Chris Abraham » clintons http://chrisabraham.com Because the Medium is the Message Sat, 26 May 2012 20:29:14 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 A Love Note From David Plouffehttp://chrisabraham.com/2008/12/02/a-love-note-from-david-plouffe/ http://chrisabraham.com/2008/12/02/a-love-note-from-david-plouffe/#comments Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:57:14 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/2008/12/02/a-love-note-from-david-plouffe/

PinExt A Love Note From David Plouffe

Here is a love note to “me” from David Plouffe, Campaign Manager for Obama for America. Barack Obama wants to personally keep me, ChrisTOPHER Abraham in the loop. I hope the Obama White House keeps up this sort of thing. If Barack Obama and David Plouffe are smart, they won’t make me resubscribe after the inauguration, they’ll just continue educating and informing me into the future. Please.

Christopher –

Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden announced key members of their national security team.

Barack and Joe have asked some of the country’s most experienced leaders on national security, foreign policy, law enforcement, and military matters to come together to renew America’s security and standing in the world.

Watch the video of Barack’s announcement and learn about the national security team.

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York and former First Lady, will serve as Secretary of State.

Secretary Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense, will continue to serve in that role.

Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General and a former United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, will serve as Attorney General.

Janet Napolitano, Governor and former U.S. Attorney for Arizona, will serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Dr. Susan E. Rice, a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to the Obama for America campaign, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, will serve as Ambassador to the United Nations.

General Jim Jones, USMC (Ret), former Allied Commander, Europe, and Commander of the United States European Command, will serve as National Security Advisor.

Barack’s national security team has been assembled to represent all elements of American power, diplomacy, and leadership that will be vital in overcoming the challenges of the 21st century.

Watch the video of today’s press conference:

These appointees will be tasked with strengthening current alliances and forging new ones, protecting our citizens at home, defending against our enemies, and promoting our values and moral leadership throughout the world.

While the challenges they are sure to face will be great, the opportunities to unify our country and our world will be even greater.

With your support, we’ll meet those challenges and opportunities with the hope and optimism that has brought us to this moment of change.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

PinExt A Love Note From David Plouffe
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2008/12/02/a-love-note-from-david-plouffe/feed/ 0 Barack Obama is the Rabies Shot America Needshttp://chrisabraham.com/2008/11/04/barack-obama-is-the-rabies-shot-america-needs/ http://chrisabraham.com/2008/11/04/barack-obama-is-the-rabies-shot-america-needs/#comments Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:11:38 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/2008/11/04/barack-obama-is-the-rabies-shot-america-needs/

PinExt Barack Obama is the Rabies Shot America Needs

I am sitting here in Berlin, Germany, listening to NPR on 104.1 FM (yes, we have National Public Radio on-tap in Berlin, it is true), and I am rooting for Barack Obama. I have to admit that I voted Republican in the last two elections, in 2000 and 2004, because I was appalled by both Gore and Kerry. I was passionate about Bill Clinton during his eight years in office and preferred anything to Gore or Kerry, to be honest. That said, I want Barack Obama to win because the world wants Barack Obama to win.

After church yesterday, I got to talking to my fellow parishioners and they want Barack Obama. These are not your traditional European communists you hear about, they’re devout Christians — born again — who are probably considered pretty conservative in the context of Europe. However, in the context of America, even a right wing wingnut European is still relatively liberal by American standards.

When Berliners look at Barack Obama, they don’t see someone who will set race riots afire, they don’t see someone who will turn America into a Marxist-Leninist stronghold, they see a man who is sophisticated, education, trained, has a brain in his head, went to the best schools, has explored the world, cares about civil rights, and who will most likely be willing to span the broken bridges across the Atlantic to Europe and Russia and try his best to rebuild them and begin to regain the trust, admiration, and even envy that much of the world had fifty-years ago.

To them and to me, Barack Obama will be able to return the United States to the hands of the rational. A United States with a better separation between Church and State. Maybe even a country in which Jesus Christ is the co-pilot and not the pilot any more. Where saner, more peaceful, minds prevail. A nation willing to put away its herald and sword, stop with the Christian Crusades, the preemptive strikes, the unilateral military conquests, and the obsession with being Exceptional. Exceptionalism is the most dangerous aspect of the George W Bush and Neocon White House.

“When the United States looks abroad, it does so from an assumed position of moral and spiritual strength. For as long as the United States has existed, a perceived sense of its exceptionalism has permeated the way that Americans view the rest of the world . . . this view has been reinforced by the material reality of US economic and military strength. The essence of American exceptionalism is a celebration of the uniqueness and special virtue of the United States. It rests on the belief that the United States has a special role to play in the world, and unique qualities to bring to this role . . . The roots of the concept stem from the Puritan vision of America as a ‘shining city upon a hill’, a society designed to serve as a moral example to mankind.”

The idea that America is any better-suited than any other nation to lead based on some sort of Divine Inheritance or Plan is ludicrous and very insane, especially when no one else in the entire world agrees. I am a big fan of Mike Signer’s concept of exemplarism:

“Exemplarism is the principle that the United States could best serve the spread of liberal democracy by being an enviable example to the world—the shining light on the hill, the beacon. Being a good example requires strengthening the institutions that assure individual liberties, the rule of law, and the prosperity born of industry and commerce. Adherents to exemplarism would find themselves in agreement with Kant’s principle of noninterventionism into the affairs of other nations.”

Telling yourself and everybody around you how amazing, brilliant, noble, moral, and generous you are when you’re the biggest and meanest and best-armed and best-outfitted man in the room is hubristic and kind of pathetic. Delusional, actually, and certainly not the best way for a man — or a country — to be. America is kind of being an International douchebag.

I must admit that I have a special weakness for exemplarism’s belief in the “principle of noninterventionism into the affairs of other nations” even if you don’t like the way other nations are running their households. There is a certain amount of independence and internal liberty associated with being sovereign. Sovereignty, to me, is holy. To me, exporting culture, policy, morals, or any concept of character or politick is poor form, especially when it is at the tip of a sword.

What scares me about American Exceptionalism is that it allows just about any behavior based on the premise that we can do no wrong. That any move we take to help is helpful, that any gift we have to give is welcome, that any feeling a foreign nation could feel is grateful.

When America thinks the entire world is so “insane” and “drunk” that only America cane make the important, sober, choices, then it is in fact that America is the Nation suffering from mental illness. You know what they say, right? If you think the entire world has gone mad, that the entire world is against you, that the entire world is violent and full of unrest, the unappealing truth might just be that you’re severely paranoid and might be the most mentally ill in the room. There is no way that the entire planet is conspiring again the United States — unless, of course, we have gone one step too far.

I am told that we have gone one step too far; however, Europe and most of the world is willing to let bygones be bygones because we’re loved by the world, at least mostly. Berliners no longer trust America but they’re willing to give Barack Obama a chance — they’re not willing to give John McCain a chance, sadly.

They see in John McCain an angry, malicious, foolish man — which is fine; however, in Sarah Palin, they don’t even seen some harmless vice presidential candidate, they see a very dangerous indicator that the McCain/Palin ticket will more assuredly take the United States to an even darker, more jingoistic, more conservative, descent into fascism.

When I tell people these things, especially on Twitter, I get the strangest response, even from the Democrats: “America is the best country on earth.” “America may not be perfect but there is no better country on earth.” “I am proud to be an American — I am patriotic, surely.” Alternately, I also get, “I think we have gone too far as a nation — we have descended into a self-centered feeding frenzy rife with elbows and short-sighted land-grabbing.”

To me, I am somewhere in the middle. I love the foundation of the Nation. I love the literature, the heart, the soul, the worlds, the music, the history, the compassion, the Faith, the persistence, the curiosity, and confidence, the optimism, and even the cocksureness! I love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. There is a reason why many nations worldwide have patterned and even plagiarized our Constitution, to be sure.

Hell, Europe loves the idea of America! Basically, we are a nation that, in its source code, has embraced all that is liberté, égalité, fraternité; however, the world had not been able to enjoy our uniquely American version of liberty, equality, and fraternity for all the foaming at the mouth and the bared fangs! There is a fear that this mad-dog may have gone too far into its rabies and is too far gone.

In Barack Obama, they see that maybe what America has been doing for the last eight years as been a sort of postpartum, post-911, depression. That the Nation, all big and clumsy, hung over, and feeling a little sick, is finally reemerging from darkness into light — luckily, just in time, when the world needs a leader in the community and not just a dangerous paranoiac who lives in the dilapidated house at the edge of town.

The rest of the world has not given up on us as Americans or as America. Have we as a nation give up on ourselves?

PinExt Barack Obama is the Rabies Shot America Needs
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2008/11/04/barack-obama-is-the-rabies-shot-america-needs/feed/ 2 Sarah Palin Comment Thread Par Excellencehttp://chrisabraham.com/2008/10/10/sarah-palin-comment-thread-par-excellence/ http://chrisabraham.com/2008/10/10/sarah-palin-comment-thread-par-excellence/#comments Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:52:16 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/2008/10/10/sarah-palin-comment-thread-par-excellence/

PinExt Sarah Palin Comment Thread Par Excellence

If you have not been keeping on top of all of the great comments streaming in to the AH Poll entitled “If John McCain died or became incapacitated, would Sarah Palin be competent to be President?” you are really missing out! Some of them are the most insightful, thoughtful, and brilliant collection of thoughts representing the best and the worst of the right and the left! Roll up your sleeves and batten your hatches because you’re going to have one hell of a ride. Oh, also, these comments are in reverse-chronological order so the most recent are at the top. If you want to keep track of them live, please go visit them where they love and breathe. Read below for the most amazing Sarah Palin comment thread of the Internets!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/10/2008 – 12:58.

Only a complete moron would vote for a Republican after the past 8 years of idiocy. McCain is a Bush croney and Palin is just an idiot.

Submitted by ab (not verified) on Fri, 10/10/2008 – 08:52.

KB,
Sorry, I don’t usually reply to these remarks, but I couldn’t resist……..
What message of “hate” are you talking about?
If someone doesn’t agree with your worldview, that doesn’t
mean they hate. Where is your tolerance?
AB

Submitted by Walter Arndt (not verified) on Thu, 10/09/2008 – 22:23.

Only a person with his head in the sand would vote for a democrat.

Submitted by KB in IA (not verified) on Thu, 10/09/2008 – 21:54.

Things might get interesting soon, since the Alaska Supreme Court said today that the investigation known as Troopergate could proceed, dashing the hopes of the McCain/Palin campaign to stonewall it until after the election (article at www.adn.com). Amazing that someone CURRENTLY under investigation for misuse of public office, could be stirring up crowds with a message of hate. Mind-boggling that someone who had to attend 5 or 6 different colleges before getting a degree in journalism, can try to make a bogeyman out of someone who graduated with honors from Harvard Law. I hope Alaska gets their Governor back soon…if they even want her back.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/09/2008 – 18:06.

Are you as crazy as she is? It IS the republican party that has messed up this Country over the last 8 yrs. We may not get out of this mess we are in. Take your head out of the sand. Obama IS the best selection this election.

Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Thu, 10/09/2008 – 17:17.

Mrs. Palin is much more qualified to be President than Obama who has done absolutely nothing but organize thugs in ACORN! She could save this Country from Socialism and all the corruption the Democrats are up to. He is not capable of telling the truth and Hollywood and the Media are doing their best to cover for him. He is not qualified to be a Senator and should be on trial for treason.

Submitted by GE Mayer (not verified) on Thu, 10/09/2008 – 16:53.

Not only is Palin not qualified to be Vice President much less President, I am incensed, that John McCain would insult my intellegence by picking such a “newby” above several well qualified, experienced women who have served the country and the Republican party.
I expect my Comander in Chief to Carefully sellect an individual more qualified than him/herself to take over. It shows John’s thinking.

Submitted by Krissi (not verified) on Wed, 10/08/2008 – 21:35.

While I admire Sarah Palin’s spunk and determination, I think that she is completely out of her league as not only a vice president but also a president. If people would take a good look at her record, they’d see that she doesn’t even have a good grasp of the issues.

In addition, she’s been caught in numerous lies and distortions. For example, she did not sell a jet on eBay — she tried but failed; the jet was sold later to a private buyer. She did not leave the town of Wasilla financially sound; she left it in debt. She says she;ll be a strong supporter of kids with needs. In truth, Palin actually slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62%.

And her famous, “I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves” line? More spin. Congress’ requirement that funds be spent on that bridge (aka the ‘earmark’) were removed before Sarah Palin became governor. She was, therefore, in no position to tell Congress anything about the bridge, one way or the other. During her campaign, she said she supported funding for the bridge.

There are more examples, of the fibs and many examples of her poor insight into our nation’s problems. I could list them all, but I encourage you to do your own homework (forwarded emails DO NO COUNT)!

If MCCain and Palin win this election, I’ll probably be hoping for a lengthy, overseas assignment — maybe four years or more!

Submitted by GA for Brains in the White House (not verified) on Wed, 10/08/2008 – 21:02.

W – below C student
McCain – at the bottom of his class
Are we really electing the best? Shouldn’t we elect someone better than we are? And someone not ready for the assisted living home? Someone who can remember the name of his opponent instead of calling him “that one”. McCain left right away after the debate – seniors do go to bed early, probably past his bedtime. As for integrity, check out McCain’s involvement in the S&L bailout, he was right there along side W’s brother Neil. All working to steal investors’ money. Just like King Henry is doing now, rewarding his Wall St. buddies.

And we wonder why this happens to us???

Submitted by Ed Sherrill (not verified) on Wed, 10/08/2008 – 10:49.

Not only is Sarah Palin competent to become President, she is idealogically and tempermentally better suited to be President than John McCain. Republicans are going to be very sorry thet chose McCain over Mitt Romney. I only pray the Democrates don’t screw up the country so bad over the next four years that it can’t be fixed.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 – 22:13.

If Joe Biden winked at the camera 5-6 times during the debate, wouldn’t we be calling him a pervert? Come on people, get serious. Sarah Palin is a joke — an embarrassment to Americans who take our politics — and the plight of our country — seriously.

Submitted by Joi (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 – 13:34.

To be sure, Sarah Palin doesn’t deserve the crucifixion the media and entertainment world are giving her (and her family). McCain might deserve some of it, after all – he picked her. Why? She’s female. I admire the man completely – he is an American hero and I can’t even begin to imagine the hell this brave man endured.

However, when it came to choose running mates, I belive Obama chose one that was best for the country and McCain chose one (he thought) was best for the campaign.

I THINK that he lost the race with his choice. I KNOW he lost my vote.

Submitted by olivier blanchard (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 – 13:30.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps Gov. Palin’s weaknesses weren’t 100% obvious to Sen. McCain when he picked her. (So much for due diligence, I guess.) Did he want a dynamic, charismatic, family-friendly VP running-mate? Of course. And she fit the bill… on the surface, at least. But honestly, weren’t there better choices (male or female) for the job? Competent, charismatic, appealing, worldly Republican governors or senators? People he actually knows and trusts? 30 years in politics, and he can’t think of a single person he has worked with who would be a better choice for a running mate? He goes with a complete stranger? I find that bizarre. Irresponsible, even. I just don’t get it. There are plenty of smart, competent, experienced women in the Republican Party who would have made a great running mate.

Submitted by DBStevens (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 – 12:21.

Too many people in this country confuse personal appeal with competence, and make decisions based on who’s the most charming or even who’s sexiest. Or they make decisions based on generalities such as “we need a woman in the White House.” A COMPETENT woman in the White House would be a great asset to this country. There is no doubt of that.

But we can’t decide the leaders of our country based on a visceral reaction to her charm and folksy demeanor (there is a lot of doubt as to the sincerity of that demeanor anyway…she shows signs of being rather ruthless). During these times of uncertainty and fear, it’s natural to want some comfort, to feel that the person leading our country is down-to-earth and “real.’ We felt good about Bush and people like Rudy Guiliani for a short time right after 9/11. They appealed to our emotions and need for reassurance. But that demeanor means nothing. It’s the actions that matter, and in the time following 9/11, both Bush and Guiliani’s true nature was revealed… incompetence and self-serving.

Sarah Palin acts cute and has a pretty face. That’s perfect for president of the PTA. But has not gained enough experience to be president of a country. The job of Vice-President or President is NOT an “on-the-job-training” type of job. Being Mayor of a tiny town in a remote state, then Governer of that remote, sparsely populated state (670,000, way smaller than a city like El Paso, TX) is not enough experience to lead a country whose every move has global implications. Palin treated the job of Governer like a telecommuting job, she worked form her hown home for 86% of the year.

No matter how intelligent she may seem to be, no matter how ambitious or driven she may seem, and ESPECIALLY no matter how pretty or charming she is, she is not ready for the responsibilities of a job like President. Without experience, without having the time to really begin to understand the nature of national and global dealings on every level, no matter how much coaching or guidance she would receive, Palin would either crumble under pressure or make very bad decisions with repercussions that could shake this country and its international stature to the core. Or she wouldn’t act quickly enough at all…stalling and deflecting decisions (as she does with many questions, or with such events as the investigation dubbeed “Troopergate”).

I also worry about the demands of her family. During times of her family’s need, do we want someone faced with the dilemma of either neglecting her family’s needs because of her duties as Vice-President, or neglecting the VP duties because of her family’s needs? Neither of those are good choices….Sarah Palin has too many personal responsibilities.

Palin also shows all the signs of behavior very similar to Bush’s…including a tendency toward cronyism, abuse of power, and self-serving decisions that flout the law.

She even mispronounces the word “nuclear” just like Bush. Certainly that’s a small point, and that pronunciation is commonly recognized as a sub-standard metathesis of the word, but it’s very annoying to listen to.

So wake up American. Move your responses from your gut to your brains, and make sure you understand the repercussions of your vote.

Submitted by Andy Osier (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 – 10:15.

John McCain himself isn’t capable of running the country; I shudder to think of the train wreck a Palin administration would be. If they win, I’m seriously considering a moving. How’s the January weather in Berlin, Chris?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 – 18:11.

Granted, we’ve got plenty to worry about at home!
But we’re talking about a Governor of a state bordered by 2 foreign countries, Palin is the proud NEW owner of a passport! (barely 1 year)
The world is smaller than ever and so is our standing in it. We don’t need “a little Wasilla in Washington”. We already have a narrow minded view of the world with our current administration.

Submitted by Joyce (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 – 16:49.

She would call on the brightest brains in the Republican party, put them in positions of power and support, and do her best to do the best she could for her country. She’s an acheiver and would never accept failure for herself. She has Condeleesa, Romneys, Huckabees and several others who want to serve and members to help and advise her. Her history shows that she uses support and advise to guide her towards her goals and accomplishments. She would take the credit for it too.

Submitted by Allison (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 – 15:10.

Palin is the only person that does not have someone dictating what she says about policy and does not try to appear to have all of the answers. She certainly knows how to find the answers. She has integrity, and knows truth when she sees it and definitely has mankind’s best interests as her priority. These are some of the things that make her the best candidate for the job. I am sick and tired of politicians with agendas! She is a real person that is capable of any good, or decent task put before her. She will also employ the same type of people to work beside and under her. The point that she is not capable of selling us down stream for a special interest group, or her own pocket, or fame makes her my choice in a leader – regardless of the presence of McCain. Allison

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 – 15:08.

Palin is the only person that does not have someone dictating what she says about policy and does not try to appear to have all of the answers. She certainly knows how to find the answers. She has integrity, and knows truth when she sees it and definitely has mankind’s best interests as her priority. These are some of the things that make her the best candidate for the job. I am sick and tired of politicians with agendas! She is a real person that is capable of any good, or decent task put before her. She will also employ the same type of people to work beside and under her. The point that she is not capable of selling us down stream for a special interest group, or her own pocket, or fame makes her my choice in a leader – regardless of the presence of McCain. Allison

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 – 12:47.

She didn’t ride in on her “own merits” She rode in on her SEX. PERIOD.

Submitted by RisingFromDecadence (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 – 12:17.

It’s the most frightening and compelling reason to not elect McCain to date. It’ clear that the choice was to win vs. what’s right for the country. And it saddens me that with so many strong female candidates out there McCain has landed on this choice. It speaks volumes of his lack of sound judgement and doesn’t do justice to the feminist movement.

I couldn’t agree more with “Double Standard’s” comments about education, and intelligence vs. the “experience” of a low-population governor. Has it somehow become a negative trait for our president to be articulate well educated and even published?

I think its safe to now say, like every great civilization, America has grown from it’s indestructible, can-do “adolescence,” and has entered it’s “decadent” period of greed, fear, fat and a lack of clear vision. America needs a president who will bring intelligence, a new vision, and optimism so that we don’t lose the real values we’ve grown up to believe are American such as truth, innovation, compassion, charity and vision.

Our values as a nation should not be confused with same sex marriages or religious agendas. I seem to remember from my grade school social studies classes that America was born as a nation with the purpose and promise of many freedoms. Personal choice values are not to be mixed with National values. Growing up, this difference has been why I’ve been so proud to be an American. In the last 8 years much has changed. I believe that only with the leadership of Obama will we be able to regain our credibility and our course as a nation. Most importantly, America could be “Proud Again.”

Submitted by Jaz-Michael King (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 – 10:40.

As an unbiased, unable-to-vote immigrant, can I point out that as usual, from either of your minimalist two sides, when the question is simply If John McCain died or became incapacitated, would Sarah Palin be competent to be President?”, the arguments spin off to why the opponent isn’t. Maybe that will be the next question, but like I wanted to yell at Palin while watching the debate… answer the question posed to you.

Everyone has their weak points, and in some respects, Obama, who has considerably more than two years in the US Senate as his experience (he was a state senator, you know) has plenty. However, I think there’s a good reason hockey moms and joe sixpacks don’t run. No-one wants regular folk in charge. You all want a ruling elite no matter how much you profess to the contrary.

There are plenty of strong, competent women on both sides of the aisle in the USA. Gov. Palin is not one of them.

She is not qualified because she is not qualified. Being as unqualified as anyone you wish to compare her to does not make her qualified. Her inabilty to answer a straight question makes her unqualified. I personally believe the fact she is the kind of person who can compete in a beauty contest makes her unqualified. And as of today, her assertion that Obama’s political career started off in the living room of a terrorist (all of a sudden, he’s been a politician a lot longer than two years according to the Republicans) has pulled her from the absurd to the surreal.

Don’t get me wrong, Obama seems to pander to some vaporous “change” mentality, but that wasn’t the question.

Submitted by Anonymous jones (not verified) on Mon, 10/06/2008 – 09:16.

The difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama thinks. He’s smart enough to go to Harvard, graduate high enough in his class to be president of the Harvard Law Review there. He’s a thinker who doesn’t shoot from the hip. He knows the Constitution inside and out and knows if something is just a whim to increase his own power compared to a great idea which would help millions of people (think fairer taxes, health insurance coverage). Palin bankrupted Wasilla which is now 23.5 MILLION dollars in debt. She has no idea of what real issues are out there—she doesn’t have any idea of what to do in a financial situation, a diplomatic situation or anything beyond her own home. She shows no compassion for others who are not in her situation (religious, financial, educational, political) and has no international experience. We do not need another DOPE in the White House. McCain has shown very poor judgment in choosing an under-educated (a BA is like a high school degree these days) fool rather than a smart, intellectually sophisticated worthy VP candidate. This is a sellout of the Democratic process. Such a shame. But then again, McCain graduated at the bottom of his class (894 out of 899), so what does he want with a smart second?

Submitted by Bjshazam (not verified) on Sun, 10/05/2008 – 22:34.

Does it not trouble anyone who has been posting here that we have reached this point at all? I’ve been writing draft after draft of posts here, trying to find the right balance that won’t come across as too ideological, or that won’t be automatically dismissed by the true sycophants because it contains some Left or Right code word that justifies their turning off of the brain. Can’t do it. She’s too dangerous, and it angers me so much that we as a country have been put in the position of having to opine about the staggering impropriety of her selection as McCain’s running mate.

Consider:

My brother is a great guy. Smart as a whip, with what I think is decent judgment (except for his love of the Yankees). I trust him implicitly. So, should I be in a position to name him to, say, the Supreme Court, I would expect no questions from anyone about his qualifications. According to the Constitution, he is legally qualified to be a Justice, even the Chief Justice. I already told you he is smart and has good judgment. What else do you need to know? How dare you question my choice or his desire to serve?

The President of the United States has a mind bogglingly huge amount of discretion in executing the job. The president can, without obstruction by court or Congress, lay waste to our financial system, impede entirely the execution of justice, or unleash Armageddon. The office of the president can disband virtually unilaterally the entirety of the intelligence gathering power of the U.S., or focus it all on the least secure among us — with no recourse by anyone.

Most of the time, this isn’t an issue. Regardless of your political persuasion, we have been blessed mostly with chief executives that took the burdens of job dead seriously. A president of the entire country, not just those who cast the votes.

Now the bar has been set so low that we cannot figure out the right words to describe how wrong it is for a candidate to relish the fact that she really doesn’t understand the job the Constitution has laid out. That this is somehow an asset to a campaign makes me ashamed for my country.

That John McCain affirmatively foisted this train wreck upon his own party, and possibly upon the country, is a sin for which he should never be forgiven.

That she is considered by some to be the next face of the GOP, and a real contender for the nomination next time around, should make my GOP colleagues shudder and the nation weep.

I don’t want a hockey mom or joe six-pack running the country. Hell, I don’t want anyone like me running the country. I want a president. And she is not it.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/05/2008 – 22:25.

Darn, brain outrunning my fingers.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/05/2008 – 22:22.

And the mental midgets who are using that as a ruse to comment on Obama miss the entire point. Biden IS qualified to fill in shoudl something happen to Obama (go to smoking gun to see why that IS an issue).

Palin is a bimbo and if you do not think so, Palin supporters, then take this simple acid test: were it Obama who made those brain dead comments instead of Palin, what would you be saying about him? Gotcha!

jim

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/05/2008 – 22:01.

Anyone that believes that Sarah Palin is qualified to be President is kidding themselves. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. The fact that she is SO unqualified is what made her pick an insult to every hard-working, intelligent woman out there. She was picked for her good looks and her folksy charm. There were MANY more qualified women in the ranks of the Republican party that could have been chosen.
Palin attended five different colleges before she was finally able to stick out a degree program. She majored in journalism and communications and couldn’t name ONE newspaper or magazine that she reads on a regular basis. She minored in political science and doesn’t know what the Vice President’s role and duties are in our government. She has abused her power in every political post she has been elected to, has lied about her record both as mayor and governor and her short political career has been marked by scandal. She says that she fought the energy interests in Alaska, but her campaigns have all been heavily funded by energy companies.
In short, she’s not smart, she’s lacks integrity, she has gotten most of what she has attained on her looks and charm and these things don’t add up to someone who is qualified for Vice President, nevermind the Presidency. If you want her to be your leader, move to Alaska. This country and the world cannot afford another incompetent leader at the helm. One more bumbling idiot at the helm will spell doom for the future of all of the citizens of this country.

Submitted by Crazy Politico (not verified) on Sun, 10/05/2008 – 20:10.

If Gov. Palin isn’t qualified to “POSSIBLY” become president, then what of Barack Obama?

What exactly is his qualification for the job? A couple of non-descript years in the Senate with no major legislation to show for that time? A history of voting “Here” on controversial issues so as to keep a rather neutral record when running for the next higher office?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/05/2008 – 14:49.

Does she have enough political experience for the position of president? I would say not….. but then again, there’s nothing like a long run of a president that can’t even string a sentence together in English to remind you that you don’t really need much skill for the job. It’s whose behind the president that counts no?

Submitted by Thoughtful_Independent (not verified) on Sun, 10/05/2008 – 11:49.

I’m a registered independent. I was waiting for the VP picks to be made before making my mind up. VP’s Gore and Cheney have both illustrated the growing importance of the VP position in the Executive Branch. The magnitude of the nations and worlds problems highlight the fact that the top two elected officials in the US need to have a wide range of capabilities., strong intellect, and global perspective. At minimum, the President needs a knowledgeable confidant and advisor he/she can trust.

For all of her folksy charm, Governor Palin displays very little of these qualities or qualifications. If you take the time to investigate the educational and professional accomplishments of our sitting VP’s over the past 50 years, even the most biased observer would conclude that Governor Palin would be the least educated and least experienced. If you don’t have the time to look at all of them, just compare her against Dan Quayle who was arguably the weakest of the sitting VP’s. Quayle’s accomplishments at the time he was selected as Bush’s running mate dwarf Palin’s.

Upon inspection, the rabid and exaggerated claims about her energy expertise and executive experience vaporize (the claims of foreign policy experience are not even a valid topic). Living in an oil rich state, shuffling petrodollars from the oil companies to the citizens in the form of dividends, “negotiating” potential terms of a yet unplanned and unfunded natural gas pipeline, and a college degree in journalism do not qualify one as an energy expert.

Furthermore, the role of Governor of Alaska is diminished in complexity compared to the Governors of the lower 48 due to factors such as: 1) very small population (the whole state has a population smaller than typical medium sized US cities), 2) the largest Alaskan cities are smaller than many small ciities or large towns in the lower 48 (Anchorage = ~280K, Fairbanks = ~35K, Juneau = ~35K), 3) low industrial output (Alaska is ranked near the bottom compared to the other 50 states), and 4) a budget which is majority funded by revenues from oil and gas companies. The hardest problem of the Alaskan governor appears to be deciding how much money to send from the Permanent Fund to the citizens versus how much to stash away for a future time when oil revenues begin declining.

I find the argument that Palin has more “executive experience” than McCain, Obama or Biden to be disingenuous. If executive experience is really so important, Mitt Romney should be the Republican candidate for President or, at minimum, the VP candidate. While I was not a huge fan of Mr. Romney, his skillset is so superior to Palin’s that comparisons are impossible. The same can be said with respect to experience in matters of the economy. Ironically, Mr. Romney’s biggest shortcoming appeared to be that he was a Washington outsider. Now being from our most remote state is a strength for Palin?

My perspective is that the most successful Presidents of the last 50 years (for arguments sake Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton) were able to balance their core idealogical positions with advocacy for programs and policies that improved the situation for the majority of US citizens and improved our stature in the global community. Each of these Presidents had well educated and highly skilled running mates. As an Independent who holds a blend of conservative and liberal positions, this mix is what I am weighing the most. My assessment is that Obama/Biden have a better overall leadership/intelligence/world view profile than McCain/Palin. McCain could have selected a male or female running mate who would have tilted my assessment in his favor. Unfortunately, for reasons only he and his advisors can comprehend, he went with a female ideologue with weak academic, intellectual and professional skills.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/05/2008 – 06:15.

@ CanIGet2NewZealand

What does it take to satisfy people like you?
or… is this a display of jealousy ? Ms Palin does make a rather impressive appearance on a simple ‘ride in from the Wilds of Alaska’.
Instead of complimenting a person on a job well done you prefer to show the “cat fight” attitude.
What has Obama more than Palin?

If Obama had been a white boy from Illinois, would he have received the nomination of the Dem Party? If your answer is NO _ then you must vote for Palin for she rode in on her own merits not on her skin color!

Submitted by REB 84 (not verified) on Sun, 10/05/2008 – 00:35.

Would John McCain be a competent president? This is a question you should be asking.
QuestionItNow – Will America lead?

Submitted by CanIGet2NewZealand (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 19:28.

Palin has been governor of a state with the population of Poughkeepsie, New York .

The State of Alaska, despite its conservative appearance has been giving out money to its citizens from its oil dividens (Alaska Permanent Fund) (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2003/sharing_alaska_style) since the 1970′s. The money Palin boasts about giving her citizens is money of this sort, the citizens of Alaska have been receiving these payments for almost 40 years. How can she use these payments as part of a discussion of her fiscal capabilities as Governor?

Governor Palin impresses me as being a cross between a Barbie Doll and that really annoying head cheerleader that the intelligent girls all could not stand in highschool.

Submitted by FranklinB (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 16:52.

I have been publishing my thoughts on this matter for awhile now regarding the selection of Sarah Palin for VP. I gave my views on her initial selection here:

Did John McCain have good judgement?
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-72657

Sarah Palin is not my Vice President
http://digitalseller.tblog.com/post/1970016179

Sarah Palin is just another pretty face
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-86323

McCain will have to pick a new VP
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-94699

VP Debate was great, for Biden and Obama
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-102625

Overall I agree that McCain is kind of a maverick, but also he is a big gambler. Instead of picking one of the most qualified in the arena, he went outside to a relatively unknown woman who he knew could energize the base. That has happened, but with such obvious liabilities that only a pure conservative will think she is qualified, because pure conservatives don’t care who is in that position as long as that person is republican, conservative and can walk & talk. Hannity has said publicly that he believes she would be qualified to fill the top job, and so did Limbaugh as well. I got yelled at the other day by one of my very oldest and best friends who couldn’t believe I didn’t think she was for real. That was before the Couric interview. Now after the debate I know I have made the right choice with Obama and Biden. The financial collapse is bad enough, but if there was a President Palin someday, it could be an even worse disaster for our country.

Obama and Biden are consistant in their positions on the Iraq war and other matters regarding the need to help the middle class. I believe McCain has no interest in the working class folks in this country, and even if Palin does have that interest, she is not knowledgeable enough to make any difference. JMHO

Submitted by Shelly Roberts (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 14:04.

Sarah Pallin is an embarrassment to the Republican Party, who may well be qualified to run for PTA vice president, but hardly for the heart-beat-away position of Vice President of the United States.

In the debate with Sen. Bieden Palin spoke repeatedly an d stiltedly from obviousy drilled-in talking points rather than from any appropriate knowledge. With a wooden, albeit cheerful presentation worthy of earning her the title of Best Stepford Candidate.

Palin’s presentation was a constant one-note, praise-singing golly/gee campaign advertiisement for John McCain, and did litttle if anything to present any viable credentials as a candidate for the high office into which she has been so thoughtlessly thrust.

I’d pity her for the position for which she has been recruited if the holder of that position didn’t stand such a strong chance of becoming the leader of the free world with a 79 year old unhealthy running mate –shudder– a horrifying thought.

It shouldn’t be enough merely that she didn’t panic, screw up or cry to qualify her as even a contender in the so-called debate. I have some issues with Mr. Bidden as well, but at least he came across as someone who has done more than simply look west and north in the direction of the former Soviet Union, and self-pronounce a competency in foreign affairs. That’s way too much like watching Animal Planet and proclaiming veterinary competence with elephants.

Did Sarah win the debate? She wasn’t ever even qualified to enter the race.

Is she qualified to be President regardless of the state of John McCain’s health? You’re kidding, right?!

Submitted by Skillet Marimba (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 11:27.

The G.O.P. targets DUMMYS but DUMMYS are finally starting to wake up. Dummy be gone.

Submitted by Patrick Pearce (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 09:33.

Let me first establish that I am not hopping on any band waggon here to vilify or demonize Sarah Palin because she is a woman. My argument is limited to choice. Based on both Vice Presidential Candidates, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden of the Republican and Democratic Party respectively, should one of these men (Whether Obama or McCain) died or become incapacitated as President of the United States, and constitutionally the Vice President is next in line to assume the presidency, I unequivocally would trust the experience of Joe Biden to lead this great Nation over Sarah Palin. I am sure I share the same views as most sensible Americans. I used to hear that John McCain was a stubborn man, I am now convinced. There are so many more experience and viable Republicans out there to be VP, why did he chose Sarah Palin? If only some of these potentially great men would listen to somebody instead of arrogating to themselves because of ego, they would be such great leaders. Obama-Biden victory in November, hands down! See my recent post at: http://legalconsulting.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/obama-biden-a-winning-ti…

Submitted by thescoundrel (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 09:21.

I tend to disbelieve anything that comes out of any politicians mouth. Politicians are liars& cheats. While they are kissing your baby they are picking your pocket at the same time. The President’s Job is limited. The Congress is where most of the power in this country lies. They make legislation, they pass legislation and even if the President vetoes that legislation, they have the power to override it. A relative rookie politician, Palin, actually has more executive experience than McCain, Biden or Obama. Now that is scary since she is merely a VP nominee. I would vote for her over Obama or Biden. She has a limited track track record of what Obama/Biden pretends to have without any track record to prove their claims: Palin has shown the grit to fight her own party as governor of Alaska. Obama has shown me nothing for the time he was in my state of Illinois government or once he was elected Senator. He was no more than a puppet to Emile Jones that is the strong arm thug of DEmocrat Gov. Governor Blagodabitch, the soon to be cell mate of ex Republican Gov. George Ryan. So yeah I would trust Palin much further than I would Obama leading this nation. Obama only understands Chicago and Springfield style corruption which he was a part of.

Submitted by Pat Baker (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 08:21.

To Anonymous:
I have been hollering “Double Standard” all summer”. You hit the nail on the spot. When Obama was trained by the late great Saul Alinsky & his staff to learn how to be a better community activist, take surveys, housing problems, school problems in the poor Chicago districts, Palin sneered at the his outcomings, stating all those programs arenow defunct. Her ignorance is bliss. Reason: Viet Nam war, & the 60′s riots cost us plenty At least Obama was vetted. Some pundits t laughed him. I too, was trained by Alinsky, this great Jewish community consultant for the poor back in the late 60′s. If Palin was crossed examined by a Judge/Atty she would simply say I will only answer the questions I wish to reply to. My people call it “double standard”. Thanks, Anonymous for reminding me that I don’t need on the job training vp by McCain/Palin ticket.

Submitted by joe (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 07:35.

Ihave no faith or trust in any politition, democrat or republican, they all end up shafting the middle class in the end,She will be no better or worse than the rest of the lot.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 07:26.

Why do people feel someone who has been a Senator for 2 years is more qualified to be President than in the unlikely event McCain has to be replaced by Govenor Palin??? The other thing that keeps being over looked is Nancy Pelosi has been two heartbeats away from President?? She is qualified?? Unfortunately, people are being too influenced by the media and not doing there own research. Quit using the medias opinions and form your own. Do some real research. Somethinf fun to do is go to http://abcnews.go.com/politics scroll down to the Match-o-Matic II game. It is ver interesting.

Submitted by artbcpa (not verified) on Sat, 10/04/2008 – 01:54.

In “Third Out of Four” the commentator points out that Clinton and Reagan were both Governors before becoming President. We shouldn’t forget that Jimmy Carter was also a Governor before becoming the most incompetent president in the history of the United Staetes. He also may have been among the academically brightest of all recent Presidents. What does all that tell us?. …NOTHING.

Whether Sarah Palin was a Governor or Barack Obama was at the top of his academic class does not ensure that either will or will not do a good job in their respective positions.

We need to make our decision based on factors more likely to lead to a successful Presidency. After eight years of the most secretive, nontransparent Presidency in history, we need someone who will instill trust in the institution of the Presidency and restore confidence in the people of the country.

We had several such Presidents in the prior century – Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. Each had a vision for the country which was clearly articulated and embraced by the people. In a choice between the idealistic Barack Obama and the wily curmudgeon, John McCain, Barack Obama is clearly the choice of what this country needs at this time in history.

Submitted by Pam (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 23:59.

I know that I do not want Palin. I know that I don’t want her anywhere near our foreign policy. I know that I don’t like what she said in the debate about ‘expanding’ the role of vice president. I know that I don’t like her far right, religious views that can impact the world in a bunch of ways that I don’t like.

There are other things I don’t like about her, though, I can’t say I am completely sure about my reasoning. I don’t like her winks and her nods. I don’t like how she talks to us like children.

I question my own opinion about these things, as I am not sure if I know what I want or expect in a female politician. It’s a very important thing. This first woman. This example of all of us. This person in whom I place so much of my future and that of my daughters. Hmmm, too much pressure?!?

Do I want her to be more of a man than any of the men at the table? Competing in the same way as men, but climbing the ladder in stilettos? Or do I want her to be the nurturing female that gets things done without men being any the wiser? With charm and feminine wiles that could will men to do what they might not have done, otherwise?

I thought, when considering Hillary, that I didn’t want a woman President who had a husband that is a former President. My sister then pointed out that we might not consider too many women that did not have such a sense of the White House.

It’s difficult. These women, up for consideration, don’t have military backgrounds. Yet, she would be responsible for ‘pushing the button’ and/or ending a war.

I guess, even if I did not have a problem with her foreign presence, her religious intent or her understanding of the role she was about to take on, I would still have an issue to deal with.

So, I don’t like Sarah, but, who do I like? And, the bigger question for me, why?

Submitted by FD (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 23:24.

To King of Chatalot: I’m an independant, but I voted once and the poll will not allow me to vote again.
The only way someone could vote twice is through a proxy, but I tested that idea fater reading your comment.
It didn’t work.
I tried several different proxies, I reset my ip, and nope, it would not allow me to vote again.

Take off the tin foil hat.

Submitted by King of Chatalot (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 22:11.

I find it amazing that Democrats would stoop so low as to make multiple votes in this silly poll just to bend the outcome towards their way of thinking………..so to make it appear as if they are the winners……….

…but then………considering that they will ultimately lose in November I’m not totally surprised……..

…..merely amazed………

Submitted by Media Concepts (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 21:39.

I can’t decide whether that’s hilarious, or horrifyingly frightening. I think it’s both. Based on McCain’s age alone, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin says that there’s almost a one in three chance that McCain would die in office were he to be elected. Factor in his FOUR bouts of Melanoma, which is often fatal regardless of the victim’s age, and those odds increase markedly.

Something to think about.

Submitted by Shane from PV (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 20:30.

The presidency is about leadership, and if we can survive eight years being led by an Arkansas governor who would rather molest the hired help than pay attention to what Osama Bin Laden is doing, then America will do just fine with a President Sarah Palin. She certainly has more leadership experience than her opponents. Does that mean I would have made her my choice for VP? I would have loved to see Mitt Romney as VP, but she’s smart, focused, and knows how to lead. The important question, if she should ever end up in the Oval Office, would be who she surrounds herself with. That’s another reason why Obama would be very scary as president. He has terrible judgment, and considering the people he has surrounded himself with throughout his life, and the fact that as president he will have to decide what advice to act on when it comes to important issues – I don’t trust him to be able to distinguish from among a bevy of poor advisers the advice least damaging.

Obama supporters, like so many on this comment board, have no idea who Obama really is – frankly, no one does. Obama has locked up his records, is protected by a compliant press, and says only what he thinks Americans want to hear. He’s a charlatan, but his supporters don’t care. That’s why this question is so ironic. They hate Bush/Republicans/conservatives more than they fear the inexperience of their presidential candidate and manchild Barack Obama. The derangement of the left has led them to support and oppose issues not because they want to protect their country or improve the lives of Americans, but because they hate their adversaries and will do or say anything to beat them (the “this war is lost” quote by Harry Reid comes to mind – how incredibly telling). I think this frothing derangement will cause them to self-destruct again as they did in 2000 and 2004, where Americans got a good look at the mindless bitterness and spite that inspires the left. McCain will win in a squeaker.

Submitted by Greg (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 20:24.

I’m not a big political kind of guy nor do I follow many campaigns. I voted for a democrat and a republican for president; the best person for the job always gets my vote. But this is the first time in a long time that I’ve seen an honest person make it this far in politics. Usually they get creamed by the media – Palin is still holding her own. What you see is what you get – nice change of pace especially since I’m originally from Delaware. No doubt this isn’t true for Biden – he’s all over the place telling you whatever it is you want to hear whenever you want to hear it.. I don’t dislike Biden and yes, he is qualified to continue the same old Washington politics; not what I’m looking for this year at least.

I’m still wondering why Obama thinks Biden represents change? Not even close.

Submitted by Al Barger (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 20:08.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Sarah Palin’s the sharpest person of the four here. People I think get that when they get a good look at her as in her famous nomination speech or last night’s vice presidential debate.

Of course, this ain’t from lack of media attempts to Quayle-ize her. Look at the double, triple, quadruple standards. It’s supposedly some proof that she’s a moron that she didn’t choose to spit up a list of newspapers she reads for Katie Couric.

But Joe Biden says the most ignorant nonsense day after day, and it doesn’t make the news. When the current financial meltdown started a few weeks ago, Biden was out criticizing Bush reaction. See, when the 1929 market crash happened, FDR when on television to show people that he was involved and doing something. FDR wasn’t president, and there was no television then. This nonsense didn’t make the news. Imagine if Palin said something that stupid.
=====================================
Little known Palin fact:
FACT: Having run out of ammunition during a hunting trip, Sarah Palin once took down a moose using a beauty pageant tiara as a boomerang.

More Palin fun facts I just made up, and a couple hundred pictures of our girl
http://www.morethings.com/images/sarah_palin/sarah_palin-photo_gallery00…

Submitted by Robert (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 20:00.

Joe Biden, VP (Vice and Plagiarist)

Submitted by Ethel W (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:50.

Obama has done much good thru working for ACORN. Remember, from tiny acorns, might oak trees grow.

Submitted by Mike Lanza (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:43.

Please folks – give us an example. And please, make it a good one.

If this were an election for Student Body President, I might vote for the dude, but he’s applying to be the Leader of the United States of America. Is there anything in his governmental experience that indicates that he can be a great leader? Anything?

This ain’t no popularity contest…

Submitted by Janet Johnson (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:41.

I’m tired of Sarah Palin. I’m tired of kicking her around, of waiting for her to have a public brain freeze, of hearing her droppin’ g’s and bringing nuc-u-lur back into the lexicon (I hope we’re almost finished with that coming out of the White House).

At the same time, I’m proud that she’s the second legitimate woman who’s a running mate on a presidential ticket, the first to “electrify” a country. I’m mortified as I write that, but I’m proud of that big ol’ crack in the glass ceilin’ she’s added to Hilary’s 18 million others. (sigh)

As most of your poll-takers agree, no way is she qualified to be president. God help us all if she’s a heartbeat away.

Submitted by Stevie (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:35.

Do I feel that a citizen of this country who has not kept abreast of the foreign policy situations, and the current administration doctrines is qualified to step in as head of state in an emergency? No….
Do I feel that someone who will terminate people who disagree with her is worthy to be in the White House? No…….
Do I feel that someone who feels that because she is a woman she should be treated with deference in a television interview should be leading a country? No…..
Does a cram session with various political pundits counteract her inacurate knowledge of what life is like for the rest of us in the lower 48? No……
Does this woman have the ability to gain respect of various world leaders particularly those from countries where women are considered to be less than equal? no.
what we really need is a Margaret Thatcher type.. the closest we have is Hilary Clinton.
Anita Palin is no Hilary Clinton
And being a POW and being in the Vietnam War does not make you the right person to be president either. There are plenty of Vietnam Vets and others who were POW’s .. and they aren’t running for President– though John Kerry did.. and he wasn’t a POW.. he served his country. Don’t bank on that one being the ACE..

Submitted by Ken S (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:29.

Or maybe Obama would want his friend Tony Rezko to advise him on ethics in government.

Submitted by Ken S (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:28.

Or maybe Obama would like William Ayers for his Secretary of Defense, since he knows how to blow things up.

Submitted by Ken S (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:25.

Maybe Obama can install Rev. Wright as Secretary of State. All the other nations of the world will love his philosophy: God damn America!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:23.

I think where the logic breaks down is that you’re assuming all Governor’s are created equally. An American Governor’s principal job is running the state, and to be honest, I’m not sure how good a governor she is, but thats for the people of Alaska to decide. But as an American, I feel that she’s dangerously ignorant of world affairs and issues around a global economy.

And frankly, I think we’ve had enough of that already.

On the other hand, Obama and Biden are far more savvy. If you watched the debate, you’ll have noticed how rarely Palin answers a direct question. She’s not dumb, but she’s not worldly either. And worse, she revels in her inexperience.

If she ever gets into the Presidential office, you might just wish for the good ol days when GW was in charge. And if that doesn’t scare you, it should.

Submitted by Ken S (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:21.

Don’t you love it when a public relations man calls people degrading, hateful names?

Submitted by Dan Keeney, APR (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:16.

You and your swill slinging dopes really should stop. Aside from Billy Bobs missing teeth with Confederate Flags in their pickups, Americans understand that Senator Obama is as American as you or I.

Submitted by Ken S (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:15.

Someone commented on here that we live in a Global society and therefore need Obama. Folks, this world is getting so screwy and dangerous, that is exactly why we do NOT need a post-modern green horn such as Obama as POTUS. All the pie in the sky he professes is absolutely meaningless without solid, tough, and REAL national security. Somehow, grandiose social programs lose their luster when you have a nuclear missile up your ass.

Submitted by Jason Preston (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:12.

Palin took five tries and five years to get a journalism degree at undistinguished schools, and managed to be an undistinguished student at all four schools involved in her quest for a chance to be a TV reporter. Obama was at the top of his class at every step of his collegiate journey. When pressed three times to answer, Palin cannot name a single existing newspaper or news magazine that she reads. If you can’t see the difference here, perhaps you’re not an ideal student or intellect either, but only through pride does a person lacking in a certain virtue seek to exalt that lack. Just because I’m not tall enough to slam dunk doesn’t mean I push for the NBA to hire more short people! The Presidency’s the hardest job in the world, or one of them. Stellar intellect, stellar ethics, and stellar success in life should all be ironclad prerequisites to the job. If Palin is qualified to be President, I am twice as qualified and will expect Palin fans’ votes when I make my run for high office.

Submitted by Cowboy X (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:10.

Who is qualified to be the President? There is no class to take to become certified. We have to put our trust in a person. I wish that person were Ron Paul!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 19:00.

So 75% believe Palin cant be president in case something happens to McCain. So I guess its OK to be an inexperienced presidential candidate, but if your a vice presidential candidate who has actually run a state, you don’t qualify. The logic here escapes me completely.

Submitted by John Schuller (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 18:50.

CLICK ON MY NAME TO SIGN THIS PETITION

To: CBS News

Sarah Palin herself has requested to speak to America without the Media Filter in the Vice Presidential debate. ?I like being able to answer tough questions without the filter of the mainstream media telling the American people what they just heard,? she said in her closing.

The people of the United States of America deserve to see the CBS Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin in their entirety.

This should be acceptable by Republicans and Democrats as it will let Sarah Palin talk to America without the filter created by editing and leaving important information on the cutting room floor.

Let us see an edition of “Sarah Palin: Unfiltered”.

This will allow Americans to see the real Sarah Palin.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Submitted by newyorkmoments (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 18:49.

regardless of the VP candidates…are we really going to vote in a Hussein???? Seriously?? I’m saddened that I’m not going to be able to vote Democrat this election.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 18:43.

I sent John McCain a $1000 in September 2007…when his campaign was flailing. I believed his voice needed to be in the debate. Until Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech I did not send a penny to any other candidate.

I was so outraged by the poor judgment demonstrated by McCain — there were thousands, if not tens of thousands, of more capable, competent men and women who could serve as his VP. I promptly sent a large contribution to Obama. And with every solicitation letter I receive from John McCain (they arrive daily), I write to ask for my money back.

Whether “Joe six-pack” likes it or not…we live in a Global Society, not an igloo nation. We already had Joe-six pack from President for the last 8 years. Doesn’t any one remember – “George W. Bush is the guy I want to have at my BBQ”???…Well – we got him– only we got bbq’d.

Submitted by Eric (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 18:35.

Would it be so much to ask for a Presidential nominee who actually had some experience?

Submitted by Ian Thomas (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 18:32.

…for a VP nominee who actually had some experience *before* she takes office?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 18:30.

Stack rank all four candidates — Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin — in terms of experience, and she comes out 3rd out of 4. Obama is last.

Stack rank all four candidates in terms of executive experience — meaning, ‘has the candidate ever managed a budget before, had headcount before, and had to make decisions as opposed to provide advice’ — and she incredibly comes out first amongst the four, as she’s been both governor and mayor.

Being the governor of a state was good enough for Clinton, good enough for Romney, and good enough for Reagan.

Those who attack her experience must feel terrible that Obama is the leading candidate for the Dem’s, given his extraordinarily thin resume.

Submitted by Mike Lanza (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 18:29.

Be honest, folks. In his career in *government*, not running a campaign, has he ever demonstrated outstanding leadership or executive skills? Sarah certainly has, but her experience may nonetheless be too light.

Barack Obama has the least leadership or executive skills of *any* of the major candidates for president or vice president.

Submitted by Dan Keeney, APR (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 18:21.

I’m not a Sarah fan, but she has a solid foundation — an ability to connect with men and women, powerfully deliver her messages and ramp up quickly on complex subjects. The actuaries estimate that there is a 75% chance that Mr. McCain would survive a first term. Presumably, the chances of him passing in the first YEAR would be very small. So the real question would be — If Sarah Palin had at least a year as Vice President under her belt, would she be competent to be President if John McCain were to be incapacitated? I don’t have any doubt that she would. I will not be voting for the GOP ticket, but the fear mongering about Ms. Palin’s ability is baseless and perhaps sexist.

Submitted by The Sensible J. (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 18:01.

To Pat Baker,
Actually, she has NOT been governor for a few years. She has been a governor since 2007, she won the election at the END of 2006. So, not even 2 years yet.

Submitted by The Sensible J. (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:58.

When a lot of people say she was put in the VP nominee ticket because she would shake things up for the Republican party, that’s scary. Why was that the first and foremost reason why she was picked?!

We are not running a popularity contest here for god’s sake. We need a leader, a WORLD LEADER that will get American back into the respectful country it is amongst other nations in this world. Not a PTA mom who claims she can juggle 5 kids when in fact her nanny, chef, driver/pilot, gardener and 20 other staffers take care of the Mom role for her. I’m all for the “women can do the same if not better job than men” ideal, but come on, she isn’t even up to par on her events and history. When you can only make punch points and be a talking head, that is NOT a leader. She can’t even name ONE supreme court decision other than Row vs. Wade. And being able to see Russia from Alaska does not qualify as foreign experience. We do not need and DO NOT want an average Joe or Jane to be our president or vice president.

It is scary when our (by that I mean the republicans) expectations have sunk so low.

And it’s even more scary when people are voting for republican SIMPLY because she’s pro-life, even for those women who were victims of rape or incest would NOT get a choice. That alone, to me, is hugely undermining the equality so many women have worked so hard for so many years.

Submitted by Don S (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:54.

Maybe the most appropriate question is . . . if Barack Obama is elected president, whether or not John McCain dies, is he qualified to lead the country?

Being a governor is a proven road to the White House. Alaska is a strategic state. Let’s see: Clinton was from Arkansas — even less strategic, Carter from Georgia and Reagan from California . . . Bush from Texas . . . oh, sure, I saw a post on the Huffington Post this week that said “Bush is intellectually challenged.” Of course, there was no evidence to support the claim.

Obama is currently more likely to become president than Sarah Palin and that’s something that should concern all clear-thinking Americans.

Submitted by Jerome Schindler (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:53.

How could she possibly be any worse that what we have been subjected to recently. I am sure Harry Truman’s skills woudl also have been panned. McCain ought to be a good choice as nobody has been sure what party he belongs to for many years.

Submitted by Bill Platt (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:45.

Deluded? Although she has as much or more experience than Obama, you are willing to suggest that my delusion is that she could not be President, but Obama can be?

The only delusion is that Obama’s experience is greater than hers.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:31.

Palin is absolutely not qualified – anyone who thinks so is deluded.

Submitted by Chemosapien = Idiot (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:29.

The point was she won’t take no crap.

Submitted by Chemosapien = Idiot (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:27.

Too bad they don’t have a minimum test for people to take in order to qualify for the job.

Then James they should do the same before becoming parents. Maybe then we won’t have so many libetards. Bunch of whiners don’t know a good thing when it slaps them upside the head.

Submitted by Gerald (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:26.

As a Vietnam veteran I can assure you that sad fact by itself (yeah, we lost a war we had no business being in) does not qualify anyone to be President. While I respect McCain’s service to his country McCain himself has admitted that he collaborated with the enemy and signed documents condemning America’s.bombing of Hanoi as being war crimes.

As at the time we were carpet bombing a densely populated Hanoi with low level B-52 bombing runs, the North Vietnamese perhaps had a point that a stressed out and in terrible pain McCain decided to agree with.

Not that I blame him. Fortunately, my POW camp experience was limited to a combat training exercise at Camp Lejeune, N.C. It was only for a very long day but that was enough to make brave grown men trained for combat by battle hardened US Marines cry out in pain. McCain’s experience had to be horrible and I’m sure that the scars, mental and physical, must still be with him.

However, I wasn’t referring to McCain other than his grandstanding poor judgement in selecting Governor Palin as his running mate. Sarah may be a swell gal, certainly her down home nature appeals to a lot of down home people across America, but please, qualified to perhaps have to step into the President’s role?

She is a little league player suddenly thrown into the major leagues. I admire her spunk but fear her aggressive claim that she is ready to serve when she can’t even handle soft ball interviews. Who wants a President just like an average Joe? In case you haven’t noticed there are very complicated problems that America faces that will require outstanding leadership to solve.

I’m not a big Obama fan either but at least the man has first class intelligence and a first class temperament. He doesn’t tend to shoot from the hip or fire, ready, aim like old fighter pilots are apt to do. Palin was a choice designed to fire up the Republican Party’s conservative base and in that the move was successful. But at what risk to the country if McCain and Palin are elected?

With the odds being about one in four that a 72 year old cancer survivor would not make it another four years a President Palin is a frightening possibility.

That’s putting country first? Please! Give me a break.

Submitted by Chemosapien = Idiot (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:24.

ldaught2

AHEM ! ! !

Submitted by ldaught2 (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:16.

//Until then, keep reading all the world’s magazines and Newspapers. They actually can teach you a lot.//

Are you kidding?? what can a bias newspaper and magazine teach?? (and that would be all of them)That is the most idiot statement I have read!

To answer the question…Could Palin be President?…yes yes and yes….The other 3 on the ticket was in the senate and HELPED drive America where we are today! I dont care if Palin comes from a goat farm, she could do better than this stinkin government!!

Submitted by Ken S (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:15.

Lady Coveted….another woman that feels threatened by good looking successful women.

Submitted by Ken S (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:14.

James flew in from that alternate universe that Joe Biden lives in. Maybe the Missouri Truth Squad can help him.

Submitted by lady coveted (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:14.

being as putin’s no longer president of russia.

dmitri medvedev succeeded putin back in march, she’s so out of touch she’d probably miss that point too.

Submitted by James (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 17:08.

She’s competent all right. Competent enough to ban books at the public library, books she has never even read. Competent enough to try to fire a librarian who was just doing her job, Competent enough to veto sex education for minors, (surprise there huh?), competent enough to fire the head of the troopers who refused to fire her ex-brother in law for unjustifiable reasons.

No wonder repugs love her so much, she’ll fit right in..*L*

At least Obama went through a process and garnered enough votes to earn the right to be where he is today. Palin was handed the position because McCain needed a quick fix and liked the way she looked and talked.

Was she the most qualified and best suited republican for the job? Of course not and people are not being genuine if they say yes. For that reason McCain should and will lose this election.

Too bad they don’t have a minimum test for people to take in order to qualify for the job.

Submitted by Chemosapien = Idiot (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:54.

Palin would shove her pretty heels up Putin’s ass. Then make him beg for more.

Submitted by Ken S (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:52.

Yes. She would do a great job, because she has intelligence coupled with common sense, grit, and good solid values. Would to God that this country had had dozens of Presidents like her instead of some of the buffoons we’ve suffered through.

Submitted by Chemosapien = Idiot (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:52.

No he’ll bring them in from the hood.

Submitted by chemosapien (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:50.

is not the kind of Hunter i respect…..and margaret Thatcher is on her way over their to whoop your ass for comparing her to Palin….Thatcher was one of the most intelligent and tough politicians in modern times….Palin doesn’t have a college education and she can’t even stand up to KATIE M*^#ATHERF%*#KING COURIC….stop comparing her to Thatcher

Submitted by Matt Sanchez (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:49.

Obama will have the flag stomper and terrorist, Dick Ayres and the God D@*$ America Reverend Wright. Both these gentlemen have doctorates!

Submitted by chemosapien (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:46.

it is very important who the president brings into their admin…..I’m certain Obama isn’t going to fill his cabinet from his high school yearbook like little miss Palin

Submitted by Matt Sanchez (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:46.

A one-term governor who is the most popular governor in the country.

Of course, that’s one more term than former “community organizer” and one-term senator.

Submitted by Robert (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:46.

Obviously you haven’t seen Sarah Palin in the real world, she hunts guts and eats things that get in her way, I would imagine you are the type of idiot that thought Margaret Thatcher was a bad choice too….Russia would beg for forgiveness from Palin and Putin would be licking Sarah’s boots in red square….

Moron.

Submitted by Chris Meirose (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:45.

More competent than Al Gore. More competent than Dick Cheney. More competent than Dan Quayle. Palin would do just fine. Being president is as much or more about who you have around you than anything else. You must be able to make tough decisions, and know what you believe in, but at the end of the day the experts you surround yourself with as President will make or break your term in the modern context.

Submitted by chemosapien (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:43.

russia calls us a bunch of homos, and Putin slams his shoe on the desk? ……if Palin were president Putin would literally rape her mouth on live telivision then claim he thought she was the “entertainment”

Submitted by Robert (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:42.

The answer is YES, she has run something, SHE has more experience RUNNING a government than ANY of the candidates… So yes she is Qualified.

Obama isn’t qualified to be elected dog catcher, McCain at least has the experience in dealing with hostile forces, and for you libtards there still are hostile forces at work oh and they are hoping for Obama too…

Submitted by Margaret (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:41.

I didn’t say NO degree. I said not an “Ivy League Degree”. I was just giving my opinion – “If John McCain died or became incapacitated, would Sarah Palin be competent to be President?” My answer is yes.

Submitted by Matt Jones (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:40.

Clinton’s budget experience was a budget of Arkansas which was smaller than cuyahoga county. Obama has ZERO budget experience. She can manage a budget. She communicates and articulates the GOP positions more effectively than McCain, Bush, Cheney and Dole to name some powerful people.

go to Canada you commie bastages!

Submitted by Robert (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:39.

and an Obama/Biden victory will make us look like a bunch of pansies…I would love for you to explain how a war veteran that went through what McCain did would cause the world to look at us as a laughing stock? Mrs Thatcher was looked at a little off by the owrkd but she did fine? is it you are scared of women or hunting women?

Palin is the only candidate in the race I would vote for president and be happy about it. I will vote McCain just to get Sarah Palin closer to the Big Job.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:35.

The US is going to hell because McCain’s buddy George Bush set us on that course. 4 more years of that?

BTW, the question was if McCain kicks, is Palin qualified? And the answer is no.

Instead of attacking Obama, how about telling why you think Palin is qualified? Is it because even you know she isn’t? Typical Republican.

Submitted by Matt Sanchez (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:35.

All those “economic experts” have great post-grad degrees from high end schools. Hopefully, that will help them as they look for a new job.

Submitted by Gerald (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:34.

Palin makes a big deal about her “six pack joe” ways and seems to be proud of her ignorance. We have had almost eight years of a largely disinterested in the world at large President and see where that has taken us. American is on a slippery downward slope and it will be difficult to avoid a hard crash and burn landing.

I for one don’t want someone as VP, who may well end up being President, who is just another six pack Joe yahoo. America is the laughing stock of the world just to have such a yahoo candidate.

If McCain and Palin are somehow elected American’s standing in the world as a world leader, much less a super power, will be further reduced to the vanishing point. We would be looked upon as a nation of village idiots.

It’s not that I love Obama. Come to think of it with the choice down to Obama or McCain perhaps we American have found the perfect means to self destruct. The support given by McCain and Obama for the $700 billion bailout bill (before another $100 billion or so in pure pork was added) is another giant step in that direction.

Submitted by Robert (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:33.

“You idiots care more about a donkey and an elephant than you do about the stars and stripes. You get what you deserve.” The truest statement since Reagan stated the most scary thing ever was “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”

I wouldnt be so dead set against OBAMA if he were more Country first, rather than Blame everyone else… HIS party has led congress for the last 2 years and we have gone from solvency to bankruptcy and BOTH parties are to blame, ONLY one party is used to responsibility, the other is used to “Tolerance” and forgiveness of their own….

Submitted by chemosapien (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:31.

you mean like the modern day general who doesn’t have a college degree? are we suddenly recruiting presidents from third world countries? because EVERY American General has a college degree……lets not pretend we live in the world of 2 centuries ago

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:28.

Nothing like partisanship. That’s right put the party before the country. No wonder the US is going to hell in a rocketship. You idiots care more about a donkey and an elephant than you do about the stars and stripes. You get what you deserve.

Submitted by Robert (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:28.

Oh and I’m qualified because I am a black community organizer.. Don’t look at the communities I organized or anything, just trust me for CHANGE… BS, it is highway strong arm robbery, ACORN? Rev Wright? Ayers? Phlegar? Farakhan? Ok Palin has what? A couple of LIES perpetrated by the elitist media that have been debunked. Yeah Obama in 08 and the end of our nation in 09….good plan.

Submitted by Karl (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:27.

It’s ironic that if you guys had listened to Carter in the 70′s you would not be as f**cked as you are now and you would probably have energy independence.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:24.

Say what you want about Obama, he’ll make a much better President than either “I’m qualified because I can see Russia from my pooper, yah, you betcha” or “I’m qualified because I was a POW a million years ago, wait, what was the question again?”

Submitted by Matt Sanchez (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:19.

Palin Derangement Syndrome is alive and well as the media blitzkrieg is desperate to discredit the Palin/McCain presidential ticket.

Palin handily beat Biden down last night, and that causes severe swelling in the liberal frontal lobe.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:19.

So you say go back home hockey mom… Wow… your complete lack of what a hockey mom is.. basically a communtity leader…hmmm Let’s see Omaa is just that, he has not been a Governer, worked a state budger.. .his short political careeer shows less tenure that Palin. Fair is Fair , your last paragraph shows your compete ignorance,,, go read a bit yourself!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:19.

You mean like George Washington?

Submitted by Incognito (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:14.

and how about looking at it this way… with all Biden’s asinine gaffes would people be thrilled to have him as president, if Obama were to die? I’d be much happier with a Palin presidency than either an Obama or Biden presidency.

She’s done very well for Alaska…thank you very much.

Submitted by GolfBlogger (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:10.

It’s not saying much, but I think Palin’s more qualified than Obama. The problem is that if you vote Republican, an unqualified person MIGHT become president. If you vote Democrat, an unqualified person WILL become president.

The only logical ticket is Biden-McCain — one which, during the primaries, Joe Biden said he wouldn’t mind.

Submitted by chemosapien (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:09.

you would not make a good president nor would anyone who doesn’t have an University Degree…..watch that sassy little Katie Couric if you want to know why Sara Palin is completely incompetent

Submitted by CJ Grisham (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:07.

If Palin isn’t competent enough to be President, then Obama is even LESS competent to hold the position!!

Submitted by Margaret (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 16:03.

Why won’t Sara Palin be a competent President? Is there anything about Obama that makes him more intelligent than Palin? It offends me as a person to think differently. I believe she would do as well, if not better, than any other of the men or women who have made a run during this election.

I didn’t go to an ivy league college. I haven’t served as a PTO chairperson or any other office but I think I would make a darn good president. I’m excited to think that maybe we might have something fresh in the office. From Hillary to McCain it is the same old same old.

Margaret

Submitted by James (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 15:57.

While one could argue all day long about the experience factor between Obama and Palin, one can’t argue much about the difference in education. I would rather have someone educated in the highest office of the land.

Thanks, but no thanks for that sweet talkin’, well read gal from Alaska.

Don’t YA know?

Submitted by Robert (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 15:55.

I am voting for McCain/Palin for precisely that reason, I would be WAY more happy with Palin as President than I will be with McCain.
If Obama wins we ALL lose….Oh and a preemptive dismiss to those that say it’s because he is black…Its not because he is black its because he is a communist/socialist libtard baby killing gun taking no leadership other than “ACORN” type skills…. but vote how you want, I cant wait till you liberal idiots get what you want, just like after Carter, you came crying to the Conservatives to save you, Obama is a black Carter maybe worse.

Submitted by rebaaron (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 15:54.

Sarah Palin is a poser. She’s so enamored with Ronald Reagan I believe, in part, because she’s just like him – an actor. Reagan wasn’t a president as much as he was able to act like a president. The VP debates last night showed this – Palin is all show and no substance. What’s really scary is she believes that she’s capable. I think she really has no idea and is not capable of getting it. I think some call this sociopathic tendencies?!

Submitted by The Atheist Jew (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 15:53.

She proved to me that she doesn’t have an IQ of 75. It is more like 90 or 95.

Submitted by chemosapien (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 15:53.

Palin is an order of magnitude more Podunk than any national political figure in modern times. Case in point, 6 months ago, Palin said, flat out, she is not INTERESTED in national policy, as in she doesn’t have the time or will to keep up with what is going on in this country…when you use NLE as the measure Obama is far ahead of Palin, exemplified by the fact that the very first thing he did in the Senate was get a law passed to help secure “loose nukes” in the former USSR….compare that to Palin who apparently could not even pass a seventh grade civics test (doesn’t know any supreme court cases besides Roe v. Wade?)

All the PAlin supporters are the same , pardon my french, IDIOTS who supported GW because he’s a guy they can drink a beer with…..Palin sure is a regular joe…Joe Retard that is

Submitted by brad (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 15:53.

If something happened to McCain on day one would Palin be ready? No, BUT what makes you think Obama is? Lets talk about the TOP of the ticket. Give me a break!!!

Submitted by J (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 14:33.

I love how people point out how Palin’s not qualified SHOULD something happen to McCain. And what makes Barack qualified? He’s been in the Senate for 2 years? And if he is elected, he’s it. At least with McCain, we’re electing a very seasoned and proven person who has a pretty good track record for change. Obama can talk about change but he hasn’t walked it at all.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 13:32.

Source please. Media previously said superficial Basal cell.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 13:15.

He has had MELANOMA. The deadliest form of skin cancer

Submitted by rusmayse on Fri, 10/03/2008 – 00:48.

Poor Palin. I commend her on the acceptance of such a difficult position in such a tough time. It takes a really strong person to take on the role she has. And I do agree with the fact that she may “catch on quickly”. I’m just particularly concerned and unsure she has any idea what she is doing. Period.
Go back home hockey mom. Gain experience over the next 8 years. Become more involved on a national level. Listen to the cries of us people. And then please, come back again :) Until then, keep reading all the world’s magazines and Newspapers. They actually can teach you a lot.

Submitted by TomCollins2100 on Thu, 10/02/2008 – 23:33.

Are you kidding? The notion that she’s being unfairly judged as unqualified because she’s a woman is absurd. If she were a man, McCain would have been laughed out of the country for picking a first-term governor with no other applicable experience and zero national – let alone foreign policy – qualifications.

Women with any brains at all should be insulted that McCain and the Republicans think that they will vote for any woman they offer, or belive this particular woman is remotely qualified to run any country, forget about the United States.

Submitted by chemosapien (not verified) on Wed, 10/01/2008 – 16:02.

what you say is partially true, superficial skin cancers are not fatal, especially with decent healthcare, but WE DON’T KNOW THE EXTENT OF MCCAIN”S CANCER because he won’t release ALL of his medical records……don’t sit here and defend him against this criticism, when his campaign could put this completely to bed with a single phone call to his doctor.

Submitted by pat baker (not verified) on Wed, 10/01/2008 – 15:41.

I’m sick of McCain calling Obama a on the job learner, community action worker. Palin is is a affrimative action herself. Mrs Bush said she was a “quick learner” Do I need a vp who is a quick learner? She’s just a Gov for a few years, no national experience. She can’t answer straight question. These photo opts with people from the MiddleEast aren’t getting on my nerves, they are making me sick Who cares if she’s cute while my 401 K might go down the tubes!. Hillary Clinton would run rings around her. I don’t need a ” on the job VP during these troubled times..

Submitted by Omar Hamada (not verified) on Wed, 10/01/2008 – 15:33.

Enough of the cancer stuff!!! Talk about spin and/or ignorance! When’s the last time someone actually died from superficial squamous or basal cell skin cancer? Answer: NEVER. Now if it were actually melanoma or other types of invasive squamous cell cancer, then it would be a different story – BUT IT’S NOT!!!!!!

Submitted by Dave (not verified) on Wed, 10/01/2008 – 00:55.

Check out her interview with Katie Couric. She shares that she reads ALL the newspapers in the world. She must be really freakin smart. She also graduated from the University of Idaho. I mean it doesnt get much more prestigious than that. And besides, who is Biden to talk.

Submitted by Chris A (not verified) on Wed, 10/01/2008 – 00:48.

Don’t worry about Palin. If you saw her interviews, you would know that the… War in Iraq and reforms to our economy and importance in the field of green energy under the umbrella of job creation and then health care.
She knows what everyone needs…

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/01/2008 – 00:45.

uh hu …..uh hu !!!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/30/2008 – 22:59.

come on, hes only had cancer 3 times. plus, its not like hes old or anything

And, here’s an embed of the poll, if I’ve piqued your interest by now:

PinExt Sarah Palin Comment Thread Par Excellence
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2008/10/10/sarah-palin-comment-thread-par-excellence/feed/ 1 My Personal Take on the Second Presidential Debatehttp://chrisabraham.com/2008/10/09/my-personal-take-on-the-second-presidential-debate/ http://chrisabraham.com/2008/10/09/my-personal-take-on-the-second-presidential-debate/#comments Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:33:04 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/2008/10/09/my-personal-take-on-the-second-presidential-debate/

PinExt My Personal Take on the Second Presidential Debate

With regards the second presidential debate, I thought it was the same ole same ole. I thought that there was not the kind of passion that one might really feel if one were truly concerned with the economy or with America.

I thought that the dig about the Hair Transplant, with regards to Joe Biden, was cheap, and I think that John McCain’s “folksiness” comes across as very snide and mean-spirited. I am surprised how little these two guys have true passion, conviction, or the sort of fire that might make either one of them a great president.

I feel no awe at either of their existence on the stage or at all. There are, indeed, men like this. And, when Barack Obama first landed on the stage, back during the 2004 Democratic convention, I was awed.

I am afraid these two men have been so altered and watered-down over the course of this ultra-marathon of a campaign that they’re truly afraid to convey their visions for each of their presidencies with any sort of authenticity or truth. I don’t know what to say.

I was underwhelmed. All three of these debates have been draws, two presidential and one vice-presidential — and if there have been winners at all, it surely has been the result of a TKO — technical knock out.

Nobody has even really laid a finger on the other. It is truly appalling to me to see this sort of cat and mouse so close to the elections.

Would someone just take off his glove and please challenge the other to a bona fide duel already?

I really miss Bill Clinton.

PinExt My Personal Take on the Second Presidential Debate
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2008/10/09/my-personal-take-on-the-second-presidential-debate/feed/ 1 Sarah Palin is New Feminism According to Camille Pagliahttp://chrisabraham.com/2008/09/12/sarah-palin-is-a-modern-annie-oakley-according-to-camille-paglia/ http://chrisabraham.com/2008/09/12/sarah-palin-is-a-modern-annie-oakley-according-to-camille-paglia/#comments Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:01:32 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/2008/09/12/sarah-palin-is-a-modern-annie-oakley-according-to-camille-paglia/

PinExt Sarah Palin is New Feminism According to Camille Paglia

I would have never guessed that Camille Paglia would be in awe of Sara Palin or perceive her as follows, “Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.” Whoa. (Via Salon.com)

Fresh blood for the vampire

Rip tide! Is the Obama campaign shooting out to sea like a paper boat?

It’s heavy weather for Obama fans, as momentum has suddenly shifted to John McCain — that hoary, barnacle-encrusted tub that many Democrats like me had thought was full of holes and swirling to its doom in the inky depths of Republican incoherence and fratricide. Gee whilikers, the McCain vampire just won’t die! Hit him with a hammer, and he explodes like a jellyfish into a hundred hungry pieces.

Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain’s imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain’s credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain’s sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century? Cast him a statue or slap his name on a ship, and let’s turn the damned page.We need a new generation of leadership with fresh ideas and an expansive, cosmopolitan vision — which is why I support Barack Obama and have contributed to his campaign. My baby-boom generation — typified by the narcissistic Clintons — peaked in the 1960s and is seriously past it. But McCain, born before Pearl Harbor, is even older than we are! Why would anyone believe that he holds the key to the future? And why would anyone swallow that preening passel of high-flown rhetoric about “country above all” coming from a seething, short-fused character whose rampant egotism, zigzagging principles, and currying of the gullible press were the distinguishing marks of his senatorial career?

Having said that, I must admit that McCain is currently eating Obama’s lunch. McCain’s weirdly disconnected persona (beady glowers flashing to frozen grins and back again) has started to look more testosterone-rich than Obama’s easy, lanky, reflective candor. What in the world possessed the Obama campaign to let their guy wander like a dazed lamb into a snake pit of religious inquisition like Rick Warren’s public forum last month at his Saddleback Church in California? That shambles of a performance — where a surprisingly unprepared Obama met the inevitable question about abortion with shockingly curt glibness — began his alarming slide.

As I said in my last column, I have become increasingly uneasy about Obama’s efforts to sound folksy and approachable by reflexively using inner-city African-American tones and locutions, which as a native of Hawaii he acquired relatively late in his development and which are painfully wrong for the target audience of rural working-class whites that he has been trying to reach. Obama on the road and even in major interviews has been droppin’ his g’s like there’s no tomorrow. It’s analogous to the way stodgy, portly Al Gore (evidently misadvised by the women in his family and their feminist pals) tried to zap himself up on the campaign trail into the happening buff dude that he was not. Both Gore and Obama would have been better advised to pursue a calm, steady, authoritative persona. Forget the jokes — be boring! That, alas, is what reads as masculine in the U.S.

The over-the-top publicity stunt of a mega-stadium for Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic convention two weeks ago was a huge risk that worried me sick — there were too many things that could go wrong, from bad weather to crowd control to technical glitches on the overblown set. But everything went swimmingly. Obama delivered the speech nearly flawlessly — though I was shocked and disappointed by how little there was about foreign policy, a major area where wavering voters have grave doubts about him. Nevertheless, it was an extraordinary event with an overlong but strangely contemplative and spiritually uplifting finale. The music, amid the needlessly extravagant fireworks, morphed into “Star Wars” — a New Age hymn to cosmic reconciliation and peace.

After that extravaganza, marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s epochal civil rights speech on the Washington Mall, I felt calmly confident that the Obama campaign was going to roll like a gorgeous juggernaut right over the puny, fossilized McCain. The next morning, it was as if the election were already over. No need to fret about American politics anymore this year. I had already turned with relief to other matters.

Pow! Wham! The Republicans unleashed a doozy — one of the most stunning surprises that I have ever witnessed in my adult life. By lunchtime, Obama’s triumph of the night before had been wiped right off the national radar screen. In a bold move I would never have thought him capable of, McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his pick for vice president. I had heard vaguely about Palin but had never heard her speak. I nearly fell out of my chair. It was like watching a boxing match or a quarter of hard-hitting football — or one of the great light-saber duels in “Star Wars.” (Here are the two Jedi, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn, going at it with Darth Maul in “The Phantom Menace.”) This woman turned out to be a tough, scrappy fighter with a mischievous sense of humor.

Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.

In the U.S., the ultimate glass ceiling has been fiendishly complicated for women by the unique peculiarity that our president must also serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Women have risen to the top in other countries by securing the leadership of their parties and then being routinely promoted to prime minister when that party won at the polls. But a woman candidate for president of the U.S. must show a potential capacity for military affairs and decision-making. Our president also symbolically represents the entire history of the nation — a half-mystical role often filled elsewhere by a revered if politically powerless monarch.

As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women’s studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances. I have repeatedly said that the politician who came closest in my view to the persona of the first woman president was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose steady nerves in crisis were demonstrated when she came to national attention after the mayor and a gay supervisor were murdered in their City Hall offices in San Francisco. Hillary Clinton, with her schizophrenic alteration of personae, has never seemed presidential to me — and certainly not in her bland and overpraised farewell speech at the Democratic convention (which skittered from slow, pompous condescension to trademark stridency to unseemly haste).

Feinstein, with her deep knowledge of military matters, has true gravitas and knows how to shrewdly thrust and parry with pesky TV interviewers. But her style is reserved, discreet, mandarin. The gun-toting Sarah Palin is like Annie Oakley, a brash ambassador from America’s pioneer past. She immediately reminded me of the frontier women of the Western states, which first granted women the right to vote after the Civil War — long before the federal amendment guaranteeing universal woman suffrage was passed in 1919. Frontier women faced the same harsh challenges and had to tackle the same chores as men did — which is why men could regard them as equals, unlike the genteel, corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard, which fought granting women the vote right to the bitter end.

Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics — which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama’s campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don’t see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.

One reason I live in the leafy suburbs of Philadelphia and have never moved to New York or Washington is that, as a cultural analyst, I want to remain in touch with the mainstream of American life. I frequent fast-food restaurants, shop at the mall, and periodically visit Wal-Mart (its bird-seed section is nonpareil). Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones — nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days. Ambitious professionals in those cities, if they want to preserve their social networks, are very vulnerable to received opinion. At receptions and parties (which I hate), they’re sitting ducks. They have to go along to get along — poor dears!

It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin’s boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.

Perhaps Palin seemed perfectly normal to me because she resembles so many women I grew up around in the snow belt of upstate New York. For example, there were the robust and hearty farm women of Oxford, a charming village where my father taught high school when I was a child. We first lived in an apartment on the top floor of a farmhouse on a working dairy farm. Our landlady, who was as physically imposing as her husband, was an all-American version of the Italian immigrant women of my grandmother’s generation — agrarian powerhouses who could do anything and whose trumpetlike voices could pierce stone walls.

Here’s one episode. My father and his visiting brother, a dapper barber by trade, were standing outside having a smoke when a great noise came from the nearby barn. A calf had escaped. Our landlady yelled, “Stop her!” as the calf came careening at full speed toward my father and uncle, who both instinctively stepped back as the calf galloped through the mud between them. Irate, our landlady trudged past them to the upper pasture, cornered the calf, and carried that massive animal back to the barn in her arms. As she walked by my father and uncle, she exclaimed in amused disgust, “Men!”

Now that’s the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism — a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

Here’s another example of the physical fortitude and indomitable spirit that Palin as an Alaskan sportswoman seems to represent right now. Last year, Toronto’s Globe and Mail reprinted this remarkable obituary from 1905:

Abigail Becker Farmer and homemaker born in Frontenac County, Upper Canada, on March 14, 1830

A tall, handsome woman “who feared God greatly and the living or dead not at all,” she married a widower with six children and settled in a trapper’s cabin on Long Point, Lake Erie. On Nov. 23, 1854, with her husband away, she single-handedly rescued the crew of the schooner Conductor of Buffalo, which had run aground in a storm. The crew had clung to the frozen rigging all night, not daring to enter the raging surf. In the early morning, she waded chin-high into the water (she could not swim) and helped seven men reach shore. She was awarded medals for heroism and received $350 collected by the people of Buffalo, plus a handwritten letter from Queen Victoria that was accompanied by £50, all of which went toward buying a farm. She lost her husband to a storm, raised 17 children alone and died at Walsingham Centre, Ont.

Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today’s pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.

But what of Palin’s pro-life stand? Creationism taught in schools? Book banning? Gay conversions? The Iraq war as God’s plan? Zionism as a prelude to the apocalypse? We’ll see how these big issues shake out. Right now, I don’t believe much of what I read or hear about Palin in the media. To automatically assume that she is a religious fanatic who has embraced the most extreme ideas of her local church is exactly the kind of careless reasoning that has been unjustly applied to Barack Obama, whom the right wing is still trying to tar with the fulminating anti-American sermons of his longtime preacher, Jeremiah Wright.

The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.

Let’s take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.) Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women’s movement — leading to feminists’ McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton’s support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women — an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. Because pro-choice Democrats have been arguing from cold expedience, they have thus far been unable to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion.

The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences. I have written about the eerie silence that fell over campus audiences in the early 1990s when I raised this issue on my book tours. At such moments, everyone in the hall seemed to feel the uneasy conscience of feminism. Naomi Wolf later bravely tried to address this same subject but seems to have given up in the face of the resistance she encountered.

If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society’s acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life. If McCain wins the White House and then drops dead, a President Palin would have the power to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, but she could not control their rulings.

It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism — one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.

Camille Paglia’s column appears on the second Wednesday of each month. Every third column is devoted to reader letters. Please send questions for her next letters column to this mailbox. Your name and town will be published unless you request anonymity.

 

 

 

PinExt Sarah Palin is New Feminism According to Camille Paglia
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2008/09/12/sarah-palin-is-a-modern-annie-oakley-according-to-camille-paglia/feed/ 1 Is There a Danger in Brand Barack Obama?http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/13/is-there-a-danger-in-brand-barack-obama/ http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/13/is-there-a-danger-in-brand-barack-obama/#comments Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:55:58 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/13/is-there-a-danger-in-brand-barack-obama/

PinExt Is There a Danger in Brand Barack Obama?

There are so many amazing things about the Obama campaign — including incomparable media savvy. Douglas Rushkoff wrote an insightful post about “brand Obama” that I consider to be one of the reasons why I supported Hillary Clinton — turning America around from the mess left by the Bush White House is going to be a lot of really hard work:

The danger in Brand Obama is that our focus on a heroic or mythic presidency could easily distract us from the hard work and reality of creating change ourselves. “Hard working” democrats loved listening to Hilary Clinton talk about how hard she was going to work for them because it made it seem like the president is in position to stay up all night and, through the extra effort, get food on our tables or money in our bank accounts. It just doesn’t work that way, and Obama’s refusal to, say, cut gas taxes over the summer to cater to this mentality speaks volumes.

Via Douglas Rushkoff

PinExt Is There a Danger in Brand Barack Obama?
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2008/07/13/is-there-a-danger-in-brand-barack-obama/feed/ 0 Denis Hayes on Tackling Climate Changehttp://chrisabraham.com/2008/06/10/denis-hayes-on-tackling-climate-change/ http://chrisabraham.com/2008/06/10/denis-hayes-on-tackling-climate-change/#comments Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:07:06 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/2008/06/10/denis-hayes-on-tackling-climate-change/

PinExt Denis Hayes on Tackling Climate Change

Lisa Hayes popped me an article by Denis Hayes, a man who suspiciously seems related to Lisa, “Fantastic new article by Denis Hayes about energy policy — please feel free to share far and wide!” Well, I am the biggest fan of Lisa and so here we go — my attempt to share this article a wee little further and wider: Climate Solutions: Charting a Bold Course A cap-and-trade system is not the answer, according to a leading alternative-energy advocate. To really tackle climate change, the U.S. must revolutionize its entire energy strategy.

Opinion: Climate Solutions: Charting a Bold Course

A cap-and-trade system is not the answer, according to a leading alternative-energy advocate. To really tackle climate change, the U.S. must revolutionize its entire energy strategy.

by Denis Hayes

More than 30 years ago, President Jimmy Carter called for a daring transition to a new energy future, an effort he likened to “the moral equivalent of war.” But the hard truth is that the United States is in far worse shape in the energy realm today than it was when Carter left office.

Since 1981, annual greenhouse gas emissions have grown from 4.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to 5.9 billion metric tons. America imported 1.6 billion barrels of oil in 1981; by 2007 imports had ballooned to 3.7 billion barrels. Today, oil prices have surged past $130 per barrel, and the best evidence suggests that total global oil production is at or nearing its peak. Under President Carter, America dominated the world in renewable energy research, development, and commercialization, but in the ensuing decades our federal government has thrown away that lead.

With the economy now staggering from its addiction to oil, and with evidence of global warming having persuaded all but the knuckle-draggers, is America at last getting serious about freeing itself from carbon fuels?

Actually, no. Most environmentally sensitive politicians and even many national green groups are remarkably blithe that the Lieberman-Warner bill — a 500-page cap-and-trade law filled with more holes than a Madonna dance outfit — will take us there.

The tragedy is that we still have a chance to solve the global warming crisis, but we are blowing it by chasing false hopes in the form of an inadequate cap-and-trade bill.

Acting fast enough and on a large enough scale to avoid unthinkable climate consequences will require a more ambitious effort than the New Deal, the Interstate Highway System, and the Manhattan Project, all rolled into one. Serious efforts to stabilize the world’s climate will have dramatic consequences for industry, transportation, architecture, agriculture, leisure, and consumerism, and so, many of these changes will be fought tooth and nail — as was evident last week when Republican Senators attacked and derailed the Lieberman-Warner bill, forcing Democratic leaders to place the initiative on hold until a new president takes office.

The truth is that all our largest current energy sources will need to be replaced by new sources — over the ferocious opposition of the powerful companies that market them.

The story of how we got into this crunch is a tale of political opportunism and shortsightedness. For had America continued on the course we’d embarked upon in the mid-1970s, the task ahead would now be much less expensive, much less painful, and much more certain of success.

In 1979, after the Arab oil embargo, Carter announced that by the year 2000 America was to get at least one-fifth of all its energy from renewable sources — mainly solar energy, wind, and biofuels. The Solar Energy Research Institute, which I then served as director, was at the heart of this effort. Leading a team of scientists and analysts drawn from national labs and major universities, SERI prepared the detailed technical and policy blueprint to meet or surpass the 20 percent goal.

In 1981, halfway through his first year in office, President Ronald Reagan abandoned the 20 percent goal, reduced SERI’s $125 million budget by $100 million, and installed a dentist named Jim Edwards as Secretary of Energy. To demonstrate his contempt for the notion of alternative energy, Reagan ordered the solar water heaters ripped off the White House roof. We’ve never recovered.

The successive administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, bobbing along on a sea of cheap oil, did little to shift America’s economy to renewable energy sources. And for the past seven years, the United States has been led by a president who projects such a breathtaking marriage of arrogance and incompetence that his refusal to even acknowledge the reality of climate change has not generally been considered one of his more glaring flaws.

As climate science has grown increasingly clear, many corporate CEOs have become convinced that global warming has a human signature. The brightest CEOs of Fortune 100 companies realized that once the Democrats took back control of Congress, it would be only a matter of time before climate legislation was enacted. The next president, whoever it is, will demand action. These CEOs all wanted to be at the table — in Washington, if you aren’t at the table, you’re likely to wind up on the menu.

Environmental groups soon found themselves being courted by business leaders who recognized that the climate threat would require a serious national response. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and other alliances that offered benefits for environmentalists but also entailed subtle costs. The most obvious benefit was that environmental leaders are taken more seriously on Capitol Hill when they arrive linking arms with the CEOs of General Electric, Caterpillar, DuPont, and General Motors.

The cost was the natural downside of consensus building: Policies cannot significantly harm the core interests of any of the participants. When the participants include the world’s largest automobile company, the largest manufacturer of jet engines, the largest maker of mining equipment for coal and bituminous sands, etc., this is not an insignificant cost.

What emerged from this unexpected alliance was a consensus that the centerpiece of climate policy should be a cap on CO2, generally applied as close to the point of emission as realistically possible. Additionally, there was widespread agreement that (a) between 25 percent and 80 percent of all emissions permits should be given away to major emitters for a transitional period; (b) the law should provide ample “offsets” available for purchase by companies failing to meet reduction targets; and (c) “safety valves” should permit relaxed enforcement in case greenhouse gas reductions cause temporary economic hardship.

Unfortunately, these are genuinely terrible ideas. They are not bad because they lack ambition; rather, they are bad because they move boldly in the wrong direction. They don’t merely ignore the way that the global economy responds to real-world policies; they ignore everything we have learned about human nature since Rousseau’s belief in humanity’s innate goodness crashed on the shoals of 18th-century reality.

So what should a serious energy and climate policy look like?

Carbon Must be Capped Where It Enters the Economy, Not Where It Leaves It

The backbone of any comprehensive policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions must cap carbon at the places — coal mines, oil fields, pipelines, ports — where it enters the economy. Instead, at the behest of corporate behemoths and their green enablers, our political leaders are focusing most of their attention on smokestacks, and when that is obviously impossible (e.g. with gasoline or propane) on refiners or distributors. They want to cap CO2 where it enters the atmosphere — an approach that is guaranteed to fail because there are far too many point sources.

Europe has already attempted a cap-and-trade program, and it belly-flopped. Senators Warner and Lieberman, who should be applauded for at least acknowledging that global warming is a problem, failed to absorb some important lessons from Europe, including:

  • The most important part of cap-and-trade is the “cap.” Any successful law must place an impermeable lid on the amount of carbon that enters the atmosphere. To whatever extent additional trees or windmills are used to “offset” additional carbon-based fuels, the exercise is self-defeating.
  • In contrast to regulating a sea of smokestacks, the best course is to require carbon permits at the 2,000 sources where carbon enters the economy. It would be simple, straightforward, and impossible to “game.” It is vastly more effective than trying to police carbon dioxide wherever carbon is burned. In setting the number of carbon permits issued — and thus determining how much coal, oil, and gas can enter the economy — the government would be setting an absolute, easily-enforced cap on emissions.
  • All carbon permits should be auctioned — not given away. In Europe, permits were given away to large carbon users to ease their transition to the new regime. Major polluters made cheap improvements, lowered their emissions, and sold their unneeded permits. This gave windfalls to the worst polluters, penalized companies that had already invested in efficient new factories and renewable energy, and helped guarantee that Europe would miss its Kyoto targets.Auctioning 100 percent of all carbon permits is fair and transparent; it eliminates backroom special-interest pleadings. By reducing the number of permits auctioned each year, the government can guarantee that its emissions targets are met.

Use Auction Revenues Intelligently

The most vital use for most of the revenues would be to serve such climate-related public purposes as building the infrastructure needed for a national “smart grid” for electricity and for high-speed electrified railroads, assuring large federal markets for the sunrise industries of the post-carbon economy, and finding ways to accelerate the solution of the climate problem through huge boosts in federal support for basic research. However, a portion of the revenues should compensate for the regressive nature of what is effectively a carbon tax, perhaps by using them to meet the shortfalls facing Medicare and Social Security and helping to underwrite training for green-collar jobs.

Promote Renewable Energy

Government has a long tradition of helping sunrise industries supplant their well-entrenched predecessors. Canals were encouraged as more efficient than horses. Railroads were viewed as a way to open the west. The interstate highway system replaced many of the functions performed by railroads.

Some renewable energy sources would benefit greatly from a focused, long-term federal commitment to R&D. Others are already poised to ride learning curves to lower prices through economies of mass production — but require guaranteed markets to elicit the necessary investment. (Computer chips went from being high-priced luxuries to cheap-as-dirt commodities only because the Air Force and NASA bought them in bulk until their prices fell to a level where the private market took over.)

The federal government should be buying photovoltaic devices in bulk and installing them on all federal buildings, military bases, and the backs of billboards, and pouring the power into the grid. The goal should be to grow the market in a rapid yet predictable way linked to constantly lower prices. The start-and-stop unpredictability of renewable energy tax credits over the last 30 years has severely undermined the wind and solar industries, and placed American companies at a huge disadvantage with foreign competitors. As recently as 1998, America was the world’s largest manufacturer of solar photovoltaics — a technology that was invented here. But Japan, with a long-term strategy, sped past the U.S. the following year. A few years later, led by Germany, much of Europe implemented tariffs that vaulted the solar field into hyperdrive. If current trends continue, annual global photovoltaic production by 2011 will be a stunning 30 gigawatts, of which the U.S. will contribute perhaps 4 percent.

Construct a Resilient Nationwide Smart Grid to Take Power from Anywhere to Anywhere

The arguments for a national smart grid are legion; the arguments against it don’t hold water. Many carbon-neutral renewable energy sources are intermittent or diurnal, and the best locations both for sources (sunlight, wind, geothermal) and for storage are widely dispersed. We need to be able to knit the nation together. Only the government can assemble the corridor rights to make such a development possible.

Get Serious about Automobile Mileage

In World War II — without Representative John Dingell Jr. to protect it from reality — Detroit was ordered to stop making cars and start making tanks. Today, Detroit needs to be ordered to stop making civilian tanks and start making cars. Manufacturers should be free to use any technology that can get 50 mpg by 2020 and 100 mpg by 2030. The world cannot afford yet another abysmal failure by the once-proud American automobile industry.

Build High-Speed Electrified Railways for Our Busiest Corridors

The answer to every intercity travel need is not an airplane or a car. America is the only industrial power on earth without high-speed electrified rail — a super-efficient mode of intercity travel that can be carbon-free. I don’t know a single American who has traveled on the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka who hasn’t wondered, “Why can’t we do that from Boston to Washington? From San Francisco to LA?” It would require the same sort of government effort that built the interstate highway system — or, for that matter, the original railroads.

Set Strong Building Energy Performance Standards

We need to make all new buildings carbon-neutral by 2030, requiring vast increases in efficiency and walls and roofs that harvest energy directly from sunlight. The astonishing rate at which voluntary LEED standards have swept across the country suggests a deep hunger on the part of smart architects and builders for structures that will make sense throughout their 50-year lifetimes. We need to build on that momentum to create a new generation of energy efficient “living buildings.”

Train the Labor Force

Reversing climate change has an enormous potential to put America back to work. The greatest employment opportunities are for those who will transport and install solar modules, build and maintain wind farms, construct and operate the high-speed rail system and the “smart grid.” Programs, mostly at community colleges, to teach these new skills need to increase 100-fold, and a special emphasis should be placed on retraining the “losers” in the energy transitions — such as workers in coal mines and coal-fired power plants, etc. — and inner-city poor who have seen their job prospects disappear in the globalized economy.

The Time is Now

Following decades of political denial of climate science, America now lags far behind Europe and Japan in creating most of the basic building blocks for a carbon-neutral era. In several core renewable energy technologies, we have already been passed by China.

It’s not too late to get back in the game. But the global industry is rapidly expanding and maturing, and it has supportive government policies in Germany, Japan, the Nordic states, the Netherlands, South Korea, and China.

America has unparalleled scientific and engineering excellence, formidable financial muscle, bountiful natural resources, a democratic political system, and an entrepreneurial culture well-suited to helping to lead the world into a prosperous, carbon-neutral era. But we have been dragging our heels, as if this were a problem for our children to fix.

Global warming is our problem, and it’s time to get serious about solving it.

PinExt Denis Hayes on Tackling Climate Change
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2008/06/10/denis-hayes-on-tackling-climate-change/feed/ 0 Le Show with Harry Shearer Blows My Mindhttp://chrisabraham.com/2008/04/07/le-show-with-harry-shearer-blows-my-mind/ http://chrisabraham.com/2008/04/07/le-show-with-harry-shearer-blows-my-mind/#comments Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:54:10 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/2008/04/07/le-show-with-harry-shearer-blows-my-mind/

PinExt Le Show with Harry Shearer Blows My Mind

harryshearer Le Show with Harry Shearer Blows My MindEvery Monday at 10CET, NPR Worldwide plays Le Show with Harry Shearer (yeah, you know the guy). At first, I started grinding my teeth since one can tell he’s simply reading the paper to us, his audience, rife with “snarky” comments and cheap shots. I guess he’s supposed to be funny and Le Show is supposed to be a comedy show. But, how could it be? It doesn’t seem well prepared. Shearer halts, pauses, and tries to keep his wit ahead of the stories, which he can’t. Yes, I love Harry Shearer, but he is an actor and needs to be fed lines. During the uncomfortable, pregnant, pauses, you can hear his mind scream, “line!”

That said, I have become a devoted addict! How often do you hear this bizarre, amateurish, and foolish, ad hoc, train wreck for an entire hour once-a-week? He isn’t funny but I am now a devoted fan. I will try desperately to never miss it. It is on my calendar. Maybe his wit is too cultivated and the entire show is ironic commentary. Maybe Le Show is sort of a public radio “mockumentary” like This Is Spinal Tap. Could be I have been seduced into Shearer’s radio simulacrum. Wouldn’t put it past him!

Line!?

While I would dare say that Harry Shearer’s Le Show is downright banal, I will never miss another episode to the best of my ability. He’s shameless and I love it! What a freak!

Harry Julius Shearer (born December 23, 1943) is an American comedic actor and writer. Shearer, a voice actor on The Simpsons (1989 to present), provides the voices of Mr. Burns, Waylon Smithers, Ned Flanders, Reverend Timothy Lovejoy, Kent Brockman, Dr. Julius Hibbert, Dr. Marvin Monroe, Lenny Leonard, Principal Seymour Skinner, Otto Mann and Rainier Wolfcastle among others.

Shearer was born in Los Angeles, California, the son of Dora Warren (née Kohn), a bookkeeper, and Mack Shearer. His parents were Jewish immigrants from Austria and Poland. He was married to Penelope Nichols in 1974, divorcing in 1977. Shearer has been married to singer-songwriter Judith Owen since 1993. Shearer attended UCLA and Harvard. In May 2006, he was awarded an honorary doctorate from Goucher College.

He began his career as a child actor in 1950s movies (The Robe) and radio (The Jack Benny Program). Shearer also played the precursor to the Eddie Haskell character in the pilot episode of the TV series Leave It to Beaver. Shearer was later a member of Los Angeles radio comedy group The Credibility Gap, 1969–1976, at stations KRLA (where he also interviewed Creedence Clearwater Revival for the Pop Chronicles) and KPPC.

He also wrote for such television shows as Fernwood 2-Night and Laverne and Shirley. In August 1979, Shearer was hired as a writer and cast member on Saturday Night Live, an unofficial replacement for John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd, who were both leaving the show. According to the book Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live, Shearer did not get along well with the other writers and cast members, who regarded him as “prickly.” His first tenure on the show ended when Lorne Michaels left SNL, taking the entire cast with him.

Shearer returned to Saturday Night Live in the 1984–1985 season, leaving for good in January 1985 over “creative differences.” When reached for comment over the nature of his departure, Shearer replied “I was creative; they were different”.

Shearer co-created, co-wrote and co-starred in Rob Reiner‘s 1984 film This Is Spinal Tap with Michael McKean and Christopher Guest. The three of them also collaborated on the acclaimed 2003 spoof A Mighty Wind, which was written by Guest and Eugene Levy (but largely improvised by the cast members) and directed by Guest, and Shearer had a major role in the Guest-directed parody of Oscar politicking For Your Consideration (2006). Shearer’s television work also includes two specials for Cinemax, “It’s Just TV”, and “This Week Indoors” (co-created with Merrill Markoe) and “The Magic of Live”. He directed the entire six-episode cable series, “The History of White People in America”, co-created by Martin Mull and Allen Rucker, as well as the two-hour feature finale of the series, “Portrait of a White Marriage”. He also co-wrote and directed Paul Shaffer‘s fantasy special for HBO, “Viva Shaf Vegas” (with Shaffer and Tom Leopold). His first theatrical feature, which he wrote and directed, was “Teddy Bears’ Picnic“, a dark comedy loosely based on the workings of Bohemian Grove, the secret retreat of the elite.

Shearer has three books published, “Man Bites Town” (a collection of his Los Angeles Times Magazine columns), “It’s the Stupidity, Stupid”, and “Not Enough Indians”, a comic novel about Native Americans and gambling.

Shearer may be best known for his prolific work as a voice actor on The Simpsons (1989 to present), where he provides voices for Mr. Burns, Waylon Smithers, Ned Flanders, Reverend Timothy Lovejoy, Kent Brockman, Dr. Julius Hibbert, Dr. Marvin Monroe, Lenny Leonard, Principal Seymour Skinner, Otto Mann and Rainier Wolfcastle among others. He was one of three Simpsons voice actors to guest star on the show Friends (“The One With the Fake Monica“); the other two were Dan Castellaneta and Hank Azaria. He also appeared in Godzilla with Hank Azaria, which had a cameo appearance from Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson. (In a SFGate Podcast, Shearer said one person who took him under his wing during his early days in show business was voice actor Mel Blanc, who voiced many animated characters such as Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam, and Tweety Bird, just to name a few.)

Since 1983, Shearer has been the host of the public radio comedy/music program Le Show on Santa Monica’s NPR-affiliated radio station, KCRW. On the weekly program Shearer alternates between DJing, reading and commenting on the news of the day after the manner of Mort Sahl, and performing original (mostly political) comedy sketches and songs. The show airs on public radio stations throughout the country, and is offered as a podcast. Shearer is the regular announcer for TV Land and, since May 2005, has been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post. Shearer has homes in both Santa Monica, California and the Faubourg Marigny of New Orleans, Louisiana. According to a telephone call on Ask Mr. KABC, his house survived Hurricane Katrina.

In 1995 Shearer appeared in the Australian comedy series Frontline, in the episode “Changing the Face of Current Affairs”. In it he played the character of Larry Hadges, employed by the Frontline team to improve the look and style of the show, with hilarious results.

In 2006 Shearer appeared with Brian Hayes in a six-part BBC Radio 4 sitcom called Not Today, Thank You, in which he plays Nostrils, a man so ugly he can’t stand to be in his own presence.

Recurring characters on SNL

  • Tom Clay, a spokesman for several fake commercials on SNL
  • Vic Raker, a Weekend Update commentator

Celebrity impersonations on SNL

Filmography

Video games

Bibliography

  • Shearer, Harry (1993). Man Bites Town. St Martins Press. ISBN 0-312-08842-6.
  • Shearer, Harry (1999). It’s the Stupidity, Stupid : Why (Some) People Hate Clinton and Why the Rest of Us Have to Watch (Library of Contemporary Thought). Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-43401-3.
  • Shearer, Harry (2006). Not Enough Indians. Justin, Charles and Company. ISBN 1-932112-46-4.

PinExt Le Show with Harry Shearer Blows My Mind
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2008/04/07/le-show-with-harry-shearer-blows-my-mind/feed/ 1 Hillary Clinton Wins Ohio and Texashttp://chrisabraham.com/2008/03/05/hillary-clinton-wins-ohio-and-texas/ http://chrisabraham.com/2008/03/05/hillary-clinton-wins-ohio-and-texas/#comments Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:23:16 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/2008/03/05/hillary-clinton-wins-ohio-and-texas/

PinExt Hillary Clinton Wins Ohio and Texas

hillaryclintonwin Hillary Clinton Wins Ohio and Texas

 

It looks like the race is still on. Senator Hillary Clinton has won Ohio and Texas primaries and is still in the race for President. Like I have always said, I respect the Clintons and would do anything to have one or more Clintons in the White House. Personally, I consider Bill Clinton to have been the best President in my lifetime. Reports via Salon, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Financial Times, CNN, Fox News, and the LA Times.

 

The race in the Texas primary is still very tight, but MSNBC has just called it for Clinton. Right now, with 75 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton leads by slightly more than 60,000 votes.

Not all is lost for Obama, however: Because of the complex formula Texas uses to divide delegates, it’s possible for him to lose the popular count and still emerge from the state with a lead in delegates. The networks have not yet offered delegate projections.

Results from the Texas caucus, an entirely separate affair from the Texas primary, are also now streaming in. Obama is ahead in that race by more than 10 percentage points.

Update: Now CNN, too, has called the primary for Clinton.

PinExt Hillary Clinton Wins Ohio and Texas
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2008/03/05/hillary-clinton-wins-ohio-and-texas/feed/ 1 Martin Marty is a Gift to America and My Favorite Theologianhttp://chrisabraham.com/2007/03/24/martin-marty-is-a-gift-to-america-and-my-favorite-theologian/ http://chrisabraham.com/2007/03/24/martin-marty-is-a-gift-to-america-and-my-favorite-theologian/#comments Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:40:28 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/?p=3848

PinExt Martin Marty is a Gift to America and My Favorite Theologian

Martin Marty is a Gift to America and My Favorite TheologianI got to spend some time hanging out with Martin Marty at Renaissance Weekend a couple years ago. All I knew about him was gleaned from lunches, dinners, and panels together. During last night’s run, my friend Marty Marty started speaking into my iPod earbuds in the form of an interview on Speaking of Faith, America’s Changing Religious Landscape: A Conversation with Martin Marty Download MP3, Listen, Podcast, and uncut interview with Martin Marty (1:38). God bless Martin Marty and thank you, Krista Tippett.

Transcript of America’s Changing Religious Landscape: A Conversation with Martin Marty

Billboard:

Krista Tippett, host: I’m Krista Tippett, today a conversation about religion in America, with one of the great public theologians of our time, Martin Marty. For decades, Martin Marty has been watching developments that are now the stuff of daily headlines: the rise of religious fundamentalism across the world, the decline of the Protestant majority in American culture, and the vigor of evangelical Christianity in American life. Marty offers historical and personal perspective.

Mr. Martin Marty: I’ve often thought — I’ve often said, ‘If Billy Graham had been born mean, we’d be in terrible trouble,’ because he had so much power, so many gifts, and so on. One of my distinctions in religion is not liberal and conservative, but mean and non-mean. You have mean liberals and mean conservatives, and you have non-mean of both.

Ms. Tippett: Martin Marty on America’s changing religious landscape. This is Speaking of Faith. Stay with us.

[Announcements]

Ms. Tippett: I’m Krista Tippett. For decades, Martin Marty has been watching developments that are the stuff of daily headlines and partisan rhetoric: the vigor of evangelical Christianity in politics, the decline of the Protestant majority in American culture, and the rise of religious fundamentalism around the world. Today we’ll probe the historical perspective of this leading scholar of religion. We’ll discuss what’s really new in religion as a force in American culture, politics, and daily life.

From American Public Media, this is Speaking of Faith, public radio’s conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas. Today, “America’s Changing Religious Landscape: A Conversation with Martin Marty.”

Martin Marty has been called the foremost interpreter of religion in America today. The National Book Award, the National Humanities Medal, and the Medal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences are just a few of the honors he has amassed. He’s served on U.S. presidential commissions and directed a visionary research project on religious fundamentalism. The University of Chicago Divinity School, where he taught for 35 years, has created the Martin Marty Center to continue his work on public religion.

But for all his celebrity and scholarship, Martin Marty draws crucial insight from his own personal grounding in the mainstream religious life of American culture. He began his working life not as a scholar but as a pastor. He was born into a Lutheran family in 1928, in the Nebraska of Dust Bowl and Depression, where his father was a teacher and a church organist.

Mr. Marty: We were a churched family, of course, it was my father’s profession, and I’ve reminisced with some folks about how I got babysat next to the organ bench and had to sit through long funerals as a child, and somehow it didn’t turn me off from it all. I have a brother and a sister, and the three of us were well-schooled in literature and music and art, and also a very close basic sense of the faith of ordinary people, and I’ve tried to keep some sense of that in my lifework.

Ms. Tippett: Much of Martin Marty’s investigation into American religious life has centered on the dominant majority religion at the heart of our culture, the many denominations of mainline Protestant Christianity. But in our time, surveys show that majority is disappearing even as many Americans perceive the influence of evangelical Protestant Christianity to be growing. In his 2004 book, The Protestant Voice in American Pluralism, Marty describes the centuries from 1607 to 1955 as an era in American history in which “Protestants ran the show.” That began to change and take on new dimensions in the 1960s, an era vivid in the American popular imagination for political movements and the Vietnam War. For Martin Marty, it was also a decade of astonishing religious turning points whose significance went unnoticed. I asked him to walk me through the religious watersheds of the 1960s that began to erode the dominance of mainline Protestantism.

Mr. Marty: The biggest single event that hit this country happened in Rome, and that’s the Second Vatican Council. That is, Protestantism always knew what it was because it knew what Catholicism was, and it was over against that. Suddenly, Catholicism is friendly. It moves out into the public sector. The GI Bill puts Catholic young people into universities. They soon became the most educated group in the country, and Protestants were thrown off balance by that.

Secondly, it’s the beginning of the surge of evangelicalism within Protestantism, which — in those days, I imagine a lot of the Protestant leaders kind of sneered at Billy Graham and looked down their nose at tent revivals and so on and didn’t pay much attention to see how it was coming. And suddenly in the ’60s, I visited Berkeley, you had the Jesus People, little girls getting baptized in their bikinis, and change of worship from a certain kind of formality. The rock bands were coming in. And another huge infusion was an awareness of the religions of the East. You might keep going to your Presbyterian church, but you start doing yoga and you start doing Buddhist disciplines, etc. And you didn’t stop being Presbyterian, but you were of a different sort. You didn’t take it all for granted.

Ms. Tippett: I also think that something we’ve lost a memory of is how much tension there was between Catholics and Protestants, right, in this country, between different kinds of Christians, in a way that is absolutely unimaginable now. And I mean, personally for you, was that shift surprising?

Mr. Marty: I, in 1956, was invited to join the staff of The Christian Century, which was the towering Protestant voice. Today it still is, if not towering, a strong voice, but it’s ecumenical. It has a lot of Catholic writers; it has a lot of evangelical writers. But at that time, it was Protestant, and it was anti-Catholic. In 1950, on the cover of The Christian Century, there was an article, “Pluralism, A National Menace.” Pluralism was they’re worried about Catholicism. When I joined the staff five years later, pluralism was the best game in town. My first visits to campus, you always had one priest, one minister, one rabbi; that was called pluralism back then. But through that all, the Protestant still was in a privileged position. It simply was a kind of a reflex: ‘We’re the largest. We’re the ones who left our stamp on America’s literature, its poetry, its statecraft, etc.’

I’m going to say something in case I’m sounding critical.

Ms. Tippett: You can sound critical if you’d like to.

Mr. Marty: I’d be happy to be critical, but I don’t want to be distorting what I want to be. And that is to say, for all of that reflexive sense of establishment, I think I’m being a neutral, value-free historian when I say I don’t know any time in human history that somebody that powerful yielded that gracefully. In the previous century, Protestantism was often used — white Protestantism — to enslave, and it was used to justify the reservating of the Indians. But in the 20th century, Protestants have sort of said, ‘All right, you’re making your case. We’ll make room for you.’ They weren’t doing that much before the mid-’50s, but from then on in, they have done it even at the expense to their own identity.

Ms. Tippett: And I’m sure you’ve read these statistics that are now coming out, that perhaps today or tomorrow or six months from now, there will no longer be a Protestant majority in this country. And it depends on how people measure these things but, still, it seems significant when what is replacing the number of people who say that they’re Protestant are more people who say that they have no religion at all. In fact, it’s very high among people who were born in 1980 or later. And then there’s a category that’s doubled, of people who call themselves just Christian, right, who don’t identify with a specific tradition. How do you explain these statistics?

Mr. Marty: First of all, I think that Protestantism and Catholicism have very common fates here. They both have had trouble holding their younger generation. In some respects, the Protestants, Catholics, and Jews of the northern part of the United States share a lot with Canada, which is far less involved with church, or Western Europe, which is far, far less involved. Incidentally, that little section, I call it the spiritual ice belt: Western Europe, the British Isles, Canada and the northern U.S. We are really exceptions in the world, and we are really having a hard time catching up with understanding the rest of the world.

Protestantism is not in trouble around the world. I am a Lutheran, and we’ve had 300 years to get about eight million people. In 15 years from now, the African Lutheran churches will have added as many people as it took us 300 years to get. And that’s true of many other Protestantisms and Pentecostalisms. Every day there are 23,000 new Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, and half of them would be called Protestant, if often in the Pentecostal version. So around the world, it’s not a losing force. No longer, however, does it make the reference it once did to Western Europe and its daughter, the United States.

What will that mean for the United States? I don’t think we’re going to wake up some day and see total change. There’s a strange thing that hundreds of years after the vital life of a religion is past, there’s still a strong influence. We’re still living off some of the Greek religious influences. We’re living off a lot of medieval Catholicism. Our very universities are inventions of that. Our hospitals are inventions of that. So in a sense, meanings, ideas — in this case, ideas of liberty, freedom — that came very often from Protestants will live on even if not everybody goes to church. Still, the churches have been the places where these stories get renewed regularly.

Ms. Tippett: OK. I mean, I just wonder, personally, is this something that troubles you?

Mr. Marty: I don’t think I wake up in the morning having great worries about that. You can tell from what I’ve said I have a global view of humanity and of religion, and it moves around a lot. In the 1930s a great Catholic, Hilaire Belloc, said, “Europe is the Faith, and the Faith is Europe.” Well, that was true then. Now the cathedrals are empty, but their granddaughters are full in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. I certainly think that some things borne by the Protestant message would be a great loss. One of its gifts to America was its sense that we’re scripted. It’s a scriptural faith, it’s a Christ-centered faith, but it doesn’t mean that all virtue and all morality goes with you. And I think that’s been a nice irritating voice in classic Protestantism, which is, no matter how far along you’d come, God was holding you to a higher standard.

Ms. Tippett: Religious historian and author Martin Marty. One of the most popular of his over 50 books is Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in American. He is considered by some to be a bridge between the devotional and scholarly worlds of liberal mainline Protestantism and evangelical Christianity.

Ms. Tippett: Let’s talk about evangelical Christianity, which at the same time that there are some statistics of people becoming less religious, there’s certainly a sense that religion in some ways is more of a force now. I mean, I think there would be people who would take your phrase, “When Protestants ran the show,” and say that a certain kind of Christianity is becoming almost a controlling force or, you know, we have an evangelical Christian in the White House. I mean, how are you observing what’s happening now, with your broad view of things and of history?

Mr. Marty: I think those of us who write this kind of history are a little puzzled by the naiveté of the — well, people in journalism, in the media, in the general public, who think all this just got invented in the last four years and couple months. It has very deep roots. I trace it not to the ’20s. Nobody cared about the religion of Harding, Coolidge, Hoover. And Roosevelt was a mainline Protestant, Episcopalian, and he could draw upon these themes very much. Harry Truman was a salty Baptist. Truman and Carter and Clinton, the three Baptist presidents of the century, know the Bible best. They can just recite reams of it at any moment. Eisenhower started having Billy Graham come by. When we say “evangelical” today, it’s almost a long shadow originally of Graham. Today, evangelicalism is multi-headed. It’s all over the place. You can’t really generalize about it much anymore, but in its purer form, it came up in that way.

And, yes, in ’64, they really galvanized around Barry Goldwater and the kind of conservatism. And they didn’t get very far because he didn’t get very far, but they got angry about being dismissed and so on. In 1976, when Jimmy Carter ran, he’s the first one who would say, ‘I’m born again,’ first one to say, ‘I had a personal experience with Jesus,’ but they soon dropped him because they didn’t like him politically. Ronald Reagan was not born again, but he was friendly to them. But you could see this long trend coming.

Robert Handy, one of our major historians, once wrote a little book on The American Religious Depression, 1925–1935, because the mainline churches were already beginning to lose some of their membership, their status. They were depressed. But Joel Carpenter, another historian, has since pointed out, through it all the fundamentalists who’d been disgraced in the 1920s started organizing. They bought radio stations. They started Bible colleges. They had magazines. And they were building a world inside the world. And suddenly along come people like Billy Graham and presidents who favor it, and you have a very different kind of pattern, so that by the time — I would say by the time of Ronald Reagan, it became so vivid that the normal clergy in the White House would be evangelists, usually, until recently, of a rather moderate sort.

Ms. Tippett: It also seems to me, though, that a mistake is made in media in lumping together — as you said, evangelicalism is a — there’s a multiplicity of evangelicalism, and evangelicalism has a very different history and theology in some cases from Pentecostals and certainly from fundamentalists, although there is some overlap. How would you explain the distinctions?

Mr. Marty: All right. To the sociologists, the slightly more than one-fourth of America that would be called evangelical includes fundamentalists, evangelicals, Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, and conservative Protestant denominations. And they really have tremendous differences except when they converge on highly focal and, let’s say, useful political points: gay marriage or something of that sort. But for the most part, they’re much more diverse.

Until around the turn of the last century, all Protestants were called evangelicals; all evangelicals were called Protestant. During the century, though, you started having the liberal churches accenting more the Biblical story applied to social life, economic life, cultural life, whereas those who were evangelical started dealing with private life, personal life. That still goes down in our own time.

Ms. Tippett: Why did that happen? How did that happen?

Mr. Marty: Well, I think the Protestants who ran the show had the sense that you can pass a law and get rid of slavery, you can join secular people to get antitrust laws, you could have child labor laws. All the while then, the revivalists, Billy Graham’s ancestors — the greatest being Dwight Moody, a Chicago evangelist — looked out at the world and saw it in trouble, and he said, ‘The world is a flood, and God gave me a lifeboat and said, “Moody, rescue all you can.”‘ And I think they concentrated on heaven, on saving souls. And then on moral issues, they chose those over which an individual could have control: You shouldn’t gamble. You shouldn’t swear. You shouldn’t drink.

Now what’s so interesting today is, what have come to be called social issues in recent campaigns are not social, they’re personal enlarged. In other words, the evangelicals and the fundamentalists and the Catholic conservatives concentrate on what goes on in the bedroom, and they don’t talk much the way classic Protestants did about should the government be involved with poverty, with waging peace, all of those kinds of things. It’s been their genius to organize that in our own time so they have great political power. The Republican Party in particular has seen that that can be amassed and help get votes for things outside of the bedroom.

Ms. Tippett: Although there certainly are Catholics and evangelicals who are mobilized around poverty and those more classic kinds of social justice issues.

Mr. Marty: Oh, my, yes. Catholics are very much upfront. And some of the strongest social involvements of today are among evangelical Protestants. But that kind of Catholic and that kind of evangelical and that kind of Protestant are themselves in a kind of a loose coalition today. Not as powerful as the personal morality people, but there’s a lot of power there. A lot of witness goes on.

Ms. Tippett: Religious scholar and author Martin Marty. I’m Krista Tippett and this is Speaking of Faith from American Public Media. Today we’re exploring Martin Marty’s historical and personal perspective on the changing religious dynamics in American culture. For a half-century, he has studied the effect of increasing pluralism on American Christianity. He’s also been a visionary scholar of religious fundamentalist movements around the world.

Ms. Tippett: I want to talk about the Fundamentalism Project that you did but, I mean, before we actually talk about fundamentalism, I’d like to note something that I thought was very interesting. I was reading your address that you gave at the conclusion of that project to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. You titled it, “Too Bad We’re So Relevant: The Fundamentalism Project Projected.”

I’ll just read this quote: “The Fundamentalism Project scholars have found that fundamentalists tend to turn intimate and private issues into public affairs. Concern for the zones of life closest to the self — world view, identity, sexuality, gender differentiation, family, education, communication — tend to take priority over macroeconomic concerns.”

So my question to you is, is there something at the origins of fundamentalism that is also moving our culture as a whole right now?

Mr. Marty: OK. One quick word about fundamentalism. The fundamentalism we studied, to which you’re referring, is not your friendly neighborhood fundamentalist down the block. Our assignment was to study the militancies. When we started this, a historian friend said, ‘When you’re studying American fundamentalism, Marty, remember there are no machine guns in the basement of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.’ We were really studying a different kind of thing there, and yet there are certain things everybody had in common.

In the roots of fundamentalism in our culture, it started, of course, anti-evolution, anti-biblical criticism, and then it started taking a moral cast. But its moral cast, again, was the things that you should take control of. Virtue, advice were their big terms, not social justice and social change. Take what is a virtuous person; pass laws to promote that virtue. And I certainly am leaving a wrong impression if I’m suggesting that bedroom and clinical issues don’t have social consequences. They have huge social consequences. If divorce becomes more easy and grows and families disintegrate and children don’t have models in the parental world and they’re not educable, it’s a huge difference in the culture. So they don’t have a monopoly on it either in its invention or its present carrying out, but I think more of them restrict their energies to that and, again, it’s a very politically popular thing to do.

Ms. Tippett: But here’s my question: This description that you gave of fundamentalism, that people turn to intimate and private issues and that these take priority over macroeconomic concerns, could actually, I think, describe maybe a majority of Americans this year. So what I’m wondering is if there’s something that you see that gives rise to that tendency within fundamentalism that is actually alive in our culture as a whole right now.

Mr. Marty: I think two things are going on. On one level, around the world people are having trouble with their identity, their belief — whom do I trust, who trusts me? And so a phrase we used in The Fundamentalism Project, around the world, there is a massive, convulsive ingathering of peoples into their separatenesses and over-againstnesses, to protect their pride and power and place from others who are doing the same thing. Now, look at American life. We don’t do it the way they do it in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. We don’t veil women or anything like that, but we’re clustering more tightly. ‘We’re the virtuous, and they’re the vicious. We’re the good, they’re the evil.’

Ms. Tippett: I guess I’m still wondering how you understand the human and spiritual–maybe not theological, but the spiritual roots of this focus that seems to have become so definitive in our public life, on private issues of morality as the issues of morality.

Mr. Marty: I think that all through Christian history, anything related to sexuality was troubling and exciting. Clerical celibacy for 1700 years in Catholicism shows this, how much of an upheaval was caused when Martin Luther got married and when the Protestant clergy married. Every change in sexual mores is troubling because that’s so close to the roots of creation and transmission of life. Now what’s happened in our own time, I argue, every church body from the Mennonites to the evangelicals to the Roman Catholic Church are torn up over two words: sex and authority. By sex, I mean everything in the biological cycle, from in vitro fertilization or stem cell research, abortion, birth control, cohabitation outside of marriage. All these things are troubling all the churches, some of them sweeping…

Ms. Tippett: And dividing people in them.

Mr. Marty: Oh, yes. Some people sweep these things under the rug or close their eyes to it or whatever. But I think it’s very hard to get to the root of your part of the question as to why this longtime concern for personal morality, sexual morality, suddenly became so politically powerful. On one level, let’s be honest, it’s very exploitable. Everything else I’ve talked about — caring for peace, caring for justice, caring for feeding — these are all relative things. How much foreign aid budget you’re going to put into it, how much energy you’re going to put into it. With abortion, you either have an abortion or you don’t. You either perform gay right marriage or not. So it can be a big matter of identity and boundary, and I think that’s very popular in a time when people lose their identity and their boundary. I always say that the laws on gay rights and the practices toward them will be changed when every tenth evangelical minister’s daughter comes out. That is, when it gets close to you, you see these differently.

Ms. Tippett: So liberal — let’s say, Democrats and even liberal religious people who also have been struggling to find a voice in this last period will often hearken back to the days when it was the social justice issues that mobilized people and that had political force. Did those issues somehow achieve that force in the ’60s because they became more personal for people and, I mean, could you imagine that happening again?

Mr. Marty: Oh, I think so. The personalization of civil rights, you suddenly had a face: Martin Luther King. You suddenly had causes: the four little Birmingham girls who were bombed. These are very, very vivid things so that the president of the United States had to get on television one night, and after you’d seen the pictures of the dogs attacking children and police attempts to put down blacks in the South, suddenly it did become personal.

I should also say in fairness — I’m really trying to be as accurate as I can — these involvements of white Protestants in peace movements and civil rights movements that was never massive. That was often leadership. Some people would call them generals without armies. And there’s where I think we historians have kept saying a lot of evangelicals were up close, they were getting their hands dirty. The Salvation Army, for example, is an evangelical movement, one of the oldest. So we don’t have any absolute lines here at all. I just think that the sudden choice to organize on the virtue-vice line, the ‘we’re entirely right and they’re entirely wrong’ line, was very exploitable in politics, and in many, many states that has come to prevail as the main political agency. Nobody would have dreamed of that 20 years ago.

Ms. Tippett: Historian and author Martin Marty. This is Speaking of Faith. After a short break, more of his reflections on the nature of fundamentalism, separation of church and state, and the future of religion in America.

Mr. Marty: I once spoke in eastern Iowa and they said, ‘Well, you live in pluralism.’ I said, ‘Where’s the oldest mosque in American? It’s in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.’ And they have Postville Lubavitcher Jews north of them, and they have transcendental meditation south of them, and they have gypsies east of them, and Amish west of them. That’s the America we have. It doesn’t mean it’s all easy, doesn’t mean everybody likes everybody.

Ms. Tippett: Visit our Web site, speakingoffaith.org. Subscribe to our free weekly podcast so you can listen to this and other archived programs again. Listen when you want, wherever you want. Discover more at speakingoffaith.org.

I’m Krista Tippett. Stay with us. Speaking of Faith comes to you from American Public Media.

[Announcements]

Ms. Tippett: Welcome back to Speaking of Faith, public radio’s conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas. I’m Krista Tippett, today exploring America’s contemporary religious landscape with Martin Marty.

Martin Marty is a celebrated historian and interpreter of American religious life. This hour he’s been reflecting on the religious dynamics of contemporary America from his perspective of half a century of scholarship. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century and into the present, he’s been involved in many large-scale analyses of American Protestantism in particular, including its cultural influence and its pluralistic impulses.

And from 1987 to 1993, well before religious fundamentalism had become a feature of daily news headlines, Marty directed a global fundamentalism project that was commissioned by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. That project studied militant religious fundamentalist cultures around the world, and resulted in a five-volume publication. I asked Martin Marty what he learned that surprised him and what shapes his reaction to fundamentalism now.

Mr. Marty: The first thing we learned was that it is religious. That is, we didn’t let the psychologists in the first couple of years. This was a six-year study. We wanted to make sure that we caught the religious dimension and were convinced of that. And therefore fundamentalists, by and large, saw us as being fair. Our main instrument was the tape recorder. We sent out a couple hundred scholars around the world and they would ask, ‘Why are you this?’ and ‘Why do you raise your family that way?’ We studied it in 23 religions, by the way, Jains and Sikhs and everybody; it wasn’t just Christians and Muslims and Jews.

What else did we learn? Number one, fundamentalism is not the old-time religion. Fundamentalism is a very modern packaging. That is, it’s born when there’s an assault on values that you have and are uncertain about. There has to be a threat to you as a group identity or to you as an individual. So the most important word in fundamentalism is you react. Very few fundamentalists are concerned about things that traditionalists and regular conservatives and orthodox are. You can’t get a phone booth full of an argument on the most important Christian doctrines like the divine trinity and the two natures of Christ and the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. They care about evolution. They care about being left behind as the world ends. But there’s a very selective agenda. The whole left-behind theology is not the old-time religion. It was invented in the 1840s, which is really the modern world.

Ms. Tippett: For someone like you.

Mr. Marty: That’s right. I move glacially, not with a hurricane. And many other features were modern. Everywhere we studied them, they were better at the use of mass media than modernists were.

Ms. Tippett: Now, that’s interesting.

Mr. Marty: Yes. I once spoke in a church in — I think it was Dallas, and the pulpit looked like a 747 panel. A red light would go on, a baby’s crying in nursery 23C, and another blue light and that means a Jaguar’s lights were left on in parking lot D, and I could raise the temperature and the volume and everything else. And the minister in his sermon later on blasted technology, which he was using. In other words, he blasted the energy put into it, I suppose you’d say.

Well, I can go to a liberal Methodist church and I’m pretty sure the microphone won’t work. I’m kidding, I’m kidding, but Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution was done through tape recordings from France. Al-Qaeda is very much at home with the Internet.

Ms. Tippett: Very savvy, yeah.

Mr. Marty: Mass media helped produce fundamentalism because — first stage was born in the early radio; the second stage, Billy Graham, early television; the third stage now, Internet. What do you do? It comes at you with full force. You might try laws against obscenity and pornography. You might try to boycott Disney World. That doesn’t do much. You’re better off starting your own television networks. ‘Mass media are what messed up the intimacy of my family life; I’ll turn it right back upon itself.’

Ms. Tippett: So as late as on September 11th, 2001, the word “fundamentalism” became a part of our public vocabulary. And I’m curious, as you watched that happen and have watched all the discussion since then, having spent this good block of time studying fundamentalism a decade earlier, what have you found to be missing in our analysis of fundamentalism recently?

Mr. Marty: I think, unfortunately, the word is used to clump everybody together. The overuse of the word “fundamentalism” — I should be claiming a patent on it because we did those five big fat books on it. But one of the themes of those five books was there are an awful lot of things out there and there’s a lot of internal diversity. We would remind people — for example, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s had 450,000 members in Indiana, in the North, and every meeting had a Protestant minister, it had a cross, it had the open Bible, it had prayer, and the rest of Protestantism and the rest of Christianity would say, ‘That’s not a bit representative of the one billion of us out there.’ So I think when al-Qaeda came on the scene that was our first message: Show the diversities. Make it easier for moderates to be moderate. Don’t demonize the enemy. Do all that you can to show their varieties and to make it easy for them to be diverse.

Ms. Tippett: Esteemed religious historian and author Martin Marty. I’m Krista Tippett, and this is Speaking of Faith from American Public Media. Today, “America’s Changing Religious Landscape: A Conversation with Martin Marty.”

Ms. Tippett: You’ve lived a good long time as a public theologian and a religious thinker, and you quote a lot of great thinkers in all your works. I wonder, if I asked you who you think of as the most formative and influential religious figures in American life in the 20th century, who would you want to describe?

Mr. Marty: Among the well-known people, I would have to say the two Niebuhr brothers, Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr, who towered at Union Seminary and Yale when Protestantism was strong. They both were strong for the prophetic principle. They weren’t good at leading you into worship, though they did write prayers. But they were up close. They were in the thick of things.

Reinhold was a “cold warrior.” He was a consultant in the Truman era to the Dean Achesons and then the John Foster Dulleses. He’s there. But his interpretation of human nature — on one level, there was a group called Atheists for Niebuhr, but he once said, ‘You’ll never understand me if you don’t know that I believe in Christ crucified.’ He always went back to his roots in the gospel, but they also appreciated his analysis of human nature was so realistic, and his interpretation of history and the place nations played.

Ms. Tippett: Here’s a favorite quotation of the 20th century theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, with which Martin Marty ended an address at the White House in 1998.

Reader: “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true, or beautiful, or good, makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore, we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, could be accomplished alone; therefore, we must be saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint; therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.”

Ms. Tippett: From Reinhold Niebuhr.

My guest, Martin Marty, is describing some of the most interesting and influential religious forces in his lifetime.

Mr. Marty: I certainly would have to put Billy Graham in the front rank. And I may not have always been in the same camp, we’ve exchanged a few nice letters and have never had a sour word in 30, 40 years, but there’s no doubt about it that I’ve often thought — I’ve often said, ‘If Billy Graham had been born mean, we’d be in terrible trouble,’ because he had so much power, so many gifts and so on. One of my distinctions in religion is not liberal and conservative, but mean and non-mean. You have mean liberals and mean conservatives, and you have non-mean of both. But he’s not a mean. And I think you’d have to say that’s just been an enormous influence on many people.

Paul Tillich, of German import, was highly influential theologically. But I really think that people whose names you’ll never know were influential.

Ms. Tippett: Right. And who are some of those that are important to you?

Mr. Marty: Well, a custodian at a high school I went to. You’d come there in the morning and, as busy as he might be pushing a broom, he read your face better than the counselors did as to what your trouble was.

I personally have a lot of interest in the arts and I have hung out with people who are in music. Recently I was at the dedication of a new organ in honor of Paul Manz, a great, great organist who brought back something as corny-sounding as hymn singing into the great cathedrals. He and I have been on a couple of CDs together. I assure anybody listening that I don’t sing, I narrate. But certainly Paul Manz would be in my front rank of people who shaped me.

A theologian named Joe Sittler, not among the best-known theologians in America, blind in the last years of his life, nearly deaf, had a way with words and a way of discernment and a good-humored understanding of ethics that made the world richer for me.

Reader: A reading from Joseph Sittler in the 1986 book Gravity and Grace:

“St. Augustine, at the beginning of his Confessions, makes a great and beautiful statement: ‘Thou has made us for thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.’ Back of that statement lies a proposition which says that the human is created for transcendence … that we are by nature created to envision more than we can accomplish, to long for that which is beyond our possibilities.

“We are formed for God. …Faith is a longing. Humankind is created to grasp more than we can grab, to probe for more than we can ever handle or manage.

“…This restlessness may make us want to throw in the towel — or to pull up our socks. You can either be creatively restless, as before the unknowable, or you can simply collapse into futility. One of the goals of the Christian message is to join together the people of the way, the way of an eternally given restlessness, and to win from that restlessness the participation in God, which is all that our mortality can deliver.”

Theologian Joseph Sittler, from the book Gravity and Grace.

Ms. Tippett: You often mention a Dutch philosopher.

Mr. Marty: Oh, yes.

Ms. Tippett: How do you say his name?

Mr. Marty: Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, who was a Swiss-German Jew and Christian. He’s one of those geniuses that you can quote 20 pages of and then the 21st page is so nutty you’re not sure you can use it. But I’ll give a quick illustration of what I get from him. For example, he says — and this is extremely important in my life. He says you can write the history of learning in the western world in three Latin phrases.

The first is, in Latin, Credo ut intelligum — “I believe in order that I may understand.” It’s the birth of the universities in Europe, Bologna, Paris, Oxford. You believe to apprehend the universe; truth is divinely revealed and can be appropriated. And that’s the charter that believers should never be afraid of learning.

Secondly, modern learning, without which we couldn’t do, is Descartes. René Descartes. Cogito ergo sum — “I think, therefore I am.” Modern university is born on skepticism and doubt and inquiry and criticism, and you want that. I don’t want a med school in which they’re just taking things on faith. I want them to be extremely critical. But he said, ‘That, too, gets sterile.’ And so he says, in the 20th century, that we also have to learn that truth has a social character. I’m learning from this conversation with you. We learn from conversing with someone else, we learn from the meaning of “I” and “thou.”

And his third motto was Respondeo etsi mutabor — “I respond although I will be changed.” I’m not changed when I argue with somebody because I know an answer and I got to defeat them. I’m always changed in a conversation because they’re going to surprise me. It’s kind of a game, it’s kind of play. And I think that that’s the kind of learning we need more in the churches, in theology, in politics, and in personal life.

Ms. Tippett: You’ve done a lot of projecting in your life. I mean, I found one book written in 1971 where you were projecting the church in that century, and there was projecting in The Fundamentalism Project. I wonder what you have been wrong about, as you look back, and also I wonder, as you look forward, where you are finding your hope and nurture.

Mr. Marty: Well, looking ahead, it’s a very foolish thing for a historian to do because we have nothing to say until something’s happened. I mean, our specialty is the past. But when you’re involved in the worlds in which I’m involved, you do hang out with the people who do projecting and you go along with them. My biggest misses were I didn’t foresee three huge things: One, the explosion of evangelicalisms; number two, the highly individualized spirituality of which you spoke earlier, the people who are on a spiritual search but they’re doing it at the coffee shop, at the mega bookstore, or they’re doing it in a little chanting group, and they’re not doing it in the churches. That’s certainly a force I hadn’t foreseen. And then I think the vitality that has come with the new pluralism, and that’s because I did a lot of writing before 1965 when the immigration laws changed.

Ms. Tippett: That’s another one of those points in the ’60s that you say how important that was for our religious life, that we never talk about as a turning point in the ’60s.

Mr. Marty: Well, it’s huge. It was the year of the Selma March. It was the year of the engagement in Vietnam. It was the year of all the LBJ Great Society legislation, and Congress made a little change in the immigration laws, after 41 years. And it was just in time for all the boat people. It’s just in time for people from Africa to come direct, and so on. And it was just a huge change…

Ms. Tippett: Because it gave rise to a pluralism and a multiculturalism in a new way.

Mr. Marty: Yes. It makes new demands on hospitality, etc. Lewiston, Maine, suddenly has people from Somalia. I once spoke in eastern Iowa and they said, ‘Well, you live in pluralism.’ I said, ‘Where’s the oldest mosque in American? It’s in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.’ And they have Postville Lubavitcher Jews north of them, and they have transcendental meditation south of them, and they have gypsies east of them, and Amish west of them. That’s the America we have. And when you go to a hospital today, your doctor’s probably Pakistani and your nurse is Filipino, and your clinician is Jewish, etc. That’s our future. It doesn’t mean it’s all easy, doesn’t mean everybody likes everybody, but it does mean that your interpreting is being done on a larger scale.

And, again, the two biggest of those — and I guess you could say I probably didn’t foresee that either, since we’re talking about what I didn’t foresee — is that half of everything we’re talking about today is done by women. And that was not true in the ’50s. When I was writing the third volume of my three-volume work on American religion, I said to my class, half of whom were women, ‘Help me out. I need women who are big in religion in the ’50s. I can’t have an index of all men.’ And they couldn’t find hardly anybody. And then one of them said, ‘I’ll bet they were seething.’ And I said, ‘OK, Julie, you’re going to right a history of seething women of the ’50s,’ and she found interesting stuff. Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Catherine Marshall, all these people whose husbands are up front, and they’re seething. They’re all ready to change along the way. So I didn’t foresee how sudden and total that is.

It’s hard to think your way back to when very few women added work outside the home if they had children at home. And I think the…

Ms. Tippett: That’s a piece of pluralism we don’t really think about, in terms of how people are active in our public life. Women are more of a force in that way.

Mr. Marty: Oh, yes.

Ms. Tippett: Religious historian Martin Marty. We’re exploring how his historical and personal insights shed light on the religious dynamics of contemporary America.

Ms. Tippett: I think that there is a real sense among many people in our time that the whole relationship between church and state–as we define that, it’s not really just church and state anymore, right, it’s mosque, synagogue, church, and state, and many other variations of religious expression, but that that is shifting profoundly. But I wonder, with your perspective as a historian, you know, how new, how profound is this shift and how do you view this?

Mr. Marty: On one level, the image of the wall of separation never worked. We did never have a wall. For example, tax exemption of churches probably pays more to the churches in America than being established governmental churches in Europe ever did. I like James Madison’s word, there’s a “line of distinction,” a line of separation between religion and civil authorities.

I think of it more, too, as zones. Most people know when you’ve really overstepped. Most people don’t want religion utterly in a box. When the astronauts looked at the Earth on Christmas Eve, they read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” I think Madalyn Murray O’Hair and one or two other people protested, but most people thought, ‘That’s great.’ And when you have the space shuttle disasters, the president gets up and is at his most eloquent invoking religious language. Well, if you read real separation of religion and the state, you wouldn’t do that.

It gets more complex in some other areas. There is much more eroding of that line than there had been. I think, though, again, many of us who are nervous about crossing the line are also interested in religion in public life. I’m all for the teaching about religion in public schools. I think you should know that Martin Luther King was a black Baptist and what that did for him. You should know why the Puritans came. You should know why your Hindu neighbor does something different. But a lot of people want to convert that and say, ‘But we should teach the majority religion as the truth about life, and we should worship in that tradition.’ And that’s where we get nervous, and yet there’s a strong popular appeal. ‘If only we had prayer amendments. If only we had stipulated prayer.’ And here’s where a Protestant of the old school or a real Protestant would say, ‘Watch out. Give religion privilege and it gets corrupt. And look at Europe if you want a sample of that.’ So in my view, religion has its place all over the public sphere as long as it is persuasive and voluntary. And the minute it gets to be coerced and privileged and assumed, somebody’s going to run it at the expense of others or it’ll get fat and corrupt.

Ms. Tippett: Where do you look for nourishment and hope? Where do you look around and say, ‘This is exciting. I’m happy for my grandchildren to be living in this time’?

Mr. Marty: The most important thing in my world, when I mention public life I don’t mean only politics. A lot of people equate the two. Politics is one branch of it. Public life is town meeting, it’s the mall, it’s the supermarket, it’s the college, it’s all those things. And I’m greatly cheered by artists, by musicians, by people who live out their vocation. It’s almost a hobby for me to pursue people who just never get their name in print and do heroic things.

I’m cheered by — I never know how to speak without proper nouns. I like a group called Opportunity International, which is one of a number of microeconomic ventures around the world that lends money, put 140,000 people around the world to permanent work last year. Now, they’re religiously motivated people and they give me tremendous hope, as do the people on the other end, 92 percent of whom pay their loans back in two years, which inspires me. That kind of thing.

In the city where I live, Chicago, there are all kinds of groups that provide leadership in the inner city without condescension, without imposing on them. There are others that train people. In one of these groups, the Christian Industrial League, trains people, mainly Mexican men, to start their landscaping companies and women to start their homemaking companies — not just to do the work, but to start companies. And they plant the flowers that we see in the city of Chicago. Come see them.

And family is very important. I draw nurture from the family. We love friends. I can’t say enough — I once wrote a book about friendship. In a cold, brutal world, you can’t do much better for somebody else than to stimulate friendship. And the model there again is God. As distant as God’s supposed to be, God also condescends and is our 3:00-in-the-morning friend. So I’m nurtured by all those kinds of things.

Ms. Tippett: Martin Marty is the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago. The Martin Marty Center has been founded there to promote public religion endeavors. He’s the author of more than 50 books, including, recently, The Protestant Voice in American Pluralism, When Faiths Collide, and the Penguin Lives volume on Martin Luther.

Contact us at speakingoffaith.org and read listeners’ reflections on this conversation. Also, sign up for the free Speaking of Faith podcast. You’ll never have to miss another program again. Listen on demand, when you want, wherever you want. Discover more at speakingoffaith.org.

The senior producer of Speaking of Faith is Mitch Hanley, with producers Colleen Scheck and Jody Abramson and editor Ken Hom. Our Web producer is Trent Gilliss, with assistance from Jennifer Krause. Kate Moos is the managing producer of Speaking of Faith, the executive editor is Bill Buzenberg, and I’m Krista Tippett.

PinExt Martin Marty is a Gift to America and My Favorite Theologian
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2007/03/24/martin-marty-is-a-gift-to-america-and-my-favorite-theologian/feed/ 0 Mara Vanderslice Helps Democrats Communicate their Faithhttp://chrisabraham.com/2007/03/11/mara-vanderslice-helps-democrats-communicate-their-faith/ http://chrisabraham.com/2007/03/11/mara-vanderslice-helps-democrats-communicate-their-faith/#comments Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:18:03 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/?p=3783

PinExt Mara Vanderslice Helps Democrats Communicate their Faith

mara vanderslice thumb Mara Vanderslice Helps Democrats Communicate their Faith

“Party strategists and nonpartisan pollsters credit the operative, Mara Vanderslice, and her 2-year-old consulting firm, Common Good Strategies, with helping a handful of Democratic candidates make deep inroads among white evangelical and churchgoing Roman Catholic voters in Kansas, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.”

Via the New York Times

“The Strategist : Mara Vanderslice of the consulting firm Common Good Strategies, who works the campaign trail, helping candidates build relationships with diverse religious communities.”

Via The Washington Post

“‘There’s been a huge sea change,’ says Mara Vanderslice, former religious outreach adviser to defeated presidential candidate John Kerry. ‘When we started this work on the Kerry campaign there was a lot of disagreement over how much to emphasise reaching out to religious Americans… there’s almost universal understanding now that we need to do a better job of reaching out.’”

Via the BBC

“Casey is “pro-life,??? and Strickland a minister, but similar shifts occurred in other races featuring more-traditional Democratic candidates. Michigan’s Jennifer Gran­holm, for instance, a “pro-choice??? and relatively liberal governor, won 35 percent of the white evangelical vote, a percentage significantly higher than the House Democratic average. All in all, about a half-dozen races impressed Green as scrambling many of our culture-war assumptions. In each of these races, you can argue about the strength of the opponent and other local dynamics, but all of them turn out to have one thing in common: the winning candidate worked extensively with a small political consulting outfit called Common Good Strategies.

Mara Vanderslice, a thirty-one-year-old born-again Christian, founded Common Good in 2005 and later brought on Eric Sapp, thirty, as a partner. Both belong to the small but growing club of evangelicals who are also Democrats. Vanderslice had worked on a couple of Democratic presidential campaigns, and she had found that the reactions of many campaign staffers around her ranged from “ambivalent to hostile??? when she suggested reaching out to religious voters or constituents. But she and Sapp suspected that while the machinery resisted, the candidates themselves might be amenable. This year, Common Good worked closely with seven candidates, testing a new strategy for Democrats trying to court religious voters. All of these candidates won in November.

In each race, Vanderslice and Sapp began by helping candidates build the infrastructure necessary to reach religious voters, often from scratch. “In many cases our party had completely written them off,??? says Sapp. In none of the states in which they worked did the Democratic Party have a complete list of pastors, for example, so Common Good staffers created those lists. In Michigan, they met with about 500 conservative and moderate members of the clergy; in many of the meetings, particularly with evangelical ministers, they would hear something like “Where have you all been???? According to Sapp, “At a fundamental level they just want candidates to give God his due, more than they care about specific issues.???

Common Good helped recruit pastors to write op-eds in response to criticisms and arranged for campaigns to buy mailing lists of religious-minded voters. Vanderslice and Sapp encouraged candidates to buy ads on Christian radio, a medium considered more intimate than television. Strickland did a large radio buy in July—early enough to look like more than an afterthought. For ten years he’d had a quote from Micah on his office wall: “And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.??? With uplift-y music in the background, he talked in his ad about how that quote had guided his career and would guide him as governor.

Vanderslice and Sapp helped the candidates create a new language to use in talking about faith and values, aimed in part at neutralizing hot-button issues. On abortion, for instance, they banned the word choice and pushed reduction, going one step further with Clinton’s idea that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare???: “We must work together across our differences to reduce the need and numbers of abortions by reducing unplanned pregnancies and helping women and families get the support they need when facing a crisis pregnancy,??? read a brochure for Sherrod Brown, the Democratic Senate candidate in Ohio. The idea was that a lot of voters who oppose abortion don’t actually want it to be criminalized; they just want the issue to be recognized as important.

The two consultants also advised candidates to attack Republican positions on moral grounds, from the left. Where anti-gay-marriage amendments came up, for example, they expanded the issue and talked about how many marriages were disintegrating because of financial stress, which they name as the No. 1 cause of divorce in America.”

Via Atlantic Monthly by way of Faith in Public Life

“Should Kerry run for president a second time, such values-based defenses of Democratic policies would no doubt play a greater role than in 2004 when the candidate paid little attention to Casey or evangelical adviser Mara Vanderslice—despite the pair’s involvement with the campaign.

Vanderslice has since proved her counsel is worth heeding. From her new role as director of Common Good Strategies, an independent consulting firm she founded in 2005, the born-again strategist significantly boosted the Democrats’ midterm landslide. Exit polls showed that the candidates she advised pulled in an average of 10 percent more evangelical voters than other Democrats.

Fellow Common Good Strategies consultant Eric Sapp told WORLD such results could signal the beginning of a grand reshaping of the political landscape: “My hope would be that Christians become a perennial swing vote.”"

Via World Magazine by way of Faith in Public Life

PinExt Mara Vanderslice Helps Democrats Communicate their Faith
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2007/03/11/mara-vanderslice-helps-democrats-communicate-their-faith/feed/ 0 Hillary Clinton is Way Too Sexy to be Presidenthttp://chrisabraham.com/2006/03/28/sharon-stone-is-right-hillary-clinton-is-way-too-sexy-to-be-president/ http://chrisabraham.com/2006/03/28/sharon-stone-is-right-hillary-clinton-is-way-too-sexy-to-be-president/#comments Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:44:04 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/?p=2032

PinExt Hillary Clinton is Way Too Sexy to be President

hillary clinton is to sexy Hillary Clinton is Way Too Sexy to be President
I bet you can’t guess which of the hotties above is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. They’re all so fine and young-looking.
So, when they said that Senator Clinton is, “too polarizing,” to become president, they actually meant “too sexual.” Another spindoctor euphemism, I guess.

Via Ace of Spades HQ, Dust my Broom, Common Sense America, Barking Moonbat, Demonrats, TigerHawk, The Gossipers, Conservative Cat, Miss Jackson if You’re Nasty, The Right Perspective.

PinExt Hillary Clinton is Way Too Sexy to be President
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2006/03/28/sharon-stone-is-right-hillary-clinton-is-way-too-sexy-to-be-president/feed/ 3 Godspeed is between 2.9 and 8 knotshttp://chrisabraham.com/2005/03/31/godspeed-is-between-29-and-8-knots/ http://chrisabraham.com/2005/03/31/godspeed-is-between-29-and-8-knots/#comments Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:28:34 +0000 Chris Abraham http://chrisabraham.com/?p=157

PinExt Godspeed is between 2.9 and 8 knots

A reflection on a two-month sailing trip from Acapulco to Los Angeles on a 42-foot Jeanneau catamaran. Almost two-years-ago now.

My spiritual experience of sailing during Lent during my Jesus year birthday of 33 and all the important lessons and experience I have been lucky to have as a result. Although I am a member of the Vestry of Saint James’ and its currently both the most exciting time and my favorite time on the Church calendar, Lent, I responded to the call of my best friend Mark when he asked me to come to Mexico to help him complete his sail from Charleston, SC, to Los Angeles, CA.

I joined the sail on March 1, spent my birthday on the boat, and find myself stuck in Cabo San Lucas over a month later.

What I have realized is that sailing allows one to better understand the nature of God’s grace in my life. Little did I know that it would be as much help to me as it has been to him.

kinpanama Godspeed is between 2.9 and 8 knots
I have been following Mark’s journey from his former home in Charleston and living vicariously. We have been best friends since we met at University during my first year at GWU. We were both on the crew team and have been best friends ever since — more like brothers than mere college chums.

I had never sailed with Mark, even though he lives and works from the deck and cabin of a gorgeous yacht catamaran named Kinship II. I have never been much of a sailor and so much of my sailing enjoyment has been vicarious. It just never interested me and Mark never really pressed the issue.

A little over a month ago, Mark called me and told me that the crew of six he started with in South Carolina had started abandoning the vessel beginning at the first stop after a grueling trek from the Keys all the way to Central America, through the Panama Canal, and back up the Pacific coast of Mexico. The faithful remnant left in Acapulco because their money had run out and the time schedule had slipped and slipped and slipped, as sailing schedules are wont to do.

So, when Mark suggested that he would pay for me to fly to Acapulco to join the crew — him — I took this as one of those veiled manly calls for help which never really show either fear or desperation.

When you spend time with men’s men, you have to read between the lines. I was in Acapulco within five days. I might have hurt a relation with a client and leaned on my lovely friend Sarah a little too much, to say nothing of the strain on my new and wondrous relationship with Wendy, but it was Mark! The brother I never had.

We burnt two weeks moored off of the Club de Yates de Acapulco as most of the beatings that Kinship II had suffered on the long passage through the Gulf, along Central America, through the Panama Canal, and up along the Pacific coast were being healed by our angel, Gabriel, who took the time and the pride to get us up to ship shape.

I have been officially sailing the Pacific sea since the first day of Lent, 5 March. An equal time has been spent stuck in port and harbor as it has been sailing miles offshore; some of it has been gentle and awe-inspiring while other parts have been punishing and trying.

Although I have not officially given up anything for Lent save my job, I have been able to use the time to become more essential.

Things have been very difficult for me over the last year or so, at least since 9-11, but including the technology crash. Technology and the Internet is the basket I had been placing all of my eggs and I had been compensated very well for it.

During the last six months, thought, I have be grasping at straws, asking myself what I want to do with the rest of my life. Become a lawyer? Go to business school? Pursue a PhD?

I was stuck in a myopic infinite loop. My priorities, my goals, my desires, and my true wants and needs were befuddled and unclear. Sadly, I have unintentionally hurt people as they were caught in my personal panic as I desperately searched for my equilibrium while not giving myself either the time or the slack with which to find it.

On 8 March, in addition to everything else, I became 33, which to everyone I have spoken to at Saint James’ and elsewhere is my “Jesus year.” Allegedly, the age Jesus the Christ died for our sins. Lord knows this was renting space in my mind as the date approached. Lord knows that there was no way I could even remotely find the time or the money to be able to take this time to both help my friend and save myself. But there it was, and I am still sailing with a lot of help from my friends.

sail1 thumb Godspeed is between 2.9 and 8 knotsSailing takes time, and it takes its own time which has nothing to do with either my desire or the requirements of society. The moment one becomes willful enough to disrespect the nature of the sea is the day something breaks. Its as simple as that and is kind of spooky at first. Easy as she goes. Cliche sentiment seem to reverberate on the sea. The 96-hour passages blur one into the other into one long day, and when the limits of my tolerance were reached I was rewarded with a pod of a hundred dolphins dancing in and out of my wake. Or a field of basking green sea turtles in the middle of the sea. Or a dense morning fog clearing to a double rainbow.

God can be very remedial in his lessons when you are sailing. He also protects fools and drunks and I am most certainly a fool at the very least. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and Karma is direct, reciprocity is king on the sea. When I am tempted to be willful and push myself past either my abilities or my energy, I always either hurt myself or break something onboard. This is not a joke. It seems gentle — the sea always does — but it is life or death.

The lesson I have learned thus far is that there is a definite rhythm I have been blind to, within which everything works beautifully.

As a striking example, last week we were on route from Manzanillo to Cabo San Lucas and it was to be a milk run. Easily enough diesel to motor from where we were anchored at the Las Hadas Resort to where we were to moor in Cabo San Lucas. First impossibility: we ran out of diesel prematurely because the engine was detuned and was drinking the fuel quickly. So we ran out with just enough to bring us in to port when we finally made it to port, which was still 150 miles away.

That’s okay, we have a sailing catamaran. We sail easily in 5 knot winds. During the second day, the main sail halyard snaps at the block, at the top of the mast. That’s okay, we have a redundant halyard — which snaps four hours later! We string up the Genoa line and limp the rest of the way. Impossible, but normal I guess.

Things like this happen a lot. When we arrived at Cabo San Lucas, we could not find anyone who would climb the mast, until we ran into Sebastian and his family, from Vancouver, BC. He shimmied up the mast for free and we were back on schedule. We ran into many people like Seb along the way and the Cruiser community around the world is amazing generous.

Sartre was wrong, hell is not other people: grace is other people.

Every day of this trip has humbled me; every day has given me confidence. Not once have I felt humiliation and every day has been a celebration. The confidence not to fear what will happen next, to remain present and observant, to remain vigilant but not aggressive.

And I have been thriving and I am strong and worthy of supporting Captain Mark as his only crew and of protecting the delicate fiberglass exoskeleton Kinship II so that she is seaworthy and makes her voyage to Los Angeles on one pristine piece.

On the sea, nothing needs to be forced, nothing needs to be rushed; in fact, there are very few things that can be rushed. I have had to turn on the hourly chime on my wristwatch because I have experienced a couple of these 96-hour days. Time shrinks and expands. Being on watch exacerbates this experience. Time is relative in a practical sense as it can stretch or compress, and some nights I have been on a watch for what feels like an hour starting at 0100 and then the sky lightens and turns pink and the morning comes. Other times, I fight for wakefulness and after making a go of trying, I wake Mark and ask him to take the watch instead so that I can catch some sleep for a little while. This is too much to risk, too much to lose, if I were to try any harder and fall deep into an exhausted sleep leaving no one at all to keep an eye out for cruise ships or super liners.

What’s on the line is the safety of the boat — a quarter-million-dollar investment — and the safety of the crew. There is only one person, usually sleepy and bored, who takes watch and single-handedly keeps the fragile and absurdly delicate vessel going 8 knots out of the way of container ships moving at 25 knots. There is a feeling of trust, the kind of confidence-building experience that can easily undo damage done in the workaday world of corporate America, can rebuild the confidence and self-love that might have blossomed in simpler times. I know they did for me. On the sea, either alone or with a crew, one can renew one’s faith in oneself and others.

Post Enron, dot-com, 9-11, and Clinton, my world changed in significant ways. I am a pretty technologically-savvy fellow and when I graduated from GW in 1993, during a low point in employment and jobs, I became an Internet and web developer in addition to photography and writing. Although a student of literature at University, I didn’t choose graduate school right away but instead became part of the great excitement of the dot-com explosion. I have been using the Internet since a bet version of Mosaic; since I played with MacWeb, when I noodled with lynx. I am pre-Internet and as a teen I was part of the BBS culture. It was natural for me to join the excitement and during the 90s I didn’t explore graduate school or law school, but rather put all my eggs into the Internet economy. And I was rewarded for a time.

Recently, times have become tough and I have lost much of my confidence in my choices, what I have to offer, and in myself. Luckily, I have never lost my Faith.

While on Kinship II, Mark and I went over my life because I needed distance and clarity. I was able to note the five things that are most important to be in my life, and I am proud to say that I have four out of five of them in spades: A partner, my family, my friends, my spiritual life, and money.

I am told that there are so many rich Americans who suffer from a true lack in their lives. So many Americans who might have money and a partner, but lack friends, family, and spirit. Or have money and nothing else. I am reminded every day that in a conscious, present, spiritual life, money is the easiest to secure for many of us as it is the most valued. Surely, it can feel that way. There are days when I lose sight of all the things in my life for which I am amazingly grateful and focus on only the things I lack, in this case money. And then it is often a downward spiral, where lack begets lack and before I knew it, I find myself feeling not only like a loser but like the worse kind: the fellow who failed to live up to his potential. In these times, I lose sight that I have had money before and that I will have money again. Its easy when one lives in a small world — or a world, shrunk — to find oneself skewed: both in perspective and proportion.

But on the sea, its different. As a geek, I liken it to rebooting my desktop computer. Rebooting the PC is the secret we techies have for fixing most of the problems wrong with most desktop PCs. Most of the time, these slowdowns occur because there are too many things going on on the PC that the user is no longer aware of: memory leaks, infinite loops, crashed software. These things cannot fix themselves and most users cannot truly sense this chaos in any way short of system slowdown. Not all problems result in the blue screen of death, some just send the computer into a morass. A skilled technician can fix some of the problems from the keyboard or by using a piece of software as an elixir, but the simplest thing one can do to set everything right is to turn the machine off, wait a minute and then turn it back on. Reboot.

So as I sit in an Internet cafe in Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur, Mexico, wondering if I am spending Lent the way I should. Mexico is a traditionally catholic country, truly religious. I have not given up coffee, chocolate, or even beer; I am not attending church and I am three thousand miles away from my pew in my parish, Saint James’ Episcopal Church, Capitol Hill.

Yes, I am spending Lent better than I could have ever imagined, in my opinion. For all the fears, stresses, and anxieties I have been suffering under, I have had my head truly buzzing so that I couldn’t hear myself think clearly, to say nothing of the soft voice of my Faith.

On the boat, I have had time to think. At first, way too much time! I felt guilt and boredom; I felt like I needed to do something, needed to get back to the office to make sure everything was all right. After two weeks — yes, I buzzed for a fortnight — I started to relax. I felt my heart, my face, by body, and then my mind become more tranquil. On the boat, I have been getting a good lesson in Faith, in trust, and in moving with the flow as opposed to opposing it, striking against it. To force it makes it break; to avoid it doesn’t make it go away; to fear it doesn’t help. Whatever it is. To be completely honest, I have not felt so good about myself and what I have to offer in ten years. I feel like a tiger!

So I have done the most irresponsible thing imaginable in dropping everything and flying three thousand miles to help a friend by replacing his crew and becoming a sailor for what will be over six weeks. It would never have happened had the request come in any other form than what I perceived as a mayday, an SOS. But it did and I am here and I am changed. Does this mean that I will be doing this irresponsible thing again and again? Will I need to do this again in the same way, taking an unscheduled, selfish, and fool hardy escape again? Probably not I have learned so many things and the next time I become overwhelmed or lose faith in myself or my life experience and am myopic and suffused with fear, all I need to do is remember; or, be reminded. Quite possibly this very writing will be enough; if not, then Mark, my friends, my parish family, or you.

Instead of being changed into a bum, a drop out, or a vagabond, am becoming more clear that I want the life I have, that I can handle the life choices I make, that I make fine life choices. I have had an amazing growing up, brilliant parents, a world-class education, and have many friends, and a fine girlfriend. When I make a life choice there is a good chance that my decision is a result of a very fine coming up and I should not worry too much. My choices will probably — based on a thirty-three year track record — be moral and kind.

I have been spending the last three years attending Saint James’ Holy Week religiously. Saint James’ offers one of the most spiritually rich Holy Week and Easter I could ever have imagined. From Maundy Thursday through Easter Eve, the Spirit is palpable and the presence of God is undeniable; similarly, I have a profound personal and spiritual experience while sailing. As arcane and transcendent and as undeniable as what I experienced in Church. To be sure, I am grateful to have had spent a truly blessed experience.

The next time I wish someone Godspeed, in my mind and heart that will forever be between 2.9 and 8 knots.

PinExt Godspeed is between 2.9 and 8 knots
]]> http://chrisabraham.com/2005/03/31/godspeed-is-between-29-and-8-knots/feed/ 0