Obama says Happy Norooz

Here is the link to Obama's remarks on Norooz to Iranian-Americans, and to the "Islamic Republic of Iran". The highlights of the message are his quote from celebrated Iranian poet Saadi, and saying "Eid E Shomah Mobarak", which means "Happy New Year". He also commented on the achievements of Iranian-Americans. Unlike Bush, Obama pronounces Iran the correct way - With a long "a" rather than a short "a".

It's a nice message, although it shows that the President likes any chance to wax a little poetic.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/Nowruz/

Pulling from the Archives

In the past 5 months or so, I have been busy working full-time, one job in an office plus two others on the ground, and now that I am back in graduate school, my time to concretize my thoughts onto this blog, have been limited. I have a lot I want to write, especially about the recent political discourse regarding democratic vs. republican in the 2008 presidential election. I have witnessed how Obama supporters have reacted to the pick of Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's VP; and some of the reactions I have observed have been rather hypocritical especially in the way they react to her "conservative" positions (I put it in quotes, because I think this dualistic semantics such as conservative vs. liberal, amongst others, is dangerous and convoluted). As I mentioned to my supervisor yesterday, I question Obama as a presidential candidate just like I question (or ideally should question) anyone running for office - but it's the Obamaniacs who really make me worry - So once I get all that together, I will probably do a blog posting. In the meantime, I'm reaching into my archives and pulling out a post from March, still on the subject of politics, and hope you find it edutaining. Look out for 2 articles upcoming in the October issue of Carnegie Mellon Today as well.
----------------
Obama and Schwarzenegger - The artful dodgers

Contributed by: Nazbanoo Pahlavi on 3/14/2008

Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep conducted an excellent interview of Senator Obama that airs on NPR today in which he presses on the issue of Michigan and Florida. After Michigan's vote, I remember Obama's comments that Michigan's vote should not be counted, and yet on the program today, he says that he has "constantly" wanted those delegates seated. Really? Because that is not what he said 5 weeks ago. In fact, his tone was pretty unwavering when it came to this. Steve Inskeep asked three, yup, three times whether he would support a re-do. He asked three times because the Senator kept dodging the question. Oh, politicians are such artful dodgers aren't they?

Listen, what the Democratic Party decided on Michigan and Florida is a moot point- why? Because sometimes it is OK, even noble, to break the rules to bring about real change. I don't agree with those who say rules are rules (rules that, according to Obama, even his six year old could have followed) when those bureaucratic decisions superimpose the voting rights of ordinary people. Are you kidding me? And now, Obama complains that those states don't want to pay for it and that's a reason a do-over should not happen.

Shame on politicians for citing money as a factor in allowing the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters. This is not a Clinton or Obama thing. This is about those voters and Obama should be fighting to get those voters' voices heard. Now, that would be impressive. That would signify that sometimes achieving change means not following rules - especially when those statues are meant to get states like Iowa and New Hampshire extra exposure.

Hopefully, this political squabbling will soon find it's own detente.

In the meantime, I hope that the media will spare some extra coverage on California's atrocious budget crisis. Teachers have already been laid off . One of my classmates in my weekly Shakespeare class who has been teaching for 20 years, got her slip yesterday. She says that 40 are expected to be laid off in the Beverly Hills Unified District alone which includes only one high school and 5 elementary/junior high schools. I am furious that Governor Schwarzenegger cut the education budget - but then again he is a politican (who better than an actor!) who knows how to spin his words - like when he masterfully dodged accusations of his fuel pollution commuting via private jet almost nightly from his home in Brentwood to the office in Sacramento, because he wants to spend more time with his family (what, the state capital isn't good enough for them?). And I am frustrated that California voters opted against the telephone utilities tax to provide a source of funds for public bodies like firefighters and police officers. When it comes to education - we need to get on the money. When it comes to police and firefighters, we need to get on the money - when it comes to individual voters' rights, we need to get on the money. It's a no-brainer.

The candidates take a stand on US presidential boycott of Beijing games

Although I think that the Olympics should be focused on athletics instead of political demonstrations, I am reminded of the Berlin Games in 1936. If anyone had taken a stand against Hitler, we can only fantasize how history may have unfolded differently. I think that in hindsight, the US would be foolish to say they did the right thing in participating in Berlin. In life, we can't always departmentalize different areas when politics is so often infused in everything we do.

Hillary Clinton is advocating that Bush take a presidential stand and not attend the opening ceremony in Beijing because of China's rocky relationship with Tibet and the country's support of the Sudanese government.

Obama has said he is of "two minds" on this subject. This may just be a convenient way for him to not piss anyone off.

I can see the pros and cons of Hillary making this statement. I am impressed that she takes such stands, because it shows she is not of "two minds" and will make bold and resolute choices. In such a position of authority, the president has to make difficult decisions.

This issue of the president's boycott of the opening ceremony will not affect US domestic policy or many issues such as the economy or healthcare that make us worry.

But if Obama can't make up his mind on something relatively insignificant, I question how he will act when it comes to serious US concerns.

For my part, as much as I want the Olympics to focus on the hard-working athletes, we're kidding ourselves if we think the this is some kind of lovefest where political activity has no part. It's a competition! And if there's nothing wrong with athletic competition, there's nothing wrong with peaceful political competition that opens dialogue on important world-wide issues.

If you think about it, it's really the best opportunity for it.

Why Wright is wrong for Obama - JONAH GOLDBERG

Taken from today's Los Angeles Times OP-ED

The candidate's message of unity is suspect if he doesn't divorce himself from the controversial pastor.
March 18, 2008

Barack Obama will reportedly give a major speech this morning at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, addressing the controversy about his extremist pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

Obama needs to do two things. First, he needs to make it incandescently clear that Wright doesn't speak for him in any meaningful way. If he won't do that, his campaign is a fraud and he is not qualified to be president.

Second, he needs to explain to black America why Wright's views are so poisonous.

By now, if you've paid any attention at all, you've read the quotes and seen the video clips of Wright at the pulpit. A supporter of Louis Farrakhan, Wright has echoed his view that the U.S. government created AIDS to perpetrate a black genocide. He suggested that America had it coming on 9/11.

His most infamous from-the-pulpit sound bite -- at least to date -- is this from a 2003 sermon: "The government gives [blacks] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America!"

Obama and his surrogates are denouncing attempts to link the candidate and the views of his pastor and mentor. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) on "Fox News Sunday," for instance, said, "Guilt by association is not typically American. We've all been around in places where people have given speeches or said things that we've thoroughly objected to, totally objected to."

OK. But even Obama didn't spin it that way. More implausibly, Obama claimed that he'd never heard his mentor say anything of the sort, in public or private.

Obama has been a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years. Wright baptized Obama's daughters; he officiated at Obama's wedding. The title of Obama's career-making book "The Audacity of Hope" is from a Wright sermon. Wright worked with Obama as a community organizer. Saying you were out back catching a smoke during one sermon or another won't cut it. The issue isn't what Obama sat through, but what he stands for.

Even Wright's tone is poisonous.

Obama righteously deplores "divisiveness." And yet he literally worships at the altar of division. He wants to transcend race, but his black nationalist church and his liberation theology pastor consider race permanent and central issues.

Obama claims that he's a different kind of politician, but his "repudiation" of Wright last week is traditional pol-speak and nothing more. To listen to Obama, you'd think he was the only person in Chicago not to know that his minister is a hatemonger. Either Obama is the worst judge of character in living memory or he's not the man he's been portraying himself as.

Or there's a third option. Perhaps Obama didn't hear Wright's bilious rhetoric because it blended in with the chorus around him. This is the fact that Obama really needs to address if the "Obama movement" is about more than getting the junior senator from Illinois elected.

What does it say that Trinity United Church is the most popular in Obama's old state Senate district, with a membership of 8,500? One of Wright's flock responded to the controversy by telling ABC News, "I wouldn't call [Wright's theology] radical. I call it being black in America." NPR's Michelle Norris explained on "Meet the Press" that Wright's tone, at least, is "not something that is unusual" in black churches.

A Rasmussen poll released Monday found that 29% of blacks surveyed said Wright's comments made them more likely to support Obama, while only 18% said the opposite, and half said Wright's comments would have no effect on them.

That is a symptom of a problem that platitudinous "hope" cannot alone remedy.

A 2005 study by the Rand Corp. and the University of Oregon found that nearly half of African Americans say they believe that HIV is man-made. More than 25% think that it's a government invention, and one in eight say it was created and spread by the CIA. Just over half believe that the government is purposely keeping a cure from reaching the poor.

And please, spare me the rationalization that blacks have reason to be conspiratorial. Doubtless there's truth to that. But that doesn't make the conspiracy theories any more true or any less destructive.

In the 2005 issue of Social Science Quarterly, Sharon Parsons and William Simmons tried to explain why conspiracy theories like these persist in the black community. Part of the answer, they concluded, is that black politicians have no interest in dispelling them. Paging Sen. Obama!

Obama preaches unity. Well, real unity requires real truth-telling and the ability to tell right from wrong, and Wright from right.

I, for one, have no interest in being united with Wright or anyone who insists that America is an evil, racist, damnable nation bent on murdering black people -- and I suspect neither will many general election voters.

Obama's power base is made up of black voters and the upscale left-wingers who condescend to them. Well, it is time he spoke truth to that power. If the eloquent, self-proclaimed truth-teller and would-be first black president can't manage that, he should go straight from would-be to never was.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com

Obama and Schwarzenegger - The artful dodgers

Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep conducted an excellent interview of Senator Obama that airs on NPR today in which he presses on the issue of Michigan and Florida. After Michigan's vote, I remember Obama's comments that Michigan's vote should not be counted, and yet on the program today, he says that he has "constantly" wanted those delegates seated. Really? Because that is not what he said 5 weeks ago. In fact, his tone was pretty unwavering when it came to this. Steve Inskeep asked three, yup, three times whether he would support a re-do. He asked three times because the Senator kept dodging the question. Oh, politicians are such artful dodgers aren’t they?

Listen, what the Democratic Party decided on Michigan and Florida is a moot point- why? Because sometimes it is OK, even noble, to break the rules to bring about real change. I don't agree with those who say rules are rules (rules that, according to Obama, even his six year old could have followed) when those bureaucratic decisions superimpose the voting rights of ordinary people. Are you kidding me? And now, Obama complains that those states don't want to pay for it and that's a reason a do-over should not happen.

Shame on politicians for citing money as a factor in allowing the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters. This is not a Clinton or Obama thing. This is about those voters and Obama should be fighting to get those voters' voices heard. Now, that would be impressive. That would signify that sometimes achieving change means not following rules - especially when those statues are meant to get states like Iowa and New Hampshire extra exposure.

Hopefully, this political squabbling will soon find it's own detente.

In the meantime, I hope that the media will spare some extra coverage on California's atrocious budget crisis. Teachers have already been laid off . One of my classmates in my weekly Shakespeare class who has been teaching for 20 years, got her slip yesterday. She says that 40 are expected to be laid off in the Beverly Hills Unified District alone which includes only one high school and 5 elementary/junior high schools. I am furious that Governor Schwarzenegger cut the education budget - but then again he is a politican (who better than an actor!) who knows how to spin his words - like when he masterfully dodged accusations of his fuel pollution commuting via private jet almost nightly from his home in Brentwood to the office in Sacramento, because he wants to spend more time with his family (what, the state capital isn't good enough for them?). And I am frustrated that California voters opted against the telephone utilities tax to provide a source of funds for public bodies like firefighters and police officers. When it comes to education - we need to get on the money. When it comes to police and firefighters, we need to get on the money - when it comes to individual voters' rights, we need to get on the money. It's a no-brainer.

Obama Camps calls this the 11th hour? How does that make Pennsylvania feel, Senator?

So the Obama camp, after always claiming victory even when he was an underdog, is now calling this the "11th" hour when still may states are left to vote - even through the month of May. He likes where he is, thank you very much, and doesn't feel much like competing anymore. My friend in Pennsylvania, who is a democrat and still undecided, represents scores of voters in the remaining states who, I'm certain, would not appreciate BO's attitude.

The most troubling stance the BO camp has taken is the stiff disacknowledgment of Florida and Michigan voters. Since when should bureaucracy stand in the way of the voice of the people? ''Now, when they believe it serves their political interests, they're trying to rewrite the rules,'' Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters in a telephone call. ``Now, at the 11th hour, the Clinton campaign is trying to rewrite rules that were firmly established, and I don't think there's a lot of appetite for that in the country or a lot of appetite for that at the DNC.'' (Taken from Miami Herald)

Hmmmmmmmmmm...doesn't sound very unifying to me. I would urge the Obama camp to find a way not to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters. Obama wants a change in Washington? How will he do that when he upholds rules that disenfrance voters and doesn't propose an amendment, an alternative, or a means to voice their votes? How can he talk change, when he can even do it in his campaign?

Hate Springs Eternal - OP-ED in today's NY Times

Hate Springs Eternal
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 11, 2008
taken from NY TIMES

"Most of the venom is coming from supporters of Barack Obama, who want their hero or nobody. His campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality."

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”


The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.

And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.

Debates, California, and Occidental's most famous absent alumni

In her speech today from New York headquarters, Hillary Clinton congratulated Obama on his delegate gains and expressed excitement to continue their debates now as the election season moves forward. According to CNN.com, Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson said the campaign has already accepted 4 invitations for this month on such forums as CNN and FOX (non-cable TV would also be appreciated by people like me who are holding on to their rabbit ears until the last moment).

I hope the Obama campaign makes a decision soon to participate in these debates. These are the best venues for voters to gather insight and information about those running. I also urge voters to attend rallies in their areas. I am registered on most of the major candidate websites for both parties, and get frequent updates on So Cal events. Although, I must admit, the Clinton crowd - both Hillary herself and her supporters - are much more organized in getting rallies and groups together locally. I was surprised to find out that Obama wasn't even at the recent UCLA event where Oprah Winfrey and Maria Shriver stumped for him. It's no wonder that California is voting overwhelmingly for Clinton (although less than half of the precints are reported thus far). In the past 3 weeks, I had at least 3 opportunities to see Hillary in person. I'm guessing that Obama knew his efforts would be better spent on TV ads, which were a-plenty round the clock yesterday. So goes political campaigning.

Now that our primary is over, I guess we won't see him anymore at all. All I can think of is...poor Occidental College! Obama attended the Eagle Rock school for 2 years (not 1, as I previously thought) and they bank on him as one their most notable Alumni. Couldn't he have made a trip out there? If he gets the nomination, I hope he doesn't forget them in his campaign.

Primary and Caucus Dates - We stil have a ways to go

2008 Presidential Primary/Caucus Calendar

JANUARY 2008
• January 3: Iowa
• January 5: Wyoming (R)
• January 8: New Hampshire
• January 15: Michigan
• January 19: Nevada, South Carolina (R)
• January 26: South Carolina (D)
• January 29: Florida

FEBRUARY 2008
• February 1: Maine (R)
• February 5: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho (D), Illinois, Kansas (D), Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico (D), New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
• February 9: Louisiana, Washington (caucus), Kansas (R)
• February 10: Maine (D)
• February 12: District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia
• February 19: Hawaii (D)*, Washington (primary), Wisconsin

MARCH 2008
• March 4: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
• March 8: Wyoming (D)
• March 11: Mississippi

APRIL 2008
• April 22: Pennsylvania

MAY 2008
• May 6: Indiana, North Carolina
• May 13: Nebraska, West Virginia
• May 20: Kentucky, Oregon
• May 27: Idaho (R)

JUNE 2008
• June 3: Montana, New Mexico (R), South Dakota

*Taken from RocktheVote website

Rally venues reveal difference in candidates

I'm just glad to point out the following difference in the two democratic front-runners: While Obama spoke in Pauley Pavillion at highly-ranked UCLA in Westwood, Hillary Clinton has been speaking in humbler Cal State venues from the Northridge to Los Angeles campuses. Chelsea was in Cal State Dominquez Hills, and Bill was in a south central Church. The difference is significant and I'm glad to see Hillary speaking at the Cal States and exposing these deserving schools to the media.

By the way, why doesn't Obama do a favor to Occidental College, his freshmen-year alma mater, and speak at the Eagle Rock university?

Ted Kennedy wants change? Leave the Senate!

The Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama is this season's juiciest hipocrisies in presidential endorsements. Ted Kennedy - the head of one of this country's oldest and most scandalous political dynasties - endorses Obama as a candidate of change.

Hello?! Senator Kennedy has been on the Senate for over 40 years. If he really advocates change, he needs to step down and allow another prospective young democrat to run for his seat. Don't advocate Obama as a "change" candidate when you are part and parcel of this country's ultimate political royal families. If you support Obama - don't say it's because he reminds you of your father, Caroline - Instead, point to proposed measures or historical precedent in his legislative history to recommend him. I wish Obama supporters would rely on their candidate's measurable merits, instead of this overhyped and drawn-out gimmick of change. It may work for a moment, but not for the long haul.

Don't flaunt him as a candidate of ideas and hope, if you don't back it.

Really want a change? Let's see a viable woman candidate on the democratic ticket. Now that would be a change.

Obamas can't deal with political competition

I get this email today from Lady Obama. She says that Hillary uses "win-at-all-costs tactics" against Barack. If the Obamas are whining now, how are they going to prepare themselves for heavy Republican mud-slinging? This is healthy competition, Michelle. I suggest that Barack Obama try and pepper in a good deal of reality into his hopeful idealism if he wishes to make it in this election.
-----

Friend --

In the past week or two, another candidate's spouse has been getting an awful lot of attention.

We knew getting into this race that Barack would be competing with Senator Clinton and President Clinton at the same time.

We expected that Bill Clinton would tout his record from the nineties and talk about Hillary's role in his past success. That's a fair approach and a challenge we are prepared to face.

What we didn't expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all-costs tactics we've seen recently. We didn't expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack's record.

Barack Obama isn't relying on a former President of the United States to campaign for him.

He's relying on us -- you, me, and hundreds of thousands of people like us who are giving whatever they can afford to support this movement.

Please stand up in the face of these new attacks. Make your first online donation of $50 today and own a piece of this campaign:

https://donate.barackobama.com/reliesonyou

Barack's unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq, his outspoken support of women's rights, and his call for leadership that will transform our party and our country have all been mischaracterized in the past two weeks.

We've seen disingenuous attacks and smear tactics turn people off from the political process for too long, and enough is enough.

It's time for a change. It's time for a new kind of leadership and a new kind of politics in our party and in our country.

And while Senator Clinton has a former president in her corner, I'll put my faith in a movement of a whole lot of people who are ready for change.

South Carolina votes in 48 hours, and more than 20 states will make their voices heard in less than two weeks on February 5th. Now is the time for all of us to step up and take personal responsibility for making change happen.

Please make your first online donation of $50 now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/reliesonyou

Thank you,