OurFuture.org Blogs: Cynthia Boaz

Why we need a truly independent media.

Cynthia Boaz — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:48:19 -0500

The following is an actual email exchange between me and one of the execs at a local "independent" progressive radio station in the town where I work:

Hello-

Yesterday during your evening programming, I heard an ad that I assumed at first was a joke. It started out saying something like, "You know what the difference is between you and the millions of millionaires out there? They decided they wanted to be millionaires, and then decided to do something about it." It turned out to be an offer for a free CD on creating your own web-based business. With all due respect, are you kidding me? Do you realize how out of sync that message is with the vast majority of your audience? We non-millionaires just don't *want* it badly enough? First of all, I'd guess that most of your audience is not motivated by appeals to consumption and profit. Secondly, it is degrading to suggest to people (most of whom are suffering significantly at the hands of this recession) that they just aren't driven enough. (And thirdly- is it really *honest* advertising? I know there's a range of truth in advertising, but are you comfortable with suggesting that we can *all* be millionaires?) It was so surreal that (as mentioned above), I was waiting for the punchline. I understand you need the ad revenue to stay in business, but is there any way to be a bit more selective about the products you choose to promote on your station (or at least how those products are marketed)?

Thank you,
Cynthia Boaz

***

Professor,

Thank you for reaching out. I appreciate the feedback.

These ads are from an agency called Marketing Architects. They are not directly solicited by our station, and the sponsors are not local.

Their keys to our millions are our credit card numbers. They suck you dry, wait for you to desperately cancel their scam, then move on. These enterprises have a whole bunch of one time customers, gullible at best, stupid at worst. The funny thing about ads like this (which run on almost every area radio station, by the way, and share the same bottom-feeding values as the TV infomercials on real estate and colon cleaner) is that they are almost universally criminal, but not illegal. It's some stupid free speech thing. In many countries in Europe, you cannot advertise a product that has not been proven to be effective (like our FDA).

Here's the good news: As we garner more local ad support, these things go away automatically. One good legit ad always replaces one horrid one. We are not greedy, selfish or ignorant of the obvious scummery these hucksters peddle. We don't do pledge drives, and we need revenue to keep this thing going so, for example, we can air truly quality programming.

Let me know if you have any other Q's. I appreciate you listening, and your occasional patience as we continue to grow and improve our scrappy little 5,000 watts of pure democracy.

Rgds,
(Executive at tiny progressive radio station)

"Letting it go."

Cynthia Boaz — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:29:25 -0500

So, in the last couple of days, in response to my indignation at various things, including Nader's role in giving Missouri to McCain, Hannity et al's extremely classless, cowardly, and dangerous ramping up of anti-Obama rhetoric, the shameful passage of Prop 8 in CA (and similar propositions elsewhere) and Palin, Bachmann, and Lieberman's sudden change of heart and wholesale "embracing" of Obama, I have received numerous emails, posts, and in-person remarks that I should just "let it go" because Obama has won and now that I've gotten what I wanted, there is no need to hammer away at these displays of hypocrisy and shamelessness.

With all due respect, I could not disagree more. I remember back in 2002, when Bush and Cheney began laying the groundwork for their invasion of Iraq and I wondered frequently and loudly whether an illegitimate president could ever start a legitimate war, I was also told to "let it go." And I recall thinking: this is democracy we are talking about- do people really expect me to let it go? And maybe what worried me more is that so many people *were* willing to let it go. (Thank god for people like Greg Palast, Naomi Klein, Mark Crispin Miller, Naomi Wolf, and Joe Conason, who kept me sane during those years.)

So let's look where "letting it go" has gotten us: completely unchecked corporate greed, recession, and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Thousands of unnecessary American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. An almost full-scale loss of global goodwill towards the United States. The disappearance of a $1.6 trillion surplus, and more than $1.2 trillion more in war debt. An unprecedented rolling back of civil liberties. Record-setting unemployment. Millions more homeless and without health insurance than eight years ago. Rising inner-city crime rates. More religious and racial hatred and divisiveness. And the list goes on.

So while I respect my friends' rights to disagree with me (even if I do not share your views), I can promise you that the one thing I can not do now, after the most important election of my (and probably my children and grandchildren's) lifetime is "let it go." If anything, NOW is the time to be more vigilant than ever- to make sure that we actually follow through with the statement we made last Tuesday to take our government back, and give it to "we the people." Now is not the time to be complacent- to let someone like Hannity suggest to his audience of millions that our president-elect might actually be a terrorist. Now is NOT the time to fall back on the lowest-common-denominator. We have been given an opportunity to raise the level of discourse in this country. To bring back dignity and civility in American life. To hold accountable those who would continue- out of their own ambition, greed, or misguided worldview- to keep us shackled to a culture of fear, intolerance, and apathy. I for one am not going to squander that opportunity. It's not just fellow Americans who are counting on each of us to continue to do the right thing, it's our friends around the world, many of whom are struggling now - even risking their lives- for the same rights and liberties that many would say don't *really* need my protection. So de-friend me if you must, rail against my unwillingness to just be grateful we won. Even call me a sore winner.

But I am not letting it go.

Top Ten Things I Really Heard from McCain in the Third Debate.

Cynthia Boaz — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:42:54 -0400

1. Women: stop fretting about a silly thing like your "health."

2. Uninsured: ditto.

3. Currently insured: get worrying.

4. I don't have a litmus test for judges, except when it comes to abortion.

5. Bill Ayers is irrelevant- let's still talk about him!

6. I have no idea what socialism is, but it was a bad word when I was young, so I'm going to keep saying it.

7. I don't understand the scalpel metaphor. (Note: If you use a hatchet first, you've pretty much killed the patient. Scalpel becomes pointless.)

8. Do I think Palin is qualified to be president? Uh...I'm PROUD of her! PROUD, I say!

9. You can't live the American dream under Obama. Thank goodness the Republican is here!

10. Cast your vote for the lesser of two liberals: ME!

Biden: 1, Nanobot: 0. My debate response in brief.

Cynthia Boaz — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:54:44 -0400

Okay, I never took a formal debate class in high school, but I'm pretty sure that a key component of a victorious debate is the ability to effectively convey a somewhat nuanced and in-depth knowledge of the issue at hand. By that criterion, Sarah Palin failed epically. Every one of her answers returned her to a pre-packaged set of terms intended to have an effect without really saying anything, e.g. "reform," "maverick," "team," "victory," and "spending cuts." She consolidated the fact that she is far and away the least informed, least qualified person to ever run for the office of Vice President. She was "successful" in playing up her folksy quality (*wink*!), but was unable to muster a shred of human feeling.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, was -in a word- brilliant. I listened to the debate first on the radio (so did not see Palin's winks and grins or Biden's droopiness), and could not believe how calm, coherent, and comprehensive Biden's answers were. He was civil and respectful while still being firm and confident. He showed tonight why Obama picked him. (And I admit- I am one of the Obama supporters who was at first very discouraged by the Biden pick because of his history of support for aggressive foreign policy measures.) I went from lukewarm towards him to completely reassured. This is a man who knows history, knows policy, and can articulate very clearly where he stands while (as the VP candidate) acknowledging that his main task as VP is to support the agenda of the president.

Palin, meanwhile, seems to have a very Cheney-esque view of the job of the Vice President. She apparently thinks that she'll have some sort of "powers" separate from the president and outside the boundaries of Article II of the Constitution. That is not only frightening in that it reflects an utter lack of understanding of the governmental structure set up by the framers, but for the fact that she seems like exactly the type of person who would shoot first and ask questions later. She has shown no evidence of truly independent thinking (despite her endless references to her "maverickness"), and therefore would undoubtedly be a tool of whichever strong-minded, confident men surround her at any given time. And what's more, she will believe that she really IS an independent thinker.

As a blog post on DailyKos points out, perhaps the most uncomfortable and revealing part of the night was when Palin's microchip -- which evidently was not programmed with an "empathy" or "compassion" response-- did it's job too well, and kicked right back into the "reform, maverick, strong leadership" meme after being confronted by a genuine show of emotion on the part of Biden when he referred to his late wife and daugher's deaths.

I don't care what the pundits say- they are just hedging their bets. Palin is in way over her head. Period. Unlike Socrates, Palin doesn't know that she doesn't know anything. And that's what makes her truly terrifying.

*Thanks to a good friend who heads an international foundation that assists defenders of human rights for an inspiring post-debate conversation.

What's a word for the opposite of progress? Palin.

Cynthia Boaz — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:24:37 -0400

Reposting my recent piece from Truthout.org:

What's a Word for the Opposite of Progress? Palin.
Wednesday 17 September 2008
by: Cynthia Boaz, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Late last week, the first round of post-RNC convention polls showed that John McCain was the beneficiary of a generous 11-point bump in public approval. Most of this shift is attributable to previously undecided voters who've broken in McCain's favor. The reason given by the vast majority as to what precipitated their decision: Palin. Amongst these voters, three subgroups emerged as overwhelmingly shifting to the McCain/Palin ticket over the Obama/Biden one in the past week: women, Catholics, and self-identified moderates. At first glance, these changes in opinion might seem unsurprising given the intensely populist tone that pervaded every convention speech from Monday through Thursday. But look below the surface, and these shifts seem positively surreal. Is it possible that voters have, once again, been duped by the Rovian rhetoric machine? Are we really as gullible as the GOP seems to think? Apparently so.

Let's start with women, most of whom we can reasonably presume are adherents of some form of feminism (which in the most general sense is simply the belief that rights and liberties should not be distributed on the basis of sex.) Many are disaffected Clinton supporters; many others have never - for one reason or another - felt completely at home in the Republican Party. Until now. Given that Palin's positions on "women's issues," from reproductive rights to health care, are 180 degrees from the mainstream feminist base, one can only conclude that for many women, sharing a piece of anatomy is a more powerful source of solidarity than shared beliefs, values or principles. With all due respect to my fellow fairer-sex sisters, those of you for whom the idea of a woman in office is more exciting than good public policy are doing all of us a disservice. Palin, no matter how you slice it, will not represent us when it comes to the issues that feminists from every stripe and for every decade have worked to promote. And to add insult to injury, it could not be more obvious that Sarah Palin is being used by the men in her own party to galvanize disgruntled female voters. Is there anyone out there who could argue with a straight face that Palin would have been picked if she'd been a man? Despite the degrading nature of this strategy, to my astonishment (and apparent naiveté) the polls suggest that it is working. So I feel compelled to ask. Do we really want to legitimize the worst anti-feminist stereotypes about women as a group? People (not just women) who genuinely care about so-called women's issues have simply no alternative but to vote against the McCain/Palin ticket. It really is as simple as that.

The surge of Catholic support for McCain/Palin is less shocking, but equally disturbing. The obvious explanation for this support is Palin's adamant opposition to abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is at risk. But historically, Catholics, who tend to favor the Democratic Party, have never been single-issue voters, and the larger theme around which they have organized their ideological distribution is human rights. And on that question, there is no debate. Palin fails miserably. This is the woman who said that the war in Iraq was "a task from God." Oh really, Governor? The Catholic faith preaches that it is only priests and saints who have a direct line to the will of God. So which of these is Sarah Palin? Catholicism is the source of liberation theology, whose adherents are some of the most dedicated social justice activists in the world. To grasp the magnitude of the gulf between the rhetoric of the very progressive Catholic human rights stance and the positions of Sarah Palin, I suggest watching the film "Romero" and then following it up with a screening of Palin's convention speech. Then explain to me how Catholic support for Palin is rational. Seriously, someone please do that.

Which brings us to self-identified moderates. Frankly, this one baffles me the most. There is nothing - repeat, nothing - about Sarah Palin that could be described as "moderate." By adding her to the ticket, McCain the Maverick moved himself ten clicks to the right. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that Palin's views on most issues tend towards extremist. So what is her appeal to moderates? It has to be the populist draw of her "small-town girl makes good" story. But while that storyline makes for a popular Hollywood blockbuster, it is hardly the basis for a real-life presidency. I understand that it's verboten to bring up McCain's age, but we have to get real. John McCain is 72-years-old and has a history of health problems. There is more than a miniscule chance that if he won the presidency, Sarah Palin would, at some point, be asked to replace him. This is a woman whose main foreign policy credentials (according to her own party) consist of living in a state that borders Russia. Setting aside what this does to McCain's credibility on the question of judgment, it is utter madness to put Palin's folksy appeal above our long-term security and wellbeing.

I've had it with the GOP (Karl Rove, I'm talking to you) bringing down the state of discourse in this country. And I'm tired of it working. Voters are not the complete morons that the GOP takes them for - they're just overworked and uninformed. But the recent polling results once again beg the question: Are we capable of doing better, or are we going to continue to live down to the GOP's cynical expectations of us?

In recent weeks, I have heard talk-radio incessantly repeating the mantra that in 2008, no matter who wins the presidential election, we will have "progressed" as a political culture. That logic is not only simplistic, it's patently untrue. A McCain/Palin victory would be a clear step backward for all voters of conscience, and would likely be the final shameful cleavage in the ever-widening gap between the United States and the global community.

Earth to Senator Clinton: Just Stop Already

Cynthia Boaz — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:37:51 -0400

Senator Clinton, I am a white, female, middle-class, lifelong Democratic voter of a certain age. For the past four years, I have also been one of your constituents. Demographically, I should be your biggest supporter.

But I’m not. In fact, I am so horrified by your campaign tactics and reckless disregard for the bigger picture that I have resolved to cast my vote for someone else if you get the party’s nomination.

What makes this all the more surreal is that as a political scientist, I absolutely understand that by voting my conscience in our entrenched duopoly, I could well be contributing to a victory for the party whose interests least reflect my own. In other words, I am ready to sacrifice pragmatism for principle. So if for nothing else, allow me to thank you for the personal revelation that while at the end of the day, voting from integrity may not get me a “win,” at least I’ll be able to sleep at night (pun intended).

I’m curious, senator, have you noticed that in the past two months, a lot of people seemed to have defected to Senator Obama’s campaign from yours, but not the other way around? How do you explain that? I have some ideas, and here I offer the top ten reasons why I personally cannot support you:

10) You are in second place. In other words, you’re not winning. Neither the popular vote nor the pledged delegates. I know you claim to be a fighter, but mathematically, according to every vote calculator I’ve been able to find, it is close to impossible for you to acquire the nomination through the democratic process, unless you are willing to a) successfully push for a retroactive change in the rule that disqualified the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan, which would, however you spin it, be an open violation of the rule of law (integral to the legitimacy of healthy democracies), and/or b) claim that “super” delegates are better qualified to ascertain the interests of the voters than the voters themselves (which is not only insulting and elitist, but, historically speaking, incorrect.) So, are you willing to subvert democracy rather than comply with an undesirable outcome? In my field, we call that “democracy by undemocratic means,” and it is a concept more closely associated with transitional democracies than consolidated ones.

9) You “went negative” and you played the terror card (and by proxy, the race card.) I’m not going to pretend to be affronted, because you are hardly the first or last candidate to use these means to achieve your ends. But the entire tactic is beneath who you claim to be, which is a candidate whose qualifications speak for themselves. If you truly are the more qualified candidate, you don’t need to exploit our fears and prejudices to get the message across. You should be above that, and we American citizens deserve more credit than that.

8) On the question of “experience,” I’m frankly not all that impressed. Your senatorial record in my part of New York state has been- to put it diplomatically- sub par. I live in a fairly economically depressed part of upstate whose great number of manufacturing plants gives it a close resemblance to much of the “rest belt” of Ohio and the steel towns of Pennsylvania. When you came to the Senate, you promised 200,000 (much needed) new jobs for upstate New York. Nearly eight years later, the net change is close to 30,000 fewer jobs than before. From the perspective of many upstate New Yorkers, you have abandoned us.

7) Your attempt to chalk up your time as First Lady as experience for the presidency…well, I guess I can understand that. After all, you did have a front row seat for some very important global events including the Rabin-Arafat handshake and the downfall of Milosevic. But you don’t know where to draw the line. For example, to imply that you helped to broker the Northern Ireland peace plan…Senator Clinton, please. Even the ever-gracious Lord Trimble called your claim “silly” and said that “being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player." As it turns out, the big meeting you cited as evidence turned out to be an honest-to-goodness tea party. I don’t even know how to comment on that. Seriously, a tea party.

6) Some of your rhetoric scares me, and not in the way you planned. For example, you referred to Hugo Chavez as a “dictator.” I can only assume that you are intelligent enough to know the definition of this term, and that this inaccuracy was intentional. Now, please know, I’m no Chavez fan. He has repressed his political opponents, intimidated journalists, and has shown a general disdain for the rule of law. But one thing he is not is a “dictator.” Chavez came to power in a democratic election and was even subject to two—two!—referenda on his rule, both of which he survived (albeit by a very narrow margin in 2007.) This may seem to be simply a semantic issue, but it’s not. By using a term like “dictator” to describe him, you are adopting the same dehumanizing rhetoric used by the current occupant of the White House, and setting yourself up to justify future aggression against Chavez. Like him, don’t like him, I don’t care. But don’t lie to us. The fact is that Hugo Chavez might be a bully, an authoritarian, or a belligerent nuisance, but a dictator he is not.

5) Where are the tax returns you keep promising? You say you need until April 15th, 2008. If I understand correctly, those returns were filed in 2006 and 2007 (weren’t they?), which means they should already be ready to go. The longer you delay, the worse things look for you. Start Xeroxing.

4) Here is an interesting campaign juxtaposition that sums up the difference between you and your competitor: on one hand, one of Senator Obama’s key staffers is co-founder of Wake-Up WalMart, a nonprofit dedicated to forcing WalMart to change its inhumane business practices, including substandard wages and lack of health care (all things you claim to be concerned about.) On the other hand, you personally served on WalMart’s board of directors for nearly a decade. Enough said.

3) If nothing else, self-respecting anti-war Democrats (and there are a lot of us) cannot in good conscience vote for you because of your support for the Iraq invasion, especially because of how you continue to defend that decision. Deflect all you want, blame President Bush or the intelligence agencies, but the fact is that a number of your Democratic colleagues had the courage and judgment to say “no” to that invasion, and you should have joined them. Trying to portray your and Senator Obama’s records on Iraq as identical since 2005 is also completely misleading. If you had not voted to support that invasion, his (and your) votes to fund the occupation would not have been necessary in the first place. Voting to invade and voting to fund are not moral equivalents- not by a long shot. What I don’t get is why you don’t admit you made a mistake and apologize for it already. We (anti-war Dems) would be much more receptive to that than to your utter unwillingness to accept responsibility. We forgave your husband for his transgressions, so what makes you think that we expect you to be infallible?

2) As I see it, the most significant difference between you and Senator Obama is not experience, but the kind of politics that you practice. You engage in a politics of what Buddhists, Hindus, and other mystics might call the "lower vibrating emotions"- i.e. you play on fear, anger, and self-interest. You tap into the sentiments that tempt us to regard other people negatively and competitively. This works in the short-term (as we saw in Ohio and Texas), but it tends to burn out quickly and leave demoralization in its place. In contrast, Senator Obama practices a politics of the "higher vibrating emotions"- i.e. empathy, compassion, and empowerment. I believe this is why so many people who were previously disengaged are drawn to him and to each other. Some may have a hard time articulating it beyond the word “hope”, but the fact is that Senator Obama—or better, what he represents-- accesses the better angels of our natures. That, Senator, is not just words. It doesn’t get more authentic than that.

1) What Senator Obama is doing transcends him. It is a movement. A president cannot change the way we think about our responsibility and role in the world, but a movement can. John Lewis knows this. Ted Kennedy knows this. Every democratically-minded citizen of India, Poland, South Africa, Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Burma, Argentina, Belarus, and Tibet knows this. All of Europe knows it. Senator Clinton, you may find a way to acquire the nomination, but you can not commandeer a movement.

After all of this, you might be surprised to know I was a strong supporter of your husband and continue to believe that his presidency was amongst the greatest of the last century. No doubt you feel the same way. So I have to ask, is your desire for nomination at any cost really worth undermining that legacy and dragging all of us down with you in the process?

Cynthia Boaz is assistant professor of political science and international studies at the State University of New York at Brockport. She specializes in political development, nonviolent social movements, and quality of democracy. She resides in Rochester, NY.

Why Barack Obama's Iraq Votes Don't Matter...As Much

Cynthia Boaz — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:12:07 -0500

As the presidential race on the Democratic side has grown increasingly more contentious over the past month, a number of anti-war progressives have made it very clear that they believe that there is no discernable difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the question of Iraq. The logic behind this position is that both candidates have voted to continue funding the Iraq occupation and are therefore equally complicit in the perpetuation of that disastrous policy.

This is simply not true. There is a qualitative and substantive difference between voting to invade a country in violation of international law and to continue to provide funding once the occupation has commenced. One is overt support for an act of aggression, the other is not. As Steve Zunes wrote in another essay (called "Why Hillary Clinton's Iraq Vote Does Matter") recently published on CommonDreams.org, “In voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Clinton has offered a clear demonstration of how she would approach international affairs and security policy: the United States need not abide by its international legal obligations, including those prohibiting wars of aggression.” This is not a minor point. Senator Obama’s votes for continuing funding, as disappointing as they may be to the anti-war left, were not open support for the violation of international law. It was Clinton’s bad judgment that made the bills for which Obama voted possible. Had the invasion not occurred, the question of funding the occupation would be irrelevant.

Furthermore, even if Senator Obama had made a principled stand against the Iraq occupation by voting against continuing to fund it, the vote would have been of no strategic consequence for the policy. As progressives widely acknowledge, what must be changed is the paradigm about war as foreign policy. A negative vote by Senator Obama would, unfortunately, not have had that effect. In fact, it would have worked against him politically because it would have provided an opportunity for his critics to say that Obama was taking out his opposition to Bush’s policy on the troops. And in fact, there is some justification for that argument. To end the occupation, the troops need to be brought home, not made more vulnerable. Cutting off funding (assuming that option had any realistic chance of passing) would not have accomplished that end. From that vantage point, Senator Obama’s decision could be characterized as the most humane of the very bad options presented to every U.S. legislator opposed to the Iraq policy.

The truth is we don’t know whether Senator Obama’s votes were based on principle, pragmatism or both. But what we do know is that they showed reasonable judgment. And if Senator Clinton had not helped get the United States into Iraq in the first place, principled people would not have been faced with such a catastrophic set of options.

The two choices being dangerously conflated by anti-war progressives– voting to invade and voting to continue funding– are not moral equivalents. Senator Clinton’s vote to invade Iraq was immoral and illegal, simple as that. This is not to suggest that Senator Obama is blameless (in fact, we are all complicit in allowing this to continue for so long), but that Clinton is directly responsible for helping to legitimize the invasion in the first place, and that makes her a far worse option for anyone opposed to the war and occupation of Iraq. Continuing to portray the Iraq positions of Clinton and Obama as indistinguishable does all anti-war voters a serious disservice.

Buffy the Cynicism Slayer: Behind the Obama Phenomenon

Cynthia Boaz — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:38:15 -0500

Republished from CommonDreams.org:

To really understand the Obama phenomenon, you should know Buffy Wicks. Yes, Buffy is her real name. Yes, she gets that question every day. Her job is grassroots organizer or in campaign lingo, “field operations specialist.” More specifically, she is the Western Regional Field Director for Obama for America, and she personifies what the Obama movement is all about. I’ve known Buffy for seven years. We first met when she was a student and I was a guest scholar at a graduate program in Castellon, Spain. Although she was only 23 at the time and I was (in professional status only) her superior, Buffy’s extraordinary self-possession both intimidated and fascinated me. We became friends, and over the years, my awe at her passion, eloquence, and conviction never waned.

When Buffy first sent out an email awhile back saying she had taken a job with the Barak Obama campaign, I remember thinking “I hope these people realize who they’ve got.” Well, they obviously do. Buffy’s primary task has been to help transform the support for the Obama campaign from a simple voter base to a movement. And as a longtime Buffy fan, it comes as no surprise that she’s succeeding. Or for that matter, that her professional status has eclipsed mine.

Buffy is in some ways an anomaly. She is blonde, athletic, and pretty, but also disarmingly unpretentious. People are drawn to Buffy because they see themselves in her, much like they do her current boss. She is approachable, but Buffy has more than charisma; she has presence. She cares. She is both fearless and vulnerable. She’s scarily smart, but down to earth. Hopeful but not jaded. Bold. Tenacious. Empowered. A feminist and an animal activist on one hand, tough but compassionate on the other. She combines strong conviction with open-mindedness. She’s indefatigable. And she is totally authentic. Buffy has a way of getting you to examine your perspective by forcing you to clarify it. She doesn’t just ask what you think, she asks why. She wants to understand you. She challenges you to inspire her. She embodies the concept of civic engagement. She walks the walk and expects those around her to do the same. Buffy is the only person I’ve ever met who has made me laugh so hard that it triggered an asthma attack. She’s also the only person who had me crying so hard that I had to pull over the car I was driving at the time.

It gives me enormous confidence in Senator Obama that he has obviously seen- and appreciates- these qualities in Buffy, and more importantly, that he entrusts her with the task of linking his principles and platform to real people. Buffy is largely responsible for the campaign’s assertion that support for Obama is personal (and by extension, more profound and committed than Clinton’s support, which is largely based on pragmatic or strategic concerns.)

Obama’s detractors claim that his campaign is overly idealistic and disconnected from reality. I’m here to tell you that with people like Buffy onboard, it’s clear that what makes Senator Obama such a formidable candidate is that he is actually more connected to reality than anyone else on the political horizon. It’s the movement’s authenticity – not its idealism—that makes Obama’s competition nervous. It’s not about a slogan or rhetoric. Those things can be spun. People cannot.

In the face of – indeed, because of—her own tribulations (including having to comfort a friend after learning of his HIV diagnosis and his simultaneous confession that he couldn’t afford health insurance), Buffy chose to engage with hope, rather than withdraw in frustration. In confronting an increasingly consumerist, self-focused, and cynical society, we need people like Buffy to remind us that we can do better. We need them to remind us that we can be better citizens and people, and that, as it turns out, we still live in a democratic society. Buffy, like Mr. Obama, didn’t choose her work for notoriety or fortune, but because she thinks that we need her. And she’s right.