Sen. Barack Obama did the right thing by ending his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This issue has taken too much time away from Obama's core message of change. The American people want to hear about issues that affect them on daily basis such as gas prices, the economy and jobs. Not about Rev. Wright and his beliefs.
Click here to watch Barack's hopefully last and final statement on the Reverend Wright.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Obama "The Change Candidate"
I am watching Meet the Press and heard presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin (bar none the most authoritative voice I've heard on presidential history) make an excellent point in response to a statement by New York Times commentator David Brooks to the effect of "You really have to wonder how Obama can bring about this 'change' and 'unity' with these 70-year-old committee chairmen on the Hill."
Her response was highly elucidating:
"What history argues -- and I think that this is what [Obama] is arguing -- is that the only time we've seen progressive change in this country is when the country is mobilized to push the people in Congress to action.
That is what happened in the progressive movement at the turn of the century: that is what happened in the New Deal, that is what happened in the 60s.
I think that's what he's arguing -- I can't just get it done by myself; I need to have that movement out there that will push us in Washington (me and them included) [to make that change happen]."
This really is a gem of a formulation and a strong argument in favor of Obama's message. Whichever candidate is elected is going to face some huge hurdles to change, in the form of the entrenched interests that are beholden to the system, as it currently exists. The changes that both Democratic candidates are proposing to the health care system in particular will require an overwhelming and consistent push by the average voter on their Representatives and Senators.
As any dispassionate observer of this election would agree, the groundswell of the Obama phenomenon is a unique once-in-a-generation thing.
Now, look at the dates connected to the events that Doris Kearns-Goodwin cites and you will note that, roughly speaking, enormous enthusiasm for progressive change seems to peak every 30-40 years.
We are overdue for change. We suffered too long with the passing era's expediency, plotting, fighting, failed wars, and failed healthcare initiatives and fear mongering to let this moment pass us by.
As Obama has said, this is ultimately less him and more about us.
Her response was highly elucidating:
"What history argues -- and I think that this is what [Obama] is arguing -- is that the only time we've seen progressive change in this country is when the country is mobilized to push the people in Congress to action.
That is what happened in the progressive movement at the turn of the century: that is what happened in the New Deal, that is what happened in the 60s.
I think that's what he's arguing -- I can't just get it done by myself; I need to have that movement out there that will push us in Washington (me and them included) [to make that change happen]."
This really is a gem of a formulation and a strong argument in favor of Obama's message. Whichever candidate is elected is going to face some huge hurdles to change, in the form of the entrenched interests that are beholden to the system, as it currently exists. The changes that both Democratic candidates are proposing to the health care system in particular will require an overwhelming and consistent push by the average voter on their Representatives and Senators.
As any dispassionate observer of this election would agree, the groundswell of the Obama phenomenon is a unique once-in-a-generation thing.
Now, look at the dates connected to the events that Doris Kearns-Goodwin cites and you will note that, roughly speaking, enormous enthusiasm for progressive change seems to peak every 30-40 years.
We are overdue for change. We suffered too long with the passing era's expediency, plotting, fighting, failed wars, and failed healthcare initiatives and fear mongering to let this moment pass us by.
As Obama has said, this is ultimately less him and more about us.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Obama/Clinton Health Care Policy
The only real policy difference between Senators Clinton and Obama is their view on the healthcare mandate and people like Paul Krugman, NY Times columnist, are clobbering him over the head with it. .
Senator Obama is the honest one running for the democratic nomination. He needs to neutralize this discussion by being frank telling Americans that NO ONE YET KNOWS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT ABOUT HEALTHCARE REFORM. Senator Clinton’s promise of universal healthcare for everyone in the first year is not realistic. Republicans will not jump on the bandwagon just because the president says so and policy changes in Washington move at a snail's pace.
Senator Obama also needs to reassure Americans about universal healthcare. Further he can say that when he is president he will ensure that a multi-disciplinary coalition of experts will thoroughly research all angles, including talking to patients and providers extensively and exploring all healthcare delivery systems around the world to understand what works and what doesn't.
The important point is that both agree we need to overhaul our healthcare system and provide universal healthcare. A delicate issue needs to be finessed so again, the nuances they are discussing are not really worth our time.
Senator Obama needs to eliminate the focus placed on this conversation so the upcoming voters not distracted by meaningless rhetoric and policy conjectures, the breadth of which many voters do not fully understand.
Senator Obama is the honest one running for the democratic nomination. He needs to neutralize this discussion by being frank telling Americans that NO ONE YET KNOWS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT ABOUT HEALTHCARE REFORM. Senator Clinton’s promise of universal healthcare for everyone in the first year is not realistic. Republicans will not jump on the bandwagon just because the president says so and policy changes in Washington move at a snail's pace.
Senator Obama also needs to reassure Americans about universal healthcare. Further he can say that when he is president he will ensure that a multi-disciplinary coalition of experts will thoroughly research all angles, including talking to patients and providers extensively and exploring all healthcare delivery systems around the world to understand what works and what doesn't.
The important point is that both agree we need to overhaul our healthcare system and provide universal healthcare. A delicate issue needs to be finessed so again, the nuances they are discussing are not really worth our time.
Senator Obama needs to eliminate the focus placed on this conversation so the upcoming voters not distracted by meaningless rhetoric and policy conjectures, the breadth of which many voters do not fully understand.
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Bradley Effect
Numerous political analysts have invoked the "Bradley Effect", a racially driven phenomenon, to explain the disconnect between pollster predictions and voter turnout for Senator Obama. Mr. Novak's Op-ed entitled, "Obama's Bradley Effect", was disappointing and shortsighted. Such opinions make me wonder if the media will ever be able to analyze election dynamics through a real-time prism rather than simply extrapolating historical anecdotes to explain the events of today.
I also wonder if Mr. Novak explored alternative explanations for the outcome of the California election. First, Clinton won California by 8%, which equates to approximately 350-400,000 votes. Californians cast nearly 1 million absentee ballots and over 50% of them were cast long before the February 5 election and before Obama gained momentum in the state. Were absentee voters included in the polling samples? If so, were they queried about how they voted? It is unlikely that late polling captured the full effect of the absentee vote. Therefore, it would be impossible to accurately predict the election outcome. Second, nearly 200,000 independent or "declined-to-state" (DTS) voters met confusion while casting ballots in California. Consequently, tens of thousands of votes in California are not counted.
While the Bradley effect may be a partially plausible explanation for the California election outcome, there are equally more logical explanations for the disconnect in the polling. Let us consider all the options rather than focus on one based on possibly outdated voter behavior patterns.
I also wonder if Mr. Novak explored alternative explanations for the outcome of the California election. First, Clinton won California by 8%, which equates to approximately 350-400,000 votes. Californians cast nearly 1 million absentee ballots and over 50% of them were cast long before the February 5 election and before Obama gained momentum in the state. Were absentee voters included in the polling samples? If so, were they queried about how they voted? It is unlikely that late polling captured the full effect of the absentee vote. Therefore, it would be impossible to accurately predict the election outcome. Second, nearly 200,000 independent or "declined-to-state" (DTS) voters met confusion while casting ballots in California. Consequently, tens of thousands of votes in California are not counted.
While the Bradley effect may be a partially plausible explanation for the California election outcome, there are equally more logical explanations for the disconnect in the polling. Let us consider all the options rather than focus on one based on possibly outdated voter behavior patterns.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Obama the "Catalytic Leader"
I think many Americans and the media are struggling with how to accurately understand Senator Obama's popularity and leadership style. As Obama supporters, we have a responsibility to help expand their understanding, give those new concepts and words to explain why Senator Obama is, and will be so profoundly effective.
Senator Obama is not a cult leader (as Senator Clinton is now so absurdly suggesting).
Senator Obama is a Catalytic Leader, as I will describe shortly below. This is the exact style of leadership our country and our world requires at this point in history. Without this more accurate framing, the media will continue to parrot Senator Clinton's talking points by attributing Senator Obama's message and popularity to hero worship, charisma, or blind faith.
Catalytic Leadership is a style of leadership whereby a leader inspires diverse constituencies to step forward and work together and where such constituencies working together, with everyone buying into the problem solving process create effective solutions to problems. By being involved and invested in the process, stakeholders who may desire different outcomes may yet come to support a solution because they were made a part of the process. They can say "WE DID IT!"
Senator Obama is clearly a charismatic figure. However, to write him off as simply a "charismatic figure" is too simplistic. His true power lies in what appears to be his natural leadership ability and his skill at drawing together a variety of diverse constituencies into his decision-making process. Not everyone will agree with the outcome of every initiative he puts forward but everyone will at least be able to say that they were consulted and had their voices heard. Thus, his message of "Yes WE can!".
The complexity of the problems facing our country and world involve highly divergent points of view and diverse people/communities that must somehow find common ground in order to move toward solutions, and a Catalytic Leadership style is the one that is necessary. This is one of the critically important skills that Senator Barack Obama will bring to the presidency, as is already profoundly evidenced in his ongoing campaign.
A Catalytic Leader is the antidote to our current woes and to Clinton and the media's recent "cultmania" spin in answer to Obama's popularity and his ability to inspire and involve so many patriotic Americans -- whether Democrat, Independent or Republican.
We cannot suffer through another era where "leadership" is defined as forcing your will upon others, not consulting with opposing voices and falling prey to the supposed collective wisdom of a coterie that has never disagreed with you.
Senator Obama is not a cult leader (as Senator Clinton is now so absurdly suggesting).
Senator Obama is a Catalytic Leader, as I will describe shortly below. This is the exact style of leadership our country and our world requires at this point in history. Without this more accurate framing, the media will continue to parrot Senator Clinton's talking points by attributing Senator Obama's message and popularity to hero worship, charisma, or blind faith.
Catalytic Leadership is a style of leadership whereby a leader inspires diverse constituencies to step forward and work together and where such constituencies working together, with everyone buying into the problem solving process create effective solutions to problems. By being involved and invested in the process, stakeholders who may desire different outcomes may yet come to support a solution because they were made a part of the process. They can say "WE DID IT!"
Senator Obama is clearly a charismatic figure. However, to write him off as simply a "charismatic figure" is too simplistic. His true power lies in what appears to be his natural leadership ability and his skill at drawing together a variety of diverse constituencies into his decision-making process. Not everyone will agree with the outcome of every initiative he puts forward but everyone will at least be able to say that they were consulted and had their voices heard. Thus, his message of "Yes WE can!".
The complexity of the problems facing our country and world involve highly divergent points of view and diverse people/communities that must somehow find common ground in order to move toward solutions, and a Catalytic Leadership style is the one that is necessary. This is one of the critically important skills that Senator Barack Obama will bring to the presidency, as is already profoundly evidenced in his ongoing campaign.
A Catalytic Leader is the antidote to our current woes and to Clinton and the media's recent "cultmania" spin in answer to Obama's popularity and his ability to inspire and involve so many patriotic Americans -- whether Democrat, Independent or Republican.
We cannot suffer through another era where "leadership" is defined as forcing your will upon others, not consulting with opposing voices and falling prey to the supposed collective wisdom of a coterie that has never disagreed with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)