I know I'm getting a day behind on my soundbite analysis, but I wanted to give a nod to John Edwards, who left the race yesterday with a very graceful sendoff. I'm a little surprised he didn't stay in it until Feb. 5, but I guess at a certain point it stops being worth spending that much money to make the convention interesting.
Obviously, I'd have liked him to endorse Obama, but I thought it was classy of him let his supporters decide for themselves and to challenge both of the remaining candidates to deliver on the issue that kept him going this far. Poverty, at the end of the day, is the underlying injustice that neither grand words nor a great resume can remedy, and a challenge that the Democratic Party will have to rally around to make good on any presidential promises. I like Edwards. He's smart, he's got good ideas, and I wish he could have been president four years ago. And I think it's a bit too bad, and not a little ironic, that someone who would have made a good president had the bad luck to come up against, as he said it himself, the course of history.
Apparently in politics it never rains but it pours. And I'd rather have too many good choices than too many lousy ones, because in the long run, if we remember the ideals we all really share and the common problems we have to solve, many voices make us strong.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
"Let us strive on to finish the work we are in,
to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
--Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Adress, May 4, 1865
"It serves us then to reflect on whether that element of Lincoln's character, and the American character - that aspect which makes tough choices, and speaks the truth when least convenient, and acts while still admitting doubt - remains with us today."
--Barack Obama, Remarks at the Opening of the Lincoln Presidential Museum and Library April 20, 2005
The similarities between Barack Obama and Lincoln have been examined in depth by a variety of different media outlets. Whether theirs is a comparison of political convenience or a real and uncanny set of circumstances and beliefs, it has certainly become an issue. But some thins are just plain fact: both come from relatively economically disadvantaged backgrounds: a log cabin for Lincoln, a small apartment raised by a single mother for Obama. Both took advantage of the educational opportunities afforded them. For Lincoln this meant a lifetime of voracious reading. For Obama, it meant finally understanding the importance of education as a young man and a decision to embrace his studies. Both came from the western-most reaches of the US at the time: Kentucky for Lincoln, Hawaii for Obama. Both ended up in Springfield, Illinois. They even announced their intentions to run for president within yards of each other, separated only by a few yards and a century and a half.
Both began the run for president as relative unknowns, inexperienced statesmen ready for the challenges of the presidency. Each has several years in the Illinois state legislature together, and each has a handful of years in national politics.
Both have critics that say they were or are not ready to lead the nation, but in both cases, America understood the times required exceptional leadership.
Here is a passage from a The Daily Gazette for the City of Davenport on November 13, 1860:
"[The Republican Party] was defeated but not disheartened. The necessity for the existence of such a party became more apparnt as the administration of Buchanan progressed, and its repeated infamies shocked the sensibilities of an intelligent and patriotic people... It presented the name of Abraham Lincoln for the presidency-- a conservative man, an honest man, a man fully qualified for any position in the republic, and most peculiarly adapted to take the reins of government at this time of great agitation and peril."
Replace "Republican" with "Democrat" and "Buchanan" with "Bush," and you get a fairly accurate representation of current governmental trends.
Recently, Katie Couric asked the presidential candidates what books they would bring with them to the White House. Each had a good answer. Senator Clinton said she would bring a copy of the Federalist Papers, as well as a copy of the Constitution. Senator McCain chose Smith's The Wealth of Nations. But one answer stood out. I quote it here:
Sen. Barack Obama: "Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals. It was a biography of Lincoln. And she talks about Lincoln's capacity to bring opponents of his and people who have run against him in his cabinet. And he was confident enough to be willing to have these dissenting voices and confident enough to listen to the American people and push them outside of their comfort zone. And I think that part of what I want to do as president is push Americans a little bit outside of their comfort zone. It's a remarkable study in leadership."
There it is. Both Obama and Lincoln are the kinds of politicians that come along once every century: confident enough to listen to dissenting views, but unafraid to make the decisions necessary.
Back in 2005, Barack Obama wrote an interesting piece in Time Magazine about Lincoln (What I See in Lincoln's Eyes). More specifically, Obama writes about the final portrait of Lincoln, taken just a week before his death. In it, Obama reflects on Lincoln's life and its impact on his own leadership. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty," Obama writes, "his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this, he reminded me not just of my own struggles. He also reminded me of a larger, fundamental element of American life--the enduring belief that we can constantly remake ourselves to fit our larger dreams."
This is the photo of which Obama is writing, the photo that, in his words, "alters tragedy into grace." Through it all, Lincoln smiles.
--Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Adress, May 4, 1865
"It serves us then to reflect on whether that element of Lincoln's character, and the American character - that aspect which makes tough choices, and speaks the truth when least convenient, and acts while still admitting doubt - remains with us today."
--Barack Obama, Remarks at the Opening of the Lincoln Presidential Museum and Library April 20, 2005
The similarities between Barack Obama and Lincoln have been examined in depth by a variety of different media outlets. Whether theirs is a comparison of political convenience or a real and uncanny set of circumstances and beliefs, it has certainly become an issue. But some thins are just plain fact: both come from relatively economically disadvantaged backgrounds: a log cabin for Lincoln, a small apartment raised by a single mother for Obama. Both took advantage of the educational opportunities afforded them. For Lincoln this meant a lifetime of voracious reading. For Obama, it meant finally understanding the importance of education as a young man and a decision to embrace his studies. Both came from the western-most reaches of the US at the time: Kentucky for Lincoln, Hawaii for Obama. Both ended up in Springfield, Illinois. They even announced their intentions to run for president within yards of each other, separated only by a few yards and a century and a half.
Both began the run for president as relative unknowns, inexperienced statesmen ready for the challenges of the presidency. Each has several years in the Illinois state legislature together, and each has a handful of years in national politics.
Both have critics that say they were or are not ready to lead the nation, but in both cases, America understood the times required exceptional leadership.
Here is a passage from a The Daily Gazette for the City of Davenport on November 13, 1860:
"[The Republican Party] was defeated but not disheartened. The necessity for the existence of such a party became more apparnt as the administration of Buchanan progressed, and its repeated infamies shocked the sensibilities of an intelligent and patriotic people... It presented the name of Abraham Lincoln for the presidency-- a conservative man, an honest man, a man fully qualified for any position in the republic, and most peculiarly adapted to take the reins of government at this time of great agitation and peril."
Replace "Republican" with "Democrat" and "Buchanan" with "Bush," and you get a fairly accurate representation of current governmental trends.
Recently, Katie Couric asked the presidential candidates what books they would bring with them to the White House. Each had a good answer. Senator Clinton said she would bring a copy of the Federalist Papers, as well as a copy of the Constitution. Senator McCain chose Smith's The Wealth of Nations. But one answer stood out. I quote it here:
Sen. Barack Obama: "Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals. It was a biography of Lincoln. And she talks about Lincoln's capacity to bring opponents of his and people who have run against him in his cabinet. And he was confident enough to be willing to have these dissenting voices and confident enough to listen to the American people and push them outside of their comfort zone. And I think that part of what I want to do as president is push Americans a little bit outside of their comfort zone. It's a remarkable study in leadership."
There it is. Both Obama and Lincoln are the kinds of politicians that come along once every century: confident enough to listen to dissenting views, but unafraid to make the decisions necessary.
Back in 2005, Barack Obama wrote an interesting piece in Time Magazine about Lincoln (What I See in Lincoln's Eyes). More specifically, Obama writes about the final portrait of Lincoln, taken just a week before his death. In it, Obama reflects on Lincoln's life and its impact on his own leadership. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty," Obama writes, "his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this, he reminded me not just of my own struggles. He also reminded me of a larger, fundamental element of American life--the enduring belief that we can constantly remake ourselves to fit our larger dreams."
This is the photo of which Obama is writing, the photo that, in his words, "alters tragedy into grace." Through it all, Lincoln smiles.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
How To Preach To The Choir
My boss gave me a book today. The title could be roughly paraphrased as "101 Reasons You Already Know For Thinking What You Already Think." It was, in other words, a sermon to the choir. It is also the kind of book I probably wouldn't read even if I was getting paid for it (which I suppose I am) because I find it a waste of time to page through a document that exists for like-minded people to pat each other on the back about having the Right Beliefs. Don't bother talking if you're only going to tell me something I want to hear. The irony of preaching to the choir is one of the most annoying pitfalls of public discourse, conjuring up to me images of a marionette parson spouting canned platitudes while a crowd of the already-converted stands behind him, hymnals at the ready, nodding self-satisfied assent in bobble-headed unison.
There is no challenge in this kind of discourse. There is no realism, no honor, no passion, and no progress. We see far too much of it, from the ivory tower to the mass media; people huddled together with like-minded people, whose rhetoric spirals around the need to prove to themselves that they are justified in channeling their outrage into a like-minded comfort zone.
It might sound hypocritical, after that, to say that I was a convert to the Obama mission the first time I heard him speak. I was watching the 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote with my mouth hanging open, wondering who was this guy who seemed to have taken my own ideals of national identity and written them in vibrant letters on his banner of hope. I've been in the choir ever since, and I'm not sure I'll ever get tired of listening to Obama preach.
Unlike most of the self-appointed prophets and pundits who hold court in the blogs, in the press, and on the campaign trail, Obama grasps the difference between a choir and a chorus line. The disappointment I feel in reading my boss's self-affirming books comes from the knowledge that their circulation is limited to people who think exactly the same way I do, who thought that way before they read the book, and who will continue to think and act in the same bubble once they've put it down. This kind of closed loop has no momentum, and we're past the point where we can afford to watch politicians bow, pander, and chase their tails. Obama's supporters are not yes-men. His message does not rely on everyone getting together in the green room to learn a pre-choreographed routine. Most of the men and women who are flocking to his standard are people who until now were convinced the choir was not for them. Our advantage is in our dissimilarity, in the tide of cacaphony that makes our harmony rich, and in our common realization that something remarkable is bringing us together.
Good preaching is a hard skill to come by. It takes great eloquence to convince the cynics that your cause is worth believing in; it takes great leadership to show the disillusioned that their actions matter; and it takes great heart to tell people what they may not want to hear and still promise that we have reasons to hope. Obama can preach without self-righteousness and unite us through our challenges, not our blind assent. He understands the two key obligations of the pulpit: you must tell people what they need to do, not just what they want to hear; and even when a mighty choir has got your back, you must give them their chance to sing.
There is no challenge in this kind of discourse. There is no realism, no honor, no passion, and no progress. We see far too much of it, from the ivory tower to the mass media; people huddled together with like-minded people, whose rhetoric spirals around the need to prove to themselves that they are justified in channeling their outrage into a like-minded comfort zone.
It might sound hypocritical, after that, to say that I was a convert to the Obama mission the first time I heard him speak. I was watching the 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote with my mouth hanging open, wondering who was this guy who seemed to have taken my own ideals of national identity and written them in vibrant letters on his banner of hope. I've been in the choir ever since, and I'm not sure I'll ever get tired of listening to Obama preach.
Unlike most of the self-appointed prophets and pundits who hold court in the blogs, in the press, and on the campaign trail, Obama grasps the difference between a choir and a chorus line. The disappointment I feel in reading my boss's self-affirming books comes from the knowledge that their circulation is limited to people who think exactly the same way I do, who thought that way before they read the book, and who will continue to think and act in the same bubble once they've put it down. This kind of closed loop has no momentum, and we're past the point where we can afford to watch politicians bow, pander, and chase their tails. Obama's supporters are not yes-men. His message does not rely on everyone getting together in the green room to learn a pre-choreographed routine. Most of the men and women who are flocking to his standard are people who until now were convinced the choir was not for them. Our advantage is in our dissimilarity, in the tide of cacaphony that makes our harmony rich, and in our common realization that something remarkable is bringing us together.
Good preaching is a hard skill to come by. It takes great eloquence to convince the cynics that your cause is worth believing in; it takes great leadership to show the disillusioned that their actions matter; and it takes great heart to tell people what they may not want to hear and still promise that we have reasons to hope. Obama can preach without self-righteousness and unite us through our challenges, not our blind assent. He understands the two key obligations of the pulpit: you must tell people what they need to do, not just what they want to hear; and even when a mighty choir has got your back, you must give them their chance to sing.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Three syllables
I promised an entry comparing Obama to Lincoln today, and I still intend to do so. But that will have to come later. Today it seems more appropriate to compare Obama to another president: John F. Kennedy.
As Caroline Kennedy wrote in yesterday's Op-Ed for the New York Times, "A President Like My Father,"
"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."
And then today, Ted Kennedy jumped into the race, endorsing Obama with a stirring speech that answered every one of Senator Clinton's talking points: he is experienced, he will be ready to lead from day one, and he represents a politics of hope over division.
"There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party," Kennedy said.
"And John Kennedy replied, 'The world is changing. The old ways will not do. ... It is time for a new generation of leadership.'
"So it is with Barack Obama."
As the students at American University chanted "Ken-ne-dy!" and "O-bam-a!" I reflected on the similarities between the two candidates. They were both young, both bright, both dedicated public servants. Both were willing to envision an America not as it is, but as it could be. Hell, they both even have names with three syllables, making them easy to chant.
There's another three-syllable word I considered today.
Momentum.
We need to keep it. We need to use it. And we need to approach February 5th with all our strength and speed and tenacity. But we face it now with the wind ever more at our backs.
As Caroline Kennedy wrote in yesterday's Op-Ed for the New York Times, "A President Like My Father,"
"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."
And then today, Ted Kennedy jumped into the race, endorsing Obama with a stirring speech that answered every one of Senator Clinton's talking points: he is experienced, he will be ready to lead from day one, and he represents a politics of hope over division.
"There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party," Kennedy said.
"And John Kennedy replied, 'The world is changing. The old ways will not do. ... It is time for a new generation of leadership.'
"So it is with Barack Obama."
As the students at American University chanted "Ken-ne-dy!" and "O-bam-a!" I reflected on the similarities between the two candidates. They were both young, both bright, both dedicated public servants. Both were willing to envision an America not as it is, but as it could be. Hell, they both even have names with three syllables, making them easy to chant.
There's another three-syllable word I considered today.
Momentum.
We need to keep it. We need to use it. And we need to approach February 5th with all our strength and speed and tenacity. But we face it now with the wind ever more at our backs.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
see, I told you, a surprise!
Conclusion #1 of the South Carolina Primary: This year's polls are brought to you by Agents Of Chaos Dot Com. What can we say, the suspense is fun.
Conclusion #2 of the South Carolina Primary: Faith pays off.
Conclusion #3 of the South Carolina Primary: Hope is contagious.
Instead of rambling about what this means, I'll let Obama say it far better than I could and leave with the one question I'd most like to ask him. It's not a policy question, or a biography question, or a vision for America question, because in many cases other people have asked them already. The question that's eating me up inside is 99% frivolous, and it is whether the beginning of chapter 5 of Dreams from My Father is deliberate in its echoes of Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. I'd just like to know.
Conclusion #2 of the South Carolina Primary: Faith pays off.
Conclusion #3 of the South Carolina Primary: Hope is contagious.
Instead of rambling about what this means, I'll let Obama say it far better than I could and leave with the one question I'd most like to ask him. It's not a policy question, or a biography question, or a vision for America question, because in many cases other people have asked them already. The question that's eating me up inside is 99% frivolous, and it is whether the beginning of chapter 5 of Dreams from My Father is deliberate in its echoes of Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. I'd just like to know.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Never fear, help is on the way
I received an email today from a friend. This was all it said:
"I think I might be a Hillary supporter. Please help."
He, of course, knew of my support for Obama, and wanted a deeper discussion. I pushed him for more information, and he replied that he was worried about Obama's experience, or rather, his perceived lack thereof.
Here's my response, in a slightly edited form (typos are okay for friends, but I like the Internet to think I'm smarter than that):
Okay, so. You say that we need an experienced politician to get us out of the mess we're in, right? I respect that, and I agree. We need someone who can work within the system to create real change.
Well, you know as well as I do what the system is. The system is set up such that a president needs compromise. He or she needs unity. We need a leader who can listen to the opposition and work with them, especially if low Congressional approval ratings mean the Republicans gain control of Congress again.
In that way, Obama will definitely be better at working within the system. Clinton inspires polarity, you don't need me to tell you that. She was even disrespectful toward some Republicans came to support her in Iowa, saying "they've seen the light." People who are willing to vote for you to be the highest elected official in the land deserve a little more respect than a comment about how they have previously been in the dark. This is what Obama said instead: "...you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come."
Do you see that difference? In Obama's mind, people are coming together to stand up for a greater cause. Clinton has instead divided the world into a dark side and a light side, and told people on which side she has placed them.
Let's talk about policy, too. How about health care? Everyone wants better health care, right? Well, we look at what Obama accomplished during the 1990s: granting access to health care for 150,000 Illinois constituents. He wanted to make it universal, but it was unrealistic in Illinois. In the end he was willing to compromise to improve the health care system for thousands and thousands of people. Now let's look at what Clinton accomplished when it came to health care in the 1990s.
::cricket::
The fact of 1994's health care debacle was not why I don't support Senator Clinton. I believe that we can all learn from our mistakes and make better decisions and choices for next time. But look at where Clinton's money comes from. She's got a lot of health insurance lobbyists giving her a lot of money. And they're going to want favors. Yeah, maybe she'll stand up to them once she's in office, but look at who's not taking money from lobbyists at all.
And when we talk experience, let's remember who has more years in elected office than any other major candidate: Obama. Sure, he didn't live in the White House, but Clinton's only been in elected office office since 2000. Edwards has six years in the Senate under his belt, but he has spent the last four years campaigning in Iowa.
And before the years in the US Senate, before the years in the Illinois State Senate, Obama was out on the streets, working with poor folks on the South Side of Chicago. He graduated from Harvard, able to take a job anywhere he pleased, this black editor of the Harvard Law Review, but instead chose to go and organize where he felt he was needed most. He helped out people whose jobs had been transferred overseas.
As Kristof pointed out the other day, Clinton wrote her thesis on community organizing. Obama lived it.
Clinton was working as a corporate attorney in Arkansas. Obama was working as a civil rights attorney in Chicago.
And now let's travel in the way-back machine, way back to Obama's childhood. He was raised by his single mother, lived in Indonesia for four years, and lived with his grandparents for several more. His mom was on food stamps at one point. He knows, first hand, the problems that face middle America.
Clinton? Was hanging out in Illinois, then Yale, then in Arkansas, then in the White House. Working for Nixon and Goldwater, then for corporations, then for her husband.
I respect Clinton. I think she would make a decent president, certainly better than what we've got. But what we need right now is a great president, someone who has the ability to face tough times head-on. And I only see that in one candidate.
In closing, I say this. Lincoln. Lincoln was 50 when he was running for president that first term, and he had only had a few terms of relatively undistinguished experience in the Illinois Congressional delegation. He wasn't a newcomer in politics, by any means, but neither is Obama. And Lincoln faced hard times, harder than we've ever seen.
Obama probably won't be another Lincoln. But boy, if we can get a leader who is even a little bit close to the greatness of that man... we'd be in good shape.
Peaceful skies,
Sojourner
There it is. More on Lincoln/Obama similarities for the day after tomorrow. As for tomorrow... it will be a surprise!
"I think I might be a Hillary supporter. Please help."
He, of course, knew of my support for Obama, and wanted a deeper discussion. I pushed him for more information, and he replied that he was worried about Obama's experience, or rather, his perceived lack thereof.
Here's my response, in a slightly edited form (typos are okay for friends, but I like the Internet to think I'm smarter than that):
Okay, so. You say that we need an experienced politician to get us out of the mess we're in, right? I respect that, and I agree. We need someone who can work within the system to create real change.
Well, you know as well as I do what the system is. The system is set up such that a president needs compromise. He or she needs unity. We need a leader who can listen to the opposition and work with them, especially if low Congressional approval ratings mean the Republicans gain control of Congress again.
In that way, Obama will definitely be better at working within the system. Clinton inspires polarity, you don't need me to tell you that. She was even disrespectful toward some Republicans came to support her in Iowa, saying "they've seen the light." People who are willing to vote for you to be the highest elected official in the land deserve a little more respect than a comment about how they have previously been in the dark. This is what Obama said instead: "...you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come."
Do you see that difference? In Obama's mind, people are coming together to stand up for a greater cause. Clinton has instead divided the world into a dark side and a light side, and told people on which side she has placed them.
Let's talk about policy, too. How about health care? Everyone wants better health care, right? Well, we look at what Obama accomplished during the 1990s: granting access to health care for 150,000 Illinois constituents. He wanted to make it universal, but it was unrealistic in Illinois. In the end he was willing to compromise to improve the health care system for thousands and thousands of people. Now let's look at what Clinton accomplished when it came to health care in the 1990s.
::cricket::
The fact of 1994's health care debacle was not why I don't support Senator Clinton. I believe that we can all learn from our mistakes and make better decisions and choices for next time. But look at where Clinton's money comes from. She's got a lot of health insurance lobbyists giving her a lot of money. And they're going to want favors. Yeah, maybe she'll stand up to them once she's in office, but look at who's not taking money from lobbyists at all.
And when we talk experience, let's remember who has more years in elected office than any other major candidate: Obama. Sure, he didn't live in the White House, but Clinton's only been in elected office office since 2000. Edwards has six years in the Senate under his belt, but he has spent the last four years campaigning in Iowa.
And before the years in the US Senate, before the years in the Illinois State Senate, Obama was out on the streets, working with poor folks on the South Side of Chicago. He graduated from Harvard, able to take a job anywhere he pleased, this black editor of the Harvard Law Review, but instead chose to go and organize where he felt he was needed most. He helped out people whose jobs had been transferred overseas.
As Kristof pointed out the other day, Clinton wrote her thesis on community organizing. Obama lived it.
Clinton was working as a corporate attorney in Arkansas. Obama was working as a civil rights attorney in Chicago.
And now let's travel in the way-back machine, way back to Obama's childhood. He was raised by his single mother, lived in Indonesia for four years, and lived with his grandparents for several more. His mom was on food stamps at one point. He knows, first hand, the problems that face middle America.
Clinton? Was hanging out in Illinois, then Yale, then in Arkansas, then in the White House. Working for Nixon and Goldwater, then for corporations, then for her husband.
I respect Clinton. I think she would make a decent president, certainly better than what we've got. But what we need right now is a great president, someone who has the ability to face tough times head-on. And I only see that in one candidate.
In closing, I say this. Lincoln. Lincoln was 50 when he was running for president that first term, and he had only had a few terms of relatively undistinguished experience in the Illinois Congressional delegation. He wasn't a newcomer in politics, by any means, but neither is Obama. And Lincoln faced hard times, harder than we've ever seen.
Obama probably won't be another Lincoln. But boy, if we can get a leader who is even a little bit close to the greatness of that man... we'd be in good shape.
Peaceful skies,
Sojourner
There it is. More on Lincoln/Obama similarities for the day after tomorrow. As for tomorrow... it will be a surprise!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Who Runs This Country, Anyway?
A brief rebuttal to the New York Times, which endorsed Hillary Clinton today (do they read their own columnists, I wonder?) with the claim that she was "better qualified" for the "Herculean" task of repairing the damage Bush has done to the country since the last time a Clinton was in the White House. "Herculean" I have no quibble with, particularly since a second President Clinton would be working against the legacy of inaction from her husband's tenure (we wouldn't be facing dramatic crises in health care, the environment, and political corruption if the 1990s had seen more decisive presidential commitment to solutions on these issues) as well as her own support, as a freshman senator, for some of President Bush's more devastating policies (NCLB and Iraq come to mind). Nor do I dispute their just criticisms of both Clintons' behavior on the campaign trail. And I can't argue with the statement that Hillary "overstates the importance of résumé."
Wait, which candidate were you supporting again?
Okay, okay, so for the premier establishment newspaper in the country, experience is the deciding card. While their lack of confidence in fresh blood is a little disappointing, the Times's endorsement is not what you could call surprising. They are a respectable pillar of the conventional East Coast political aristocracy, as invested in the standard top-down politics of the 20th century as any scion of the great lawmaking dynasties. Like the politicians who have run the country for 25 years by genteel wheeling and dealing among elites and their corporate allies, the Times is willing to accept a candidate with a history of embracing policies that are convenient and popular at the moment because she is the known quantity of the system they sell papers commenting on. For them to conceive of a system in which the actions of millions of rank-and-file citizens carried as much weight as the pocketbooks of a handful of lobbying interests would require a cognitive leap akin to putting a Red Sox victory on the front page. Obama's campaign, and the base of his political capital and the change he is leading in American society, is outside of this worldview. His supporters are breaking down the notion that policymaking is for politicians and passive complaining is for everybody else. Obama counters Clinton's Experience Card with the reminder that her experience is in a system that has been broken for years. If it's going to get fixed, it is going to take not just the leadership of a brilliant and pragmatic president, but the combined efforts of every one of the American people. Collectively we have over three hundred million lifetimes of experience making this country work for us: it's time we put that experience to work for our country.
The breadth and strength of this message and of Obama's grassroots coalition has challenged Clinton and every other candidate in the race--Republican as well as Democrat--to take ordinary and individual citizens more seriously than ever before. That the other hopefuls have taken up this strategy is a testament to Obama's astute connection with this historical moment, and it is changing the way national politics happen in ways that will leave the establishment scratching its head.
So stand back, New York Times, because there's a new system on the rise, and it belongs to us.
Wait, which candidate were you supporting again?
Okay, okay, so for the premier establishment newspaper in the country, experience is the deciding card. While their lack of confidence in fresh blood is a little disappointing, the Times's endorsement is not what you could call surprising. They are a respectable pillar of the conventional East Coast political aristocracy, as invested in the standard top-down politics of the 20th century as any scion of the great lawmaking dynasties. Like the politicians who have run the country for 25 years by genteel wheeling and dealing among elites and their corporate allies, the Times is willing to accept a candidate with a history of embracing policies that are convenient and popular at the moment because she is the known quantity of the system they sell papers commenting on. For them to conceive of a system in which the actions of millions of rank-and-file citizens carried as much weight as the pocketbooks of a handful of lobbying interests would require a cognitive leap akin to putting a Red Sox victory on the front page. Obama's campaign, and the base of his political capital and the change he is leading in American society, is outside of this worldview. His supporters are breaking down the notion that policymaking is for politicians and passive complaining is for everybody else. Obama counters Clinton's Experience Card with the reminder that her experience is in a system that has been broken for years. If it's going to get fixed, it is going to take not just the leadership of a brilliant and pragmatic president, but the combined efforts of every one of the American people. Collectively we have over three hundred million lifetimes of experience making this country work for us: it's time we put that experience to work for our country.
The breadth and strength of this message and of Obama's grassroots coalition has challenged Clinton and every other candidate in the race--Republican as well as Democrat--to take ordinary and individual citizens more seriously than ever before. That the other hopefuls have taken up this strategy is a testament to Obama's astute connection with this historical moment, and it is changing the way national politics happen in ways that will leave the establishment scratching its head.
So stand back, New York Times, because there's a new system on the rise, and it belongs to us.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Ain't I a Woman?
Isn't it about time for a woman president?
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. As you may have guessed from yesterday's entry, I am a woman. And yet I do not support Hillary Clinton.
That confuses some people. I once spoke with a man who supported Senator Clinton, and was very curious why I did not. He said "I believe every woman should be behind Clinton, one hundred percent." We spoke at length about policy differences between Clinton and Obama and at the end of the conversation, he mentioned that his wife was an Obama supporter. He was confused by her choice, too, but there it was. Another woman for Obama.
But when it comes down to voting day, you have to look at the candidate, not the gender or race of the candidate. Yes, gender and race are essential to the candidates' identities and characters. We must look beyond that, however, when seeking to elect our next president. No one candidate can win just because she's a woman, or just because he's black.
Isn't it about time for a woman president? Yes, but for me, the policies have to be there. And Clinton's policies just aren't. Is it time for Hillary Clinton to be president? No.
As Sojourner Truth herself said, back in 1851 when women were fighting for fundamental rights that we take for granted:
"If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them."
And that's what I'm trying to do, in supporting Obama. Trying to get the world right side up again.
"Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say."
--All quotes by Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I a Woman?", December 1851. Full text.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. As you may have guessed from yesterday's entry, I am a woman. And yet I do not support Hillary Clinton.
That confuses some people. I once spoke with a man who supported Senator Clinton, and was very curious why I did not. He said "I believe every woman should be behind Clinton, one hundred percent." We spoke at length about policy differences between Clinton and Obama and at the end of the conversation, he mentioned that his wife was an Obama supporter. He was confused by her choice, too, but there it was. Another woman for Obama.
But when it comes down to voting day, you have to look at the candidate, not the gender or race of the candidate. Yes, gender and race are essential to the candidates' identities and characters. We must look beyond that, however, when seeking to elect our next president. No one candidate can win just because she's a woman, or just because he's black.
Isn't it about time for a woman president? Yes, but for me, the policies have to be there. And Clinton's policies just aren't. Is it time for Hillary Clinton to be president? No.
As Sojourner Truth herself said, back in 1851 when women were fighting for fundamental rights that we take for granted:
"If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them."
And that's what I'm trying to do, in supporting Obama. Trying to get the world right side up again.
"Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say."
--All quotes by Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I a Woman?", December 1851. Full text.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A bit more on unity
Gloria Steinem’s op-ed in the New York Times last week (Good Feminists Must Vote Clinton) did a pretty good job of getting my goat. It irritated me because she almost makes some very good points, because I recognize latent sexism as an insidious problem in our society (though not a greater one than racism, homophobia, and radical fundamentalism), and because Steinem chose, as Clinton herself has, to use the candidate’s identity to underscore the divisions in American society, instead of to bridge them and unite us.
Read Steinem's article:
Let’s put it this way: say a man was running for president with Hillary Clinton’s background. A smart man, thoughtful, strategic, determined, but cerebral and patrician, an exemplary member of the class who traditionally feels entitled to lead. He’s been a privileged insider in a former White House administration, but had no official policymaking authority and no electoral accountability, four years in the Senate over his chief rival, and less overall legislative experience. There’s not much remarkable about his policies in a field with substantial agreement on the big issues, and there’s little in his rhetoric that brings out the best hopes and inspirations of the people who hear him speak. Could he get elected?
I’m pretty sure the answer is no. In fact, I’m confident that a man running in Clinton’s shoes wouldn’t even have a chance at Gloria Steinem’s vote. Clinton’s gender is the overwhelming factor that sets her apart in her qualifications for the presidency. And that is not good enough.
Hillary Clinton does not represent a grand departure from the castes of the political establishment by any benchmark. Steinem proclaims that “this country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees.” She neglects the obvious addition of presidential husbands to that list. Clinton, by race, by class, by dynastic connection and by policy alignment, is squarely a representative of the old-school Washington elite, the late-20th century Democrats who have served America so poorly in recent years. Steinem claims that merely by her femininity Clinton can revolutionize this system. She is wrong, and damningly so if her logic becomes the prevailing one in this election.
Electing a woman president will make history. I’ll be first in line to acknowledge the significance of that symbol. But figurehead affirmative action is the slow way to go about empowering each of the marginalized categories of American society; if women must wait for a woman president to be taken seriously in politics either collectively or individually, then black men must wait for their own token leader, as must Mormons, and Jews, Latino women and Japanese men. I am one of those younger women that Steinem condemns for “hop[ing] to deny or escape the sexual caste system,” if that’s what it is to hold out for a candidate appeals to us to break down artificial distinctions and recognize that whatever our race or gender, we are all equal heirs and enactors of the American dream. If the lesson of Clinton’s candidacy is “women can” then the lesson of Obama’s is patently “we all can.”
Read Steinem's article:
Let’s put it this way: say a man was running for president with Hillary Clinton’s background. A smart man, thoughtful, strategic, determined, but cerebral and patrician, an exemplary member of the class who traditionally feels entitled to lead. He’s been a privileged insider in a former White House administration, but had no official policymaking authority and no electoral accountability, four years in the Senate over his chief rival, and less overall legislative experience. There’s not much remarkable about his policies in a field with substantial agreement on the big issues, and there’s little in his rhetoric that brings out the best hopes and inspirations of the people who hear him speak. Could he get elected?
I’m pretty sure the answer is no. In fact, I’m confident that a man running in Clinton’s shoes wouldn’t even have a chance at Gloria Steinem’s vote. Clinton’s gender is the overwhelming factor that sets her apart in her qualifications for the presidency. And that is not good enough.
Hillary Clinton does not represent a grand departure from the castes of the political establishment by any benchmark. Steinem proclaims that “this country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees.” She neglects the obvious addition of presidential husbands to that list. Clinton, by race, by class, by dynastic connection and by policy alignment, is squarely a representative of the old-school Washington elite, the late-20th century Democrats who have served America so poorly in recent years. Steinem claims that merely by her femininity Clinton can revolutionize this system. She is wrong, and damningly so if her logic becomes the prevailing one in this election.
Electing a woman president will make history. I’ll be first in line to acknowledge the significance of that symbol. But figurehead affirmative action is the slow way to go about empowering each of the marginalized categories of American society; if women must wait for a woman president to be taken seriously in politics either collectively or individually, then black men must wait for their own token leader, as must Mormons, and Jews, Latino women and Japanese men. I am one of those younger women that Steinem condemns for “hop[ing] to deny or escape the sexual caste system,” if that’s what it is to hold out for a candidate appeals to us to break down artificial distinctions and recognize that whatever our race or gender, we are all equal heirs and enactors of the American dream. If the lesson of Clinton’s candidacy is “women can” then the lesson of Obama’s is patently “we all can.”
Monday, January 21, 2008
Let us turn our thoughts today to Martin Luther King
When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered…True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes necessary to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring…A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death…We are now faced with the fact , my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now… We must move past indecision to action.
--Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Beyond Vietnam, A Time to Break Silence," delivered April 4, 1967.
Full text.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a brilliant speaker, but he was so much more. He has become an beacon of hope in our world, and as we have worked to make his dream a reality, we have become a much better nation for it. His dream is far from realized, however. There are still great divisions in American society, those which are used to divide us, be they racial, cultural, or economic.
Yesterday, Barack Obama spoke at Dr. King's church, Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and pointed out another of Dr. King's prophetic statements that has relevance today:
Unity is the great need of the hour.
And so it is. We need unity not only in our society, not only between blacks and whites, but in our political system as well. We do not need to alienate people now, we need to bring people together. It is impossible to accomplish real change in the American political system without unity. This isn't a new development; the Founding Fathers thought it up this way. They knew that the best way to make lasting change would be to not only encourage compromise, but to demand it. Unity is the only way forward.
Now is not the time for polarizing politics that accomplishes nothing but gridlock in this time of great need. We need someone who can bring us together.
Dr. King did it. His vision of America as a place where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character is slowly becoming a reality. I know another person who can unify folks today. And we have the opportunity to elect him president, something unthinkable when King was marching on Selma.
Watch Obama's speech in Dr. King's church. You won't be disappointed.
--Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Beyond Vietnam, A Time to Break Silence," delivered April 4, 1967.
Full text.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a brilliant speaker, but he was so much more. He has become an beacon of hope in our world, and as we have worked to make his dream a reality, we have become a much better nation for it. His dream is far from realized, however. There are still great divisions in American society, those which are used to divide us, be they racial, cultural, or economic.
Yesterday, Barack Obama spoke at Dr. King's church, Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and pointed out another of Dr. King's prophetic statements that has relevance today:
Unity is the great need of the hour.
And so it is. We need unity not only in our society, not only between blacks and whites, but in our political system as well. We do not need to alienate people now, we need to bring people together. It is impossible to accomplish real change in the American political system without unity. This isn't a new development; the Founding Fathers thought it up this way. They knew that the best way to make lasting change would be to not only encourage compromise, but to demand it. Unity is the only way forward.
Now is not the time for polarizing politics that accomplishes nothing but gridlock in this time of great need. We need someone who can bring us together.
Dr. King did it. His vision of America as a place where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character is slowly becoming a reality. I know another person who can unify folks today. And we have the opportunity to elect him president, something unthinkable when King was marching on Selma.
Watch Obama's speech in Dr. King's church. You won't be disappointed.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The Reasons Not To Wait
We are at the threshold of a national crisis.
Our allies, once proud to stand with us in moments of trial, are drawing away from us as a superpower on the verge of toxic decay.
Our armies toil valiantly in a conflict that drags them down, lacking leadership with the vision to adapt and change.
Our oceans are rising and our air is roiling with deadly winds that tear apart our cities, while polluters ride off with impunity and our government stands by in silence.
Our children are denied the chance to learn under a preposterous mandate to test, and our economy suffers the consequences of lost creativity and potential.
Our rights have been violated, our laws cast aside, and our very values and dignity as a people—to serve the common good, to visit justice on our enemies and help the vulnerable among us—have been stripped away in the service of a political agenda that satisfies the secret interests of a privileged few.
We have been fed a tape loop of cynicism telling us this is the way it has to be. We have been told for seven years that there is nothing we can do. Today, we are being told that believing we can change this with our own hands is a false hope.
The point of this blog, though, and the reason I am supporting Barack Obama, is that as a nation we have one last alternative to being swallowed by this apathy and the slow destruction of our ideals. And I believe, in this country that has always refused to settle for the passive darkness of fate, that we are brave and smart enough to take it. I’m not talking just about the Obama presidency, although that’s clearly a primary goal. I’m talking about the transformations underlying an Obama presidency, that go before and after and beyond it and that represent something Obama has that no other candidate at this crucial moment can offer.
Obama is the candidate who is calling on us. He knows that the challenges we face are too big for one leader to blast aside and too deep for the federal government to shoulder without crushing individual communities. He knows that this country is about more than the White House, and he is the only one realistic enough to say it. Recovering from the atrophy of our broken political system is going to take every ounce of potential the American spirit possesses. We can only succeed when every American accepts the challenge of responsible self-government and steps up to the day-to-day heroisms of the Golden Rule, of hard work, of independence and integrity and of passion and action. It is going to take all of us.
This is not the easy way out of our problems. The easy way is to promise that a change in administration will overthrow years of atrophied local control, that pledges made on the campaign trail will translate at once into new laws, and that a new face behind the desk in the Oval Office will erase all the damage that’s been done. The easy way says that we can change our country by going out and voting on one day, and then relaxing while a new president waves magic wands over our debts, and our failing schools, and our environmental meltdowns, and our foreign policy nightmares. It's easy, but it's also wrong. This is the solution the establishment candidates are offering this year, and increasingly people are realizing the foolishness of this promise. Shifting power from one president to another, especially when they are both beholden to the same blueblood interests that have a stranglehold on political dealings in Washington, is not going to put government back in the hands of the people where it belongs. With the looming shadow of disaster looming on us from every direction, we no longer have time for a politics limited to what one president can or cannot do. We need the leadership of a president whose vision reminds all of us of the great people we have always been, and the greater future that we can create.
We are the same people who marched on Washington, who stood up to firehoses in Birmingham, who took to the skies and walked on the moon, who saved the world twice in the last century for democracy. We are the people who waited long months in the hold of a ship for the chance to pass beneath Liberty’s torch, who braved frontiers with hope and ingenuity, who followed the North Star to freedom, whose sons and daughters have given, again and again, measure after measure of devotion to the dream of a better dawn. We are the people who pledged, two hundred and thirty years ago, to form a more perfect Union, and who are still keeping that promise today. We are that same people, and the days of our dreaming are not gone, and our voices are needed more urgently than ever.
Barack Obama will be the president who inspires, who leads by the example of pragmatism, responsibility, and progressive hope. I’m standing behind Obama because he has more than sound policies and trustworthy judgment: he has enough faith in his fellow Americans to call on each of us to do our part. In coming entries I’m sure I’ll have plenty of space to spell out what I think those parts can be, and how they fit into the platform Obama is building with the help of an amazing coalition of regular, dedicated people. This really is the moment for change; the chance for action is approaching fast and we can’t afford to wait for another.
Our allies, once proud to stand with us in moments of trial, are drawing away from us as a superpower on the verge of toxic decay.
Our armies toil valiantly in a conflict that drags them down, lacking leadership with the vision to adapt and change.
Our oceans are rising and our air is roiling with deadly winds that tear apart our cities, while polluters ride off with impunity and our government stands by in silence.
Our children are denied the chance to learn under a preposterous mandate to test, and our economy suffers the consequences of lost creativity and potential.
Our rights have been violated, our laws cast aside, and our very values and dignity as a people—to serve the common good, to visit justice on our enemies and help the vulnerable among us—have been stripped away in the service of a political agenda that satisfies the secret interests of a privileged few.
We have been fed a tape loop of cynicism telling us this is the way it has to be. We have been told for seven years that there is nothing we can do. Today, we are being told that believing we can change this with our own hands is a false hope.
The point of this blog, though, and the reason I am supporting Barack Obama, is that as a nation we have one last alternative to being swallowed by this apathy and the slow destruction of our ideals. And I believe, in this country that has always refused to settle for the passive darkness of fate, that we are brave and smart enough to take it. I’m not talking just about the Obama presidency, although that’s clearly a primary goal. I’m talking about the transformations underlying an Obama presidency, that go before and after and beyond it and that represent something Obama has that no other candidate at this crucial moment can offer.
Obama is the candidate who is calling on us. He knows that the challenges we face are too big for one leader to blast aside and too deep for the federal government to shoulder without crushing individual communities. He knows that this country is about more than the White House, and he is the only one realistic enough to say it. Recovering from the atrophy of our broken political system is going to take every ounce of potential the American spirit possesses. We can only succeed when every American accepts the challenge of responsible self-government and steps up to the day-to-day heroisms of the Golden Rule, of hard work, of independence and integrity and of passion and action. It is going to take all of us.
This is not the easy way out of our problems. The easy way is to promise that a change in administration will overthrow years of atrophied local control, that pledges made on the campaign trail will translate at once into new laws, and that a new face behind the desk in the Oval Office will erase all the damage that’s been done. The easy way says that we can change our country by going out and voting on one day, and then relaxing while a new president waves magic wands over our debts, and our failing schools, and our environmental meltdowns, and our foreign policy nightmares. It's easy, but it's also wrong. This is the solution the establishment candidates are offering this year, and increasingly people are realizing the foolishness of this promise. Shifting power from one president to another, especially when they are both beholden to the same blueblood interests that have a stranglehold on political dealings in Washington, is not going to put government back in the hands of the people where it belongs. With the looming shadow of disaster looming on us from every direction, we no longer have time for a politics limited to what one president can or cannot do. We need the leadership of a president whose vision reminds all of us of the great people we have always been, and the greater future that we can create.
We are the same people who marched on Washington, who stood up to firehoses in Birmingham, who took to the skies and walked on the moon, who saved the world twice in the last century for democracy. We are the people who waited long months in the hold of a ship for the chance to pass beneath Liberty’s torch, who braved frontiers with hope and ingenuity, who followed the North Star to freedom, whose sons and daughters have given, again and again, measure after measure of devotion to the dream of a better dawn. We are the people who pledged, two hundred and thirty years ago, to form a more perfect Union, and who are still keeping that promise today. We are that same people, and the days of our dreaming are not gone, and our voices are needed more urgently than ever.
Barack Obama will be the president who inspires, who leads by the example of pragmatism, responsibility, and progressive hope. I’m standing behind Obama because he has more than sound policies and trustworthy judgment: he has enough faith in his fellow Americans to call on each of us to do our part. In coming entries I’m sure I’ll have plenty of space to spell out what I think those parts can be, and how they fit into the platform Obama is building with the help of an amazing coalition of regular, dedicated people. This really is the moment for change; the chance for action is approaching fast and we can’t afford to wait for another.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
The Fierce Urgency of Now
America is an interesting place.
Though still a relatively young nation, we have seen many trials and tribulations, as well as triumphs; we have met challenges and we have overcome. What began with a ragtag group of Minute Men and patriots has become the most powerful nation on the planet. Getting here was not easy, and the inexorable engine of progress was not always kind. In the two and a half centuries that divide we the people of 2008 from we the people of 1776, however, the ideas that make us who we are have remained. These truths are still self-evident: that all people are created equal, and that we have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The past several years have been some of the worst the country has ever seen. We have seen our Constitution, the foundation of our rights and freedoms as citizens torn asunder with every abuse of our civil liberties. Each library record requested, each phone conversation illegally tapped, each and every single incident of kidnap, torture, or rape enacted against citizens of this country or by citizens of this country has made us weak. And most times someone has tried to stand up, has tried to say, "No. This is wrong. You cannot do this to our country," he or she has been ridiculed at best and punished at worst.
This is not the America I know. The America of deception and fraud and control through fear is not who we are as a nation.
Nevertheless, we are here.
And it is now.
What are we going to do about it?
Well, as my favorite politician Barack Obama says, "In the unlikely story of America, there has never been anything false about hope."
And so I am hopeful. I am hopeful that we can change the course of the past several years. I am hopeful that we can reclaim our role as a nation of justice. And I am hopeful that our next leader has not only the ability to lead, but the ability to inspire.
America is great. But everyone needs a bit of encouragement sometimes.
Though still a relatively young nation, we have seen many trials and tribulations, as well as triumphs; we have met challenges and we have overcome. What began with a ragtag group of Minute Men and patriots has become the most powerful nation on the planet. Getting here was not easy, and the inexorable engine of progress was not always kind. In the two and a half centuries that divide we the people of 2008 from we the people of 1776, however, the ideas that make us who we are have remained. These truths are still self-evident: that all people are created equal, and that we have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The past several years have been some of the worst the country has ever seen. We have seen our Constitution, the foundation of our rights and freedoms as citizens torn asunder with every abuse of our civil liberties. Each library record requested, each phone conversation illegally tapped, each and every single incident of kidnap, torture, or rape enacted against citizens of this country or by citizens of this country has made us weak. And most times someone has tried to stand up, has tried to say, "No. This is wrong. You cannot do this to our country," he or she has been ridiculed at best and punished at worst.
This is not the America I know. The America of deception and fraud and control through fear is not who we are as a nation.
Nevertheless, we are here.
And it is now.
What are we going to do about it?
Well, as my favorite politician Barack Obama says, "In the unlikely story of America, there has never been anything false about hope."
And so I am hopeful. I am hopeful that we can change the course of the past several years. I am hopeful that we can reclaim our role as a nation of justice. And I am hopeful that our next leader has not only the ability to lead, but the ability to inspire.
America is great. But everyone needs a bit of encouragement sometimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)