The America We Love, by Senator Barack Obama

Posted: June 30, 2008

June 30, 2008
Independence, Missouri

On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists - farmers and merchants, blacksmiths and printers, men and boys - left their homes and families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an Empire. The odds against them were long and the risks enormous - for even if they survived the battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason, and death by hanging.

And yet they took that chance. They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. The idea of God-given, inalienable rights. And with the first shot of that fateful day - a shot heard round the world - the American Revolution, and America’s experiment with democracy, began.

Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots. And at the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it is fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism - theirs, and ours. We do so in part because we are in the midst of war - more than one and a half million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 60,000 have been wounded, and over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce. It is natural, in light of such sacrifice by so many, to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us to our nation, and to each other.

We reflect on these questions as well because we are in the midst of a presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in generations; a contest that will determine the course of this nation for years, perhaps decades, to come. Not only is it a debate about big issues - health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security - but it is also a debate about values. How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?

Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is - or is not - a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.

So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.

My concerns here aren’t simply personal, however. After all, throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams’ Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans - all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.

In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today’s patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s - in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.

Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views - these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America’s traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments - a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.

What would such a definition look like? For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories. I’m not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be. Rather, I’m referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child.

One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii. I remember the cheers and small flags that people waved, and my grandfather explaining how we Americans could do anything we set our minds to do. That’s my idea of America.

I remember listening to my grandmother telling stories about her work on a bomber assembly-line during World War II. I remember my grandfather handing me his dog-tags from his time in Patton’s Army, and understanding that his defense of this country marked one of his greatest sources of pride. That’s my idea of America.

I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence - “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.” I remember her explaining how this declaration applied to every American, black and white and brown alike; how those words, and words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the injustices that we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad. That’s my idea of America.

As I got older, that gut instinct - that America is the greatest country on earth - would survive my growing awareness of our nation’s imperfections: it’s ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia. Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief - that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father’s steadying hand, it is this essential American idea - that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will - that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.

That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America’s ideals - ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one. It is the application of these ideals that separate us from Zimbabwe, where the opposition party and their supporters have been silently hunted, tortured or killed; or Burma, where tens of thousands continue to struggle for basic food and shelter in the wake of a monstrous storm because a military junta fears opening up the country to outsiders; or Iraq, where despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the courage of many ordinary Iraqis, even limited cooperation between various factions remains far too elusive.

I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.

Of course, precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.

The young preacher from Georgia, Martin Luther King, Jr., who led a movement to help America confront our tragic history of racial injustice and live up to the meaning of our creed - he was a patriot. The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib - he is a patriot. Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country’s name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution - these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that - especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.

Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation - for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country - no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.

We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the current conflict in Iraq has been the widespread recognition that whether you support this war or oppose it, the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor.

For the rest of us - for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military - the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.

In spite of this absence of leadership from Washington, I have seen a new generation of Americans begin to take up the call. I meet them everywhere I go, young people involved in the project of American renewal; not only those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands, but those who are fighting for a better America here at home, by teaching in underserved schools, or caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their local communities.

I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come. We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program, even as we strengthen the benefits for those whose sense of duty has already led them to serve in our military.

We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted. But it is our responsibility as Americans and as parents to instill that history in our children, both at home and at school. The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names. Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker’s rights.

It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one’s community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.

And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.

When we pile up mountains of debt for the next generation to absorb, or put off changes to our energy policies, knowing full well the potential consequences of inaction, we are placing our short-term interests ahead of the nation’s long-term well-being. When we fail to educate effectively millions of our children so that they might compete in a global economy, or we fail to invest in the basic scientific research that has driven innovation in this country, we risk leaving behind an America that has fallen in the ranks of the world. Just as patriotism involves each of us making a commitment to this nation that extends beyond our own immediate self-interest, so must that commitment extends beyond our own time here on earth.

Our greatest leaders have always understood this. They’ve defined patriotism with an eye toward posterity. George Washington is rightly revered for his leadership of the Continental Army, but one of his greatest acts of patriotism was his insistence on stepping down after two terms, thereby setting a pattern for those that would follow, reminding future presidents that this is a government of and by and for the people.

Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature - he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.

And it was the most famous son of Independence, Harry S Truman, who sat in the White House during his final days in office and said in his Farewell Address: “When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task...But through all of it, through all the years I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware than I did not really work alone - that you were working with me. No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save the people helped with their support.”

In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind - not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, the American people. That is why our heart swells with pride at the sight of our flag; why we shed a tear as the lonely notes of Taps sound. For we know that the greatness of this country - its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements - all result from the energy and imagination of the American people; their toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor and quiet heroism.

That is the liberty we defend - the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek - not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build - one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Obama’s profound impact on the future

Posted: June 26, 2008

The following article appeared in The State on June 26.

By WARREN BOLTON - Associate Editor
Many have opined about what Sen. Barack Obama’s phenomenal win in the Democratic presidential primary and his possible ascension to the presidency mean to this nation.

Just the elementary historical facts are powerful enough: There has never been a black president. An African-American had never come close to winning a major-party nomination. None had been part of a majority-party ticket.

What does Sen. Obama’s nomination say about race and race relations in America? What does it say about opportunity for people of color? Those are the kinds of questions many a pundit has tried to put into perspective.

Of course, most importantly, Sen. Obama’s ascension says a lot about, well, Sen. Obama. It says his powerful gift of oratory and his message of change connected. His ability to build and manage an extraordinary campaign network and to raise funds is superior. His idealism that America can unite beyond race and politics and age worked.

As I’ve considered Sen. Obama’s accomplishment, I’ve determined the most profound impact he’s had — not considering the possibility of him becoming president and proving to be one of our better ones — is on our future more than our present or our history.

I didn’t grasp that until I took my 2-year-old to the doctor last week and he took a vision exam. It was through young Alexander’s eyes that I saw how important this moment in time could be.

The nurse administering the exam pointed to different shapes and images on a chart, asking Alexander to identify each. One of the recurring images was that of a flag. It wasn’t an American flag, but a flag just the same.

To a 2-year-old, a flag is a flag, right? Alexander is most familiar with the U.S. flag. When the nurse pointed to the flag, he answered confidently.

“Barack Obama,” he said, pronouncing it as best as a 2-year-old could.

“What did you say?” she asked.

“Barack Obama.”

As she went through the chart, she once again came to the flag.

“Barack Obama.”

“Do you know what he’s saying?” I asked her.

“No.”

“He’s saying Barack Obama.” Why? Because he was making an association. Most times when he’s seen Sen. Obama on TV, the Democratic nominee has been standing in front of the U.S. flag.

Whether Sen. Obama wins the presidency or not, he has had an untold effect on the future and psyche of America.

My son will live a lifetime in which he knows an African-American can ascend to the highest levels in this country. He won’t think it odd for a black man to seek to lead a nation. He as well as many white, Asian, Hispanic and other children, whether they like the candidate or not, won’t think it odd or a novelty to see a black man standing in front of the American flag — the ultimate display of patriotism, despite misguided and mean-spirited efforts to paint Sen. Obama as being otherwise — articulating his concerns and love for his country.

Because of Barack Obama, many of our children won’t grow up with as many of the psychological bruises those before them might have endured.

I grew up being told that I could one day be president. But much of what I saw and heard suggested otherwise. I saw and experienced the discrimination. Blacks only secured the right to vote in my lifetime. I saw many black kids in school being steered away from advanced courses and training that would have prepared them to shoot for higher goals.

Not only does Sen. Obama’s feat help shape a 2-year-old’s thoughts about himself and the world around him, but it affects so many others, from high-schoolers to college students to older folks.

Think of the many people, particularly older citizens, who had determined they would never live to see a black president. Scarcely 200 years since the end of the evil slave trade, there’s a good chance it could happen.

I’ll never forget the e-mail I got from one of my sisters who was excited about Sen. Obama’s chances: “He has more going for him than any other black person who has ever tried for the presidency. I never thought this would happen in my life time, but now I see the possibility.”

Possibility. Hope. Change.

People sell those notions short. But they’re powerful. The fact is, people of all races and backgrounds see different possibilities and hope in Sen. Obama. They see the hope for a unified America that actually attempts to address issues such as health care. It’s not so much that Sen. Obama can solve them alone — what president can? — but they believe he can inspire Americans to rise up and help bring about change.

An Obama win doesn’t mean we’ve arrived in terms of race relations and equality. But it would send a signal that we can arrive.

Even Congressman James Clyburn, who once said he would never live to see a black governor in South Carolina, was moved by the possibility. He told ETV’s “The Big Picture” that he was overcome with emotion watching Barack Obama become the first black major-party presidential nominee. He said he left a public event and went home to watch Sen. Obama’s victory speech alone “because what I was feeling was indescribable, and I was afraid that I would not be able to control my emotions .”

Congressman Clyburn controlled himself — that time. If Sen. Obama succeeds in November, Congressman Clyburn may not be able to control his emotions.

He’ll have lots of company.

California Voters Get It

Posted: June 25, 2008

The latest Rasmussen poll released on June 25th shows that Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has opened a sizeable lead over rival John McCain in the Golden State.  The polling conducted on Monday evening showed Obama leading McCain 58% to 30%.  The margin is double what the same poll showed a month ago when Obama led 52% to 38%.

Hillary Clinton won the California Democratic Primary, but there is no evidence of disenchanted Clinton supporters moving to the McCain camp.  Among registered Democrats in the state, the poll showed Obama leading McCain 84% to 6%.  Obama also showed a 23% lead among independent voters.

Obama holds 12-point lead nationally over McCain, Times/Bloomberg poll finds

Posted: June 24, 2008

The following article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on June 24.

Buoyed by enthusiasm among Democrats and public concern over the economy, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has captured a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the opening of the general election campaign for president, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found.

In a two-man race between the major party candidates, registered voters chose Obama over McCain by 49% to 37% in the national poll conducted last weekend.

On a four-man ballot including independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, voters chose Obama over McCain by an even larger margin, 48% to 33%.

Obama’s advantage, bigger in this poll than in most other national surveys, appears to stem in large part from his positions on domestic issues. Both Democrats and independent voters say Obama would do a better job than McCain at handling the nation’s economic problems, the public’s top concern.

In contrast, many voters give McCain credit as the more experienced candidate and the one best equipped to protect the nation against terrorism—but they rank those concerns below their worries about the economy.

Moreover, McCain suffers from a pronounced “enthusiasm gap,” especially among the conservatives who usually give Republican candidates a reliable base of support. Among voters who describe themselves as conservative, only 58% say they will vote for McCain; 15% say they will vote for Obama, 14% say they will vote for someone else, and 13% say they are undecided.

By contrast, 79% of voters who describe themselves as liberal say they plan to vote for Obama.

Even among voters who say they do plan to vote for McCain, more than half say they are “not enthusiastic” about their chosen candidate; only 45% say they are enthusiastic. By contrast, 81% of Obama voters say they are enthusiastic, and almost half call themselves “very enthusiastic,” a level of zeal that only 13% of McCain’s supporters display.

“McCain is not capturing the full extent of the conservative base the way President Bush did in 2000 and 2004,” said Susan Pinkus, director of the Times Poll. “Among conservatives, evangelicals and voters who identify themselves as part of the religious right, he is polling less than 60%.

“Meanwhile, Obama is doing well among a broad range of voters,” she said. “He’s running ahead among women, black voters and other minorities. He’s running roughly even among white voters and independents.”

Among white voters, Obama and McCain are dead even at 39% each, the poll found. Earlier this year, when Obama ran behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) among white voters in some primary elections, analysts questioned whether the African American senator could win white voters in the general election.

But the great majority of Clinton voters have transferred their allegiance to Obama, the poll found. Only 11% of Clinton voters have defected to McCain.

Nader, a consumer advocate who ran as the candidate of the Green Party in 2000 and as an independent in 2004, and Barr, a former Georgia congressman, both appear to siphon more votes from McCain than they do from Obama. When Nader and Barr are added to the ballot, they draw most of their support from voters who said they would otherwise vote for the Republican.

Obama’s strong showing also stems from a broader trend among voters of support for Democratic candidates and Democratic positions after almost eight years of an increasingly unpopular Republican administration.

In this national poll’s random sample of voters, 39% identified themselves as Democrats, 22% as Republicans, and 27% as independents. In a similar poll a year ago, 33% identified themselves as Democrats, 28% as Republicans, and 30% as independents.

The survey found public approval of President Bush’s job performance at a new low for the Times/Bloomberg Poll: only 23% approved of the job Bush is doing, and 73% disapproved.

A bare majority of 51% of voters said they have a “positive feeling” about the Democratic Party; only 29% said they have a positive feeling about the Republican Party.

“It’s a Democratic year,” Pinkus said. “This election is the Democrats’ to lose.”

The Times/Bloomberg Poll, conducted under Pinkus’ supervision, interviewed 1,115 registered voters across the nation June 19-23. The poll’s margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Obama Focuses On Energy

Posted: June 24, 2008

From NBC/NJ Athena Jones June 24, 2008

Barack Obama kept the focus on energy at an event with green technology workers at Springs Preserve—a site outside Las Vegas dedicated to sustainability—arguing he offered a different vision for America’s energy future than his Republican rival.

The presumptive Democratic nominee called oil a “a 19th century fossil fuel that is dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive” and said a renewable energy economy was not “some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future, it is now.” He said making progress toward energy independence and encouraging clean energy was one of the top three goals of an Obama administration—along with ending the war in Iraq and reforming the healthcare system.

“I have a very different vision of what this country can and should achieve on energy in the next four years—and in the next 10 years,” he said. “My entire energy plan will produce three times the oil savings that John McCain’s ever could—and what’s more, it will actually decrease our dependence on oil while his will only grow our addiction further.”

Obama’s discussion with a group of about 100 people here, roughly coincided with an event his McCain was holding on the environment in Santa Barbara, CA and the Illinois senator drew laughter at times as he sought to draw contrasts with his rival, criticizing the Republican’s record on clean, renewable energy and his current proposals. He slammed McCain again for proposing a gas tax holiday and for his opposition to the 2005 energy bill that increased investment in renewable energy, saying the Arizona senator had voted against biofuels, solar power, wind power—“some of the very same projects and businesses he’s highlighting in his campaign.” He seemed to mock McCain for saying yesterday that lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling would have a mainly “psychological impact.”

“A psychological impact. In case you were wondering, that’s Washington-speak for, “It polls well.” Obama said to laughter in the crowd. “The American people don’t need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks to get politicians through the next election cycle, they need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on their table.  They need a long-term energy strategy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the renewable sources of energy that represent the future.  That’s what the American people need.”

Obama talked about his own plans to invest $150 billion over ten years to develop alternative energy sources and his plans to raise vehicle fuel standards and help car companies make the transition to more fuel efficient cars. He said McCain’s offer of a $300 million reward for the developer of a better car battery was too small-scale, suggesting it was another example of Washington’s failed approach to the issue.

“After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn’t get it,” he said. “I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future.  I’ve been talking about this myself for the last few years.  But I don’t think that a $300 million prize is the way to go. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win – he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people, not just in the private sector but also in the public sector.”

Obama also said McCain’s proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors did not make sense because he had no plan to store the was in any place other than at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.

President William Jefferson Clinton Addresses the Nation’s Mayors on June 22

Posted: June 23, 2008

President Bill Clinton addressed the Annual Gathering of The U.S. Conference of Mayors on Sunday, June 22. President Clinton’s speech to the nation’s mayors reemphasized the importance of his global Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program, a project of the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) that President Clinton created in 2007. The Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program brings together four of the world’s largest energy service companies, five of the world’s largest banks, and sixteen of the world’s largest cities in a landmark program designed to reduce energy consumption in existing buildings. 

“Climate change is a global problem that requires local action,” said President Clinton. “The businesses, banks and cities partnering with my foundation are addressing the issue of global warming because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it’s good for their bottom line. They’re going to save money, make money, create jobs and have a tremendous collective impact on climate change all at once. I’m proud of them for showing leadership on the critical issue of climate change and I thank them for their commitment to this new initiative.”

For more information on the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program, please visit the William J. Clinton Foundation.

The Case for Obama-Clark

Posted: June 19, 2008

The following “Viewpoint” is written by Denny Freidenrich.  His commentary can be found in the June 16 issue of the Orange County Business Journal.

Now that Barack Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, it is time to play the veepstakes game for real.

Eight years ago, I urged Al Gore to consider picking a woman to be his running mate.  Four years later, I asked John Kerry to do the same.  This time around, an Obama-Hillary Clinton ticket is being called the “dream team.”

For too many reasons to go into here, I am afraid this so-called “dream” might turn into a nightmare.  That is why I am going in a completely different direction in 2008.

Since April, the drum beat to name General Wesley Clark as Obama’s running mate has been getting louder by the day.  Not surprisingly, I agree.

That’s because Gen. Clark was my pick for president in 2004.  What I liked about him four years ago still resonates with me today.

First, as the former NATO supreme allied commander, Gen. Clark knows how to deal with America’s adversaries. When it comes to fighting international terrorism, few people in politics (or at the Pentagon) today have the military credentials the retired Army general has.  Are you listening John McCain?

Second, because he is from Arkansas, Gen. Clark will inspire blue-collar,lower income whites in West Virginia, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, to vote for Obama.  Key states, all, in the Democrats’ strategy to win back the White House this November.

And last, as a true-blue Clinton insider, Gen. Clark’s presence on the ticket will send an unmistakable message to millions of Democrats who, today, say they might not vote this fall.  In its simplest form, thismessage is one of party unity, another key element in the campaign to win the presidency.

Here’s how writer/TV commentator Lawrence O’Donnell framed the Clark issue last month:

“The silly season of TV talk about Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama tickets is almost over.  There was general agreement on Meet The Press recently that Obama will consider military experience in choosing a vice president.  James Carville foolishly suggested Anthony Zinni and other politically untested generals.  That will continue now that the conventional wisdom has settled on the military angle for VP.  But no former general, other than Wesley Clark, will make it onto the short list in the end.

“Yes, Clark was a bad campaigner in 2004.  So was every other Democrat who lost the nomination to John Kerry.  Clark has learned enough since then to survive a two-month, one-debate vice presidential campaign.”

Clark’s addition to the Democratic ticket means that Obama’s wildly popular campaign theme of “change” will not be compromised, nor will the senator’s views about U.S. involvement in the Middle East, Cuba, Europe or Asia.

America’s responsibilities in each of these regions of the world requires a delicate balance of military strength and political will.  Some people argue that these two strategies are mutually exclusive.  I don’t buy that.

Clark is the one person who can best help the Democratic Party and the country’s new president straddle this elusive divide.

Now that Barack Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee in waiting, I hope he quickly names Gen. Clark to be his running mate.  This ticket will be a dream for the Democrats and a nightmare for the Republicans.  It is time to start the veepstakes watch now.

----

Denny Freidenrich is the founder of First Strategies consulting in Laguna Beach.  He helped raise $125,000 for Sen. Obama when he visited OC last June.

Sirota Speaks to DPOC, Then Hits Bestseller List

Posted: June 12, 2008

The New York Times today announced that David Sirota’s new book, THE UPRISING, will appear on its upcoming nonfiction bestseller list for the week of June 12th. In just its first full week of release, the book will be listed at #20 on the Times’ bestseller list. 

Sirota recently spoke in Orange to an enthusiastic audience to benefit the Democratic Party of Orange County.

THE UPRISING follows Sirota’s New York Times bestseller Hostile Takeover (2006). It reports on today’s seething popular discontent on both the Right and Left, which is creating a new populist political movement roiling the 2008 presidential campaign and national politics. From behind-the-scenes meetings on Capitol Hill and an anti-war march with appearances by Jane Fonda and Sean Penn to an ExxonMobil stockholder meeting and the dusty campsite of the California Minutemen guarding the U.S.-Mexico border, Sirota traveled the United States to report on this anger and the populist uprising it is creating. One of the book’s key chapters focuses on efforts to unionize high-tech workers in the Pacific Northwest, through the eyes of the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers.

Of THE UPRISING, Publishers Weekly says Sirota “weaves entertaining case studies, keeping his tone conversational, the narrative fast-paced and the content accessible,” adding that “this book presents a rousing account of the local uprisings already in effect.”
In its review, The Washington Post said “The Uprising is a hard book to dislike or dismiss. Sirota reports cleverly and in pleasing detail about a complex world of political conflict that the journalistic throng obsessed with presidential candidates and their handlers seldom notices...Sirota may not have the Establishment quaking in its Guccis, but his always energetic, often ironic reporting certainly made the quest worthwhile.”

The book traces the historical roots of populism, from its start in the rural West and Midwest all the way to the present. It also explores the ongoing efforts to thwart populism, including a close look at the Democratic Party’s construction of the “superdelegate” system now playing a key role in the presidential campaign. THE UPRISING features exclusive reporting on icons across the political spectrum, from CNN’s Lou Dobbs, to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillorsen to Senate candidate Ned Lamont. It is all firsthand narrative over a year-long journey across the country, and shows why Molly Ivins hailed Sirota as “a new-generation populist who instinctively understands that the only real questions are ‘Who’s getting screwed’ and ‘Who’s doing the screwing?’”

California Democratic Party Launches Fraud Buster’s Program

Posted: September 05, 2007

SACRAMENTO – On Thursday, California Democratic Party (CDP) Chairman Art Torres announced the launch of an exciting program called Fraud Busters “We want activists around the state to help us stop the Republicans from stealing the White House and stealing California ‘s electoral votes,” said Torres. “We are asking our activists to be the California Democratic Party’s frontline team and help us stop the Republicans from spreading their lies around the state.”

In order to ensure that Republicans hold the White House next year, well-connected GOP operatives are attempting to put an initiative on California ‘s June 2008 ballot that, if passed, would all but guarantee the Republican nominee could steal 22 electoral votes from California in the November 2008 presidential election.

The California Democratic Party has set up a website, http://www.cadems.org/fraudbusters with tools for Democratic activists across California to get the word out and gather signatures from others who will pledge to help us stop the Republicans’ scam.

The CDP also set up a section on its website so volunteers can let others know where the Republican operatives are gathering signatures. As activists “Catch Them in the Act,” they can email, call or text the CDP with the locations of the signature gatherers.

Activists can also help to spread the truth by going to locations where the Republicans are gathering signatures and telling would-be signers the truth about this petition.

“The so-called Presidential Election Reform Act is a partisan power grab by powerful Republican operatives,” added Torres. “The nation is looking to California Democrats to stop this effort to rig the Presidential election.  We are asking our friends, neighbors and fellows activists to continue to organize and plan larger operations against this GOP scam.”
Media interested in obtaining the audio of Thursday’s press conference call, please email kim@cadem.orgThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it .

New Executive Director at DPOC

Posted: July 30, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ORANGE COUNTY ANNOUNCES SELECTION OF NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - Melahat Rafiei to Assume Role Effective Immediately

The Democratic Party of Orange County, home to California’s second largest number of registered Democrats, announced today that the Party’s former Political Director, Ms. Melahat Rafiei, has been selected to succeed former Executive Director Mike Levin.

Rafiei has several years’ experience in Orange County Democratic politics. She has been the Area Leader of OC Democracy for America since 2003, served as Campaign Director for Jim Brandt for Congress, and was formerly the Program Director for the Orange County Voter Registration and Education Fund. Rafiei was also the recipient of the California Democratic Party’s 2007 John F. Kennedy, Jr. Award.

A native of Iran, Rafiei is the Vice-Chair of the California Democratic Party’s Arab American Caucus, Second Vice-President of the Iranian-American Democrats of Orange County and Vice-Chair of the National Women’s Political Caucus, Orange County Chapter.

Hired as the Political Director of the Democratic Party of Orange County in December, 2006, Rafiei was named Interim Executive Director after the resignation of Mike Levin this May. A statewide search was made for a replacement Executive Director, and Rafiei was chosen from among several candidates.

According to the bylaws of the Democratic Party of Orange County, the selection of the Executive Director must be approved by 60% of the members of the body’s Central Committee. Rafiei’s confirmation was put to a vote at the Committee’s July 23 meeting and received unanimous approval.

“I’m very pleased the Central Committee has shown its confidence in Melahat by its unanimous confirmation of her selection,” said Frank Barbaro, Chair of the Democratic Party of Orange County. “Melahat has exceptional skills in the area of fundraising, volunteer coordination, outreach, finance, and communications. She accomplished a great deal during her term as Interim Executive Director and is helping us usher in a new era for Democrats in Orange County.”
The Democratic Party of Orange County represents the interests of over 450,000 registered Democrats in the County. The Party maintains a year-round office at 200 N. Main Street, Mezzanine Level, in Santa Ana.