Oct

30

Turning the Page

Filed Under Barack Obama, Personal | Leave a Comment




In this instance, I think Senator Barack Obama says it best.

Oct

29

“For President” or “For America”

Filed Under Barack Obama, United States | Leave a Comment

Today marks 100 days (99 now) until the first presidential primary. Over the next one hundred days people will pay closer attention to the candidates, their policy positions and their vision for the future. Essentially, these next 100 days will determine, to a significant degree, which Democrat and Republican will be vying to represent our nation; the enormity and importance of these next one hundred days should not be discounted.

The tip of the iceberg gives some sense of what is beneath the surface and for me the tip of the iceberg is the name of the candidate’s campaign committee. According to the Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/) the following are the names of the major candidates’ campaign committees:

  • BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT INC
  • BROWNBACK FOR PRESIDENT INC
  • CHRIS DODD FOR PRESIDENT INC
  • COX 2008 COMMITTEE INC
  • FRIENDS OF FRED THOMPSON INC
  • HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT
  • HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT INC.
  • HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT INC.
  • JIM GILMORE FOR PRESIDENT
  • JOHN EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT
  • JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC.
  • KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT 2008 INC
  • MIKE GRAVEL FOR PRESIDENT 2008
  • OBAMA FOR AMERICA
  • RICHARDSON FOR PRESIDENT INC.
  • ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC.
  • RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
  • RUDY GIULIANI PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE INC
  • TANCREDO FOR A SECURE AMERICA
  • TOMMY THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT (TOMMY 2008)

Please note that the ONLY candidate who is “For America” is Senator Barack Obama. (Actually, Congressman Tancredo is “For a Secure America” but his website (http://teamtancredo.org/) is titled “Tancredo for President”).

Some would argue that the name of a campaign committee has absolutely no relevance to anything whatsoever.I strongly disagree.The name of a campaign committee reflects the candidate’s thinking, the candidate’s relationship with the people he or she is wants to represent and from where power derives.

On the notion of the candidates thinking, let’s consider what being “for” something means. To me, to be “for” something is to support a position, uphold an ideal and believe in a principle. Thus, to be “for President” means that one supports the position of President (the constitutional, statutory authority it affords), upholds the ideal of being President (the leader of the free nation and free world) and believes in the principles of the position of President on both a formal and informal level. However, to be “for America” is quite different. To be “for America” means that one supports a nation of diverse people, upholds the ideal of America of a being a beacon of freedom and hope throughout the world, and believes in the principles of America of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am of the strong opinion that I rather have someone who is “for America” rather than “for President” because the former is more concerned about the history and the people while the latter is more concerned with the position for its own sake.

Next, let’s consider how the name of the campaign committee provides insight into the candidate’s relationship with the people he or she wants to represent. “For President” means that a person’s relationship with the people is through an intermediary, the position of President, while “For America” means that a person’s relationship is directly with the people. This is a fundamental difference that should not be overlooked. The question we must ask ourselves is do we want someone who leads us as president because they are president or do we want someone who leads us as a person who happens to be president? A leader is not created because they serve in a particular position; a leader is created because they recognize the inherent power in others to enact fundamental change.We must elect someone who is “For America” not “For President” because the former has a deeper connection, relationship and understanding of the people while the latter is preoccupied with the gears and levers of the machinations of President.

In the final analysis, only one candidate is fundamentally concerned with and believes in the people of this nation and that is Barack Obama. Barack Obama is not for President; Barack Obama is for America and last time I checked, I live, work and love America, not the President.

Oct

28

The Notion of Region

Filed Under California, Central Valley | Leave a Comment

For some time now, since June 24, 2005 (my 20th birthday and also the day the Partnership was created), I have contemplated the notion of region: what is a region; why has the notion of region emerged; what does it mean to region; how does the notion of region affect our cultural, economic, political, and social thinking.

I begin with my conclusion: regions will become the dominant mechanism for economic and political action in California, the United States and the entire world within the next generation (20 years or so).The basic reason of a region’s existence: geography and humans. Landmasses and water bodies largely demarcate regions. Following natural demarcation is the artificial demarcation that is done by humans. We do this by looking at a map of a particular area, drawing some lines, coloring in the shapes created by those lines and saying something to the effect “you control this, we control this, and I control that.”Regions exist within a global, inter-state and intra-state contexts. At a global level, prime examples of regional organizations are NATO or Warsaw Pact. To use examples less dated: NAFTA and ASEAN. Each of these four examples is the sum of nation-states with common cultural, linguistic, political, economic and social systems based on geography. The former two are largely politically based; the latter two are largely economic-based. In an inter-state context, consider the Western Association of Schools and Colleges or the Western Governors’ Association. The first is socially based; the second is politically based. Lastly, on a intra-state level, consider the Speaker’s Commission on Regionalism and the California Regional Economies Project. The first focuses on the notion of region and the second seeks to highlight 9-regions’ economic status, strengths and futures.

In California, the basic political power structure is state-county-city, with special districts lying somewhere in between. This, increasingly defunct, structure has led to the birth of regions because the existing structure has been ineffective in solving problems, such as increased traffic, poor air quality, or inadequate access to health care.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that we must begin to strongly reconsider the current systems of government, especially in California, which were crafted in a time when transportation was by wagon and horseback and communication by post officer and Western Union telegrams.

Oct

7

The Future of the Democratic Party

Filed Under Barack Obama, Election 2008, Personal, United States | Leave a Comment

The Future of the Democratic Party is at stake with the 2008 Presidential Election. Our system of politics is one of parties and the two predominate parties are the Democrats and Republicans. As the Republican Party continues on a path leading to its redefinition, recomposition and reorganization, the Democratic Party is nearing the pinnacle of its preeminence. The Democratic Party is considered more inclusive, tremendously diverse geographically, linguistically, ethnically, racially and philosophically speaking, and ultimately the Party that will provide the change American society is looking for and considered by some, desperately, in need of.

Given the assertions above, the argument I intend to advance is that for the Democratic Party to have a viable, long-lasting future, some fundamental changes in the political, policy and philosophical structure of the party need to be made.

First, the selection of a presidential candidate is by and large the most defining component of the party because the candidate is considered the de facto leader of the party. The leader is granted the power to redefine the party’s platform, composition and organization at a macro level. Therefore, the question is which presidential candidate will be able to positively affect the party and the society as a whole? I believe the answer is Barack Obama.

Without a doubt, Senator Obama brings new energy, new ideas and a new generation into the political world. No other candidate can argue persuasively of such a stake. The current guard of the Democratic Party must recognize the need to replenish its ranks with new people. By selecting Senator Obama as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, a massive wave of young and old, novice and seasoned political beings will come into the throws of influence. Over 350,000 people have given 500,000 contributions to Senator Obama’s campaign: this is more than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. These numbers cannot be ignored nor denied their importance in highlighting the Senator’s ability to inspire people in ways that has not be experience since the 1960s.

Secondly, Senator Obama’s policy positions offer a new direction in many realms, but especially in foreign policy. Willingness to engage others of an unlike mind is a prerequisite to being president of the United States, plain and simple. To think that by ignoring the problems or the so-called problem people of the world is going to result in a solution is unexplainable and leads to the kinds of disasters that my generation and several generations after me will have to endure. In other words, communication is a powerful tool at the disposal of a leader and to think that we should not communicate directly, engage in a healthy discussion and ultimately establish a connection with another person who wields tremendous influence over their particular portion of the global community is the type of thinking that leads to wars, to death and to the breakdown in the exchange of information and knowledge.

Speaking in broad terms, this is the first time in our society were generation old truly meets generation new. In times past, the current generation was able to maintain its power because it would needlessly send the generation following it into conflict-ridden regions that would result in the loss of a significant portion of the generation following population. Fortunately, we will not repeat the error of the Vietnam in creating a lost generation. The Internet Generation is alive, it is well, and it is seeking what we all seek, a greater ability to affect positive change in society for the immediate, short and long-term.

I am of the opinion that for the Democratic Party to solidify its standing as a Party of the People and its long-term viability, it must ensure that the up and coming generation has a seat the table and the way to do that is to seat the next generation at the head of it.