Open Letter to Sen. Obama

Sen. Obama,

Please do not use the money I donated to YOU to pay of Clinton's debt, debt that she chose to incur and can easily pay off herself.

I read your two books and in spite of my excitement for you, I kept an open mind b/n you and Clinton until December. I forced myself to decide then, and afterwards your positive performance and Hillary's despicable tactics confirmed my decision for vote for you.

I don't agree with you on everything (wish you were more aggressive on bringing the country off oil), but I am inspired by your commitment to changing politics by getting more people involved, by not taking PAC money, and by receiving over 90% of your donations as gifts under $100. My wife and I are not big donors, but we give what we can every few months.

I believe you when you say you are here to change politics and to convince citizens who are disenchanted with politics that their voice matters.

IN SHORT, Clinton represents the opposite of what you stand for. She obfuscated issues, she mislead voters, she made purely political choices, she ran an establishment campaign, she hand picked a team based on loyalty rather than competence, she wielded race as a weapon... Democrats rejected those tactics by nominating you.

As smart and competent as she may be, she lost her integrity. I don't need to list for you the scores of deplorable tactics she used against you. Her type of "leadership" is what feeds the virus of skepticism that eats away at the health of our democracy.

I gave you my hard earned money and have zealously advocated for you in North Carolina because you represent something different. Please do not throw away my commitment to you by using your campaign money to pay of Hillary's loans!!! Such an action would undermine your message and your appeal. Please continue to treat voters with respect by respecting their financial investment/sacrifice by donating to YOU.

The Clinton's came out of Bill's presidency with more debt than the $20 million or so they have now, and they will be find. Hell, their $109 million allows them to pay that off today if they want.

I am trying to accept that you have to praise her for a "hard fought campaign," but at the least do not give her the money millions of Americans gave to you. She does not deserve to be bailed out by the underdog who won by running a grassroots campaign rather than paying millions to long-term Washington consultants.

Jeremy

Libby and Obama

http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifI just have to take a couple of minutes to put in my two sense worth on yesterday's news. Regarding Scooter Libby, Cheyney's Chief of Staff who lied to federal prosecuters, it is disgraceful for Bush to commute his sentence. Libby's 30 month jail sentence was well within the federal guidelines and was not an "excessive" sentence as Bush claimed. He received a fair trial and got nailed. The Bush administration has been deceitful towards the American people for 6 years (i.e. reasons for going into Iraq, existence of illegal wiretapping, use of extraordinary rendition, reasons for firing attorneys general)and now that one of its gang gets caught, Bush gives him a get-out-of-jail-free cards. This is no way to ensure a healthy democracy.

On a more positive note, Obama raised $32.5 million in the second quarter. Hillary has not declared her total, but it's estimated at $27 million. While Hillary is at the front of the race, this puts Obama in a real position to win. Hillary does not have this thing locked up. Moreover, 90% of Obama's first quarter donations came from gifts of $100 or less, and he now has a total of over 258,000 donors! That is more than in the history of the U.S.!

Obama continues to connect with people and empower them to participate in the Democracy. This phenomenon does strengthen our democracy. Obama has taught a generation that power is in the citizens' hands (even if you can only donate $50) and does not rest solely in large donors' hands. He has given us a taste of what it is like to have one's opinion and money matter in politics.

Added July 5
[The last thing Bush wants is to see a high ranking White House official's picture out wearing an orange prison suit.

John Dickerson at Slate.com ,

What's astonishing is that the factors Bush relied on in commuting Libby's sentence are the same ones that the administration has aggressively sought to preclude judges from considering when imposing sentences on everyone else...

The Bush administration, however, has consistently maintained that at sentencing, judges should be precluded from thinking about precisely the sort of individual circumstances the president raised in lending a hand to Libby. Last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proposed legislation that would prevent judges from relying on anything outside the federal sentencing guidelines as the basis for a sentence more lenient than the range that the guidelines provide for.

Now I hear that Bush's commutation may also remove Libby's propation!]

Obama takes Secret Service detail

To my swarms of fans, I apologize for withholding my satiating snacks of wisdom for almost two weeks. On to Obama...

The only thing I can compare to the hype around Obama is the energy and passion surrounding Kennedy and Dr. King. I am too young to have lived with them, but they are the only public figures that have touched people so deeply and elicited such excitement? Obama has not reached this status, but he has also not reached his apogee.

While Obama could stand beside King and Kennedy one day, I hope he does not share their fate: assassination. I am glad he has received Secret Service protection and I hope this makes him more, not less, safe. If I were his wife, I'd be very concerned about his safety as a transformative public figure. Encouraging the power of each individual by redounding the attention one receives from the public back to the public
creates uncontrollable momentum. At the same time, I see Obama and is wife as part of a larger movement–bringing government back to the people–which requires them to surrender to life.

I try to remain openminded, but why do I find myself always coming back to Obama? I think it's because I don't see any of the other candidates trying to change the system, and that purpose trumps disagreements I have with Obama on some issues. Along with energy and health care, the public's loss of faith in government–national and local–is one of our biggest problems. Obama is the only candidate doing anything about it.

SC Debate lastnight

I get excited by the hype of a Presidential debate. And believe it or not, its because I enjoyed seeing the wheels of democracy moving. All the candidates take their place and have a change to present themselves.

Obama
While I went into the debate inspired and excited by Obama, his performance was bland and deflating. With Kucinich and Dravel challenging the others with anti-war, anti-nuclear mandates, Obama seemed mainstream. He seemed like a jet that needed 100 yards to take off and only had 50. He seemed stiff and bland. He didn't hit his points hard or speak with impact. He wasn't inspiring or fresh––two characteristics that have spurred his popularity. I'd even go so far as to say he didn't strike me as presidential. I have to be honest, Clinton and Edwards were much more articulate and precise with their time.

Debates tell us somethings, but not everything. Maybe not even the most important things. I trust the Obama who wrote his two books. He is honest, compassionate, culturally wise, and courageous enough to do what is right. His campaign is about revolutionizing politics and the election process as much as it is about his candidacy. Even great athletes have sub par games.

Obama needs to get specific to hang. I have heard this criticism of him, but last night made me see it on my own. This was a good learning experience for him, and I think he will be much better in the future. He also would be much better with more time to respond and answer follow up questions. He couldn't really get into a flow.

The biggest frustration for me with Obama is his support of Ethanol. He comes from Illinois and I am sure he needs to support the corn farmers. But Ethanol is a loser when it comes to alternative energy. It's energy ratio is low, and it does not change the system. He did not tell Americans that they need to change their habits. He went on about planting the trees, which is great, but didn't recover well when asked about personal changes he has made. He needs to get on track with that. If you want to change the system, tell people to take the bus or open their windows when at home.

The debate did not solidify my support for Obama. Instead it introduced me to the candidates and left me open minded about who to support.

Clinton
Hillary had the best showing of anyone. She was by far the most presidential and the clearest speaker. She was skillful, intelligent, and strong. She didn't ask for any special treatment and didn't use her femininity at all. She stood up there with the boys and rocked it.

I can understand her position of giving the president the authority to go to war but not supporting his decision to go to war. However, as Chris Matthews points out, if that is what she really was doing, then why did it take so long for her to denounce Bush's war? That doesn't add up to me, and her communications director did not answer that question. He didn't know when she first spoke out against the war.

I think Hillary would be a capable president, of course. But she may be to savvy for her own good. I believe she will get health care reform through this time. I believe she will get us out of Iraq. I believe she will continue to improve the economy. But part of me feels like she will just continue the same old politics as usual. She knows how to play the system so well that I don't see her as inclined to change it.

Edwards
Edwards impressed me by speaking clearly and decisively. He is obviously comfortable behind the podium and he answered the critiques about his big house and expensive hair cut. Yes, he has money, but he doesn't come from money. And he remembers from where he came. Bashing him for making money makes no sense. Isn't that everyone's dream? He should be praised, not criticized, for taking advantage of what makes America great: the opportunity to move up in life.

Edwards could have pressed his poverty work stronger. He doesn't have the gravitas that Richardson or even Cheney have. I worry that he comes across as "light" because of that. He is honest and connected to what it means to be human. That I don't get from Hillary.

Richardson
He was Secretary of Energy and is the Governor of New Mexico. He's been nominated for four Nobel Peace Prizes for crying out loud!

Others quote experts, but he is one. The guys is a straight shooter. I trust his judgement on immigration and how to serve as executive. He gave specific ways to address our energy crisis, and he's the only executive up there. He has a serious change of being Vice President.

Aftermath
CNN's headline was "Democrats Hammer Bush." I am glad the big news is not that Obama flopped or Clinton stole the show. I think either one of those would be accurate.

We'll se what happens next.

Please comment below. I am very interested in your take on the debate or the candidates. You can respond as "anonymous" if you would like.

Obama's Pastor Blasts NY Times

I meant to post this last week. My friends at BrainShrub turned me on to this.

March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959

Dear Jodi:

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run. I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family?

I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only."

I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on...

... Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print?

You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography."

Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth.

I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior. Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. ,
Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ