Because America Has Suffered Enough...

To spare us the misery of watching Republican candidates all day today, Barack Obama gives a press conference. He's so considerate.



On Iran:

My policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them getting a nuclear weapon.

That's my track record. Now, what's said on the campaign trail? You know, those folks don't have a lot of responsibilities. They're not Commander in Chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I am reminded of the costs involved in war. I'm reminded of the decision that I have to make in terms of sending our young men and women into battle. And the impact it has on their lives, the impact it has on national security. The impact it has on our economy. This is not a game. There's nothing casual about it. And when I see some of these folks who have a lto of bluster and a lot of big talk. But when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat a lot of the things that we've been doing over the last three years.

It indicates to me that that’s more about politics than trying to solve a problem. Now one thing we have not done is we haven’t launched a war. If some of these folks think it’s time to launch a war then they should say so and explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.

Take that, warmongers!

On Rush Limbaugh and the Sandra Fluke Controversy:

I don’t know what’s in Rush Limbaugh’s heart, so I’m not going to comment on the sincerity of his apology. What I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don’t have any place in the public discourse. And the reason I called Ms. Flute is because I thought about Malia and Sasha and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about. Even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens. And I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her.

And that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves arguments and disagreements and debate. And we want you to be engaged. And there’s a way to do it that doesn’t involve you being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you’re a private citizen.

On whether Republicans are waging a "war on women":

Women are going to make up their own mind in this election about who is advancing the issues that they care most deeply about. One of the things I’ve learned being married to Michelle, is I don’t need to tell her what it is that she thinks is important. And there are millions of strong women around the country who are going to make their own determination about a whole range of issue.

It’s not going to be narrowly focused just on contraception. It’s not going to be driven by one statement by one radio announcer. It is going to be driven by their view of what’s most likely to make sure they can help support their families, make their mortgage payments, who’s got a plan to ensure that middle class families are secure over the long term, what’s most likely to result in their kids being able to get the education they need to compete.

And I believe that Democrats have a better story to tell to women about how we’re going to solidify the middle class and grow this economy, make sure everybody has a fair shot, everybody’s doing their fair share, and we got a fair set of rules of the road that everybody has to follow. 

On immigration reform:

Well, first of all just substantively, every American should want immigration reform. We’ve got a system that’s broken. We’ve got a system in which you have millions of families here in this country who are living in the shadows, worried about deportation. You’ve got American workers that are being undercut because those undocumented workers can be hired and the minimum wage laws may not be observed; overtime laws may not be observed.

You’ve got incredibly talented people who want to start businesses in this country or to work in this country. And we should want those folks here in the United States, but right now the legal immigration system is so tangled up that it becomes very difficult for them to put down roots here. So we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And it is not just a Hispanic issue. This is an issue for everybody. This is an American issue that we need to fix.

Now, when I came into office, I said, “I am going to push to get this done.” We didn’t get it done. And the reason we haven’t gotten it done is because what used to be a bipartisan agreement that we should fix this ended up becoming a partisan issue. I give a lot of credit to my predecessor, George Bush, and his political advisers who said, you know, “This should not be just something the Democrats support; the Republican Party is invested in this as well.”

Unfortunately, too often Republicans seemt o only be invested in exploiting immigration fears to fire up their base. That's why  polls today show that Latino voters are currently supporting President Obama by an astonishing margin of 70% compared to 13% (!) support for the GOP.

You know, it's refreshing amidst the Republican hullaballoo to take some time and watch a President who is smart, thoughtful, and humane.

Also, I love this:

Self Evident?

Happy 4th of July!



Having just returned from the most amazing Democrats Abroad 4th of July picnic, I think I'm in the usual holiday spirit - stuffed full of barbecue, drowsy from sunshine, and grateful to see so many good friends today (hundreds of you came out to celebrate with us - a thousand thanks, especially to Karen, Lesly, and Michelle for the phenomenal job they did in organising it.

This year, the 4th feels a little different - for obvious reasons, and some not quite so obviously.

Obviously, it feels different to celebrate American independence abroad at a time when our reputation has so dramatically improved. Obama's popularity overseas makes it... if not exactly cool than at least a hell of a lot less UNcool to be seen out sporting American flag lapel pins. Heck, I even met some British people today who were happy to wear them.

Also, it feels different to celebrate the country now that it's led by someone who I not only agree with, but feel partly responsible for helping to get there in the first place. It's still my country even when it's run by Bush et. al, but I can't pretend I was proud of it when (in my view) it was violating it's own most profound principles. Now that we are getting back on track, and now that I feel like I had some part, however, tiny, to play in making that happen, the Fourth feels... different.

But there's something else as well - something I've been thinking a lot about lately. It's the bravery, the clarity, the willingness to put everything on the line of those who signed the Declaration of Independence all those years ago (not on July 4, by the way, but never mind). And it's the events in Iran that have made me think a lot more than usual about that lately.

The Declaration of Independence states, "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."

But the Declaration is wrong. Clearly, there is nothing at all self-evident about these truths (though they are, I think, truths) or it wouldn't have taken so many millenia of struggle for anyone anywhere to start living up to them.

I remember in 5th grade learning about the American revolution, and as part of the lesson my teacher asked us to hold a debate - she told us that at the time of the revolution only about a third of the population supported the revolutionaries. Another third were loyal to the king, and a final third of the population were "fence sitters" essentially dithering between rebellion and the status quo. She asked us to decide which side we'd have been on and to argue out position.

The trouble was that these were patriotic American kids. Massachusetts kids, no less, raised on the spirit of the Boston Tea Parties - not one of them would admit to the possibility they might have supported the British, or even that they might have been fence sitters. Except for me. So it wound up being a debate between every other kid in my class... and me. My teacher (I think realising that I was paying the price for a mistake in her own lesson plan) was very grateful to me for sticking by my position against... well, everyone. She even sent me home with a special sticker of commendation. But if felt kind of odd to get such lavish praise for, basically, refusing to decide.

But the thing is, when I thought about what the situation would have been like for American colonists at the time, I couldn't honestly say that I would have sided with the rebels. Would I have been upset about the whole taxation without representation thing? Sure. Would I have wanted to live under a Democracy rather than as a colony? No doubt. Would I have been sympathetic to the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Naturally.

But the British government was at that time the most powerful military force in the world. What's more, they represented a continuous, functioning government that was by no means alien to the colonists - that was, indeed, philosophically related from the cultural foundations of the very ideals that the revolution proclaimed. The British would have recently been our protection in the French and Indian wars, they were the source of most of our luxury goods, many colonists would have had family and close friends still living over there.

And we were asked to surrender all of this - cut those ties - for what? For a government who's shape and structure were not yet envisioned, for the possibility of cutting off all our important trade and commerce, and the likelihood that ultimately we would lose - and our families and friends would be punished severely for it.

I thought in the 5th grade, and I think now, that those of us who confidently declare we would have been rebels in that time and place are drastically understanding the bravery and sacrifice of the folks who were.

Similarly, when I look at the protestors on the streets in Tehran, who went out there with modest, simple demands ("count my vote") I wish that I could be certain I would be as brave as they are in a similar situation.

The American founding fathers didn't know that their revolution would succeed - that hundreds of years later their great-great grandchildren would grill meat and drink beer in the sunshine every year in their honor. Their remarkable bravery hinges upon the fact that they fought anyway, because they believed in themselves and their vision of what was right.

On this 4th of July, I raise my glass to everyone, everywhere, who rises to that challenge. May all in the world today who are brave enough to stand up for Democracy without knowing the outcome live to see it come true.

Obama Condemns Crackdown on Iranian Protestors

I have nothing to add to the President's statement except my own respect and awe for the men and women who are still on the streets of Iran demanding democracy despite the blood on the streets. We're not worthy. No joke.

Please don't forget to join us tonight to hear legendary blogger and Middle East expert Juan Cole give his thoughts on the crisis, and more.

' First, I'd like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The
United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by
the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly
condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning
each and every innocent life that is lost. I've made it clear that the United
States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not
interfering with Iran's affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage
and the dignity of the Iranian people and to a remarkable opening within Iranian
society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it
takes place. The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future.
Some in Iran -- some in the Iranian government, in particular, are trying to
avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of
instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false.
They're an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place
within Iran's borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat
other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States
or the West; this is about the people of Iran and the future that they -- and
only they -- will choose. The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That's
precisely what's happened in the last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong
enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of
justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists and
isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us
through cell phones and computers. And so we've watched what the Iranian people
are doing. This is what we've witnessed. We've seen the timeless dignity of tens
of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk
everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are
heard. Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and
threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on
the streets.While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know
this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history. As
I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The
Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the
Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must
respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through
consent and not coercion. That's what Iran's own people are calling for, and the
Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government."

Bill Kristol thinks Obama Should Speak Up on Iran Elections. Should He?

In a strongly worded online column at the Washington Post, Conservative commentator William Kristol asks the White House to speak up in support of the protestors of the Iranian election.

After a boilerplate introduction in which (for the 37,000th time) Kristol insinuates that Obama is a Chamberlain style appeaser who would have let the Nazis conquer Manhattan before objecting, he goes on to write,

Some argue that the brave Iranians demonstrating for freedom and democracy would be better off if the American president somehow stayed out of the fight. Really?

But Barack Obama is president. His statement wouldn’t be crafted by those dreaded neocons who vulgarly thought all people would like a chance to govern themselves and deserved some modicum of U.S. support in that endeavor. It would be written by subtle liberal internationalists, who would get the pitch and tone just right. And the statement wouldn’t be delivered by the notorious George Bush (who did, however, weigh in usefully in somewhat similar situations in Ukraine and Lebanon). It would be delivered by the popular and credible speaker-to-the-Muslim-world, Barack Obama. Does anyone really think that a strong Obama statement of solidarity with the Iranian people, and a strong rebuke to those who steal elections and shoot demonstrators, wouldn’t help the dissidents in Iran?

OK, I'll bite.

YES. I do in fact, think that the protestors in Iran will be better off if President Obama sticks by his current position - which, by the way, is not silence but rather a steady position in support of the democratic process.

First of all, the glaring (practically blinding) error in Kristol's piece is his meditation on the "subtle liberal internationalists" who are expert in the region and who he imagines would be the ones to craft a White House statement. He appears either never to have considered or to have conveniently ignored the truth that these people are almost certainly the very ones advising Obama to shut the heck up. Precisely because they know that any appearance the protests are American led or supported would add instant credibility to Ahmadinezhad's rapidly unravelling support.

Obama did indeed speak up in a direct effort to inspire precisely this kind of constructive opposition in the Muslim world. If Kristol missed it, he might want to take another look at that Cairo speech.



Meanwhile, looking at it from the other side, it is unclear to me what could POSSIBLY be gained from any direct statement from the US administration at this point. Musavi's supporters are doing what needs to be done - they are taking to the street in direct opposition, by the tens and hundreds of thousands. Largely peacefully - in the face of intimidation and threats. They are getting the word out locally through every available communications method - in the face of increasingly futile efforts by the ruling regime to block the internet. Obama's careful statements in support of "debate" in Iran and calling for verification of the voting results have struck a useful balance - providing encouragement to the protestors, but depriving the Iranian leadership of any opportunity to claim American manipulation of the vote.

It may be hard for William Kristol to believe, but you know what?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT US.

The people of Iran are in the process of transforming their country. It may be that the outcome will be favourable to US interests. It may be that the outcome will be a setback for our interests. But either way, this is entirely an event about Iranians, by Iranians, for Iranians.

Obama could win some domestic political support by speaking out on this issue right now. But the brave people leading this movement deserve all the CONSTRUCTIVE support we can give them. And a carefully constructed silence actually is, right now, the very best way we can help.

Iranian Elections

The amazing stories coming out of Iran over the last few days have been a real education for me, I must say. First, I was inspired and cautiously optimistic to see real signs of a thriving Democracy in that much maligned country - with massive election rallies in support of a moderate reformist candidate.

Then on election night there was mass confusion as the Powers that Be in Iran declared a suspiciously overwhelming majority for the hard line incumbent. Rather then accepting this result, supporters of Musavi took to the streets, with hundreds of thousands or protestors - most peaceful, some violent - declaring their refusal to accept this result. Calls for an investigation into the dubious results are starting to be taken up even by some leading voices within the current adminisatration. So far the protestors show no sign of backing down, despite incidents in which riot police have fired into the crowds (killing some, injuring many).

In my earlier post, anticipating the election, I made an analogy between the Iranian campaigners and Obama for America campaigners like me. But I feel I should clarify: the Iranian student organisers who have been leading this campaign are currently on the run, staying one step ahead of arrest. When they go out to lead demonstrations and protests they are literally putting their lives on the line. Yesterday the Revolutionary Guard stormed the dormitories of Tehran University trying to track down the leaders of this movement.

My life and freedom was never for a second endangered by my work for Obama. It would be wrong to compare what was for me an unrelentingly positive and rewarding experience with these brave men and women who are staking everything they have on the possibility for democracy in their country.

May this situation be resolved quickly, peacefully and fairly.

Sources:

As usual, fivethirtyeight.com is an indispensible source of info on polling and the plausibility of the official figures.

Juan Cole's blog has been doing a great job of bringing his wealth of experience in the Middle East to bear on the context of these elections.

And the always unmissable Andrew Sullivan has been flooding the zone with direct reports from within Iran and the best of the Tweets - this is very much a Twitter event, as Iranian dissidents have found their blogs shut down, but the administration has been unable to block access to twitter for vital info sharing.

Voting from Abroad - Iranian Expats In USA

Having worked so hard to register US voters living overseas to vote in our own Presidential election, I can't help but smile at this report of Iranians in the US voting from abroad for their own Presidential election:



Ain't Democracy grand?

Today's Iranian elections are just about the most interesting thing happening in the world right now, with incumbent President Ahmadinezhad (I'm going with Juan Cole's spelling on that one) facing an enthusiastic surge from supporters of his opponent Mir Hussain Musavi. Apparently, Musavi's campaign has been characterised by excitement among young people seeking change and feeling disgraced by their current leader. They've been taking to the streets in rallies of many thousands, and driving the campaign through innovative use of the Internet and neighborhood organising.

Sound familiar?

Musavi is a moderate in Iranian turns - not a flaming pro-American, but someone who has signalled an interest in taking up President Obama's offer of renewed negotiations between the two countries.

It is very difficult to determine what the likely outcome of this race will be - polls suggest it may be close, but they have been very sporadic and unpredictable.

The big question is what happens AFTER the result is announced. If it goes to Ahmadinezhad, will we be able to validate the integrity fo the voting process? Already there are scattered reports of extensive vote tampering.

If it goes to Musavi, will Ahmadinezhad's people allow the peaceful transfer of power?

IF all goes smoothly (a big if) this election could be long-term great news for Iran, no matter who wins. The Middle East is unused to the kind of intensely faught elections, but a demonstration that the nation can thrive while still allowing open political dissent, even if the reformers do not get their way, could be a great step forward.

Or not - Ahmadinezhad has hinted that if he wins narrowly he may make moves to declare himself "President for Life". Ah well. Democracy: easy come, easy go?

Holding my breath on this one...