“OBAMA – Leadership for the 21st Century”

I want to introduce an opportunity for readers to access online and then purchase if they wish an exceptional book by Victoria DePaul: Obama -Leadership for the 21st Century. The extended quotation below will indicate to all how fully the author has captured the significance of the new leadership exhibited by Obama and the world shaping change it is likely to produce. 

I am still reading the book on line at this point but I find it so exceptional that I am unable to wait longer before sharing it with others. 

Please access this site quickly as the opportunity may not linger. Purchasing options for the book are found there.

Doug Robinson

FROM: OBAMA Leadership for the 21st Century

By Victoria DePaul

 
"In the past eighteen months we have watched as Barack Obama has inspired and motivated millions throughout the United States and across the globe. This inspiration has been the backbone of a grassroots movement previously unseen in our political history. Citizens of all ages, religions, races, economic status and gender have claimed a piece of the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign in unprecedented numbers. 

As of September 30, 2008 the campaign had raised 605 million dollars with over two million donors. Barack Obama has launched a successful primary campaign by mobilizing first time voters through nation-wide voter registration drives. He has demanded our attention with promises of change and has restored the legacy of hope in baby boomers, long lost in the cynicism of the late 60's and 70's.

The pages that follow describe how Barack Obama has etched his place in American history. Here you will find essays, anecdotes and quotes on leadership, contribution and hope. Leadership experts will offer their perspectives on how Barack Obam and Joe Biden serve as sterling examples of some of the emerging leadership strategies of the 21st century. Some of these words will come from Obama himself; many from ordinary citizens that have been moved from complacency to action. 

This book, this chronicle, indeed this story, is a historical event- not just the story of one individual but the collective voice of a nation. This is not a book of facts and numbers but an attempt to document a movement of empowerment, change and personal accountability, the true essence of leadership … "

Site Link: http://www.ebookobama.com/index.html

 

 

 
 

Lessons from William Ayers

This article is not written to condone William Ayres 1960s Weather Underground involvement. It is written to emphasize that Ayers is no longer a terrorist, no matter how his words and actions may have been described forty plus years ago. It is also written to clarify that Ayers never said "I wish we had bombed more!" Finally, this article is written to underline the fact that William Ayers and Barack Obama are not and never have been close associates.

Fact Check will give a good summation of misrepresentations concerning William Ayers and Barack Obama presently employed by the McCain campaign (see Fact check: Obama and Ayers). A further discussion of Obama’s relationship with Ayers, with supporting articles, can be .ound at the following link: Obama Ayers Connection?. These sources show any claims of close association, especially "palling around" to be false. They also disprove the assertion that Obama began his political career at a fund raiser hosted by Ayers. Obama and Ayers do know each other and have served together on the board of directors for a Chicago based charity. Ayers also contributed $200 to Obama's 2001 state senate reelection campaign. Regardless of his Weathermen background during the Vietnam era, William Ayers has since earned the titles of "Senior University Scholar" and "Distinguished Professor" at the University of Illinois. He is also the author of fourteen books.

On September 15, 2001, William Ayers addressed a letter to the New York Times in response to a September 11, 2001 article concerning his upcoming book Fugitive Days, contributed by Times writer Dinitia Smith with the subtitle: "No regrets for a love of explosives." Clearly the Times writer misunderstood Ayers book and his comments during their interview to mean he still condoned Weathermen bombing attempts during the sixties. The coincidental date of the of the article's publication has led to the current McCain campaign charge that Ayers regretted that "we didn't bomb more" on the day of the 9/11 tragedy.

Ayers' Sept 15, 2001 objection to Dinitia Smith's 9/11 misinterpretation of his writing and interview comments makes it clear Ayers then and now opposes terrorism in any form. He explicitly describes his book, Fugitive Days, as "from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism." His writing does point out how violence can lead to violence, however, and the following description has led to the misconstrued idea that Ayers regrets limited results from Weathermen bombing attempts. "I told her (Smith) that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn't do enough to stop the war." This comment does not mention, much less extol Weathermen bombing activity, carried out by the way with prior warning and with concern for protecting human life. Though regrettable in themselves, the only deaths from Weathermen bombing activity were those of supporters injured while handling explosive material.

Without condoning Weathermen activity, we may still recognize the group's members as feeling driven to extreme acts by the ever mounting horrors of the Vietnam War. Quoting another passage misconstrued by Dinitia Smith in her Times article: "
How could we understand it? How could we take it in? Most important, what should we do about it?"

Smith misconstrued the following passage to indicate a love of explosives: "There is a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance. The rhythm of B-52s dropping bombs over Viet Nam, a deceptive calm at 40,000 feet as the doors ease open and millennial eggs are delivered on the green canopy below, the relentless thud of indiscriminate destruction and death without pause on the ground. Nothing subtle or syncopated. Not a happy rhythm."

This is the awful quiet following a wartime air attack on a clear and otherwise beautiful day as portrayed in William Soutar's WWII era poem, The Children:

Upon the street they lie
Beside the broken stone:
The blood of children stares from the broken stone.

Death came out of the sky
In the bright afternoon:
Darkness slanted over the bright afternoon.

Again the sky is clear
But upon earth a stain:
The earth is darkened with a darkening stain:

A wound which everywhere
Corrupts the hearts of men:
The blood of children corrupts the hearts of men.

Silence is in the air:
The stars move in their places:
Silent and serene the stars move in their places.

But from earth the children stare
With blind and fearful faces:
And our charity is in the children's faces.

Thus Ayers expresses the terror felt by so many contemporary Americans confronting the moral horror of Vietnam: "Three million Vietnamese lives were extinguished. …. Three million—each with a mother and a father, a distinct name, a mind and a body and a spirit, someone who knew him well or cared for her or counted on her for something or was annoyed or burdened or irritated by him; each knew something of joy or sadness or beauty or pain. Each was ripped out of this world, a little red dampness staining the earth, drying up, fading, and gone. Bodies torn apart, blown away, smudged out, lost forever."

Such horror demanded response, and, as now with events in Iraq and Afghanistan – not to mention African holocausts with which we feel uninvolved, most US citizens went about their daily lives showing little concern. Many of us protested as best we could in that time. Students were indiscriminately gunned down on the Kent State campus; was this not terrorism in its own right? Eventually the nation united in such anguish that its citizens collectively failed to honor the courage of those citizens who fought for their country in a misguided cause. This also is regrettable.

In the September 15, 2001 Times letter, Ayers describes his book in the following way: "My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy. It begins literally in the shadow of Hiroshima and comes of age in the killing fields of Southeast Asia. My book criticizes the American obsession with a clean and distanced violence, and the culture of thoughtlessness and carelessness that results from it."

His concluding words in this passage are no less telling now than they were in September 2001: "We are now witnessing crimes against humanity in our own land on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we might soon see innocent people in other parts of the world as well as in the U.S. dying and suffering in response." These are not the words of one who espouses terror. They are rather those of one who seeks peace and who strives to do everything possible to achieve it.

As citizens of a nation where freedom of thought and expression is cherished, we may need to learn to experience and offer understanding and forgiveness to others regardless of whether or not it is asked. We are often quick to demand repentance from those we consider wrong. We also demand rejection and repudiation of all who express differing views. We seem to no longer find value in a community of competing ideas that wrestle together to achieve a greater understanding than any one individual might reach. Instead, we increasingly isolate ourselves from any challenge to our chosen views, gaining information and even defining truth from the pronouncements of selected individuals and institutions. Our discourse becomes steadily reduced to competing assertions that deny all veracity to opposing views without weight of merit. We shout our preconceived views at each other without listening to hear what anyone else has to offer. Our society is in danger of becoming as polarized as FOX News and MSNBC presently reflect it to be, each presenting a differing world view to be swallowed whole each day by their respective audiences.

Now more than ever we need tolerance for those among us who offer a different approach than what we consider normal. Tolerance for differing views and experiences can help each of us to expand personal horizons, thus promoting individual growth and enrichment. Without the influence of differing ideas we all will only become increasingly narrow in our views over time, growing correspondingly limited in our ability to respond to the wonder of life around us. Above all, peace requires tolerance, conflict denies tolerance. While there are certainly things no democratic society should condone, we must also be judicious in where we place these restrictions lest we harm our own freedom and ultimate humanity in the process.

Concluding his September 15, 2001 New York Times letter, William Ayers has the following wisdom to share: "All that we witnessed September 11—the awful carnage and pain, the heroism of ordinary people—may drive us mad with grief and anger, or it may open us to hope in new ways. Perhaps precisely because we have suffered we can embrace the suffering of others and gather the necessary wisdom to resist the impulse to lash out randomly. The lessons of the anti-war movements of the 1960s and 70s may be more urgent now than ever."

Spreading the Wealth

John McCain recently ridiculed Barack Obama for telling “Joe the Plumber” – in reality “Sam the Contractor,” behind on paying his taxes – he wanted to “spread the wealth.” McCain said he wanted “Joe” to keep his wealth – actually much less than reported – to himself. McCain insisted that Obama’s tax plan would hurt Joe’s goal of buying his employer’s plumbing business when all indications are that Sam would actually benefit from Obama’s plan. Such is the continued misrepresentation that has become a hallmark of the McCain campaign. Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth” deserves more consideration.

Spreading the wealth is actually what we should be doing individually and as a society, rather than hoarding wealth as John McCain and the Republicans suggest. Those who suggest McCain is uncomfortable with his own message may have merit to their position, judging by his campaign demeanor. The accuracy of this observation will become obvious following the election. Our best response now, however, is to treat the Arizona senator with compassion for the entrapped position he may have provided for himself and to address the overriding morality of the issue he now presents as an attack on the Obama campaign.

Hoarding wealth simply flies in the face of all accepted human wisdom, no matter what the culture may be. Some strands of Jewish teaching value wealth as a sign of divine favor, but good stewardship and generosity are required of the worthy recipient. Some aspects of modern Buddhist teaching seem to reflect wealth possession and creation as a value, but classic Buddhist teaching focuses more on avoiding material wealth as a spiritual distraction. Still, as with Jewish teaching, stewardship and generosity are valued qualities. Personal blessings are to be shared with others in the community.

Christians specifically are urged not to hoard up treasure on earth but rather to gather spiritual treasure. While Christian teaching and its Jewish antecedents may provide the most cogent admonition against John McCain’s campaign position, it is certain that his call for individuals to hoard wealth contradicts the deepest strands of world moral teaching. No spiritual teaching views wealth hoarding as a value.

The dragon in western culture hoards wealth but has no idea what to do with it. He imprisons the virgin but has no idea what to do but frighten her. His obsession with the goal of possession inhibits knowledge. He can only learn by releasing his self-absorbed concentration on the tantalizing beauty he hoards to become a part of the larger community, no longer threatening civilization by fiery annihilation. He then becomes the oriental dragon, a source of communal wisdom and an expression of communal wealth. The oriental dragon brings blessing, in essence spreading the wealth.

The responsibility of tithing is the principle behind communal contribution through taxation. The object is to show concern for and stewardship of the community by giving back a portion of personal income to support community needs. This commitment acknowledges that religious and also civil communities sustain personal activity and well being. Contributions to supporting communities are therefore as much acts of self interest as they are of generosity.

Personal philanthropy is quite a different thing. Here generosity is shown to chosen people, organizations or communities by generous benefactors. Philanthropy is implicit in Republican ideas that high financial achievers should keep their wealth to dole out to worthy causes as they choose. This is the principle of “trickle down” economics. While this attitude values personal generosity, it provides little or no sustenance for the larger community.

Philanthropy is selective and limited in its scope by the awareness and generosity of contributors. Philanthropic individuals and organizations tend to address immediate rather than chronic conditions and overall maintenance concerns. Through the shared tithe-like contribution of general taxation, governments are able to distribute resources over the broad range of concerns affecting civil and social wellbeing.

Shared representation in governing bodies, such as congress, state legislatures, county and municipal councils, provides the broad consensus needed to identify shared concerns. While no one citizen may agree with all areas of social concern, each individual has power to express opinion through persuasion and ultimately through the ballot. This is, in essence, the social contract underlying our democracy. The “bottom up” economics modeled in Obama’s proposed tax plan reflects the idea that we will all contribute most effectively from positions of well-being.

Starving animals or people may eat any proffered morsel but they will still die of starvation unless the overall lack of resources is addressed. While we may each offer food to an individual through personal generosity, world hunger can only be effectively addressed by our concerted action as individuals within a world community. This simple example demonstrates the difference between philanthropic contribution, no matter how laudable, and united social action.

The past eight years have provided sufficient evidence of the ineffectiveness of “trickle down” economics in addressing civil and social issues. Our physical and social structures are crumbling from fiscal neglect as a result. The “bottom up” approach of sharing wealth through responsible taxation is the only means to effectively address these issues.

Hoarding is never a good idea. For this reason McCain’s idea of reducing taxes and freezing spending will only serve to cripple our economy more effectively than ever. Paul Krugman’s recent New York Times article encouraging infrastructure investment as a means of job creation and economic renewal in response to the current crisis is an example of creating and spreading wealth from the bottom up, the only way wealth creation can effectively work for the good of all.

Positive response to taxation does in fact become an act of patriotism as Joe Biden recently suggested. While qualifications may be applied to provide overall fairness in tax assessment, depending upon individual circumstances, tax loopholes allowing those with means to avoid contribution are harmful to the social structure. Anyone choosing to use such loopholes to avoid the shared civic duty of contributing through tax assessment is as unpatriotic as religious observers refusing to pay for the upkeep of religious institutions are unfaithful.

We all benefit from the society in which we live. Here in America we pride ourselves on living in what we consider the greatest nation on earth. But America will only be great as long as we unite to make it what it is. It is simply a matter of giving back to the society that sustains us so that we all experience wealth together without deprivation.

Values, Statesmanship, Competency, Infrastructure - A Shared Vision for a New America

These four principals highlighted tonight's Grass Roots Democratic Platform forum in Great Falls. Eight people, assisted by an able moderator, Chuck Tyler wove together an effective tapestry of issues in their discussion of primary concerns they would like to see addressed by the Democratic Party and its Presidential Nominee during the next four years. Though the overall discussion centered on domestic policy, the group was unanimous that foreign policy was of equal importance, one of its members pointing out that a balanced concern between domestic and foreign policy was indicative of a truly successful and responsible nation.

Topics ranging from disability rights through health care and on through concerns for foreclosures and clean energy proved interrelated, with strands connecting them together into an amazing tapestry that no member of the group could have imagined possible. The group was unanimous in expression of the need for effective change in our government from local to national level and in conviction that positive change could happen only with the shared conviction and combined energy and commitment of all.

Everyone there was excited to have an opportunity to voice their concerns as part of Democratic National Platform development and to be included in this process even though from such a thinly populated state as Montana with only three electoral votes at stake. Though the group was small, it was large in conviction and imaginative approaches to problems that presently face our nation. All members were together in appreciation of America's new opportunity to regain a positive role in the world community and take once again a position of real leadership in the areas of economic development, climate change and global cooperation.

Values emerged as the fundamental principal behind all initiatives, whether foreign or domestic. The essential question: "What values does this initiative show or represent?" was regarded as the essential first step in determining the worthiness of any undertaking. The group agreed there was a great yearning in America and in the world for a return to core values found in Barack Obama's Berlin speech as in other speeches during the campaign process.

The group further agreed that Obama's Berlin speech represented a true statesmanship not seen in a presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. The group also agreed that a return to real statesmanship was the necessary ingredient for a successful American foreign policy, in contrast to the belligerent approach of the Bush administration. A foreign policy relying on statesmanship and diplomacy rather than intimidation, emphasizing America's role as a global partner rather than the sole surviving superpower was seen as essential for a positive American contribution to the world community.

Competency was seen as the essential requirement for administration members from the Presidential level on down whether in foreign or domestic policy. The group quickly agreed that competency and experience were not always synonymous. Though both incompetence and inexperience contributed to President Bush's leadership failures, incompetency alone plagued other administration figures despite their considerable experience.

The group agreed that a wise and competent President must surround him or herself with advisors and administrators that are fully knowledgeable and able to speak the truth as they see it. Evidence that incompetency has been the hallmark of the Bush administration concerning domestic management is shown by persistent economic mismanagement, natural disaster mismanagement, economic mismanagement and educational decline caused by insufficient support for educational institutions and initiatives. Potentially helpful initiatives like "No Child Left Behind" and, most notably, "Homeland Security" have languished for inadequate funding.

Bush administration foreign policy has centered largely on pursuing an unnecessary war that served to divert public attention from its inability to address complex global concerns in terms of specific issues. Instead, the Bush administration has persisted in a single-minded obsession with protracting the Iraq conflict while attempting to spread its particular brand of democracy. An agreement with North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons and the recent renewal of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are positive signs of an improved attitude during this administration's closing days.

Infrastructure was seen as the watch-word for future domestic policy. The group interpreted infrastructure in the broadest possible sense, extending from bricks and mortar to personnel. Whether we talk of crumbling bridges, declining educational or scientific institutions, declining health care and medical facilities, or shrinking expertise in all fields extending from scientific to philosophical and moral development, the group saw repairing and enhancing our infrastructure in all areas as essential to a healthy society.

Noting that all civilizations have prospered so long as their institutions remain healthy, innovative and productive, the group saw a healthy infrastructure as the primary indicator of a vital nation. Sadly, our infrastructure in all areas is presently in grave need of renovation. Crumbling highway bridges are significant not only for their sign of physical infrastructure decay but also as symbolic of intellectual, institutional and moral decline. The very fact that Obama's Berlin speech could sound as refreshing as it did speaks for an abiding hunger for a reemergence of these great ideals.

As well as supporting initiatives liable to be included in contributions to the '08 Democratic Platform based on their importance during the recent campaign, this group of eight people raised the following issues that may be unique either in their inclusion or in the particular way the group addressed them. Overall, the group saw resolution of issues of domestic and global concern as interrelated and equally beneficial to all.

Group members raised concern for disability issues as essential for this new platform as the Americans with Disability Act is presently under congressional review. Typically, people with disabilities are marginalized in American communities, while the Democratic Party stands for equal opportunity for all. Charity, together with minimal social assistance, often difficult to obtain and complicated to maintain are insufficient responses to the aspirations of those with disabilities wishing for a meaningful life of contribution and economic security. A nation-wide system of public transportation extending from viable local public transportation options to statewide and nationwide transportation networks is essential to meet not only the growing needs of those with disabilities but also to serve the growing needs of the American population as a whole. Expanding local and statewide bus service and expanding Amtrak to be the national passenger rail system it was intended to be may provide specific starting points for this local, state and national undertaking. This effort will require federal leadership to make it possible and to unite the pieces of the puzzle together into a whole.

The maturing baby boomer generation provides a growing population of elderly people who will need public transportation as their increasing numbers exponentially grow, reflecting those unable or unwilling to drive because of age related conditions that often include individuals within the ranks of those with disabilities. Improved and enhanced public transportation will be of immeasurable benefit to improved energy efficiency, reducing our overall energy burden and lessening our impact on the national environment and global climate. Finally, people with disabilities deserve recognition as a group making significant contributions to our society.

The group also saw improved public transportation as the most effective and immediate way to address rising energy costs and effects of global warming. Funding cuts during the Bush administration have crippled local public transportation initiatives while further crippling the already underfunded Amtrak system. Viable public transportation on local, state and national levels can insure effective communication for everyone in the future, equalizing opportunity regardless of circumstance and enhancing possibilities for shared prosperity for the greater benefit of all, not to mention the improved health of every community.

Rising energy costs mandate that we look to improved public transportation as an essential alternative to private automobile transportation, whether or not energy efficiency improves to the point that automobile emissions no longer threaten our climate. The possible dissolution of the airline industry because of higher fuel costs increases the imperative of improved ground level public transportation networks nationwide.

Meeting the global climate challenge posed by such innovators as Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens was seen as the overriding priority of the group's discussion. The Bush administration has delayed progress in meeting this challenge because of its addiction to oil and associated profit. We now have only a few remaining years of viable opportunity for meaningful reduction in fossil fuel emissions before uncontrollable climate change may be irreversible. We therefore need to take immediate action to begin worthwhile national initiatives and then supply leadership and resources for world involvement.

We as a group call for the Democratic Party to harness American energy and ingenuity behind initiatives to meet the global climate challenge that will galvanize the American people in the way other great American initiatives have done in the past. This is not a time for half measures; we must fully accept this global climate challenge for the sake of all humanity.

Other issues that received priority attention were improved support for educational opportunity and increased funding for educational institutions from kindergarten through university levels. Equal opportunity for health care was considered vital for a healthy and productive society, with no possibility for denial of health needs and a consensus view of proactive health care approach as essential in a caring society. The group further supports an end to the present federal moratorium on stem cell research. Presently, individuals suffer who might have found cure because of government policy borne of ignorance alone. The present moratorium on stem cell research has also led to a national brain drain to other nations where productive research is encouraged.

The group was also united in support of a foreclosure moratorium for those unwittingly caught in the housing and mortgage crisis and in support of institutions that acted in good faith to support a sound market. Declining stock values combined with a declining dollar are not only damaging to our national economy but to world prosperity as well. These trends should not be allowed to continue without appropriate oversight and regulation, especially when a few stand to profit while many suffer from unforeseen consequences.

It was a wonderful experience to be with this group as part of the open platform developed by the Democratic Party this year. There are also several other groups meeting in Montana and numerous groups convening throughout the United States to pool their insight into making a truly national contribution to this exciting new movement. The level of insight shown by this small group of people in a rather small Montana city gives testimony to the great wisdom present within the American population as a whole.

“Change We Can Believe In” - After Forty Years of Waiting

This past week not only brought the 2008 Democratic Primary to a close with Barack Obama’s climactic St. Paul speech where he could finally declare himself the nominee, it exposed the wrenching difficulty of bringing the not-quite-successful Clinton campaign to closure as well. Beyond these immediate events and concerns were reminders of another heroic campaign forty years ago against equally entrenched establishment forces and the inclusive, healing message first heard at that time and now given new voice in this present campaign. A design greater than human seems behind Obama’s acceptance of the Kennedy mantle and his decision to speak from Indianapolis on Martin Luther King’s Birthday this year. The Clintons in turn mirror Lyndon Johnson’s assumed control of the Democratic Party of his time with the attached lesson that real change involves more than legislation; it is a matter of spirit and vision. Hillary Clinton’s speech on Saturday, June 7, finally suspending her campaign following what must have been agonizing hours of indecision, may have served to break the restraining mold of the past, at least as far as the Clintons themselves are concerned.

Hillary Clinton showed uncommon courage in her campaign suspension speech. In doing so, she overcame negative impressions left from her inability to effectively end her campaign on Tuesday, June 3, when she retained the atmosphere of a victory speech and even had herself introduced as, “The next President of the United States.” Gone in this final speech were the combative language and the pasted on smile. These were replaced by a serious and sometimes painful expression, especially when she intoned the Obama slogan, “Yes we can!” But she showed her inner strength in continuing through this pain and clearly expressing support for Obama.

The dedication of Clinton’s supporters in this gathering was obvious. No doubt their voiced resistance to her capitulation made her message even harder to deliver. This speech was devoid of layered meanings for opposing groups to construe at will. The message was direct and unequivocal that Hillary Clinton chose to throw her support behind Obama and to campaign wholeheartedly on his behalf. She also entrusted her cause to Obama and encouraged her supporters to join his campaign, stating that any Democratic administration would prove more beneficial than a Republican one.

In doing this, Senator Clinton left no doubt that she still considers herself the superior candidate. She did speak to Obama’s sincerity, however, and to her conviction that she would be able to further her causes during an Obama administration. She is to be commended for her forthrightness in not proclaiming something as yet unfelt. Obama now has ample time to prove his worth to Hillary Clinton, her supporters and to all Americans. Hillary Clinton has found opportunity for personal growth in finally accepting this challenge of capitulation and dedication to a larger campaign.

Whatever happens now, this campaign has presented Hillary Clinton with valuable lessons: never underestimate an opponent, never consider victory inevitable, unite rather than attempt to divide, and remain true to your message. Clinton lost her campaign for the Presidency by underestimating not only Barack Obama but John Edwards as well. She and her staff were clearly baffled when victory eluded them in Iowa, South Carolina and then on Super Tuesday. The old tactic of attempting to play one group against another had only limited success and caused even supporters to view her as unlikable. Still, Hillary Clinton fought a courageous campaign, especially toward the end when she showed more of her positive attributes by dropping negative attacks against Obama and concentrating on issues.

With occasional exceptions, Obama effectively set the tone for this campaign from the beginning and succeeded in winning against the odds. It is hard now to remember that Obama was not expected to win Iowa, but he did. He was not expected to win in South Carolina, but he did. The momentum began to build from there and has continued against increasingly varied opposition that has only served to prepare the campaign for the upcoming general election.

The seminal points of Obama’s message are healing and inclusiveness. Obama’s campaign brings healing for the collective psychological abuse brought to American society through eight years of the Bush administration’s fear and hate mongering. His campaign seeks to reach out and include all people rather than attempting to exploit differences and pit one group against another as successive Republican campaigns have done. Obama brings hope for substantial change within institutions, approaches, and attitudes; and he embodies this change within his own demeanor. He is fully committed to the change he promotes and to the hope he espouses, and liberally transmits energy to others as they take up the cause and make it their own.

Obama’s campaign represents a sea change in American politics, bringing with it a fresh outlook on domestic, social, environmental and economic policy and a new commitment to US involvement and leadership within the wider world community. No potential leader since Robert Kennedy has articulated such a vision for wholeness and reform within America. It is time that the dream of forty years ago, shared by John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, finally becomes a reality. Barack Obama now carries the Kennedy mantle in response to a greater design than we may see, but its energy pulses within our hearts, calling us to feel it together and promote this worthy man to service as our leader.

A Time to Win and A Time to Lose

However evaluated, primary results in North Carolina and Indiana represent a sea change in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Barck Obama achieved a decisive victory in North Carolina while the Indiana race ended in a virtual tie with a 51% to 49% margin in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton will continue to claim Indiana as a victory, but it was hardly that, as the fallout during coming weeks will demonstrate. Funds will be harder for her already strapped campaign to raise. Undeclared super delegates, anxious to bring the ordeal to a close with the outcome is no longer in doubt, may move in larger numbers toward Obama. Undecided primary voters may move more easily toward Obama now that his electability is established, despite continuing talk of his limited experience for office. Tim Russert of NBC news will remain correct with his primary night pronouncement that the Clinton campaign is finished.

As several commentators note, how Hillary Clinton accepts defeat will affect the Presidential race following the party conventions. Clinton can go ahead defiantly into the concluding six primaries, expressing determination to fight to the end while attempting to force a decision favorable to seating Florida and Michigan delegates from the Democratic rules committee. During this time, she can hope for and attempt to create an issue so damaging to Obama that the super delegates move in her favor despite the popular vote margin against her. Continuing to fight for nomination based primarily on forcing acceptance from remaining super delegates risks crippling patty chances in November. A quick move by remaining super delegates to endorse Obama is the only insurance against further damage at this point.

Clinton’s other choice in how she continues would be to use campaign appearances to reestablish party unity with support behind the obviously winning candidate. This shift in emphasis would be subtle but perceptible to voters who could still cast votes in her favor but with an eye already open to supporting Obama after the convention. While still concentrating on campaign themes, Clinton could begin to emphasize commonality over small differences between the two campaign positions, referring to Senator Obama in ways that enhance voter acceptance of transferred allegiance.

Campaign analysis seems split between these scorched earth and reconciliation options, with the majority perhaps wishfully leaning toward the latter approach. While leaving the door still open for reconciliation, Clinton seems likely to pursue scorched earth tactics through the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries at least.

Obama’s best option during this time is to run an entirely positive campaign, clearly defining issues that divide him from both Clinton and McCain while remaining open to accepting Clinton’s capitulation whenever it comes. He seems predisposed to provide Senator Clinton a way to retire her campaign with dignity, avoiding the old winner-looser dichotomy in favor of an arrangement allowing both candidates to gain from their common experience. Such an approach would definitely signal the new politics Obama proposes.

Kentucky and West Virginia seem favorable to Clinton. Voters accustomed to a life of economic hardship may gain satisfaction from supporting what they perceive as her heroic attempt to gain final victory against the odds. These predominantly Caucasian, blue-collar voters are also less likely to vote for Obama on racial grounds, at least as their initial choice for the Democratic nomination. Obama is also an unknown quantity for these voters while Clinton is more familiar primarily because of her husband’s career.

Were Clinton to use campaign appearances during the coming weeks to build support for the now presumptive winner, she would serve the party well and also show some degree of selfless devotion to her professed Democratic ideals. In so doing, she would assure herself of greater influence in the new administration, perhaps from a position of her choosing. With this goal in mind, she may opt to continue an aggressive campaign for the next few weeks, relenting only in time to name her chosen role within an Obama administration, thus providing opportunity for continued influence and advancement of the now combined Clinton legacy.

Were she to immediately concede the nomination, it is also certain that Hillary Clinton would gain a leading position either within the Obama administration or the Democratic party allowing her continued influence over her primary areas of concern, most notably universal healthcare based on a national health insurance policy accessible to all. The Obama campaign is already extending offers for compromise and reconciliation. These include proposals for seating delegates from Florida and Michigan without upsetting primary outcomes achieved in participating states. Another olive branch involves a proposed Obama campaign retirement of the Clinton campaign’s outstanding debt. This solution may meet with understandable disfavor from Obama campaign contributors.

The combined qualities of grace and magnanimity in both winning and losing show true character in events like this one. What plays out within the next two to three weeks may reveal more about the contenders than anything shown during the past several months. Voters may feel they already know these two exceptional candidates, and, if this is true, it can be hoped that their highest expectations of each will be realized in exactly how this grueling campaign comes to a close.

Positive Outcome to a Long Campaign

Though the past few weeks have been difficult for the Obama campaign with the re-emerging Jeremiah Wright issue, both Democratic candidates set a positive tone in Democratic Party fund raising speeches in North Carolina and Indiana, reaching a significant milestone in the Democratic Presidential campaign. This positive tone sets the ground for eventual reconciliation and reestablished party unity, recognizing that history is being made with either a Caucasian woman or an African American man probably occupying the White House for the first time in history.

Despite a few campaign ads described as negative or hypocritical by opposing camps, both candidates have kept to issues in campaign appearances during the past few weeks, clearly defining differences especially over gas tax suspension and Iraq/Iran policy. Voters now have a clearer picture of contrasting leadership stiles, one combative and driven, the other calm and thoughtful, but both committed and determined to succeed.

Though the media driven Wright controversy continued to trouble the Obama campaign, Obama’s handling of the issue showed voters his calm and steady approach under pressure. Clinton has shown restraint in this instance regarding the Wright issue, refusing for whatever reason to add to previous prejudicial comments. Her campaign presentation has also abandoned the somewhat strident tone of previous weeks, resulting in a more positive appeal to voters.

This positive result is healthy for both candidates and for the Democratic party as the campaign moves toward the final primaries ending June third. Negative aspects of the campaign have made it seem long and grueling to contenders and supporters alike, but positive results are now beneficial for the nation and for the contestants as well. States with no previous voice in campaign selection have been able to participate right to the end.

Obama has developed campaign poise and strategy under fire from concerted media and Clinton campaign opposition. Should Obama emerge as the chosen Democratic candidate, McCain and the Republicans will have little if any legitimate negative charges to lodge against him.

The revived positive tone in both campaigns has to be seen as a victory for Democratic forces regardless of the eventual campaign outcome. Negative concentration threatened to hand the election to the Republicans on a silver platter in a contest where they otherwise had little chance to prevail. News media obsession with Jeremiah Wright’s contentious view of American racism served only to increase doubt among white voters as to whether they would vote for an African American, threatening to send American society reeling back to the divisive racism of the past. Fortunately, the candidates themselves, especially Barack Obama, have done much to lift the campaign out of these dangers and to reestablish it as a healthy exercise in voter choice.

The lesson from this is that positive endeavor never seems too long or too wearisome, though sheer physical fatigue will certainly occur. We find fulfillment in what we accomplish. There is only regret for what we destroy, even if the destruction is necessary. Clearing away rubble to build a new house is one thing; destroying a thing of established value to supplant it with something of questionable value is quite another.

Both campaigns have positioned themselves to reap the victory of Democratic unity and ultimate campaign success following the convention. An atmosphere is now reestablished where either campaign can be strengthened for the Presidential contest ending in November. We owe both candidates, especially Barack Obama, a vote of thanks for overcoming negatives and regaining positive ground despite all odds.

The Crucible ABC Debate and Beyond

This article was written the day following the ABC Democratic debate and reflects my thinking concerning the future course of the Obama campaign as a result of that experience.

Two issues face us at this point in the Obama campaign.

First: The campaign is definitely going on too long despite any hoped for positive effect of its outcome other than an Obama victory. The only presidential contender benefiting from this prolonged campaign is John McCain. He can simply sit by and observe the two Democratic contenders inflict further damage on themselves and each other.

Clinton appears to join those wanting to prolong personal attacks rather than discuss issues. Her negative ratings increase as a result, but she apparently sees personal attack as the only means to stop Obama’s momentum. Obama, in turn, seems reluctant to confront Clinton on her “baggage,” perhaps out of respect for a fellow Democratic candidate whom he will support should Clinton win the Democratic nomination. Meanwhile, McCain appears to garner prospective votes, particularly from undecided independents who might otherwise support Obama.

A decision certainly cannot be made to end the Democratic campaign prior to the Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina primaries, but combined results in these major contests should give a sufficiently convincing idea of who the eventual victor will be to enable super delegates to finally declare preferences according to popular vote or personal conviction.

Second: Obama must become willing to stand positively and not apologetically on his record and to participate combatively in debate interchange though subjects may not be desirable. While there is some salutary value in airing frustrations with an enthusiastic crowd of supporters after a disheartening debate performance, prolonged complaining about the inequities of press practices is only counter-productive for campaign success.

Obama has no reason to be ashamed of past associations or actions. His affirmation of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers underscores valuable contributions both men have made to their communities despite occasional radical statements. Both men are Americans, after all, Jeremiah Wright having served as a Marine. Church members and community leaders of all races respect Wright, who has served for years as a minister of a large Chicago congregation. William Ayers is now a respected professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He was never charged with direct participation in terrorist activity regardless of his statements. Neither individual is seeking to undermine our democracy through subversive activity.

Obama’s association with these men underscores the inclusiveness of his campaign together with his willingness to respect and tolerate views differing from his own. This tolerance is a needed quality in what seems to be a prevailing climate of inquisition in which even Democratic candidates are expected to adhere to a right wing, evangelical Christian, conservative catechism before being selected for office.

Obama had good reasons for associating with these two men. Distancing himself from past inflammatory actions and statements is certainly appropriate provided he does so quickly and clearly without allowing himself to be pulled into apologizing for his overall association with two people who presently make positive contributions to the Chicago communities.

The one benefit to be gained from events such as last night’s so-called debate is for Obama to use this time as a proving ground for what may be an even more challenging Presidential campaign following the conventions. Communicating feelings of discomfort over personal associations and imperfect statements will only translate to voters as uncertainty and faltering conviction. Obama’s great contribution in this campaign is to embrace others in his vision of a new climate of hope and change. This climate is by nature transformative, embracing all Americans, including Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, regardless of past imperfection of action and comment.

The lesson for Obama and all of us here is to stand firmly and positively beside our convictions and those we befriend despite all criticism designed to bring us down. Then, and only then, can we all be united in this new community of hope.

Reasons I Support Barack Obama for President

These are my personal reasons for supporting Barack Obama. They are written right out of my heart and soul. I'm sure you have other great reasons. Please add them in response and/or use these however you wish for the good of this cause.

He brings a fresh approach to politics. Being comparatively new to Washington is a plus. Abraham Lincoln had less government experience before running for President.

He is intelligent, well educated, broad minded, with fresh approaches and new ideas for effective change.

He is optimistic for America’s future.

His “audacity of hope” heralds a fresh start, a new Spring for America after a long Winter of despair.

The breadth of his cultural and racial heritage gives him consciousness of the vibrant nature of our world community and of America’s meaningful contribution within it.

His varied cultural and racial heritage speaks for a new America of the future that will be multi-racial and multi-cultural in origin in a greater sense than now. America more than any other nation will reflect the coming together of all races and cultures to form a new world humanity heralding a new future for all people.

His ability to get to the heart of an issue inspires us all to think deeply in all aspects of our lives.

He demonstrates the great spiritual and philosophical traditions of all humanity in the personal wisdom and spiritual values he brings to any discussion. This will empower him as a world leader as well as our President.

He is one of those rare individuals, such as Lincoln, Gandhi, Kennedy, who possess a quality somehow beyond the normal because of their depth of commitment.

He is a beautifully human individual, full of love for his family, his country, and for life in general. He knows how to have fun.

He has a sense of humor about himself that protects him from grandiosity and makes it possible for him to recognize and admit a mistake.

He knows how and when to say, “I’m sorry!” – and to say it in such a way as to increase understanding of all issues and bring people together for solution.

He involves everyone in effective change, helping to create a new community called America where all are involved and committed to each other and to the nation.

He is a great organizer, involving everyone from the ground up. Just witness his successful campaign and how so many are enthusiastically involved!

Finally, in the words of one of my readers on the Barack Obama website - He is a great listener who cares deeply for each individual he meets.

Please comment and add your own reasons!

The time for Barack Obama to be president is now, not later. America needs Obama and his leadership at this very moment.

Bitterness and the Campaign of Hope

Comparing Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s characterizations of Barack Obama as “condescending,” “elitist” and “out of touch” with Obama’s remarks describing his recognition of bitterness among rural Pennsylvania voters who feel abandoned by the federal government, one can only view her comments as patronizing (matronizing?) to the very voters she hoped to influence. When Clinton says she does not detect bitterness among Pennsylvania voters she may be saying more about her lack of perception than about the voters themselves.

Clinton gives no indication of responding to voter feeling, she simply asserts what she wants to see. Obama's causal relationship between why he thought Pennsylvanians were not supporting him in droves at least acknowledges that Pennsylvanians have issues that disturb them. While the causal relationship between voter support and economic condition may be debatable, there is nothing condescending in stating that people feel bitter, especially if they say repeatedly in so many ways that they do. Feeling bitter does not mean you just give up and quit as Clinton insinuates.

Someone not in touch with personal feelings can hardly detect the feelings of others. Obama is definitely in touch with his personal feelings. He has no need to manufacture them for the camera; they are genuine. His justifiable anger came through pointedly in his response to Clinton’s and McCain’s comments on Friday, providing clarity to his message that voters need to hear. Obama was considerate to apologize to any who felt offense at his comments. In reality he has offended no one: his intention was not to offend. Each of us must take sole responsibility for how we react to anything if we are to control our own lives.

Posted reactions to Hillary Clinton's statement and to the initial story on the CNN web site were at least ten to one in favor of Obama right from the start. This strong response is enough to indicate that Obama may benefit from the incident. The story was initiated by a “citizen journalist” claiming to be a major contributor to the Obama campaign, present at an event for fundraisers who, like herself, had "maxed out." The veracity of her story is hard to comprehend: this “supporter” issued, not one but two, articles critical of Obama in the Huffington Post last week based on this single event. She then managed to get this story to CNN in time for their Friday news broadcast. She stated she held onto this story for several days, "not wanting to harm the campaign" but finally had to release it for journalistic reasons. She also said she always brings a tape recorder to events. The result was a poorly recorded snippet from Obama’s complete comments aired on national television with no context other than her chosen spin and that of CNN.

Waging a hard campaign is one thing, waging a campaign structured to attack your opponent on any grounds no matter what the cost is quite another. The contrast between the Clinton and Obama campaigns has become painfully evident especially during the past few weeks. Obama has passed up numerous opportunities to ridicule Hillary Clinton over repeated Bosnia “miss-statements” and then Bill Clinton’s re-awakening of the Bosnia debacle. Bill’s remarks provided plentiful ammunition for ridicule, with his illusions to Hillary’s declining faculties because of age, together with misrepresentation of her remarks as an understandable one time slip when “exhausted,” These should at least bring an end to the “three o’clock phone call” ads. Clinton, in contrast, has attacked Obama full throttle at every conceivable, and even not so conceivable, opportunity. Hopes that the Clinton campaign would improve in tone with Mark Penn’s departure seem difficult to realize.

Though the outcome of this long and difficult Democratic campaign may be impossible to predict, two things at least seem evident. First, it is more important for the Obama campaign to maintain the positive tone it has employed thus far regardless of the result. This campaign has been truly a campaign for and by the people. Second, it is vital that the Democratic Party not be so wounded by negativity during the weeks ahead that Republicans are effectively handed victory in congressional races as well as in the presidential campaign.

Clinton seems intent on bringing Obama down at all cost; to the point of doing all she can to ensure McCain’s success in the presidential campaign if she is unable to win the Democratic nomination for herself. McCain and Clinton seem cozily allied in this instance, declaring each other to be the only qualified candidates. Perhaps the nightmare ticket would be Clinton/McCain or McCain/Clinton. What a dream!

Though such an outcome is of course unlikely, the effect seems more real just now than any vestige of Democratic solidarity in the present campaign.

The following link leads to CNN stories on this issue, beginning with Obama’s remarks:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/04/11/obama.remarks.cnn