Today I got redirected around the block and into the back way of the building where I work, because of a “suspicious package.” I work in downtown Manhattan, and was pretty close to ground zero when 9/11 happened, so this was a little bit scary. (Fortunately, the package was deemed to be harmless.)
Today Politico reports that President Elect Obama will swear in using all three of his names. Excellent. Because it really IS his name (and that really shouldn’t be an issue), because it really does give credence to the fact that a Barack Hussein Obama CAN be elected President of the United States, because it really does speak to America’s resurgent moral authority, and because it lays aside the ridiculous fear of anything even remotely Islamic - I’ll be very happy if the President-Elect does this.
Thank you, Mr. Mitchell for debunking this report. It was obviously poorly reported - and the poor reporting was evident to any of us SMALL DONORS who actually contributed more than $200 over time.
I signed up for a recurring donation of less than $20 and made occasional extra contributions - how do I not count as a “small donor?” All this report reveals is the need to change the definitions - which is exactly what one would expect out of such a transformative campaign.
Particularly - I would like someone to explain just who these “bundlers” are. I know Obama had some of the traditional bundlers, union folks and the like, who bundled thousands of donations together. But what about the fact that Obama was able to create “small donor bundlers” - enabling small donors to reach out to friends and families and bundle their donations? How are those donations counted?
The Los Angeles Times report that Obama’s small donor base is not really all that impressive. Personally I find their reporting not all that impressive. People who donate $200 are indeed large donors, but I donated (a total - across the primaries and general election) of $263 or somewhere around there. My largest single donation was $30, and that was a splurge.
Further - some of that money (roughly $30 worth) was contributed across 2 or 3 donations to a “bundler” - one Mr. Bob Cesca, who rallied commenters on his blog site (of which I am one) and raised a little better than $10,000. Mr. Cesca is not a “bundler” in the common sense, nor is his “bundling” in any way common. Mr. Cesca was able to use an online tool created by the campaign to bundle donations made directly to the campaign but in his name.
In short - we are still the “little people” - who did tremendous things. the L.A. Times could do some homework and find out what those numbers really mean, because it makes a world of a difference.
Where is Nate Silver to analyze the numbers when we need him!
Yes, I know. I’m slow as molasses with blog posts these days. Part of it is that I’m playing catch up with a bunch of stuff (HOMEWORK!) and part of it is that the election is over, and I’m regrouping and thinking about what this blog is going to be (or IF it’s going to be) going forward.
I think there’s more to do with the Obama Project, but it’s going to take a minute or two to think about how I want to proceed. After all - we no longer have a candidate Obama. We now have a President-Elect Obama, and soon, a President Obama. So there’s a bit of reflection to be done, and some consideration to whether or not I’m really going to make a 4 year commitment.
Anyway - if anyone is here and wants to chime in with thoughts on what this blog can or should become, feel free. I’ll be posting my thoughts here as we go along.
We have been through all this before. Candidates who promise to bring everybody together are talking about meeting in the middle. The only people who think Barack Obama is a radical are you and Joe the Plumber.
Are there some things that just make you smile? I smile at things sometimes - just because they make me happy. I can be moody as all heck, but the upside of that is that I’m very easily made happy.
Google Earth is one of those things. Its sorta like flying - which I only sometimes get to do (usually when my boss is paying for it), only better, because you can get so much closer to the ground.
One thing I heard some liberal commentators say, as to why Proposition 8 would fail, was that it was much harder to contemplate taking rights away than it was to contemplate conferring new ones. The argument was that as people went to the polls, they would find it hard to take away rights.
I remember finding that argument less than persuasive, but not thinking about it much, being neither gay, nor a Californian. In retrospect, how do you square that idea against a vast number of people who don’t believe that the right to “gay marriage” exists in the first place? Asked to vote should the right be taken away - the answer isn’t “obviously no” because it is far from “obvious” that the right existed in the first place.
Indeed - by going to proposition - the inherent statement is - the right isn’t actually a right. The Supreme Court’s judgment is rendered on the law as written, but the question is “is the law written right?” And the people of California said “no… it’s not. It needs to be better written to make clear that there is no such right as “gay marriage”.” Well - we can argue about that, and I guess we will, but I just wanted to go on record about the dubious thinking - the utter failure of those supporting the gay marriage issue of understanding those who would vote against it.
One of the interesting outcomes of the Obama victory is the building of a coalition of religious people from diverse backgrounds. Particularly, African Americans and the Hispanic community showed up in force for Obama. In California, this had an effect that I’ll call “adverse” - Obama came out against Proposition 8 - the rescinding of the right of homosexuals to marry in the state of California, but his coalition voted in favor of the proposition.
I promised that I would discuss this topic after the election - a promise that lead to absolute silence on my blog. Talking about homosexuality and the black community seems a bit beyond my abilities - I am atypical in my beliefs and practices. Still - as one voice in the black community, and as one voice largely sympathetic to those who voted FOR Proposition 8 (though I don’t know that I would have), I’m going to do my best.
I’ll be back. But for now I want to share some of the thinking I’ve already done on the subject. On Ex Isle, I posted a lengthy exploration of the issue when it first erupted due to the Donnie McClurkin flap early in the primaries. For any who want to read that discussion (it is long, but interesting) here it is: http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?s=&showtopic=49441&view=findpost&p=1055991. It is likely that I will retread old ground here, but I’ll try to do it more succinctly, and more specifically to the topic of gay marriage.
The other thing I want to do is share this video of the late Rev. James Cleveland. To say he was a giant of gospel music would be like saying that the Grand Canyon is a big ditch. I remember when hearing that he had died of AIDS contracted from his gay lover, being shocked, offended, and nearly boycotting James Cleveland. It took years before I could reconcile my feelings about that. But in the end, he remains beloved. Whatever his struggles, whatever his ups and downs - he contributed not only immensely to the world of Gospel, but to my own life. His music always spoke to me when I needed a reminder that God was bigger than anything I might be going through.
