The Lutheran Zephyr

Obama speech podcast?

Anyone know where I can find Senator Obama's speech on race in America as a podcast?  I'd like to listen to it on my iPod . . .

Thanks.

It's Time for Clinton-Obama '08

With the voters clearly divided about who should be the nominee, and with personality, tact and age - rather than policy - distinguishing the two candidates, it's time for them to come together and form a unified ticket to defeat John McCain in November.  The only way this happens is with a Clinton-Obama ticket.

Allowing this race to go to Pennsylvania - which will not make a significant impact on delegate count - and beyond only sows greater disunity in the party and requires the candidates to combat each other AND the Republicans.  It's a waste of time and money.  While McCain unifies his party and heaps attacks on the Democrats, Obama and Clinton are still scrambling for support from real voters and from so-called SuperDelegates in a process that makes Florida 2000 look like the paradigm of democracy.  The candidates should end the madness, create a unified ticket, and focus on November.

Why Clinton-Obama?  I'm no fan of Senator Clinton, but

1. there's no way she drops out.  There's not a magnanimous bone in her body. If one of these candidates withdraws from the race to take the bottom slot on the ticket, it would be Obama.
2. Obama makes sense on either end of the ticket.  Senator Clinton would be a lousy VP candidate and a drag for an Obama presidency.  As VP Obama strengthens the Democratic ticket. 
3. Clinton has won the large states and has a firm grip on the Democratic base.  Though Texas will likely go for McCain, and California would go for anybody flying the Democratic flag - even Kucinich - she's got strength in core Democratic areas.  This cannot be denied.
4. If the Dems lose to McCain with Clinton at the top of the ticket, Clinton takes the fall and Obama is the Democrat front-runner for 2012.
5. One big caveat - I think this works only if Clinton and Obama agree to a Cheney-style Vice Presidency - that is, a Vice Presidency with real power and influence, a Vice Presidency worth more than a "warm bucket of spit," as VP John Garner once called it.  Obama supporters (like me) could stomach a Clinton presidency if we believe he has real influence in the Executive Branch.  Plus, by dropping out of the race now - while he's ahead (but unable to secure the nomination without ugly intraparty politicking) - he retains his political power and public appeal.  There is no way that a charismatic Obama with a ton of delegates and huge fundraising appeal doesn't redefine the Vice Presidency on the campaign trail and in office, and use it to the party's advantage in shaping domestic and international policy.

It kills me to say this, but I think a Clinton-Obama ticket is the way to go.  It won't happen, but that's what my politically naive brain has come up with this morning.

Monday Morning Musings

• Hillary Clinton's experience argument is, at best, short-term.  Even if she were to win the Democratic primary, how does her experience argument hold up to John McCain's?  She'll have to change her narrative - she has a narrative? - in the general election, if she makes it that far.
• In Ohio, the democrat candidates are trying to out do each other with opposition to NAFTA, even though a direct connection between Ohio's manufacturing decline (which began decades ago) and NAFTA (which was pushed and signed by President Clinton in the early 1990s) is impossible to make.  Nonetheless, we have Obama and Clinton each saying they'd review or return to the negotiating table on NAFTA with rhetoric that makes them sound like anti-trade protectionists.  Uh, has anybody told them that we live in a global economy?
• [The Democrat's pandering to Ohio workers makes McCain's honest assessment of Michigan's manufacturing decline quite refreshing.  McCain told workers in Michigan that their jobs are not coming back.  He lost that primary to Mitt Romney, who promised all kinds of unrealistic industrial and economic magic.  But where is Romney now?  Pandering doesn't win.]
• That's the problem with a long Democrat primary.  Although they both start out as fairly centrist Democrats, a long primary battle turns this into an ugly pandering to the left-wing Democratic base.  In their effort to out-left their opponent, I'm waiting to see which candidate first embraces the legacy of Marx and suggests that Soviet-style economics was just misunderstood.  Campaign appearance with Hugo Chavez, anyone?
• Change?  Think there's going to be change in January 2009?  At least in foreign policy, not much will change.  Take a look at this op-ed piece appearing in yesterday's Washington Post, showing Obama and Clinton advisors praising many aspects of Bush's foreign policy.
• Speaking of foreign policy, during the Cold War we never cut off diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union.  Since the era of Nixon we've had diplomatic relations with China.  Both of these states were/are bad guys.  We thought engagement was better than embargo.  So, uh, why not engage with Cuba or Iran?  Or do embargo-supporters suggest we cut off ties with China, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.?
• Though I do not doubt that a President Obama or Clinton will draw down troops from Iraq, I just don't see how it is possible in the short term.  The military generals largely don't want it, the US-trained Iraqi army is not ready to stand up and do its job, and does a President Obama or Clinton have the gravitas to defy the advice of the career generals on the ground?  I think this talk of withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking the oath of office is just pandering to the anti-war crowd.  It just ain't realistic.
• The Washington Post had a fascinating article on Saturday about the detrimental impact of granting immigration visas to religious minorities in Iran.  Even though there is little persecution of Christians and Jews in Iran (according to Iranian religious minorities - Washington-based Bush administration ideologues have another perspective), we grant them visas and, in the process, we destroy their fragile communities and contribute to a growing religious polarization throughout the Middle East.  US policy has contributed to the rapid destruction in recent years of Christian communities in Iran, Iraq, and the Palestine territories, communities that have been in these regions for 1500 - 2000 years.

Nelson Mandela, The Dalai Lama, & Me

An interesting political quiz from England.  That I lean leftward and libertarian is no surprise.  I score somewhere in the ballpark of Nelson Mandela and The Dalai Lama. 

Via The Wingèd Man. 

- - - - -

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

And some notables on the chart . . .

Inhospitality is Expensive

WTOP reports this morning that Virginia's Prince William County has dedicated nearly all of its remaining financial reserves to a mean-spirited and terribly flawed immigration enforcement program.  Between now and June 30, when the fiscal year ends, the county has only $3400 in reserves.  After spending $1.125 million in additional funds on immigration enforcement this year, the county may have to cut services next year - services for citizens and legal residents! - if it seeks to maintain its vigilance on immigration.

No word yet from county officials on how much money has been saved by denying services to illegal immigrants, or how the job market for legal residents has improved since the crack down.  Surely they just forgot to tell us about the great benefits of being inhospitable . . .

Illegal immigrants have violated the law, yes, and law enforcement officials have every right to enforce immigration laws to their fullest extent.  However, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is advisable - from a cultural, social or economic standpoint.  Surely the police, with extra officers and better technology, could more comprehensively enforce speeding laws, but that would result in a chaotic gridlock on our roads and highways, and would be a terribly expensive proposition (both from government expenditures and from the decrease in workplace productivity that would result).  Rather, we allow a major proportion of drivers to violate the law because a more rigorous crack down would be impractical and would offer a minimal return on investment.  Think of it as functional law violation, law violation that serves a societal purpose.  We do this is nearly every area of the law.  (I'm sure there's a theory for this idea, but I know not these things.)

So too with immigration.  The radical increase in expenditures to enforce immigration laws has a very low return on investment.  Just as our society tolerates - or even depends upon - drivers exceeding the speed limit, so too does our society tolerate - and even depends upon - a certain level of illegal immigration.  No harm, no foul (or at least, not much harm, no foul).

I would bet that within a year or so Prince William County gives up on its immigration crusade, having figured out that being inhospitable is expensive and inefficient.  That is, being inhospitable is just bad policy.

Go Vote in the Chesapeake Primary

Do your civic duty.  Get out and vote.

Tuesday is the Primary Election in Maryland, DC and Virginia.  It is the "Potomac Primary" if you listen to WAMU or read the Washington Post, and the "Chesapeake Primary" if you listen to WTOP.  (I find "Chesapeake Primary" to be more descriptive - the Chesapeake Bay has a greater reach and impact on residents of Maryland, DC and Virginia than does the Potomac River - even if "Chesapeake Primary" lacks the alliteration that broadcasters love.)

I'll be working a Fairfax County polling station as an Assistant Chief Election Officer - I was promoted to Assistant Chief after serving one election as an Election Officer!  I find it an incredibly meaningful way to support our democratic process and serve God and neighbor in a truly Two Kingdoms kind of way.

And so a prayer for election day (from Evangelical Lutheran Worship, a prayer for Responsible Citizenship):

Lord God, you call your people to honor those in authority. Help us elect trustworthy leaders, participate in wise decisions for our common life, and serve our neighbors in local communities. Bless the leaders of our land, that we may be at peace among ourselves and a blessing to other nations of the earth; through Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Amen.

Vote in the right place!  Find your polling location:
Virginia
Maryland
District of Columbia

Obama Inspires

One of the reasons I like Barack Obama so much is that he is his own person - he's not a political functionary of back room bosses, not a tool of special interests, not a slick poll-reading, blow-with-the-winds kind of politician.  No.  He's a self-made politician. 

After working on the streets of Chicago for a few years, he went to law school to affect bigger change in the lives of our society's most downtrodden.  At law school, Obama become the first African-American President of the Harvard Law Review.  A few years later he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, where he served for eight years.  His election to the United States Senate and his success in the presidential race reflect his hard work, his vision, and his ability to inspire others to affect change in their communities and in our nation's politics.  Obama's policies, Obama's popularity, Obama's organization . . . it is something that he has developed, that he has inspired, that he has made happen as a result of his leadership.  This is impressive.

I find Senator Clinton, though a perfectly capable senator, to be much less impressive.  She benefits immensely from her husband's legacy, popularity, and (most importantly) the Clinton political machine that has been honed over 20 years of politicking.  Her campaign is largely the same operation as her husband's two presidential campaigns, but with a different Clinton as candidate.  She speaks in the first person plural so often when describing her past accomplishments that I have a hard time seeing where Bill Clinton ends and Hillary Clinton begins.  I can't help but agree with Senator Obama when he quipped in a debate a few weeks ago that he isn't sure who he is running against.

To that end, I found the following comments about Obama's fundraising and organization interesting.  Despite her huge advantages - a former President on the trail for her 24/7, an established political machine, and a very popular brandname - Obama is still in the thick of the race.  Why?  Because Obama inspires.  (From Obama to Clinton: About That Loan, from The Caucus, the NY Times' political blog.)

In January, Mr. Obama raised $32 million for his Democratic presidential bid, the vast majority of which came from online contributions. At the same time, Mrs. Clinton was issuing her campaign a loan to remain competitive in the Super Tuesday states and beyond.

“I think there’s no doubt that she has not generated the kind of grassroots enthusiasm that we have,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s not for lack of trying. She’s got a former president actively fund raising for her as well as people like Terry McAullife, but what we’ve done is created this base where people send $25 checks, $50 checks on an ongoing basis.”

Call it political tithing, where contributors send money to the Obama campaign as though it was the cable bill or the telephone bill.

“That is an enormous advantage to our campaign, something I’m very proud of because as I said, it comes up from the grassroots,” Mr. Obama said.

Asked again whether he intended to accept Mrs. Clinton’s invitation to participate in a series of debates, Mr. Obama said, “I’ve got to spend time with voters.”

“We’ve got seven primaries in seven days. Senator Clinton is better known in a lot of these states,” he said. “I’ve got to do more work on the ground.”

Obama offers an inspiration for tomorrow, not the politics of yesterday.  Please consider voting for Senator Obama when the primaries come to your state. 

Thanks.

Who can best beat McCain?

We have to beat this irresponsible guy, or by 2012 we'll have troops on the ground in Iran . . . and Lord knows where else (and to think that I voted for him and gave money to his campaign in 2000!).

The Dems have an uphill battle against McCain, but Obama would have a better chance than Clinton.  The GOP base - which is cool towards McCain - would make it their life work to defeat Senator Clinton.  But Senator Obama does not inspire in them the same kind of ire.  The conservatives - and their money and organization - will not get as involved in an Obama vs. McCain race, making it more likely that the Dems retake the White House in 2009.

Did the Post read my blog?

I'm sure the folks at the Washington Post don't read my blog, but an editorial in today's paper excoriating Virginia State Senator Ken Cuccinelli for his mean-spirited anti-immigrant bill (Senate Bill No. 339) echoes two of the points I made a few weeks ago.

But the Posts editorial is much better written.  Darn it!

The Post editorial makes three simple points about the bill (which would allow employers to fire workers for speaking languages other than English while on the job):

• the bill is xenophobic, contributing to a dangerous anti-immigrant atmosphere
• the bill is overkill, making speaking other languages in the workplace an equal offense to substance abuse and lying about past criminal history
• the bill penalizes workers, not employers, even though it is the responsibility of employers to hire workers who fit the job description

(I made the first and third points, along with a few more, in my previous posts.)

To learn more about Cuccinelli's anti-immigrant bill, go back and read my two posts on the topic (¿Se Habla Inglés? and English Only in the Workplace) and also the editorial in today's Post, Second-Class Citizens.

I've already contacted my State Senator about this bill.  Have you?

Throwing Mud

I'm listening to the CNN Democratic debate and I'm just getting sick.  The mudslinging, the arguing about old, obscure votes, the accusations flying left and right . . .

It's just awful.  God help our country.