As I listen to the media reaction to Barack Obama's speech on race I am sad, angry and proud. I'm proud because Barack Obama did not compromise himself in the face of considerable political pressure.
I'm angry because the press has minimized his speech to, "Did he reject his pastor or not?" This speech not only revealed more about his philosophy on race and politics it allowed Barack Obama to describe these past events as a distraction. We are being distracted from the issues and the more the media keeps this up the more people are looking away from problems that are real in their life.
I'm sad because in order to understand the situation fully people have to actually believe Barack Obama when he says that these sermon snippets do not represent the pastor or his church. But how will people believe that when all they see are these continuous clips of inflammatory speech? They would actually have to take Barack Obama at his word, research the church and the pastor and come to their own conclusions. But I'm sad because I don't think the American people want to do this. It's too easy to watch TV and let their opinions be formed by what they see in the media. But looking at those clips is like looking at a red spot on a white suit and calling the suit red.
If Barack Obama's relationship with his church and pastor are what people use to decide whether he should be president, then I have and am losing faith in the American people. I'm not sure we deserve Barack Obama's talent if it has come to this. What I do know is that I'm glad he took a stand for what he knows is true. This church is not racist and Barack Obama is not racist either. It's better that he maintains his character and lose the race than cave to political pressure, compromise himself and lose the race.
What happens next? I think that he will go back to talking about the issues but lets hope that this speech ends the discussion of his church and pastor. Judge Barack Obama for who he is--study him and his policies. But don't make assumptions about his pastor and then project your incorrect conclusions on him.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
A more perfect union. . .
Here is the speech that Barack Obama made in Philly today. I'd like to give my comments later but I would like to hear your reaction first. Lemme know whatcha think!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
I have an announcement. . .
Yesterday, I applied to graduate in the coming spring quarter!
In 70 days I have to:
1) Have a final thesis committee meeting and get permission to write up.
-So most of my experiments should be finished, I'm thinking by early april--This is tough because I keep thinking about questions that I want to answer and experiments that I can add in a short time! But I know that I can expand on those ideas after I finish and do a little transition post-doc in my current lab.
-In the meantime, I'm writing a review that will be published with my boss (first chapter of my dissertation).
-I'm working on a journal article that will describe my data (one or two chapters in my thesis)
-I'm compiling my data thus far--I have a lot, I didn't realize!
-And I'm praying for strength, I see a lot of long days in my future.
2) Submit my dissertation by April 30th (first draft)
-I want this to be my final draft, there will probably be changes after my defense
-I'll keep you posted on my defense date!
3) Submit a final draft of my dissertation by May 21st
-That's it, thesis defense done, dissertation signed off by my advisor and committee, it all has to be in, formatting changes made, that's it!
4) Walk and be "hooded" on June 13th!
I knew this time would come but it easily felt that it never would! I'm scared and excited at the same time, but it's time. . .I can't wait!
Talk to ya soon, and please keep me in your prayers, I need all the support I can get!
Chi(:
In 70 days I have to:
1) Have a final thesis committee meeting and get permission to write up.
-So most of my experiments should be finished, I'm thinking by early april--This is tough because I keep thinking about questions that I want to answer and experiments that I can add in a short time! But I know that I can expand on those ideas after I finish and do a little transition post-doc in my current lab.
-In the meantime, I'm writing a review that will be published with my boss (first chapter of my dissertation).
-I'm working on a journal article that will describe my data (one or two chapters in my thesis)
-I'm compiling my data thus far--I have a lot, I didn't realize!
-And I'm praying for strength, I see a lot of long days in my future.
2) Submit my dissertation by April 30th (first draft)
-I want this to be my final draft, there will probably be changes after my defense
-I'll keep you posted on my defense date!
3) Submit a final draft of my dissertation by May 21st
-That's it, thesis defense done, dissertation signed off by my advisor and committee, it all has to be in, formatting changes made, that's it!
4) Walk and be "hooded" on June 13th!
I knew this time would come but it easily felt that it never would! I'm scared and excited at the same time, but it's time. . .I can't wait!
Talk to ya soon, and please keep me in your prayers, I need all the support I can get!
Chi(:
Finally, The press speaks out.
Keith Olbermann confronted Senator Hillary Clinton in a ten-minute "Special Comment," saying that he was not endorsing Barack Obama but that "events insist" that he speak and stand against her "tepid response" to the controversial remarks of Geraldine Ferraro wherein she said that Obama wouldn't have been as successful if he were not black.
Check out the video here.
Check out the video here.
Although I agree that race may play a role for some voters, I DO NOT condone Ferraro's comments NOR do I believe that Obama's lead in delegates and states is because he's African-American. There's something about the way he runs his campaign. It has themes of unity, integrity, and giving political power back to the American people. I don't know about you but his campaign and his character make me an Obama supporter. What do you think about Ferraro's remarks?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Obama is ready to be Commander in Chief
Dylan Loewe
The Case for Obama's Readiness
Posted March 10, 2008 | 08:57 AM (EST)
Hillary Clinton's success in Texas and Ohio suggest that questioning Barack Obama's readiness to lead may be a tactic that can resonate with voters. Though exit polling data from Wisconsin and other recent state primaries had suggested that voters saw Obama and Clinton as equally capable to be commander in chief, new numbers reveal a shift. A Newsweek poll now shows Clinton beating Obama on readiness with a 12-point margin.
The poll also finds that only four percent of Democratic primary voters view national security as their top priority. But if Clinton continues to make national security the centerpiece of her campaign, we may see those numbers begin to increase.
Much of the media views Obama as facing a delicate and unique challenge. It will be difficult, they argue, for him to repudiate her attacks without appearing to have abdicated the high ground. For the most part, this portrayal is overblown. The last six months of the Democratic race have included serious and sustained negative attacks from the Clinton campaign; throughout all of it, Obama has been able to attack swiftly from a defensive position without undercutting the rationale of his candidacy, or damaging his persona.
Yet these new attacks do bring with them a sense of urgency. Hillary Clinton has displayed a surprising willingness to paint her Democratic rival as less qualified than the Republican nominee. Her success won't do much to deliver her the nomination, now nearly out of reach. But it may help produce vulnerabilities in Obama's armor, each of which will be meticulously exploited by John McCain. As a result, Obama must respond quickly, making an honest case for his readiness.
But if he is to convince the voters of his readiness to lead, he must first define what it means to be ready.
The presidency requires a vast knowledge base, not just of policy, but of philosophy and history. Each decision requires a distinct framework of thinking, one that has been shaped by collective wisdom. Surely Barack Obama meets this test -- the Harvard Law Review editor, turned constitutional law professor, turned United States Senator. Obama brings to bear a deep understanding of the world around him.
The president must also be capable of asking thorough questions to his advisers, the only real tool for analyzing the validity of disparate arguments. A knowledge base is a prerequisite for such an ability, but it is not sufficient to guarantee it. One must be able to connect what, to some, may seem unconnected, to draw analogies to history and politics that help frame the decision. It requires instinct and perspective, precision and insight. Obama's decisionmaking framework, as described by Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago, is thorough and non-ideological. He is "a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view."
Readiness also requires a coolness under pressure, the ability to stay even-tempered, to be unflappable in a crisis. Neither Clinton nor Obama have had the authority to make decisions even remotely close to those within the power of the president. That is a distinction reserved to only 41 people since George Washington, one of the many reasons to discount a candidate's claims to experience.
But Obama's temperament on the campaign trail does reveal, to some extent, how he responds to pressure. Without exception, Obama has exhibited a calmness, an assured self-confidence that falls well short of arrogance. He is resolute and measured whether winning or losing, and has stayed emotionally intact throughout. If the campaign is a yard-stick for the presidency, Obama is ready.
Armed with a knowledge base, strong instincts, a questioning spirit, and an even demeanor, a president still cannot be ready without judgment. A president must have the ability to gather all that is needed to make a decision. But ultimately, they must make the right one. There can simply be no better metric for judging a presidency. To date, Obama has displayed an almost prophetic judgment.
He was right on the Iraq war in 2002. His judgment was based on a working understanding of Middle East geopolitics, as well as non-ideological instincts and the willingness to ask pointed questions. If there are weapons of mass destruction, but we don't know where they are, what will happen to them when we destroy the government that controls them? Iraq and Iran have balanced each other's power in the region. Will Iran's strength and influence expand when we create a power vacuum? What happens after we gain control of the country? Is there any way to avoid an occupation?
His questions received answers that solidified his opposition.
He has shown similar foresight in other global policy decisions. He questioned whether the U.S. relationship with Pervez Musharraf was the most effective means of dealing with Pakistan. Months later, his concerns have been validated as the U.S. finds itself on the wrong side of a Democratic revolution. He spoke of the need to target senior al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, even without Musharraf's approval. Recently, the U.S. succeeded at doing just that, taking out the third-highest ranking al Qaeda official. He was right to question the Bush administration's saber-rattling toward Iran, once again vindicated by a National Intelligence Estimate that found Bush's case to be far overstated. He has proven, time and again, that his global worldview is sound and sophisticated, and that he has the tools to make the right decisions. In terms of judgment, Obama is clearly ready.
The readiness debate will no doubt continue. But from any honest perspective, the answer to Hillary Clinton's threshold question is clear. Can Barack Obama be an effective commander in chief?
Yes he can.
The Case for Obama's Readiness
Posted March 10, 2008 | 08:57 AM (EST)
Hillary Clinton's success in Texas and Ohio suggest that questioning Barack Obama's readiness to lead may be a tactic that can resonate with voters. Though exit polling data from Wisconsin and other recent state primaries had suggested that voters saw Obama and Clinton as equally capable to be commander in chief, new numbers reveal a shift. A Newsweek poll now shows Clinton beating Obama on readiness with a 12-point margin.
The poll also finds that only four percent of Democratic primary voters view national security as their top priority. But if Clinton continues to make national security the centerpiece of her campaign, we may see those numbers begin to increase.
Much of the media views Obama as facing a delicate and unique challenge. It will be difficult, they argue, for him to repudiate her attacks without appearing to have abdicated the high ground. For the most part, this portrayal is overblown. The last six months of the Democratic race have included serious and sustained negative attacks from the Clinton campaign; throughout all of it, Obama has been able to attack swiftly from a defensive position without undercutting the rationale of his candidacy, or damaging his persona.
Yet these new attacks do bring with them a sense of urgency. Hillary Clinton has displayed a surprising willingness to paint her Democratic rival as less qualified than the Republican nominee. Her success won't do much to deliver her the nomination, now nearly out of reach. But it may help produce vulnerabilities in Obama's armor, each of which will be meticulously exploited by John McCain. As a result, Obama must respond quickly, making an honest case for his readiness.
But if he is to convince the voters of his readiness to lead, he must first define what it means to be ready.
The presidency requires a vast knowledge base, not just of policy, but of philosophy and history. Each decision requires a distinct framework of thinking, one that has been shaped by collective wisdom. Surely Barack Obama meets this test -- the Harvard Law Review editor, turned constitutional law professor, turned United States Senator. Obama brings to bear a deep understanding of the world around him.
The president must also be capable of asking thorough questions to his advisers, the only real tool for analyzing the validity of disparate arguments. A knowledge base is a prerequisite for such an ability, but it is not sufficient to guarantee it. One must be able to connect what, to some, may seem unconnected, to draw analogies to history and politics that help frame the decision. It requires instinct and perspective, precision and insight. Obama's decisionmaking framework, as described by Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago, is thorough and non-ideological. He is "a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view."
Readiness also requires a coolness under pressure, the ability to stay even-tempered, to be unflappable in a crisis. Neither Clinton nor Obama have had the authority to make decisions even remotely close to those within the power of the president. That is a distinction reserved to only 41 people since George Washington, one of the many reasons to discount a candidate's claims to experience.
But Obama's temperament on the campaign trail does reveal, to some extent, how he responds to pressure. Without exception, Obama has exhibited a calmness, an assured self-confidence that falls well short of arrogance. He is resolute and measured whether winning or losing, and has stayed emotionally intact throughout. If the campaign is a yard-stick for the presidency, Obama is ready.
Armed with a knowledge base, strong instincts, a questioning spirit, and an even demeanor, a president still cannot be ready without judgment. A president must have the ability to gather all that is needed to make a decision. But ultimately, they must make the right one. There can simply be no better metric for judging a presidency. To date, Obama has displayed an almost prophetic judgment.
He was right on the Iraq war in 2002. His judgment was based on a working understanding of Middle East geopolitics, as well as non-ideological instincts and the willingness to ask pointed questions. If there are weapons of mass destruction, but we don't know where they are, what will happen to them when we destroy the government that controls them? Iraq and Iran have balanced each other's power in the region. Will Iran's strength and influence expand when we create a power vacuum? What happens after we gain control of the country? Is there any way to avoid an occupation?
His questions received answers that solidified his opposition.
He has shown similar foresight in other global policy decisions. He questioned whether the U.S. relationship with Pervez Musharraf was the most effective means of dealing with Pakistan. Months later, his concerns have been validated as the U.S. finds itself on the wrong side of a Democratic revolution. He spoke of the need to target senior al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, even without Musharraf's approval. Recently, the U.S. succeeded at doing just that, taking out the third-highest ranking al Qaeda official. He was right to question the Bush administration's saber-rattling toward Iran, once again vindicated by a National Intelligence Estimate that found Bush's case to be far overstated. He has proven, time and again, that his global worldview is sound and sophisticated, and that he has the tools to make the right decisions. In terms of judgment, Obama is clearly ready.
The readiness debate will no doubt continue. But from any honest perspective, the answer to Hillary Clinton's threshold question is clear. Can Barack Obama be an effective commander in chief?
Yes he can.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
