The Pocket Obama

{1} Chapter Three: Our Constitution

"When it came to questions of national security in the post 9/11 era, for example, the White House stood fast against any suggestion that it was answerable to Congress or the courts. During the hearings to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, arguments flared over everything from the scope of the Congress’s resolution authorizing the war in Iraq to the willingness of executive branch members to testify under oath. During the debate surrounding the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales, I reviewed memos drafted in the attorney general’s office suggesting techniques like sleep deprivation or repeated suffocation did not constitute torture so long as they did not cause ‘severe pain’ of the sort ‘accompanying organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death’; transcripts that suggested the Geneva Conventions did not apply to ‘enemy combatants’ captured in a war in Afghanistan; opinions that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to US citizens labeled ‘enemy combatants’ and captured on US soil. …..

"The scope of presidential power during wartime. The ethics surrounding end-of-life decisions. These weren’t easy issues; as much as I disagreed with Republican policies, I believed they were worthy of serious debate. No, what troubled me was the process – or lack of process – by which the White House and its congressional allies disposed of opposing views; the sense that the rules of governing no longer applied, and that there were no fixed meanings or standards to which we could appeal. It was as if those in power had decided that habeas corpus and the separation of powers were niceties that only got in the way, that they complicated what was obvious (the need to stop terrorists) or impeded what was right (the sanctity of life) and could therefore be discarded ….And it was at the very heart of the conservative assault on the federal courts."
--Barack Obama; The Audacity of Hope; pages 77-79.

In this chapter, Senator Obama discusses attempts by the executive branch to deny US citizens their Constitutional rights. More, he speaks to the attempts to keep the Congress and federal courts from being co-equal branches of government – which means denying all of us the form of government the Constitution defines. And Senator Obama recognizes how the executive branch and its allies are engaged in an assault on the federal courts, in order to stifle any attempts to challenge the federal government’s iron-fisted rule.


{2} Epilogue

"A Few weeks later, I arrived in Boston, caught three hours’ sleep, and traveled from my hotel to the Fleet Center for my first appearance on Meet the Press. Toward the end of the segment, Tim Russert put up on the screen an excerpt from a 1996 interview with the Cleveland Plain-Dealer that I had forgotten about entirely, in which the reporter asked me – as someone just getting into politics as a candidate for the Illinois state senate – what I thought about the Democratic Convention in Chicago.

" ‘The convention’s for sale, right …You’ve got these $10,000-a-plate dinners, Golden Circle Clubs. I think that when the average voter looks at that, they rightly feel they’ve been locked out of the process. They can’t attend a $10,000 breakfast. They know those who can are going to get the kind of access they can’t imagine.’ …

"There was a time when political conventions captured the urgency and drama of politics – when nominations were determined by floor managers and head counts and side deals and arm-twisting, when passions or miscalculation might result in a second or third or fourth round of balloting. But that time passed long ago. With the advent of binding primaries, the much-needed end to the dominance of party bosses and back room deals in smoke-filled rooms, today’s convention is bereft of surprises. Rather, it serves as a week long informercial for the party and its nominee – as well as a means of rewarding the party faithful and major contributors with four days of food, drink, entertainment, and shoptalk."
--Barack Obama; The Audacity of Hope; pages 357-358.

In these pages, Senator Obama discusses how the grass roots have been shut off from the party leaders, who prefer to mingle only among those who can shell out $10,000 for breakfast. This is one of the reasons that the progressive and liberal democrats at the grass roots level support Obama. We are tired of people like Mark Penn, who remind us of one of the characters from "Animal Farm" that believe that all animals are created equal – just some more equal than others.

The Obama campaign has allowed people at the grass roots to feel that their $10 and $20 contributions are making a difference, and providing them with access to both their party, and to the effort to reclaim their Constitutional democracy.

you hit the nail on the head!

for me to think that he has much in common with the grass roots.

What sort of change is being suggested here? What does he propose to do?

But he gets more money from small donors than any candidate in history. Don't forget, those small donors can be asked over and over for money.

:thumbsup:

k/r

are a couple of our most valuable resources.

:)

seemed important today.

modest donation has made a difference and that feels really good. :-)

Senator Robert Kennedy delivered a wonderful speech about the power of each individual to send out a ripple, and how when the riplles combined they formed a wave strong enough to wash away oppression. Each donation that the grass roots makes to the Obama campaign is one of the ripples that RFK was speaking of.