Tampa, Gasparilla, etc: Part IV

More on life in Tampa, and Gasparilla, from 2007 Tampa Bay Times Social Section. You can see why Kelley had concerns about intrusion:

For 364 days of the year, this is one of the best places in Tampa to live. On the 365th day, homeowners Jill and Scott Kelley hire security guards. Three of them, to be exact. It's not that the Kelleys have anything against Gasparilla. They say they're just protecting their home and three daughters, ages 4, 2 and 1.

"It's the unexpected that makes me nervous - what could happen next?" said Jill Kelley, 31. "Is there going to be a fight or something?"

Her fears aren't without merit. Last year, a drunken man tried to charge their house. He made it 15 feet across the lawn before the security guards tackled him. The Kelleys also caught a woman urinating in their backyard.

Jill Kelley said her neighbors warned her about Gasparilla when she and her husband, a surgeon at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, moved in three years ago. Some neighbors put up fences, but she said that wasn't for her.

"People just push them down," she said. "Besides, there's no reason to barricade yourself."

So she pays $400 per guard to patrol the lawn from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Then she stays inside the house and tries not to look out.

"Ignorance is bliss," Jill Kelley said, laughing. "I usually don't say that, but for one day of the year, it's true. I don't want to know what's going on out there."

When a young woman in a black tank top sat down on the concrete ledge surrounding the Kelleys' yard, guard Sherry Raposo was there to firmly instruct her to move along.

This offended the woman's boyfriend. "Ooohhh," he said, smirking. "I guess these people get paid a lot of money to make sure you don't sit there."

Raposo, 29, doesn't react. It's best not to argue with people in the crowd, she said. "Right now, most of them are fairly cordial. But they'll get more belligerent as the day goes on," she said. "I'm just happy as long as no one throws a bottle at me."

On the other side of the lawn, Joseph Conover, another guard, fended off drunken comments.

"They'll say things like, 'Taser me' or 'Show me your gun,' " said Conover, 29. "Mostly they say, 'Who the hell are you guys?' "

The Third Woman, Part 3

The party was on Saturday, January 30, 2010, part of the Tampa parade known as "Gasparilla".

It was a rain-swept day in which over 150,000 residents strolled to the Sweetbay Supermarket, and, in the parking lot, assembled around a large replica of a pirate ship:

From the Tampa Bay Times:

"There wasn't as much shock this year, but there was definitely some awe. So said the area's best-known military leader.

"Awesome," Gen. David Petraeus said of his first Gasparilla parade.

Petraeus, who runs the U.S. Central Command from MacDill Air Force Base, and his wife, Holly, watched from the comfort of a big tent on Bayshore Boulevard. They were guests of surgeon Scott Kelley and his wife, Jill.

"You have to see it to believe it, even in the rain," said Petraeus, who spent the afternoon chatting candidly with two dozen guests, including state attorney general candidate Pam Bondi and Bern's Steak House owner David Laxer.

Security at Kelley's house was no joke, one paradegoer discovered, running after one zap of electricity from a guard's Taser."

The Third Woman, Part 2

Via the Telegraph (UK):

Although the emails, believed to have been sent anonymously by 40-year-old Mrs Broadwell, reportedly contained hints of classified information, the FBI concluded that there was no security threat and that they were instead looking at a bizarre case of lover's jealousy.

"It didn't start with Petraeus, but in the course of the investigation they stumbled across him," one
Congressional official told the New York Times. "We were stunned."

According to the New York Post, the married mother-of two had told the other woman "I know what you did" and warned her to "back off" from the former four-star general.

 A military official said Gen Petraeus and Ms Kelly were friends who had seen each other often.

There is no suggestion they were involved in a relationship.

A social column in the Tampa Bay Times noted that Gen Petraeus and his wife attended a pirate-themed festival party at the house of a Jill and Scott Kelley in February 2010.

Gen Petraeus was the head of the US Central Command, based in Florida, at the time.

The Third Woman

Via AP:

 WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior U.S. military official says the author who had an affair with David Petraeus sent harassing emails to a woman who was the State Department's liaison to the military's Joint Special Operations Command.

The official says 37-year-old Jill Kelley in Tampa, Fla., received the emails from Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell that triggered an FBI investigation.

The official was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Another person who knows Kelley and Petraeus confirmed their friendship and said she saw him often.

Petraeus quit as CIA director last week after acknowledging an extramarital relationship with a woman — later identified as Broadwell.

The FBI probe began several months ago with a complaint against Broadwell. That investigation led to Broadwell's email account, which uncovered the relationship with Petraeus.

More on Petraeus and Conservative Delusion

Conservatives lost the election in significant part because of the tendency of many in their party to stray from fact to baseless delusion.

This tendency manifested itself throughout election night, leaving many in the Party stunned by the gap that existed between their shared fantasy and reality.

As evidenced by the nearly immediate response to the Petraeus revelations with conspiracy theories, many seem, with barely a pause for breath, to be continuing that tendency.

Petraeus and the Blossoming of Hopeful Conservative Delusions

Many on the Right must be comforted by the recent news about Gen. Petraeus.

Their flow of factless, delusional conspiracy theories staunched for a moment by Obama's victory, they saw a spark--and leapt to grasp a straw that would allow them to continue their baseline state of paranoia.

So let's see:

Broadwell had an affair with Petraeus.

Neither of them deny this.

The FBI discovered this when investigating a harassment complaint by a third woman.

She does not deny this.

They do not deny this.

She stated that an anonymous woman was harassing her regarding Petraeus.

The FBI investigated this and found that the messages came from Broadwell.

For Broadwell to have known of this third woman, she would have had to have access to Petraeus's private email account.

Concerned that his account had been compromised, The FBI investigated the account--and found that Petraeus and Broadwell had been having an affair.

Neither Petraeus, nor Broadwell, nor the third woman involved, nor the FBI deny this. Any of this.

None.

For your frenzied, blossoming, hopeful conspiracy theories to be true, Broadwell, Petraeus, the CIA, the FBI, the third woman and the Administration would all have to be in--"all in", to coin a phrase--on the "conspiracy"

No one--neither Petraeus, nor the Administration--has stated that Petraeus will not testify regarding Benghazi--indeed, in addition to his replacement, he likely will, as stated this morning.

It's a holiday. Rest your minds from constructing barely connected narratives filled with delusions

Why Husted and His Acts in Ohio Are Critical to Your Voting Rights In Every State

Many people are commenting about Voter ID, showing an ID to get a driver's license, etc.
This is only one of the most serious issues regarding voting rights--now and in the future.

Equally, perhaps more important, is the issue regarding Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, and the actions that he took at 7 p.m. on the Friday night before Election Day.

These were very serious--and very, very clear:

Husted, the Republican Sec. of State of Ohio, and prior to this, an active opponent of voting rights, made an illegal, non-statutory change to Ohio's voting laws on that Friday evening.

The change was designed to put hundreds of thousands of votes under the direct decision making authority of Husted--to either retain them, or throw them away.

The change--according to the Federal Judge who reviewed his actions--was illegal. Nowhere to be found in Ohio law.

The change was this:

1) Ohio law requires that every provisional ballot be completed and reviewed by Ohio poll workers. This is to ensure that there are no errors--so the ballot cannot later be reviewed by Husted and thrown out, as we saw in Bush v. Gore, on the basis of some supposed "mistake".

2) Husted, after state offices had closed on the Friday before the election, changed this.
He illegally placed the burden on voters to review the provisional ballots.

3) He did this so late because his non-statutory change would then not be able to be reviewed until after the election had occurred--which, he hoped, would be too late.

4) In 2008, there were 262,000 provisional ballots. Husted's purpose in making this change was to create a multi-hundred-thousand pool of votes that he would have the power to either keep, or to cast aside.

5) Had the election come down to Ohio, as many believed up until election day, this illegal tactic could have stolen the state, and therefore the election.

6) The day after the election, Husted's attorney was forced to appear before a Federal Judge. The judge found no legal basis for the change Husted had made--either anywhere in the statute or in its legislative history.

The judge asked Husted's attorney to point to any such language--either anywhere in the law, or in its penumbra (its legislative history).

He could not.

Anywhere.

The judge's conclusion. There was no legal basis for Husted's change.

Specifically, to quote the judge: "Democracy dies in the dark."

7) This was an unabashed attempt at the theft of hundreds of thousands of votes to attempt to steal an election for President.

It was only the determined will of the people, which prevented Ohio from being decisive, which prevented this.

8) Karl Rove's desperate grasping on the night of the election was founded on the belief that these provisional ballots--as they had for his candidate in 2000--would be present to swing the election. Thanks to the electorate, which came out in overwhelming numbers to overcome this attempt at theft, they could not.

The absurd irony that those responsible for the protection of our votes are those often most willing to corrupt them is an issue which must be changed.

This could occur in any state.

Vote out Husted and his ilk--those most responsible for our votes, and most willing to make a partisan effort to suppress them.

Photo via AP via Westchester Buzz:  http://westchesterbuzz.com/2012/08/16/secretary-of-state-jon-husted-standardizes-early-voting-hours/

Petreaus and the Welcome, Comforting Relief of Delusion for Conservatives

The Petraeus resignation is a personal loss for a man who has defined counterinsurgency for the U.S. in the modern age, and despite his somewhat rocky early tenure at the CIA, will constitute difficult shoes to fill.

Obama is left with the dilemma of having the best, most prepared candidate, Brennan, someone who he value having at his side for matters that extended beyond those of the CIA to other issues of National Security.

None the less, like all such matters, this matter will settle into a quiet resolution.

Conservatives, unfortunately, having perhaps a desperate need to latch onto some issue that will allow them to assuage and comfort their Presidential campaign loss with a barely interrupted dive back into conspiracy theorizing, leap into the strategy that has harmed them most--the break with reality, into the most factless, gleeful hatreds.

This is a shame, not only for the nation; for Petraeus, who has more than enough on his plate without such interminable fantasizing, and for Conservatives, who, the last election shows clearly, must begin to make the difficult move to reality--less satisfying I know, but with the virtue of being correct and non-diagnosable--if they are to gain traction with a nation of the increasingly sane, increasingly skeptical of these wild excursions, and, as we see, willing to leave them behind for a sounder base in facts and truth.

The "Evolution" of Conservatives

I love the use of the word "evolved"--in some political contexts.

The Hill reports that Sean Hannity--who if asked in a line of conservative pundits if he believed in evolution would likely not raise his hand-- along with other conservative acolytes have "evolved" on the immigration issue.

What does this mean? Has Hannity, in Lamarckian fashion, still contrary, and therefore perhaps revealingly comfortably aligned to established Darwinian science--spontaneously seen a structural change in the nature of his cerebral processing, in a single generation--in a single moment?

No.

"Evolved" here means that he saw his party so soundly thrashed that, rather than casting Hispanics as anti-American takers, to be tossed over the nearest wall, along with their dream-suppressed families, he now sees in them opportunity--and so they are instantly transformed from castaways into noble treasures, on the basis of a sound, firm, noble ideology known as opportunism.

"Evolution" here is a scienc-y, meant-to-be-blinding elision, a black box, a veil over the shifting cups with the marble beneath, a way to attempt to get you to accept a cravenly opportunistic, savagely self-shifting movement, a using, from  one place to its direct opposite, with a word that will stop you from thinking about the nature of the process that is driving it, just for one moment.

Because, if you do think about it, you will be forced to see that this is a decision that wholly contradicts the house-of-cards image that has been built up before you--of an ideological truth teller, a sound, honest patriot, only acting upon and expressing the best interests of the nation.

And if you pull that string, however slightly, lifting blinders of warm, unseeing feeling from your eyes, you will see a calculating salesman, attempting to make the leap to the new, contradictory position that will sell, attempting to lead you to embrace those who, only days before, he was casting as enemies of our nation, and attempting to prevent you from asking that question, so caustic upon such attempts at fakery: Why?

So now we recast those who we will treat as humans. We find a new villain--as it's always necessary to have someone to hate to keep the grip, to keep the contrasting engine of "noble truth" running.

Evolution.

If Darwin had used its definition as applied above, "The Origin of Species" would have been a great deal shorter.

Exploitation. Crude chicanery. Expediency. Grasping, bait-and-switch artifice, in the aim of personal survival, the development of an opposable ideology, springing forth with immediacy from a prehensile mind.

Matalin as Post-Election Diagnostician

Mary Matalin, who can be a savvy, experienced pro in representing her side, has published a less considered article at NRO where she refers, among other things, to Obama as a "narcissist" and a :sociopath".

My response:

Obama is not a narcissist--though many of the people feeling wildly enraged, wounded pride today surely are.

Obama is not a sociopath--though many of those who, without the slightest hint of remorse, created false, baseless delusions about his life and his past have more than demonstrated their utter disregard for society and truth most characteristic of Antisocial Personality Disorder.

And you, though unhappy today, are not a diagnostician.

Let your arguments ride upon facts--as you have in the past, and as you can--and not on the impulsive misuse of disorder, which swarmed throughout this campaign in its unrestrained calumnies, and which adds nothing to the argument or to the nation

Quickly

Boehner, intelligently, moves quickly to preempt his own extremist wing:.

Lori Montgomery, WaPo:

Quickly pivoting the political conversation from President Obama’s reelection to Washington’s looming budget battles, House Speaker John A. Boehner on Wednesday offered a potential path to compromise, saying Republicans are “willing to accept new revenue” to tame the soaring national debt and avert an ugly battle over the approaching “fiscal cliff.”


With Obama’s decisive electoral victory and Republicans’ hold on the House, with a slightly smaller majority, Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday’s election amounted to a plea from voters for the parties to lay down their weapons of the past two years and “do what’s best for our country.”

"Unskewed" pollster finds Scott Rasmussen wrong

The pollster who became briefly known for his "unskewing" of polls that he believed to be under-representing Republican voters admitted today that he was wrong.

In an interview with Business Insider, Dean Chamber, the pollster said:

"I think it was much more in the Democratic direction than most people predicted," Chambers said. "But those assumptions — my assumptions — were wrong."

Even more interesting, Chambers provided his own commentary on Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen:

"He has lost a lot of credibility, as far as I'm concerned," Chambers said. "He did a lot of surveys. A lot of those surveys were wrong."

 

Romney and Women: The Facts Are Clear

A woman who votes for Mitt Romney is not merely voting against her interests.

The fact is that Romney, at every crucial turn, has acted against her health, her safety, her right to equal pay, her family, her role in positions of leadership, and her freedom over her own body.

As Governor, Romney vetoed a bill that would have provided emergency contraception to women who have been raped. Romney vetoed funding for breast cancer detection, prevention and treatment on multiple occasions as Governor--as he did for the prevention, detection and treatment of cervical cancer.   Even after being warned against continuing such actions by his own Lieutenant Governor, Kerry Healey, he continued to act against programs for health issues ranging from breast cancer to teen pregnancy.

He has vowed to cut all funds to Planned Parenthood,  denying women life-saving screenings for cervical cancer, mammograms, family planning services and other critical and necessary care, impairing their ability to work, and to care for and sustain their own lives and that of their families. 

In September, he vowed to replace Supreme Court Justices such as the 79-year old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with those who would remove the Constitutional right to abortion. This would place abortion in the hands of each state--making it a potentially criminal act in those that oppose it, and placing the lives of countless women at risk.

He has opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which provided a historic basis for women to receive equal pay for equal work. At Bain, he did not appoint a single woman as a partner. As Governor, he had to be forced to appoint women to his Administration by outside women's groups, who had to bring him the infamous "binders of women" in order for him to act.

Even on the basic issue of women's safety, Romney has been remarkably detached, disconnected, out-of-touch. When asked during his first run for President in 2008 about the Violence Against Women Act--he never had heard of it.

The fact that Romney is willing to remove from women basic rights over their health; to exercise control over the often life-changing, life-saving decisions that she must make over her own body; to act against their right to equal pay for the equal work that they perform for their own livelihood and that of their families; to restrict them from positions of leadership that they have worked for, earned, and deserve; and fails to recognize even fundamental issues of safety means that Romney has not and will not act for women's basic rights and needs.

A woman who votes for Romney votes against her health; her rights; her safety; the well-being of herself  and her family--and against her freedom.  The facts are clear.  Make sure that you act, to prevent them from becoming a reality.

Sunday Morning Line

Donna Brazile, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, regarding the Week of the Dog: Romney's roof vs. Obama's childhood plate:


"I grew up in Louisiana. My mother used to tell us: 'Don't focus on the species, think about the recipe'".

Obama: The End Of Waffle Sulking

The President begins the New Year poised on the tip of balance; having exercised his deeply embedded desire for a last minute comeback--remarkable how the nation will cooperate with a psychological drive, as with our collective indulgence of Clinton's excesses, and our temporary joining with Bush in the sweeping denial that required a remarkable cognitive narrowing into a fantasy of simple strength, blindness, self-denial and protection.

This past year, Obama's eyes showed the hurt that has become all too notable as a Presidential characteristic--visible even during the campaign in his tetchy moments of being allowed to eat his waffles alone--the essential revelation that too few recognized of the inherently introverted nature of this President, and his continued base shock and hurt at a fundamental Presidential circumstance--like Clinton's impulsiveness, and Bush's narrowing to simplicity--of his Presidency: When I have done so much, and I am actually doing it on your behalf; when I have thought it through so well, and I actually mean it, intend my acts to rise above the partisan and do the best for the people, when I have actually approached it from this, rather than base political perspectives--how could you scorn it, how could you not want what has been done from the best of motives, from non-political motives--how could you reject what, unlike so much of what issues from the political world, represents sincere, well-thought out work that can be shown to be best for the common good?

He is hurt by the unwillingness of the world around him, scored by the base human motives that have existed since the beginning of human time, to change, to reach beyond these for a common good. He unlikely has met with a good deal of praise for such efforts, from his most fundamental shaping influences early in life onward--but a politician recognizes the motives and desires of others, accepts these as part of the work of persuasion that, however darkly, incompletely idealistic, inexorably human, is required in the work of leading a tired, hungry, imperfect, individually motivated group of humans together to action.

When others have discussed the "message" problem of the Obama Administration, they have failed to recognize that this has not been an error of omission--it has been a conscious choice that leads directly from the candidate and the ethos created by and around him. There is a desire to not engage in the dirty, manipulative salesmanship of self promotion--to have the work and its efforts to rise above partisanship towards the common good to stand on its own. The belief was that if work was done in this way, the people would recognize it as a new, cleansing reforming way of doing business--recognize the value of such work by its nature as non-partisan, crafted above this, for the people and the people's aims.

The idea was admirable, and, contrasted with the manipulations of the Bush Administration, an understandable impulse that one might hope could actually be employed.

But politics are complex, messages are multiple, and people need to have them made clear to understand them, particularly when being roused by the continuing, growing voices of manipulative, self-serving intent. These voices didn't simply stop with the end of the Bush Administration--they went elsewhere, into the Tea Party and their affiliates. Their willingness to stoke the rage of the public with the usual animating distortions was to be expected and a part of the work ahead.

It is possible to both have a non-manipulative, non-distorting message machine--and to provide a persuasive, powerful message. To do so, the Administration cannot simply expect the public to recognize the value of its work amidst a sea of well-crafted effects intentionally designed to lead the public away from the truth.

Obama cannot sulk over his waffle. This sea of human action and reaction, of motive and distortion, will continue. He must engage the battle of message reality over message distortion, with the energy and enthusiasm that he has brought to crafting his legislative work, indeed, recognizing that doing so is the necessary final stage of such work--without which one has the noblest of failures--using all of the persuasive powers of speech and narrative for which he has been justly, but as yet, incompletely seen, praised and known.

Photo via: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/michelle-obama-obesity-restaurant-menus/comments/page/1/

Beck: Division Equals Unity, Rage Equals Love, Freedom Equals Ideological Alignment, Jesus Equals Howard Roark

Glenn Beck, following his 8/28 rally, which represented an unfinished, somewhat loosely constructed attempt to mix symbols that create emotional arousal and the implied sense of their being threatened--religion, military strength, pride in country--contrasted against the need for a single "drummer" who would awaken the masses in this time of Socialist threat, a call, framed in terms of the "Divine Providence" that led him to make it, for a Moses, a Jesus, who would rally the threatened country against catastrophe, never quite reached Beck's clearly imagined apotheosis.

Beck is clever enough to rouse an audience, uninformed by both fact and his technique, to a satisfying sense of suspicion, one which brings a certain sense of special knowledge--to rouse Neustadt's paranoid style.

However, in an attempt to use a call for "unity" to in fact divide, Beck failed. The structure of the attempt, which he and others have attempt in lurching steps over the past year, was clear: "Unity" is to turn away from the divisions that minorities, with their demands, have brought upon their majoritarian victims. Therefore, "Unity" represents a rejection of the apotheosis of this--Obama's desires to take over America, in the name of these angry minorities, and to cast majoritarian Americans into a form of socialist "slavery".

"Unity", in other, remarkably and blatantly Orwellian terms, is the extreme of divisiveness--as is often the case with the paranoid style, a mass projection, detached from fact, a delusional syllogism based on framing others as a threat, which, with threat removed, creates the wished for (and coincidentally, ideologically and economically consistent) unification, through a removal of the desires and ideas of the other, through the vehicle of the imagined and trumpeted threat of the other:

Delusional Framing Assumption A: The Other threatens to take us over, overpower and control us;

Delusional Framing Assumption B: Therefore, we call for unity--through the other ceasing all action that we impute;

Delusional Framing Assumption C: We define which actions should be regarded as representative of these threatening, anti-unification actions on the part of the other

Outcome: We control the other via the response to the imagined threat of the other. Hence, unity.


The trick here was an attempt to create a fundamental split, and to provide a language and behavior to put that split into broad public action: to contain the pervasive resentment at racial claims and perceived privileges, threat by a paranoid assumption of racial vengeance, anger at imagined incursions and Beck fueled fear at invented attempts at racial, or religious (e.g. Muslim) takeover by the President beneath, stoking them through implication, while using the language of religion to frame their intentions as filled with peace. The translation goes something like this:

A. We are aware that a Muslim president is taking over the United States; that he is unleashing angry minorities to claim rights that they should not and do not have.
B. This is dividing our nation. We must unify the nation by preventing this, and returning the nation to the unified Christian values that represent the "true religion" of the nation.
C. Everyone should want this unity, as it is best for the nation. We love those who embrace this unity.
D. But for those who turn us away from this unity, there is a need for a Moses, a Jesus, a drummer, to return to these necessary unifying principles for our nation.
E. We are filled with love for those who wish for a unity based on these principles.
F. We must remove that which is inconsistent with these principles--today, namely, the Socialist, oppressive, minoritarian President and those who support him.

Unity therefore equals what has, in the past, been called gleichschaltung--a splitting away, division, demonization, and targeting of any ideas which do not equal one idea of American ideals.
All in the name of love. And voice--yet to be fully named--who can deliver us.

The thinking here--I hesitate to call it "logic"--leads to innumerable absurdities. Just a few examples:

1) True American freedom can best be delivered through a repression of ideas that disagree with our own;

2) The free speech that Beck and his supporters relied upon and selectively promoted endangers us if it does not agree with our ideology--that ideological difference is the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater

3) Jesus is a free market individualist, against any idea of collective social justice--e.g., the Jesus of "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is somehow not Beck's Jesus, who would be cast more as a
Howard Roark figure.

And so on.

Beck said that America is being cast down by the angry demands of minorities, led by a anti-American President. Having been described as such, he could then simply ask them to embrace the mantle of love and equality, as his audience had--feeding a deeply satisfying, self-justifying need in his audience. Our rage is just a desire for equality against the catastrophic threat you pose to the nation. Then--with you now disempowered, non-threatening, in place, we would love you, as Jesus intended.

After the rally, on Fox News Sunday, Beck renounced his claim that Obama is a "racist" who has a deep seated hatred against White people", using his overused technique of a false humility--one that, like much of what Beck does, seems oddly self-demonstrating, theatrical, at once feeding the flock who understand the meta-message (Yes, Glenn is just claiming to be a fool, but he really knows) and at the same time, as many such figures have done, feeding himself with his own words, watching himself as he listens to himself in order to try to believe what he will say next, even as he understands its impact.

This was understandable and likely, as this claim stood directly in the path of the technique described above. Such claims must be inferred, stoking hate and rage, to be addressed by a return to the unity of religious fundamental--a sole ideology.

However, his rally never came together quite as I think he imagined--an open, yearning calling, a powerful outwardly seen and activated longing towards a unified goal.

That is because the goals beneath are built on factless rage, on contained anger, stoked by illusion. This is recognized in part even by many who were there that day--those who one could see were confused, as the images flashed by, the narrators voice intoned in a melange the many symbols of American emotional reaction--flags, liberty, freedom, religion-- as to what the actual message was, what they were supposed to do.

As was plainly clear, Beck did not know. Other than to be against. And to say that clearly, the hinge upon which the confused effort rested was broken, and the rally would be over--the secret, disappointingly revealed, self-satisfaction openly displayed as hatred, and it would be time to go home.

Liveblogging the Beck Rally

10:03 Where are the searchlights and the gold standards?

They had to put a scrim with a picture of the Lincoln Memorial in front of the Lincoln Memorial because the symbolism wasn't enough.

This introduction has the sound of a 1950's film strip.

10:06: Shots of the crowd. Pure White. Lots of shaved heads, American flag shirts.

You can feel a seething "against"

Boy Scout leading the pledge of allegiance. This is truly a nationalist rally.

The first people of color--as singers of the national anthem. Two and two. You can imagine the conversation--1 will seem as if it is too little, three too threatening.

10:10 Beck enters. Slightly messianic.

America begins to turn back to god.

For too long the country has wandered in darkness. Darkness again. The slight inference.

Possibly running for office.

Invoking Moses.

God and god's law.

He may have pulled his bolt too soon. He's not quite large enough for the occasion. Did he overestimate his own effect?

Behind him, meanwhile coming up behind him were a rabbi, a naive American and a pastor.

"I would like to introduce the rabbi (said with a slight note of triumphalism--proof)

A rabbi, a native American, a pastor and Glenn beck walk into a bar...

Each speaks. The Pastor first.

Every crowd shot. All White.

A self-satisfied, slightly aggressive Pastor combining nationalism and religion. "It was you the Pilgrims knelt to..."

Where is the black religious representative? This would be too touchy--over the line for the audience--combining religion and race. The audience would be confused, it would dampen the rising of the spirit--what is Beck saying?

They will come later--separately, alone--e.g., in their place.

This guy is likely taking more time than expected--going for his moment in the sun. Right now, this is a fully Christian rally.

Are they not going to have the other representatives talk?

Unbelievable--makes them second--supporters of the majority, "actual" voice of religion--the pastor. This must be the idea of unity--acceptance of the "truth".

10:21 Beck continuing. "Where are the Heroes?". Perhaps the other religious representatives will be interspersed...

Introducing the President of Special Operations Warriors Foundation, a Wounded Warriors group, John Carney.

This is bringing the sacrificing Colonel forward--rousing the sacrifice and strength of the Military, to build in that component into audience response. The nation we know. That is true America. Thus far: Jesus, Nationalism, and others that are on the same stage continent if they quietly know their place.

I'm embarrassed for the Rabbi and Native American couple.

10:25 Deb Argel-Bastian, a mother of a special forces tactics officer killed in Iraq, Capt. Derek Angel.
Red polo shirt with an emblem, blond hair. I'm getting angrier as I see Beck using the emotions of tragedy, death, to shape the nationalist message in a form known so well.

This is a tragedy. What is the message? That concern about such tragedies has been lost? That we should be angry that concern about such "honor" is not occurring? The pain of a mother who has lost a child is being used as part of the pageant, the emotional rousing of such feelings lost, transsubstantiating the origins of the loss of that very child from its origins in the war in Iraq to a blended emotion of rage at those who would build mosques, and not care about this. So now we have Nationalism, Jesus, the acceptance of Jesus by other religions, tragedy.

After, Beck asks the crowd to text to SOWF 85944.

10:33 He is talking about stained glass windows of Martha and Mary, that when the sun hits them right, their chests glow red.

So far, mostly symbolic rousing of emotions, no message really.

In a sense, he is being stripped bare--there is nothing at the heart of him. Introduces Sarah Palin

Big shouts, screams.

10:35: Palin: "Aren't you proud to be an American?"
"We stand at the symbolic cross roads of American history"
Invokes King. All men are created equal.
The one true--emphasizes true--god of justice
Then makes the shift to men in uniform--nothing to apologize for.
Involves Lincoln's mystic chords of memory.
"It is so humbling to be with you here today, Patriots...knowing to never retreat"
We must not fundamentally transform America as some people want--we must restore America and restore her honor. Biggest applause line of the day perhaps--hits the note of what the internal conscious of the crowd is about--THEY want to take away OUR America and they ARE TRYING but we will not let THEM we will RESTORE it. An electoral, divisive message and the core one, fusing rage.

"Honor was never lost--you will find it in those who wear the uniform." And the others?

10:44: Palin introduces Petty Officer Marcus Latrell. She seems to get genuinely excited in introducing these. Ret. Marine Sergeant James Eddie Wright, "once a Marine always a Marine". The hug, just slightly long...

Tom Kirk, Air Force Combat Commander in Vietnam and POW for 5 years. So we have a touch of Swift Boating emotions being roused before the election. I wonder is some of the same people had a role?

McCain invoked. Tepid slow rising applause.

She does get genuinely excited by the idea of love of country and patriotism.

The crowd rises with each named person.

He embraces her a bit too long, a kiss on the cheek. She's slightly taken aback by the degree of it for a millisecond.

Crowd chants "USA".

She hits the note perfectly--let's restore America and God bless America--in a way that Beck, whose inauthenticity, his acting shines through, he always has a slight sense of the slightly crazed, careening--cannot.

There's a crazed subtext if you listen to it "broke into a cold sweat...screamed in his ear..." it's a way of clearing listening room with a slight craziness

It was about 4 months ago that we were still lost--we didn't know what we were going to do when we got here. Revealing because you can see the lack of driven ideological message at the center--rather utilities. He's clever enough to create a kind of humor space to take his crowd. But there, he has nothing else really. He may be just not smart enough to trip himself up as he has his presence for awhile. (Maybe the end)

10:57: Announces that he will award three "Restoring Honor" medals. Faith, Hope and Charity.

It's already a bit long. The hit of a powerful world changing event, the rise,

11:01: The Chief gets to award the Faith medal. Goes to Pastor C.L. Jackson. A quick Google search lists that Jackson is Pastor of the Pleasant Grove Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, TX, apparently shares with Beck speaking on talk radio, on KCOH AM, and has appeared on Beck's show, where he compared Beck to Jehosephat, king of Judah in the Bible.

11:22: Tony LaRussa, Cardinals manager. Hope award goes to Albert Pujols. "I just want to thank God for giving me this platform as a baseball player. "

11:29: Charity. Jon Huntsman. "A successful and wealthy industrialist." Huntsman was interviewed by Beck for a hour-long program back when Beck was on CNN. Huntsman, according to Wikipedia, also had a political career in the Nixon Administration:

"Mr. Huntsman joined the Nixon Administration as Associate Administrator of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and later served as Special Assistant and Staff Secretary to President Nixon."

He also appears to be a major philanthropist. Indeed, according to Wikipedia, "the Chronicle of Philanthropy placed Mr. Huntsman second on their 2007 list of largest donors."

11:42: Clearly, the rally organizers had a certain dilemma here. Without a genuine, fully expressible rallying theme--e.g., the fight for civil rights in the face of systemic inequality against minorities--they could not depend upon that single animating theme to keep the crowd fully motivated, driven by a single, known goal. As a result, they had to try to construct a message without one, and the time it takes to do that is long. Let the rally go on too briefly, and the audience would wonder what happened--where was the full bread and circuses experience? But try to build an emotional message without a single, actual animating goal, and it goes on too long, a diffuse, warming, but not a unifying drive towards an actual known outcome.

Nonetheless, the effects are there. They sit together and are warmed. They see the crowd, and feel they are a part of a larger experience, allowing a greater degree of open belief. A more diffuse normalizing of these emotions--a subtle tilting towards the justification of Nationalism, can occur.

11:49: Angelica Tucker is singing.

He's set the stage for broadening his base slightly to a kind of conservative Oprah.

11:53 Minister is reading from the book of Ezra. Now, some gospel music. "Unity...unity". They are running out of gas. Getting a bit frayed around the edges, and trying to tie it up.

11:58 Speaker:"I've been asked to read a scripture...E pluribus unum...we stand together...in the name of Christ"

11:59: Alveda King.

12:08 Video. Almost a parody of propaganda.

Shots of the audience--they look confused--what's the message? A congealing of religion, images of the Founding Fathers--what are we supposed to believe?

A massive attempt at indirection. Carry this feeling to the voting booths.

A weak ending applause. Tailing off.

12:11 Beck again mounts the podium. Says 500,000 people there. "This is a day we can start the hearts of America again. And it has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with God."

It seems that he is feeling some of the weakness of the wrap up--a slight sense of desperation in his voice, recognizing that it's not quite coming together. A bit tired. He's lost his rhythm.

He's not quite an orator. An edgy presence.

He's going for the one internal message: "The right for everyone to have a dream".

Do we say "The experiment cannot work? Man must be ruled by someone?" Do we set up a straw man?

The message: Be angry at those in power.

Keeps trying to hit that high finishing note.

The essential dilemma is that he can't say what he's actually trying to say. So he keeps trying to find ways to rise to it, to complete it, by unifying different elements: patriotism, religion, inference.

He's analogizing himself to Moses. "They were just like you." i.e.--Me.

I think he doesn't want to stop because of how he will feel when it's over.

Iceberg metaphor + "one man can change the world" plus Moses references = He does think he's Moses.

"I asked you to do three things...The second thing I asked you to do"...this is getting to be too much. Images from Life of Brian are coming to mind.

How dare he equate this time as "failing with us" simply for his own opportunism. Deeply reckless.

OK, now he's ranting.

"Divine providence." Read your history.

Maybe he will just stay there forever.

A melding of AA philosophy with unleashed grandiosity. The connection of this to national restoration is unclear, however, and he seems to notice that leap.

"Human storm." "Global storm." Hmmmmm.....sturm. What's needed for a storm, after all? Troops.

Another crescendo incompletus. See above.

He now claims a representation of 180 million people, at least by partial implication perhaps.

Bagpipes with their many emotional overtones. "Amazing Grace".

Large applause for closing prayer.

And in this rally of unity--we close with Jesus.

Lipman's Tipsheet, 5-17-10

-President Obama will congratulate the NCAA champions, University of Connecticut woman's basketball team today. The ceremony has been moved to the East Room due to rain.

-Rising: Elena Kagan's seminal piece of scholarship, "Presidential Administration", from the June 2001 Harvard Law Review, which endorses an expansive view of Presidential authority--but over the activity of administrative and regulatory agencies, a la Clinton, not over declarations of war, a la Woo, Bush, et al. Expect this to be misunderstood.

-Jeff Sessions will be desperately trying to frame Kagan as keeping recruiters off of the Harvard Campus during her Deanship. Leahy points out, recruitment continued throughout her Deanship.

-BP gets a half pipe into the spill

-Quietly, GM becomes profitable.

-Bangkok is burning.

Change

Watching the word "change" being invoked with a tone of satisfied vengeance by Chris Christie in his Inaugural speech. "Change" has been turned to the spirit most known to the right--one of taking back from an usurper, to the traditional, the known.

4 Beers

Pool report from today's Rose Garden event (referred to yesterday in the briefing room variously as the "Beer Blast", "Beer Fest" by colleagues, to be gently chided by Gibbs that the event was a more serious one than that) notes that, unexpectedly, Biden was also present.

The thinking here, I believe was 1) to balance a focus of 2 men, actively engaged, and one President--e.g. to provide balance, and round off the numbers should the two become overactively engaged; and 2) To let Joe's loquaciousness take some of the steam and punch out of any arguments that could arise, draining it off with words, words, words, and deflecting some of the focus off of Obama, a key role for Biden since the start.

Pool report notes that POTUS drank Bud Light--popular and unobjectionable; VPOTUS: Bucklers--need we say, a "near beer"; Gates: Sam Adams, a quality home brew, and Crowley: Blue Moon, which we might note is meant to appear different and a rarer brew, but is actually owned by Coors--although they don't like to advertise this.

Birth Pangs

National Review has an almost sane editorial today that, although enshrouded in a multitude of caveats meant to dispel any possible momentary belief that they may be approving of any of his actions, makes clear that they recognize that he, indeed, was "Born in the U.S.A."

The unsigned op-ed, which still manages to impute questions about his biography, letting the faithful know that even in that realm, their not giving away all of their cards, manages to get one good line in among the protective bombast (which even attempts to normalize the Birthers through citation of questions about Chester Alan Arthur's putative Canadian birth):

The director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy. Given that fact, we are loath even to engage the fanciful notion that President Obama was born elsewhere, contrary to the information on his birth certificate, but we note for the record that his mother was a native of Kansas, whose residents have been citizens of the United States for a very long time, and whose children are citizens of the United States as well

In any event, the Review's action is only politically wise, as the patent iron clad conspiracy theories of the Birthers prevents their only slightly less distorted usual positions from being visible. This is a case of a typical technique (factual distortion that incites and draws the masses) done both too poorly--too easily seen as absurd even by the analytically unskilled--and too well, drawing attention away from the mischaracterizations and inaccuracies that can be more easily passed over on the public.

There's health care to distort and mischaracterize--let's not muddy the waters with the more obvious fallacies of the Birthers.

Iran: Bluster and Thought

Welcome back.

The outrageous, narrow, contradictory, self-serving position of those on the Right--such as Robert Kagan, who makes at least some attempt at casting a veil of intellectual coherence, or the bloviating Mike Pence, who only goes as far as enjoying the familiar sound of his words--is another example of the continuing simple-minded viciousness that lies at the heart of a large sector of those who identify as conservative.

The logic here is simple. They are itching for a fight. They want to draw Obama into "confronting" Iran, prodded by rhetoric that really comes down to no more than opportunism hiding behind the usual protective shield of patriotic boilerplate, so that Iran will then accuse the U.S. of meddling.

Obama can then be accused of "failing" in foreign policy--because of the conflict that they conveniently and typically encouraged. And Iran can be placed in the role which they find more comfortable and exciting, and which they are more accustomed to--the place that they can and should fight.

That this permits the Iranian government to have a critical distraction from the battle for freedom, focusing attention on an external enemy--that is, that it will serve to undercut the "freedom" that they declare is their purpose--is not mentioned.

Sad, hypocritical, tiresome...ah! A return to the feelings of the Bush Administration!

Where Rubber Meets Road

Today I received an email, as did many of you, from the Obama team about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

It differs from the many emails sent before in that, for the first time, post-Inauguration, they are asking for action. This is the turn--the first test of whether the enthusiasm for sacrifice shown during the campaign and post-election period will actually translate into the actions of a populace--one willing to act on what they enthusiastically endorsed, one that is committed beyond fulfilling emotions, brief, self-gratifying opinion-making and the next entertainment--the actions, as Obama has briefly tested the phrase--of a movement.

This is where we see if the pleasure people took in voicing opinions, and experiencing change translates into active behavior in the interest of the nation. Work--where the rubber hits the road.

I have to say that, from a psychological point of view, when we consider that this is the first time that American citizens will be asked to be so broadly mobilized for such an event, outside of a campaign's carrying enthusiasm, in more than a generation--and given their preparation for action and sacrifice by the last Administration--the email is short on agenda.

Without it, and with very little practice or preparation for doing this in the past, the very real risk is that most Americans won't know quite what to do--and in that moment, in such a situation, the best predictor of behavior is past behavior--e.g., watch TV, someone else will do it, not sure how to act, hope it works out, maybe I'll do something later--and a critical defining opportunity will be lost, while another one occurs: that email that asks one to do something that sounds nice, something that they never do, instead of the email that enables them to continue to carry forward their enthusiasm and commitment with clear action.

People know how to act during a campaign--cheer and enthuse and enjoy the contest and battle of opinions, glorying in their superior knowledge. They don't know how to galvanize these thoughts and emotions for a bill--especially in a house meeting, something that will feel new and undefined itself.

Nevertheless--I'm in. I worked for this and I want it to work. So I'll provide the agenda:

INVITATION:

Talked the talk? Walk the walk. Come to the Georgetown House Meeting on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Agenda:

1) INTRODUCTION: Understanding the Act and its key initiatives.

2) CONGRESS: identifying and contacting key members of Senate; developing key arguments for vulnerable members

3) MEDIA: Broadcast (Radio/TV) and Cable: Identification and development of local and national stories/narratives describing how the Act will support families and communities
New Media: Development of Twitter and Facebook campaigns (Facebook app?), short-form video to support the Act

4) SUMMARY AND ACTION PLAN: Detail team and individual actions for the above and point persons for completion and follow-up


Where: Dr. Alan J. Lipman
1010 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
The Waterfront Center, Georgetown
Suite 320
Washington, D.C.

When: Saturday, February 7th, 2-4 pm.

The Waterfront Center is located along the Potomac in Georgetown, on the corner of K Street and Wisconsin. There is metered parking directly in front of the new Georgetown Park, as well as a parking garage.

Call to RSVP: 202-423-6153

Change and The EPA

From Reuters, via Yahoo News:

President Barack Obama began reversing the climate policies of the Bush administration on Monday, clearing the way for new rules to force auto makers to produce more fuel-efficient and less polluting cars.

The president told the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider immediately a request by California to impose its own strict limits on vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for contributing to global warming.

The Democratic Obama took over last Tuesday from former President George W. Bush, whose Republican administration had denied the request, prompting California and other states to sue.

"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said at the White House, taking a stab at his predecessor's policies.

I recall watching the torturous testimony of former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on this issue, as he went against the recommendations of his own agency staff.

Last Vestiges...

From Talk Left:

The Supreme Court issued opinions and orders today. Among them:

* Ruled that a man wrongly convicted and sent to prison for 24 years cannot sue the former Los Angeles district attorney and his chief deputy for violating his civil rights. The court said unanimously that decisions of supervising prosecutors, like the actions of prosecutors at trial, are shielded from civil lawsuits.

* Ruled that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

Trying to get as many in as possible before Obama will be able to shift the balance?

Hello Robert

By which we provide friendly advice to Robert Gibbs, who is very capable and well-experienced from the campaign--but who could not enjoy the benefit of a little friendly advice?

Larry Summers is certainly distinguished in many ways. And, in the swirl of internalizing broad swaths of information, managing egos, and getting one's wheels on the ground that is the growing job of Press Secretary, it certainly makes sense to protect that ego--particularly when someone else will (likely) be the Treasury Secretary.

But is it really necessary to refer to him as "Dr. Summers"--and Peter Orszag as "Peter"? Doesn't that establish/signify a bit of a listing coming together of the Cabinet--and suggest initial and future fractures?

A small point perhaps, but one that people notice. Best to keep the pragmatic, no- nonsense tone for all--and show the public that all of you have more important things in mind than ruffled feathers.

Kristol's "Work"

In November, Mr. Kristol told Portfolio.com, “I’m ambivalent” about the prospect of continuing to write the Times column. “It’s been fun,” he said, adding, “It’s a lot of work.”

~The New York Times, in reporting the "mutual" decision to end his column, January 26, 2009.


Thinking.

It's a lot of work.

Thinking about where we should go to war, dreamily touting Vice Presidential candidates.

It's work, I tell you.

And when you work, you're prone to mistakes.

Just look at the New York Times--they have to run corrections, why, most every day.

Fortunately, policy pieces and recommendations aren't followed by corrections.

That makes them--a lot less work.

Tom Friedman and "Jaws"

If Tom Friedman uses that "we need a bigger boat" metaphor from "Jaws" one more time, I will scream.

The Celebration is Over–The Work Begins

A talent at campaigning, as is well known, does not a priori equate to a talent for governance. The celebrations–full, moving–are over. Today the work begins.

Obama has indicated a willingness and intention to hit the ground running. He has prepared for this well. The work of preparation has been detailed, based in realities rather than fantasies and vindictive ideology. There is an intention to hew to the needs of this nation, and to use factual indicators rather than long-held spiteful or self-deceptive illusions as a basis.

Now the work of translating those plans, and imposing them upon a moving world begins. Geithner sits now, taking the questions of the mildly impaired Jim Bunning, with the knowledge but also the clear uncertainties before him.

Each cabinet member, each agency head, awoke with the awesome, largely unknown task of the work before them, uniting members and through them the public before plans that, gratefully, have begun to take substantial form before today, but which cannot be fully formed, and which then must be brought to an expectatant public.

Yesterday, during Obama’s inaugural speech, the largest response–although this may have been an artifact of media placement, was to Obama’s line about a father who 60 years ago would have been turned away from a lunch counter. This is both a promising and an auspicious sign for the work ahead.

After we take pride in the first African American president–there is work to do. The recognition of the one does not immediately translate into the commitment and dedication required of the other. This is a difficult turn for the public to make, fed as it has been on easy entertainments and self-satisfactions, which they are all to ready to reach for and then walk away, all to unfamiliar with the task of sacrifice and volunteerism, day upon day, that Obama called for. He tried to make that turn–staying, as he does, within limits. We will see if a nation, gilded with the fragile protections of comforting distractions, will step up in the greyness of each day, to make this turn with him–and whether the Administration, in the face of recalcitrance and need for learning how to shoulder a burden, will stand to the task of consistent inspiration.

We begin.

7th and D Streets, N.W., 8 A.M.

Crowd awaits at 7th and D to be let into Mall area:


In the building above, police watch:

6. A.M., January 20th

At about 6 A.M., I could hear cheering directly outside of my window. It seemed much too close to be coming from the Capitol, and was clearly a very large crowd--hundreds, perhaps a thousand or more. It was too early for a pre-Inaugural concert, too late for a late-night party, and too large.

I went to the window. Directly below was a gigantic throng, wrapped in overcoats, scarves. They were standing before a gate, that had been set up to channel traffic to the Mall. They were shouting, cheering with excitement, with the desire to get there, to be there. People ran down the street like streaking flares, to join and become part of the crowd. One girl dropped her scarf, and in her excitement, just ran on, then came back to grab it.

The joy was palpable, the excitement of being part of it and wanting to be part of it, of milling before a nation that they felt they could finally belong to. They wanted to run towards it and be free.

I've never seen this kind of enthusiasm about politics in 10 years in this city.
Obama is carrying the enthusiasm of a world today. It is not clear what it will become. But the excitement, the joy in a new and freer world, is extraordinary.

An Inauguration Speech

My Fellow Citizens:

We gather here today as citizens of a great nation. We have arrived from all parts of this country. We arrive awakened to both the necessities and possibilities of freedom. We arrive inspired by the hopes and aware of the challenges of our shared future. And we arrive with a solemn task--yet one that can bring us the greatest joy; the responsibility that can bring the greatest satisfaction to ourselves, our families and communities. To join together with strength of hope, knowledge, determination and unity to rebuild this nation.

In recent years, as we have been buffeted by attack and crisis, many have been imbued with fear, distracted by division and polarization, made distant from the values that in their hearts they knew lay at the core of this nation.

Yet from this darkness, the force of life that we have seen emerge, time and time again, from this great nation has arisen, moving us together, towards the unity and freedom that, from the core of this land, provides a beacon of strength and hope that can light and inspire the world. From the cities and towns across this country, in the face of division and disunion, in the face of foreboding and fear, we found together our unique American capacity for hope--and for a willingness to rise above that fear as one to make that hope a reality.

One nation that is determined to demonstrate its strength by realizing its values. One nation that can face its challenges as reality, not illusion, by fully recognizing and employing the talents, desires, strengths and aspirations of all of its people. One nation that has refused to continue to live under shackles of fear and darkness. And one nation that will join together, black and white, young and old, rich and poor to create, as was said so long ago, a more perfect Union--one strengthened by our knowledge that as each of us is equal, each of us must contribute--and that will face the challenges ahead with the knowledge that the person beside them shares that responsibility and commitment.

The days ahead will be hard. None of us can or ever should claim perfect knowledge. But what we can face and shoulder together, we can and will achieve together--with the joy of contributing to our lives, the lives of our family and community, and to the future of this nation.

Our time, as always, is short. And, with this knowledge, we begin. Within each of us is the recognition that we can share this burden--if we know that each of us is dedicated to the tasks ahead. There will be doubts. Crisis will breed the narrow temptations of cynicism and division. We know: These are but small and momentary distractions from the reality of what each of us, each day can create and contribute. With our hands, with our hearts, with out persistence in the face of division and distraction, with our determination to forge ahead through both the familiar and unknown barriers that lay before us, we will bind together the strength of this nation. With the strength of a citizenry bound by a true patriotic unity--beyond race, beyond Party, together--with the strength and dedication of the fullness of our talents, and freed and full measure of our devotion, we will meet those challenges, and fulfill our promise beyond measure.

Watching

We should all be very proud of what we have done.

He Means It

I never thought that I would be thrilled by the appearance of Ray LaHood at a podium being announced for an appointment.

In the past, "forming a bipartisan administration" and "choosing the best person for the job" was typically a verbal signifier for being less viciously and openly partisan than prior Administrations, appointing members of your own party to your Administration while being willing at least to appear to hear some of the positions of the other side--a slightly more centrist position, while remaining firmly based in partisan self-interest. Any movement whatsoever from such self-interest was greeted with a momentary surprise, quickly followed by the recognition that this was a change of relatively meaningless degree, more game than qualitative shift.

This time, it's different.

A central--perhaps the central--foundation of Obama's approach is one of uniting people across philosophies and towards action. It was imbued within him from his earliest days as a guiding principle. He learned how to implement this, along with many of its difficulties, in his years as a community organizer. he was able to implement it within what is a typically fractious and bitterly polarized environment at the leading law review in the nation. And he is doing it now.

It will be difficult to contain the egos and ideologies; there will be sharp bursts and tangents of positioning, attempts to gain power, and narcissism in the name of policy that are characteristic of all Administrations. I believe Obama is aware of this, having experienced it in the past, which is why such an emphasis was placed on a campaign team without drama. There will also be elements of self interest throughout, as there should be--if one believes in what they are doing, they should act to protect it.

The problem in the past is that this last rationale has too often become the leading one--power for its own sake has been the goal, with action and ideology the supporting rationale for continuing power. I believe that, for the first time in recent memory, the reverse is finally, actually the case.

We see this perhaps most strongly in the choice of Rick Warren–who I disagree with on most issues–to give the invocation at the Inaugural. Obama is making the issue clear, not merely in soothing platitudes, but in action–we will have to face and work with those with whom we differ in the days ahead. In soundbite form–in the past–that has provided a moment’s self-satisfaction, before a return to the status quo. Today, the time calls for exactly such cooperative effort, and difficulties inherent within it.

There will be efforts to chip away at this by degrees, to stain and mar. Americans recognize genuine action, and they certainly recognize the self-serving pose. Obama is building a team that is aimed towards constructive change. As he moves forward amidst what hopefully will begin to seem anachronistic methods of twisting and distortion, let us hope that we--and he--remember and stay upon this path.

Wake-up Call

One of the qualities I enjoy in Obama is his combination of humor and intellect, his ability to use his competitive basketball instincts in a way that reflects humor, yet still a disciplined judgment and choice.

He is a competitive man. He has learned to restrain it--to control it and to decide wisely through it better than most that I have seen. Yet he is intelligent enough to be able to throw in the element of humor--even as he makes sure that he is making the wisest choice.

Witness his selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The calculus is this--she can do the job. You wanted to show that you could take the call at 3 A.M.? Well, now you can--a wry choice that places her in the position to live up to her own words, for him. Yet he also has evaluated that given such a challenge, she has the personality and skills that cause her to rise to the task--as she did when doubted in the Senate. He will have this power over her--I have given you the power to do what you said you could do--all the more reason not to err, and also one upon whom mistakes can be reflected. She is levered into a position where all forces are directed towards ensuring that she does the best job that she can--to show that, as she said, she could; to demonstrate that her best interests are the nation's, for the benefit of his Administration, and for the nation.

Smart, funny, yet done with a disciplined evaluation of its impacts.

Competence and Ideology

Many Progressives seem to be up in arms that Obama is not making the appointments that they hoped for.

Be careful what you wish for. When left ideologues scream because they did not get the ideology that they hoped for or expected, they mirror the ideologues on the other side of the spectrum who act from an impulsive rage, a desire for vengeance, and an impassioned but poorly considered desire.

Obama is unique as a modern President. He is not an ideologue. He is seeking effective and practical solutions to the nation's problems and will choose the methods that are most likely to work--rather than acting from a felt obligation to a particular ideological movement. Yet, although he is bringing in the best of knowledge and technology, he is not a technocrat. His grounding as a community organizer, and a fundamentally unifying philosophy, with an undergirdng of actual understanding of human need and how human change occurs is the human firmament from which the choices and strategies derive.

This direction is non-ideological and an exceptionally broad foundation for change. let's hope that the choices are right, that he is well served, and not diverted by the noise around him.

Cohen: Gore for State

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post suggests Gore for Secretary of State:

Can you imagine a bolder statement about a new direction when it comes to global warming and the general care of our abused planet? Gore has won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in this area (and an Oscar, to boot), and his appointment would signal a dramatic shift from the indifference of the Bush era with its cold shoulder to the Kyoto treaty. In one stroke, the United States would emerge as the leader of nations in the effort to save the planet from ourselves -- and could prepare for the consequences of a changed world.

The new president's urgent priority has to be the economy. He has no other choice. But given that Obama has no foreign policy background, he needs a secretary of state who can really run the nation's foreign affairs while the attention of the White House is largely directed elsewhere. Others are capable of handling the job, including, of course, Sen. John Kerry, who is being mentioned. But Gore has as much experience and something else as well -- he was right on the Persian Gulf War (voted yes) and right on the Iraq war (like Obama, he opposed it from the start).

Inspired choice. I don't know if he'd take it--but the position has enough range and potnetial influence that he just might.

And Scene.

Minutes after I wrote the post below, this:

"With the arrival of the President elect here, is there in some way for the President, for the staff, for senior aides, is everything becoming a little more real, even in a way the election wasn't, today?"

Perino: "Sure, I think that that is fair to say..."

Perino Brieifing on Obama Visit

You can feel the mixture of excitement, sadness, pressure and anxiety in Dana Perino as she announces the arrival of the Obamas to the White House today. This no doubt reflects many gathering pressures as their work comes to an end.

Head of State Live Analysis: Obama's First News Conference

Pre-conference: Borger reports that "word is" Obama plans FDR-style works program. If so, will be interesting to see how such a program flies under 24-hour news cycle scrutiny.

Eight flags behind a podium. The podium has a sign reading "The Office of the President-Elect" in the now familiar Obama blue and white Obama design and small caps font.

The Dow is up 254.16 as we wait.

The economic advisers gather behind the podium. Rahm Emanuel holds his chin, nods.

They firm their lines, most with hands clasped in front of them, chatting lightly in their places.

Obama walks in with Biden.

The U.S. has only one Government and One President at a time. I've spoken with Bush

Immediately after I become President, I will take this economic crisis head on.

Met this morning with my Economic Advisory Board standing behind him, along with Biden. Will work with Emanuel.

First, need rescue plan for middle class. Jobs and relief.

He is nervous, slightly constrained, body turned inward. Not meeting eyes or looking forward. Looks strained and slightly nervous. May be feeling weight, recognition of what is upon him. This will ease out as he becomes accustomed to power.

His grasp of words betrays an anxiety, a detachment from the words themselves not seen during the campaign.

You can see how the Right will begin to beat him when they do--as too detached, not showing the aggressive-passion-strength and simplicity that symbolizes leadership to them.

He is getting through this one so far.

Now opens for questions.

Looking up more, still obviously quite nervous.

Reporter: Are you still confident that you can do something during the lame duck session before you take office?

Obama: I want to see a stimulus package. If not during this session, when I take office.

Jake Tapper on Ahmadinejad letter. What will you do about it?

Obama: Iran's development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. We must mount an international effort to keep that from happening. Support of terror must cease. I will examine letter. It has only been 3 days since election. Should not respond in knee-jerk fashion. We only have one President at a time.

Chip Reid: When you disagree with Bush decisions, will you defer, challenge, confront? I am touring White House. Will be substantive discussions.

Obama is now finding his sea legs, becoming calmer, more authoritative, finding voice he had during campaign. Brain is attaching to mouth, nerves settling, and the thinking Obama is coming to life on this question. Quick. 10 minutes into first news conference. Nice.

Obama: With 2 wars and a financial crisis, is it important to move quickly on filling key posts? I want to move with all deliberate haste, but emphasize deliberate. Proud of choice of VP and COS because thought it through. Important to get it right.

Reporter: To what extent will you use influence to fill Senate seat? This is Governor's decision, not mine. Criteria would be same as if I were voter.

Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun Times) rising with arm in sling:

Obama: What happened to your arm, Lynn?

A relaxed, Kennedyesque moment. Stretching, stepping into himself.

Sweet: Hurt arm going to speech.

Obama: I think that was the only incident in Grant Park that night.

Sweet has not been entirely friendly, just the slightest note of strength by Obama answering the slightest implication. Using his ability to modulate tone well.

Sweet: People want to know, what books are you reading, what kind of puppy will you get, what schools will the children attend?

A surprisingly friendly, "soft" and personal question from Sweet. Making amends?

Obama: Spoke with all living Presidents, don't want to get into Nancy Reagan seance thing. (The Rightwing blogs will be quoting that line, looking for something to scream about). Dog--this is a major issue We have 2 criteria that have to be reconciled--Malia is allergic, so has to be hypoallergenic. We would prefer to get a shelter dog, but a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me. Schools. Michelle will scout out.

Just the slightest mixture of mock seriousness, humor, and actual seriousness . This ability to shift into a slight tone of recognition of the humor in the decision contrast, yet also recognizing its essential humanity, is Obama's version of the Kennedyesque touch that he can bring to the White House. A self assured recognition of the importance of world situations, while also reocgnizing the importance of humanity's daily life. This is similar to the ability to move from serious consideration to ease and humor that symbolizes undefensive confidence--this was also displayed early Kennedy news conferences, if you've seen them.

A willingness to take on the full strength and importance of decisions--while also, without giving up responsibility or the strength and deliberation that must be fully devoted to it--as seen in the striking, surprising and positive self-deprecation of "mutts like me"--the ability to do this is an indicator of genuine confidence, rather than hubris.

Crowley (pressing Obama): You are privy now to intelligence. First, what do you think of state of US intelligence, does it need beefing up, interaction; Second, has anything you've heard given you pause about anything you said on campaign trail?

Obama: Candy, as you know, if were, couldn't tell you. Intelligence process can always improve, has gotten better.

Zeleny (Times): Intend to seek income tax increases for upper class Americans, expect to pay higher taxes in '09?

Obama: My plan provided for tax cut; 95% of working Americans would receive them; tax credits. Priority is grow economy, provide jobs. Goal of my plan is to provide tax relief to families that are struggling but also boost economy from bottom up.

In one news conference, as stepped into questions, moved from a early nervous detachment, to his own voice, the voice we have seen throughout the campaign--with questions, not with a speech--that is what brought him to thought and life.

We have a taste of what a President Obama will be like--much as he was during campaign. Thoughtful, calm, deliberate, a touch of strength, ease, humor, ability to be personal. To the absurd critiques that Obama could "only deliver speeches", we have a calm, strong, definitive answer.

Emanuel May Be Formally Announced As Chief of Staff As Early As This Afternoon

Rahm Emanuel, former Clinton Staffer, may be named as Obama's Chief Of Staff as early as this afternoon.

Emanuel, known as an extremely aggressive, tough political figure signals the prgamatic tone of the Obama White House--a desire to ensure that errors such as those made at the beginning of the Clinton Presidency with regard to appointments, and the Carter Presidency with regard to lack of deep knowledge of and connections with DCs inner workings will not occur.

In short, a recognition that tough, informed, and well-connected pragmatism will be necessary to reach the high aims of the Administration.

The tone will be: Pragmatism, knowledge, and toughness to reach the goals of hope.

Petraeus

You can note the subtle change in Petreaus's as he adjusts the the prospect of the Obama Administration. Finding his new tone. Very intelligent to keep just enough intellectual and expressive distance from Bush to now make this adjustment easier.

Welcome

Welcome to the many thousands of world visitors recently from London, Paris, Geneva, Copenhagen, Berlin, Kuala Lumpur, Oslo, Nottingham, Abu Dhabi, Bocas Del Toro, Beijing(!), Beirut, Dubai, Toronto, Warsaw, Taipei, Karachi, Sydney, Athens, Stockholm, Turks and Caicos, Zurich, Santiago, Auckland, Nanterre, Quito, Hong Kong, Montpellier, Jakarta, Cambridge (U.K.), and too many other cities and nations to mention, and across the United States (including Wasilla).

The Work of Better Angels

Last night, from my home, I could hear the horns.

Our better angels have won out over our fears.

Now, the work--for each one of us, as well as for the Obama Administration begins.

I woke this morning with a surprising relief and with a full heart unlike any I had experienced.

Awake with the knowledge that intelligence now occupies the White House--rather than a fear of and defensive hostility towards intellect. That one who can both confidently wield and appreciate the breadth, sharpness and diversity of intellect--it's strengths, options, and kindnesses, its new inclusivities and potentially new solutions--now will rest in our nations leadership.

Awake with the awareness that an ability and desire to be open to the diverse perspectives around him will now characterize the Presidency--rather than one so completely and so early formed around narrow perspectives that he was not even aware of this narrow range.

Regarding the nation as safer--in the hands of one who will exercise judgment, based on careful and full consideration, rather than gut feeling; informed by knowledge that is unafraid to listen to and is able to weigh the expertise of others, rather than fearing information from anyone but a self-confirming circle; and not driven by the hostile and often overwhelming self-interest that characterized the previous Administration.

Relieved that we are now led by one who is primarily oriented towards the future and consensus, and towards the national good, rather than being directed primarily by an underlying hostility and division that shot through any efforts to fully consider the national good.

This is a time when you can recognize your opportunity for individual change and new decisions.

The weight of a dark time--produced by the knowledge that we were led by those who defended against intellect, regarding it with suspicion; who acted upon their own agenda, often against the will of the public, with a determined and past-driven ideology that was at times implemented by misleading the public they were elected to serve, that was more interested in self and justification rather than unification--has lifted.

Today is a day for relief, for joy at possibility, and for recognition that we should not allow ourselves to get lost in the weeds of trivia and small vengeances in weeks and months ahead.

With a clear vision, and a commitment to what is best in us, which many of us feel today--it is time to go to work.

Do People Change Their Minds On The Last Day? No.

On this day before an historical election, many of you may be worried about whether the negative ads of recent days will have any affect upon voters who have already made up their minds.

The answer to this is no.

There are five primary psychological reasons for this--all of which point in the same direction.

Habit: The reason people do the same behaviors in life, rather than acting in a new way each new moment, is habit. The reason that habit is so powerful is that what is known is always more predictable than what is unknown. Given a choice between the predictable and the known, people will do what they repeatedly have described to themselves over time. . Therefore, if the majority of citizens have said to themselves for many weeks 'I am voting for Obama because he is the best candidate' or other reasons, they will continue to vote in that direction, even when faced with so-called "new" mudslinging. The reason for this is that they would prefer to decide on the basis of what they have already learned rather than on ambiguous and new information.

Consistency: There is a very powerful directionality towards self-consistency. People do not want to contradict their own strongly held opinions and beliefs, as this causes cognitive dissonance. Given the amount of attention people have paid to the election at this point, they have had thousands of occassions on which they have strengthened that opinion and belief. To change at this time would create massive cognitive conflict, and as a consequence, few will do it.

Security: By now, people have connected their decision to their own lives--to future desires and outcomes. These links have already been established. In the eyes of the McCain handlers, further attacks might seemingly change the minds of some voters, Rather, they will make voters see the desperate nature of the campaign, causing them to hew to a more stable and secure option, i.e., the choice they have already decided upon. They will feel more secure by staying with their choice.

The Consensus Effect: As each person sees the other not responding to the various forms of mud throwing, due to the factors listed above, they realize they are correct in their own similar experiences--they are assured that they are acting in the right fashion. As a result, they are further reinforced in not changing their position.

Understanding of Timing: The electorate is aware that this is the conclusion, and can set the "new" information in its proper perspective, realizing that it would have been raised long before if it had actually been true, and recognizing that these are the acts of a campaign that can only raise such canards.

To this, I add a sixth--on rational analysis, he's the best candidate.

Now--get out and vote.

Palin Is Pranked By Canadian Duo

Sarah Palin is pranked by a false "Nicholas Sarkozy."

Listen:

Pay No Attention To The Mudslingers Behind The Firewall

If you look at the "Comments" sections of articles in many major newspapers today, it looks as if the dark specters of every conspiracy theory have burst forth, like dying souls from the rapidly firming ground, in a last eruption of flailing desperation.

At each moment, wild minds are frantically shooting mud at a wall to see if anything can stick. This is what we call "conservative political thinking" at the end of a campaign circa 2008.

These so-called principled leaders, so willing to call--shocked, shocked!-- for notions of civil behavior when they are questioned, are now engaged in a rapid-fire, panic-and-rage fueled mudfest, that only matches in hysteria the willingness to propel any notion, no matter how far-fetched or borderline delusional, into the torrent of mire that they hope, in their primary tactic of democratic process, might clouds the eyes.

Pay no attention to projectile sludge casters behind the firewall.

Let's end this vicious distortion of and distraction from our nation's needs.

Let's put this kind of politics to rest--with their final adolescent caterwailing a reminder of what has preceded us.

And let's get to work on building and rebuilding tomorrow.