Obama Draws 75,000 in Portland Rally. 75,000

The very short video gives you an idea of the crowds. 75,000 is truly unbelievable and surely this must be the most attended political rally in the history of the United States. What does that say about his candidacy?

Barack Obama's Remarks on Social Security

Barack Obama's remarks on Social Security delivered in Gresham, Oregon

Remarks on Retirement Security

Senator Barack Obama

Gresham, Oregon

May 18, 2008

As Prepared for Delivery

Americans who work hard their entire lives have earned the right to retire with dignity and security. That’s the promise that each of us wants to be realized within our own families, and it’s a promise that we must keep for all American families.

For generations, Washington worked to protect that promise for working people. That’s the promise that my grandparents knew, even though they came of age in the Depression. My grandfather would go on to serve in Patton’s Army, and my grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line. When they set out west from Kansas to build their lives after the War, they did so with the confidence that Washington would help them reach a secure retirement. That was the promise that FDR made, and it was a promise that Washington kept for decades while folks like my grandparents moved through the ups and downs of life in America’s middle class.

But today, Washington is not working to preserve this fundamental part of the American Dream.A secure retirement is no longer a guarantee for the middle class. It’s harder to save and harder to retire. Pensions are getting crunched. The promise of social security may grow harder to keep. That’s why I will fight every day to extend the promise of a retirement that is dignified and secure when I am President of the United States.

It starts with protecting Social Security today, tomorrow, and forever. For millions of Americans, Social Security is the difference between a comfortable retirement and the risk of poverty. We have an obligation to secure the future of one of the most successful programs in our history. That starts with talking straight to the American people about the challenges that lie ahead.

Social Security is strong, but as more baby boomers retire, the long-term cash-flow needs to be addressed. We have to make sure Social Security is there for future generations.

Now we already know what the Republicans will be running on. John McCain has already said that he supports private accounts for Social Security – in his words, “along the lines that President Bush proposed.” Let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It’s a bad idea today. It would cost a trillion dollars to implement at the front end, and would put the retirement plans of millions of Americans at risk on a volatile Wall Street. That’s why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that’s why I won’t stand for it as President.

But Senator McCain’s campaign went even further a few weeks ago, suggesting that the best answer to the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or to raise the retirement age. I think there is another option that is fairer to working men and women. We have to protect Social Security for future generations without pushing the burden on to seniors who have earned the right to retire in dignity.

Here’s my plan. Right now, the Social Security payroll tax only applies to the first $102,000 a worker makes. I think the best way forward is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more and people in need are protected. That way we can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden on to seniors. And we should include what’s called a “donut hole” to make sure that this change doesn’t ensnare any middle class Americans.

But Social Security is not enough. More and more seniors are struggling with the cost of everything from gas to groceries, and we know that rising costs are hardest for folks on fixed incomes. That’s why I’ll make retirement more secure by eliminating income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year. This would completely eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors, providing a savings of $1,400 per person each year.

And it’s time to end the outrage of CEOs cashing out while workers lose their pensions. Right now, bankruptcy laws are more focused on protecting banks than protecting pensions. That’s not fair. That’s not the America that I believe in. It’s time to stop cutting back the safety net for working people while we protect golden parachutes for the well-off. If you work hard and play by the rules, then you’ve earned your pension. If a company goes bankrupt, then workers need to be our top priority – not an afterthought.

I fought against a bankruptcy bill in the Senate that did more to protect credit card companies and banks than help working people. And as President, I’ll limit circumstances when retirement benefits can be cut, and increase the wages and benefits that workers can claim in bankruptcy court. We’ll require companies to disclose their pension fund investments. We’ll put an end to the outrage of executives getting bonuses while workers watch pensions disappear. And we’ll make sure that no American goes bankrupt just because they get sick.

Finally, we’re not going to help folks reach retirement unless we encourage savings. But today, personal savings is at an all-time low as Americans are dealing with higher costs and a credit crunch. Meanwhile, 75 million working Americans don’t have employer-based retirement plans.

That’s why I’ve proposed automatic workplace pensions. There will be no red tape or complicated forms – employers will provide a direct deposit of a small percentage of each paycheck into your account. You can add to it, or you can opt out at any time. And employers will have an easy opportunity to match employee savings. If you switch jobs, your savings will roll over into your new employer’s system. If you become self-employed, you will control your account. Studies show that about 80 percent of Americans will enroll if given the option to pursue my plan. This will put a secure retirement within reach for millions of working families.

Since the New Deal, we’ve had that basic understanding in America. If you work hard and pay into the system, you’ve earned the right to a secure retirement. That’s the promise that was kept for my grandparents and Michelle’s parents, and for so many families here in Oregon and across the country. But in George Bush and John McCain’s Washington, the message to the middle class is: “you’re on your own.”

Well I’m running for because we must be the country where we say that we’re all in this together. We can do this. We can come together to keep America’s promise – not just for this generation of seniors, but for our children and our grandchildren. That’s a principle worth fighting for. And with your help, that’s what I will do every day when I am President of the United States of America.

The Flag-Pin Brouhaha Put in Perspective

Great commentary from my local paper, the Orlando Sentinel, about the whole flag-pin brouhaha. Scott Maxwell did an awesome job in this commentary and nailed the ridiculous nature of the controversy while serious issues that affect our daily lives go un-reported or under-reported ( "I think normal people know that pins don't prove you're a patriot. I mean, how patriotic did Larry Craig look when he was wearing one in his mug shot"?). The whole flag-pin issue has been promoted by the main stream media as a way to generate controversy which generates greater readership which generates even greater advertising revenues. And, of course, the Republican right wing jumped on it faster than a flea on a dog.

COMMENTARY

Wearing a flag pin doesn't prove a darn thing

Scott Maxwell

TAKING NAMES

May 18, 2008

John McCain obviously doesn't love Jesus enough.

You can tell just by looking at his lapel -- where there's no miniature replica of our Lord and Savior.

Lapels, after all, are where good Americans display things they truly care about.

That's the message being drilled home by attack dogs in the political arena with the help of the lap dogs in the media.

Only it's not McCain they're attacking. It's Barack Obama -- and the American-flag pin that's sometimes missing from his lapel.

Welcome to Democracy in America, where you might not wear your heart on your sleeve, but you'd darn sure better wear a tiny metallic flag on your sport coat.

Our country is at war. The economy's a mess.

And we're a nation consumed with fashion accessories.

In case you haven't turned on a cable news network in the past six months, the hubbub started when Obama had the audacity not to place an American-flag pin on his suit jacket. Not only that, he was unapologetic about it.

Some of those from the right pounced. They questioned Obama's patriotism, asking: Is someone who won't wear a flag pin -- and who, psst, has the middle name Hussein -- fit to lead our country?

U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, a Republican from Georgia, went on MSNBC and actually blathered on about Americans' right to scrutinize Obama and his pinless lapel until the host pointed out that Kingston himself was pinless.

At first, the whole thing was laughable -- the kind of farcical story one might expect to see on The Colbert Report.

But then, in a country with a short attention span and a lazy press corps, this nonstory caught fire. Even more so when Obama was spotted wearing the flag pin again.

The Associated Press quickly spread the news worldwide: "Obama sports flag pin again after long absence."

Time's headline asked last week: "Obama's Flag Pin Flip-Flop?"

Said the Los Angeles Times on its Web site: "Breaking News: Obama caves! Flag pin returns to his coat lapel."

The Wall Street Journal had actually carried an op-ed from a Democratic strategist that implored Obama to wear the pin immediately, saying: "He simply cannot afford to raise doubts about his patriotism."

I think normal people know that pins don't prove you're a patriot.

I mean, how patriotic did Larry Craig look when he was wearing one in his mug shot?

Heck, half of these things are made in China.

In polling local politicians, I couldn't find a one who viewed lapel-pin choices as anything we should really care about. Not Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty. Not Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer. Not even U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney, who's been known to wield patriotism the way medieval knights did ball maces.

So how did this get to be such a to-do?

Because, said Orlando Commissioner Daisy Lynum, who also has a flag pin but doesn't always wear it: It's the kind of stuff that "even a moron can debate."

She's right. And perhaps nobody specializes in morons more than we in the media.

We used to be pretty good at giving you the news you need. But, in recent years, as we tried to battle newer media for your attention, we decided to pander.

Why give you detailed differences between Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's health-care plans when we can let you know about Lindsay Lohan's latest relapse?

Why offer pictorials about neglected communities when it turns out we have a bunch of naked pictures of Eliot Spitzer's hooker?

Oh, it's not completely our fault. I've seen what happens when our online site gives you a choice between reading about school reform and viewing grainy video of high-school girls beating the snot out of one another.

We end up with a nation talking about the fluffy, the hyperbolic and the divisive.

There was actually a story worth talking about six months ago when the pin story first surfaced. When asked why he wasn't wearing a pin back in Iowa, Obama said he believed too many people had put on flag pins in the place of "true patriotism." So, instead of wearing one, Obama vowed "to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

That explanation, though, isn't quite so incendiary. It didn't fit into the anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing picture that Obama's opponents were trying to create. So it was largely lost among the cable-news scream-fests.

It'd be fine to take issue with Obama's -- or any candidate's -- energy policy or plans to care for veterans, fund higher education or combat poverty.

The problem is that few Americans even know where their candidates stand on those issues.

What they know about is flag pins.

Scott Maxwell can be reached at smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-6141.

JFK Responds to Bush's Appeasement Speech

Probably one of the best responses to President Bush's outrageous "appeasement" speech in the Israeli Knesset, and John McCain and Joe Lieberman's support of that speech, was made on a cold snowy day in 1961. And it was made by another young American who inspired the nation then much the same as Barack Obama is doing today. It is as timely today as it was when it was first spoken to the American people, and to our enemies.

From President John Fitzgerald Kennedy's first Inaugural speech given on Friday, January 20, 1961.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request -- that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course -- both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

President Bush, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman should each listen to that remarkable speech and stop equating Barack Obama's willingness to talk with our enemies as appeasement. It is not. It is statesmanship and diplomacy. And that's what the world needs today.

Dream Ticket Poll Closed. Results.

The Dream Ticket poll on this blog has closed.

The question was, "Should Barack Obama pick Hillary Clinton for his running mate".

A total of 907 votes were cast over a period of seven days.

852 (93%) of the voters oppose having Hillary Clinton on the Obama ticket.

55 (6%) of the voters want Hillary Clinton on the ticket.

James P. Rubin: McCain and Talking with Our Enemies

From the Huffington Post. There they go again. The old John McCain would just admit he changed his position and move on. But the new John McCain campaign is incapable of that. Instead, they are reverting to an attack on the messenger.

read more | digg story

ProPublica Has Some Real Potential

Talking Points Memo recently wrote about losing one of their main contributors to a new investigative journalism startup - ProPublica. If this new online news organization lives up to it's goals it will have enormous potential to act as yet another alternative, if not one of the best alternatives, to the ad revenue/ratings driven Main Stream Media.

Some information about ProPublica from its website:

What We’ll Do

We will create an independent newsroom, located in Manhattan and led by some of the nation’s most distinguished editors, and staffed at levels unprecedented for a non-profit organization. Indeed, we believe, this will be the largest, best-led and best-funded investigative journalism operation in the United States.

This newsroom will focus exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We will do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them. In so doing, in the best traditions of American journalism in the public service, we will stimulate positive change. We will uncover unsavory practices in order to stimulate reform.

We will do this in an entirely non-partisan and non-ideological manner, adhering to the strictest standards of journalistic impartiality. We won’t lobby. We won’t ally with politicians or advocacy groups. We will look hard at the critical functions of business and of government, the two biggest centers of power, in areas ranging from product safety to securities fraud, from flaws in our system of criminal justice to practices that undermine fair elections. But we will also focus on such institutions as unions, universities, hospitals, foundations and on the media when they constitute the strong exploiting or oppressing the weak, or when they are abusing the public trust.

We will address one of the occasional past failings of investigative journalism by being persistent, by shining a light on inappropriate practices, by holding them up to public opprobrium and by continuing to do so until change comes about. In short, we will stay with issues so long as there is more to be told, or there are more people to reach.

We will be fair. We will give people and institutions that our reporting casts in an unfavorable light an opportunity to respond and will make sincere and serious efforts to provide that opportunity before we publish. We will listen to the response and adjust our reporting when appropriate. We will aggressively edit every story we plan to publish, to assure its accuracy and fairness. If errors of fact or interpretation occur, we will correct them quickly and clearly. We will create a working culture that embraces all of these principles, and insist that they infuse all that we do.

How We’ll Do It

Our operating plan calls for a newsroom of 26 working journalists, all of them dedicated to investigative reporting on stories with significant potential for major impact. Paul Steiger will serve as Editor-in-Chief, Stephen Engelberg will be Managing Editor. The newsroom team will include three senior investigative reporters, eleven somewhat less senior reporters, a senior researcher, two editors, a dedicated blogger, a division of online development and two web producers, a computer-assisted reporting specialist, and a reporting assistant. This team will, we believe, constitute the largest such staff at any news organization in this country.

Each story we publish will be distributed in a manner designed to maximize its impact. At the outset, at least, that means that many such stories will likely be offered exclusively to a traditional news organization, free of charge, for publication or broadcast. (After an appropriate period of exclusivity, each story will also be published on our own web site. That site will also feature outstanding investigative reporting produced by others, sometimes with our annotation and follow-up, thus making our site both more of a destination and a tool to promote more good work in this field.)

We are very confident, based on soundings we have taken with editors and broadcast producers and drawing, in no small measure, on the reputation of our top editors, that leading news organizations will be more than willing to publish or broadcast our stories on this basis. We will support each story we publish with an active and aggressive communications effort of our own, including regularly contacting reporters, editors and bloggers, encouraging them to follow-up on our reporting, and to link to our site and our work.

How It Will Be Funded

The Sandler Foundation has made a major, multi-year commitment to fund ProPublica [Baldwin Park Democrat note: at the tune of $10 million a year]. Other philanthropic contributions have been received as well, and more are welcomed.

It is hoped that, over time, once stories begin to be published, and a “brand” built, other sources of sustainable funding, including possibly from readers, viewers and users, can be developed. The non-profit form, of course, meaningfully reduces the necessary revenue for sustainability.

From a philanthropic perspective it is also worth noting that this model will assure an unusually high level of accountability for a non-profit. One quality test for our stories is built into our model: these stories will have to be sufficiently compelling to convince editors and producers to accord them space or time. If they do so consistently, donors will be able to be confident that professional standards are being met and maintained, and that important work is being undertaken.

Governance

ProPublica is a non-profit corporation, and is exempt from taxes under Section 501(c)(3). It has its own Governing Board, chaired by Herbert Sandler. Mr. Steiger is a member of the Board. A Journalism Advisory Board of leaders in the field has also been assembled.

ProPublica has already opened its office in Manhattan and is in the process of acquiring staff. Hopefully it will begin publishing very, very soon.

Bush Negotiating with Rogue Nation North Korea

Keep in mind President Bush's absurd "appeasement" remarks in the Knesset (Israel's parliament).

President Bush considers North Korea one of the Axis of Evil and a rogue nation. And yet, his Administration has been negotiating with North Korea all along and continues to do so. This is just the type of dialogue that Barack Obama wants to establish with rogue nations once he is President. Bush has been doing it but he and John McCain keep arguing that Barack Obama doing the same thing makes him "unfit to be President". Kind of hypocritical.

From CNN:

The United States said Friday it has reached a deal with North Korea to provide 500,000 metric tons of food aid over the coming year to the closed-off communist

The Bush administration says the aid is unrelated to its nuclear disarmament deal with Pyongyang, although both have involved an unusual intensity of U.S. diplomacy with a nation President Bush once included as part of a rhetorical "axis of evil."

The State Department announced the food agreement after weeks of talks over how the aid would be distributed. The United States wants assurances the food won't be diverted or used improperly by the government of Kim Jong Il.

"The two sides have agreed on terms for a substantial improvement in monitoring and access in order to allow for confirmation of receipt by the intended recipients," according to a statement from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Talking with Terrorists? Happens All the Time

It's called diplomacy.

From the Huffington Post:

President Bush calls people who talk to terrorist groups appeasers and implies Barack Obama should wear a Scarlet A where his American Flag lapel pin ought to be.Well George, what did you call your good friend Tony Blair then? He spent most of the first years of his time in office talking to the IRA's political wing Sinn Fein. And managed to

read more | digg story

In Another Important Yet Smaller Contest

Scott Kleeb, an Obama supporter, won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska - and won it convincingly. Scott won 69% to 25% over his Republican turned Democrat challenger, Tony Raimondo.

Scott Kleeb still has important challenges to overcome in order to win the actual Senate seat in November - but with the support of the progressive community and the netroots, he can do it.

Financial support from the netroots can help to finance a voter registration and get out the vote campaign and to make sure that the people of Nebraska know him and understand his values and views on the issues.

Scott Kleeb is the type of individual that Barack Obama will need in the U.S. Senate to help bring about the changes so vital to this nation.

Check out Scott at his website and if you can, send him a donation, however small, as he works to support Barack Obama and the new breed of leadership that we need on Capitol Hill.

The Jeffrey Goldberg Interview with Barack Obama

The interview clearly outlines Barack Obama's strong and thoughtful positions on Israel and his unwavering support for the Jewish state. It's fairly long, but if you really want to know where Barack Obama stands on matters of interest to Jewish Americans, it's worth the time to read it carefully.

Published in the Atlantic.com website. Here are the excerpts from that interview as published in the Atlantic.com by Jeffrey Goldberg and which were recently distorted by Republican minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). I've highlighted the passage that was distorted by the Republicans to give the false impression that Barack Obama is not a friend to Israel.

The interview:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I’m curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man -- as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel.

And then that mixed with a great affinity for the idea of social justice that was embodied in the early Zionist movement and the kibbutz, and the notion that not only do you find a place but you also have this opportunity to start over and to repair the breaches of the past. I found this very appealing.

JG: You’ve talked about the role of Jews in the development of your thinking

BO: I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris. So when I became more politically conscious, my starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel, mindful of its history, mindful of the hardship and pain and suffering that the Jewish people have undergone, but also mindful of the incredible opportunity that is presented when people finally return to a land and are able to try to excavate their best traditions and their best selves. And obviously it’s something that has great resonance with the African-American experience.

One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don’t need to elaborate.

JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel’s side?

BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

JG: Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don’t know you –- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski –- then everything is suspect. There seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don’t feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it.

BO: I find that really interesting. I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what’s been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they’re asking themselves moral questions.

Sometimes I’m attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don’t think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they’ve interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn’t flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they’ve seen me operate in difficult political situations.

The other irony in this whole process is that in my early political life in Chicago, one of the raps against me in the black community is that I was too close to the Jews. When I ran against Bobby Rush [for Congress], the perception was that I was Hyde Park, I’m University of Chicago, I’ve got all these Jewish friends. When I started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I’ve been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends, so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it’s curious.

JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

JG: Were you flummoxed by it?

BO: I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.

When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel’s actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel’s right to defend itself. I said that there’s not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.

JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter’s suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?

BO: I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.

JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?

BO: What I will say is what I’ve said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.

I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

The notion that a vibrant, successful society with incredible economic growth and incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don’t know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it. I would not want to raise my children in those circumstances. I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That’s the question that has to be asked.

Obama to America's Veterans - A Must Read

Update: Here is the video of the entire speech. (Thanks to Barbara Snowberger over at Digg for bringing the video to my attention! )



From a speech that Barack Obama made in West Virginia. His commitment to American Veterans is unwavering. Here, in his own words:

And I want to thank the people of West Virginia – particularly those who have worn the uniform of our country. More of you are veterans here than in almost any other state in the nation. So many Guard members from this very armory have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan on tour after tour, year after year. And that means there are more West Virginians who’ve had to say goodbye to these heroes; who’ve borne the burdens of their absence in ways that are often immeasurable – an empty chair at the dinner table or another Mother’s Day where mom is some place far away. Your sacrifice and the sacrifice of your loved ones is immense, and it must never be forgotten.

There is an election here tomorrow. I’m honored that some of you will support me, and I understand that many more here in West Virginia will probably support Senator Clinton. But when it’s over, what will unify as Democrats – what must unify us as Americans – is an unyielding commitment to the men and women who’ve served this nation and an unshakable fidelity to the ideals for which they’ve risked their lives.

Without that commitment, many of us wouldn’t be here today. I am one of those people. My grandfather – Stanley Dunham – enlisted after Pearl Harbor and went on to march in Patton’s Army. My grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line while he was gone, and my mother was born at Fort Leavenworth. When he returned, it was to a country that gave him the chance to college on the GI Bill; to buy his first home with a loan from the FHA; to move his family west, all the way to Hawaii, where he and my grandmother helped raise me. Today, my grandfather is buried in the Punchbowl, the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, where 776 victims of Pearl Harbor are laid to rest.

I knew him when he was older. But whenever I meet young men and women along the campaign trail who are serving in the military today, I think about what my grandfather was like when he enlisted – a fresh-faced man of twenty-three, with a heart laugh and an easy smile.

These sons and daughters of America are the best and the bravest among us. They are a part of an unbroken line of heroes who overthrew a King for the sake of an ideal; who freed the slaves and faced down fascism; who fought for freedom in Korea and Vietnam, from Kuwait to the Balkans – who still wake up every day to face down the gravest dangers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all over the world.

When our troops go into battle, they serve no faction or party; they represent no race or region. They are simply Americans. They serve and fight and bleed together out of loyalty not just to a place on a map or a certain kind of people, but to a set of ideals that we have been striving for since the first shots rang out at Lexington and Concord – the idea that America could be governed not by men, but by laws; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and write what want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

Allegiance to these ideals has always been at the core of American patriotism – it’s what unites a country of so many different opinions and beliefs. It’s why some of us may disagree on our decision to start this war in Iraq, but all of us stand united in our support for the brave men and women who wage it. That’s how it should be. But it’s not how it’s always been.

One of the saddest episodes in our history was the degree to which returning vets from Vietnam were shunned, demonized and neglected by some because they served in an unpopular war. Too many of those who opposed the war in Vietnam chose to blame not only the leaders who ordered the mission, but the young men who simply answered their country’s call. Four decades later, the sting of that injustice is a wound that has never fully healed, and one that should never be repeated.

The young men and women who choose to serve are defending the very rights and freedoms that allow Americans to speak out against government actions we oppose. They deserve our admiration, respect and enduring gratitude.

At the same time, we must never forget that honoring this service and upholding these ideals requires more than saluting our veterans as they march by on Veterans Day or Memorial Day. It requires marching with them for the care and benefits they have earned It requires standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our veterans and their families after the guns fall silent and the cameras are turned off. At a time when we’re facing the largest homecoming since the Second World War, the true test of our patriotism is whether we will serve our returning heroes as well as they’ve served us.

We know that over the last eight years, we’ve already fallen short of meeting this test. We all learned about the deplorable conditions that were discovered at places like Fort Bragg and Walter Reed. We’ve all walked by a veteran whose home is now a cardboard box on a street corner in the richest nation on Earth. We’ve all heard about what it’s like to navigate the broken bureaucracy of the VA – the impossibly long lines, or the repeated calls for help that get you nothing more than an answering machine. Just a few weeks ago, an 89-year-old World War II veteran from South Carolina told his family, “No matter what I apply for at the VA, they turn me down.” The next day, he walked outside of an Outpatient Clinic in Greenville and took his own life.

How can we let this happen? How is that acceptable in the United States of America? The answer is, it’s not. It’s an outrage. And it’s a betrayal – a betrayal – of the ideals that we ask our troops to risk their lives for.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Not in this country. Not if we decide that this time will be different. There are many aspects of this war that have gone inalterably wrong, but caring for our veterans is one thing we can still get right. When I arrived in the Senate, I sought out a seat on the Veterans Affairs Committee so I could fight to give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve. We fought to make sure that the claims of disabled veterans in Illinois and other states were being heard fairly, and we forced the VA to conduct an unprecedented outreach campaign to disabled veterans who receive lower-than-average benefits. I passed laws to get homeless veterans off the streets and prevent at-risk veterans from getting there in the first place. I led a bipartisan effort to improve outpatient facilities at places like Walter Reed, and slash red tape, and reform the disability process – because recovering troops should go to the front of the line, and they shouldn’t have to fight to get there. I passed laws to give family members health care while they care for injured troops, and to provide family members with a year of job protection, so they never have to face a choice between caring for a loved one and keeping a job.

But there is so much more work that we need to do in this country.

It starts with being honest about the sacrifices that our brave men and women are making. For years, this Administration has refused to count all of our casualties in uniform. In Iraq alone, tens of thousands of troops who were injured or fell ill have not been counted in our casualty numbers, going against the military’s own standards from past wars. It’s time to stop hiding the full cost of this war. It’s time to honor the full measure of sacrifice of our troops, and to prepare for the cost of their care.

That’s why I’ve pledged to build a 21st century VA as President. It means no more red tape – it’s time to give every service-member electronic copies of medical and service records upon discharge. It means no more shortfalls – we’ll fully fund VA health care, and add more Vet Centers, particularly in rural areas. It means no more delays – we’ll pass on-time budgets. It means no more means-testing – it’s time to allow every veteran into the VA system. And it means we’ll have a simple principle for veterans sleeping on our streets: zero tolerance. As President, I’ll build on the work I started in the Senate and expand housing vouchers, and launch a new supportive services housing program to prevent at-risk veterans and their families from sliding into homelessness.

I’ll also build on the work I did in the Senate to confront one of the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – PTSD. We have to understand that for far too many troops and their families, the war doesn’t end when they come home. Just the other day our own government’s top psychiatric researcher said that because of inadequate mental health care, the number of suicides among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan may actually exceed the number of combat deaths. Think about that. Think about how only half of the returning soldiers with PTSD receive the treatment they need. Think of how many we turn away – of how many we let fall through the cracks. We have to do better than this.

In the Senate, I’ve helped lead a bipartisan effort to stop the unfair practice of kicking out troops who suffer from them. And when I’m President, we’ll enhance mental health screening and treatment at all levels: from enlistment, to deployment, to reentry into civilian life. We also need more mental health professionals, more training to recognize signs and to reject the stigma of seeking care. And we need to dramatically improve screening and treatment for the other signature injury of the war, Traumatic Brain Injury. That’s why I passed measures in the Senate to increase screening for these injuries, and that’s why I’ll establish clearer standards of care as President.

We have called on our troops and their families for so much during these last years, but we haven’t always issued that call responsibly. Yes, we need to restore twelve month Army deployments, but we also need to restore adequate training and time at home between those deployments. My wife, Michelle, met with Army spouses the other day in North Carolina who told her about the toll it takes to watch your loved one serve tour after tour of duty with little to no time off in between. And they told her something we all need to remember: “We don’t just deploy our troops overseas, we deploy families.” That’s why we also need to provide more counseling and resources to help families cope with multiple tours.

And when our loved ones do come home, it is time for the United States of America to offer this generation of returning heroes the same thanks we offered that earlier, Greatest Generation – by giving every veteran the same opportunity that my grandfather had under the GI Bill.

There is no reason we shouldn’t pass the 21st Century GI Bill that is being debated in Congress right now. It was introduced by my friend Senator Jim Webb, a Marine who served as Navy Secretary under President Ronald Reagan.. His plan has widespread support from Republicans and Democrats. It would provide every returning veteran with a real chance to afford a college education, and it would not harm retention.

I have great respect for John McCain’s service to this country and I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of the few Senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it’s too generous. I couldn’t disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream.

The brave Americans who fight today believe deeply in this country. And no matter how many you meet, or how many stories of heroism you hear, every encounter reminds that they are truly special. That through their service, they are living out the ideals that stir so many of us as Americas – pride, duty, and sacrifice.

Some of the most inspiring are those you meet at places like Walter Reed Army Medical Center. They are young men and women who may have lost a limb or even their ability to take care of themselves, but they will never lose the pride they feel for their country. They’re not interested in self-pity, but yearn to move forward with their lives. And it’s this classically American optimism that makes you realize the quality of person we have serving in the United States Armed Forces.

This, after all, is what led them to wear the uniform in the first place – their unwavering belief in the idea of America. The idea that no matter where you come from, or what you look like, or who your parents are, this is a place where anything is possible; where anyone can make it; where we look out for each other, and take care of each other; where we rise and fall as one nation – as one people. It’s an idea that’s worth fighting for – an idea for which so many Americans have given that last full measure of devotion.

I can still remember the day that we laid my grandfather to rest. In a cemetery lined with the graves of Americans who have sacrificed for our country, we heard the solemn notes of Taps and the crack of guns fired in salute; we watched as a folded flag was handed to my grandmother and my grandfather was laid to rest. It was a nation’s final act of service and gratitude to Stanley Dunham – an America that stood by my grandfather when he took off the uniform, and never left his side.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. But I also like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him.”

There is no doubt that we are a nation that is deeply proud of where we live. But it is now our generation’s task to live in a way that Stanley Dunham lived; to live the way that those heroes at Walter Reed have lived; the way that all those men and women who put on this nation’s uniform live each and every day. It is now our task to live so that America will be proud of us. That is true test of patriotism – the test that all of us must meet in the days and years to come. I have no doubt that this nation is up to the challenge. Thank you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Our Veterans deserve not only our respect - but also our action in their behalf. John McCain has shown that he may be a war hero but he is no hero to this generation of American Veterans.

Reasons Why KY and WV Should Vote Obama

What was it that George C. Scott said in the movie Patton? "Americans loves a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser". That's very true and something to think about as the citizens of West Virginia go to the polls tomorrow and citizens of Kentucky go to the polls on May 20th in the Democratic Primary.

"Americans loves a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser". Go with a winner. Obama has an insurmountable lead in every possible metric and has won the most states, won the most pledged delegates, won the most Super Delegates, and won the popular vote, etc.). Hillary Clinton started out this campaign as the "inevitable" nominee but has since squandered her very substantial lead by questionable campaign tactics, poor campaign appointments, constant changes in strategy, and regular goalpost shifting. If she were to run the country the way she has run her campaign the United States would be in even more serious trouble than we are currently experiencing.

"Americans loves a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser". Go with a winner. Barack Obama has won the fund raising war. Obama has more than $50 million in available cash that can be spent on the remaining primaries and has raised more than $40 million just last month. He has over 1,500,000 individual small donors who have contributed to his campaign. Hillary Clinton has a debt of over $20 million and has had to personally loan more than $11.4 million to her campaign. Hillary Clinton has lost the donor war and does not have the financial backing that she needs to succeed in the general election against John McCain.

Think about it. Go with a winner.

Don't forget to cast your vote in the poll asking if Barack Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. It's located in the upper right hand corner of this page. Thanks!