori, and a homeowner in Westwood, I'm reaching out to my friends, family, city leaders and neighbors who either live in Cincinnati or know someone who does.
It is my deep personal opinion, that if Public Schools in Cincinnati are allowed to go into financial emergency and are taken over by the State if the levy Does NOT pass, it will be destructive - not only to our kids, but our city, our property value and our ability to recover as a community. While it is not fair that our property taxes take the full weight of our school's funding, sometimes we forget that there hasn't been an increase in 8 years so we are actually overdue. (The past issue levy, a few years back, was only designed to release funds we already had voted on earlier and set aside. Odd I know.) So yes, no one wants their property taxes to go up, but until something changes at the State level, this is the system we are stuck with, so for right now, this levy MUST pass. Our property value is directly linked to our neighborhood school's success and that has a, "pay me now, or pay me later" outcome. It effects us all. CPS has made great strides. We have a fresh new school Board dynamic, that can now finally turn it around, but they need time and renewed support and help.
I talk to other parents who ask why aren't we, (the parents) told anything? What is going on? Why aren't we touting all of our CPS accomplishments? I don't know either. I do know that campaigns cost money. Those opposed to Pubic schools have money. CPS isn't able to do anything but grassroots communication, so we need to get informed before it's over and we wish after the fact, that we ALL did more.
Please show that you care.
Our community needs to see that people care about our public schools!
We are all greatly concerned by the drastic budget cuts in store for Cincinnati Public Schools that were announced this past week. If Issue 10 does not pass on March 4th , our schools will be looking at budget cuts of $48M. Even with the levy, our schools are implementing $30M in budget reductions. Why, as our critics ask, do we need to ask for more money when our enrollment has declined? Why can't we scale back the number of new schools being built and use the money from the facilities levy for operations? How will the budget cuts impact students and classrooms?
EVERY TUESDAY from 4:30 to 6PM:
Campaign update meetings:
Campaign Headquarters
4526 Este Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45232
(513) 541-6240
Thank you for your help and if you do not want me to contact you again on this subject, please let me know. I will send out one more e-mail before the March 4th election.
Denise
CPS Dater Montessori Parent
I am supporting the zoo levy. ellen
CALLING FOR PEACE DEMONSTRATORS AT THE LLOYD HOUSE FOR THIS EVENT.
EMPTY SHIRTS, LOST LIVES
5TH ANNIVERSARY OF IRAQ WAR OBSERVANCE
March 19th marks the fifth year of the Iraq War. This anniversary is a somber occasion
for the US, Iraq and the world; the loss and suffering of the past five years will weigh
on each of us in a special way. To face this burden together, and to express our
continuing opposition to the war, IJPC will coordinate a special observance.
Details are still being finalized, but please mark your calendar for Wednesday March 19th.
There will be an interfaith prayer service at 4:30 PM at St. Monica St. George. From
5:30 to 6:30PM we will stand along Clifton Avenue, from McMillan north,(right in front of the Lloyd House) displaying one tee
shirt for each ten US soldiers killed in the war. The empty shirts will tangibly represent our
society's loss of a young person and all that his/her life would have brought to our
world. Sadly, the line of shirts will extend for more than two miles. We mourn the fact
that the total loss of life on all sides of this conflict far outstrips our ability to
represent the dead.
To accomplish this moving portrayal of America's loss, we need your help. We are asking
individuals and groups to commit to this project. Please respond to Kristen@ijpc-cincinna
ti.org or to 513-579-8547 if you can provide the materials and people needed for the shirt
display. Each unit of the display will require ten clean tee shirts, clothespins, a
length of rope and four or more people to hold the shirt display. Sadly, we will need
about 400 groups of 10 shirts each to symbolize the US dead. Ideally there will be some
larger institutions that can commit to multiple units, while families and small groups
will provide a single unit. A detailed "how to" packet will be sent to parties
indicating their willingness to help with our community's commemoration of the fifth
anniversary.
FROM LOUISE SPIEGEL: (one of Clifton’s “grandes dames”)
Ellen: I do read your accounts of the conversation. IT is not important
for me to know who the speakers are or how you connected with each
other. But I do glean something each time you send the weekly email and
I am grateful. This week I would like to reach Roberta (Paolo, of Granny’s Garden) about her garden
to publicize her for the celebration of Human Relations month in March.
As a commissioner at CHRC I started this celebration so that citizens
would gradually become more prominent in the public space--all by way of
trying some new techniques to strengthen the citizen voice and to ask
people-like Roberta- to tell their stories.
There is now every Sunday morning an open weekly Tai Chi practice session at the Lloyd House in the third floor zendo at 10:15 am. Everyone welcome. Group is led by Jackie Millay She is excellent! Only three of us. Come join us. Raise the chi, warm yourself up this winter. ellen
Articles
Contents:
- Gerry Kraus supports Obama, “with tears in my eyes”
- Jean Shinoda Bolen M.D.--for Hillary
- Jeanette Raichyk on political situation
- Hillary’s trade position
- David Loy is FOR Obama (not against as previously published here)
- Jenny Stanton for Obama
- Obama is FOR nuclear power according to Huffington Post
- Isaac Sher for Obama
- Aaron Bendix-Balgley (age 22?) for Obama
- Pat Baas endorses Kathy King for judge
GERRY KRAUS FOR OBAMA- Dear Ellen -- I just read Erik Bendix's letter in support of Barack Obama (in the 1/31/08 Lloyd House newsletter) and tears came to my eyes. I too was a young idealistic voter of the 1960's and I believed that we, each of us, could really make a difference to make the world a better place by voting for John F. & then Bobby Kennedy and marching with Martin Luther King, Jr. Many years have passed since then and I have witnessed many political events that could have completely disillusioned me. But, believe it or not, after all these years and all those disappointing events, I still believe that "Yes, We Can!" We can make a difference. I believe that the message of Barack Obama is one that will transform the way America does "political" business. Obama is a person of the better world that the Kennedys and King worked for. He is a person who stands beyond race to move our multi-ethnic society to a new, higher level of civic accomplishments. I believe he will restore the responsible heritage of Jeffersonian democracy and restore the idealistic image that the United States once had in the international community. He is a charismatic leader with a charismatic message for a better future!
Then I read your message, Ellen, repeating Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address", a message which, by the way, has hung framed on my red, white and blue back stairs (to the second floor) wall since 1961,along with The Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I am particularly inspired by the line, "...that these dead shall not have died in vain."
In an earlier conversation you asked me why I supported Obama. Like Erik B. I support Obama for all the reasons he so eloquently wrote in his letter. I also support Obama, in part, so that my dead heroes (John & Bobby Kennedy and Martin L. King, Jr.) "shall not have died in vain."
Gerry K.
Another powerful woman leader for Hillary:
Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D., Acclaimed Psychiatrist, Jungian analyst, feminist leader: FOR HILLARY
To : grandmothers, mothers and daughters:
From Jean Shinoda Bolen, M,D.
Dear Friends
I am a stong supporter of Hillary Clinton. I think that she's taken a lot of "hits" for everywoman who is competent, intelligent and verbal/. She is labeled as polarizing because of the misogyny that she evokes. I have been impressed to know that Hillary has lifelong supportive women friends and remember hearing that she had the emotional support of her loyal staff of women during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. She protected and raised Chelsea and knows how precious a child is. She has been a strong and effective advocate for women, children, and people who have had more difficult lives because of skin color, disabilities, sexual orientation or poverty. She can imagine being in their situation and like most women, Hillary is an empathic person who can multi-task, and like good mothers everywhere can negotiate, set limits and standards, and mean what she says--which also made her an exceptionally good Senator. I think that she got a sense of service and hard work from her mid-western roots and Methodist faith. She was handed a lesson in humility at the beginning of Bill Clinton's administration when she took on reforming America's health care and failed—and then refocused successfully on medical care for needy children. In his second term, she had the unenviable role of the last-to-know humiliated wife. Later as a Senator, she was able to work with Republicans in the Senate including those who tried to impeach her husband. She has had awful aspersions cast upon her. Seems as if she has learned to forgive in both private and public life and go on stronger than before. From all indications she does not suffer from the political occupational hazard of narcissism and as a female, she is protected from the alpha male hi-octane mix of testosterone and adrenaline that fuels males to favor confrontation and invasion over patience and communication.
At the 4th UN women’s conference in Beijing in 1995. Hillary Clinton delivered the words and made the case for "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights."Hillary needs help. http://www.hillaryclinton.com
She said "The voices of this conference and of the Women at Huairou (where the NGOs were meeting) must be heard loud and clear:
It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.
It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.
It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.
It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes.
It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families.”
With love and hope,
Jean Shinoda Bolen
www.jeanbolen.com
Author: Urgent Message From Mother: Gather the Women, Save the World
If three women heed this message and if they tell three other women, there would be nine. If each of them then spread the word to three others, there would be twenty-seven. If each of these twenty-seven, passed this along to three of their friends, there would be eighty-one. If these eighty-one women talked to three others, in just four steps--there would be 243. In thirteen steps—three to the thirteenth power- the message “support Chelsea’s Mom” would reach over a million women (1 594 323 ). This is how geometrical progression works, this is how a virus spreads and becomes an epidemic, this how consciousness-raising groups became the women’s movement. This is how Hillary can be elected President. There is hope!
Firebreathing Jeanette Raichyk says, “What’s the balance in congress after November ‘09?”
I have just one question. Being a systems person, I see that our government is responsive to the needs of people ONLY when they are not all powerful, as we have painfully seen in the last 6 years out of 8 years. One party totally dominated. No balances existed. We went down the tubes, morally, financially, publicly.
The only thing that saved us from Bill Clinton's excesses in the previous 8 years was that his handiwork could not get undilutedly past the opposition party in the other branches of govt. It matters not one whit who is elected, only that their power be balanced by opposition.
So the big question.. and no one is addressing it.. is where will the Senate (now teetering on the brink, with Cheney deciding) and House of Representatives (with less than 5% in swing position) will be when this election period is concluded?
Where will they be?
We know the judgeships are set on one agenda, and have expanded roles to making law from the bench, but their influence is usually delayed. OTOH, their institutional deference to the executive in power makes them a variable.
This election needs information on where the legislative branches will be when the dust settles. Where do we look?
I've started searching Google but that's slow going without some clues for the search. Who's the keeper of this sort of prediction? All I see is history.
Jeanette Raichyk, who's unsurprised at the treatment that Hillary is getting because the corporate-parity focus in the women's movement is blind to the depth of their failure but who's libertarian-systems view says Hillary's plans are equally doomed if she wins, and that women will be worse off if she wins even if we're angry at her treatment.
HILLARY’S TRADE/NAFTA POLICY POSITION
Answer to David Rosenberg’s question from last week
Ellen,
please send this on to David Rosenberg who on the latest salon bulletin was asking about one of the key issues NAFTA. Here is the answer from her senior campaign manager. Maybe you could put it out on the newsletter?
Julie Murray
February 19, 2008
Hillary Clinton’s Trade Agenda
Making Trade Work for Working Families
With the middle class squeezed and the economy slipping into recession, American families need a President who will fight for their economic interests from day one. Americans need a President who will fight for fair, pro-American trade policies that will not trap them in a race to the bottom. Low wages in other countries are costing America jobs and putting pressure on wages here at home. With approximately one quarter of our gross domestic product linked to international trade, we need trade policies that better manage globalization. As President, Hillary will make trade work for working families.
Fixing NAFTA. NAFTA was negotiated more than 14 years ago, and Hillary believes it has not lived up to its promises. Hillary is the only candidate with a detailed plan to fix NAFTA—one that addresses its shortcomings and brings the agreement up to date. As President, she will work with our trade partners to:
· 1) Dramatically strengthen NAFTA’s labor and environmental provisions. Strengthening these provisions will elevate labor and environmental standards around the world, protecting our workers from a race to the bottom. It will also make it harder for companies to move jobs to countries where workers have fewer protections than in America. NAFTA’s labor and environmental provisions are now in a side agreement rather than in the core text. The requirements are weaker than those Hillary will demand in future trade agreements, and weaker than those the Democratic leadership recently crafted. As President, Hillary will bring NAFTA’s labor and environmental protections up to date. She will make the standards far tougher and absolutely binding, and she will place them in the core agreement so that we are working to raise living standards around the world.
· 2) Change NAFTA’s investment provisions that grant special rights to foreign companies. Under NAFTA, foreign companies can challenge American laws before special tribunals and outside of our court system. The laws that foreign companies can challenge include regulations intended to protect workers and protect the environment. Hillary believes that trade agreements must elevate standards of living around the world, not empower corporations to hold them down.
· 3) Strengthen NAFTA’s enforcement mechanisms. Stronger enforcement mechanisms will ensure strict compliance with the agreement and it will help remove trade barriers our companies may still encounter. Hillary will apply the stronger enforcement mechanisms not only to NAFTA’s commercial provisions, but to its labor and environmental provisions as well.
· 4) Review NAFTA regularly. Regular reviews will enable us to measure whether our workers and communities are reaping benefits, will ensure that labor and environmental standards are improving, and will allow us to assess whether the agreement requires additional changes going forward.
Strong Labor and Environmental Provisions in All Trade Agreements. Hillary will require that all future trade agreements contain strong and enforceable labor and environmental provisions in the core of the agreement. These provisions will elevate labor and environmental standards around the world, protecting our workers from a race to the bottom. These provisions will also make it harder for companies to ship jobs to countries where workers have less protection than they do in America. Hillary opposed CAFTA in part because the labor and environmental provisions were inadequate.
A Trade “Timeout.” As President, Hillary will take a “timeout” from new trade agreements until her administration has formulated a comprehensive trade policy for the 21st Century—one that is genuinely pro-worker, pro-American, and vigorously enforced. Reviewing existing trade deals, strengthening enforcement, and formulating a smart trade policy will be her priories.
Regular Review of Trade Agreements. As President, Hillary will review all of our trade agreements to determine their economic effects and ensure they are working for America. As Senator, she has introduced the Trade Agreement Assessment Act to review all agreements in their 2nd year, 5th year, and every 5 years after that. The reviews will assess whether the agreements are benefiting our workers and economy and whether our trade partners are improving their labor and environmental standards.
A New Trade “Prosecutor.” As President, Hillary will vigorously enforce our trade agreements. To that end, she will appoint a trade enforcement officer and double the enforcement staff at USTR. The current staff is too small to monitor and enforce the increasingly complex trade agreements. Vigorous enforcement of our trade agreements has not been a priority for President Bush—but it will be for Hillary.
Cracking Down on China’s Currency Manipulation. Foreign countries manipulate their currencies to make American goods look expensive on the world market and to make their own goods look inexpensive. This practice hurts American workers and it must end. Hillary is a co-sponsor of legislation that will require the administration to take definitive steps to stop China and other countries from harming American interests by undervaluing their currencies. Currency manipulation by our trading partners is also contributing to our trade deficit. Hillary has co-sponsored the Foreign Debt Ceiling Act, legislation that will require the administration to draw up an action plan to address our large trade imbalance.
Strengthening Support for Workers Adversely Affected by Trade. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program provides job training, income support, a health care tax credit, and job placement assistance. Hillary will modernize the program to ensure that it is truly helping workers hurt by global trade. First, Hillary will broaden TAA to cover all workers whose plants have moved abroad. Workers are currently ineligible for TAA if their plants relocated to countries with which we have not signed free trade or trade preferences agreements. This outdated rule means that when plants shift from America to low-wage countries like India and China, laid-off workers are ineligible for TAA. Second, she will extend TAA benefits to service workers. Today, workers who produce a service rather than a product are ineligible for TAA, and therefore call-center operators and other workers are left without assistance. Third, Hillary will double funding for TAA’s job training program to $440 million. And fourth, she will overhaul the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) to ensure that it is actually making health care affordable for laid-off workers. She will increase the tax credit to 90% of premiums from the current 65%. And Hillary will fight for a universal health care plan that provides all Americans with quality, affordable health care.
Opposing Trade Agreements That Harm American Workers. President Bush hastily signed the Korea free trade agreement before his fast track authority expired, and the consequence was a deal that will cost America jobs. Korea has a long history of blocking access to its car market, and yet the agreement has weak provisions for prying that market open. At the same time, the agreement further opens our own car market to Korean vehicles. Hillary strongly opposed the Korea free trade agreement for these reasons. She also strongly opposed fast track authority for President Bush because he has misused the authority and failed to enforce our agreements. Hillary opposes the Bush administration’s trade agreement with Colombia because of the country’s history of violence against union members. She opposes the trade agreement with Panama because the head of the country’s National Assembly is a fugitive from justice in America. And Hillary strongly believes that the President should not rush to sign other trade agreements on his way out of office.
CORRECTION: DAVID LOY* IS FOR OBAMA
(*salonista, Buddhist leader, X.U. Prof.)
Dear Ellen,
Oh dear, there's been a misunderstanding: I am NOT against Obama -- in
fact, I think he's probably the best of the not-very-good lot that we
have left to choose from. What I am against is the adulation which he
is receiving, simply because he is charismatic and gives a good speech.
That's all very nice, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he will be
a good president.
The basic problem, I suspect, is that we're all so depressed and
discouraged after seven miserable years of Bush II that we're very
susceptible to all his vague talk about 'hope.' We are desperate for
some genuine hope in a truly difficult national and world situation, so
that gets projected onto him. He offers the genuine possibility of
something different, and as long as the rhetoric is kept general enough,
each of us can draw our own conclusions about what that actually means.
But it's an emotional response, not a rational conclusion based on who
he is and what he's actually done.
As things stand now, I'll probably vote for Obama too, because the other
candidates offer no hope at all: they are establishment figures that
represent 'more of the same'. The Clintons destroyed what was left of
the Democratic Party, even as Tony Blair's 'New Labour' destroyed what
was left of the British Labour Party. In both countries there's now only
one party -- the Business Party -- with two faces. [As Huey Long once
put it, we've got two different waiters, but the food we get is cooked
up in the same kitchen.] So we don't need any more Clinton years.
One more thing, Ellen, about a different topic: I think we need a Wed.
salon discussion devoted to Sitwell's situation. If Clifton loses Lisa
to Northside, it will be like losing the heart of Ludlow. I don't know
enough to say what might be done, but I know we need to do something
before it's too late.
Off to Massachusetts for a few days. Hope to see you after that.
David
JENNY (JANE) STANTON (WWHS ‘56): passionate for Obama
Dear Women of a Certain Age:
Since I heard on NPR this morning that we are the constituency in Ohio that Hillary is counting on, I felt I needed to say, “Not me!” Yes, I am an older white woman and a liberal Democrat, but I am not supporting Hillary. I am addressing this letter to all of my friends who reside in the same demographic—we are older, live in Ohio, and are progressive, thinking women.
Barack Obama is who I support. I would like to tell you why. I got interested in him because of my daughter, Emily. She ran the Baltimore marathon last October to raise money for him. I was impressed by her effort but also with the letter he wrote her after she had completed the run. Oh yes, it may have been written by one of his “people” but it was an inspiring letter. This is what he said:
You have done a lot to reach this milestone, and you should be proud of your achievements. Accomplishments such as this are building blocks for even greater things to come. As you move into the next stage in your journey, I hope you continue to display the same determination and diligence that earned you success in this endeavor.
I encourage you to dedicate yourself and your talents to creating positive change in the world. But make no mistake; if making your mark on the world were easy, everybody would do it. It takes patience and commitment, just as you have shown in this most recent endeavor. The real test is not whether you avoid failure because you will not always avoid it. The real test is whether you let failure harden or shame you into inaction, or whether you learn from it; whether you choose to persevere.
That letter struck me. Here he is urging her to further achievement. Using her success in running the marathon to spur her on to even more important goals. Wow, I thought, this guy is not your usual politician.
Since October, I have paid attention to his speeches, read his first book and, most amazingly of all, watched the outpouring of hope that he has tapped in our country. I want to have as President someone who can talk about trying again even though you have failed. I want someone who can lift us beyond our personal aspirations to something even greater. I want a President who talks about our country’s fear, pain, loss and how to overcome them. I see in Obama a leader who can inspire people to become better. I see that inspiration in the faces of people at his rallies and I saw it last night.
Last night, my friend Val and I went to an Obama organizing meeting at New Friendship Baptist Church on Reading Road. That’s a big church, ladies, and it was filled, standing room only. In the balcony, up front in the choir benches, down the sides and at the back of the sanctuary, we were squeezed together, people of all ages, young and old, about evenly mixed black and white. It was moving to see how much hope and belief he has engendered in people in staid old Cincinnati. The media says it can’t be done—to elect a really forward-looking person in this town—but last night I got the impression that we can!
The campaign organizers were introduced last night (all young enough to be our children or grandchildren). They told us that the goal of the Ohio effort is to get the vote out at the primary on March 4. Not to argue people out of their belief in Hillary, not to get into shouting matches with those who support McCain. Get the vote out with people who might otherwise not vote; those who fear that Cincinnati is a not a place hospitable to change; those who are Independent and have been listening to both candidates. Get people to the polls to make a difference. The organizers asked the women in the audience to contact or email at least ten women friends in Ohio to tell them where we are in this major contest. I am writing to you, and, if it strikes a chord, I would ask you to contact 10 more women from your network. And that is how change is made.
Thank you for reading this. I hope you will look at his website at BarackObama.com. Listen to the debate from Cleveland coming up on Tuesday, February 26 on MSNBC.
He speaks to my condition, as the Quakers say. I hope you will find the same is true for you.
Obama is pro-Nuclear?!From Huffington post:
DAVID DELCOURT
Shades of Green: Obama vs. Hillary on the Environment http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-delcourt/shades-of-green-obama-vs_b_86920.html
Posted February 19, 2008 | 12:33 PM (EST)
Senators Clinton and Obama are battling state-by-state with platforms so strikingly similar that news anchors often resort to broad generalizations and horse-race style talking points. Both candidates stress the centrality of environmental and energy issues in guiding the nation's future, yet it remains difficult to discern concrete distinctions between the candidates' positions.
In short, let us abstract away for a moment from Hillary's vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq; forget about Obama's relative inexperience on the international scene and both candidates' aggressive programs for economic and health care stimuli. We are going to concentrate on the candidates environmental and energy platforms to examine the various shades of green.
The Similarities: Both candidates are full supporters of: a cap-and-trade permitting system to cut U.S. emissions 80% below their 1990 levels by 2050, with proceeds from the sale of permits going towards renewable energy projects, R&D and energy efficiency measures; increased CAFE and EPA fuel efficiency standards; zero-emissions government building requirements; 25% renewable energy portfolio standards by 2025; 60 billion gallons of biofuel available for cars and trucks by 2030; a federal sponsored venture capital fund towards clean technologies; investment in a green collar workforce; and both support coal-to-liquid, provided it is proven 20% more efficient then conventional fuels (still on the fence about this one myself, even if 20% efficiency is achieved). In essence, Obama and Hillary share many of the same views on this crucial issue of climate change.
The Differences: Obama walks two slippery slopes in his campaign. First, he is a Senator from coal-rich Illinois, the state in which the government's first coal-to-liquid FutureGen plant is slated to be built. Secondly, he is a proponent of increased use of nuclear energy, which Hillary opposes until more research is done regarding associated hazardous waste stream. (Even though in 2005, Bill Clinton helped a large energy financier gain the exclusive rights to mine Uranium in Kazakhstan). However, Obama does stress investment in local ownership of biofuel refineries and remains stringently in favor of 50% industry energy use through efficiency measures by 2030. Hillary on the other hand, has been less vocal then Obama as a proponent of America as the global climate leader. Her strong differentiators are a proposed a plan with Connie Mae in order to make green homes easier for families to purchase, her support for the complete phase out of incandescent light bulbs and a proposed series of Smart Grid city partnerships to increase the use of on-demand energy efficiency measures. While there are other nuanced differences, these are a few of my highlights.
..... (for the rest of this article go here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-delcourt/shades-of-green-obama-vs_b_86920.html
ISAAC SHER (my son in chicago) is for Obama
I've thrown my lot in with Barak Obama, personally.
Being able to inspire people is the very essence of leadership. It bothers me that the Hilary camp is starting to use the "he's without substance" tactic, because it's based on a false expectation that Presidents have to have some sort of pre-established legislative resume. The point of the President, to me, is to LEAD the nation. He can't do everything himself, but if he can inspire others to work together WITH him for the sake of the nation, then he's done his job.
I do believe that Obama will be able to create a climate of cooperation and compromise within government. I believe that Hilary would simply lead to more of the same Us Vs. Them politics, but with the added dimension that the GOP has a serious hatred for her, and will be even more hositle to her policies than they were to her husband's. I do not believe that she would fare well in an election against McCain.
And Hilary's been reduced to attacking Obama for being inspirational, for trying to spin that as a negative. She's desperate at this point. It's not attractive behavior for a candidate.
- Isaac
MORE YOUTH FOR OBAMA: Aaron Balgley-Bendix
Please send on to anyone you feel might want to read this. Along with the letter, pass along my email (aarondbb@yahoo.com) in case anyone has any questions for me, and tell anyone they can pass it along to anyone they think might want to read it. Thanks... Aaron
Barack Obama: Why Now Matters
(emphases added by Ellen)
Barack Obama is forty six years old. He has been in the U.S. Senate for only three years and was in the Illinois State Senate for just seven years prior to entering national politics. Some say he is too young to be president or ask why he doesn’t “wait his turn” and run in 2012 or 2016 when he is more “experienced.” If asked this question directly, Mr. Obama would likely refer to “what Martin Luther King Jr. called the ‘fierce urgency of now’” or would say “there is such a thing as being too late” – eloquent ways of explaining that there are a number of issues, from the Iraq War to healthcare, the economy, climate change and energy dependence, etc…, for which this moment in history is critical. But I’d like to offer a different explanation of why now matters for Barack Obama.
For the past twenty or more years, partisan rancor has dominated Washington politics. Republicans and Democrats have been locked in a tug-of-war in which the ruling party (usually with only a slight majority) gets almost complete control of the legislative agenda. As a result, legislation tends to rock back and forth as the political see-saw rocks back and forth between Republican and Democratic majorities. Because the ruling party works mainly to undo what their “opponents” had done when they held a congressional majority and the minority party works mainly to prevent the majority party from accomplishing much (using stalemating procedures such as filibustering and preventing votes from going to the floor), this hyper-partisan landscape has produced no major landmark legislation since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Don’t believe there’s anything wrong with the way the Republican and Democratic parties interact in Washington? Take a look at the recent Roger Clemens steroid hearing. Congressional Democrats largely posed hostile questions to Roger Clemens, while Republicans posed hostile questions mostly to Clemens’ accuser, Brian McNamee. Apparently, according to a number of news networks, this otherwise non-partisan issue became politicized just because Clemens and George W. Bush are friends. Remind anyone of middle school?
Even so, I must admit that as a Democrat (upper case “D”), it is very tempting to want to ride the anti-Republican zeitgeist in this country, created by George W. Bush’s largely failed presidency, to a Democratic majority and to “punish” the Republicans for their various abuses of power in the past eight years. But, it pains me as a democrat (lower case “d”) to see the opinions of 49% of the voting population routinely shut out of the political process at any given time, whether or not I fall in that minority. And, perhaps more importantly (or at least less idealistically), I realize that this mentality is short-sighted. I may take some satisfaction in seeing my political views dominate Washington politics over the next four to eight years, but I must realize that the Republicans will eventually regain control of Congress and of the Presidency and that the way they will govern at such a time will be determined by how they were treated as the minority party. In other words, unless this bitter political tug-of-war comes to an end now, I will find my political voice silenced at least as much as it has been recently when four, eight, or even twenty years finds me on the lower end of the political see-saw once again. Some call the hyper-partisan politics of the past twenty years Bush-Clintonism, and perhaps the real origins trace back further to the cultural wars of the 1960s, but as anyone with a sibling and a mother will tell you, it doesn’t matter who started the fight, only who will end it.
So why is Barack Obama the one to bring this brand of politics to a stop? A clue may be found in the apparent sentiment of a majority of independents and a number of moderate Republicans. He has attracted independent voters all over the country, even winning independents by 15 points in Clinton’s home state of New York and by 30 points in California (both states he lost overall). Among some moderate Republicans, a crossover movement has given birth to the phrase Obamicans (Obama Republicans) and gave him 70% of the crossover Republican vote in the Virginia primary. Obama even recently gained the endorsement of the former Republican Senator from Rhode Island, Lincoln Chaffee. And, in an interview on The Tavis Smiley Show, Colin Powell said “I’m terribly excited, I’m impressed, and I’m happy for Barack Obama.” These kinds of sentiments, as well as an apparent willingness to at least tolerate Obama among more conservative Republican politicians and pundits, by themselves mean he is likely to be able to work with the Republicans and help bridge this partisan divide, but what’s more important is not the fact of these sentiments, but the reasons behind them.
Obama speaks often on the stump of bringing people together from both sides of the aisle. In his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention, he declared that “there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.” And in his New Hampshire concession speech, he said “we can disagree without being disagreeable.” This notion of restored civility and unity between the two parties certainly accounts for some of Obama’s crossover appeal, but I suspect there’s more to it. I suspect it boils down to something as simple as his willingness, even compulsion, to listen and to think. In a political landscape that favors knee-jerk reactions over discourse, it is no small thing that Obama spends at least as much time at his town hall meetings really listening to and contemplating questions as he does just spouting off the rote, rhetorical responses expected of most politicians. He seems to genuinely want to hear opinions that are not his own and to work to incorporate the valuable parts of these opinions in with the valuable parts of his own beliefs. As evidence of this, Obama said in an MTV presidential forum this fall, “I would be willing to bring Republicans into my cabinet because I don’t think Democrats have a monopoly on wisdom.” Since the presidency is far more than a one person job, I find it very important that Obama is willing to surround himself with people who don’t necessarily agree with him all the time instead of just “yes men” and “yes women.”
If, however, you believe these high-minded ideals (which I nevertheless think are far more than just a “fairytale”) are not enough and want proven accomplishments to show Obama’s ability to work with both sides on issues, I would point you to his legislative record. In the U.S. Senate, Obama passed his first bill, which created an open search engine for citizens to track federal spending (grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans) online, with Republican Senator Tom Coburn. He also worked with Republican Dick Lugar to bring new non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure nuclear weapons and materials so they don’t fall into terrorist hands. And, when not enough Democrats were willing to get on board, Obama and Senator Russ Feingold crossed the aisle and brought in a number of Republicans to pass ethics legislation that mandated disclosure of lobbyists’ bundling of contributions, ended subsidized corporate travel, and enacted strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips.
Perhaps the best example of Barack Obama’s ability to work through challenging issues, however, comes from his time in the Illinois State Senate. After a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Obama proposed legislation that would require interrogations and confessions be videotaped to ensure no physical coercion was a part of the process. This seemed likely to solve the problem, but the bill aroused immediate opposition from a number of sources. There were Republicans who took pride in being tough on crime and Democrats who feared appearing soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists who thought Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would take away their best argument. And, there was vehement opposition from the police, too many of whom wanted the ability to “solve” crimes by force, not reason. Through a determined campaign of cajolery, Obama was able to whittle away the opposition until only the police stood in his way, but they proved to be no pushovers. The police used lines like “this means we won’t be able to protect your children” to freeze a number of Illinois Senators from action and managed to limit the videotaping to confessions in the first iteration of the bill. Knowing this would be insufficient, Obama pressed on. He listened to the officers and successfully convinced enough of them that he shared their concerns (even working to help pass other legislation they wanted) to assuage the opposition and pass his original bill by a remarkable 35 to 0 margin in the State Senate. Since the job of a president is not to pass legislation, but rather to convince Congress and the American people of the need for and the wisdom in certain proposals, it is this kind of experience that makes Senator Obama the candidate most likely to make effective use of the bully pulpit. And more importantly, it is this kind of experience that makes him most likely to be able to work with politicians and political groups who don’t want to agree with him and who don’t want to agree with each other.
Why then can’t Obama “wait his turn” and challenge Washington’s ways in four or eight years? There are, of course, many issues for which “there is such a thing as being too late” that would see no progress during that time without bi-partisan solutions; but I think there is a more important explanation of why now matters for re-branding Washington politics. I believe this particular moment in time offers a unique opportunity to end the tit-for-tat cycle of partisan revenge. Like Jimmy Carter in 1980, George W. Bush stands in office with disapproval from both the left and the right ends of his own party. In 1980, Jimmy Carter’s low approval ratings, combined with Ronald Reagan’s crossover appeal (to so-called Reagan Democrats, his version of Obama’s Obamicans), led to a landslide Republican victory. Bush, however, seems to arouse a stronger opposition than Carter did. Carter was disliked primarily for underachieving and failing to meet some of his campaign promises. George W. Bush, however, is disliked for entering an unwise war, for his office’s secrecy and favoritism, for moving to the left of his party on some issues (immigration and spending) and yet shutting out the Democratic Party on nearly all other issues, and, possibly, even for breaking the law. What’s more, the 2008 Republican candidate, John McCain, enters the race with a certain amount of built-in distrust among conservatives. In other words, barring a Democratic meltdown, the 2008 election looks prime for a momentous Democratic victory.
With a convincing victory, and with a Democratic Congress behind them, a Democratic president would easily be able to accomplish his or her agenda and shut the Republican Party out of the process. But, it is at just such a time that the right president could instead completely undo the stifling partisanship of modern American politics. It is easy, and necessary, for a president to say “let’s work together” when the other party holds a Congressional majority; and it is only somewhat magnanimous to say “let’s work together” when the margins are close in Congress; but it takes a truly strong leader to have the political zeitgeist firmly at their back and have the ability to shut their opponents out of the process, and yet to say “no, we should still work together for the common good.” It is indeed true throughout history that the way the victorious treat the defeated is often the greatest factor in determining their future relationship. If the victorious parties apply undue punishments to the defeated, as in the case of the Treaty of Versailles, a backlash occurs and warfare returns. If, however, the victorious party shows mercy, compassion, and a listening ear to the defeated, as in the case of America and Japan, past hostilities are soon forgotten and a fruitful alliance may form. It is for this reason that the current political climate (which is sure to be completely different in four, eight, or twenty years) is vitally important for Barack Obama. He may have more “experience” in four or eight years, and he may still be a good president if elected then, but it is only now that he can really shift the way politics work in Washington.
Aaron Bendix-Balgley.
Pat Dewine running against Magistrate Kathy King for Republican judge endorsement:
My excellent friend Pat Baas says, “vote for Kathy King”! Ellen.
Dear Friends:
I do not know if you intend to vote republican in upcoming primary, but if you do and you are a registered voter in Hamilton County, Ohio, I would ask you to pay particular attention to the primary for the judgeship for the Court of Common Pleas (General Division) in which Magistrate Kathy King is running against Pat Dewine for the republican endorsement.
I have been practicing in domestic relations law for approximately 24 years and have had numerous cases before Magistrate King. I truly cannot say enough about her judicial temperament, knowledge of the law and trial procedure, skill, honesty, insight and respect for the clients and attorneys who practice before her.
If you are not voting on the republican ballot this election, please pass on this information to anyone you know who will be doing so.
If you do not have the opportunity to vote for Kathy King at this time, hopefully you will see her name on the ballot in the general election and cast a vote for her.
Thank you for your consideration,
PAT BAAS
Patricia A. Baas, Esq.
3091 W. Galbraith Rd., Ste. 102
Cincinnati, OH 45239
(513)521-2929
Telecopier: (513)521-2464
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
My friend, Kathy King, is running for judge in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. She's in a David vs. Goliath race against Pat DeWine, a politician for the last 8 years. DeWine ran for Cincinnati City Council in 1999 and 2003. He ran for County Commissioner in 2004 and for the U.S. Congress in 2005. Now he is running to be a judge. Please request a Republican ballot and vote for Kathy King for Judge in the primary on March 4th.
A vote for Kathy King is a vote for experience.
- Kathy King has been a judicial officer for 25 years, having served as a magistrate in The Common Pleas Court, Domestic Division. DeWine has no equivalent experience.
- Kathy King has been an attorney for 33 years: DeWine: an attorney for 13 years.
- Kathy King tried approximately 50 jury trials. DeWine had tried no jury trials as of 1/17/2008
- Kathy King tried hundreds of bench trials. DeWine has failed to state how many bench trials he has had.
- Kathy King directed The Chase College of Law Clinical Program at N.K.U., teaching law students how to try cases in court. DeWine has no equivalent experience.
- Kathy King has heard 1,000s of cases over the last 25 years. She has issued 1,000s of decisions and court orders. DeWine has no equivalent experience.
- Kathy King has instructed other magistrates & judges many times as a faculty member for the Ohio Judicial College-DeWine has no equivalent experience.
If you would like more information, please go to http://kathyking2008.org/ .
A vote for Kathy King is a vote for experience.
Books,Movies, Reviews
It’s up to you folks to send me blurbs. I know you are reading. What? Is it good? EllenNamely: Brian Swimme, Ralph Abraham, Stanislav Grof, Deepak Chopra, Rupert Sheldrake, Lynn Margulis, Terrance McKenna, and William Irwin Thompson.
Having read Twilight of the Clockwork God three times in the eight years since I discovered it, I choose to recommend it to the group. John David Ebert, editor with the Joseph Campbell foundation, offers the reader conversations on science and spirituality with eight of the leading thinkers of our time.
Ebert skillfully relates the thinking of the hard scientists in physics and microbiology with that of the more intuitive, mythological thinkers. In some cases this points out tensions that still exist, but in most cases he makes his point; that the age of mechanistic science is over.
Each time I read the book, my understanding increases, and I find my self increasingly satisfied to be living at the cusp of a new age.
Suellyn Shupe (our new Lloyd Housemate and soon-to-be Salonista)
..............................................
From Jackie Millay, our Tai Chi teacher:2/26/08
Hi Ellen,
Hope you're enjoying your accordion playing.
Byt the way, I have "The Celestine Prophecy" DVD, if
you'd like to borrow it. I could drop it by next
Sunday. Just let me know. I'm putting together a
spiritual cinema DVD library, so I would need it
returned when you're through.
After I saw the DVD, I read "The Tenth Insight" by
James Redford also, which is about the afterlife and
our connection with that as well as how we project
energy and need to be aware of projecting from the
divine/loving source.
Then, I read his last novel, "The Secret of Shambala",
which continues with the message of how important it
is for us to come from a loving space and not anger
and fear. By using the novel form, I thought he did
an excellent job of showing how easily and readily we
can fall into the fear/anger places and, therefore,
move from that as opposed to the deeper love
connection.
As an aside, I felt there was a certain amount of
'cheese', but he certainly has a wonderful message and
I feel, it is greatly related to the universal,
healing Chi energy that can be communally felt. We
are surrounded in love...
Thanks again for sharing your wonderful space.
Many blessings,
Jackie=====================================
The Lloyd House Salon (usually about 12 people) Meets on WEDNESDAYS at 5:45,
EVERY Wednesday, 52 WEEKS/YEAR come hell or high water, as my mother used to say.
We of the Lloyd House Salon gather in a spirit of
respect, sympathy and compassion for one another
in order to exchange ideas for our mutual pleasure and enlightenment.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Our Salon blog is a promising interactive site: http:lloydhouse.blogspot.com
Also, we have an Interactive Yahoo Salon group, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LloydHouseSalon
For Pot Luck procedures including food suggestions, mission and history visit
http://home.fuse.net/ellenbierhorst/Potluck.html .
You are invited also to visit the Lloyd House website: http://www.lloydhouse.com
> To unsubscribe from the Lloyd House Potluck Salon list, send a REPLY message
> to me and in the SUBJECT line type in "unsub potluck #". In the place of #
> type in the numeral that follows the subject line of my Weekly email. It
> will be 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7or 8. This tells me which sub-list your name is on so I can
> delete it. Thanks! ellen bierhorst
No comments:
Post a Comment