From Hope to Momentum: Why the Election is Just the Beginning

It was as if the air had been let out of a balloon. The networks announced at 11pm EST that the country had elected Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States. I could instantly hear people shouting outside of my home and within three minutes, someone near-by began shooting off fireworks. I watched the sea of people at Chicago's Grant Park explode on my television set as people hugged each other and jumped around, unable to control their excitement. Crowds began to gather from Washington D.C. to major cities across the globe driving home just how much of a global impact the U.S. elections have. We watched the world let out a collective sigh of relief on election night with images of a unified and hopeful people anxious to see what happens next.

There is no doubting the historical nature of Barack Obama's campaign and election to be the first African-American President of the United States. Watching Obama address tens of thousands of supporters as President-elect was even enough to move many Americans to tears. Seeing the hope in the eyes of so many people is an amazing moment in history to bear witness to and only provides us with evidence that we are standing at an important time in the history of this country. The end of this election should not mark the end of the involvement of those who were energized by this campaign, to the contrary, this is where the real work needs to begin.

There are two main narratives that have been circulating since the election. The first comes from those on the right who have seen the Republican Party unravel into a giant circular firing squad and are still trying to interject their ideology into the American discourse. This is the narrative that we are a "center-right country". Karl Rove spoke these words on Fox News on election night and it has moved through the conservative echo chamber ever since. These pundits argue that an Obama Administration will be forced to govern from the center because the majority of Americans have "center-right" values.

The other narrative has come out of the Democratic Party and from some progressive-minded individuals. This narrative is that progressives won the election, are now in control, and through Obama will have the sway to influence policy over the next four years. Both of these narratives miss the mark. The United States is not a "center-right country". Americans just demonstrated their rejection of the ideology that has been in control of the Executive Branch for the last eight years and most Americans are in against the war, for universal health care , and in favor of smart government regulation of the financial industry. These are progressive ideas that many Obama supporters hold and are even more progressive than positions that Obama himself holds. This is not the mark of a center-right country, but of a country desperate for a new direction.

In the same breath, the narrative that progressives are now in control of the government and that Obama will automatically enact progressive change is also misguided. It has been demonstrated by many and through Obama's own voting record that he is a moderate politician with centrist policies. Now is not the time for progressives to sit back and watch what Obama can do, but rather it is time to use this fantastic opportunity to unite and apply pressure to an Obama Administration to enact actual change. It is vital for progressives to stay engaged and turn this enthusiasm from the election into a movement for the people.

Barack Obama and his administration are going to be pressured by the big corporate campaign donors who have established ties to and invested funds in Obama's campaign. Just like any other business decision, they want to see a good return on their investment so they will be seeking access and looking to influence policy. Amy Goodman wrote an article earlier this week in which she echos this sentiment:

"There are two key camps that feel invested in the Obama presidency: the millions who each gave a little, and the few who gave millions. The big-money interests have means to gain access. They know how to get meetings in the White House, and they know what lobbyists to hire. But the millions who donated, who volunteered, who were inspired to vote for the first time actually have more power, when organized."

The key to that statement are the last two words...when organized. Progressives need to start building a network in order to counter the insider influence and use this network to create a powerful movement of accountability. This moment in which we live is too important for us to not take action. In order to begin to pressure our national leaders, we must get organized on a grassroots level. It is absolutely necessary for those who supported Obama, to join with those who supported Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, on down the line and unite around the issues that we all care about. We must seize this moment, turn it into momentum, and raise our voice to say that we demand real progressive change.

Upholding the President's Authority to Hold American Citizens Indefinitely and Without Charge

I wonder how many Americans would agree with the following statement:

The President should have the power to designate any American citizen that he sees fit, an "enemy combatant" and that citizen can then be held without charge or trial for an indefinite period of time.

It seems to me that this type of dictatorial power fundamentally goes against even the basic protections of the Constitution. The Fouth Circuit Appellate Court however, ruled 5-4 on Tuesday that the President should have this power.

The case that the Fourth Circuit was deciding, involved a man named Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. al-Marri was a citizen of Qatar in 2001 when he was legally in the United States on a student visa. Al-Marri was attending classes at Bradley University in pursuit of a graduate degree in computer science. (al-Marri earned his undergraduate degree from Bradley a decade earlier.) Al-Marri was living in Peoria, Illinois shortly after 9/11 when he was arrested as a material witness and charged with credit card fraud as well as making false statements as a part of a 9/11 investigation. In June of 2003, al-Marri was preparing for his criminal trial which was to start a month later, when President Bush declared him an enemy combatant and ordered the US military to seize him and place him in a navy brig in South Carolina. This is where al-Marri has remained for the past five years, much of the time in solitary confinement.

The ruling by the appellate court on Tuesday, upheld the President's ability to detain al-Marri without charge much like the similar ruling that was issued against Jose Padilla in 2005. The difference between Padilla's ruling and al-Marri's ruling is that al-Marri was never accused of fighting US troops or even going to Afghanistan, he was just accused by President Bush of being "involved" in a terrorist plot. It is stated in the ruling:

If properly designated an enemy combatant pursuant to legal authority of the President, such persons may be detained without charge or criminal proceedings 'for the duration of relevant hostilities'

Currently, the "relevant hostilities" that are referenced, refer to the so-called "War On Terror" which the Administration has claimed, could go on indefinitely.

This ruling amounts to the President having the power to hold any American citizen indefinitely and without charge by simply signing a sheet of paper that would designate such a citizen as an "enemy combatant". This power is truly frightening and should strike a chord within anyone who has respect for the very basic laws that have held this country together and kept America from slipping towards authoritarian rule. Today we find ourselves with a government who has such a warped view of executive power, that an Attorney General has stated that the President is his client.

This ruling further demonstrates the disrespect for the Constitution that this Administration continues to show and how those surrounding the Administration continue to defend such a view.

Wesley Clark and his comments on John McCain

This previous weekend, Gen. Wesley Clark appeared on "Face the Nation" in support of Barack Obama's candidacy for the White House.




Following this appearance, Clark has been attacked in the corporate media mainly for the comment(s) below:

...I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not...I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.

This statement was immediately jumped upon by members of the corporate media as well as in the conservative circles as an attack on John McCain's military service. Some have even gone so far as to say that this is proof that the Obama campaign is demeaning not only McCain's military service, but military service in general.

Regardless of what you think of Wesley Clark it is important to take a look at what was actually said. Clark stated that McCain hasn't held executive responsibility and that he doesn't believe that his time spent in the military (which includes being shot down) qualifies him to be President. Certainly these points can be refuted, discussed, and debated, but is it an "attack" on John McCain's service to question if said service is really a qualification for President? One can even argue that McCain's service was brave, honorable and for love of his country, but that is not what was being disputed. What was in dispute was if the skill set that John McCain received through his military service has prepared him to be President. Clark did not argue that McCain does not have the ability to be President, just that his military service does not inherently qualify him. We can box ourselves into a corner by arguing that any mention of McCain's service as a Presidential qualification is an attack on McCain simply because he has served.

The point I make is a focused one and one can make various arguments about Obama and McCain in regard to experience, executive responsibility, and Clark's own authority. All of this falls outside of the issue of whether this comment attacked McCain's service. In fact, Clark could be completely wrong in his assertion and it would still not "dishonor" the service of McCain. I only bring up these distinctions to attempt and counter the misrepresentation of what was said in this instance. I have no desire to defend Clark or McCain in this instance, only to point out what I feel, was a misrepresentation of Clark's comment.

Dick Morris tackles the tough issues?

A coworker forwarded me the latest article by former Bill Clinton strategist Dick Morris earlier today. You can read the text of this article here.

I read some of the observations that Morris made and felt compelled to respond.

1. Dick Morris lists all of the "fears" that people associate with the Obama campaign; from Rev. Wright to a Muslim father to Obama having a "strange name." Yet later in the article Morris admits "So far, he [Obama] has avoided inflaming them and taken great care not to lend them
any credibility from his own statements or positions." What does this say about those who have an unsubstantiated "fear" about Obama? By Morris's own admission it verifies that the fears are unsubstantiated. Yet this point is lost on Morris. He claims that Obama must "go further and
reassure voters who want to believe him, but are afraid." So in the mind of Dick Morris the following exists: 1. There are fears about Obama's past and associations....2. Obama has not lent these critics any credibility from his own statements or positions..hence 3. These "fears" must be unsubstantiated since they are not credible...but 4. Obama must go further to prove that these fears are not true. How can Obama go farther than not giving any credibility to those who hold such "fears"?

2. Morris states that: "If he [Obama] were white, with similar associations, he would be suspect. But he comes from a world few white voters know or understand ..."

To the first point in this quote, is John McCain also suspect due to his own "controversial pastors"? I speak of John Hagee and Pastor Parsley. If you don't recognize either of these names it is no surprise since this issue did not get nearly the coverage of Rev. Wright, yet McCain fully embraced the endorsements of both men before rejecting them months later. I am not necessarily claiming the media has a racist agenda per se, but this point is troubling. Addressing the second point, perhaps we need more discussion of this "world few white voters know or understand". It may be beneficial to clear up any misunderstanding by doing an in-depth series on the issue on a major network instead of airing the same :15-:20 second sound bytes that only help to inflame and distort the issues from their greater context.

Instead of using the romantic language that the US has a "civil religion" and the President is a "high priest" of this religion, perhaps it would be more helpful to put the role of the U.S. into a greater historical context. The quote from Ronald Reagan...implying that the formation of the
U.S. was a "divine plan"...is not helpful in doing this, but only helps to romanticize the role of the United States without giving true examination to the policies carried out in the name of the country.