Phone Banking for Obama

I started phone banking for Obama the week of Sept. 15, two days after the new San Francisco for Obama office opened on Market Street. I was partly inspired by fear - fear that McCain/Palin would win the presidency because the so-called undecided voters would vote for McCain; fear that the election won't be decided on election day because too many swing states would be too close to call so they'd have to count the absentee and overseas ballots; fear that the election would be stolen again by the Republicans.

I had already donated some money to the campaign so I decided what I could do was donate my time rather than get depressed about meaningless poll numbers. The San Francisco Obama office is just a few blocks from where I work so everyday that week, I dropped by during my lunch break to call whomever the office wanted me to call.

The first two days I got phone lists of Obama supporters in San Francisco. So I'd call people, thanking them for their support and telling them that they could help the Obama campaign in one of two ways: traveling to Reno, Nevada to canvass undecided voters and register voters and/or phone banking by calling other supporters in San Francisco. Every weekend, the SF office is organizing trips to Reno—Drive for Change.

I probably called around 40 to 50 people each day. I'd say about 90 percent of the people I called weren't available so I would leave messages. And I would also get wrong numbers so I was helping to clean up the phone list. Plus I would ask people for their email address if we didn't already have it and ask people if they would like to receive the weekly local e-newsletter.

The next few days I was calling registered voters in Nevada, which meant calling Republicans and Democrats. I got a lot of wrong numbers and answering machines. For these calls we were instructed not to leave messages. So each day I only spoke with a small handful of Nevadans. Republican Nevadans aren't too friendly. Two or three Republicans hung up after I identified myself as a volunteer with the Obama campaign. I did speak with a couple Democrats and they were voting for Obama--but one woman said that for the first time she was not 100 percent behind the Democratic presidential candidate. She also said that she wasn't going to vote for McCain. I couldn't get her to nail down exactly why she felt that way. But she did say that if push came to shove she probably would vote for Obama. And I got one Obama supporter interested in volunteering with the campaign and gave him the address and phone number of the Obama office near him.

The week of September 22 I did phone banking four days in a row. On a couple days I called Nevada and one day I called SF supporters. Then on Monday, September 29, I slipped on some wet pavement and sprained my ankle. I spent the week hobbling around on crutches and couldn't make it to the SF office to phone bank. I had been committed to phone bank that day and even got a call from the SF office saying they really needed people to come in because they had fewer people than expected show up that day.

But I did make up for lost time this weekend. On Saturday I went to a phone banking party for Obama. It was supposed to go from 2 pm to 6 pm. Lucia, a friend of mine, invited me to the event at a place only a few blocks from where I live so I thought it wouldn't be too hard to walk over there. After a visit to the orthopedist, I got a walking boot so I could stop using the crutches.

The "party" was organized by Tim who even set up computers for the four of us who committed to show up. Unfortunately, the Obama website was undergoing a software update so we couldn't log in and download a list of folks to call. We were slated to call folks in New Mexico, a state where early voting starts on Tuesday, October 7. So we saw an inspiring short video of Obama that used part of his convention speech and intercut various scenes from the stadium.

Then Tim called the Obama office in Berkeley for some advice on what we should do and then we all went there to phone bank from headquarters. We arrived at 3 pm and were set up at computers at an office a few doors down from the main office and began phone banking there. We were told that the goal for Northern Califronia was 50,000 calls that weekend. By 3 pm, 15,000 calls had already been completed. I made more than 70 calls over a two-hour period.

And this morning, I made about 15 calls to Ohio, where early voting has already begun and the last day to register to vote in Monday, October 6. In Ohio, you can actually register to vote tomorrow and vote on the same day, something Republicans tried to fight but lost in a federal court of appeals last week. Gee, I guess when you make it too easy for folks to vote, that's seen as a problem by Republicans.

Tomorrow I'll resume my lunchtime phone banking in San Francisco. If you want to get involved, just go to the Barack Obama website and you'll find links for volunteering, phone banking, knocking on doors, donating money. You can even set up your own account at my.barackobama.com, where you'll find links to local groups and events as well as links to information on various phone banking campaigns to participate in. You can also set up your own personal profile and a fundraising page.

I set up a fundraising page, setting a goal of $1,000 to donate to Barack Obama's campaign. So far I've raised $175. If you'd like to help me reach my goal, please visit my page and make a contribution—$10, $25, $50, $100 or more—every dollar counts. We all must do what we can to ensure that Barack Obama becomes the next president of the United States.

—Chuleenan

The Audacity of Critique: Barack Obama, American Muslims, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East

By Rayfield A. Waller
The Arab American News
August 29, 2008

http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=OtherOpinions&article=1427

African Americans should pressure Senator and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama to change U.S. policy toward the occupation of Palestine. Despite the warm response Obama enjoys from American Muslim and Arab American voters, we should stand for the right of our Muslim and Arab brothers and sisters to critique Obama. We should in fact lead the way in that critique.

Obama's summer tour of eight European and North African countries proved two things. One is that he's stunningly popular worldwide; the other is that he's moving from the left to the center in order to win conservative and pro-Israeli votes he thinks he needs here in the U.S.

African Americans are proud of Obama's universal popularity, but we must remember that after eight years of war, political strife and economic ruin fueled by a felonious Republican regime in Washington, the citizens of Europe and North Africa would likely welcome the rise of anyone who seems, like Obama, to be articulate, diplomatic, ethical and reasonably sane; all the things now lacking in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.

African Americans should be less proud of Obama's move rightward, especially where America's anti-Arab racism and American foreign policy toward Muslim nations are concerned.

To wit: Obama's recent visit to Israel signals his acceptance of a persistent litmus test for American politicians by his dutifully demonstrating to the U.S. Jewish electorate that he will support the continuance of Washington's support for Israel's security; but by implication and symbolism, it also signals his acceptance of the Israeli lobby and Israel's occupation of Palestine.

We African Americans, in solidarity with Muslims everywhere and with Palestinian victims of the occupation, should demand, despite his fade to the right to cater to constituencies and to win votes, to know that Obama will be a president who seeks justice and seeks to amend the errors, crimes, and offenses of American foreign policy lately made even more egregious by the Patriot Act and the so-called "War on Terror" (from the Muslim point of view indistinguishable, certainly, from a neo-crusade).

The War on Terror has created mischief with human rights, from America's criminal treatment of Iraqi and other Arab and Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo and inside Abu Ghraib, to the brutality of indiscriminate violence unleashed against Fallujah by American forces, to the illegal State Department and CIA participation in the crime of "rendition" (the kidnapping, assault against, torture and murder of dozens of citizens of sovereign nations, many of those citizens Muslims). There is much for the future President Obama to amend in U.S. behavior in the world.

Here at home in the U.S., growing anti-Muslim racism is reflected in dozens of offenses such as recent NYC media attacks on Debbie Almontaser, acknowledged "builder of bridges between Muslims, Christians, and Jews" and founding principal of the NYC Khalil Gibran school. Almontaser was coerced into resigning after she refused to denounce NYC Arab girls wearing t-shirts bearing the word "Intifada."

Xenophobic criticisms of the school include objections to its featuring halal dining, while NYC newspapers have denounced the school as a "madrassa": a haven for "terrorism" (madrasah of course means not a facility to teach violence but literally "a place where learning and teaching is done"). Almontaser has sued NYC to expose what she calls the "new McCarthyism" of this kind of treatment of prominent Arab and Muslim community leaders.

In light of these national and international events, images of Obama in yarmulke with President Shimon Peres and at Yad Vashem are designed to appeal to AIPAC, and meant in his words, to reaffirm the "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel. But if Obama is truly to be a president representing the "audacity of hope," we should unabashedly pressure him, indeed demand of him that he support Palestinian hopes for an end to occupation and an end to the building of a Berlin-style wall to turn Palestinian territories into Bantustans. If "we are the change we have been waiting for," as Obama says, then we should demand a change: the Palestinians' right of return, their basic human right to water, and their right to control their own land, resources, and public utilities, must be respected.

Support by President Obama for tolerance of Muslims and Arabs here in the U.S. and for a new peace process that seeks a negotiated settlement in Palestine and respects the legitimacy and the interests of both Israel and Palestine is needed, not just candidate Obama's photo ops with President Mahmoud Abbas on a quick spin through Ramallah.


Professor Waller is on the adjunct Faculty of Wayne State University's Department of Africana Studies in Detroit, Michigan and is a freelance journalist. A longer analysis of Obama's campaign can be found on Waller's weblog at rayfieldwaller.blogspot.com

The Struggle between Labor and Capital and the 2008 American Presidential Election

phttp://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121755649066303381-lMyQjAxMDI4MTA3NDUwNTQ2Wj.html#printMode

All,

Still more stark evidence of precisely what's at stake in this pivotal election and why all progressives and radicals throughout this country had better take heed now and act accordingly--which means to relentlessly educate, organize, and mobilize American workers to not only win the election but exert real massive political pressure on corporations and the government to deal justly with the political rights and economic power of Unions. Capital is out to destroy Labor as it always is, and ESPECIALLY in the present climate of major economic and political crises. If the often clueless American Left is to make any genuine headway in addressing the deeply rooted need for fundamental structural changes in American society, culture, and political economy in the immediate future here is our major opportunity---as dangerous, confused, and unstable as it is. If we fail-- in both the short and long term-- we'll only have ourselves to blame...

Kofi

P.S. Thanks Amiri...



Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win
By ANN ZIMMERMAN and KRIS MAHER
Wall Street Journal

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

The actions by Wal-Mart -- the nation's largest private employer -- reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership. That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval," said David Tovar, Wal-Mart spokesman. Mr. Tovar acknowledged that the meetings were taking place for store managers and supervisors nationwide.

Wal-Mart's worries center on a piece of legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which companies say would enable unions to quickly add millions of new members. "We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time," Mr. Tovar said. "We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do."

Other companies and groups are also making a case against the legislation to workers. Laundry company Cintas Corp., which has been fighting a multiyear organizing campaign by Unite Here, relaunched a Web site July 14 called CintasVotes. The site instructs visitors to take action by telling members of Congress to oppose the legislation.

"We feel it's important that our employee partners fully understand the implications that the Employee Free Choice Act could have on their work environment and benefits," said Heather Trainer, a Cintas spokeswoman.

Business-backed organizations are also running ads aimed at building opposition to the bill, including the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which counts several hundred industry associations as members. Another group, the Employee Freedom Action Committee, is run by former tobacco lobbyist Rick Berman. The groups, which aren't affiliated with each other, say they have a total of $50 million in funding. Neither will disclose which companies or individuals have provided funding.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made defeat of the legislation a top priority. In the past six months, it has flown state and local Chamber members to Washington to lobby members of Congress. On Thursday, the Chamber began airing a television ad in Minnesota and plans to run ads in other states as part of a broader campaign.

The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO and individual unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers have promised to make passage of the new labor law their No. 1 mission after the November election.

First introduced in 2003, the bill came to a vote last year and sailed through the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, but was blocked by a filibuster in the Senate and faced a veto threat by the White House. The bill was taken off the floor, and its backers pledged to reintroduce it when they could get more support.

The November election could bring that extra support in Congress, as well as the White House if Sen. Obama is elected and Democrats extend their control in the Senate. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the legislation, which also is known as "card check," and has said several times he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and voted against it last year.

Wal-Mart's labor-relations meetings are led by human-resources managers who received training from Wal-Mart on the implications of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Fine Legal Line

Wal-Mart may be walking a fine legal line by holding meetings with its store department heads that link politics with a strong antiunion message. Federal election rules permit companies to advocate for specific political candidates to its executives, stockholders and salaried managers, but not to hourly employees. While store managers are on salary, department supervisors are hourly workers.

However, employers have fairly broad leeway to disseminate information about candidates' voting records and positions on issues, according to Jan Baran, a Washington attorney and expert on election law.

Both supporters and opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act believe it would simplify and speed labor's ability to unionize companies. Currently, companies can demand a secret-ballot election to determine union representation. Those elections often are preceded by months of strident employer and union campaigns.

Under the proposed legislation, companies could no longer have the right to insist on one secret ballot. Instead, the Free Choice, or "card check," legislation would let unions form if more than 50% of workers simply sign a card saying they want to join. It is far easier for unions to get workers to sign cards because the organizers can approach workers repeatedly, over a period of weeks or months, until the union garners enough support.

Employers argue that the card system could lead to workers being pressured to sign by pro-union colleagues and organizers. Unions counter that it shields workers from pressure from their employers.

On June 30 the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Wal-Mart illegally fired an employee in Kingman, Ariz., who supported the UFCW and illegally threatened to freeze merit-pay increases if employees voted for union representation. The decision came eight years after the organizing campaign failed, and four years after the case was originally heard.

"We've always maintained the termination was not related to the union and that there was nothing unlawful about an answer provided an associate about merit pay," said Mr. Tovar, the Wal-Mart spokesman. "Following the decision, we were considering offering reinstatement, but that is on hold, since the [union] appealed the decision."

Unions consider the Employee Free Choice Act as vital to the survival of the labor movement, which currently represents 7.5% of private-sector workers, half the percentage it did 25 years ago. The Service Employees International Union said the legislation would enable it to organize a million workers a year, up from its current pace of 100,000 workers a year.

The Underdogs

The business-backed lobbying groups are running ads in states where a win by a Democratic Senate candidate would boost support for the legislation in the Senate, saying the loss of secret ballots exposes workers to bullying labor bosses. In one, they use an actor from the "Sopranos" TV series about mob life to hammer home their point.

Business groups say they're the underdogs since they will be outspent by unions by a wide margin. Labor has pledged to spend $300 million on the election and securing passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, compared with under $100 million by business groups, according to Steven Law, chief legal officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber's strategy is to focus on the Senate, where labor needs eight more supporters of the legislation to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"This is a David-and-Goliath confrontation, but we believe we'll have enough stones in the sling to knock this out," said Mr. Law.

Wal-Mart is a powerful ally. Through almost all of its 48-year history, Wal-Mart has fought hard to keep unions out of its stores, flying in labor-relations rapid-response teams from its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters to any location where union activity was building. The United Food and Commercial Workers was successful in organizing only one group of Wal-Mart workers -- a small number of butchers in East Texas in early 2000. Several weeks later, the company phased out butchers in all of its stores and began stocking prepackaged meat. When a store in Canada voted to unionize several years ago, the company closed the store, saying it had been unprofitable for years.

Labor has fought back with a campaign to portray Wal-Mart as treating its workers poorly. The UFCW helped employees file a series of complaints about the company's overtime, health-care and other policies with the National Labor Relations Board. Dozens of class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of workers, many of which are still winding their way through the courts.

Wal-Mart has been trying to burnish its reputation by improving its worker benefits and touting its commitment to the environment. On the political front, it's hedging its bets, spreading its financial contributions on both sides of the political divide.

Twelve years ago, 98% of Wal-Mart's political donations went to Republicans. Now, as the Democrats seem poised to gain control in Washington, 48% of its $2.2 million in political contributions go to Democrats and 52% to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that tracks political giving.

Write to Ann Zimmerman at ann.zimmerman@wsj.com and Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com

Massive Floods & Tiny Buckets: The Grim Political Reality of the American Economic Crisis

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/business/economy/04bailout.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print


All,

Imagine trying to stop the massive flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina with a hundred buckets and we had to collectively pay for all the damage of the flooding that was not absorbed or stopped by the buckets--that's what this utterly contemptible bailout plan is actually akin to. The simple fact of the matter is that the worse is yet to come and it will be far sooner than anyone presently thinks....

Kofi


October 4, 2008

Bailout Plan Wins Approval; Democrats Vow Tighter Rules
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
New York Times


WASHINGTON — After the House reversed course and gave final approval to the $700 billion economic bailout package, President Bush quickly signed it into law on Friday, authorizing the Treasury to undertake what could become the most expensive government intervention in history.

But even as Mr. Bush declared that the measure would “help prevent the crisis on Wall Street from becoming a crisis in communities across our country,” Congressional Democrats said that it was only a first step and pledged to carry out a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system.

The final tally in the House was 263 to 171, with 91 Republicans joining 172 Democrats in favor. That was a wider bipartisan majority than vote-counters in both parties had expected, completing a remarkable turnabout from Monday, when the House defeated an earlier version of the bill by 228 to 205.

The financial markets, however, were not enthusiastic. Already weighed down by another round of bleak economic data, including a report showing that 159,000 jobs were lost in September, the Dow fell 157 points to close at 10,325, or nearly 818 points lower than when the week began, before the House’s initial rejection of the bailout.

Some measures of the credit markets improved after the bill was approved, but only modestly. Analysts said it was too soon to tell whether borrowing rates — the interest rates banks charge each other for loans, and a key indicator of the flow of credit — would fall.

The change in course by the House was prompted by fears of a global economic meltdown, and by old-fashioned political inducements added by the Senate: a portfolio of $150 billion in popular tax provisions, including credits for the production of solar, wind and other renewable energy, and an adjustment to spare middle-class families from paying the alternative minimum tax.

In the end, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had voted no on Monday switched sides on Friday to support the plan. Both Mr. Obama and his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, voted for the measure when the Senate approved it on Wednesday, and both hailed Friday’s outcome.

Mr. McCain said that lawmakers had acted “in the best interests of the nation,” while Mr. Obama warned that “a long and difficult road to recovery” might still lie ahead.

In a sign of the urgency surrounding the economic rescue effort, Congressional staff rushed the newly printed legislation into a news conference where Democratic leaders gathered after the vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, of California, signed it at 2 p.m., and it was sent to the White House for Mr. Bush’s signature.

Appearing in the Rose Garden, Mr. Bush praised Congress for acting just two weeks after the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., requested the emergency bailout legislation with a warning that the American economy was at risk of the worst economic collapse since the Depression.

“We have shown the world that the United States will stabilize our financial markets and maintain a leading role in the global economy,” Mr. Bush said.

But it was a hollow victory for the administration, which after long favoring a hands-off approach toward the financial industry has found itself interceding repeatedly this year to avert one calamity after another.

Ms. Pelosi and other Democrats, who expect to widen their majority in Congress in the November elections, said they intended to tighten controls.

“High-fliers on Wall Street will no longer be able to jeopardize that personal economic security of Americans,” Ms. Pelosi said, “because of the bright light of scrutiny, accountability and the attention given under regulatory reform.”

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said: “We will be back next year to do some serious surgery on the financial structure.”

The Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, had urged his colleagues to vote yes. “We know if we do nothing this crisis is likely to worsen and put us in an economic slump the likes of which we have never seen,” he said. “I am going to vote for this bill because I think it’s in the best interests of the American people.”

Opponents of the bailout called it a costly Band-Aid that did not address the core problems in the financial system. “Some things have changed in this bill but taxpayers will still be picking up the tab for Wall Street’s party,” said Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado. “I am voting against this today because it’s not the best bill. It’s the quickest bill. Taxpayers for generations will pay for our haste and there is no guarantee that they will ever see the benefits.”

Among House Democrats as well as Republicans, many lawmakers facing the toughest challenges for re-election remained in the no column. Those with easier races were more likely to switch.

Many said they agonized over the decision amid a torrent of calls from constituents. Several who switched to yes cited a provision added by the Senate increasing the amount of savings insured by the Federal government to $250,000 per account, from $100,000.

Fears about the economy also motivated support. “Nobody in East Tennessee hates the fact more than me that I am going to vote yes today after voting no on Monday,” Representative Zach Wamp, a Republican, said.

“Monday I cast a blue-collar vote for the American people,” he continued. “Today I am going to cast a red, white and blue-collar vote with my hand over my heart for this country, because things are really bad and we don’t have any choice.”

Several Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus said they were persuaded to support the bill by Mr. Obama.

Representatives Elijah E. Cummings and Donna F. Edwards, both of Maryland, said they had each spoken to Mr. Obama who helped persuade them to support the bill, in part by assuring them that he would work to achieve a goal that Democrats gave up during negotiations: a change in bankruptcy laws to let judges modify first mortgages.

Mr. Obama, speaking in Abington, Pa., said he had urged lawmakers from both parties to “not make the same mistake twice.” But he warned that passage of the measure should be just “the beginning of a long-term rescue plan for our middle class.”

Mr. McCain, speaking in Flagstaff, Ariz., warned that the bill was not perfect and there was more to be done. “It is an outrage that it’s even necessary,” Mr. McCain said. “But we must stop the damage to our economy done by corrupt and incompetent practices on Wall Street and in Washington.” Mr. McCain said he spoke to House Republicans before Friday’s vote and urged them to approve the bill.

Friday’s vote capped an extraordinary two-week final stretch for the 110th Congress. Lawmakers, eager to get home for the fall campaign season, had intended to wrap up by adopting a budget bill to finance government operations through early March.

Instead, after dealing with the budget, they found themselves still in Washington, just five weeks before Election Day, facing the most important vote of the year — the most important vote of their lives, many lawmakers said — and under extreme pressure by the White House, the presidential nominees, and Congressional leaders of both parties to make a quick decision.

Supporters said the bailout was needed to prevent economic collapse; opponents said it was hasty, ill conceived and risked too much taxpayer money to help Wall Street tycoons, while providing no guarantees of success. The rescue plan allows the Treasury to buy troubled securities from financial firms in an effort to ease a deepening credit crisis that is choking off business and consumer loans, the lifeblood of the economy, and contributing to a string of bank failures.

Officials say the final cost of the bailout will be far less than $700 billion because the government will resell the assets that it buys.

The final agreement disburses the money in parts, with Congress able to block the second $350 billion. It also provides for tighter oversight of the program by two boards, and requires the government to do more to prevent home foreclosures. Lawmakers also included efforts to restrict so-called golden parachute retirement plans for some executives whose firms seek help, and a provision allowing the government to recoup any losses after five years by assessing the financial industry.

Reporting was contributed by Robert Pear and Carl Hulse in Washington; Steven Lee Myers in Abington, Pa.; and Michael Cooper in Flagstaff, Ariz.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03krugman.html?em

All,

The very grim reality...and it's only going to get worse...

Kofi


October 3, 2008

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Edge of the Abyss
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times

As recently as three weeks ago it was still possible to argue that the state of the U.S. economy, while clearly not good, wasn’t disastrous — that the financial system, while under stress, wasn’t in full meltdown and that Wall Street’s troubles weren’t having that much impact on Main Street.

But that was then.

The financial and economic news since the middle of last month has been really, really bad. And what’s truly scary is that we’re entering a period of severe crisis with weak, confused leadership.

The wave of bad news began on Sept. 14. Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, thought he could get away with letting Lehman Brothers, the investment bank, fail; he was wrong. The plight of investors trapped by Lehman’s collapse — as an article in The Times put it, Lehman became “the Roach Motel of Wall Street: They checked in, but they can’t check out” — created panic in the financial markets, which has only grown worse as the days go by. Indicators of financial stress have soared to the equivalent of a 107-degree fever, and large parts of the financial system have simply shut down.

There’s growing evidence that the financial crunch is spreading to Main Street, with small businesses having trouble raising money and seeing their credit lines cut. And leading indicators for both employment and industrial production have turned sharply worse, suggesting that even before Lehman’s fall, the economy, which has been sagging since last year, was falling off a cliff.

How bad is it? Normally sober people are sounding apocalyptic. On Thursday, the bond trader and blogger John Jansen declared that current conditions are “the financial equivalent of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution,” while Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers says that the economy seems to be on “the edge of the abyss.”

And the people who should be steering us away from that abyss are out to lunch.

The House will probably vote on Friday on the latest version of the $700 billion bailout plan — originally the Paulson plan, then the Paulson-Dodd-Frank plan, and now, I guess, the Paulson-Dodd-Frank-Pork plan (it’s been larded up since the House rejected it on Monday). I hope that it passes, simply because we’re in the middle of a financial panic, and another no vote would make the panic even worse. But that’s just another way of saying that the economy is now hostage to the Treasury Department’s blunders.

For the fact is that the plan on offer is a stinker — and inexcusably so. The financial system has been under severe stress for more than a year, and there should have been carefully thought-out contingency plans ready to roll out in case the markets melted down. Obviously, there weren’t: the Paulson plan was clearly drawn up in haste and confusion. And Treasury officials have yet to offer any clear explanation of how the plan is supposed to work, probably because they themselves have no idea what they’re doing.

Despite this, as I said, I hope the plan passes, because otherwise we’ll probably see even worse panic in the markets. But at best, the plan will buy some time to seek a real solution to the crisis.

And that raises the question: Do we have that time?

A solution to our economic woes will have to start with a much better-conceived rescue of the financial system — one that will almost surely involve the U.S. government taking partial, temporary ownership of that system, the way Sweden’s government did in the early 1990s. Yet it’s hard to imagine the Bush administration taking that step.

We also desperately need an economic stimulus plan to push back against the slump in spending and employment. And this time it had better be a serious plan that doesn’t rely on the magic of tax cuts, but instead spends money where it’s needed. (Aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, which are slashing spending at precisely the worst moment, is also a priority.) Yet it’s hard to imagine the Bush administration, in its final months, overseeing the creation of a new Works Progress Administration.

So we probably have to wait for the next administration, which should be much more inclined to do the right thing — although even that’s by no means a sure thing, given the uncertainty of the election outcome. (I’m not a fan of Mr. Paulson’s, but I’d rather have him at the Treasury than, say, Phil “nation of whiners” Gramm.)

And while the election is only 32 days away, it will be almost four months until the next administration takes office. A lot can — and probably will — go wrong in those four months.

One thing’s for sure: The next administration’s economic team had better be ready to hit the ground running, because from day one it will find itself dealing with the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

U.S. Government Sells Bogus Bailout Plan to American Public Or 'Welfare for Billionaires'

All,

My response to my sister Regina's questions regarding the government's bailout bill for Wall Street or as I like to call it 'Welfare for Billionaires'...

Kofi


Regina,

You're quite right to raise these very important questions and certainly what you've outlined here (and what Obama has also openly acknowledged) is factually true as far as it goes. SOMETHING has to be done. No doubt about it...

HOWEVER, the bailout plan as presently constituted will not and cannot address the major and most important issue actually facing the American taxpayer/worker/citizen/consumer at this point and that is: Who's gonna pay for it and who is going to continue to suffer big time no matter what specific government bailout plan is adopted? And the ugly answer to both questions is you and me--NOT Wall Street, which is to say the greedy profiteering CEOs, corporations, banks, and financial investment houses that specifically determine 'policy' (as in the numbers racket) within the huge gambling casino called Wall Street at this point. This means that no matter what a very severe recession IS going to be the end result in this situation for at least the next 2-3 years in this country and quite possibly/probably 4-5 years at the very least. This means not only higher unemployment, but lower wages, higher prices, and a very stagnant and weak investment sector which will adversely affect education, healthcare, social and technological infrastructure, and taxes for the average worker and consumer.

Wall Street and their ever reliable opportunist and irresponsible protectors--the U.S. government-- is selling the American public a big fat LIE with this legislation. In other words the real problem is not what the stock market does or does not do day to day in terms of ever fluctuating world markets and the like but what happens to the American economy IN GENERAL if the bailout plan is approved. The average person (about 90% of the working public) doesn't have any control over what the stock market does regardless even under the best of financial circumstances, and of course 401K plans, 457 plans, IRAs and Social Security are all in immediate danger anyway because contrary to what both political parties and Wall Street has been telling the public the structural economy that protects these crucial 'safety net' provisions for millions of Americans is ALREADY DEAD.

Now that doesn't mean of course that these established provisions and protections will disappear overnight or that we can't continue to depend upon them in the short term (i.e. the next 2-4 years say) but in the long term (which let's not forget is the reasonably long range 'future'--5-20 years let's say--that we would all like to experience) these and many other social and economic programs will be adversely affected in a decidely negative and destructive way. Which is to say that if we don't collectively demand an entirely different political and economic relationship between corporations, banks, and ordinary working and middleclass citizens and families at the practical level of massive political regulation and nationalized control over wages, prices, pensions, and savings plans generally (and yes-- I'm talking about 'democratic socialism' for everybody--not just the rich, which is what this current bailout/welfare plan absolutely ensures) we will continue to be exploited and economically disenfranchised. In this light check out what the writer, documentary filmmaker, and political activist Michael Moore said in his open letter to his email list yesterday and that I forwarded to you and many others (see sample from Michael's analysis below). Moore is 100% correct and people really need to take what he says very seriously to ensure that we as a country of aware and responsible citizens, workers, and consumers organize to actually CHANGE the direction of this country which first and foremost means we all have to vigorously oppose the political, ideological, and economic domination of the wealthy over the rest of us. The only way to do that is to DEMAND democracy in ALL spheres of the government, the economy, and in our social and cultural institutions. The only way that can happen is through a conscious, well organized, and tenacious GRASSROOTS MASS MOVEMENT. It happened with Civil Rights, it happened with the fight for independent Unions, it happened with the fight for women's rights, it happened in the fight of Gays and Lesbians, it happened in the fights for Social Security, worker protection, tenants rights, and voters rights--hell it even happened to an extraordinary degree in Obama's presidential campaign-- and it MUST happen in the ongoing fight for economic democracy and the average citizen's political control over corporate and financial institutions. It's the next great fight for mass democracy throughout the world and especially here in the United States and it had better happen (much) sooner rather than later because if it doesn't we are ALL through. If corporate capitalism in its present form is allowed to continue we as citizens, workers, and consumers will be ultimately destroyed--no matter what happens on Wall Street...

Kofi


PLEASE NOTE: This is an excerpt from Michael Moore's general statement on the bailout plan that as I mentioned above I forwarded to everyone yesterday:

"The 95 brave Dems who broke with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were the real heroes, just like those few who stood up and voted against the war in October of 2002. Watch the remarks from yesterday of Reps. Marcy Kaptur, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Dennis Kucinich. They spoke the truth.

The Dems who voted for the giveaway did so mostly because they were scared by the threats of Wall Street, that if the rich didn't get their handout, the market would go nuts and then it's bye-bye stock-based pension and retirement funds.

And guess what? That's exactly what Wall Street did! The largest, single-day drop in the Dow in the history of the New York Stock exchange. The news anchors last night screamed it out: Americans just lost 1.2 trillion dollars in the stock market!! It's a financial Pearl Harbor! The sky is falling! Bird flu! Killer Bees!

Of course, sane people know that nobody "lost" anything yesterday, that stocks go up and down and this too shall pass because the rich will now buy low, hold, then sell off, then buy low again.

But for now, Wall Street and its propaganda arm (the networks and media it owns) will continue to try and scare the bejesus out of you. It will be harder to get a loan. Some people will lose their jobs. A weak nation of wimps won't last long under this torture. Or will we? Is this our line in the sand?

Here's my guess: The Democratic leadership in the House secretly hoped all along that this lousy bill would go down. With Bush's proposals shredded, the Dems knew they could then write their own bill that favors the average American, not the upper 10% who were hoping for another kegger of gold.

So the ball is in the Democrats' hands. The gun from Wall Street remains at their head. Before they make their next move, let me tell you what the media kept silent about while this bill was being debated:

1. The bailout bill had NO enforcement provisions for the so-called oversight group that was going to monitor Wall Street's spending of the $700 billion;

2. It had NO penalties, fines or imprisonment for any executive who might steal any of the people's money;

3. It did NOTHING to force banks and lenders to rewrite people's mortgages to avoid foreclosures -- this bill would not have stopped ONE foreclosure!;

4. It had NO teeth anywhere in the entire piece of legislation, using words like "suggested" when referring to the government being paid back for the bailout;

5. Over 200 economists wrote to Congress and said this bill might actually WORSEN the "financial crisis" and cause even MORE of a meltdown.

Put a fork in this slab of pork. It's over. Now it is time for our side to state very clearly the laws WE want passed. I will send you my proposals later today. We've bought ourselves less than 72 hours."

Michael Moore


On Oct 1, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Regina

What's the alternative...does ANYONE have a better idea...the options seem slim to none to me...either we vote for the "plan" that's on the table or we "freefall" in the banking markets another 777 points.

How does either strategy really help us? It seems to me that Obama is saying..."this is not a perfect plan or not even the plan that we should be voting on, but it is the ONLY plan on the table right now...and since TIME is of the essence, we HAVE to do SOMETHING."

Is there enough time for "Americans" to convene on Washington D.C..and FIGHT the "plan"? If so, what happens to the stock market in the meantime (i.e., our 401K plans, 457 plans, IRA's and Social Security) while we are all heading to Washington D. C.?

I'm not the sharpest tack in the drawer, but I do have questions?????


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/obama-sells-bailout-plan-to-skeptics/

"This financial crisis is a direct result of the greed and irresponsibility that has dominated Washington and Wall Street for years"
--Barack Obama

All,

Obama and McCain both are 100% wrong about this bill--there's absolutely no doubt about it. But the real question at this very latedate is: WHAT ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GONNA DO ABOUT ALL THIS? If there was ever a moment in American history when millions of citizens should be extremely angry, literally up in arms, and organizing huge NATIONAL PUBLIC PROTESTS IN WASHINGTON D.C. against the corporate capitalists and the criminally codependent government who created this bill it is now...

Kofi


October 1, 2008
Obama Sells Bailout Plan to Skeptics
By JEFF ZELENY
New York Times


LA CROSSE, Wis. – Senator Barack Obama intensified his efforts to rally support for the $700 billion financial bailout package on Wednesday, selling the idea to skeptical voters – and members of Congress – as a plan to “safeguard the American economy.”

“This plan is not perfect. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have legitimate concerns about it,” Mr. Obama said. “I know many Americans share those concerns, but it is clear that this is what we must do right now to prevent a crisis from turning into a catastrophe.”

On a crisp fall morning in downtown Lacrosse, where thousands of people gathered not far from the Mississippi River, Mr. Obama sought to explain the need for the economic rescue plan. The light applause from the audience, though, underscored the challenge facing both Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain as they prepare to vote for the bill in on Wednesday night in Washington.

Mr. Obama said the plan had been “misunderstood and, frankly, poorly communicated.” For the second day in a row, he devoted nearly an entire speech to explaining the plan, casting it as essential to warding off a crisis from rippling through the economy. He barely mentioned Wall Street as he presented his argument for the plan, portraying it instead as a necessary challenge for all Americans.

“This is not a plan to just hand over $700 billion of your money to a few banks,” Mr. Obama said. “If this is managed correctly, we will hopefully get most or all of our money back – we might even turn a profit on the government’s investment – every penny of which will go directly back to you, the investor.”

Lacrosse, a city that sits along the western edge of Wisconsin, has long been one of the key battlegrounds in presidential campaigns. Back-to-back commercials from Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain filled morning television programming here, with each of the messages devoted to the economy.

But in a 36-minute speech, Mr. Obama only mentioned his Republican rival by name one time. While politics was hardly off the table, the sharp rhetoric that has defined the campaign took a momentary backseat to a bipartisan call to action on the economic rescue plan, which both candidates now share ownership of.

“Future generations will judge ours by how we respond to this test. Will they say that this was a time when America lost its way and its purpose? When we allowed our own petty differences and broken politics to plunge this country into a dark and painful recession?” Mr. Obama said, steadily drawing his audience into applause. “Or will they say that this was another one of those moments when America overcame? When we battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other’s success? “

As Mr. McCain made his way to Washington from Missouri on Wednesday, Mr. Obama also was flying back, where he was set to arrive on Capitol Hill in advance of the evening vote scheduled on the Senate floor.

Michelle Obama: Why Racists fear her Intelligence, Independence, Integrity, Strength, and Beauty

http://www.flystylelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/michelle-obama-radar2.jpg

All,

If you get a chance please check out this September 2008 issue of RADAR magazine and read a very interesting article about the wonderful Michelle Obama and white America's very bizarre reaction to her and then check out the magazine's expose of the ton of absolutely murderously racist stuff that the magazine's staff actually downloaded from the internet viciously attacking Barack and Michelle in the most vile, DANGEROUS, and disgusting terms imaginable. It's FAR WORSE than anything you could imagine in your worse case scenarios about just how deeply rooted and widespread this racist poison is and how much the Obamas (and especially Michelle) are despised...

Kofi

The Psychosis That Rules America, Part III: Obama Confounds Racist Expectations

Doug Mills/The New York Times

Barack Obama, after his meeting at the White House on Thursday. A supporter said of him, “People don’t want theatrics here, they want steadiness.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26obama.html?adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1222427879-eB7NUlOWko+9E2Qy95m1Rg

All,

See how truly insidious the American psychosis of racism really is? Notice how Obama is being attacked for not foaming from the mouth and for actually maintaining a cool, calm, clear eyed, intelligent, emotionally mature, and statesmanlike demeanor in the face of crisis while many truly demented whitefolks in the media and the general society demand from him a "visceral" display of anger as in a viciously stereotypical demonstration of the crazed, irrational black man who they think (would? should? could?) beat his chest 'King Kong' style so they can then vicariously cop their utterly psychotic and even bizarrely sublimated "sexual" thrill of watching the "hot nigger" act a fool for them in public? You KNOW that's what is behind all these outrageously idiotic desires don't you? OF COURSE YOU DO.

You see, the major problem with all clinical psychotics (and that is essentially what all racists ARE) is that they are largely UNCONSCIOUS (or "act"/pretend like they are) of the fundamental fact that they ARE psychotic. They think that being violently irrational and full of insecurity, hatred, desire, envy, fear, and ironically INFERIORITY COMPLEXES) is only reserved for the object-people that they insanely think they are "superior" to (look it up in your Psychology 101 texts folks--I'm sure there's a little section marked "PROJECTION AND DISPLACEMENT" there somewhere)...

Thus we have and will continue to have this ongoing racist spectacle of these morons damning and condemning Obama both for being who he actually is AND for who they "want" him to be--especially if it's negative behavior. That's their racist desire and expectation (and thus demand). They can't stand the fact that the brother is intelligently "beyond" all that. After all exactly what kind of Uppity Nigger does he think he is?

Kofi


POLITICAL MEMO
In a Time of Crisis, Is Obama Too Cool?
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: September 25, 2008
New York Times

DUNEDIN, Fla. — Where many politicians would have aspired to show anger, Senator Barack Obama spoke in a soft, even tone as he reached the crescendo of his speech Wednesday about government mismanagement of the economy.

“At this defining moment, we have the chance to finally stand up and say, enough is enough,” Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, told a ballpark packed with 11,000 people here.

Two hours later, after Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, said he would temporarily stop campaigning because of the economic crisis, Mr. Obama looked downright unflappable at a news conference. Referring to this week of economic peril — and tweaking his Republican rival — Mr. Obama said flatly, “Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time.”

However forceful and passionate Mr. Obama can be, his speeches and public appearances this week have underscored how he is sometimes out of sync with the visceral anger of Americans who are losing their jobs and homes. He often talks about growing up on food stamps and about having paid off his student loans only recently, yet his tone and volume, body language, facial expressions and words convey a certain distance from the ache that many voters feel.

“People want presidents who lead and relate to them — they don’t want presidents who analyze and seem above it all,” said G. Terry Madonna, a pollster and director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. “Obama still comes across as dispassionate to the point of coolness. He is so comfortable in his own skin, he can be hard to connect with for people who are struggling.”

Discussing the Iraq war earlier in the campaign, Mr. Obama did not need to come across as livid because many voters saw him as right: he was the only top-tier presidential candidate who opposed the war from the start. Now the economy is the issue of the day, and Mr. Obama has largely been delivering Mr. Fix-It speeches and pointed critiques.

“For the candidates, it’s show, not tell,” said Ruth Sherman, a political communications consultant. “Saying you understand is not enough, you have to be able to show it. Obama’s dispassionate approach on the economic crisis fails him on this front because his delivery contradicts his words.”

Whereas former Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry struck populist tones during their presidential bids, Mr. Obama is having none of it. For better or worse, his performance in this time of financial peril goes to the heart of who he is. Mr. Obama may have looked subdued as he arrived at the White House on Thursday for a meeting on the economy, but he also stayed calm and ultimately prevailed at a similarly urgent point in his primary campaign against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose turn toward populism helped her win the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries.

“I think it would be more popular in the short term politically to be more populist on the bailout and Wall Street,” said Gov. Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, a Democrat, “but people know in their gut that a populist approach won’t solve the problem.”

Indeed, Mr. McCain has come under criticism from some voters — and from conservatives in his own party, like George F. Will — for railing against Wall Street and proposing to fire people and enact economic policies that conflict with his record.

For Mr. Obama, the financial crisis poses different risks. He wants to appear fired up over the economy, but he has written before about wanting to avoid appearing like a stereotypical angry black man. Unlike Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton and other black leaders whose fulminations could scare white voters, Mr. Obama is not from and of New York, Detroit, or the segregated South; he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. To some degree Mr. Obama faces the opposite challenge from fiery black leaders who came before him: Is he too cool for a crisis like this one?

(Notice the incredibly patronizing, condescending, and insidiously racist non-sequitur comparisons in this clearly racist paragraph?--Kofi)

“He may not be everything to everybody on the bailout, and he may not be a barnstorming speaker on this issue, but he is speaking credibly and seriously and honestly,” said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who joined Mr. Obama at a rally on the economy in Green Bay on Monday. “People don’t want theatrics here, they want steadiness.”

If voters in Michigan and Ohio do not demand stemwinding speeches from Mr. Obama, they may be left wondering where the passion is in his signature line, delivered at a fund-raiser in Chicago on Monday night: “We don’t get too high when we’re high, we don’t get too low when we’re low, we just try to do the job.”

Reba Younce, who attended Mr. Obama’s rally here on Wednesday, came away with just that impression of him. A 61-year-old independent voter and a former deputy in law enforcement, Ms. Younce said she would vote for Mr. Obama, in part because of his temperament.

“His way of approaching things may not work for everyone who’s angry nowadays, but I sense some anger just below the surface,” Ms. Younce said. “Though if things keep getting worse, he may need to turn it up a little, to show passion some more.”


All,

Meanwhile the far more visceral traditional forms of racist attack continue as a complement for the so-called "more refined" or "subtle" expressions advocated by media and (cough!) many "white intellectuals."

Kofi


Obama Effigy Hung From College Tree
By MARY HUDETZ
AP

NEWBERG, Ore. (Sept. 25) - Officials of a small Christian university say a life-size cardboard reproduction of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was hung from a tree on the campus, an act with racial undertones that outraged students and school leaders alike.

George Fox University President Robin Baker said a custodian discovered the effigy early Tuesday and removed it. University spokesman Rob Felton said Wednesday that the commercially produced reproduction had been suspended from the branch of a tree with fishing line around the neck.

George Fox University Robin Baker, president of George Fox University, described himself as "disheartened and outraged" by the effigy of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Taped to the cardboard cutout of the black senator from Illinois was a message targeting participants in Act Six, a scholarship program geared toward increasing the number of minority and low-income students at several Christian colleges, mostly in the Northwest.

The message read, "Act Six reject."

The disturbing image found near the heart of the campus recalled the days of lynchings of blacks and was all the more incongruous at a university founded by Quaker pioneers in 1891. Felton said he had been at the school since he enrolled two decades ago, and "I've never experienced or heard of any type of overt racial act."

At the end of the college's regular chapel service Wednesday, Baker told students he was "disheartened and outraged."

"It has been my dream to establish a university that more adequately represents the kingdom of God," he said. "This act causes some to question our commitment."
Baker added, "What I've learned is we still have work to do."

Administrators at the university said Wednesday they do not know who hung the effigy, which Felton said few people saw before it was taken down.

Newberg police Sgt. Tim Weaver said officials are working with the university to find out who was responsible. He also said the police department has notified the U.S. Secret Service, although it's not clear yet whether the act was a crime.

"It doesn't fit as a hate crime and it doesn't fit in as intimidation, necessarily," he said. "If it's not a crime, we're not going to be involved."

Brad Lau, a university vice president, said school officials have been questioning students to find out who was responsible. He and other school officials wouldn't say what action it might take.

The school has 17 students in the Act Six program, whose name derives from the New Testament book of Acts. All but one are members of minority groups, Felton said.

Students in the program receive full scholarships and are selected on the basis of leadership potential.
Several students in the program said they are angry but do not feel threatened.

"To me, I just felt like they weren't ready to have a black person be president," said Courtney Greenidge, a sophomore. "We're trying to bring change. Obama's trying to bring change." She described herself, like Obama, as biracial: half black, half white.

She also said that overall, the campus has a welcoming and positive environment, but that she has heard comments along the lines of, "Oh, I wish I was black. Then I could get a scholarship like that."

Obama spokeswoman Sahar Wali said the effigy hanging was "an unfortunate incident but you know we have had a very positive response from Oregonians across the state."

Obama is widely considered to be ahead in Oregon. In the run-up to the state's May primary, he drew a crowd of about 75,000 people in Portland.

George Fox University's campus is in Newberg in the Willamette Valley south of Portland. About 1,800 students are enrolled. It also has centers in Portland; Salem; and Boise, Idaho.

Felton said that about 2 percent of the students are black and about a quarter of the freshman class belongs to minority groups. That number includes international students, largely from Asia and Africa.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.