Mitarack Obamney

“I’m Mitarack Obamney, and I approve of this message.” But what message is being approved of?  A closer examination reveals that both candidates are much more alike than different.  Both nominees are pragmatists and moderate candidates from the left and the right.  President Obama, despite right-wing pundits labeling him as a Marxist-socialist – has taken a moderate stance on the issue of free trade, opting to take a page from the Clinton playbook by signing trade agreements with countries like South Korea, Columbia, and Panama.  The president has also taken a stronger approach to national security, hunting and killing Osama Bin Laden, affiliates of al-Qaeda, and is even willing to target American citizens through drone strikes if suspected of collaborating with enemies of the state.  This has forced the staunchest Republicans to applaud his efforts.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, was the most moderate candidate who ran in this year’s entertaining Republican primary and managed to beat (or outspend) his more conservative challengers. While he played to the Republican base as a true conservative, Romney’s moderate stances on economic and social issues, not to mention being the governor of ‘blue-state’ Massachusetts, also explained why conservative voters pegged him as the second most palatable flavor throughout the primary election opting towards more conservative candidates like Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum until the lack of funds and poor organization forced these candidates out of the race. 

Since both men are essentially middle-of-the-road candidates, this general election campaign will focus more on independent voters than with energizing an unenthusiastic base albeit both candidates will still attempt to appeal to them.  Obama’s recent coming out in support of marriage equality may or may not have been driven by conviction (we will never know) but did score him tremendous political points by infusing millions of dollars into his campaign coffers from an under-tapped LGBT community and powerful Hollywood allies, i.e. George Clooney and friends.  Romney’s appeal as being a genuine conservative backfired when onetime campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom made the infamous “Etch A Skecth” gaffe that argued that Romney is able to re-invent himself and change his positions on key issues as they entered into the general elections.  This author believes that both candidates will not be able to muster strong support from their bases.  Obama will have difficulty to recapture the same excitement and momentum from 2008 because he is forced to defend his record and Romney will be challenged to rally his conservative base, those who view him as not conservative enough and those evangelical Christians who may view him negatively because of his Mormon faith.   Regardless of whether or not both bases become energized this campaign season, the reality is that the war will be won in who can cater to independent voters particularly in battleground states like Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida.

Every election for the second term is always a referendum on the incumbent president’s first term.  Thus, independents, when deciding who to vote for should not just consider President Obama’s record but to also ask the question, “What would Romney have done in that situation?”  This author believes that Romney would have taken similar action to the major policy decisions Obama made from the past four years.

The Great Recession

Would Romney have passed economic stimulus in 2009 when the country was experiencing an economic freefall losing an average of six-hundred thousand jobs per month?  Of course, he would.  No sitting president would stand idly by as the economy falls into shambles.  A policy of doing nothing isn’t policy at all and could be seen as a sign of weak leadership.  If President George W. Bush’s economic policies in his lame duck years were to give an indication of what Romney would have done, it would have been towards preventing the banks from collapsing while injecting economic stimulus.  Why?  Recall that the financial crisis occurred due to market failure (a bubble created from a bloated housing market) because of laisez faire policies and deregulation.  To cure the financial contagion would not have been to lessen regulation and allow the market to fix itself, as Republicans would have preferred, but to do the opposite, to increase government intervention to reign in Wall Street.  I’m sorry, but private equity firms like Romney’s Bain Capital, if given the choice, would not suggest that Wall Street simply restructure itself and fail, understanding full-well the economic repercussion: the entire U.S. and global economy’s demise.  Don’t believe me?  Just ask former Secretary of the Treasurer and former Goldman Sachs executive, Henry Paulson the next best option.

Health Care

Would Romney have aggressively pushed healthcare like Obama in 2009-10 - probably not, but would Romney have supported it if he sat in Oval Office?  Yes, he would if his Massachusetts’ health care plan was an indication.  In fact, Obamacare’s national provisions are far more moderate than the one Romney signed into law in Massachusetts.  Despite Mitt’s attempts to distance himself from Obamacare – asserting federalism as a justification stating that he would have never proposed the same model on the national level is disingenuous – and calling for its repeal to satisfy the Tea Party is no doubt political.

The Auto Bail-Out

Would Romney have bailed out the auto industry?  While Romney wrote an op-ed that argued that he wouldn’t have bailed out General Motors in The Detroit News, in hindsight this was a political tactic to differentiate him from the president and to show that he would have done things differently.  However, if he were sitting in the Oval Office presented with the same proposition, I suspect he would have done what Obama did since it would have affected his home state of Michigan.  If faced to make a decision to save thousands of US jobs, Romney would no doubt follow in the same footsteps.  To let GM fail would be political poison. 

While the campaigns will do everything to differentiate the candidates, define the other as more different or not in touch with the American people, remember that both candidates are likely to take the same policy positions on the major issues, despite the common philosophical-ideological-political differences both candidates hold.  In the end, America’s choice this November is really not one of apples and oranges but really just two different types of apples.  

A Pyrrhic victory over a looming war

The recent battle, impasse, and last-minute compromise over the federal budget illustrates the continued hyper-partisanship occurring on Capitol Hill.  

The same old political wrangling between Republicans and Democrats was on display that asked the question of what to cut in a midst of a government shutdown.

While the American electorate continues to stand along the sidelines frustrated at Congress and over the political process, it can blame itself for causing the problem since it voted in a divided Congress during last year’s midterm elections.  Whether or not this is what was expected is really a moot point since this is the very nature of divided government: more conflict and not less of it as the political parties attempt to exert power over the other.

Inevitably, compromise occurs, albeit last minute. The Republicans and the president finally compromised cutting $38 billion in spending from the federal budget.  While this may seem significant at first, in reality, it’s not.  If one were to take that amount and compare it with just the federal budget’s discretionary spending, it only amounts to 1%. That’s a pittance if we compare it with the entire federal budget that accounts over $4 trillion.   

While Speaker Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell tout this as a major victory for Republicans, it really was a pyrrhic victory.

The real battle begins as the president and Congress considers how to tackle the long term problems of ballooning structural deficits that continue to increase our national debt.  How do we curb the cost of entitlements - our unfunded promises and liabilities - like Social Security and Medicare?  Compound that with our national debt that has soared to $14.3 trillion (approximately $70,000 per person) and we have a perfect storm that is forcing Congress to face the difficult, yet inevitable task of raising the debt ceiling so the country does not default on its loans.

While the reality of the debt is grim, politically, the Republicans and Tea Party freshmen have no choice but to go along with the Democrats to raise the debt ceiling since the repercussions of the U.S. defaulting on its loans would mean another catastrophic, debilitating economic crisis at home and abroad.  

The battle to balance this year’s budget may have just ended, but the war to tackle the national debt has just begun.

The Political Genius of Barack Obama

In a bold move of political maneuvering, the Obama Administration decisively convinced a few Republicans that politics needed to be set aside in order to get things done, which called for political expediency.

By the end of 111^th Congress’ impressive lame-duck session, an array of vital legislation moved swiftly through the often protracted legislative process that included extending the Bush tax cuts, the ratification of the START Treaty, the repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell”, $4.2 billion bill to provide health care for 9/11 first responders, a sweeping food safety bill, 19 federal judges confirmed to the bench and enough money to fund the federal government through March.

One wonders if the White House had this game plan all along, resorting to “Plan B” after the “shellacking” the Democrats suffered during the midterm elections or was it an impromptu maneuver of an entrenched president.  This author credits the lame-duck victory to the president himself.  In an audacious and unexpected move, the president ventured on his own accord and conspired with Republicans to broker the extension of the Bush tax-cuts as a trade-off to extend unemployment insurance.  This, of course (what’s past is now prologue) infuriated Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats in an interesting twist when the majority party openly defies their own party leader.  But some way, somehow, the White House brilliantly orchestrated behind the scenes political-arm twisting that would make former presidents Truman and LBJ proud.  Recall that after the deal involving tax cuts was brokered, headlines battered the president’s lack of leadership: “Obama can’t lead”, “Concessions swindled by the Republicans”, “capitulated”, unable to muster “the power of the bully-pulpit”, Obama as “a one-term president”.

How did the administration in the course of two-and-half weeks managed to turn it around?  Was it the political calculus of moving towards the middle?  Was it convincing his party, particularly defeated Democrats, of the necessity of statesmanship over politics—the politics of nothing to lose?  Was it also the convincing of moderate Republicans like Sen. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown of the negative implications to political posturing?  Whatever President Obama did to persuade members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and allow them to see eye-to-eye clearly worked.  This week’s events were testaments of his political genius.  Mr. Obama was able to not only persuade both parties of the need to work together but to also convince himself of the necessity to do what the American people expected and demanded for him to do.  Mr. Obama clearly understands the situation, "If there's any lesson to draw from these past few weeks, it's that we are not doomed to endless gridlock," the president said. "We've shown, in the wake of the November elections, that we have the capacity not only to make progress, but to make progress together."

Not since Clinton did an American president heed former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli’s words of wisdom, “There are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.” Obama chose to compromise risking alienating his own party.  He traded-off tax cuts for the wealthy to extend unemployment insurance.  As a result, Obama was hammered from the left and right and by the press for giving in, but in the end, opened the dialogue necessary that allowed him to push other pieces of legislation he considered of importance.  The strategy of attempting to take the high road provided the edge he needed over the Republicans and it paid off dividends.

Is this a sign of what to expect in the 112^th Congress?  If it is, Mr. Obama has to continue this political strategy as he moves towards the center. In fact, Mr. Obama needs to be more politically savvy considering newly-elected Tea Party members like Tennessee Sen. Rand Paul and Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio are poised to make it difficult to move his legislative agenda along the process.  On the other hand, this may play positively to the president’s re-election bid in 2012.  Mr. Obama can, in fact, scapegoat Republicans if they play the role of obstructionists.  Nothing infuriates the American electorate more than gridlock and if the Republicans don’t help the president in moving legislation deemed important by the people, we may see a repeat of the Clinton playbook that helped propel him to a second term in 1996.  This is the political consequence of shared-government.

The question is who will out-maneuver who?  When does Obama push, when do Republicans dig their heels, when do both relent and compromise?  One thing is for sure as we begin a new Congress, bipartisanship will always find the undercurrent of partisan politics lurking below.  The question is who will have the political winds behind them as they approach 2012? 

What happened to America's Middle Class?

Bob Herbert joined The New York Times as an Op-Ed columnist in 1993. His twice a week column comments on politics, urban affairs and social trends.  Prior to joining The Times, Mr. Herbert was a national correspondent for NBC from 1991 to 1993, reporting regularly on "The Today Show" and "NBC Nightly News." He had worked as a reporter and editor at The Daily News from 1976 until 1985, when he became a columnist and member of its editorial board.  In 1990, Mr. Herbert was a founding panelist of "Sunday Edition," a weekly discussion program on WCBS-TV in New York, and the host of Hotline, a weekly issues program on New York public television.

By Bob Herbert


We can keep wishing and hoping for a powerful economic recovery to pull the U.S. out of its doldrums, but I wouldn’t count on it. Ordinary American families no longer have the purchasing power to build a strong recovery and keep it going.

Americans are not being honest with themselves about the structural changes in the economy that have bestowed fabulous wealth on a tiny sliver at the top, while undermining the living standards of the middle class and absolutely crushing the poor. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a viable strategy for reversing this dreadful state of affairs. (There is no evidence the G.O.P. even wants to.)


Robert Reich, in his new book, “Aftershock,” gives us one of the clearest explanations to date of what has happened — how the United States went from what he calls “the Great Prosperity” of 1947 to 1975 to the Great Recession that has hobbled the U.S. economy and darkened the future of younger Americans.

He gives the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve credit for moving quickly in terms of fiscal and monetary policies to prevent the economic crash of 2008 from driving the U.S. into a second great depression. “But,” he writes, “we did not learn the larger lesson of the 1930s: that when the distribution of income gets too far out of whack, the economy needs to be reorganized so the broad middle class has enough buying power to rejuvenate the economy over the longer term.”

The middle class is finally on its knees. Jobs are scarce and good jobs even scarcer. Government and corporate policies have been whacking working Americans every which way for the past three or four decades. While globalization and technological wizardry were wreaking employment havoc, the movers and shakers in government and in the board rooms of the great corporations were embracing privatization and deregulation with the fervor of fanatics. The safety net was shredded, unions were brutally attacked and demonized, employment training and jobs programs were eliminated, higher education costs skyrocketed, and the nation’s infrastructure, a key to long-term industrial and economic health, deteriorated.

It’s a wonder matters aren’t worse.

While all this was happening, working people, including those in the vast middle class, coped as best they could. Women went into the paid work force in droves. Many workers increased their hours or took on second and third jobs. Savings were drained and debt of every imaginable kind — from credit cards to mortgages to student loans — exploded.

With those coping mechanisms now exhausted, it’s painfully obvious that the economy has failed working Americans.

There was plenty of growth, but the economic benefits went overwhelmingly — and unfairly — to those already at the top. Mr. Reich cites the work of analysts who have tracked the increasing share of national income that has gone to the top 1 percent of earners since the 1970s, when their share was 8 percent to 9 percent. In the 1980s, it rose to 10 percent to 14 percent. In the late-’90s, it was 15 percent to 19 percent. In 2005, it passed 21 percent. By 2007, the last year for which complete data are available, the richest 1 percent were taking more than 23 percent of all income.

The richest one-tenth of 1 percent, representing just 13,000 households, took in more than 11 percent of total income in 2007.

That does not leave enough spending power with the rest of the population to sustain a flourishing economy. This is a point emphasized in “Aftershock.” Mr. Reich, a former labor secretary in the Clinton administration, writes: “The wages of the typical American hardly increased in the three decades leading up to the Crash of 2008, considering inflation. In the 2000s, they actually dropped.”

A male worker earning the median wage in 2007 earned less than the median wage, adjusted for inflation, of a male worker 30 years earlier. A typical son, in other words, is earning less than his dad did at the same age.

This is what has happened with ordinary workers as the wealth at the top has soared into the stratosphere.

With so much of the middle class and the rest of working America tapped out, there is not enough consumer demand for the goods and services that the U.S. economy is capable of producing. Without that demand, there are precious few prospects for a robust recovery.

If matters stay the same, with working people perpetually struggling in an environment of ever-increasing economic insecurity and inequality, the very stability of the society will be undermined.

The U.S. economy needs to be rebalanced so that the benefits are shared more widely, more equitably. There are many ways to do this, but what is most important right now is to recognize this central fact, to focus on it and to begin seriously considering the most constructive options.

Why the 14th Amendment should be reinterpreted

I pulled this op-ed from the Sacramento Bee. It examines the debate whether Congress should reinterpret the 14th Amendment, specifically the clause that states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …"  Congress is currently debating this issue which is relevant to immigration reform and national security.

By Jan C. Ting
Jan C. Ting is professor of law at Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he teaches citizenship, immigration and refugee law.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 8 percent of the babies born in the United States, one out of every 12, have at least one parent whose presence in the United States is illegal. The Washington Post and other news sources have reported on widespread birthright tourism, by which pregnant tourists come here to give birth in order to provide U.S. citizenship to the child. The current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows all such children, whether born to illegal aliens or to temporary tourists, automatic U.S. citizenship at birth.

Elected officials have begun to question whether that interpretation of the 14th Amendment is correct, and whether it can be changed. What the 14th Amendment says is, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …"

The 14th Amendment does not say or mean that all persons born here are citizens. There are many examples of persons born here who are not automatically citizens under the 14th Amendment. And in every such case the denial of birthright citizenship is because of the status of the parents.

For example, the children of foreign diplomats, even if born in U.S. hospitals, are not considered U.S. citizens because they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Children born on U.S. soil to alien enemies in hostile occupation are not citizens for the same reason. The Japanese military occupied two of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska during World War II. A Japanese child born there during hostile occupation would not be a U.S. citizen.

Children born in the United States to Russian spies recently accompanied their parents back to Russia when they were exchanged for Russian prisoners. Are those children entitled to return as U.S. citizens after graduating from Russian spy school? Shouldn't they, too, be regarded as born to alien enemies in hostile occupation?

For many years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, children born to American Indian tribes were not considered U.S. citizens because of their allegiance to the sovereign tribes. The fact that the exception for children born to American Indian tribes was later overturned by congressional enactment suggests a role for Congress in determining the proper interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment.

If Congress has the power through statutory enactment to interpret who is and who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the 14th Amendment, what interpretation should it adopt? Should it legislate that children born here to illegal aliens who are citizens of another country are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Or that children of temporary tourists are not born U.S. citizens for the same reason? The answer depends on whether we want to encourage or discourage the various categories of non-citizens who come to the United States.

The United States has the most generous legal immigration policy in the world. We give out every year about 1 million green cards to foreign nationals for legal permanent residence. It has been our policy to encourage the assimilation and naturalization of legal immigrants, and clearly their children born here should enjoy birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

But what about tourists who enter legally on tourist visas, but who have no ties or loyalty to the United States other than wanting the benefit of U.S. citizenship for their child? We want to encourage tourism, and most birthright tourists are in fact fairly affluent. But do we want to encourage persons raised entirely in a foreign country by foreign parents to be able to enter the United States as citizens because their parents were birthright tourists? If Congress decides otherwise, this opportunity could be limited by making tourist visas unavailable to pregnant foreigners who intend to give birth in the United States.

The issue of the children of illegal aliens is part of the larger issue of illegal immigration. The economist Walter Williams, when he taught at Temple University, used to say that, "The poor people of the world may be poor, but they are not stupid. They are as capable as anyone in this room of doing multi-functional cost-benefit analysis to determine what is in their own self-interest."

So if we want to encourage more of those considering illegal immigration, all we have to do is lower the costs and increase the benefits. Conversely, if we want to discourage illegal immigration, we have to increase the costs and decrease the benefits. What we cannot do is lower the costs of illegal immigration through non-enforcement, and increase the benefits through amnesty or a liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and then expect illegal immigration to go down.

Discussion of the genuine and complex legal issues surrounding the 14th Amendment should be encouraged and not arbitrarily cut off. Ultimately, we and our elected representatives must decide whether we want no numerical limits on immigration, i.e. open borders, or the alternative, enforcement of numerical limits as adopted by Congress. Pretending we have numerical limits, but not enforcing them, is not a viable policy.

Analysis on Proposition 8 decision

The decision to strike down Proposition 8 by a federal district court starts a process that will take this contentious issue towards a showdown at the Supreme Court.


The process has already begun with pro-Proposition 8 supporters appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here are the hypotheticals. If the Ninth Circuit Court lets Judge Walker's ruling stand, I am sure that the Supreme Court will have no choice but to grant certiorari as it falls directly under the Court’s original jurisdiction of states versus states. Currently, five states including the District of Columbia recognizes same-sex marriage while about half of the states in the union have provisions similar to Proposition 8 that bans same-sex marriage.

If it gets to the Supreme Court, and it decides to frame it as a civil rights issue, then this case will be classified under the minimum rationality standard - meaning that the government doesn't have to present overwhelming evidence to the Court to discriminate against same-sex couples. Thus, traditional marriage supporters should feel optimistic about their chances that the Supreme Court may rule in their favor. However, traditional marriage supporters' advocate on the government side (Obama's new Solicitor General, whoever that person maybe, now that Elena Kagan has assumed the bench) may not totally be one-hundred percent on their side. Why? - Because of Obama's position on the issue.

This is a quandary for the Obama administration whose middle-of-the-road position regarding same-sex marriage may get him into deep political hot water. President Obama is against Proposition 8, but he does not support same-sex "marriage", however, he is in favor of repealing Congress' Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by a majority Republican congress. Obama's walking a political tight rope with this issue fearing in alienating his base (pro-same-sex marriage supporters) while not losing the support of moderate to conservative independents (traditional marriage proponents) who helped him win in 2008. The bottom line is that the administration wants to make this a states' rights issue; however, looking towards the future, it has moved from the states to the federal courts and is inevitably now a federal issue.

A brief analysis at the current makeup of the court - five conservative and four liberal justices - indicates that the Court will rule in favor of traditional marriage; however, the swing vote in Justice Kennedy - a Sacramento native - is also known to side from time-to-time with the four liberal justices.

This is going to be a very interesting case if it gets to the Supreme Court whether it frames the issue under the 1st Amendment’s free exercise clause or the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In the former, the court may interpret the government, by expanding its definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, infringe on religious practice and freedom, thereby violating separation of church and state. Framing the issue this way would mean that it will rule in favor traditional marriage supporters. To frame it violating the 14th Amendment would make it a classic civil rights case. The Court could interpret the issue as violating same-sex couples' civil right to marry and thereby rule that they are not being protected equally under the law. This scenario will play well in favor of pro-same-sex marriage supporters.

Another scenario is that the court may narrow the scope of their opinion and rule in favor of states' rights, thereby upholding majority rule and Proposition 8. While this may reinforce the status quo, it will not make anyone happy nor will it make this issue go away as it will continue to prolong a violation of the Constitution's "full faith and credit clause" that requires states to recognize other state's official governmental documents. To rule in favor of states rights will mean that each state will continue to determine whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. This would only prolong the matter rather than solving it.

The only answer is a clear and definitive opinion from the Supreme Court.

A bailout for US Public Education

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, needs all the help he could get. At a time when the Obama administration seeks to raise education standards by announcing billions of extra federal funds for under-performing public schools, this recession has wrecked havoc on state and local budgets. This, in turn, meant deep cuts for public school and universities. This has sparked lively teacher and student protests and rallies across the nation in March 4.

UC Berkeley professor Robert Reich gets it right in his op-ed piece recently aired on public radio. If our financial institutions can be bailed out, why not consider a bailout for U.S. public schools and universities? If we are to remain competitive within the global market, isn’t it imperative that the U.S. invest in the future of its workforce? If we are to retain our standing as the world’s preeminent economy, shouldn’t we invest in our own unique resource – our citizens?

While raising standards of under-performing schools is important, Secretary Duncan must first save the dismal state public education finds itself presently. He, along with the president, needs to make sure public schools and universities stay afloat and survive this economic storm. If it doesn’t, we endanger all of our schools and the strides we have made. The Obama administration must understand that one cannot do the former if it does not address the latter.


ROBERT REICH: The recession has ravaged state and local budgets, most of which aren't allowed to run deficits. That's meant major cuts in public schools and universities, and an unfathomable future deficit in the education of our people.

Across America, schools are laying off thousands of teachers. Classrooms that had contained 20 to 25 students are now crammed with 30 or more. School years have been shortened. Some school districts are moving to four-day school weeks.

Community colleges are reducing their course offerings and admitting fewer students. Public universities, like the one I teach at, have raised tuitions and fees, which means many qualified students won't be attending.

Last year, the nation committed $700 billion to bail out Wall Street banks, the engines of America's financial capital, because we were told we'd face economic Armageddon if we didn't.

We've got our priorities backwards. Our schools are the engines of our human capital, and if we don't bail out public education we face a bigger economic Armageddon years from now.

Financial capital moves instantly around the globe to wherever it can earn the best return. Human capital -- the skills and insights of our people -- is the one resource that's uniquely American, on which our future living standards uniquely depend.

Starting immediately, the federal government should give states and local governments interest-free loans to make up for all school and university budget shortfalls. The loans can be repaid when the recession is over and local and state tax revenues revive.

Over the long term we've gotta shift incentives away from financial capital toward human capital. A tiny one half of 1 percent tax on all financial transactions would generate about $200 billion a year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That might put a crimp on Wall Street bonuses, but it's enough to fund early childhood education, smaller Kindergarten through grade 12 classes, and lower tuitions and fees for public higher education.

The Street's financial capital is important to the American economy, but over the long term the classroom's human capital is absolutely critical.

It's time to get things done

The trouble with Washington has always been the inability for the two major political parties to compromise. Many political pundits point out that “getting things done” in Washington during an election year is near to impossible. This is good news since this means there is still a slim chance that things will get done. The reason why compromise is hard to achieve is that members of Congress whose seats are at risk are deathly afraid to make the hard decisions on issues that would likely endanger their re-election campaign. My message to Congress is the same the president posited during his State of the Union address. Rather than being complacent, it's time to move forward - it's time to lead.

It's clear from recent public opinion polls that both the president and Congress suffered decreased favorability ratings due to constant partisan gridlock. In turn, this has alienated independent voters and moderates from both political parties and is giving rise to the Tea Party activists’ message of fiscal conservatism and small government. This movement’s message is resonating with middle-of the-road-Americans as it attempts to gain traction by co-opting the general public sentiment of discontent by making it their own. This should be a major concern to the two major political parties since many of these activists declared they are willing to target both Republicans and Democrats this upcoming election. In fact, the group continues to funnel money in key congressional races in Texas, Nevada, and Florida. Perhaps the most significant political victory thus far was in Massachusetts where Tea Party activists claimed that their support propelled now Republican Jr. Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts to the Senate. It is also apparent that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is wary about this group's political power influencing his already tough re-election bid to win back his seat in the state of Nevada.

This is the reason why both Democrats and Republicans must work together between now and November’s election if they are to turn the tide of the growing discontent over gridlock in Washington. They must put aside political agendas and pass salient legislation that will have an immediate impact on improving the economy and provide relief for Main Street. For Democrats this means passing sweeping health care reform and not just a watered down version of it. For Republican incumbents, it means setting aside politics by finding common ground on issues with Democrats that will directly help the American people.

Political jockeying from both parties must end or both will likely suffer the same political demise in November. President Obama understands this point and the prevailing political winds that accompany it. Probably thankful that he’s not up for re-election this year, Obama knows his party will take a hit in November. This is because of the slow pace of the improving economy and congressional Democrats’ inability to push through health care reform in a timely fashion. The question is not whether the Democrats will lose seats – they will – but rather whether the Democrats will retain their majority in the 112th Congress. This explains the president's urgency to bring bipartisanship back to the forefront. Obama’s recent attempts to meet and curry favor with the Republicans served as a pragmatic gesture to move the political process along. On the other hand, the Republicans also have much to lose if they are seen by voters as obstructionists and are unwilling to cooperate with the administration just to win back political power in Congress.

In the end, the American electorate will vote for members who get things done and vote out those who didn’t and remained complacent. It’s time for members of Congress to understand that being complacent also means being complicit and there is a political price to pay when one does nothing. The American people are tired of political wrangling. It's time for Congress to put the people first before the politics. If they don't, they might as well start cleaning out their desks for the next person who will occupy it.

Obama’s Foreign Policy: New World Cooperation

Barack Obama is the first American president to boldly venture out of the US in an attempt to assume the role of a global leader. His recent overseas trip gave a glimpse of how he intends to conduct US foreign policy in the future.

Unlike the prior administration’s inept engagement in political dialogue, he clearly understands that the key to building relationships comes through constructing strong coalitions by forging mutual agreements. In order to advance US interests abroad, the president needs buy-in for his agenda. That means being able to persuade not only the leaders of states but their constituencies as well.

This is the reason why Mr. Obama’s use of international town hall meetings is unprecedented. Only John F. Kennedy in his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech and Ronald Reagan’s speech to Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall comes close to advancing US foreign policy. The difference is that by using this town hall approach, Mr. Obama was able to engage the people in ways past presidents have never done before. His celebrity status with coverage from real-time news media gave the president the ability to draw the world’s attention by opening a new dialogue with a global audience.

Mr. Obama’s new foreign policy signaled a fundamental shift from that of the Bush administration years. Instead of asserting unilateralism and waving an American big stick, Mr. Obama demonstrated in his first international venture that the US now seeks shared dialogue from its allies to form multilateral policies in support of a reasonable world order. It is essentially what Mr. Obama did in the Strasbourg town hall meeting when he - after being unable to secure additional combat troops for Afghanistan from NATO - proceeded to highlight the threat of Al-Qaeda to Europe. Mr. Obama’s message to the people of France was that America couldn’t win the war against Al-Qaeda alone and that it needed France’s help.

Another interesting dynamic to this new foreign policy approach is the president’s potential ability to deal with rogue nations. His innate gift to strike accord with the people could potentially open dialogue with countries that the US has had minimal success in the past. Iran serves as a good example. Scholars who understand Iran know that the Iranian people are far more moderate than the hard-line Khomeini/Ahemedinejad government. If Mr. Obama is able to articulate persuasively to the Iranian people the dangers of nuclear proliferation and the incentives of a nuclear-free Iran, perhaps diplomatic ties with Tehran could potentially thaw and face-to-face talks could be reopened.

Mr. Obama’s goals are to find mutual agreement and build consensus among nations. As such, a foreign policy that attempts to do this can serve as the staging point to exert international pressure on rogue nations. This was illustrated when North Korea recently test launched an ICBM missile in the Pacific. While in Prague, Mr. Obama was swift to condemn the act. The president assumed the world-stage to not only speak on behalf of the US but to also speak on behalf of a unified international community that demands North Korea’s disarmament.

President Obama’s foreign policy of new world cooperation can be exemplified in the Istanbul, Turkey town hall meeting. Mr. Obama needed to win over the people of Turkey in order to build future relationships that would have far reaching implications in the region. On one level, Mr. Obama had to convince the people of Turkey - which are predominantly Muslim albeit secular - that “America was never at war with Islam.” By building on this theme of trust, the administration hopes, on a governmental level, to forge strong ties with Turkey to further advance US interests in the region. In fact, Mr. Obama was successful in negotiating an agreement with the Turkish government to use the country as an exit point for US troops in Iraq. A good rapport with Turkey could potentially strengthen relationships with countries in the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and pave a way for negotiations towards Middle East peace.

Strategically, Mr. Obama is essentially laying the foundation on which he believes the future will reap not only multiple successful objectives in US favor but to also implement policies with other countries to benefit the region. The innovative difference in Mr. Obama’s approach is to directly engage the people in the political process. Like James Madison, Mr. Obama - an astute student of history himself - understands that a well-informed citizenry is essential to push through well-intentioned policies. Mr. Obama’s new approach seeks to advance a culture of shared authority based on shared dialogue and enlightened mutual respect – something US foreign policy lacked for eight years. Mr. Obama’s fresh approach towards diplomacy may magnify US presidential power in an unprecedented ways; however, at this stage, it is too early to determine how much clout the president likely managed to sow during his recent visit to Europe.

As the reality of this recent trip illustrated, Mr. Obama did not get everything he wanted. When he arrived in London for the G20 Summit in the beginning stages of the trip, Mr. Obama set forth a plan that requested a commitment from other member nations to infuse more economic stimulus and to construct a uniform policy that would regulate the international banking system to address the economic crisis. While America sought enhanced economic stimulus spending, Mr. Obama embraced European concerns in support of regulated capitalism to facilitate recovery of a shared global market system. Albeit Mr. Obama failed to get the fiscal stimulus, he found the middle ground and received a $1 trillion infusion from the IMF to stabilize the economic crisis and help poorer countries. Mr. Obama also received partially what he wanted in Afghanistan. Seeking for more combat troops, NATO only promised to send an additional five-thousand troops for training purposes. Diplomacy as well as politics, is the art of compromise and is not a zero-sum game. Political scientists and perhaps Mr. Obama himself grasps that the process itself is incremental. Here, Mr. Obama may have not received everything he wanted but was able to get some of the provisions he asked for. That is a good start, although some media pundits might disagree.

This is only the beginning for the administration as it attempts to lay the foundation of international consensus and coalition. If it does so successfully, the US will be able to find renewed strength, respect, and leadership in the eyes of world as it seeks to address the great global challenges of the future including the War on Terror and global climate change. Mr. Obama’s first overseas venture, with its positive and negative outcomes, may prove to have laid the groundwork for a new world order of cooperation. Only time will tell if Europe yields and provides additional troops to Afghanistan. Only time will tell if the global economic crisis subsides and improves. Only time will tell if Mr. Obama’s popularity remains high with the world. If so, we may be looking at our first international global leader.

The Importance of Community Organizing

Perhaps some of you took offense to Sarah Palin's remarks ridiculing the importance of community organizing. I can tell you, I did.

I can tell you, from my own experience with the Obama campaign (19 months and still counting), that this movement for change would not have been possible without the time and commitment from people who believe that they could make a difference. It was founded on the tenets of community organizing.

Though the thrust of Palin's comment may have been directed only at Barack Obama alone, what she didn't realize was that it was taken as an insult by every single volunteer who have and continue to support this historic campaign. The following video summarizes my feelings.

Republican leadership shoot themselves in the foot

It's very rare that I find Comedy Central's Jon Stewart's montage thought-provoking; but here, he gets it right. With all due respect to my Republican friends, its leadership is shooting itself in the foot. With a campaign that promises "straight talk", why don't they "talk straight" first? See for yourself.

Palin, on the record, is not what Republicans claim her to be

While Republican Vice Presidential hopeful, Sarah Palin, delivered a rousing speech tonight at the RNC attacking Barack Obama’s lack of experience and denouncing Democratic values, it’s only fair game to also look at her record.

Republicans claim that Palin is a progressive reformer, but in fact turns out to be a major supporter of eamarks and porkbarrel spending. For example, Palin is a director of a Ted Stevens’ (the Alaska GOP senator recently indicted on public-corruption charges) 527 group raising corporate money. Palin takes credit for signing a major ethics law, but the impetus for the law came from legislators, especially Democrats. Palin claims to be a champion for small town Americans when she has supported increasing the regressive sales tax, even for items like food. She also supported the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere,” a $223 million tax payer earmark and then denies to ever have supported it. Though the bridge was never built, this porkbarrel money was still allocated to Alaska for infrastructure. In September 2006 Palin spoke in Ketchikan, saying the bridge was essential to the town. Palin also hired Washington lobbyists to secure taxpayer money for her hometown, securing more than $27 million, including $1.9 million for a transportation hub. The largest earmark was $15 million for a rail link between Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood, home town of Senator Ted Stevens.

Republicans claim that Palin is in touch with people when in fact her views are extreme and out of the mainstream. Her values and positions on every issue is the extreme opposite of Hillary Clinton. She opposes abortion even for rape and incest victims, and has suggested adding requiring parental consent for abortions to Alaskan constitution. Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling. She does not believe global warming is caused by humans. She is opposed to listing polar bears as an endangered species. She has supported expanding wolf hunting. The pastor of Palin’s Pentecostal Church says critics of George W. Bush will go to hell. In June 2008, Palin spoke before this Church and claimed the Iraq War is a “task from God.”

The real question for undecided voters to ask: Is Palin prepared to be Commander in Chief? The McCain-Palin ticket’s argument is to attack Obama on his lack of experience. However, Palin’s own political experience is limited. She has served as Governor of Alaska for 20 months. Prior to this she has served as mayor of a small town. She has no foreign policy or national political experience. Republican charge on Palin having more “executive experience” than Obama and Biden combined is empty rhetoric. By this logic she more experience than John McCain as well. Biden has spent 36 years in the U.S. Senate, and has been Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. By contrast, Palin received her first passport in 2007.

Even fellow Republicans in Alaska question Palin’s readiness. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the Alaskan State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?" Another top Alaskan Republican, John Harris, the speaker of the House, when asked about her qualifications for Vice Presidency, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."

Palin’s own mother-in-law, Faye Palin, says: “I’m not sure what she brings to the ticket, other than she’s a woman and a conservative.” In an interview with Larry Kudlow on CNBC, Palin stated: “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what it is exactly that the VP does every day?”

When asked in an interview about her thoughts about the Iraq War Surge, she said: “I’ve been so focused on state government; I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.” McCain’s choice of Palin as his running mate with little vetting demonstrates McCain’s tendency to make reckless decisions. Picking Palin reflects a trend of Republicans choosing unqualified candidates (Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, Michael Brown as director of FEMA, etc.)

It’s pretty obvious from the above that Palin, on the record, is not what Republicans claim her to be.

Day 5 at the DNC

(Cheryl) I’m writing this from the airport while Cirian feverishly writes the postcards he was intending to send out by Monday. Yesterday was quite amazing. While Cirian attended breakfast and heard from people like Mayors Gavin Newsome of San Francisco and former Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown of San Francisco, I slept in and lounged around the hotel room.

Cirian joined me later and went straight to bed – the night before had been long and he had finally caught the cold I’d been harboring all week. I went out to scrounge us up some food and actually discovered a nice little gyro stand in the middle of the street. We ate in the room before I had to leave for Invesco Field.

The convention tonight was to be attended by masses of immense proportions – over 80,000 would be in attendance. As a delegate, Cirian would have a bus to get him there, but as a lowly citizen I was on my own. I shared a taxi with two others (you’d be amazed at how many friends you’ll find when it comes to cutting costs), which hunted around the many closed streets and police barricades until dropping us off about a half mile from the stadium. From there it was a long walk dodging through people in order to get a better location in the security lines. The convention tried to be prepared to move quickly, but you can only get through people so fast…and there were a lot of people. Through one parking lot, up a sidewalk, twisting through another parking lot cut into three walking lanes, it felt like a Disneyland ride on steroids. The convention would not officially begin until about 4, but I had made it there by 2:30 and had a great choice of seating. I eventually chose one that faced the podium and was only slightly to the side. I may have been in the highest section, but I had a low row seat and a fabulous eagle-eye view to the arena and later the proceedings. Cirian would be on the floor that night, only about 70 feet from the podium on stage left.

The events were, in short, phenomenal! We heard from the children of Martin Luther King Jr., who spoke of their father’s dream and how proud they were of seeing, “…freedom ring from the mountain tops of Colorado”. We had performances from Black Eyed Peas who sang the campaign’s anthem song, “Yes We Can”, Cheryl Crow, Stevie Wonder, and Michael McDonald who gave a beautiful rendition of “America the Beautiful”. Everyone in the stadium was given flags and the chorus of waving red, white, and blue colors was simply beautiful. Some members of the crowd were given larger flags, like the kinds you hang at your house, and seeing the larger ones standing out from the seas of smaller ones was likewise spectacular. We heard from military brass (captains, admirals, and generals), who spoke of Barack Obama’s capabilities as a commander-in-chief. Joe Biden made a surprise appearance and introduced five ordinary people who told their stories (teacher, trucker, wife and mother) of failed health care plans, lost homes, children off to war, and how they found faith in Obama’s strategies for the nation.
Cirian told me later that, in the delegates section the groups were really rocking out to musical interludes, while others encouraged them to still further energies. One delegate from Minnesota was really enthusiastic about keeping people energized…Cirian later learned that he was the mayor of Twin Cities! Apparently, even the news crews were getting into the spirit. The CBS people were dancing and laughing, while the Fox News simply stared on. I guess some of the delegates started cat-calling, “Hey Fox, lighten up!”

Finally, the big moment came and Barack Obama himself stepped out onto the platform. By this time, we were all in a great mood and cheered him and waved our flags and really gave him a great welcome. He gave a rousing speech highlighting specific items he wanted to take care of during his presidency – green alternatives of energy, better health care, responsibly ending the war in Iraq, and the promise of a new hope for our future and our posterity.

(Cirian) Let me backtrack to the morning's events. After getting only four hours of sleep, I forced myself to get up to attend the last day of the California delegation breakfast. These breakfasts offered the best opportunity to network and hear from wonderful speakers. As Cheryl mentioned, I heard from Democratic mayors including Gavin Newsome, Willie Brown, and Denver mayor Hickenlooper. I also had a wonderful opportunity to hear from Sen. McCaskill from Missouri and former Clinton chief of staff Leon Penneta. The themes of their talks were the same. They rallied the delegation to organize groups to elect the Obama-Biden ticket. They also reiterated the critical importance of winning this election and pounded, once again, the theme of change.

As I exited the breakfast, I was unexpectedly stopped by a reporter from a local San Diego newspaper. The questions he asked were typical. Are you a delegate? Why do you support Barack Obama? How did you get involved? After hearing so many speeches that continuously repeated the message, I have to admit my answers sounded like well-honed sound bites: “If you want more the war; if you want more debt; if you want to see the disparity between the rich and the poor continue to grow; then go ahead and vote for John McCain. If you want to end this war responsibly; rejuvenate our economy by investing in alternative fuels; provide universal healthcare, the choice is Barack Obama.” Satisfied with the last answer, we exchanged business cards and parted ways.

As Cheryl mentioned, I made my way back to our hotel room. By that time, I was feeling miserable. My throat was soar, my sinuses were congested, and I developed a cough. It didn’t bode well for me before tonight’s crowing event—Barack Obama’s acceptance speech. I got to the room and collapsed for an hour!

After lunch, Cheryl and I parted ways again because I was told during the brunch that family and friends with community credentials had to leave by 1:30 to secure good seats; a wise precaution since she would be battling 80,000 other people who acquired the same prized credentials. As for the delegates, we would be transported by bus to Invesco Field between 2 and 4 pm, so I decided to take advantage of resting for another hour.

I caught the delegate bus and rode with a Hillary delegate turned Obama supporter named Miguel from Fresno. We had an interesting conversation. As a Mexican-American, Miguel was an ardent Hillary supporter. The mainly Latino community he represented supported Hillary passionately that some of them told him publicly that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama. So he posed his predicament to me in a question. If I were in his shoes, what would I do? This is the classic delegate versus trustee models that my students should recognize. Do I cast my vote for Hillary because that’s what my constituents demand me to do or do I vote for Barack Obama for the sake of party unity? I told him that I would choose the latter because that’s what Hillary told me to do. Hillary made it clear on Tuesday that the principles of the Democratic Party were much bigger than her. I expressed to him that the party was greater than the Republican alternative. Fortunately for Miguel, California’s delegate votes were suspended, but this didn't preclude him (he reminded me) in explaining the outcome to the Hillary supporters he represented.

Miguel and I entered Invesco Field and headed towards the floor. There was quite a buzz as crowds wearing Obama gear walked through halls. There was a deep anticipation in the air; all of us in a few hours would experience history together. We made our way through the tunnel used by the Denver Broncos (how cool was that!) and as we exited, the wide expanse of the stadium opened before us. After showing our credentials at various checkpoints (they were very strict in who had access in and out of the floor) we made our way to secure our seats over with the California delegation. I was finally there, pinching myself making sure that the moment wasn’t a dream. As people started to filter in through the stadium, I felt like Russell Crowe in the movie Gladiator, when he walked into the Roman Coliseum. Invesco Field that evening took the world’s center stage.

After securing my seat, I wandered the floor. With camera in hand, I made my way to the outside perimeter of the floor where the media was situated. As I wandered I ran into several notables. I saw the Rev. Jesse Jackson being interviewed; I managed to briefly shake hands with former ABC Nightline anchor, now NPR correspondent, Ted Koppel, walk beside Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and spoke briefly with Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana. I also managed to get a brief glimpse of Senate majority leader, Harry Reid from Nevada.

From there, I returned to my seat. A delegate sitting behind me brought a 3’ x 5’ American flag to wave and asked me if I would help him wave it. I enthusiastically agreed and since cameras and news reporters wandered the floor, we attracted some desired attention. Our photograph was taken and was published by the Associated Press.

As we waited for Sen. Obama’s speech, it was cool to see the many American flags that people waved along the three tiers of the stadium. In fact, the crowd successfully started the wave during the convention intermissions. While many spoke, the main event was Senator Obama’s acceptance speech. After being handed American flags and “Obama-Biden” and “Change” placards, we were ready for the main event of the evening. Sitting roughly 70 feet from the stage, I sat in anticipation; then, Sen. Obama made his way to the podium with a raucous cheer of “Obama” and “Yes We Can” from the crowd. It was an amazing speech, given 45 years to the day of MLK’s “I have a Dream Speech”. I’m not going to analyze the speech on this post (the media pundits are already doing that) but his key theme of change was made clear. I thought his best line in the speech was “Enough!” Direct and forceful, he spoke to me and countless others who are tired of the corruption and silly-politics. His message of hope—when people come together to make extraordinary things happen—made me believe that the impossible can become possible.

Sure, the media is going to spin this speech once again. They’re going to point to a lack of substance and his use of broad themes; but the last time I checked the president doesn’t make laws. That’s Congress’ prerogative. The president’s power lies in his power to persuade and there is no doubt that Sen. Obama has an innate ability to inspire and bring people together.

The speech ended with a barrage of fireworks, streamers and confetti. The theme songs from the movies “Remember the Titans” and “Glory” were appropriately played. It was truly an historic moment that I will never forget. I was truly blessed and privileged to be a part of it--a part of history.

Day 4 at the DNC

This has truly been a momentous day. I was able to take a picture with Former Assembly Speaker and mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown at breakfast. After breakfast, I changed for the first time this week into jeans and boarded a bus to participate in the DNC’s very first National Service Day.

Each delegation was given various tasks to work on for community service all around the city of Denver. Cheryl and I assisted in building a playground for Force Elementary School. Some mixed cement and built the structures and others planted flowers. Cheryl, myself, and several others shoveled and dragged mulch (wood chips) to cover the ground where the playground would be. We got to meet the principal of the school, Rachel Starks, and even take a picture with her. She was very thankful for our help, as were the students, who went out to tie ribbons to the fence in order to claim the playground as their own. Cheryl especially delighted in talking with the third graders as she is a third grade teacher herself. After two hours of labor, we boarded the buses hot, tired, sweaty, but with hearts full of gratitude and pride with the opportunity to serve.

We got back to the hotel, where staff informed us that protesters were on their way and that the hotel would be under lockdown for an undetermined period of time. We got to the room, quickly showered and changed for our next event, and got out before the lockdown started. From there, we walked to a luncheon gathering for Senator Barbara Boxer. I was able to shake hands with the senator and take a picture with her, but the high spot was seeing Annette (her grandson affectionately called "Anna") Lantos, widow of Congressman Tom Lantos. My very first experience with politics was serving a summer internship under Congressman Lantos and I will never forget what a wonderful man he was. It was truly a delight to see her again. Cheryl got to meet Jack O’Connell, the superintendant of schools in California. I only wish I had been able to take a picture of her with him to show off to her fellow teachers. She was also able to thank the individual who had given her the credential to see Michelle Obama speak on Monday night. He was very gracious about it and even introduced us to Tom Bohigan, the state director for Senator Boxer, who was running her campaign and was interested in acquiring my services in Sacramento.

From there, Cheryl and I parted ways. For the first time this week, we weren’t able to procure a ticket for her to attend the convention. Instead, she was going to go to a concert held in honor of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome. I’ll let her tell it in her own words…

(Cheryl) I was looking forward to going to a concert and, once parting from Cirian, I looked at the map to see where I needed to go. That’s when I realized I had left my phone in the hotel and had to go back and get it. From there, I took the tram back to the street I had been on and began the walk. About a quarter-mile into it, I realized I wasn’t going to make it on my nice shoes so I flagged down a cab. As we were driving along, I noticed a HUGE gathering of people the street over, and then the cabbie said that the street had been blocked. He turned around and tried to get around the crowd, but the swarm of humanity had completely blocked all streets leading to where I wanted to go. After ten minutes of twists and turns, we both realized that I wasn’t going anywhere today. I paid the cabby, thanked him for the adventure, and walked around 16th street, looking around the shops and simply wasting time. When my feet wore out, I headed back for the hotel, only to discover that the same protest which had prevented me from going to the concert had now swarmed into 16th street. The protest parade swelled for three blocks and stopped all traffic for a good 10 minutes as the thousands of individuals walked past. I later learned that it had been an anti-war protest hosted by about 3,500 people. It was by far one of the largest protest parades I had ever seen and, while I was impressed at these people’s right to free speech, I couldn’t help but wish that they’d picked a better place for it. At last they passed, and I walked the long blocks on aching feet back to the hotel, where I curled up for a nap and watched the DNC from CNN.

(Cirian) I walked with Pam, another delegate, to the Pepsi Center, contemplating about getting a cab (it was very hot), but deciding not to. Pam had usually taken the shuttle, so she appreciated my directions. Once we got there we parted ways and I assumed my seat in the Hall section. There, the state-by-state roll call was taking place. The secretary of the convention (don’t know her name, sorry) would introduce a state and announce how many delegate votes that state had. She would then ask that state to publicly announce their tally. Typically, the state chair person would approach the mike from the floor and give a looooong shpiel about how great their state was before actually announcing their vote tally. They would say something like, “The great state of Montana, big sky country, home to Governor such and such, blah, blah, blah…” It got to the point that some of their introductions became so long winded that it was just obnoxious and yet humorous at the same time. Interestingly enough, the states of New Hampshire and New Jersey, which Clinton had won during the primary, pledged all their votes to Obama as a sign of unity.

I received a text message from a friend who informed me that there was a controversy regarding the CA delegation’s vote. I discovered that Art Torres, our chairman, agreed to suspend the CA vote to allow the state of New York to formally nominate Barack Obama. If California’s 400+ delegates had voted, it would have put Obama over the top before New York could officially nominate him. When the secretary called on Illinois to give their tally, the Illinois chairperson, as a sign of respect to Hillary Clinton, yielded the floor to the state of New York. The New York chairperson humbly thanked the Illinois delegation and gave the mike to none other than Senator Clinton. At the mike, Hillary called for an immediate suspension of all state votes. Speaker Nancy Pelosi then excused the secretary, asked for a suspension of the rules, and a unanimous voice vote in the hall to nominate Barack Obama as the official Democratic candidate. This was heard, seconded, and with enthusiastic cheers, carried. In that moment, history was made. For the first time, a major political party nominated a person of color to be their standard bearer and possibly the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. I was there to see it and raised my voice to support it. How cool is that!?


The key speakers for that evening were former President Bill Clinton and VP candidate Joe Biden. The question lingering was whether Bill Clinton would support Barack Obama. The media had hyped up the division between the Clintons and the Obamas, but after his speech, there was no doubt that the party was united. He laid a convincing argument on the stark differences between the Democratic and Republican platforms, and as he did he argued substantively why Barack Obama was the better choice. He said that, after two terms of Bushism politics, “The third time would not be the charm”. After the speech, we watched a movie directed by Steven Spielberg and hosted by Tom Hanks, which merited the services of the armed forces over the years. During this time, volunteers handed out colorful “Biden” posters elevated on cardboard poles. We then watched a documentary on Joe Biden’s life. What really impressed me about him was his commitment to his family and his children. Joe’s son Beau introduced his father and then we heard from Biden for the first time. Joe Biden was direct and his message was simple. He learned from his mother that, “When somebody hits you, you get up and hit back harder”. He also quoted that, “all of us were equals”. At the end of the speech, Joe’s wife came to him and said, “We have a surprise guest for you.” Joe looked around and asked, “Who?” At that point, Barack Obama stepped out onto the podium and the crowd went WILD! Barack had been watching from a TV in a hotel across the street, and decided to make an entrance. How convenient that all of us just happened to have “Obama-Biden” signs passed out to us shortly before he arrived.

After the convention was adjourned, I found myself in a quandary. The CA delegation had a gala scheduled at 9:00 (it was currently 9:15) at a venue 3 miles out of town. Where do I go, and how the heck to I get there? Thank goodness for the volunteers holding signs to show us how to get to the shuttle. I thanked each and every one of them along the way. Crossing bridges and swerving sidewalks, I finally managed to board the bus. On the bus, I sat with Paula, the second youngest delegate in CA. Once again, I am reminded about the potential of the young as she recounted her story to me. She was the first person in her family to go to college. We discussed the convention proceedings and how we shared the values of opportunity and equality. It really emphasizes our beliefs about why we belong to the Democratic Party.

When I arrived at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, I only had to look up to see my loving wife smiling warmly at me from the second story banister. From the hotel, she had arrived in a cab and came before many of the other delegates. With an almost-deserted museum at her disposal, this third grade teacher resembled many of her kids as she raced through the exhibits and played with all the interactive gadgets. She later told me that she knew she’d wanted to do that, so she got there early enough to be a giddy kid in a candy store without anyone seeing her – then she could be the elegant companion to a delegate as he walked through the same exhibits. We ate an exquisite banquet, the highlight being a create-your-own pasta buffet, and talked with several other delegates about the convention proceedings. One named Robert showed off several pictures he had taken with VERY big notables, including the Clintons, President Carter, and Al Sharpton. When I asked about dessert, Cheryl knew just where to go and led me to a dance hall in the middle of the space exhibit. Some ladies were dancing on the floor, and I recognized one of them as someone we had met during Service Day. Robert then joined in the dance and before I knew it, I was throwing down moves on the floor with everyone else while a press agent snapped pictures. So much for dignity.

When we were too tired to dance anymore, we made our way to the fourth floor where we were treated to a spectacular view of the city of Denver at night. After all the chaos of the week, these few moments of relative peace were much needed indeed. I allowed Cheryl to take me through the museum, which was actually very impressive, and before I knew it, it was 1am and the museum curators were kindly ushering us out. Wearily, I boarded a bus back for the hotel, and spoke with other delegates. We stumbled into the room and crashed without blogging for the night…it was time to rest for the big day.

Day 3 at the DNC

Whew! We made it to the halfway point. It’s been a blast thus far. I had breakfast once again with the CA delegation and heard from Democratic governors around the nation including David Patterson of New York, Ted Strickland from Ohio, and Joe Manchin from West Virginia.

All of them spoke about the theme of change and the critical importance of balancing state budgets. I especially liked Gov. Strickland’s talking points when he said, “If you want more war, more debt, increased disparity between the rich and the poor, less health care, then go ahead and vote for John McCain. If you want to end this war responsibly, care for our veterans, invest in renewable energy, and rejuvenate our economy, then vote for Barack Obama.” Phil Angelides, former California gubernatorial candidate also spoke, joking that this was the closest he ever came to being a governor. He spoke to advocate for a new group called Apollo Allliance, that would invest in renewable energy. Since today was the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage, Chairman Art Torres called up all elected women officials from California for a photo op. It was cool to see so many women on the stage and how far they have come. They also offered pieces of white cloth to tie around our wrists, symbolizing the cloth signs women once used to march for suffrage. Cheryl was even gifted with a Hillary + Obama pin, a true rarity.


After breakfast, I met up with Cheryl to begin our day of exploring the city. As we walked through the lobby, Cheryl pointed further ahead and asked, “Who’s the dude with the white hair? He looks familiar.” It was former governor Gray Davis! We got to shake hands, and I thanked him for signing our college diplomas. I also got to give him my card and take a picture with him.


From there, we walked around the Civic Gardens to watch the protestors. We took great pictures of religious conservatives shouting down Democrats for perverting the Bible and condemning them to hell, while the onlookers shouted out their own retorts. We found this highly amusing, but also found a deeper respect for the freedoms we are given in this country. These two groups disagreed highly but both were allowed to express their opinions, and only bullhorns were used instead of bullets. Indeed, the police presence was extremely high, and the more loudly the protestors shouted, it seemed the more police were ready to break up any scuffles. We amused ourselves with taking pictures of the stunning Denver skylines, especially the architecture of the Denver Public Library and Art Museum.

We decided to take a break from politics and tour the art museum, but I wasn’t there long before I had to leave for the Convention Center to attend the Veteran’s Caucus. I really wanted to be there to support the Filipino Veteran’s Bill (S. 1315), an omnibus bill that would finally provide benefits to Filipino WWII veterans that were promised to them by FDR, but never given because Congress rescinded them. I was privileged to meet several of these heroes and hear their stories. During the caucus, Congressman Mike Honda gave an impassioned speech that called for the support of this bill. He said, “Veterans understand that they don’t leave their fellow soldiers behind. This is a bill that can redeem Congress, because Congress never should break its promises.” Our Filipino delegation was asked to lobby for this bill as the vote will be taken in three weeks time. I’m going to put on my delegation hat and ask that, if you feel impassioned about this issue, please contact your local member of Congress and request that they support this bill.


I made my way back to the museum (where Cheryl had been traipsing around the whole time, enjoying herself) and attended a very informative panel discussion regarding the media’s role in politics. It was sponsored by USC’s Annenberg’s Center on Communication Leadership and Politico – my old alma mater. I was glad, amidst all this political fervor, to attend an academic event. The panelists included nationally renowned journalists such as Karen Tumulty from TIME magazine and Juan Williams from NPR and the Fox News Channel. They talked about how the role of media in politics had changed due to technology and how the role of the blogosphere affected the integrity of media reporting. It’s great stuff that I will be including in my media in politics lecture next class.


More than anything, I wanted to go up to them during the reception and ask them questions, but I was contacted by a friend who had a guest pass available that night for Cheryl, but I had to go pick it up. Unfortunately, they were a mile and a half away and traveling even further as we were speaking. I left my food and literally raced down 16th Street to get to the end stop by the time they did. Thank goodness I was wearing my comfortable loafers and not my Oxfords. I called Cheryl (still traipsing around the museum enjoying herself) and told her to gather what we needed for the convention and to meet me there. Tired, thirsty and sore, I made my way to the nearest decently priced restraint (Chipotle) and had dinner. Cheryl later joined me, and she ate while I continued to rest my still-protesting muscles. We then walked to the Pepsi Center and arrived shortly before 6 o’clock. The irony of the night was that Cheryl had been gifted with an “Honored Guest” credential, which allowed her to sit even lower than I had the night before. However, due to the fact that we had arrived so late, all of those seats and the ones I could procure with my credential were all taken. We ended up in the nosebleed section along with people who had Floor credentials but decided to sacrifice proximity for seating. According to them, being on the floor was as good as being in a sardine tin, and from our vantage point you could actually see the sheer mass of humanity in the room.




One bright spot of all this searching for a seat was that I ran into David Brooks, the political analyst for the New York Times. I'm a big fan of his work and see him all the time at PBS' NewsHour. I know, I'm a geek, I don't care. I was able to shake his hand and take a picture with him.

Although the speakers were less notable than last night, we still got some great one-liners, which Cheryl was kind enough to record:

• “George Bush was elected on 3rd base, and thought he had hit a triple. George W. was elected on 3rd base and then stole second.” Ted Strickland, Ohio governor
  


• “We can’t afford 4 more years. Let’s only make it 4 more months!” Sen. Casey, Pennsylvania



• “One generation can change the circumstances.” Deval Patrick, Massachusetts governor



• “Senator McCain offers change, but it’s not the change we need.” Rian Schwitzer, Montana governor
  
  

Much of the talk tonight was about what Barack Obama would do to change policy when he got to the White House. The term “green-collar job” was often mentioned, implying that there would be an influx of work in developing alternate forms of fuel. Other topics mentioned were equal pay to women and universal health care.

Of course, the highly anticipated speaker of the evening was none other than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who received an enthusiastic welcome. “Hillary” signs were distributed prior to her speaking, so she walked out to a flood of waving signs and deafening cheers. I believe she hit all the points she needed to in unifying the party. One big element was that she asked her supporters why they wouldn’t vote for Obama. “Are you voting for me, or are you voting for the mother dying of cancer with three adopted Autistic children? Are you voting for me, or are you voting for the mother and son living off of minimum wage?” The message was clear – the choice is now between change and “4 more years of the same thing”. I think the best quote she gave, though, was about the RNC: “It’s no surprise that Bush and McCain will be in the Twin Cities next week – they’re twins already!” It was an intelligent, rousing, impassioned speech to which both Hillary and Obama supporters enthusiastically supported and cheered the entire time.

After the convention, Cheryl and I went from a basketball arena to a baseball stadium – Coors Field. There, we attended the Veterans and Labor Union reception for various state delegations in the club suites (sweet!). Over crabmeat wontons and fruit skewers, we discussed the events of the convention and networked with a few folks from Long Beach who actually worked for an oil company. It was interesting getting their side of the story. The gentleman worked for domestic oil while his twin brother was currently in Nigeria trying to get oil out. He talked about how cities, states, and even the federal government profited from oil, but they were still made out to be the bad guys. He said that, instead of shutting them down or cutting off their funds, oil companies could lead the way in creating the alternative fuels. According to him, “When engineers and designers were given free reign on their ingenuity, supported by big companies, they put man on the moon. Let us do the same with clean energy.” Frankly, I agree with him.

We made the long walk back to our hotel. As we walked to the doors, a group of three men arrived at the same time and they opened the door for Cheryl. I recognized one of them and discussed the Filipino Veteran’s bill, while Cheryl talked with another of the gentleman. The one she was with invited us for drinks, but I had to get this blog posted, so I declined. As we left, Cheryl gave me his card, which he had given her. It turns out he’s an ambassador from Pakistan! Maybe I should have accepted those drinks after all…

Good night and see you tomorrow!

Day 2 at the DNC

This is Cheryl, Cirian’s wife. Cirian is busy consuming his first meal in twelve hours, so I have been assigned the duty of cataloging today’s events. We began the morning with a 7:30 stop to pick up Cirian’s credential – they give them out day by day. He also put in a request for me to receive credentials as well to be able to access the events in the Pepsi Center that night.

From there, we parted ways. He went to a breakfast where Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would be attending, while I picked up something from a corner café. According to Cirian, Nancy gave a rah-rah speech about how cool Obama was and the need for the party to unite. He was also pulled aside by a Filipino news crew, who followed him around and asked him questions. After they left, a superdelegate friend pulled him aside and gave him some pointers about how to respond to media questions: 1) you should be able to summarize 3 points with 27 words in a total of 9 seconds, and 2) prepare any messages you want to make or think you will have to make before-hand…it saves the necessity of backpedaling when the media spins it wrong. He also gave something equally valuable – his extra guest credential for me! After the breakfast, Cirian took pictures with 45 other delegates who were 30 years or younger, making it the largest youth delegation in California history.

From there, we met up together and Cirian presented the special guest credential to me, which was just like Christmas in August! These things were the hottest tickets in the world at that point, and I felt very humbled to receive one. I had spent the morning walking to the US Mint, which had closed for the week due to concerns about protesters. I’d also found a treasure – the only postcards printed for the DNC. I bought 10 for starters, but later went back for another 30 for souvenirs to friends and family. We walked to the Convention Center together and with our respective credentials, we were able to pass a horrendous line of security without being stopped, only for a credential check. I made a pit stop at the NEA office and Cirian went to the Asian American Pacific Islander caucus. There, he got photo ops with Congresswoman Doris Matsui, BOE member Judy Chu, and Congressman Mike Honda, the Vice-Chair of the DNC…since I was the one taking the pictures, you won’t see me in any of those.

We attended a lunch with members of the Filipino National Delegation and discussed issues concerning the Filipino community, including Filipino veteran’s issues and general grassroots organization for the Obama campaign. Well, Cirian attended the lunch, and I ate quickly and booked out to get more postcards and get changed. Ladies, a word of advice if you plan to attend a convention: Pack at least 2 outfits a day; one for casual walking around and caucuses, one nice outfit for the evening meetings and galas. And FLAT SHOES ONLY. A morning walking in nice sandals will only give you blisters for the whole week…not worth it. We rendezvoused at the Pepsi Center where we took our nose-bleed seats for the proceedings. Thanks to binoculars and large screens, the height didn’t prevent us from seeing anything.

For those of you who watched CNN, you missed out. There were several short talks by various platform committee members and various delegation representatives. We got a performance from a Colorado children’s choir who sang the National Anthem and John Legend who did a great soul piece. Also missing was the sheer energy running through the hall. During commercial breaks, a fabulous band played songs, the Florida delegation bounced beach balls to each other, and I swear there was a crazy hat contest going on between several individuals. The greatest highlights were, of course, the big speakers of the night. Ted Kennedy made a strong showing despite his pain and made several cry with quotes from his brothers in obvious support of Obama. Jesse Jackson Jr. delivered an eloquent tribute to Dr. King, stating that “this night, freedom has never rung from a higher peak”. Finally, Michelle Obama’s key note address truly rang home to the American people how both her parents and Barack’s sacrificed to give their children higher dreams and how she was now working to give her children a greater dream as well. It moved many delegates, myself included, to tears with how touchingly she spoke. You could truly tell she cared about her family and the people she served through her life. What was really cute was when her daughters came out and Barack surprised us all with a live showing from Kansas City. He told us, “Now you know why I asked her out so many times, even when she said no.” It was really sweet seeing the family interact with each other, even from a distance.

After the convention was over, we made our way back to the hotel and Cirian freshened up for yet another gala for the AAPI community. First, however, we stopped at a dessert reception held by Diane Feinstein. She had broken her foot a while back and couldn’t attend, but the reception went on anyway. Between ice cream sundaes, cheese, and fruit we were able to connect with yet more delegates from around the state and exchanged yet more business cards. Poor Cirian wasn’t able to fill up with the snacks, though, so we decided to ditch the gala in exchange for finding more hearty fare. In the lobby, we ran into Steve Westly, who had just arrived from walking the entire way from the Pepsi Center – we had taken public transportation and thus had arrived much earlier. At the same time, Mayor Gavin Newsome from San Francisco walked in and Cirian stopped him for a photo op. I explained our plans, and Steve shooed us away merrily, saying “Go feed him”. Between the exorbantly priced clubs and restraints that were still open, we chose the elegant Subway and Cirian walked away with a nice 6” sub. Hey, not everything about this week is going to be glamorous. There is such a thing as real life.

Speaking of real life, sleep is also a necessity. Good night and we’ll talk to you tomorrow!