No more drama!!!

This is another day when reading the news about our political situation can only be summed up with this.



We know the Republicans are obstructionists, intent on destroying Obama's presidency and doing all they can in the process to help their wealthy friends cash in on the goodies.

But did you see the latest from congressional Democrats?

Incensed over President Obama’s tax compromise, House Democratic leaders are showing signs of abandoning the administration and going their own way on critical issues such as national security.

In a striking move, the Appropriations Committee late Wednesday attached a provision to a $1.1 trillion resolution to keep the government funded next year that would prevent Obama from spending any funds to try terrorism suspects in civilian court instead of military commissions.

The language would essentially prevent the closing of the detainee prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.

So in order to punish Obama for negotiating with the Republicans on the tax deal - they're going to side with those same Republicans by tying the hands of DOJ in prosecuting terror suspects and making it impossible to shut down Guantanamo. Yeah, that makes alot of sense...not.

Seriously, I don't get it.

Right now, if the Democrats had any ounce of awareness - they'd recognize that the majority of people in the country are with them on the issues that are in front of Congress (ie, tax cuts, DADT repeal, unemployment insurance, Start Treaty, etc.) and they'd be making a case together (there's the operative word) that Democrats are better able to govern. But instead, their egos got damaged and they're striking out at "Daddy" in a way that can only remind one of 2 year olds.

I've had enough for now. I'm going to chill and listen to the wisdom of Mary J. Blige...no more drama!!!!!!

Listen to the man!

A few months ago, Ezra Klein wrote a column titled People don't listen to the President. I think he's right. President Obama gives hundreds of speeches and other than the SOTU - who ever really watches or listens to them? Even many political junkies just read a few reactions to what he had to say from sources that tend to share our viewpoint - and therefore confirm what we already thought.

I'd like to suggest that anyone who wants to comment on Obama - his thoughts and/or strategies - watch his press conference from today. I don't believe he's ever been so open, clear and passionate. Its also the first time I can remember him talking directly about how he thinks about political strategy. Like it or not - he lays it all out there for you to see if you take the time to listen.



There are many powerful moments, but here's how he ended.

So, my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there, what is helping people live out there lives; what is giving them more opportunity; what is growing the economy; what is making us more competitive. And any given juncture there are going to be times that my preferred option, what I am absolutely, positively sure is right, I can’t get done. And so then, my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way or that way because I am keeping my eye on the long-term and the long fight. Not my day-to-day news cycle, but where am I going over the long-term. And I don’t think there is a single Democrat out there who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now that we have not moved in the direction that I promised. Take a tally, look at what I promised during the campaign. There is not a single thing that I said I’d do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I am still trying to do it. And to my Democratic friends, let’s understand that this is a long game not a short game.

"Man Up"

As I read and hear criticisms of Obama, there is a theme to some of them that I find pretty fascinating - especially when it comes from liberals and Democrats. Here are some examples that I think will be telling:

Obama needs to:

man up
grow some balls
take off the pink tutu

There are others, but you get the point.

The message is clearly that Obama is too feminine.

I suppose that if he had been unsuccessful, there might be a reason to look at a critique like that. But the truth is, he has accomplished more in 2 years than Clinton and Carter did in 12.

I know there are some who are not happy with his accomplishments, but that's a disagreement on substance and not style. The examples I listed above are clearly a critique of his style.

So is Obama "too feminine?" If so, what does that mean? And what does it say about us that so many have a problem with it?

These are questions I'm asking myself these days as I listen to the political discourse. I don't have a lot of answers yet. But I would invite you to listen to the critiques you read/hear about Obama. We all know that there is an underlying theme of racism that permeates a lot of it. But there also seems to be a yearning for a more "manly' response from him. There are centuries of stereotypes that undergird that kind of call. We seem to be a culture that still has a long way to go in recognizing the value of soft power.

I am invariably reminded of the work of Riane Eisler and her book The Chalice and the Blade where she outlines the historical difference between cultures organized around the blade (dominance) and those who value the chalice (partnership). Here's a short video of an interview that will tell you why her thinking about this is so relevant.

Some of the things I found interesting today

From the NYT, Cables Depict Range of Obama Diplomacy.

The cables suggest that Mr. Obama’s form of engagement is a complicated mixture of openness to negotiation, constantly escalating pressure and a series of deadlines, some explicit, some vague...

While WikiLeaks made the trove available with the intention of exposing United States duplicity, what struck many readers was that American diplomacy looked rather impressive. The day-by-day record showed diplomats trying their hardest behind closed doors to defuse some of the world’s thorniest conflicts, but also assembling a Plan B.

On that bad report on jobs from the Dept. of Labor, Time says we might need a job recount. That's because the published numbers are seasonally adjusted - which means that retail employment numbers were adjusted down to accommodate the holiday season. Actually, instead of retail loosing 28,000 as the report indicated, that sector added 350,000 jobs in November.

From This & Such, Weak Tea, Brewed in Cold Water.

Save me the twaddle about how Dems are weak—you want to know why that is? Because their constituency is weak. And cowardly. And intransigent. If it is true that attitude reflects leadership, then the attitude of cowardice I see in the blogosphere is in perfect harmony with the leadership provided in Washington.

Flash Mobs - Dancing a Revolution

We've all heard that Emma Goodman quote..."If I can't dance - I don't want to be part of your revolution." Well, I'll bet Emma would love flash mobs.

Wikipedia defines flash mobs this way:

A flash mob is a large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual act for a brief time, then disperse.

If you want to see what that looks like - or you just want to brighten your day - watch these examples.

Here's one of my favorites. From the youtube description:

Kim MacGregor organized this flash mob of 200 dancers to launch the "feel good" movement, "I Believe She's Amazing" in honor of her friend Erika Heller who passed away May 28th, 2009 at 31 yrs. old...this is her living legacy.

Or how about this one from Oprah's 24th Season Kick Off Party.



But flash mobs aren't just about dancing. How about some singing?



Or maybe just a "freeze frame?"



Some flash mobs are just for fun, but corporate advertisers know a good thing when they see it.



As does some creative young guy who wants to propose to the woman he loves.



I first heard about flash mobs while reading an article by Al Giordano titled Summit Protests Are Obsolete in which he was commenting on the protests that took place at the G-20 Summit in Toronto. He thinks we can do better.

And to think: At least twice in recent months, in the same city of Toronto, there were two creative actions – neither of them “protests,” per se – that were designed, and succeeded, to win over hearts and minds and public support. They involved planning, discipline and a lot more fun than the tired summit protests offer, and they show us a possible path toward a new kind of protest that, rather than provoking automatic police repression, sneaks up on society with stealth and then disappears quickly avoiding any physical confrontation at all...

Add a coherent political message, banners, leaflets, a dance tune that resonates with the message, and such to a dancing musical flash mob like these and you have the seeds of a new, more effective, kind of protest than the tired old marching around in circles of the last century that has ceased to win any cause for anyone.

I'm with Al on this one. One thing I'd add is that, if you watch these videos, the feelings are contagious. People are smiling, appreciative, and want to join in.

Because liberals are often in the mud and muck with what's wrong in the world, we can be dour and depressing (or simply angry and rageful all the time). Who wants to join a movement like that? But isn't our message also about what's best in human beings - things like respect, compassion and empathy? What better way to invite people into that kind of movement than a flash mob?

As the quote up top from Madeleine L'Engle says:

Our truest responsibility to the irrationality of the world is to paint, or sing, or write, [or dance], for only in such response do we find the truth.

Summing things up...

I've been reading the news around the internets and wanted to write something. But this is one of those moments when a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's what I'm hearing...



Thanks to Chipsticks at The Obama Diary for the image.

Responding to the Republican's "lose/lose" Game

With the Republicans toying with sabotage over the New Start Treaty and holding the Senate hostage unless they get exactly what they want on tax cuts, what is a reasonable strategy for Obama and Congressional Democrats to pursue?

Mistermix over at Balloon Juice nails it in Playing Cards with Judas.

...Ezra Klein thinks that Obama’s a bad poker player. He may be right, but the analogy isn’t helpful. Poker is a win/lose game. Negotiation is a win/win game, because both parties get something when a deal is struck. Republicans aren’t playing poker or negotiating. They are playing another game, call it “You Must Lose”. They’re happy with win/lose, if they win, but they’ll tolerate lose/lose as long as Obama loses.

The only analogy that springs to mind when I look at the Republicans’ recent behavior is a bad divorce. Think of a situation where Lisa and Bob are getting a divorce, and Bob is so hell-bent on hurting Lisa that he doesn’t care about their kids or their bank account. Bob will deploy a hundred variations on the same tactic: put the Lisa in a bind where she has to choose between damaging the children and losing money. Lisa will lose money almost every time in order to save the children.

In this situation, capitulation is inevitable, the only question is what form it will take...

Obama has three tactics he can use, all of them weak: The first is to try to fracture the Republican caucus, and he’s flailing around with deficit appeasement (e.g., the federal wage freeze) and half-compromises (the millionaire tax) that are designed to pick off a few caucus members, like Collins or Snowe. The second is to use executive power to its limit, by rule-making (like stopping drilling in the Eastern Gulf until 2017). The third is institutional reform, specifically, ending the filibuster.

None of these tactics is especially effective, but when you’re working with someone who’s only happy if you lose, what else is there?

Exactly!!!!

When the Republicans are willing to play chicken with the American people (and ultimately even national security), what are mature adults supposed to do?

As a former Family Therapist, I've thought of his analogy often. I saw many cases like the one he describes...used to call them "divorce wars." Sometimes the Lisa's in that situation buy in and use the same tactics to fight back (what many Democrats are suggesting Obama should do). That never ends well and the children are the ones who suffer. I saw one family who had been to court over 20 times on custody issues. The welfare of the children was the ammunition they were using to get back at each other.

There's no point in playing this game with folks who are content with "lose/lose." Its a downward spiral that leads to nowhere but chaos and destruction.

In the short-term, I agree with the tactics mistermix suggests. But in the long-term, the only way this gets solved is for the "children" (voters) to let Bob know that they're not going to be used this way anymore and tell him to take a hike.