RJ Matson, Roll Call

Global reaction to Barack Obama’s speech continues to pour in. In this op-ed article from France’s Le Monde, Daniel Vernet writes, ‘The senator from Illinois put himself in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers of the United States. … Obama’s leitmotif is marked with a seal of hope and optimism in a union that can be ‘perfected.’ It is not perfect. It never has been. … The Philadelphia Convention, which proclaimed independence and drafted the Constitution, drew on a political philosophy that was a mixture of Christian faith and the spirit of the Enlightenment. It nevertheless accepted the continuation of slavery.’ Vernet concludes, “Obama’s speech in Philadelphia is a mix of political aptitude and candor. Expressed by a man of color who has succeeded, his faith in America is particularly suited to rallying those who thrive along with those who hope; White, Black or immigrant.”

By Daniel Vernet

Translated By Kate Davis

March 25, 2008

France - Le Monde - Original Article (French)

In order to escape a dangerous association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ, a man who married him and baptized his children, on March 18 Barack Obama delivered a speech on the relationship between the races in the United States. It is a speech that has generated attention, admiration and controversy. Read the rest of this entry »

Here is another Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn who is highly critical of both parties.. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

God Bless Ralph Nader

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

Because he wants to salvage American democracy and help Americans, Ralph Nader is running for president again. He deserves the support of all Americans that see themselves as progressives, dissidents, independents, and patriots who want to remove the stranglehold of the two-party plutocracy on our political system.

When it comes to being an honest, proven and trustworthy change agent, Nader is the gold standard. So why are so many Democrats going ballistic and spewing hate towards Nader?

They are in denial about both Obama and Clinton. Both owe much to the corporate and business world that Nader has waged war against for decades. Like Clinton, Obama has taken huge amounts of money from several business sectors. Both refuse to advocate a single payer universal health care system that Nader champions; this protects the enormously profitable health insurance industry.

They are crazy-glued to their misplaced blame of Nader for the Bush victory in 2000, even though several other indisputable factors also explain Gore’s loss, including his poor campaign that was unable to deliver his home state of Tennessee, the incompetence of the Democratic Party to stop the Supreme Court’s disgraceful action, and the cowardly behavior of the Democratic Party over many decades that kept them from working to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote. And rather than blame Nader for the Iraq war, the Democrats have only themselves to blame, not only for authorizing the war but for many assaults on the Constitution that Bush has gotten away with.

They fear the public becoming more aware of the many policy positions of Obama and Clinton that are downright asinine, in contrast to Nader’s sound positions. For example, Nader is against nuclear power, while Obama has had a very cozy relationship with powerful people in that industry. And Nader wants a carbon pollution tax to combat global warming, that neither Obama nor Clinton favor. And no surprise, Nader makes the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney that Obama and Clinton are too cowardly to embrace. He also straightforwardly supports total public financing of political campaigns – the only way to rid our political system of corrupt forces. Meanwhile, Obama is backing away from his written commitment to using public financing for the general election.

They fear Nader siphoning enough votes away from the Democratic nominee to make McCain president, despite Nader having little campaign money compared to the Democratic nominee. What happened to all that yes-we-can confidence?
Read the rest of this entry »

Here is another Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn who is highly critical of both parties.. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

Hope mongering has been working much better than experience mongering. Now, the rest of the story….

As befits American culture, politics is all about slick selling to the masses. Hillary Clinton is selling Day-1 help to victims and sufferers. Barack Obama is selling effervescent hope to yes-we-can dreamers. This media hyped horse race is like a fight between diet Coke and diet Pepsi, artificially sweetened candidates devoid of real nourishment.

The least educated, least sophisticated and least wealthy along with Hispanics are sipping Clinton’s fizzled-out drink. The most educated, most privileged, and most financially successful along with African-Americans are gulping down Obama’s charismatic pick-me-up.

As to who is buying what, consider these data: Clinton won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts, 54 points in Arkansas, and 11 points in New Jersey. In a Pew Research national survey, Obama led among people with college degrees by 22 points. In Connecticut, Obama beat Clinton among college graduates by 17 points and in New Jersey by 11 points. And note this: 39 percent of Virginia and 41 percent of Maryland Democratic primary voters reported incomes of $100,000 or more – clearly well educated people that would favor Obama.

A simplistic conclusion is that the dumber you are the more likely you prefer the first woman president because you believe this experience-selling status quo, corporate candidate. And the smarter you are the more likely you prefer the first black president because you embrace the change-promises and platitudes from the more authentic, inspirational candidate with the short resume. Clinton supporters appreciate the 10-point-plan-for-every-problem political pragmatist. Obamatons swoon over the big-picture, unity-promising political messiah.

Working-class Clinton supporters are like weary shoppers seeking decent food at low prices at Safeway and good coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts. Obama yes-we-can-happy-facers gladly pay exorbitant prices for the Whole Foods experience and Starbucks shtick.

Here are some realities that neither group wants to face:

Read the rest of this entry »

As polling begins in the US presidential marathon, a race described as “the most expensive, unpredictable and crucial in modern US history”, I am reminded of my memorable few days of intense interaction in the mid-1960s with a wonderful American historian at the Delhi University where I was studying political science. James MacGregor Burns kindled in me an abiding interest in the US constitution, politics, and the presidential election.

James MacGregor Burns and his gracious wife were on a visit to India. I was assigned the duty of taking them around the Delhi University and organising his lecture in my college. But we got enough time to discuss different aspects of the executive and legislative branches of the government. I was more than happy to answer his queries on Indian politics and culture (whatever it was worth…coming as it did from an undergraduate student!!!).

After my univesity days, I lost track of him. So you can understand my joy when I learnt that the distinguished scholar is active even at age 89. “After more than 20 books, a Pulitzer Prize and many other honours for his work on the executive and legislative branches of government, 89-year-old historian James MacGregor Burns is ready for a new subject,” reports AP.

” ‘ I’m working on the politics of the Supreme Court,’ he says, seated in a small armchair in his converted farmhouse, a sunny, cluttered, book-filled loft just down the road and up the hill from Williams College, where he studied as an undergraduate and later taught for decades. ‘I felt I had treated presidents and Congresses a lot, and here was this other branch I didn’t know that much about. I had a feeling it would be even more political than I expected, and it is’.
Read the rest of this entry »

We’ve been away for a while, traveling America discussing our new book, A More Perfect Constitution. The opportunity to discuss the U.S. Constitution–and what might be done to improve it–has been a special one, and I thank the thousands of people who have attended lectures and come to book-signings and participated in webchats on the topic. The National Constitutional Convention in Washington, D.C. on October 19th was an enormous success, too. We’ll be continuing the discussion for a long time to come, and those of you with thoughts on the subject should visit our website, www.amoreperfectconstitution.com.

People approach the Constitution with great reverence, as they should. But it’s vital that we never stop trying to invent a better mousetrap. That’s what the Framers wanted us to do, and we’ve been lax in fulfilling their wishes.

The most stunning impression left by the debate over the Constitution is just how much polarization exists in the nation. Repeatedly, I found that Democrats and liberals were afraid their opponents would grab control of any effort to revise the document, and Republicans and conservatives were terrified of the same thing in reverse. Perhaps in a generation, if we are lucky, the polarization will have abated somewhat so that discussions of this sort will not always be colored in hues of Blue and Red. Let’s hope so, for the nation is the loser otherwise. And we have competitors who are eager to take our place in the world.

These book travels were useful for a political analyst in the presidential season. As usual, politics viewed only through the prism of the Beltway bunch is distorted. Herewith some observations gathered on the trail:

MORE

NOTE: The Moderate Voice from time to time runs Guest Voice posts by readers who don’t have their own website or some people who do who want to present their viewpoint or just another perspective to TMV’s highly diverse readership. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers. This is TMV’s third Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn. Special note: TMV often runs political scientist Larry Sabato’s columns and ran this original and extensive interview with him. Joel Hirschhorn’s guest column offers an opposing view.

Does Larry Sabato Really Want A Constitutional Convention?

By Joel S. Hirschhorn

Why would a prominent law professor supposedly in favor of having the nation’s second constitutional convention organize a symposium where the keynote speaker is dead set against a convention? And why pack the three subsequent panels with people against a convention? I kept asking myself these questions as I attended the recent symposium that Larry Sabato had the audacity to title “National Constitution Convention.”

When I first heard about the event I was troubled by how it was being marketed as, literally, a national constitutional convention – not a conference about a second convention, or the case for the first time use of the option in Article V of the Constitution to hold a convention of state delegates to consider making proposed amendments. Why sell the event as a national constitution convention? The answer became clear: to sell Larry Sabato’s latest book that sets forth a large number of constitutional amendments, most of which both the panelists and nearly everyone else examining them rejects.

This raised another troubling question: Why would someone who sincerely believes our nation needs another convention, rather than relying on Congress to propose amendments, purposefully set forth so many controversial amendments? History has shown that the many attempts to get an Article V convention failed because each of them was linked to advocacy for a specific amendment. When people opposed an amendment they automatically opposed an Article V convention. So here comes Larry Sabato who engineers a lot of public attention to over 20 amendments that many will oppose. True, it brings attention to amending the Constitution. But does he think that doing this will actually promote support for the nation’s first Article V convention? It certainly did not do that at his symposium. Consider these public positions given at the event:

Keynote speaker Geraldine Ferraro, former vice presidential nominee, could not have been more anti-convention. She said she was “not a fan of a second convention” and is “afraid of one.” While she articulated considerable fears about the damage a convention could do, she failed to even mention the safety net created by the Framers in Article V: the difficult ratification process where three-quarters of the states would have to approve every proposed amendment. Such an obvious bias cannot be overlooked when considering her perspective and comments – so typical of political establishment elites protecting the status quo.
Read the rest of this entry »