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.

Shinseki Tapped by Obama for Veterans Affairs

Today on Meet the Press, Obama indicated that he would appoint retired General Eric Shinseki to serve as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here's what Obama said about Shinseki's career in his statement:

A graduate of West Point, General Shinseki served two combat tours in Vietnam, here he lost part of his foot, and was awarded two Purple Hearts and three Bronze Stars. Throughout his nearly four decades in the U.S. Army, he won the respect and admiration of our men and women in uniform because they have always been his highest priority. He has always stood on principle - because he has always stood with our troops. And he will bring that same sense of duty and commitment to ensuring that we treat our veterans with the care and dignity they deserve. A decorated soldier who has served at every level in the Army, General Shinseki understands the changing needs of our troops and their families. And he will be a VA Secretary who finally modernizes our VA to meet the challenges of our time.

All of this is undeniably true, and very much to Shinseki's credit. But unspoken in Obama's statement - though surely not far from his mind - were some other important fact about this brave General.

Prior to the Iraq war, General Shinseki was asked by the Senate Armed Forces Committee to estimate the number of troops that would be required to secure Iraq after the initial conflict. He estimated, based on his assessment of what the needs on the ground would be, that something on the order of "several hundred thousand" troops would be required.

Though honest and, as it turned out, painfully accurate, this was not what the Bush administration wanted to hear. The then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz immediately contradicted Shinseki's assessment, calling his estimate "wildly off the mark." Shortly afterwards, the General retired - some claim under pressure from the Bush administration, which had come to consider him disloyal.

Congratulations to General Eric Shinseki on his new appointment (which I predict will sail through the Senate's confirmation hearings), and sincere thanks to him for consistently demonstrating courage on the battlefield and off. And it is heartening to see that following an administration that punishes honesty from it's most qualified advisors, we are soon to enter an administration that rewards precisely that honesty and skill.

Here's Obama's Meet the Press interview in full:

Auto Industry Bailout: One Simple Question

Given that:

1) The American auto industry is in trouble.

2) A large part of that trouble is derived from their massive healthcare commitments to workers.

3) Our competitors in the auto market (mainly Germany and Japan) do not have these massive obligations, allowing them to make cheaper cars while maintaining a healthy workforce.

4) We are thinking of spending massive amounts of money to bail out the auto manufacturers.

5) However, the currently bailout plan would still leave the massive healthcare burden on our auto manufacturers, maintaining their current competitive disadvantage.

THEREFORE:

Q) Is there any practical or legal reason why the government could not take over the health obligations of automotive workers immediately as part of the bailout package?

I'm seriously very interested in this as I don't have enough knowledge to know if there's an obvious reason why this wouldn't or couldn't work. However, it seems to me that this is a market-friendly solution - it focuses on equalising the competitive environment rather than artificially fixing the car market. It also seems to be the compassionate solution - relieving auto workers of the immediate burden of concern about their families health care should the bailout fail to save the manufacturers. And finally, it is a practical solution - looking at the specifics of the problem rather than throwing money in to staunch the bleeding.

So, where am I wrong?

Good Point, Well Made

From a viral e-mail that is making the rounds:


To: The World
From: The USA
Subject: Technical Notice

Dear World,

The United States of America, your quality supplier of ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for its 2001-2008 service outage.

The technical fault that led to this eight-year service interruption has been located, and the parts responsible for it were replaced Tuesday night, November 4. Early tests of the newly-installed equipment indicate that it is functioning correctly, and we expect it to be fully functional by mid-January.

We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage, and we look forward to resuming full service --- and hopefully even to improving it in years to come.

Thank you for your patience and understanding,

-- USA

How to Be a Democratic Party Activist

As we move into the exciting new world where the Democratic Party is the party of Government and as we absord the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of new activists and supporters generated during the campaing, I realy hope that all of you will continue to stay involved and to push for the policies and candidates that you care about. But as much as I want us to be strong and principled in how we go about our activism, I also want us to think about the STYLE of our activism.

Recently I responded to a complaint on one of the Obama Groups about a local Democrats Abroad chapter's apparent failure to engage fully with their members. Now, I have no way of knowing whether this individual's concerns were valid or not, but I did think it was useful to remind all of us Obamaites that if we are going to live up to Barack's example we need to follow his example by applying the GOlden RUle. Below is my advice written specifically for that group, but applicable to all those who seek to make Change in politics.

1) Empathy. No matter what your disagreements or concerns may be with the leadership - remember that they have their own problems. Democrats Abroad is a 100% volunteer organisation - there is only one paid staffer, and she is based in Washington. As a result, DA officers are often trying to do a full time job in their free time, often for little or no thanks. Yes, there are always ways that they could be working harder, especially to engage and involve their members but sometimes they are simply overwhelmed trying to get through the day. As a result...
2) Present Yourself as the Solution, Not the Problem. Remember, if you walk up to them and say, "you do a terrible job of engaging with your members you should be ashamed of yourself. Why aren't you...." there is no incentive for that person to listen to you - they see you as a problem and instantly their motivation is to get rid of you. But if, instead, you say, "I know that it can be a real struggle to manage our interactions with members so that there is a real consultation process in place. I had some thoughts about how I might be able to help with that..." suddenly you are taking a burden off their shoulders. But make sure you really do follow through on the suggestions you propose. Have practical steps in mind that will help you get there, and be prepared to work with them to be flexible about how that might happen (E.G., "OK, you say we don't have the money to build a website... could we do an e-mail dialog?").
3) Listen as Much as You Talk. Sometimes I've seen 3 or 4 people stand up in a meeting to make the same point or I've seen people totally ignore explanations and clarifications that are offered. This quickly becomes annoying and makes it seem like you are not respecting the other people in the room. If you have a strong view, sometimes it's a good idea not to jump into the discussion right away but rather to hold back until most people have had their say and then demonstrate in your statement that you've heard and understood the others' point of view. (Frankly, this is how I think the leadership ought to be treating their members, so it is only fair that we offer them the same courtesy.)
4) Be Concise. Your point is all the more likely to be heard if it is well thought out, clearly stated, and brief. A 20 minute diatribe will cause people to tune you out (possibly forever) but a 30 second statement of the problem followed by a 1 minute proposal and recommendation will be listened to with attention.
5) Don't Get Personal. Even if you violently disagree with someone's views on an issue, work hard to make sure your comments are directed at the area of disagreement, not the person. Attributing someone's views to their personal circumstances ("That's so typical of a rich lawyer") or to their innate bad qualities ("You don't care about grassroots movements at all") suggests that you oppose them personally, not their position. And strangely enough, no one is going to go out of their way to work with someone they see as fundamentally hostile to them. But if your objection is issue-focussed there is room for them to change their mind or, if you lose the argument anyway, to become your ally on a future issue where you might agree.

I hope that you will continue to try and play a constructive role in Democrats Abroad, or in your local party wherever it may be, because we really do need to continue growing a strong, member-led, ground-up organisation.

Clinton, Holder, Napolitano, Rice, Jones, Gates (and Biden)

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his national security team.



It goes without saying that this is a strong team, with broad and deep knowledge of America's foreign and domestic challenges and robust experience across government in helping to solve, and avert, crises. A few noteworthy points from my perspective:

• Susan Rice, who has been an impressive foreign policy thinker, and who we heard from a lot during the campaign as an early Obama supporter, will not only serve as UN Ambassador but will take over the post as it is returned to its earlier status as a Cabinet level appointment. This is not only a smart personnel decision - Rice is expert on Africa policy, and the UN spends much of its energy on resolving issues in that troubled continent - but also great symbolism since the restoration of respect for key international institutions is going to be key to improving America's relations with the rest of the world.
• Eric Holder, not only is a strong nominee for Attorney General but made it clear in his statement that he sees preserving our civil liberties as PART of a national security mandate and not in conflict with those goals. Hurray for that!
• Janet Napolitano is just an outstanding public servant, full stop.
• Joe Biden, with his appearance amongst this team, clearly sees himself having an important role in our foreign policy and national security efforts. This is great news, as Biden has for years been the most knowledgeable and respecte foreign policy thinkers in the US Senate (aided by his chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs committee). So go, Joe!
• And last but by no means least, I am singularly impressed with the maturity of Hillary Clinton's decision to accept the position of Secretary of State. Her new role is a great honor and responsibility, but also requires her to surrender her hard won seat in the New York Senate, and to absent herself from playing a role in domestic policy issues that she obviously cares about very deeply. It's not surprising that (according to reports) she had mixed feelings about taking the post. That she ultimately accepted is indicative of a truly pulic-spirited leader. She brings to the position existing relationships with world leaders across the globe, a massive political brand that is internationally admired, and or course her legendary intelligence and determination.
  
  Good luck to them all. I'm audaciously hopeful.

Reality Check

This is just a short note to point out that, despite reams of speculation, rumors and reporting about virtually every cabinent position (Richardson for Commerce! Hillary for State!) as far as I can find, the only officially announced Obama Cabinet appointment so far has been Timothy Geithner as Obama's choice for Secretary of the Treasury.

I'm not saying all the speculation is necessarily inaccurate, I'm just saying - in terms of actual announcements about Cabinet level positions from the President Elect himself... That's all that I can find. If anyone else knows a confirmed appointment that I missed out on, please let me know. For example, Tom Daschle is widely spoken of as having accepted a position at Health and Human Services - but I haven't seen any official announcement confirming this.

Meanwhile, the administration has been (rightly in my view) focussed on 2 things:

1) Fleshing out a robust and experience economic policy team to provide confidence to the markets and to begin drafting proposals to be implemented immediately after Obama takes office.

2) Appointing White House staff across all policy areas to provide advice and guidance to the President elect that will help to, among other things, improve the process of selecting Cabinet officers. This strategic understanding of the President-elect's needs during the transition seems to be one of the real strengths that John Podesta has been able to bring to the team as Transition head, and is based no doubt on some hard lessons well learned from Bill Clinton's transition process.

As far as the other rumored and expected appointments - I just think it is important to remember that even if every article posted is true, none of that implies that he person discussed definitely will be appointed. Obama's team has shown from the beginning that they want a thorough and unhurried vetting process for their nominees and their is no telling what the results of that process might be in any case. Also, remember that Cabinet officers all have to go through the Senate approvals process - and though I would be surprised if Obama appointed anyone who would have a serious problem getting through that process (especially with an increased Democratic majority), I'm sure he is going to want to show his former Senate colleagues the respect of taking that process seriously. So it's a one step at a time thing - something to mull over as you chew on your turkey leftovers.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

Who the Heroes Are

I'd like to add a hearty "me too" endorsement of this Matthew Yglesias blog post on the subject of American history. Specifically, the teaching of American history. Specifically, the teaching of American history as a heroic narrative.

It reminded me of something that has been a latent undercurrent in Obama's speeches and public statements for a long time, and that strikes me as a useful way of reclaiming the American legacy. Conservative cultural critics - like Mark Steyn referred to above - like to bemoan the supposed "anti-American" instinct to frequently talk about terrible things that were done in America and to highlight the victims of these atrocities. What they seem single-mindedly incapable of understanding is that it is possible to view these awful deeds - slavery, Native American genocide, Japanese internment, oppression of woman - as things done BY Americans to others, it is in fact appropriate to view them as things done TO Americans by others. That the slave was an American and that the rise from slavery, however tragic the need for it was ultimately a story of success for those Americans. That Rosa Parks was an American and that the bravery to act as one strong woman in those times and in that place is something Americans are right to be proud of. That generations of women lived tough, admirable lives across this country and ultimately fought for their right to vote and to be treated as equals. And that that's an American story.

American history can rightly be taught as a heroic narrative. Here's one example of how that could work:

Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldnt vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that shes seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we cant, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when womens voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

Am I Going Soft on Bush?

OK, am I getting mushy in my old age, or does this video clip actually make you feel a little bit bad for soon-to-be-ex-President Bush?



All right, I know Bush is unpopular with world leaders because of his withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty and subsequent refusal to cooperate on meaningful efforts to curb climate change. I know that many of these people considered the Iraq war a dnagerous and unlawful invasion and that even the allies who cooperated with Bush on the war received little in return but political problems back home. I know that Bush seemed to put the interests of the United States above settled international law on issues including torture, extraordinary rendition and unlawful detention of prisoners...

Wait a minute, where was I going with this. Oh... Sympathy.

Well, maybe not so much.