THE UNFINISHED WORK OF WE-THE-PEOPLE BEGINS TO BE FINISHED

It seems to me that President Obama, possibly for the first time in American history, has united two fundamentals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Historical forces now have reached a democratic apotheosis.

"We the people"--the first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution--are subjective words that have vexed the American nation since the time, 226 years ago, they were written. The vexation is in the question of who is the "we?"

Eighty-seven years after the Declaration was written, Abraham Lincoln gazed over a blood-soaked battlefield and past the Constitution to the Declaration and for the first time firmly established in the American conscience the affirmation that the nation was "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Until that time the proposition was only a promissory note.

Lucy Stone, one of America’s first advocates for women’s rights, asked, a decade before Lincoln’ speech: “‘We the People’? Which ‘We the People’? The women were not included.” Neither were white males who did not own property, American Indians, or African Americans--slave or free. "We" at the time of the founding of the country obviously and tragically did not include everyone. It was always a promise awaiting its fulfillment. Stone and Lincoln both looked forward “to the great task remaining before us.” 

"We...the people"--This triumvirate of words, declared this week from the highest office in the land on two of the most important events on the nation's calendar (this year, coinciding), is instantiated in the very person of its orator. The oration came from a person of color, on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, standing near a rainbow-coalition of a Supreme Court (male, female, black, white, Hispanic, Jew, Protestant, Catholic). We-the-people, it was proposed, includes everyone.

 The overall theme of the inaugural oration took, for the first time, the central proposition of the Declaration and the first three subjective words of the Preamble, such that the two essential phrases--one affirming equality, the other inclusion--meld into a single national avowal for which the nation now can rededicate itself “to the unfinished work” on the battlefield of our time--that is, to the proposition that We the people (now all the people) are created equal.

BLINDERS IN ECONOMIC HISTORY

One type of blindness is temporal: the inability to see, to remember, what came before in time, a particular affliction of Americans as a nation. Let's review: One major cause of the current economic crisis was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (1933) which wisely separated investment banking from commercial banking activities. Glass-Steagall was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) during the period (now hopefully deceased) of market fundamentalism. Each of the sponsors (the heavy pushers) was Republican as were the majority of its supporters. This led to the economic pathologies of the casino capitalism we saw during the Bush years (most likely we still have the same system with the next bubble now being formulated. Hey! There's fortunes to be made on the backs of ordinary people!).

Second, some simple facts: The national debt increased during the Bush adm. by 71.9%, mushrooming by more than $4 trillion, the biggest increase in U.S. history at that time. If you believe that the debt is a problem now (I'm skeptical as to the morbidity of debt), then you will want to remove the temporal blinders

Next, your taxes were cut whether you realize it or not. See Wall Street Journal (not your liberal rag): <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.htm>. The tax cut was massive, perhaps $284 billion, and probably the largest tax cut in U.S. history. Why do the blinkered not know this? Perhaps because Faux News decided to cover more important news at that moment, such as Michelle Obama's whisper of "whitey" that no one seems to actually have heard. But, oh, what an absorbing, emotive news item the rumor made that went on and on for about two weeks with the patriots at Faux News.

"Frail economic recovery"? Yes, absolutely! Many things were not done in the best manner, as Paul Krugman, the harshest critic (from the left) of the Obama adm. writes in nearly every one of his columns in the NYT. Krugman says we are in a depression. Taking the simple definition of a depression as a recession that lasts longer and has a larger decline in business activity--then one criterion (deeper decline) is certainly true. Since the current recession began at least as early as December 2007 under Bush (some push it further back into spring 2007), then the 14 months at the end of the Bush adm. added to the 18 months of the Obama adm. gives us about 32 months. Which brings up the depth of the decline: 700,000 job losses as Obama came to office. Yep,
Depression! When Obama says "avoided depression," I think he means we avoided the horrific scare of a total financial meltdown and the near total stagnation of the economy that would have ensued--an instant depression that would have gone global and possibly lasted an entire generation. All economists that I have read say this is true. I personally think we should have nationalized ("restructured" might be a term you would prefer) the top banks ("too big to fail" should mean too big to exist) and broke them up and sold them to private interests. No, the Geithners et al. (including probably every single Republican and most Democrats) were not of that mindset. Perhaps you and I could have agreed on this point. But, would Faux News have cooperated? Ha!

But, Don, the article you supplied also quotes a senior economist who points out that a different indicator--the drop in continued unemployment claims--"is an encouraging sign....it's not all bad news." In fact, from hemorrhaging job losses at 700k per month, Obama's statement is at least partly factually true. There has been job growth in manufacturing and other areas.

So, has the financial system been stabilized? Yes, it has. Maybe not to my liking, but stabilized, yes.

We are right on course for the usual capitalist progression during a deep downturn: Corporations are making record profits and instead of investing in jobs, they are taking their huge reserves and buying up other corporations. Today, Intel announced its biggest profits in 10 years and buys McAffee for $7.68 billion. Yep, the Bush-Obama adms. saved capitalism. The rest of us can wait while the titans of capitalism continue to rake in billions and consolidate power as they adjust to the new conditions. It has always been so.

FOXANOIA AND RECENT HISTORY

Read no further, if you believe the Obama administration is beginning to arrest people for using incandescent bulbs. Read no further, if you believe Obama raised taxes when, in fact, he lowered income taxes on 95% of tax payers (probably you), and that middle-class median income taxes are now the lowest since 1955. Read no further, if you believe Obama is a socialist (67% of Republicans), or wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (61% of Republicans), or is a Muslim (57% of Republicans), or was not born in the US (45% of Republicans). Read no further, if you believe, like Rush (8/26/2009), that Obama, "with dangerous intentions," "wants to create a crisis," so that "the Obama army," "given marching orders," can "seize power overnight."

Read no further, if you are unwittingly part of a new McCarthyism, in which inflammatory language and tactics are used to stir fears that the nation is being destroyed from within. The language? How about Mike Huckabee on the Obama budget: "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff." How about Sen. Inhofe on Obama's speech in Egypt: "I just don't know which side he's on." How about Beck: Obama hates white people. The McCarthyite attacks are legion. If you do not think so, then do not read on.

If you do not understand that history is important, then you will discount the fact that the Obama budget has taken place in the middle of a recession, coming after the biggest downturn since the Great Depression, and was seen as absolutely necessary by nearly all economists in order to pull the economy out of a financial meltdown in which the global economy was spiraling, plunging, downward into a catatonic state of no lending, no spending, and no production--toward a depression--in which 700,000 jobs were lost just in the month Obama was inaugurated. If you are so amnesiac to recent history, or do not understand that the financial meltdown required drastic and rapid measures, by both the Bush and Obama administrations to turn around the all-important global confidence in the workings of the US economy, then you do not understand the extreme situation the US and global economy were in. And, you have probably forgotten the economy grew at 3.5% in the last quarter of 2009. A depression was avoided. But, you are fuming because you believe Obama resents America's heritage (47% of Republicans)?

Does it mean anything to you that Obama moved at once to categorically renounce torture, a big stain that Bush-Cheney left on our national honor? Or, that the administration is on schedule to withdraw troops from Iraq? Or, that truly landmark health-care legislation was passed, a hundred-year quest, with provisions that will ensure health insurance to nearly everyone while, according to the CBO, not adding to budget deficits?

If you have historical amnesia and, further, do not understand the critical impact of the Bush tax cuts while the economy was weak which left the present administration with $2 trillion in lost revenue; and the two Bush-Cheney wars of choice that will cost a few trillion dollars--then, I'd say you are feeling comfortable lounging in the easy chair of Foxanoia watching the buffoon Beck draw his guilt-by-association charts of supposed communist connections of White House officials. Yes, forget recent history, and revel in the smears of the McCarthy clones.

PATRIOTIC INSIGHT INTO PERDITION

Obama, you might know, is a deranged, evil usurper! But, the always rational American people, the REAL people, are onto his wily ruse. Why, just look at the Harris Interactive Poll, of 24 March 2010, which was splashed across cable news, including Fox:

67% of Republicans think Obama a socialist;

61% that he wants to take away the right to own guns;

57% that he is a Muslim;

55% that he has done many things which are unconstitutional;

51% that he wants to turn over sovereignty to a one-world government;

45% that he was not born in the U.S. (and, thus not eligible to be president);

41% that he wants to use economic collapse or a terrorist attack as excuse to take dictatorial powers;

38% that he is doing many of the things Hitler did;

and, as a topper, 24% that "he may be the Anti-Christ." Let me repeat: one quarter of Republicans think Obama just might be the long-awaited Anti-Christ.

These numbers give one great confidence in the ratiocination of the American public and that they see through the Goebbels-like, evil deception. And, these beliefs--obviously accurate--just descend on them from heavenly places with only minor help from disinterested Earthly sources. Oh, one more: 22% of Republicans believe that Obama "wants the terrorists to win." Should we really wait for the ballot box, if the country is in such imminent danger?

But, the nation is blessed with a large group of true Americans who can tap into their powers of seeing through the artifices of the Obama socialist-Hitlerist-terrorist regime. Only these patriots can save the country.

On the other hand, and unfortunately, a USA Today/Gallup Poll, of 3/24/2010 (see <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm>), found that, re Obamacare,

49% (versus 40%) considered it "a good thing," rather than bad, that Congress passed the health-care bill;

one half described their reaction to the bill as "enthusiastic" or "pleased";

and, 48% called the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action. Just consider for a moment: half of those polled, in a recent, scientifically-conducted survey, think Obamacare a good thing! It's appalling! The subterfuge! Don't they get it? Don't they see he is leading the nation like lemmings over the statist cliff of progressive, failed policies that historically have always failed?

See? That's what an accomplished acolyte of Hitler (and possibly Satan) can do: Fool (some of) the people.

At least we have astute and concerned citizens like the one who held the poster (I saw it tonight) at a rally, across which she had scrawled (apparently without conscious irony), "Do not steal from Medicaid to pay for your socialist programs." I can rest in bed tonight confident that a multitude of informed Americans, such as this patriot, will rise up blessed with insightful comprehension. But, with continuing Obamination, soon she will be--with a little help from the patriotic press-- appropriately frothing at the mouth.

AUTO-EROTIC POLITICAL ASPHYXIATION

We are witnessing a pitiful display of emotional masturbation enhanced with auto-erotic political asphyxiation incited by the radical, extreme Right armed with the enormous power of a few entertainer-editorialists on Fox and radical, extreme right-wing radio. The deeply propagandized paranoiacs believe that the president's pep talk to young people to study and excel is somehow a sinister act of brainwashing!

The president's talk will be offered on the White House website and is strictly VOLUNTARY, of course, as to whether schools and teachers show it to students. Read the lesson plan, which no one has to follow--it is benign, folks!

I ask you: What will be the next fanciful, paranoiac issue de jour once Fox and the other purveyors of paranoia have exhausted this one? They have painstakingly cultivated the emotional ground while shredding all standards of journalistic responsibilty and patriotic decency to conjure up political fantasies to lead millions of the discernment-challenged into a frenzy.

Those of you advocating withholding your children from school because they could have a rare chance of watching a president speak to them about the importance of education to them and the country are doing your children the disservice of observing you in unthinking, reactionary paranoia. Are you equally concerned about the power of the radical, fearmongering right-wing media which are demonstrably dealing in outright lies?

TUMBLEWALL

Here on the edge of walls falling
stands the recently united America
recalling the old injustices
admonishing "be patient"
that King said could not wait
from his cell which we now see
was our cell, too, whose walls
now tumble down.

Sure, many do not remember.
But, when talking heads say
the country has found itself
some recall the old impatiences
who fought to crumble these walls
revealing exposed people
hopeful that today’s impasses
will lead to other walls
for us to tumble down.

So we stand here
on the edge of walls falling
in the still uniting America
and look out on the land
in wonder
at what shall be done
to make more walls crumble
in remembrance
of those who first faced
cell walls
yet untumbled.


Composed on the afternoon of the Presidential Inauguration, 20 January 2009.

CALVIN COOLIDGE BUSH CONTRAPUNTAL

Recently a short news item appeared with the headline, "President Bush Desecrates American Flag," showing him autographing a small, hand-held American flag. This is an apparent illegal act according to United States Flag Code--Section 8, Part G (Respect for Flag), which states in part: "The flag should never have placed upon it...insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

Bush's lack of knowledge about flag protocol is relatively insignificant. (I personally do not know the definition of "flag." Is what he is signing considered a real "flag" or a replica of a flag?)

But, Bush's willingness to subvert the Constitution, on the other hand, is a serious matter. Some of you might recall that in an interview, in 1999, I believe, before the first election, Bush stated that he believed God had called him to become President. It's obvious now that he also believed that God backed his war of choice in Iraq, his authorization of torture, illegal detentions without charge, disregard of habeas corpus, secret wiretapping, and generally his Dominionalist belief in the special calling of the U.S. to "save" the world or at least control it for the good of the "godly" U.S. In his last press conference, he admitted no mistakes, just "unfortunates." When God is on your side, then perhaps a half million deaths and thousands of tortures in Iraq are simply "unfortunate."

It was obvious to many before his first presidential election, in 2000, that Bush was woefully lacking in mental acumen for the office of the President of the U.S. You could tell then that he was ideologically bound and would govern from a rigidly neo-con perspective, which could lead us into trouble or at least generally ignore our many problems and ignore the Constitution. Which he did.

See this web page which includes an article from Reuters (1/19/2009) summarizing recent editorials from around the world about the Bush presidency: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Newspapers_around_world_skewer_Bush_on_0119.html

Historians are already judging the Bush presidency at the lowest rating (some have said the worst in American history. But, unlike presidents Nixon, Carter, and Clinton, I predict that we will hear little of George Bush after he leaves office, in terms of public service or, like Nixon, writing books about international affairs (unless he, Rumsfeld, and others, are charged with war crimes!), because he is so little interested in the world. He is a dull, lusterless man. There's much to compare with Calvin Coolidge.

It is interesting that historically we elect counterpoints to the previous president. To wit: If Bush is insular, ideological, subverter of the Constitution, knowledge-restricted, believer in simple (revealed) truths, and non-reader of books--contrapuntally we elect a multi-racial, multicultural, acclaimed writer, professor of Constitutional law, and the "most-intelligent-in-the-room," inspiring, great-communicator pragmatist. There's much to compare with Abraham Lincoln.

AMERICA HAS BECOME MORE AMERICA

With the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States, I feel that America has taken a great forward leap to fulfilling its promise made long ago and kept alive, sometimes dimly, through several centuries.

Thus, I see the election of Barack Obama, a black American as President, as a historical moment that is consumation of a long wait, a waiting that fulfills the hope of an experiment. The American experiment--never assured of success--has always been that all Americans would have a chance to effect their potential.

It is difificult for me to express my personal feelings about Sen. Obama ascending to the highest office in the land and arguably the most important in the world. Having grown up in a small southern town in the 1950s and '60s, where and when prejudicial attitudes were the norm, I, too, living in that racist milieu, was a child racist, or at least I breathed the air of institutional and social racism and accepted it as normal.

The historical moment of Obama's election was so palpable to me that it felt as if several time-space cycles phased in together at the precise moment that they were "destined" to take place. It felt like a completion, an old promise fulfilled for America generally and for me personally. When I saw Barack Obama embrace his running mate Joe Biden on stage at the end of Obama's victory speech on election night, it seemed much more than two election winners celebrating, it seemed to be the apotheosis of that centuries-old promise, of racial reconciliation. Again, it was also my completion, and my apotheosis.

We, as a people, living in the present, have become more of what "we"--envisioned for us 220 years ago by America's Founders--promised ourselves. It was a Covenant that could not be fulfilled during those long years. The Promise had to be kept (barely) alive through centuries of slavery, through turmoil of the Civil War, through dark days of Jim Crow, through struggles of the Civil Rights Movement, and through years of resignation that matters would not change.

I am speaking of hope, the hope that was the vision of the Founders. That hope and vision were that America could become, one day, the land of equal opportunity, the land of the free, the land of hope, and the place where people could dream of fulfilling their dreams. Now, with the advent of a "black" man to the highest office in the land, that hope is now reality.

America has now taken a giant step to realizing its potential. The election of Obama is the fulfillment, a historical moment, when America has now become more of itself. America has become more of what it has always promised. America has been waiting to become more America. That moment has arrived.

LOOK WHO SAYS IRAQ WAR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUGHT

Last Sunday (31 August, although it might have been a repeat of an earlier show), while on a long drive, I heard Bill O'Reilly, on his radio show, say unequivocally that Sen. Barack Obama was right to have been against the Iraq War from the beginning. I was quite shocked! O'Reilly said that the war was the wrong war at the wrong place and time and should never have been started. Finally, someone (although surely there are others, perhaps hidden) on the Right admits that the Iraq War was misguided. Whether the reason was a mistaken attempt to implant democracy in a Middle East country or whether it was simply to place Iraq's oil exports in the hands of Western oil corporations, there was no hope of avoiding a bloodbath and destabilization in a fractious and sensitive area that contains three main antagonistic factions who were held precariously together by the terror of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party.

Then, O'Reilly, in a bit of convoluted reasoning, criticized Sen. Obama for voting against the Surge, by saying Obama's call for early troop withdrawal (which the U.S. and Iraq administrations are now for) would not have been possible without the Surge! So, O'Reilly maintains it was right to be against the whole war effort from the beginning, but it should have been supported at the point of the Surge--about which, by the way, I'm not sure the ensuing diminution of violence is permanent. And, besides, the local warlords/tribal chiefs in Anbar Province, who the U.S. pays to fight, were already turning against Al-Qaeda-Mesopotamia. Please recall that there were no Al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq until a power vacuum was created when the U.S. took out Saddam and the Baathists and the Iraqi military. The U.S. created the situation it now finds itself in.

I thought this an interesting bit of current events to hear O'Reilly's position. I also think there are plenty of other people on the Right who are appalled at the conduct of the war. Not least are they concerned that the U.S. military has been weakened for combat in other strategic areas, such as Afghanistan, where a resurgent Neo-Taliban is seriously threatening the viability of that country. If there were any war in which the U.S. must engage, it would be in Afghanistan, because unlike the trillion-dollar war in Iraq, the U.S. would be fighting to stabilize, not destabiliize, two countries--Afghanistan and Pakistan.

WHY TRUST SENATOR OBAMA?

How odd for someone to say they do not know about Sen. Obama's campaign staff and advisors, when the information is readily available. (Do they truly want to know?) Sorry if you were looking for something mysterious and, I suspect, sinister, in his "handlers": They are ALL known and vetted.

They tend to be moderates, perhaps moreso than Sen. Obama himself. His Campaign Manager is David Plouffe, who also worked on Dick Gephardt and Tom Harkins's campaigns. There's Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett who was Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's Chief of Staff and city department head. There's Chief Strategist David Axelrod a well-known political consultant with a national reputation. There's "key advisor" David Bonior, former Michigan U. S. Representative.

Yes, experience is something to assess. But based solely on experience, you would not have voted for Abraham Lincoln nor John Kennedy. Kennedy was a very young Catholic distrusted by Protestants. Lincoln, who was born in the "wilderness," lost his very first election, for the Illinois House, and later lost his campaign for the U. S. Senate. Was it perhaps an advantage for Lincoln--and the nation--to have been born into a different background?

Re Sen. Obama: his two memoirs show how deeply self-reflective he has been, probably sparked by his mixed-race heritage and being born into a "different" background. Is this perhaps an advantage? Which other politician has been so open to reveal who they are? Sen. Obama has done this. It is there to read.

This is one thing that has impressed me about Sen. Obama. He knows who he is because he has examined who he is. This, surely, is a tremendous asset for someone in a powerful position that will be of benefit to us all. To adapt the adage by Michel de Montaigne ("The unexamined life is not worth living"): I say that the unself-examined politician is not worth voting into office.

Barack Obama has not only been self-reflexive, he has opened the book for us to read. Its authorial tone and character development and narrative are positive and revealing. Barack Obama's life so far convinces me that its yes-we-can narrative shall have a felicitous denouement for America.

COVENANTAL FULFILLMENT OF THE AMERICAN NARRATIVE

Little, except generalization, is added when someone contends all memoirs/autobiographies are written out of pure narcissism and hubris. Facilely lumping St. Augustine and Paramahansa Yogananda and the Pauline letters with Ben Franklin and Bernie Mac (Maybe You Never Cry Again) makes little sense. Could each have had other goals? My own written life anecdotes have been inspired by my wanting to record my life for my daughter, not out of hubris.

What is certainly true is that memoirists are interpreting their OWN LIVES. Well, of course! That is the intriguing part: they (and I) place their lives within a social and historical context and construct a personal narrative. It is, after all, we who interpret our own lives. The interest is HOW WE SEE OURSELVES. Aren't we fascinated at how misanthropic Richard Nixon saw himself?

So, for Barack Obama and his two memoirs, the import is how he sees himself, how he fits--or not--within a social-historical context. And what he constructs as HIS narrative. In this case, it is not important whether he is narcissistic (in a country--America--known for its inherent, unparalled narcissism), the self-reflexivity and narrative themselves are what are important. Factual "inconsistencies"--I'm sure they will be aired. Still, his story, as self-constructed, in which he reflects upon his ambivalences and confusion, but also his deep family connections, are refreshing. (Compare Sen. McCain's self-appointment as "maverick.)

Personally, I have never been inspired by mere politicians (other than possibly the "story" of Abe Lincoln). Obama's "story," at least as he tells it, is a story for America and fulfills some promises made long ago.

OBAMA'S TRANSFORMATIVE EXPERIENCE

People sometimes apparently forget that Sen. Barack Obama served eight years in the Illinois legislature. It also gives me some confidence that he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for twelve years, as contrasted to George Bush who has flaunted our Constitutional rights.

I appreciate Sen. Obama's real-life experience of having worked as community organizer. Can you think of any President, ever, who worked at the level where actual people live, on the street, in the community? In my estimation, working as community organizer would be a transformative experience that we should only hope all national leaders would have.

Barack Obama, admittedly, does not have the usual political experience of presidential candidates. But the fact that he is a Constitutional scholar, has worked in the streets and community, has served at the level of State affairs, and now has experience at the national level as a U. S. Senator--all this gives me confidence that his background, from community to national, affords him an extensive vision of America. This not only qualifies him to be President, I believe it makes him uniquely qualified.

SPECIOUS HISTORICAL COMPARISON IS PROPAGANDA

A letter dated 7 July 2008 to the Richmond Times-Dispatch Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change' requires some comment.

It is obvious that the letter compares dictator Fidel Castro to Sen. Obama. Do you think this is valid historical comparison?

The change that Castro unleashed upon Cuba beginning in 1959 came after a violent revolution in which the ancien regime was truly overthrown. How would that situation compare to the election of a democrat such as Sen. Obama within an established democracy? Obviously there is no comparison that could be valid. A newly elected American president could not achieve such radical change as Castro could. Castro was instrumental in the destruction of the ancien regime; not so an American president who must work within the system.

Observe the wording of the letter: "election-year rhetoric," "young leader," "spoke eloquently and passionately," "denounced the old regime," "press fell in love with him," and "who his friends were or what he really believed"--these are code words and phrases making a specious comparison of a known evil (Castro) to a present political personage (Sen. Obama) involved in a political campaign.

The letter reads as if it were composed by the Republican National Committee (it cannot be ruled out that it WAS composed by people associated with the Republican campaign). In fact it has the hallmarks of a (Karl) Rovian strategy: attack the strength of the opposition. If Sen. Obama's strength is his ability to inspire (even if it is with generalities about change), then Rovian strategy attacks his ability to inspire and his message of "change." This strategy has certainly worked in the past; it is obviously working now.

Look again at the "letter" and its wording: "executioner's gun" is associated with Castro, but the appearance of this scare-phrase is no accident in a "letter" actually about Sen. Obama. The strategy by the Republican National Committee and Fox News is to sow seeds of doubt and discomfort about Sen. Obama's character ("who his friends were"), to plant fear of Obama's very strengths ("spoke eloquently and passionately"), and to frighten Americans about his intentions ("executioner").

One way to plant doubt and fear is to make invalid historical comparisons. Please think twice before you fall for what should be an obvious piece of political propaganda. If you do fall for the tactics of propagandists, you will have been used.

PRESIDENTIAL FOREIGN-POLICY CREDENTIALS

Looking back over all the U. S. presidents, few had much foreign experience before their elections and many had next to none, including Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush probably had the most of all presidents at the time of election, including Franklin Roosevelt who had vacationed in Europe several times as a child and had visited the First World War front as Assistant Secretary of Navy.

Besides overseas experience there are other criteria for judging the foreign-policy qualifications of presidential candidates. The prime ones must be vision, and I would say, perspective. Re these categories, I evaluate Sen. Barack Obama as having unique life experiences and background that just might be quite advantageous. He had the wisdom and foresight to understand some of the ramifications of starting a land war in Asia that would require the U. S. military to occupy a country that would soon become a quagmire.

Whereas it should have been clear during George Bush's first presidential campaign that he not only had no foreign experience, but more importantly, he also harbored a provincial mindset. Bush was not sufficiently sophisticated to be skeptical when his Neo-Con advisers convinced him that democracy would flourish in the Middle East after the futile attempt to implant democracy in Iraq. Neither Iraq nor hardly any other place in that region has the prerequisites for democracy, which surely include high rates of female literacy and empowerment. The American electorate elected (actually the U. S. Supreme Court chose) a supremely naive president in George Bush, who involved the U. S. in perhaps the worst foreign-policy fiasco in the history of the country.

Still, realistically we will not know what we get until the candidate, whoever is elected, has appointed his foreign-affairs advisers and Secretary of State and is tested while in office. But I foresee that Sen. Obama, if elected, would become a far more perspicacious president than George Bush has been.

FIERCE HOPE OF THE URGENT NOW

"The fierce urgency of now" (Dr. M. L. King's phrase) should compel America to see Sen. Barak Obama through to the presidency. Now is the time. That urgency should unite supporters of Sen. Clinton with the Obama campaign. Now is the time. That urgency must energize those who understand that we cannot afford to wait on taking effective action on the global environment. Now is the time. That urgency should convince independents and Republicans that Sen. Obama can unite us so we can tackle America's problems, such as health care and a renewable energy policy. Now is the time. That fierce urgency tells us we must elect Barak Obama to the presidency. Now, at this urgent moment as a nation, now is that time.

Feel the urgency, America, feel the fierce urgency, to actualize what we once promised to ourselves as a nation and which has been dormant much too long: The hope that we the people would internalize the democratic power to solve problems of not just the privileged few, but of the many, even of the most, even--do we dare hope--of the all. Now is the time.

PROPAGANDISTIC WORD-IMAGES

MediaMatters was being much too generous when it labeled as "obtuse" E. D. Hill's recent use of the word "terrorist" on Fox Network in relation to the Obamas. Obtuse means dull, insensitive, stupid, difficult to understand. Hill's words, however, are manifestly understandable. It seems to me they must be seen as calculated effort to sow frightful word-images in the minds of Americans. Think of it: a professional TV commentator does not make a slip of the tongue on the order of saying "terrorist" when speaking of a presidential candidate.

This was no less intentional than Sean Hannity--another Fox Network entertainer-propagandist--keeping alive through a couple of news cycles the false story about the supposed use of the word "Whitey" by Michelle Obama. Fox and Hannity unconscionably claim it was just covering the story about a "rumor," a rumor they were reasonably sure was false--there was never ANY evidence--because the rumor machine about the Obamas has been working overtime for some time now. Yet, they kept alive a lie. Thus, Fox Network must be understood as a prime cog in the anti-Obama rumor machine.

Prepare yourselves America: What we have seen so far is just the warm-up to the juggernaut Swiftboating of the Obamas. Those of us who understand this must keep struggling for truth to find its way into the civic forum. Otherwise, Fox, Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh will rumor us and slip-of-the-tongue us into another administration of barbarity and--I can use this word with verity now--obtuseness.

SEN. OBAMA AND RUMORS

In a country so large in population it should not be surprising that there are forces at-large in our country who see it as their place to spread lies about politicians running for office whom they oppose. And now we have the powerful electronic medium of the Internet and email which is easily used to keep lies alive.

To wit, the anti-Obama machine has been working tirelessly (and evilly, in my estimation) to smear his history, words, and intentions. Entertainer-propagandists such as Rush Limbaugh, who is a master at innuendo, have spread the lie about the purported comment by Michelle Obama uttering the label "Whitey" at a public event. No tape has ever been produced, but the Fox Network and Sean Hannity thought it just fine to keep the rumor going through some news cycles before commentator Roger Stone admitted he did not have the tape and did not know of anyone who did. The point is--and Sean Hannity and his ilk know it well--that just bringing up a rumor in a supposed news show is enough to cause doubt in the public's mind. That is the purpose of the creation of rumors. And, that is one of the evil purposes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Expect more of it. It is a sickness in the civic forum and I blame people like Hannity and Limbaugh and their network sponsors and their funnelers of disinformation for egregious direliction of civic responsibility.

You can log on this website that Sen. Obama's campaign must maintain solely to combat the rumor machine.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

I announce here that I have made a monetary donation to Sen. Obama's campaign for President.

THE WAY OF PROPAGANDISTS

An early 2007 emailed message--titled “Who is Barak [sic] Obama"--forwarded through countless e-message trees has kept in circulation a debunked urban legend. The message purports that Senator Barack Obama is a radical, ideological Muslim. The message states that, “If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this,” thus lending an air of emergency. The message goes further: “This is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us in our own United States” (my emphases), thus indicating that Sen. Obama is not a legitimate member of “our” United States, that somehow he would hand the country over to “them,” the “radical, ideological Muslims,” of whom the message tries to make Sen. Obama a confrere. The message then says, “…better heed this and pray about and share it.” The latter gives it an air of religious duty to pass on the message and vote against Sen. Obama.

The message contains a link to snopes.com and challenges the reader to check it for authenticity. The forwarders of the message do not personally check snopes.com. I DID. If you go to Snopes, you will see in the left column, under the “Hottest Urban Legends,” that the third one is “Barack Obama.” When you click on that link, you will read an earlier similar letter that is judged by Snopes as false. It is interesting reading. Snopes says that no evidence supports the claim that Obama is currently “ideologically Muslim,” or has ever been a “radical Muslim.” In fact, those who made these claims “have offered nothing to support it—no letters or documents, no reports of conversations, no revelations from friends or associates…”

Fortunately, CNN.com did its fact-checking of the message. Here is its link:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

Within the CNN.com article there is a link to its video footage of the report: Watch video of Obama's school

Remember, as the current political season moves along, we should expect more swiftboating propaganda.

I do not personally care how you vote. I do care, however (being a high-school Social Studies teacher), about the gullibility of the American public. In a time when we have (overly) busy lives, and when we are deluged with “information,” this affords the opportunity for those who are interested in disinformation to cause a great deal of damage. If your sense of nationalism and Christian identity are appealed to, along with a message of fear, then have great doubts about the authenticity of those political messages. They are designed to touch you where you are most vulnerable to falsehoods. This is the classic way of propagandists.