Why Are You Reading This Junk?

During the primaries and general election cycle of 2008, I was completely enthralled, obsessed, and otherwise with everything going on. I had Obama fever and was incredibly proud of the Democratic party platform. I tuned in daily to Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and all things lefty. I was shocked, dismayed, and outraged at everything the Republicans said and did and enjoyed railing against the Bush failures like my liberal counterparts.

Now that the elections have ended and Obama is President, my attitude has changed.

One thing that has remained is that I am far more informed than I used to be and keep up with the news consistently. What has changed is that I am no longer intensely political.

I don't want more Democrats in Congress or "better Democrats," a term used frequently at Daily Kos to describe Democrats with values and voting records that they deem progressive. I want Senators and House members who serve their constituents, get things done, debate and vote intelligently, and don't do too many stupid things for stupid reasons. I'm not limiting these wishes to Democrats; I want the same for Republicans.

I sympathize with the causes of the Daily Kos readership far more than I do with the RedStaters. However, both far-wings of their parties (left-wing and right-wing) share the same tendencies to shriek and be shrill when things are not going perfectly their way. Political candidates must pass their ideological purity tests or else all bets are off.

I don't begrudge political activism in general, including efforts by progressives to unseat Blue Dog Democrats. However, I hope they don't yell at the Republican Party for not being a "big tent" party when they don't always tolerate diversity of opinion in their own party very well either.

I donated to and campaigned for Obama during the general election because I believed he was an honest guy who genuinely wanted to serve the American people and take the country into a new direction that was solutions-oriented and driven towards peace and prosperity for our country. My gut said he was who he said he was and that he would do what he promised. So far, I haven't been proven wrong.

I won't always agree with him, but I'm glad that we have the smartest guy room flanked by all of the other smartest people in the room and subject matter experts in their respective fields helping us get out of this mess.

I believe that the electorate has proven to be more engaged and informed than ever before (or at least in a long time). There will always be those who scream that Obama is a socialist or that he's in the pockets of Wall Street. However, the larger middle, the more engaged and informed larger middle, will hopefully start electing better public officials for both parties. Rampant passive consumerism can't last forever when so many people are hurting and awakened to the realities of the present.

Instead of offering up bloggers who only post about hypocritical words and deeds of Republicans, I recommend my two favorite blogs that offer insightful, intelligent, and thoughtful political analysis:

• The Field - Al Giordano Reports the United States
• Booman Tribune - A Progressive Community

Here's to using our heads and analyzing issues and candidates when we vote!

I look forward to participating in the Organizing for America Pledge Project Canvass this weekend. I look forward to talking with my neighbors about energy, healthcare, and education in the U.S. I am enthusiastic about initiating a discussion with a swath of people who will potentially make up a cross-section of ages, nationalities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and political beliefs.

The coalition that Organizing for America is trying to build is currently in trial and error mode. Grassroots organizing to affect actual governance instead of just the outcome of a campaign is probably a new idea in this country (correct me if I'm wrong). The size of the momentum of this movement remains to be seen.

However, I'm betting that it will be successful over the long term. It appears to be a continuation of the Obama presidential campaign. One key reason for its success was because of its broad appeal. The coalition included young and old, rich and poor, many different races, and Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

The universality of the message - let's get the government to work well and serve the American people so that we can be a more prosperous nation - will help to make it more successful than other political movements, or so I predict.

In the right wing of the Republican party, there are currently "Tea Party" and "We Surround Them" movements. It seems to be railing against the massive government spending that's being used to prop up the economy and alleviate the job-loss bleeding. The movement is comprised of people who steadfastly believe that the path that we are on will lead us to "socialism". The right wing is alive and well but seems to be a sliver of the overall U.S. population. Without an effective organization and leadership in place (aside from Rush Limbaugh, who is revolting to almost everyone outside of this circle), I don't see this movement gaining any steam over the long term or even controlling many news cycles in the short-term.

I consider myself to be generally liberal and have a record of voting for Democrats. However, many of my dear sweet comrades in the left wing love screaming and shouting as loudly as their right wing counterparts. They have become incredibly accustomed to railing against the system over the past eight years (some for the past 30 since the Reagan revolution began). Partisan bickering is their modus operandi, with many shouts of "screw the Republicans, we don't need them, let's just railroad them and do whatever the hell we want like Bush did to us!" Shouting "that's not change we can believe in!" at Obama cabinet appointees who are establishment-types, looking for people outside the system who could "come in and clean it up" regardless of whether or not they had the smarts and knowledge to be able to navigate that system that they would've been asked to clean up.

Nowadays, they call for Tim Geithner's head over the AIG bonuses. The idea of firing a Treasury Secretary, who I believe has an excellent economic mind, a strong grasp of the situation, and experience dealing with similar ones, in the middle of this crisis is a stupid reactionary call to arms. AIG bonuses are merely a fraction of a much larger problem that this guy is dealing with.

Back to the point about a universal message....a large number of people who stepped up during the Obama campaign and pushed him through the finish line are generally apolitical and apathetic. These folks woke up in large numbers, and we need them to help push this country in the right direction. We won't get everybody, but we need as many people as possible.

If a large enough portion of American citizens get involved in their government and are educated on the issues, then we will have a government that works. More people become involved and bring a diversity of opinion to the table, and ideas get scrutinized and ultimately strengthened by collaborative effort.

This is not just an appeal to Democrats or Republicans. This is an appeal to all Americans. This is why I'm excited to volunteer for Organizing for America. The movement behind Obama's candidacy moved me like no other politician has, and if that spirit can continue to change the country, then I'm in.

Granted, this operation is being housed in the Democratic Party. I hope that doesn't end up being much of a turnoff to Republicans and Independents. Either way, as long as field organizers continue to handle its operations instead of the usual top-down party structure, then I think we'll be able to keep its broad appeal going.

The above video displays U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) grilling Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner about how the AIG situation is being handled and why the names of their counter-parties receiving bailout money are not being released to the public. To my understanding, technically several counter-parties are being propped up with the bailout money going to AIG to prevent a Lehman-like shock to the economic system should they go down like dominoes.

Geithner's responses show his grasp of the situation, ability to respond under pressure, and understanding that he has to work within a legal framework and with the set of tools available to him through the government. That last point that I made gives me confidence in Geithner and the Obama administration as a whole. The bubbling populist rage has rightly called for "off with their heads" concerning AIG executives, bankers, etc. I'm glad that my government isn't acting out of vengeance and doing anything reactionary that could further screw things up.

Geithner's introduction to the Treasury may have been marred with tax problems and a dud of a "save the economy plan" speech, but I trusted Obama's judgment then, and so far he hasn't let me down.

Vilifying AIG is a fun past-time, but let's not forget how many other "too big to fail" businesses were involved in Credit Default Swaps and taking unbelievable risks. Their activities were focused on fast money and short-term profit, and what they were doing was legal thanks to deregulation. Who cares about the long-term health of your company when the whole idea is to make big money NOW?

Rewarding failure is another fun thing to talk about, especially with today's CNN article: AIG's insistence on bonuses raises ire in Washington. Here's the quote of the year taken from the article from AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy:

Liddy, however, makes clear in the letter that he took steps to limit his employees' compensation with trepidation. He said the company will have trouble attracting and retaining "the best and the brightest ... if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury."

If your ultimate goal is to retain those that you call "the best and the brightest" who helped drive your company into a ditch and onto the receiving line of corporate welfare, then I want to know what you're smoking so that I can get some. The rationale of calling the reasonable action of not giving out huge bonuses when your company is on life support "an arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury" comes from an awfully deluded mind.

AIG is not alone. There are plenty of others like this in big business. Laws of the land are set to curb the worst traits in human nature, greed in this case. When the laws set during the Great Depression to prevent another one from happening are repealed, what the heck do you expect?

I hope this gets resolved sooner than later, after swallowing many more bitter pills, of course.

I'm happy to report that Organizing for America is launching a Pledge Project Canvass scheduled to take place on March 21 across the United States. The purpose of this activity is to gather pledges of support for President Obama's budget based on three pillars: Energy, Health Care, and Education. Participants will either be going door to door or staging the canvass in a high-traffic area and approaching passersby.

From what I understand, the endgame of this canvass is to show our elected officials the level of support nationwide for the three pillars. Charting a new course towards clean energy, affordable health care, and improved education will be good for our country (and not to mention the economy; I love how Obama ties them all to the economy). It would behoove politicians in the Beltway bubble to take notice of this support if they know what's good for their political careers.

Call it a populist uprising without violence and strictly through positivity and neighbors talking to each other.

My fellow Obama campaign volunteers who canvassed and phonebanked during the election season who have been itching for a reason to do it again: let's hit the streets! Those who support the campaign for change but didn't volunteer during the election: now's a good time to give it a try. It's not as hard as it looks. We're only taking the first step in changing this country for the benefit and prosperity of its citizens!

According to a CNN article, "President Obama says the United States could be open to reaching out to some moderates in the Taliban in a manner similar to successful efforts with Sunni militants in Iraq."

Wait, what?? We are actually thinking about talking to our enemies??? You mean to tell me that this problem cannot be solved by killing people alone????

Heck, this could be a new trend. Journalist Helena Cobban blogged about the British government engaging with Hezbollah. Apparently these groups aren't made up entirely of extremists who want to wipe out the infidels. Perhaps engaging those that can be turned and assimilating them into the political process as a way of isolating the more extreme elements of the group isn't such a bad idea after all.

This possibility of talking to certain members of the Taliban is merely a trial balloon at this point as the situation in Afghanistan is still being assessed. However, this means of diplomacy could be part of a smarter strategy. Solely killing people with military means drives up recruitment for those that would do harm to innocent people. There have to be other options to achieve the goal of transferring the responsibility of securing Afghanistan back to its people and the US getting the heck out of there already!

Text: Hillary Clinton Speech to Gaza Donors Conference (hat tip to Enduring America)

I can't say for sure how this is going to play out, but I am quite pleased with the Obama administration's commitment to "peace in the Middle East" and a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.

I admire the fact that the Palestinian plight, especially the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, is being spoken about in clear terms, and that the US government is sending money for aid. As much as I would like to hear someone from this country with significant political power condemn the Israeli government for launching a full-scale assault and killing trapped innocents like fish in a barrel, I know that is unrealistic considering the powerful Israel lobby in this country. Hillary Clinton calling Israeli settlements "unhelpful" is as strong as critical words will get at this juncture.

Plenty of change has been happening since the November election. I hope part of this change includes the reduction of being called anti-Semitic when criticizing the Israeli government. The "Israel is always right" creed that so many people share should turn to "Israel needs to be a good neighbor and act as responsible citizens of the international community, which will ultimately lead to peace and security for its citizens."

As a Jew and the son of an Israeli, I hope that America's re-engagement with the world, with all of the diplomatic tools in its arsenal, will result in crossing the finish line to an Israeli/Palestinian two-state solution. And a lasting one at that.

Call me an optimist and a dreamer, but what other choice do I have?

I read a fascinating analysis of President Obama's latest weekly address by one of my favorite bloggers, Al Giordano in his piece entitled "The New and Improved 'Us vs. Them' Narrative." Here's his take on Obama's budget and how it changes the "status quo in Washington":

Okay, here's what I think just happened: The President has reframed the narrative from the stale dysfunction of Democrats demonizing Republicans and Republicans demonizing Democrats and stepped over that puddle of slime to create a more authentic narrative: The American people vs. the special interests (and note that the ones he mentions are universally from the corporate sector).

Holy blast from the campaign past! One of Obama's most appealing campaign promises was reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in government. It appears that he is attempting to keep that promise through the budget (as a starting point, I'm sure).

This is the time where we need to have Obama's back and do battle against the forces that will fight this sweeping reform to the death. I'm sure this will be done through the same grassroots organizing that got him elected in the first place. Those of us who are engaged need to bring on board as many people as possible, including those who don't generally get involved or pay attention to politics. Much of this will most likely be organized through the Organizing for America framework, but many people will choose to organize on their own and bring much-needed ammunition as well.

You want "change we can believe in"? Well, now presents an excellent opportunity for that!