DNC Chairman Meets with Black Political and Social Action Bloggers

9.16.10 - Today I attended a DNC meeting with Black Political and Social Action Bloggers and DNC Chairman, Gov.Tim Kaine. This is a 180 degree change from the days of black bloggers concerned about a lack of access within the DNC. I'm reminded about a post a number of years ago, by Liza at the culture Kitchen when she wrote: "These are the 20 liberal bloggers that met with Bill Clinton in Harlem.  As you can see, not one of them - black... It was great to see bloggers like Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal from Jack and Jill Politics, Black Snob's Danielle.Belton, Blogger Jeneba Jalloh "JJ" Ghatt, and a number of other bloggers at the meeting with the DNC Chairman. "The conversation  revolved around the DNC’s efforts to inform, engage and empower voters – especially African American voters- to participate in the upcoming elections.  The DNC senior staff have said if President Obama is to continue moving our country forward our community has to be informed.  Moreover, he needs allies in Congress and in order for him to have allies in Congress we need people to come to the polls and vote. The conversation with Chairman Kaine took place today at the DNC headquarters in Washington, DC with a conference call-in number for black bloggers who were not be able to attend in person.  Bloggers like Villager publisher of Electronic Village attended via teleconference.  There were background discussions with senior DNC staffers, including Clyde E. Williams, Political Director for the DNC, along with Derrick L. Plummer, Regional Press Secretary,  and Jamiah Adams, New Media Constituency Manager at the DNC.   Bloggers in attendance got a real opportunity to discuss the DNC’s detailed plan to engage voters and how the DNC can be a resource to members of the African American Political blogger community.  This meeting in many ways appeared to serve as a DNC coordinated follow-up to an earlier high level meeting between black bloggers and the Obama administration. As reported by Casey Gane-McCalla over at NewsOne,  President Obama's staff has been reaching out to an array of new black opinion-makers ---- black political bloggers and Pundits.   As reported by Casey Gane-McCalla, the White House meeting was brokered by Cheryl Contee of the blog Jack & Jill Politics, and was several months in the making. As reported by NewsOne, It also offered the bloggers a chance to connect with the administration and find ways to gain more White House access. Over 60 bloggers met in June with Jesse Lee, director of the White House’s Online Programs, and Corey Ealons, White House director of African American Media, while in the DC for Blogging While Brown conference. More HERE Regarding the meeting with the DNC Chairman Kaine it was organized by DNC Regional Press  Secretary Derrick L. Plummer, along with Jamiah Adams, New Media Constituency Manager with the DNC.    During the meeting we learned from the DNC Chairman that the DNC will provide an unprecedented amount of resources with a special emphasis on base turnout — youth, African-Americans, Latinos and first-time voters. I found the DNC Chairman to be thoughtful, candid, and willing to listen to ways to improve DNC communication to African American voters and African American bloggers. Advertising on black political blogs websites This Pundit asked whether there would be any special emphasis for the DNC to advertise on black political blogs. Something that has been a concern of mine and other black bloggers for some time. We will be asking that question again, and will inform our readers of the final answer. Show me the money! As I said back in 2007, more black voters will be reading these black bloggers views and opinions. There are progressive black political bloggers such Jack and Jill Politics, Afro-Netizen,Black Commentator, Black Agenda Report, Black Races, BlackProf, BrownFemiPower, Black electorate, Field Negro, Mirror on America, Negro Please, NegroPhile, Oliver Willis, Prometheus 6, Republic of T, Skeptical Brotha,Where Is The Outrage?,Francis Holland, and so many others, (don’t forget the Angry Indian – Voice of a Native Son) who just may be interested in advertising and the DNC's advertising dollar. Future Black blogger - DNC Coordination During the discussion with DNC Chairman,  Tim Kaine the former Virginia governor says given all the challenges his party's faced since the 2008 election, and despite the poll numbers, he's believes the Democrats can pull off victories in some races that will surprise people.  He pointed out Democrats need help from all segments to inform, engage and empower voters – especially African American voters- to participate in the upcoming elections.  AAP says: "I know I want my President to be successful. Do you? It's about rebuilding our nation, our communities our neighborhoods. Although I am not a Democrat, I believe it's time to rally with the President and his party around issues we agree upon. I believe progressive black political bloggers should support the President and the DNC... even when we disagree. Just remember to hold the DNC and the President accountable, if they don't address issues like high unemployment, poverty reduction and other issues important to our communities."

Billy Graham & the Rise of the Republican South: An Interview With Historian Steven P. Miller

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. In the age of Barack Obama, both the Republican Party as well as the South appear marginalized and out of step with the rest of America. Yet it wasn’t so long ago that the South represented the foundation of America’s conservative hegemony. Starting with Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, the Republican Party prevailed in nine out of the next fourteen presidential elections with a reliable Southern base. Specifically, the Republican Party exploited white Southern resentment against the cause of civil rights and integration. The "Southern strategy" as it was later called, enabled Republicans to end the Democratic Party's previous domination of the South following the Civil War. A key figure in that realignment was the renowned evangelist Billy Graham. Historian, Steven P. Miller, first explored Billy Graham’s role in this realignment with his doctorate thesis entitled, “The Politics of Decency: Billy Graham, Evangelicalism, and the End of the Solid South, 1950-1980.” Miller later converted that thesis into his current book, Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South, recently published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Miller’s book delineates how Graham allowed his iconic celebrity to be used by national politicians so they could make inroads into the South. His book also details how Graham capitalized on his leverage as a regional heavyweight to influence presidents and policy. With President Dwight Eisenhower, Graham had an ideological soul mate as both valued “moderation” between segregationists and those who championed integration. Graham believed that racism could not be overcome through legislation and the heavy hand of federal power. Instead, he advocated changing the hearts and minds of people “one soul at a time” through his integrated “crusades” where he preached his love thy neighbor gospel. Under the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, Graham straddled the fence between promoting racial tolerance and preserving local southern autonomy or “states rights.” In that regard, Graham was an intimate part of Richard Nixon's inner circle after he became president in 1968. Graham’s defenders argue that he helped the South transition from its shameful past while preserving stability. His critics claim that Graham was a cowardly apologist for white privilege who didn’t do nearly enough to advance the cause of civil rights. Personally, like many liberals, I'm partial to the latter argument. Ross Douthat writes in his April 19th review of Miller's book in the New York Times that, “Neither story is the whole truth, but both are true. And it’s a credit to Steven P. Miller that his ‘Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South,’ a study of the evangelist’s relationship to the cause of civil rights on the one hand and the cause of conservatism on the other, does justice to the tensions and complexities involved — for Graham, for the South and for the country. In Miller’s account, one of 20th-century America’s most important religious leaders emerges as a representative political actor as well, whose example is worth pondering less because he was courageous than because he often wasn’t. The story of the civil rights era is usually told as a collision between heroes and villains: the marchers on one side and the K.K.K. on the other; the Martin Luther Kings and Lyndon Johnsons making the way straight for justice, and the George Wallaces and Bull Connors standing sneering in their way. But the movement’s successes and failures were ultimately determined by the choices of more unheroic men — men like Billy Graham.” Miller, who earned a PH.D degree in history from Vanderbilt University and has taught at numerous institutions, including Washington University, Webster University and Goshen College, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about his book and our conversation was just under thirty-six minutes. Among the topics covered is the difference between hard core fundamentalism and evangelicalism, Graham’s role in facilitating Republican inroads into the previously reliable Democratic South, whether his middle ground on civil rights was courageous or cowardly, Graham's alliance with Eisenhower, his friendship with Lyndon Johnson, the intimate collaboration with Richard Nixon and the legacy he left behind. Please refer to the flash media player below. This interview can also be at accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

The Next Justice: An Interview With Legal Scholar Christopher L. Eisgruber

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. President Obama will soon announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. It’s a critical nomination with long-term ramifications for civil liberties, executive power, management-labor relations, the environment and consumer rights. Hence, it is vital the public know whether the judicial philosophy and ideology of any prospective nominee to the court is compatible with their sensibilities and values. Ideally, all nominees would be forthcoming about their philosophy as the senate either confirms or rejects them with full knowledge of the sort of justice they’re likely to be. Regrettably, that hasn’t occurred since the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings for Robert Bork. At the time, Bork scared the hell out of me and I’m grateful his nomination was not approved. Even so, I always respected how Bork was upfront about his ideology and judicial philosophy. Bork didn’t hide what he was and the American public and the Senate had a clear picture of what sort of justice he would be. Sadly, since the Bork nomination fight, our Supreme Court appointments process has become a Kabuki dance existing in an alternate reality. Nominees are conditioned to reveal as little as possible about their judicial philosophies or even avoid acknowledging they have one. A pitiful example is Chief Justice John Roberts who famously compared Supreme Court justices with baseball umpires during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” Contrary to John Roberts’ testimony, a Supreme Court justice has a unique and expansive role in our society. The Constitution contains too many abstract references and clauses for any justice to merely adhere to the rules based on a strict interpretation of the text. An example is the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. As the highly regarded legal scholar, Christopher L. Eisgruber, observes in his 2007 book, The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process (Princeton University Press) the Equal Protection Clause reads, “’No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ How should judges interpret this clause? Presumably, they must ask what it means for the laws to protect people equally. Yet that question takes judges straight to the nerve center of American ideological controversy. Liberals and conservatives disagree passionately about what it means for the laws to protect groups equally and about when it is appropriate for the laws to treat one group better than another.” Overall, Eisgruber argues that due to the Constitution’s many vague abstractions, a Supreme Court justice is disproportionately influenced by their individual values and ideology in determining when it’s appropriate for the court to intervene and even overrule our country’s prior laws. How could it be otherwise when the Constitution’s text is frequently subject to broad interpretation as with the Equal Opportunity Clause? Hence, it is imperative the senate determines if the judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court nominee is representative of the country. Some legal scholars such as Yale law professor Stephen Carter have argued that nominees to the Supreme Court should simply stay home because their testimony has ceased to contribute anything substantive. There is definitely merit to Carter’s point of view. Nominees since Robert Bork typically speak only in vague platitudes about practicing “judicial restraint” and are ultimately voted up or down based upon their reassuring television appeal. Eisgruber however argues in his book that the senate should ask more open-ended questions of prospective nominees about their judicial philosophies. Too often senators attempt to trap nominees with “gotcha” questions or ask about specific issues such as abortion that that can easily be deflected to “preserve their integrity” prior to joining the Supreme Court. Ultimately, little is learned and unless opposition interest groups get any traction or a scandal emerges, the nominee is likely to sail through without defending or explaining their ideology. One example of the sort of question Eisgruber suggests asking is, “The late Chief Justice William Rehinquist wrote that ‘manifold provisions of the Constitution with which judges must deal are by no means crystal clear in their import, and reasonable minds may differ as to which interpretation is proper.’ Could you tell us something about the values and purposes that will guide you when you interpret provisions like the Equal Protection Clause? How do those values and purposes distinguish your approach from those taken by other justices?” Eisgruber contends this approach has a better chance of determining the sort of justice a nominee is likely to be. He also argues that it will facilitate more moderate nominees and discourage stealth extremists. Eisgruber, who previously clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick E. Higginbortham (a conservative) and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (a liberal), agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about his book. Among the topics discussed were the insights he gained clerking for two ideologically different judges, the importance of justice’s philosophy about judicial review, President Obama’s desire for a justice with “empathy” and whether we might have a justice who did not serve in the appellate courts. I also asked him numerous questions from my liberal perspective, including whether ideological balance on the court would be better served by appointing assertive liberals instead of moderates. Please refer to the flash media player below. This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

The Democracy Index: An Interview With Law Professor Heather Gerken

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. On January 1, 2007, Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken published a widely read article in the LegalTimes entitled, “How Does Your State Rank on The Democracy Index.” Gerken argued that just as the Environmental Performance Index (“EPI”) shamed countries such as Belgium to upgrade their environmental practices, a “Democracy Index” would embarrass state and localities into reforming their electoral administration through competition. Since Bush vs. Gore in 2000, the debate about electoral reform has been dominated by anecdotes and overheated abstractions. Liberals like me have long suspected that states such as Ohio and Florida were deliberately disenfranchising minority voters sympathetic to Democratic candidates. Conservatives complained that voter fraud and urban political machines were allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots at the expense of Republican candidates. With her article, Gerken contended that a Democracy Index would replace a debate dominated by shouting with data driven arguments instead: “This index should take what Ohio State University law professor Daniel Tokaji calls a ‘moneyball approach.’ The word ‘moneyball,’ of course, refers to Michael Lewis’ book of the same name about the success of the Oakland A’s after management substituted hard numbers and empirical research for the gut-level judgments of baseball scouts in making hiring decisions. Similarly, the Democracy Index could change the terms of the debate by giving voters something new: moneyball politics. It would offer cold, hard numbers and comparative data in place of atmospherics and anecdotes. It would provide bottom-line results in place of subjective judgments. It would let reformers talk like corporate executives, not starry-eyed idealists. And, most important, it would enable the voters to hold election officials accountable for their missteps. In the end, a ranking system would work for a simple reason: No one wants to be at the bottom of the list.” Gerken further described her Democracy Index proposal and identified the major obstacles to good election practices with her new book, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How To Fix It (Princeton University Press). Her book is an accessible 181 pages and postulates that we need more facts about our election practices and that a ranking metric is our best hope to facilitate accountability and reform. Gerken also contends that our broken electoral system has less to do with intended malice than “deferred maintenance,” a term typically applied to failed infrastructure such as broken bridges. Shortly after Gerken’s LegalTimes article was published, Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, put her concept into proposed legislation and within a year, Congress set aside $10 million to fund model data collection programs in five states and the Pew Center. Other foundations also sponsored conferences and initial research. On March 1, 2007, Obama referred to these initiatives on the Senate floor as, “an important first step toward improving the health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that paralyzed the nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, nonpartisan, objective information.” Hence, Gerken's efforts illustrated at least the potential for action from the body politic to facilitate electoral reform but obviously, more needs to be done. With respect to electoral law, Gerken is among the most authoritative voices in the country. In 2006, Gerken joined the Yale Law School faculty where she teaches election and constitutional law. Previously, Gerken clerked for Supreme Court Justice David Souter and was an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, where she was granted tenure and won the Sachs-Freund teaching award. She has also written for the New Republic, Roll Call, and Legal Affairs and has been a frequent media commentator. Gerken was among several commentators who appeared on Charlie Rose’s program the very evening the Supreme Court rendered its fateful decision in Bush vs. Gore. During the 2008 presidential election, Gerken served on Barack Obama’s election protection team. Gerken agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about her book and proposal for a Democracy index. Our conversation was just over seventeen minutes and can be accessed via the flash media player below. This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

Come Home America: An Interview With Truth Teller William Greider

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. I first became aware of William Greider after the publication of his 1981 Atlantic Monthly profile of President Reagan’s embattled Office of Management and Budget Director (“OMB”), David Stockman. At the time I was just a kid and the Reagan administration insisted they could simultaneously balance the budget, cut taxes and increase defense spending exponentially. Greider’s reporting however exposed that even Stockman, doubted the fiscal prudence of Reaganomics. After the article’s publication, Stockman absorbed public humiliation when President Reagan took him “to the woodshed.” I trace that article as a seminal moment in my own political awareness. Over the years, Greider has been a determined voice of truth against a backdrop of America’s pro-war, pro-Wall Street governing elites and their enablers inside the corporate media. While Alan Greenspan was celebrated, Greider warned that the Federal Reserve and other regulatory agencies were guilty of dereliction. When celebrated economists such as Paul Krugman extolled the virtues of free trade and globalization, Greider warned of diminished wages at home and condemned the shameful exploitation our consumption habits subsidized abroad. Greider’s latest book, Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country, just published by Rodale, is a manifesto of hope and warning. In Chapter One, Greider writes: “Think of America at this point as a muscular teenager, full of talent, adolescent energy, and youth’s over-reaching impulses. This is a critical stage in human development and for our nation it could go either way. Some nations that acted like willful children when they were young formed balanced societies when they became adults. Other nations have never really grown up. The question, I think is whether-we-the people who proudly call ourselves Americans – can mature as a society. The country can develop a deeper sense of what matters most in life and what doesn’t. It can shed some self-destructive reflexes and acquire a wiser sense of national self-interest that is anchored in the nation’s ideals. Wisdom tempers egotism. This is true for both people and nations. Or, the United States can plunge ahead self-indulgently, repeating destructive habits, acting out reckless ambitions, and getting into deeper trouble. We all know children who, for whatever reason, got older but never found themselves. This is possible for nations too, especially ones that refuse to reconcile themselves to new realities. I am betting we will grow into our maturity and hoping that lots of Americans agree.” Greider’s book chronicles why America is in dire straits and proposes numerous solutions to facilitate a better economic foundation for America's struggling middle class. His recommendations include consolidating many of the Federal Reserve’s functions within the executive branch to ensure public accountability for monetary policy, replacing private pension plans such as 401ks with government pension plans instead and capping U.S. trade deficits through a general emergency tariff authorized under the charter of the World Trade Organization. Even more than any singular remedy however, Greider’s book urges outraged citizens to embrace activism as a means of forcing the powerful in the public and private sectors to finally put our national interests above corporate greed. Ultimately, Greider's book argues that the current crisis is an opportunity for citizens to reengage and facilitate a more just and equitable society. Greider is the best-selling author of five previous books, including One World, Ready or Not; Who Will Tell the People; and Secrets of the Temple. He’s written for the Washington Post and Rolling Stone as well as serving as an on-air correspondent for six PBS Frontline documentaries. Currently, Greider is the national affairs correspondent for The Nation. Greider agreed to a podcast telephone interview with me this afternoon about his book and views. Our conversation was just over forty-eight minutes and among the topics we discussed were the current A.I.G. bonus controversy, the Democratic Party’s culpability in overriding state and local laws against usury, his recommendations to overhaul the Federal Reserve and America’s pension system, our destructive relationship with China, America’s excessive militarism and the fine line being walked by activists who support the Democratic Party and President Obama while simultaneously pushing for real change. Please refer to the flash media player below. This interview can also be accessed via the Itunes Store at no cost by searching for either the "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

Watermelons on the White House Lawn

Photo: Keyanus Price Wouldn't it be funny to send out an email of the White House with watermelons on the lawn? Orange, California mayor Dean Grose thought so. It was an adolescent attempt at humor that he thought he'd share with a few friends. Not everyone thought it was funny. I know there's absolutely nothing wrong with watermelons growing on the White House lawn but now that Barack Obama is President, it has special significance. Now I know Mayor Grose didn't mean anything by this email and is surprised that anyone would be offended by it. It's only watermelons, what's the big deal? From Tim Rice, a prominent anti-racist commentator, comes the best observation: White Denial once again...so this guy says, "Oh sorry, I didn't know watermelons had a racial connotation..." I guess the next thing we're going to see is cotton in the Rose Garden or Michelle Obama as Aunt Jemima. But of course, nothing wrong with that since Aunt Jemima is on the shelf of every supermarket and grocery store. Aunt Jemima is an American icon and cotton is a natural fiber. Next up, 40s, nooses and black Sambo dolls.

Bobby Jindal - Science Fail

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeBobby Jindal, the GOP governor of Louisiana delivered the Republican response for Obama's Joint Session of Congress speech. You know it didn't go well when Fox talking heads calls it lackluster. You are certain it sucked bad when folks over at Little Green Footballs, Free Republic and Red State think he made "Palin look smart," "guarantees 8 years of Obama" and "anti-science." Yeah, Republicans complaining about a candidate being too anti-science. I was shocked too. But Jindal actually called out volcano monitoring as wasteful, pork barrel spending. The first thought that entered my tree-hugging liberal mind was "there goes his support in the American West." According to the US Geological Survey Circular, the US states that have active or possibly active volcanoes are New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. Wyoming is an especially troubling issue since it has Yellowstone - one of the largest volcanoes in the world. 640,000 years ago, Yellowstone erupted and it ejected 240 CUBIC MILES of rock and dust into the sky. In late 2008 and early 2009 Yellowstone experienced quake swarms - one swarm had over 500 earthquakes in a seven day period. If Yellowstone goes, most of the midwest would be unlivable and the effects would be felt globally. Mass famine and death would result. Maybe Jindal is right, we don't need to monitor anything that dangerous. Just like we ignore hurricanes. What's the worst that could happen?

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. In the grown up world, honorable and reasonable people may initially disagree but eventually compromise upon a collective review of empirical evidence. It was in this spirit, that the nascent Obama administration reached out to Republicans with respect to their proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which finally passed both houses of congress yesterday. Unfortunately, most Republican politicians are neither honorable nor reasonable. Instead, most Republican politicians are predatory conservatives dedicated to establishing a permanent corporate theocratic plutocracy. As far as they’re concerned, the 2008 election is merely a temporary setback and attempting bipartisanship with this crowd resulted in legislation far less bold than most economists hoped for. Hence, it is in the spirit of admiration and support that I urge this new administration to absorb the following lesson: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes. President Obama is a quick study and has likely absorbed this lesson for himself. Indeed, I recall him often using the phrase “working majority” during the campaign. Nonetheless, it is instructive for both liberal activists as well his administration to always keep this simple phrase on the front lobes of our brains. Repeat after me: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes. This phrase is especially pertinent to the United States Senate. Senators are divas with parochial interests, outsized ambitions and a Constitution that empowers their narcissism. Hence, the only language these people truly understand is leverage with a proper dosage of ego massage. They know that any one of them has the power to hold any piece of proposed legislation hostage to their whims. Indeed, senators sometimes behave as if they have the power of little Anthony Freemont in the classic Twilight Zone episode “It’s A Good Life.” Like that little boy, one can just imagine Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, fantasizing about wishing supporters of universal healthcare into a cornfield never to be seen or heard from again. That is the mentality we’re dealing with. The upside however is there will always be enough politicians prepared to bargain in order to elevate their own importance, demonstrate independence and serve the interests of their constituents. With respect to the stimulus legislation the three so-called Republican moderate senators were Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter and Maine’s Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Connecticut’s “Independent” Republican patsy Joe Lieberman and conservative Nebraska Democrat, Ben Nelson, also joined those three in bargaining with the Obama administration, the Senate majority and the House of Representatives. Had President Obama initially proposed legislation far bolder they still would have bargained, a filibuster majority still would have been achieved and the end result would have been far superior to the legislation that ultimately passed. Next time around it may be a different group of Republican senators and recalcitrant Democrats doing the bargaining, perhaps related to geographic interests. As long as President Obama’s political standing remains high, it will always be possible to cut deals on favorable terms with a rotating group of senators because their relevance depends upon it. Hence, a working majority will always be ripe for plucking even without a filibuster proof majority. And even if we had sixty Democratic senators a few of them would threaten denying a filibuster proof majority to promote their independence and get what they want. At the end of the day, bipartisanship has nothing to with it. Leverage, enlightened self-interest, service to constituents or contributors and political survival are everything. There is no love in politics. Only leverage, respect and fear. The appropriate posture is to treat reluctant politicians with symbolic respect, bargain hard for every penny and compromise from a position of strength. That is the best way to maximize potential of a working majority going forward while simultaneously maintaining broad public support. Sometimes, operating a working majority will require President Obama to demonstrate toughness, walk away and threaten vetoes if a few senators opt to behave like Anthony Freemont in the name of bipartisanship. Barack Obama is an impressive human being with many admirable qualities. Indeed, Obama represents an ennobling change of pace after George W. Bush’s insipid indecency. He is learning however that governing is delicate balance requiring the dual personalities of Mahtatma Ghandi and Don Vito Corleone. If anyone can achieve that delicate balance it’s this president. Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant and toughen his hide. Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

Reinventing America's Relations With the Muslim World: An Interview With Former CIA Analyst Emile Nakhleh

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. Building consensus within America’s body politic and national security establishment for a new way forward with Muslims worldwide is a formidable challenge. Many Americans still don’t appreciate the complex nuances of Muslim society and remain stubbornly Islamophobic almost seven and half years after 9/11. Equally formidable is earning the goodwill of Muslims worldwide following the Iraq War as well as American atrocities perpetrated upon Islamic detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Hopefully, President Obama’s historic election has finally opened a path for constructive conversation about how America can most effectively engage the Muslim world. The CIA’s former point man on Islam, Emile Nakahleh, has vigorously entered this conversation with his new book, A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations With the Muslim World (Princeton University Press). From 1991 to 2006, Nakahleh served as the director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program in the Directorate of Intelligence at the CIA. He holds a PhD in international relations and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Nakhleh’s book combines a revealing memoir with in-depth analysis and proposals for the future. Ever since his retirement from the CIA in 2006, Nakhleh has been a vociferous critic of the Bush Administration’s legacy with respect to American-Muslim relations. Indeed, in September 2006, Nakhleh told Harper’s Magazine that because of Bush’s policies, “We've lost a generation of goodwill in the Muslim world.” Nakhleh's proposals for improving American-Muslim relations stems from his conversations with Muslim "interlocutors" spanning three decades. These conversations include government ministers, Islamic activists, academics and radicals. Nakhleh also examined and analyzed considerable polling data of Muslims worldwide. Overall, Nakhleh contends that the vast majority of Muslims and America have common interests and values. His blueprint includes robust dialogue with mainstream Islamic political parties as well as a tangible commitment towards democracy in the Muslim world, even if we don’t always like the short-term electoral results. His book is an accessible 160 pages and divided into four chapters: (Chapter 1) Political Islam and Islamization, (Chapter 2) Intelligence, Political Islam, and Policymakers, (Chapter 3) Public Diplomacy: Issues and Attitudes and (Chapter 4) Public Diplomacy: A Blueprint. Nakhleh was born in Galilee, north of Nazareth in Palestine and raised a Greek Catholic. He emigrated from Israel to the United States approximately 50 years ago and attended a Benedictine university in Minnesota for his B.A., a Jesuit university in Washington, D.C., for an M.A. and was awarded a Ph.D. from the American University in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the CIA he taught at a catholic college in Maryland for 26 years. Nakhleh agreed to a telephone interview with me in podcast format. Among the topics we discussed was whether he believes the surge in Iraq worked, the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran inside Iraq, President Obama’s new strategy in Afghanistan, Hamas and America’s role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his argument that American commitment to democracy in the Muslim world is imperative to our long term interests. Some of Nakhleh’s answers and views may surprise many listeners. Our conversation was just over 47 minutes. Please refer to the flash media player below. Either searching for the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman” can also access this interview at no cost via the Itunes Store. Please note that I erred in the audio introduction when I said Emile Nakhleh worked for the CIA between 1991 and 1996. I mean to say he worked for the CIA between 1991 and 2006. Also my apologies for the echo sound on Emile's side. Sometimes technology has its limits.

Obama Walks While Fox Squawks

Not since 1977 has a newly inaugurated President walked Pennsylvania Avenue; Jimmy Carter was the last President to do so until yesterday. President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama got out of their armored Cadillac limo to walk Pennsylvania Avenue in a 15 degree wind chill. The Obamas graciously waved and smiled at the thongs of citizens that gathered to get a glimpse of the world's most powerful couple. While millions of people here and around the world were wishing President Obama well, a bottomless pitcher of haterade was being served up over at Fox News. I caught a somber looking Brit Hume praising the presidency of the outgoing 43rd and Glenn Beck nitpicking the 44th's pragmatic but eloquent inauguration speech. I see it's going to take some people a long time to get over the fact that Barack Obama is our president. Now is as good a time as any because it's going to be a long four years. Hume, Beck and the rest of the haters over at Fox News and beyond, are content to wallow in their divisive, narrow minded politics. They are convinced they know better than the 9 million people who elected Barack Obama by overwhelming popular vote. As Americans, we all have a stake in Obama's success as well as failure, whether they want to acknowledge this or not. At one of the most challenging economic times in American history, President Obama is going to need our support and prayers. Change has obviously come but some people still aren't ready for it.

A Scene From The West Wing Kitchen

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeFor some reason, during Barack's President Obama's speech, I kept thinking what the kids go through in the Obama household. When Obama spoke about hard work, I thought, "I bet those kids NEVER get out of homework!" Which is a good thing. But still it asks the question, what kind of oratory is given when Barack wants someone to pass the slaw? It must be amazing. I think Obama could read the phone book and it would count as college credit for Graduate work. Ya know?

When America Burned After the King Assassination: An Interview With Author Clay Risen

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. Tomorrow, America honors the birthday of heroic civil rights activist Martin Luther King. Americans revere King across the political and ethnic spectrum for his wisdom, idealism, courage and practice of non-violent civil disobedience against the forces of racial oppression. Thanks in large part to the trailblazing efforts of King and his followers; America inaugurates its first black president the very next day when Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20th. Yet even as Americans celebrate the historical arc from Martin Luther King to Barack Obama, the scars of racial injustice remain woven into our country’s fabric. Understandably, historians have overlooked the immediate aftermath of King’s assassination in a Memphis, Tennessee hotel on April 4th, 1968. The meaning of King’s life as well as the tragedy his loss represented has received considerable attention from historians and the body politic. Yet the immediate aftermath of King’s death was dwarfed by his iconic life as well as the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the violence that took place during the Democratic National Convention later that year. Clay Risen, author of A Nation On Fire: America In the Wake of the King Assassination (John Wiley & Sons) argues that what transpired immediately after April 4th impacted America as intensely as King’s death itself. Within hours, there was rioting in Washington D.C. and before the violence subsided, the U.S. Army occupied three major American cities while National Guard units patrolled a dozen more. Overall, there were disturbances in nearly 120 cities. Ultimately, the riots helped facilitate forty years of conservative hegemony as urban America reaped the whirlwind of white resentment and indifference. Risen specifically chronicles the period covering President Lyndon Johnson’s withdrawal from the 1968 campaign on March 31st, to King’s assassination on April 4th and culminates with Johnson’s signing of the 1968 Civil Rights Act on April 11th. The author relies on dozens of interviews as well as newly declassified documents to provide a dramatic day-by-day, city-by-city narrative of the riots, from the looting in Washington to violence in Chicago, Baltimore and other cities following King's death in Memphis. Indeed, Risen skillfully takes the reader on a historical tour with larger than life personalities like the militant Stokely Carmichael to white racist vigilantes in Baltimore and political figures such as New York City Mayor John Lindsey, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, New York Senator Robert Kennedy and Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew. Perhaps the book’s most dramatic anecdote was when a young Deputy Attorney General named Warren Christopher, joined General Ralph Haines, and Public Safety Commissioner Patrick Murphy at a Washington DC gas station pay-phone to recommend to President Johnson that he deploy federal troops in the nation’s capitol. George Pelecanos, author of The Turnaround and The Night Gardner issued the following praise for Risen’s book: “Clay Risen’s A Nation on Fire is the long-awaited definitive account of one of the most important, underreported events of the 1960s. As important for its historical aspect as it is for understanding where we are today, it is an exciting, important document, excitingly told.” Risen, was formerly an editor at The New Republic and is the founding Managing Editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. He has also contributed to Smithsonian, Slate, the Atlantic, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine. Risen agreed to a telephone interview with me in a podcast format about his book as well as the fateful days following King’s death. Our conversation was just over forty-seven minutes. Please refer to the flash media player below. Either searching for the Intrepid Liberal Journal or Robert Ellman can also access this interview at no cost via the Itunes Store.

Burris Should Be Seated!

The NY Times is reporting, U.S. Senator Roland Burris (appointed) will arrive today at the door of what many African Americans call, "The All White Club" of The U.S. Senate for a showdown that a growing number of Democratic members would prefer not to have. As reported by By Karen Ann Cullotta and Monica Davey at the NY Times: In a news conference at Midway airport in Chicago before his scheduled 2:20 p.m. flight to Baltimore, a defiant Mr. Burris told reporters that he was not concerned about the fact that the Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White, has rejected the paperwork that would officially send Mr. Burris to the Senate. “Why don’t you all understand that what has been done here is legal?” he said. “I am the junior senator from Illinois, and I wish my colleagues in the press would recognize that.” He later added, “This is all politics and theater, but I am the junior senator according to every law book in the nation.” As NPR reports, supporters have rallied around Roland Burris. AAPP: I first thought that Senate Democratic leaders wanted to avoid a spectacle that would pit a black man pegging to gain access to the Senate floor to be sworn in as Barack Obama’s replacement. As I noted in a previous post now that Blagojevich has snubbed everyone in his state the U.S. Senate leadership has developed an elaborate set of contingency plans to keep this black man Roland Burris from taking over Barack Obama's seat. But check this out, The NY times and CNN reported Monday that an aide to Nancy Erickson, the secretary of the United States Senate, said that Ms. Erickson had rejected Mr. Burris’s certificate of appointment because, though it was signed by Mr. Blagojevich, it was not cosigned by Mr. White, as the Senate’s rules require. As reported by enotes, perhaps. The United States Senate has the right to expel a member of the Senate but whether they can refuse to seat a legally appointed new member is open to question. The argument rests on two parts of the Constitution. Article One, Section 5 of the United States Constitution states that "Each house [Senate or House of Representatives] shall be the judge of elections, returns and qualifications of its own members . . ." In addition, "Each house may expel a member." During its entire history, the Senate has expelled 15 members. But these were members who were already part of the Senate. The 17th amendment to the Constitution states :"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." In other words, the governor shall appoint a successor when a vacancy occurs. Refusing to seat a new, duly appointed Senator may only be possible if the Senate has some indication that his appointment was corrupt. Since they have no such knowledge that Burris' appointment was corrupt, many constitutional experts say that to refuse to seat him would deny the citizens of Illinois proper representation in Congress. According to ABC news," . . election law attorneys said that senators may not have the constitutional power to refuse to admit Burris into the Senate without some indication that his appointment was corrupt." Thus, it is unclear what will happen if Burris attempts to take his seat. More HERE If Burris shows up today to claim the seat given to him by disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the potential outcomes range from a denial of entry to a limbo where he can hire staff but not vote. The Chicago Sun Times is also following the story on how the United States Senate may block Burris and stall for time. In Chicago one newspaper, The Chicago Tribune is HOT saying:Illinois Democrats played a starring role in this mess. The paper even going as far as saying, let Burris have the Senate seat and move on, already. Now get this, The LA Times has wrote: Obama's election is changing the politics of race. They write, Reporting from Washington -- With Senate leaders threatening to block Roland Burris from being sworn in today as Barack Obama's replacement, many of his supporters see a familiar story of race and injustice. An all-white club, they say, is trying to prevent a black man from gaining admission, as well as the power that comes with a Senate seat. Summoning a harsh metaphor from the nation's racial battles, Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) even called the Senate "the last bastion of plantation politics." But the Burris episode has unexpectedly become the first example of how racial politics have changed with the election of Barack Obama to the White House. Many black leaders, including Obama, have declined to back Burris, even if that leaves the Senate with no African American members. Some view his appointment by Illinois' embattled governor as an odd playing of the race card. Others are renouncing the style of politics that highlights racial grievances and inequality, saying it can no longer work now that the nation has elected its first black president. "It is another statement on how black politics is now -- that the old regime, the old outlook, the old perspective has been displaced," said the Rev. Eugene Rivers, a black pastor from Boston and senior advisor to the Church of God in Christ, the biggest Pentecostal denomination in the country. "You can't use 50-year-old ideas in a new political era." Even the Rev. Al Sharpton, known for his confrontational style of politics, is distancing himself from the Burris matter -- conferring privately Monday with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid but refusing to join critics in denouncing the Democratic leadership in racial terms. Read More HERE Roland Burris right, and wife Berlean, second from right, along with U.S. Congressman Bobby Rush (D)-Ill, second from left, attend the New Covenant Baptist Church during a rally in Chicago, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2009. Burris is leaving for Washington D.C. on Monday, after Il. Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed him to fill President elect Barack Obama's Senate seat. Source: AP/The Seattle Times AAPP: Damn, it looks like black elected and self appointed political leadership have sold black folks to the highest bidder. This whole situation is now pitting black ministers against black elected officials and Obama. I guess the bottom line is, I agree with the following comments in the LA Times article, from supporters of Burris: Read More HERE

LEAKED: Bush’s Xmas Wish List

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge I have this theory I think will hold up after Obama takes his oath next month. I think after Obama is in office and all the idiots are swept out of government (at least most of the Bush appointed idiots), there will be a tidal wave of "leaked memos" that will come from every part of government. Civil servants I think genuinely care about the job of government and many may have kept their heads down and compiled massive amounts of notes, documents and others bits of stuff that can be termed as "evidence" that will suddenly see the light of day. Over the past year, I have seen and read numerous reporters say they have sources in government that have asked them to call back after Obama is in office and then they will spill whatever beans the sources have sequestered. I remember last year when we all enjoyed "Fitzmas." Maybe this time next year, we will be enjoying Obamukkah?

Will Class and Race Make Caroline KennedyThe Next NY Senator

Not as far as New York activist Al Sharpton is concerned. He said in a statement that he is neutral but also defended Caroline Kennedy. "I unequivocally disagree with those that say she is not qualified," he said, adding that Kennedy'sMore HERE I guess Al Sharpton feels that she deserves to be eased into a U.S. Senate seat because of her class and name? I guess her calls Sharptonblack folks hard hit in this economy. civic involvement makes her qualified. worked. Al must believe that she will fight harder NY residents and AAPP: Hey, Rev. I understand that Caroline Kennedy is a very nice women. But Al, stop kissing up! You don't represent how all black people feel about Caroline Kennedy or for that matter Jesse Jackson Jr. There are many differing views. Get this Rev. Al, as the New York Times reported, "She has not held a full-time job in years, has not run for even the lowliest office." More HERE Rev. Al you know here background, just as much as the NY Times who are reporting that she has no real work experience, aside from a 22-month, three-day-a-week stint as director of strategic partnerships for the New York City schools, her commitments generally involve nonprofit boards: the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., the American Ballet Theater, the Commission on Presidential DebatesJohn F. Kennedy Library Foundation. More HERE and the Rev. Al, you know, News Day also reports that Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, JFK's only surviving child, has spent a lifetime on one podium or another, but has never sought elected office, a gap in her resume that is leading some fellow Democrats to ridicule the notion of naming her as Hillary Rodham Clinton's replacement in the U.S. Senate. More HERE AAPP: Not everyone in Black NY or in Black Chicago are kissing up like Al Sharpton. But I will tell yah, the possibility of two or three black U.S. Senate seats seems to be over. It seems that black leadership in America is quiet of the Kennedy issue, or are kissing up... big time. There are many grassroot black folks who are concerned about the message being sent about Class and Race in the U.S. and whether OBAMA's CHANGE in his backdoor support of another Kennedy, or Biden, is just another day of old-school American politics that people are sick of. For me, I don't get this, is Carolyn Kennedy's only claim to fame, that she was raised on New York's Fifth Avenue after the assassination of her father, President John F. Kennedy? Is there not more of a standard other than, "civic involvement," whatever that means. Why is it that Kennedy can be a front runner because of her name - with no experience, yet, a black person can have years of experience and be at the bottom of the list? Is class and race involved? Of course it is. But guess what, Hillary Clinton is said to like the idea of Buffalo mayor Byron Brown. No idealist, he'd bring a hardball game to Washington. He'd be the first black Senator from New York. More HERE As Karen Tumulty of the Times.com also noted, "The state has no shortage of more seasoned politicians who are also interested in the job. Among those who are being mentioned as possible candidates are Kennedy's former cousin-in-law, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo; at least four current House members, including Kirsten Gillibrand, Carolyn Maloney, Brian Higgins and Steve Israel; Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown; and Nassau County executive Tom Suozzi. Last week, New York Congressman Gary Ackerman said he didn't know of any qualifications that Kennedy has, "except that she has name recognition — but so does J. Lo." (See other possible candidates for Clinton's Senate seat.)" More HERE Kennedy, daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy and niece of another Kennedy who previously held the seat — the late Robert F. Kennedy — decided "after a series of deeply personal and political conversations, in which Ms. Kennedy, who friends describe as unflashy but determined, wrestled with whether to give up what has been a lifetime of avoiding the spotlight." That, according to the Times' Nicholas Confessore, who reports that Kennedy will ask Gov. David Paterson (D) for consideration for the appointment. Source: NPR's Political Junkie Two years after JFK was elected president, his brother Ted won a Senate seat in Massachusetts, and brother Bobby was elected in New York two years after that. JFK's grandfather John "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald, mayor of Boston, failed in a 1916 Senate bid against Republican Henry Cabot Lodge. Source: NPR's Political Junkie As NPR's Political Junkie notes, "There has been no shortage of names thrown in the mix of potential candidates for the Senate post. As we wrote on Dec. 2, the list is thought to include state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand from upstate, Rep. Brian Higgins of Buffalo, Rep. Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan, and Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi." More HERE As reported by Elizabeth Moore of Newsday, Kennedy campaigned with her "Uncle Teddy" to elect Hillary Clinton to the Senate. But it was Obama, not Clinton, who got her endorsement at a critical moment this year, in words that not so subtly slighted Bill Clinton as well. "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them," she wrote in a New York Times op-ed in January. "But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president." Elizabeth Moore notes that Clinton allies -- and those of state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is divorced from one of Kennedy's cousins -- were blunt last week in airing their doubts on Kennedy's fitness for the office. It's a debate that is fast becoming a proxy for the larger turf battles within the Obama-era Democratic Party. More HERE Like the Political Junkie I also have to wonder how much warmth there is between Caroline and Hillary. The Clintons had lobbied hard for the endorsement of Sen. Ted Kennedy, and many in the Clinton camp were thrown for a loop when Ted and Caroline joined the Obama bandwagon. Reuters file photo AAPP: I have been reading a lot about Caroline Kennedy lately, and as John Mecurio recently wrote in the National Journal, "Caroline Kennedy seems like an intelligent, competent woman. Her family should be proud of how she has conducted her life: as a (relatively) private citizen who, unlike many of her more ambitious relatives, has never openly sought advantage, political or financial, from her famous family name. She's never shown any enthusiasm for a job that people work tirelessly to acquire. Which is why she would be a bizarre choice." More HERE John Mecurio also notes, "The choice is particularly curious in the wake of Obama's victory last month. I've always found it awkward to watch Obama embrace the Kennedy legacy as part of his mantra for "change." In some ways, they couldn't be more different. The story of Obama, who spent the past two years calming Americans' concerns about his untraditional family tree, centers on the claim that anyone can achieve anything, regardless of race or class. The story of the Kennedys, meanwhile, is America's most beloved bow to political dynasties and inherited prominence. Democrats can... Read MORE HERE African American Political Pundit is a 2008 DNCC Credentialed Democratic National Convention Blogger, and writes for African American Political Pundit Blog.

We interrupt this broadcast for an example of competence.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeThree days, three press conferences where real questions were asked and honest answers were given. I am unsure if America can get used to this high level of competence. Isn't there a training video or something that could help us worn out Americans through this transition? In the past when broadcast television broke in for a speech by Bush, my wife complained that Bush was bumping her soaps. The way she saw it, and I must agree, there was more reality in the soap opera than there were in Bush's speech. When Matt Lauer broke in regular programming this morning to cover Obama's third press conference of the week, my wife did not complain, she turned up the volume. When you engage America, America will engage back.

The Obama Resistance

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge It was less than 2 hours after Barack was declared President that the first "Join The Obama Resistance" shirts were available on Cafe Press. Since then, websites have been launched, conspiracies have been formulated. Hell, even Alan Keyes has filed a lawsuit to verify Obama's birth certificate! This will not die down and it will not go away. I remember the week after Bill Clinton was first elected, he and Al Gore appeared on the cover of a news magazine. I was in a bookstore when two rednecks drifted by and said, "Can you fucking believe THEY got elected? He ain't nothing but a draft dodger." That meme is still alive and well. All the ugliness that John McCain, Sarah Palin and the rest of the right wing hate machine generated over the length of the campaign will continue until Obama is out of office. For us, our job is to always beat it back. The myth busting we did during the campaign will need to be continued... always. We can't stop. Ever.