Got Questions?

Robert Gibbs, Obama's soon to be Presidential Press Secretary has some answers:




Highlights:

Look out for the answer on Universal Healthcare, starting at 3:10.

But my favorite is surely the final Q and A in the video, starting at 4:17 - a viewer asks if Obama will eliminate the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in military recruitment, and Gibbs just says, "You don't here politicians give a one word answer very often - but it's yes."

Can't get much clearer than that.

Hillary Impresses in Her Senate Hearing

Time journalist Joe Klein appears to be well impressed:

I spent the day at the Clinton confirmation hearings and came away impressed, as always, with the woman's sheer ability to process information. Not a missed beat, not an "I'll have to get back to you on that..." It was several hours into the hearing that the full force of the new Administration hit me. Clinton was being asked by Senator Benjamin Cardin whether we could exert our influence on mineral-rich countries to share their wealth with their people. The Secretary of State-designate immediately brought up Botswana's "excellent work" in this area, the education and infrastructure programs that had been funded. And I thought: Botswana? Wow. We've got people who are really interested in governing--who really love public service, who understand that foreign policy means more than simply issuing threats--coming back to your nation's capital! Enthusiasm and care don't always result in wise policy-making, but we've seen how fecklessness and carelessness works.

As if we needed further reminding - the grown-ups are now (well, soon!) back in charge.

Cat Blogging...

I swear I am not making this up.

It seems House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office is totally down with the great traditions of blogging.



I salute you Nancy.

The Obamas Circa 1996

Wow. Here's an interview with Barack and Michelle back in 1996 - that's the year I graduated from College, Clinton was running for re-election and Barack had yet to serve in elected office. The whole thing is very striking, especially these painfully honest words from Michelle:

There is a strong possibility that Barack will pursue a political career, although it’s unclear. There is a little tension with that. I’m very wary of politics. I think he’s too much of a good guy for the kind of brutality, the skepticism.

When you are involved in politics, your life is an open book, and people can come in who don’t necessarily have good intent. I’m pretty private, and like to surround myself with people that I trust and love.

I have to tell you that on the one occassion I was lucky enough to meet and talk with Michelle, we had a conversation along very similar lines - she's just a very honest, straightforward person. Heaven help her.

Service

When Michelle Obama asks, you kind of want to help out, don't you?



The Obama team has asked all of us to participate in a Day of Service surrounding the inauguration - this is a part of our effort to start having a positive impact on our country and our communities right from day one.

For those of us here in London, Democrats Abroad has arranged for an event where we can simultaneously watch the inaugural address and ceremony live, while writing letters to US service men and women who are recovering at the Landstuhl army hospital in Germany.

I really hope that you will all be able to participate - I think this is unique opportunity for us to give something back to our country and to our wider community of Americans far from home.

Join fellow Democrats from 4-6:00 pm on January 20th at the Texas Embassy to view the actual swearing in and attendant commentary. No admission charge. Cash bar.

In keeping with the Presidential Inauguration Committee’s wishes, you may join us too on that afternoon in our community service project, by writing letters to wounded service personnel at Landstuhl (the military hospital in Germany) and Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Details of the National Day of Service (see section 2): http://www.democratsabroad.org/node/7641

Date: January 20 (Tues)
Time: From 4-6 PM
Location: The Texas Embassy (1st floor), 1 Cockspur Street, Trafalgar Square, London, SW1Y 5DL
Map: www.texasembassy.com
www.texasembassy.com

Nearest Tube: Charing Cross, Piccadilly Circus (located near the National Gallery)

What to bring? Stationary, postcards, your favorite pen. Limited supplies available.

Drink/Food: No admission charge -- full cash bar and food menu available throughout the evening. Note that it is also possible to eat at the restaurant downstairs before or after join us on the first floor.

RSVP: not needed! Just turn up!

Press Queries: press@democratsabroad.org.uk

For Democrats Abroad UK members and their guests, and Americans abroad.

And another thing....

In furtherance of my thoughts on the Rick Warren, gay marriage, inaugural invocation thing let me also link to this interesting dialog between Hendrick Hertzberg and his readers and add a hearty "yeah! What he said."

In particular, let me reiterate in summary:

1) Opposing gay marriage is not the same thing as being homophobic.
2) That the position is wrong (and I do think it's poorly reasoned as well as morally wrong to oppose marriage rights) doesn't make the people bad.
3) If good people believe wrong things, the appropriate response is to tell them why you think they are wrong.
4) Politely.
5) Without assuming that this one wrong view makes them on universally bad or wrong.

Blessed are the Geeks...

for They Shall Inherit the Earth.

Not only is that the BEST title ever for an Economist article, it also describes one of the things that has made me most happy so far about Barack Obama's Presidential decision-making:

Scientists are getting some serious klout. Since "klout" is the base unit of all transactions in Washington DC and the scientific community has been on a starvation diet of klout for the past 8 years or so, I'd say they've earned it.

Three cheers for the reality based community! Weeee're baaaack.

On December 15th Barack Obama, the incoming president, announced that he was nominating Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize-winning physicist, to be his energy secretary. At the moment, Dr Chu is head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he has built up a big solar-energy-research project. He is also a strong advocate of research into nuclear power and foresees a world in which fossil fuels are largely replaced by other sources of energy.

On December 20th the president-elect followed Dr Chu’s appointment by nominating Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist at Oregon State University, as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is the government agency responsible for studying the climate, and also for keeping an eye on marine life. Dr Lubchenco has been critical of the Bush administration’s lack of respect for climate science, and for its inaction on greenhouse-gas emissions. She is also concerned about marine pollution and the appearance in the ocean of oxygen-depleted dead zones caused by such pollution.

On the same day John Holdren, a physicist at the John F. Kennedy School of Government in Harvard, who is an expert in the fields of energy, the environment and nuclear proliferation, was appointed as the new presidential science adviser, and he will enjoy higher authority in that position than his Republican predecessor did. In 2007, when Dr Holdren was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), he argued publicly for swift action on climate change.

Geneticists, too, get a look in. Two of them—Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Eric Lander, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—will be co-chairmen of the president’s council of advisers on science and technology. All in all, as Alan Leshner, chief executive of the AAAS, puts it, “we’ve never had a president surrounded in close proximity with so many well-known, top scientific minds.” All of them, he predicts, will have access to the president and influence on policy, or else they would have refused the jobs. Dr Leshner says that Dr Varmus has “no interest in being a potted plant. He is a very competent and smart person with tremendous judgment who would not waste his time.”

Take your PIC*

Will you be elbowing through the heaving crowds in DC on Inauguration Day? Or dancing your heart out with your fellow expats here in London?

Enquiring minds want to know.

* That's the Presidential Inaugural Committee, to those in the know. Don't ya know.

Rick Warren, Proposition 8, and Some Hard Thinking

So after mulling for a very long time about the rights and wrongs, the content and symbolism, the facts and the emotions of Rick Warren's invitation to speak at the inauguration ceremony, I thought it was about time I put my varied thoughts on the blog.

Firstly, I have to talk about the emotional aspects of this.

On November 4, Obama won a historic victory. But on the same night, the LGBT community suffered a huge disappointment with the passage in California of Proposition 8 - removing the right to marry from gay people in that state. Rick Warren, though considered relatively moderate in the context of evangelical preahcers, had some pretty foolish things to say on the subject.



I am particulary annoyed and baffled by his statement that the existence of gay marriage would deny first amendment rights to those who do not support gay marriage. Huh? The existence of hate crimes hasn't prevented those who oppose hate crimes from saying so. The existence of a Federal Income tax hasn't taken away the free speech of tax opponents. The existence of affirmative action hasn't prevented opponents of affirmative action from saying so.. etc. etc.

Reading between the lines, the only sense that I can make of this is that he fears 1) some people with violently anti-gay views might behave violently and that 2) anti-gay preachers might hypothetically be prosecuted for incitement? Or something? I don't know. In any case, this strikes me as an oddly un-Christian set of concerns as well as being irrational. I suspect even Warren doesn't really find his own argument all that convincing.

So, Rick Warren is, in my firmly held opinion, on the wrong side of this issue. What's more, his holding of this view has done real and meaningful harm - taking away legal rights that in themselves did not harm anyone and did a lot of good for a lot of folks.

I get why so many on the left are angry that Rick Warren will be speaking at Barack Obama's inaugural. I REALLY get it - I'm angry about the Proposition 8 result and disagree with Warren's views... strongly.

But I think it was the right decision to invite him.

Why? Simple. Because, painful as it is to realise, I must remember that my belief that Warren's views are doing real harm to real people is exactly matched by the beliefs of many Warren supporters (and Warren himself) that, for instance, Barack Obama's support for abortion rights is doing great harm. In fact, a couple of years ago Rick Warren got in a lot of trouble with his own constituents for inviting Barack to speak at his church. These individuals, who sincerely believe that abortion takes the life of a living person, were appalled that Warren would in any way conspire with an individual who in their view is personally contributing to this great harm.

Now, I don't happen to agree with that point of view. But I accept that for those who do, their position is no less sincerely held - and in fact, no less morally reasoned than my own strong support for civil rights for gay americans.

But at the time and ever since I have admired Rick Warren for inviting Barack to his church, even though he disagrees with him on some important issues, and I praised him at the time for getting past the left-right logjam and working pragmatically to move forward on key issues.

It would be hypocritical for me to now be offended that Warren has been welcomed at the Obama Inauguration. Especially, since I also think the invitation could ultimately be an important step towards WINNING the batter for equal rights.

Rick Warren is not our enemy - he just disagrees with us. And even in California, 52 percent of the electorate still disagreed with us on this issue. Logically, therefore, if we hope to ultimately win this battle (and I do) we must either change the minds of 2.1% of the population, or find a compromise that works for both of us.

Allowing Rick Warren a prominent place in Obama's inauguration (although NOT, by the way, in his administration) is a courteous and a symbolic gesture that suggests we are open to allowing either of these things to happen.

For instance, instead of attacking him, why not ask him to live up to his own words? Warren has indicated that he has no problem with providing legal rights and benefits to gay couples, but he wants to preserve "marriage" for heterosexual couples. I disagree, but if we could guarantee every federal legal right - including essential such as immigration, social security benefits and survivor rights - I'd be willing to call the institution in question a "civil union". So long as my gay friends could still have, ya know.. the cake. And champagne. And lifelong commitment. And legal rights.

Your move, Rick.

End of the Line for the Bushes?

I know you probably thought we'd be finished with the Bush family once and for all when George Junior steps down on January 20th. And it turns out that might really be so...

Jeb Bush has announced that he will not be running for a Floriday Senate seat. Since the political pox that seems to have been put on the Bush name nationally seems not to include Jeb in Florida, it's good news for Democrats that we will not, in fact, have another Bush to kick around.

Justice for Lilly!

The New York Times is reporting that Barack Obama may quickly take action to implement the Lilly Ledbetter act early in his Presidency. I am really hoping that is true, for a number of reasons.

For those of you not familiar with the case, Lilly Ledbetter worked for decades for lower pay than her male colleagues with identical jobs. One day she received an anonymous tip about the disparity in pay, at which point she sued for discrimination. The case went as far as the Supreme Court, which agreed that she had been subject to discrimination, but argued that she would have had to file suit within 180 days of the first instance of discrimination - i.e., her very first paycheck decades before. This would make it virtually impossible for any woman, or any employee who is unfairly discriminated against, to seek redress for this wrong doing - since employees rarely know the salaries of their colleagues.

It was a silly ruling (surely each subsequent paycheck was a continuing instance of discrimination?) which could have been easily overturned by a congressional clarification of the discrimination laws. In fact, Congress came very close to passing a law that would reopen the right to claim discrimination, but they couldn't get past the obstructionist Republicans in the Senate and their filibuster threat.

We've got more Senators now. And a sympathetic President. Lilly's time may have come.

Getting Meta... Thoughts about This Blog

So I thought it might be a good idea to take a minute and lay out my thoughts about this Obama London Blog - where it has been and where it might be going. Some of these future-looking thoughts are still vague at the moment, so please don't hold me to them!

Basically, when I first started this blog I wanted a space where I could personally spout off about Obama stuff on occassion, and also a way of drawing in people who might browsing the net for Obama related stuff in London.

I always hoped that the blog might eventually be more than just a one person endeavor, and eventually Diana Shaw Clark started guest blogging, as did my wonderful co-organiser Rob Carolina. But on the whole, the site has been mostly kept up (or not!) by myself.

In 2009, far from wanting to pull back on the blog, I am actually hoping to do much more with it. From now on I will personally be aiming to do at least one post per day. But in addition, I'm also in discussions with some other folks about adding some more talented writers to our "team". In addition to some new permanent bloggers, I'd also like to post some one off articles from Obama supporters with an interesting perspective to share. Do you have some pressing thoughts on health care reform? Or a great election night story to tell? Or some helpful tips for campaigning? Please leave a note in the comments telling me what you'd like to write about, and we'll make arrangements.

This blog is not an official Obama communication, and the opinions expressed on it are not necessarily endorsed by the Transition Team, the future administration, the previous campaign team, or Democrats Abroad. Having said that, however, since I was working directly to elect Obama under the DNC, I have always felt it was important that this blog maintain the same standards for courteous discourse that the campaign itself tried to set. I don't expect that to change in the new "era". The practical impact of that is that, while I am happy for us to have a robust and multifaceted discussion of the issues, I will not feel compelled to publish either blog entries or comments that are dismissive, attacking, personal or unfair.

So far, that actually hasn't been much of a problem - I only had to delete a couple of harsh comments during the campaign. But I'm putting it on record now so no one can accuse me of changing the rules later.

Drop me a line in the comments if you'd liek to write for us, or if you have any thoughts.

Iowa

Exactly one year ago today, on the 3rd of January 2008, Barack Obama took his first major step towards the Presidency by shocking many pundits and prognosticators with his clear win in the Iowa Caucus. By that point I had already been an eager Obama volunteer for several months, boring my friends and family both here and back home with my enthusiasm for the young Senator from Illinois.

But the folks back in Iowa were working even harder, and thank goodness they were! I happened to get a note from Rick Mullin, a blog reader recently sharing his experience as a caucus organiser on that historic night. I thought I would share it with you:

I occasionally have read your blog and enjoy it. I am a Democratic activist in Iowa, and in my precinct I helped a woman register at our precinct caucus who had flown back to Iowa from London, just to participate and vote for Obama. I was co-chair of the Obama campaign in our county, and was the Obama precinct chair for my neighborhood. Of course we had a huge turnout at our caucus for Obama, and we won our precinct (and obviously the Iowa caucuses.) Some time after that night, I thought about the woman who was so fired up for Obama that she flew to Sioux City from London just to be one more vote for Obama -- and I searched online for Londoners who were backing Obama. That's when I found your blog - good stuff.

I'll send that "good stuff" right back to ya Rick.

Obama London Meeting December 13, 2008

Our post–election planning event was held in the beautiful environs of the Shaw Library at the London School of Economics. Award winning journalist Faisal Al Yafai was kind enough to moderate it for us, and Former State Department Staff member Ted Nist was on hand to give us some insights into the policy process from an administration point of view – a hearty thanks to both of them for their thoughtful contributions.

The major talking point for this meeting was to think about and explore the future of this group in the post-election period. It was universally agreed that the entire group was happy to be members or, and work frequently with and through Democrats Abroad wherever possible. On the other hand, it was also felt that there was an advantage in maintaining an organisation separate from the direct Party hierarchy so that we have the freedom to campaign on specific issues where the Party must remain neutral.


A number of good ideas were suggested that the group might take forward in the next few months.

* To create a lively and interactive blog that will inform our members and serve as a marketing tool to “sell” the policy perspective of American Obama Supporters abroad.
* To create a service project aimed at sponsoring or encouraging foreign travel or life abroad for young Americans who might otherwise not have the oppportunity.
* To create an organisation – “Americans Abroad For Healthcare at Home” – aimed at sharing first person accounts of life under a universal health care scheme, with the goal of influencing both policy makers and the general public.
* To conduct a detailed census or survey to understand the skills, attributes and experience of our members, and their goals and priorities.
* To lobby Congress and the states to make voting easier for Americans Abroad in future elections.


IMPORTANT: Please fill out this survey to indicate your level of interest in each of these suggestions.


Ted pointed out that the US embassy can be a valuable source of dialog with the Administration, and it was suggested that we consider requesting a meeting with the new ambassador when he is appointed to share our unique perspective.


In addition, he felt that our experience as Americans living under a nationalised healthcare system would indeed be a valuable perspective for Tom Daschle, our new Secretary of Health and Human Services, to use as he tries to move America towards a more efficient and fair system. We might consider putting together a research document to collect these first hand accounts.


In general it was agreed that the group is unified in being supporters of President-Elect Obama – therefore while there may be areas where we occassionally disagree with his Administration, or even each other, out goal will always be to play a constructive role in both policy consultations and the implementation of this agenda. To the extent that we have an unusual view of American politics, being a group of Americans Abroad, we will also look for opportunities and issues where that perspective is likely to give make us credible commentators.


In general, however, we all agree that we want to stay active and engaged past inauguration day and to play a first hand role in delivering the change that we need, and for which we have all worked out tails off.

2009 should be quite a year!

The Case Against Caroline

Let me get this out of the way first of all: I like Caroline Kennedy. I like almost everything about her. I like her smarts, I like her dignity, I like her commitment to unpopular issues (like privacy law) that are important but unglamorous. I was moved by her endorsement of Barack during the primary, and I thought she did a fantastic job on his Vice Presidential selection committee. And of course, since I am after all a human being with human emotions, I can't help but be touched that this little girl has come so far.


Nevertheless, in light of recent reporting that she is actively campaigning for the job, I feel compelled to say this:

I do not think Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Here's why...

1) She has never run for office before. In fact, she has always seemed to have a real distaste for the rituals of elected office - understandably so. In this she is wildly unlike her Uncle Ted, who is something of an election junkie. But the candidate who is appointed to this role will need to running for it again in 2010 to hold the rest of the term, and then again in 2012 for re-election. Caroline has broad and deep experience in many areas, but running for office is not one of them. We, and I suspect also she, have no idea how good a candidate she will turn out to be. Better that she find out outside the glare of a Senate re-election campaign. That's what primaries are for.

2) Getting over the family thing. When Hillary ran for the same position she was greeted initially with a lot of scorn for the perception that she was trying to leverage her family connections directly into the Senate. She overcame those perceptions by fighting hard for the seat, and running a widely admired, disciplined campaign. Caroline would face all those same criticisms, but without the opportunity to prove herself to the voters directly. Actual elections are a wonderful proving ground, but this is an appointed position for which she is only one of many equally qualified (on paper) people. Let's be honest, if her name were Caroline Jones she would not be on the list. If she wants to be in Congress, let her run for it. I think she should - I suspect she'd be a terrific legislator - but family connections shouldn't be enough to put you there without a popular mandate.

3) There are other great candidates. The special meaning of Barack's election to me has been this: that you can start from no where and get anywhere with good ideas, hard work and dedication. New York is a strongly Democratic state, and there are countless hard working council members, mayors, and congressional representatives who have been working their tails off for the state for decades now. I'd like to see one of them get this opportunity. For instance, what about Carolyn Maloney? She's a terrific advocate for women's issues, has been doing yeoman's work for New York in the House for the past 16 years, and is not the scion of a political dynasty. All I am saying is, give her a chance.

Caroline, I love ya - really. But if you want to throw your hat into the political arena, I think your first office should be one that you actually run for. I think it would be better for you, I think it would be better for New York and I think it would be better for America.

Oh, and by the way: Ruth Marcus? This is just icky.