Blog entry

Hundreds Tell Fox: "Stop The Attacks"

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:52:26 -0400

"Dear FOX News, Here's a Fourth of July gift for you, from an Obama supporter and patriotic American," begins a note from Anthony in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. "This year my son and I plan to use window paints to fill our big picture window with the American flag. Please remember that all kinds of Americans, not just Republican Americans, love their country!"

We received notes like this from more than 600 of you in the first 48 hours of our call to tell Fox News to stop branding progressives as unpatriotic, and instead contribute to a respectful debate about the future direction of the country. Each of these people is sending the personnel at Fox News a flag pin that they can wear to remind them that millions of progressive Americans love and stand up for America.

Here's a sample of the messages you're sending with those pins:

"Dear Fox News, You might believe that you are the only Americans who see the value in freedoms, but you would be wrong. The patriots who founded this Nation came from a variety of backgrounds and held a variety of beliefs. Some were progressives, just like me. My grandfathers who fought in the War of 1812, and the Civil War, and my father who served in the Navy in WWII, all believed that they were patriots, and defended our Nation to allow the liberties you criticize, and in fact abuse! I love my country, and I honor our flag, not just this week, but every week. You do not own patriotism. It seems you do not even know what it is! End your criticism of those who disagree with you as being 'unpatriotic'. Dissent is at the very heart of our First Amendment. None of us can pick and choose which liberties we would like to honor!"
—David D., Berwyn, Pa.

"My father flew 55 missions over the European theater in World War II and in 1949 died flying for the Air National Guard. My daughter is a Lt. Commander in the Navy Reserve. I love this country and would not want to live anywhere else. I fly the flag as often as I can. I am against our intervention in Iraq. I am for hunting down Al Qaida. I am also for caring for our infrastructure (roads, etc.), providing the best educational system in the world, making health care available to every one and finding and supporting alternative energy. Please don't call me unpatriotic because I am a liberal. I love this country and want it to be better in every way."
—Ann S., Fredericksburg, Texas.

"America right or wrong does not make a patriot. Patriotism is related to protecting our country by upholding the rights of the Constitution and above all being honest in all our endeavors."
—Maria, Randolph, Vt.

"Dear Fox News, I am the most patriotic of patriotic Americans. I actually became a citizen for the sole reason of being able to vote, in my opinion, one of the highest expressions of patriotism. I understand the true meaning of patriotism which is supporting your country by loving her enough to cheer her on when she is right and letting her know when she is on the wrong track so that it can be corrected. I support our troops without question and would put my life on the line for this country I have adopted. Finally, I love my country. I love my flag. I'm a patriotic progressive American. Please accept this 4th of July gift, and end the attacks on patriotic Americans!"
—Wendy M., San Rafael Calif.

"How dare you say that I am not patriotic just because my political and social beliefs are different from your own! How dare you tell me that I am not patriotic when I know, sing and revere our national anthem; when I proudly display our flag, year around; when I say what I think, even though others may disagree or may not want to hear it. This is a DEMOCRACY and to denigrate others who are forthright in their disagreement is to denigrate ALL OF US!! Shame on you!"
—Marjorie C., Sebastopol, Calif.

"I appreciate our multicultural past. I support real benefits and help for our returning soldiers. I am against Halliburton's money gouging tactics taking real money from our troops. I will display my American flag proudly and boldly this Fourth."
—Robert M., Columbus, Ohio

"Americans are currently engaged in a national debate on how to forge a new direction for our nation after eight years of bitter divisiveness and the unending list of failed policies of the Bush administration. Sadly, Fox News is not a part of that debate, but instead is bent on defending the status quo and making rabid-dog attacks on patriotic Americans and their hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow. Your brand of journalism (Ha!) is better suited to China or Russia, where honest and open debate is not tolerated, and espousing the party line is the only news tolerated."
—Bill W., Palm Bay, Fla.

"As a veteran of World War II—in the combat engineers in Germany—I resent slurs about the patriotism of people who disagree with you."
— Harry F., Roslyn Heights N.Y.

"As a Vietnam era Army veteran, I want you all to know that patriotic Americans do not all believe as you all do. Lapel pins and bumper stickers and your noise on TV do not define patriotism; working toward a better future for all Americans in a tolerant and inclusive society and respecting the Constitution do define patriotism."
— Matthew K., Tempe, Ariz.

"As an Army Reserve veteran, I find your remarks unpatriotic because they intend to divide the country for partisan purposes."
—Jerry S., Washington, D.C.

"One does not have to hate those one disagrees with; one does not have to lie about them either. And certainly, people who love their country and believe in its principles cannot betray it by indulging in cheap, hateful and lying innuendoes. I am a loyal American who is appalled by some of the tactics you all engage in. This flag is an emblem of the country we share; it is not an idol, but it should be respected by the best we are, not the shoddiest."
—Betty L., St. Paul, Minn.

"As an immigrant to this country, I was appalled at the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry in the last election. I do not believe these are the actions of patriotic people. Patriotism to me is love of country and respect for its citizens."
—Rosemary G., Foster City, Calif.

"Criticism of the Bush administration is an act of love of this country and its constitution, and not a sign of unpatriotism. In contrast to Fox News, I love this country and rejoice in the First Amendment."
—Millie Fortier, San Francisco, Calif.

"Dear fellow Americans, Do you ever scold your kids when they do something wrong? THAT'S what REAL Americans do when America does something wrong, WE try to make America better! Progressive Americans are America's hope for a better tomorrow and a better America. Conservatives want to go back to the 1950s when only white males had power and opportunity. STOP the attacks on patriotic Americans!"
— David P., Austin Texas

Dear Fox "News" - I respect and love the American dream, the Constitution of the United States, the members of the Armed Forces and all those who care about people different from themselves. The American way is compassionate, informed, and in the public interest. Enjoy this symbol of patriotism from a progressive American!"
—Virginia W., Lincoln, Neb.

"Democracy is messy by definition and it appears you use this to misrepresent political views that differ with your own as being unpatriotic. None of the parties have a monopoly on patriotism and to claim that progressives don't love this great, but imperfect country is laughably absurd."
—Terry B., Oceanside, Calif.

"Dear Fox News, Please join me in celebrating the American principle that people of differing political viewpoints can respect each other as fellow patriots. I hold "liberal" viewpoints and am also patriotic. I support policies that make our country strong and secure. I differ from your commentators in how we can best achieve that goal. Please stop impugning my patriotism simply because I disagree with you."
—Andrew S., Jamaica Plain, Mass.

"Patriotism does NOT belong to one party or ideology and I urge you to cease your incessant attacks. Please accept our 4th of July gift in hopes we can all come together & recognize that we are all true patriots under the same grand flag & constitution that celebrates our unity even among diversity. God bless America!"
—Patricia D., Little Neck, N.Y.

"My family came to this country in 1683 and have been part of building it and defending it ever since. We came for religious and political freedom—we were progressives then and we are now. I love my flag and the nation its stands for and I respect your right to your views, with this gift I ask you to respect mine and those of people like me. That is what patriotism is all about in this country. Stop attacking the patriotism of your fellow Americans; it's un-American."
—Mark L., East Rockaway, N.Y.

To Win, Presidential Candidates Move ... Left

Bill Scher — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:09:51 -0400

The punditocracy won't tell you, but Barack Obama and John McCain are moving to the Left.

Take Iraq. Sensing that voters did not react kindly to McCain's December remarks expressing comfort with U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 100 years, he predicted in May that if he was president, "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom." He also changed his slogan to highlight "Peace," and released a TV ad in which he pronounced, "I hate war."

On the environment, McCain's website is covered with support for "green" energy. His campaign even attacks Obama for supporting "the energy bill promoted by President Bush and Vice President Cheney."

And on immigration, during the primary McCain said he would not vote for his own legislation providing a pathway to citizenship for those who immigrated illegally, to win votes from anti-immigrant conservatives. But now, he's embracing his pro-immigrant legislation again, calling it "my top priority yesterday, today and tomorrow."

Whereas Obama spent the first month of the general election campaign reiterating support for public investment in universal health care, renewable energy and other modernization of infrastructure, comparing his vision to major public works projects from progressive Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln and both Roosevelts.

On Iraq, Obama continues to argue for the same position he held throughout the primary: a gradual withdrawal of combat troops over 16 months and a total rejection of permanent military bases. (Attempts from conservative commentators to say he has shifted his position are false. They point to Obama foreign policy adviser's recent comment about the 16-month timetable, "That’s not a deadline. That’s a timetable." Such flexibility is not new. It was stated during the primaries on CBS' 60 Minutes, not exactly a low-profile platform. Obama was asked if he would "pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation?" Obama responded, "No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation.")

You may or may not be skeptical of the nuance. That's a matter of opinion. What's a matter of fact is Obama is running on the same position, opposing the policy of permanent occupation, as before.

Other issues where Obama is accused of moving rightward after the primaries -- such as gun rights, death penalty, faith-based initiatives, NAFTA and FISA -- he also has mainly reiterated previously held positions. With the exception of FISA, there's no movement.

He previously argued for different gun laws in different states and cities (a position Howard Dean advanced in his 2004 presidential run.) He writes in "Audacity of Hope" of support for "carefully tailored" faith-based initiatives and the death penalty for "beyond the pale" crimes including "the rape and murder of a child." His tone on NAFTA may have changed slightly, but his position of reform, not repeal, is the same.

Some of those positions wouldn't necessarily be considered liberal. But Obama never claimed to hold liberal positions on everything.

Even taking those positions into account, it's not plausible to argue Obama is trying to win by moving rightward when his campaign continues to be based on supporting a revitalized government role in creating jobs, fighting poverty, providing health coverage, generating clean energy, recruiting teachers, making college affordable and protecting retirement security -- not to mention revamping global diplomacy and rejecting permanent occupation of Iraq.

Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson disingenuously argues today in the W. Post that Obama has made a "head-snapping shift to the center [because America] remains a center-right country. And so Obama has shifted, trimmed or retreated on nearly every issue that won him the nomination."

That is factually wrong in every possible way.

In the aftermath of eight years of conservative failure led by Gerson's old boss, the distance between the average "liberal" voter and "moderate" voter has shrunk, and the distance between the average "moderate" voter and "conservative" voter is a gulf.

America has proven not to be the center-right country of Karl Rove's fantasies, but a country with a Progressive Majority.

Offering a clean break from failed conservatism is what is serving Obama so well, as he leads McCain in every poll.

Obama does not have to jettison to core planks of his platform to appeal to those moderate independent voters who did not participate in the primaries.

While McCain continues to have huge difficulty crafting positions that can appeal to both moderates and conservatives, forcing him to incoherently move Left and Right simultaneously. Still he recognizes that he cannot win simply by appealing to the conservative base. His rhetoric in some key areas has to move leftward for his political survival.

On the fundamental issues of any presidential election -- the role of our government and direction of our foreign policy -- it is the political center that moved to the left. The candidates are merely reacting accordingly.

Don't Let Anyone Question Your Patriotism

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:38:53 -0400

It is a shame that Sen. Barack Obama's speech on patriotism Monday in Independence, Mo., was overshadowed by yet another false controversy, this time over the appropriateness of comments by retired general Wesley Clark about Sen. John McCain's qualifications for the presidency. (For the record: When Clark says, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,'' he's right. There. I said it.)

But, perhaps in a perverse way, it underscores the importance of one of the points that Obama made: Our political disagreements over the direction of the country and who is best qualified to lead it in the right direction should never be used as a weapon to question our love for this country. In fact, the willingness to be intensely engaged in the struggle to being this nation closer to its ideals is the very mark of a patriot.

That's why a campaign we're launching today at the Campaign for America's Future is so important. We're focusing on Fox News Channel, which has a long record of mocking progressives as being less patriotic than conservatives, and telling them: You don't have a monopoly on patriotism, and it's time to stop attacking patriotic Americans simply because you don't agree with them.

We're also asking you to tell Fox News, and us, what it means to be a patriot. There is space for a short message on the petition form, or you can click the comment link at the end of this post and write a longer reflection. We'll be highlighting these comments during the Fourth of July holiday.

To the extent that Obama's speech got television news press attention, it was because of his statement that "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine." But the context around that statement is important:

it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. ... [T]hroughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams’ Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans – all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.

In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic.

Obama later turned to the use and abuse of patriotic language in the post-9/11 era:

Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. ... For the rest of us – for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military – the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.

When someone makes a comment like the one Michelle Obama made some weeks ago that evoked heated criticism from the right—"For the first time in my life, I am really proud of my country"—it is tragic that the first impulse was not to consider the emotional journey she has traveled as an African-American woman that would lead her to make a statement so mixed with pain and joy, or to consider the journey of the millions of Americans who identified with that comment, but it was to question her, and their, love for this country.

I cannot honestly say, as Cindy McCain said in response to Michelle Obama's remark, that "I have always been proud of my country." But I have always loved it. And I don't think anyone who has been disappointed with the gap between the American ideal and the American reality, and who has fought to close that gap, should have their love for their country belittled. To quote from Obama's speech Monday, "patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations."

The need to resolve how we best do that, and how we unite as a country, has never been more urgent.

Let's tell Fox News and the radical right that from now on, you can disagree with our positions, but you can't question our love and passion for this country and its core values.

We're the Patriots

Bernie Horn — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:47:10 -0400

Liberals, lefties, Democrats, environmentalists, unionists, consumer advocates—all progressive types—suffer from negative stereotypes. Some of these stereotypes were invented by the right-wing messaging machine, and others are self-inflicted. The stereotype that we progressives are unpatriotic is a product of both.

It is true that the right wing has been engaged in a concerted campaign to persuade voters that progressives “hate America.” As far back as the 1984 Republican National Convention, Americans were told that progressives are the “blame America first” crowd.

Here’s the right wing apostle of hate, Ann Coulter, on the show Hardball:

MIKE BARNICLE: But do you believe that—do you believe that liberals hate America and the flag? Do you believe that?
ANN COULTER: Yes. In fact, I have documented it and written columns about it. They hate it much more than I had imagined.
BARNICLE: What about Bob Kerrey? What about Bob Kerrey? He’s a liberal. Does he hate the flag? Does he hate the flag?
COULTER: The anecdotal evidence is just, is just preposterous in this regard. I have footnotes. I do back this up. I have quotes in the book.

More recently, conservatives tried to smear Barack Obama on the grounds that he attended a “hate America sermon” preached by Reverend Jeremiah Wright. You can bet that the right wing will wave their “Democrats are unpatriotic” banner this fall—because they’ve got little else to say.

It should be easy to rebut this attack. The problem is, we progressives often lean into the punch.

We do hate injustice in America. We are eager to make our country better, and fast. Sometimes undecided voters hear our frustration and take it to mean that we don’t love America. And it is awfully hard to persuade those Americans to join us if they don’t think that we’re on their side.

So let’s all understand: By wanting to fix our nation’s problems, we show that we love America. There’s nothing more patriotic than standing up for our democracy. There’s nothing more patriotic than defending our Constitution.

When we oppose warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying because they violate our Constitution, that’s patriotic.
When we support unions because they strengthen the American economy, that’s patriotic.
When we work to provide health care for all, because that makes Americans more secure, that’s patriotic.
When we seek to save the lives of our soldiers by bringing them home from a reckless, unnecessary war, that’s patriotic.
When we fight to turn our nation into a true land of opportunity and struggle to make the American Dream a reality for millions of Americans, that’s patriotic

So this Fourth of July, hold your head up. It’s a celebration of revolutionaries who loved America but hated the injustices in their society and government. It’s a celebration of political ideals—“that all men are created equal” and that we have “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Those are progressive ideals.

Let’s make it clear to all Americans that we progressives are the partisans for equality and justice; we are the ones trying to lead our country closer to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. We’re the patriots.

(For more about how to communicate the patriotism of progressives, see the author’s recent book Framing the Future.)

Safe Toys, Edible Food, Smart Globalization

Eric Lotke — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:08:44 -0400

Why is it that people who question globalization are treated like Neanderthals?

You’re a protectionist, critics charge. Globalization is here to stay; you can’t turn back the clock, you Neanderthal! Besides, look at all the great stuff we get for cheap!

Well, we can get a lot of great stuff. A lot of it is cheap. But sometimes the low price just hides costs elsewhere. Smart globalizers want to manage the process and make sure the price reflects the reality.

The Campaign for America's Future recently published two reports that reveal the seamy underside of globalization. Toxic Toys is about Halloween candy buckets and Barbie doll accessories imported from China and coated with lead-based paint. It’s about drinking cups with 39,000 parts per million of lead when the legal standard is 600 parts per million. Why the worry? The budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is half what it was in 1974 in real dollars. It’s staffed by former lobbyists and industry cronies who deny there’s a problem and obstruct efforts at reform.

Even people who don’t use toys tend to eat. Our second report, Eating Dangerously, examines the food industry and finds the same disregard for health. Since 1973, agricultural imports have increased by 78 percent while inspections decreased exactly the same 78 percent. Yet the FDA’s own research indicates that pesticide violations and infections from shigella and salmonella occur roughly three times as often in imported food.

The stories are painfully familiar. A million pounds of Chinese seafood sold in the U.S with carcinogens and antibiotics not approved for use in the U.S. Half a million pounds of cantaloupes consumed from Mexico and Costa Rica with salmonella contagion. Even cats and dogs aren’t safe. Melamine, a nitrogen-rich chemical used to make fertilizer and plastic, made its way into 60 million cans and pouches of pet food.

Tomatoes are today’s trouble. Are they from Mexico or Florida? Eventually we’ll find out. The problem remains the same.

If we were serious about global trade, we would charge something for the price of admission to U.S. markets. We can still open our doors to global trade. But trading partners need to take the melamine out of the pet food, the lead out of the children’s toys, and the pesticides out of the cantaloupe. Those are the standards we hold U.S. manufacturers to; if you want access to our market, you need to play by our rules.

That’s not Neanderthal. That’s smart.

Smart globalizers want to draft standards into trade agreements. They want to inspect enough cargo to provide a credible risk of detection or hold U.S. companies liable for distribution and sale.

The U.S. isn’t doing enough of that. Free market conservatives are in charge. Spellbound by the ideology of the marketplace, they ignore the obvious fact that markets need grown-up supervision. Historically, that’s the role of government. To create collective institutions that protect shared interests in ways that individuals can’t. Lead testing. Pesticide testing. Evaluating the carcinogenic properties of fertilizer.

We can build a government to serve our interests, or we can leave it to the logic of the market and race to the bottom.

Progressives want to evolve. Who’s the Neanderthal?

Triangulation Kicked Out Of The Public Square

Bill Scher — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:19:06 -0400

At several points in the presidential campaign, I noted the unity among Democratic voters and candidates on the issues, a unity around a populist progressive platform that even spilled over into the Republican primary.

Sure there's been lots of talk about disunity, and open displays of friction among passionate supporters of candidates. But the hard-fought Democratic primary was not fought on a fault line separating different philosophical, ideological visions for the Democratic Party or America.

It could have been. The corporatist "">Democratic Leadership Council responded to Sen. John Kerry's presidential defeat by hysterically urging Democrats to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore," since "America is at war, and the public isn't yet convinced that Democrats have the stomach for the fight ... Are they the anti-war party or the party of tough-minded liberals, the party of Gov. Howard Dean or the party of Sen. Joe Biden?"

But no one responded to the DLC call. The DNC named Dean as Chairman. Biden ran for president, but on a plan to end the occupation of Iraq, as did every other Democratic candidate.

Not even Sen. Hillary Clinton. The DLC fueled Bill Clinton's rise to the presidency, and Sen. Clinton is still touted as part of DLC's leadership team. Yet she did not adopt the DLC "triangulation" approach for her campaign.

"Triangulation" was coined by President Clinton's former political adviser Dick Morris, who said that his view of winning was not to "mobilize the liberal constituency and win the true battle," but to triangulate, meaning "take the best of each party and combine them."

But in the conservative wreckage of the last eight years, there has been no "best of" to take from the other side.

Following the firing of the conservative congressional leadership in the 2006 elections, top residential candidates Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama responded to public sentiment. They rejected continued occupation and offered far more bold and comprehensive domestic proposals -- on issues like health care and global warming -- than any candidate had offered in decades.

When they fought, it was rarely over whose ideology was best, but over who would be the most populist and progressive. Whose health plan covered the most people? Who hated the anti-consumer bankruptcy bill more? Who was the most sincere in calling for reform of unfair trade deals?

In fact, Sen. Clinton's criticism of NAFTA -- quintessential triangulation from President Clinton's administration -- sent the clearest signal that the era of triangulation had passed. Democrats were going to offer a policy vision that provided a clear contrast of principles to their opponents, instead of trying to blur the lines.

Granted, in the waning days of the campaign with time running out for Sen. Clinton to find an advantage, triangulation had a final spasm. The gas tax holiday. The threat to "obliterate" Iran. They proved ineffectual.

At the end, the Democratic Party contest only reinforced unity on the big issues, a unity based on its own vision and its long-held principles of active government.

As Sen. Clinton said during the campaign, "we have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced.” And as Sen. Obama said, "I want to make government cool again."

These are not the triangulating sentiments behind President Clinton's famous declaration, "The era of big government is over," which only served to wrongly equate small government with effective government.

This is not to say that the Democratic Party has suddenly become pure and above political calculation. There will never be perfect in politics.

This is only to note that triangulation -- which eats away at the policy principles that define a party -- is no longer the organizing principle of the party,

Meaning the voters will have a clear contrast of visions to choose from in the fall.

Unless Sen. John McCain -- after surveying the wreckage left by eight years of conservatism -- starts to see the merit in triangulation. (Hey, he's already triangulated his website design.)

The Debate Ahead

Bill Scher — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:26:00 -0400

The first speeches of the general election campaign were delivered last night. With the exception of the environment, where McCain is trying to develop a moderate-sounding message, the speeches preview a campaign with a real clash of progressive and conservative visions for America.

From Sen. Barack Obama:

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It’s understanding that the struggles facing working families can’t be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It’s understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy – cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota – he’d understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can’t pay the medical bills for a sister who’s ill, he’d understand that she can’t afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That’s the change we need.

Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand that we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future – an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. That’s the change we need.

And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he’d understand that we can’t afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That’s the change we need in America. That’s why I’m running for President.

From Sen. John McCain:

I take America's economic security as seriously as I do her physical security. For eight years the federal government has been on a spending spree that added trillions to the national debt. It spends more and more of your money on programs that have failed again and again to keep up with the changes confronting American families.

Extravagant spending on things that are not the business of government indebts us to other nations; fuels inflation; raises interest rates; and encourages irresponsibility. I have opposed wasteful spending by both parties and the Bush administration. Senator Obama has supported it and proposed more of his own. I want to freeze discretionary spending until we have completed top to bottom reviews of all federal programs to weed out failing ones. Senator Obama opposes that reform. I opposed subsidies that favor big business over small farmers and tariffs on imported products that have greatly increased the cost of food. Senator Obama supports these billions of dollars in corporate subsidies and the tariffs that have led to rising grocery bills for American families. That's not change we can believe in.

No problem is more urgent today than America's dependence on foreign oil. It threatens our security, our economy and our environment. The next President must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush Administration, but the administrations that preceded his, and lead a great national campaign to put us on a course to energy independence. We must unleash the creativity and genius of Americans, and encourage industries to pursue alternative, non-polluting and renewable energy sources, where demand will never exceed supply.

Senator Obama voted for the same policies that created the problem. In fact, he voted for the energy bill promoted by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, which gave even more breaks to the oil industry. I opposed it because I know we won't achieve energy independence by repeating the mistakes of the last half century. That's not change we can believe in.

With forward thinking Democrats and Republicans, I proposed a climate change policy that would greatly reduce our dependence on oil. Our approach was opposed by President Bush, and by leading Democrats, and it was defeated by opposition from special interests that favor Republicans and those that favor Democrats. Senator Obama might criticize special interests that give more money to Republicans. But you won't often see him take on those that favor him. If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a President with a record of putting the nation's interests before the special interests of either party. I have that record. Senator Obama does not.

Senator Obama proposes to keep spending money on programs that make our problems worse and create new ones that are modeled on big government programs that created much of the fiscal mess we are in. He plans to pay for these increases by raising taxes on seniors, parents, small business owners and every American with even a modest investment in the market. He doesn't trust us to make decisions for ourselves and wants the government to make them for us. And that's not change we can believe in.

Senator Obama thinks we can improve health care by driving Americans into a new system of government orders, regulations and mandates. I believe we can make health care more available, affordable and responsive to patients by breaking from inflationary practices, insurance regulations, and tax policies that were designed generations ago, and by giving families more choices over their care. His plan represents the old ways of government. Mine trusts in the common sense of the American people.

Senator Obama pretends we can address the loss of manufacturing jobs by repealing trade agreements and refusing to sign new ones; that we can build a stronger economy by limiting access to our markets and giving up access to foreign markets. The global economy exists and is not going away. We either compete in it or we lose more jobs, more businesses, more dreams. We lose the future. He's an intelligent man, and he must know how foolish it is to think Americans can remain prosperous without opening new markets to our goods and services. But he feels he must defer to the special interests that support him. That's not change we can believe in.

Lowering trade barriers to American goods and services creates more and better jobs; keeps inflation under control; keeps interest rates low; and makes more goods affordable to more Americans. We won't compete successfully by using old technology to produce old goods. We'll succeed by knowing what to produce and inventing new technologies to produce it.

We are not people who believe only in the survival of the fittest. Work in America is more than a paycheck; it a source of pride, self-reliance and identity. But making empty promises to bring back lost jobs gives nothing to the unemployed worker except false hope. That's not change we can believe in. Reforming from top to bottom unemployment insurance and retraining programs that were designed for the 1950s, making use of our community colleges to train people for new opportunities will help workers who've lost a job that won't come back, find a job that won't go away.

Putting aside the opportunities to fact-check the above, the two addresses lay out the choice before the voters.

Obama sees areas where our foundation has been weakened by conservative neglect -- infrastructure, education, clean energy, science and health care -- and proposes new investments guided by new standards.

McCain primarily blames "extravagant spending" for our economic ails, while arguing for a continuation of current trade policies, and trying to swerve left on the environment.

What strikes me as McCain's biggest challenge in this argument is that the biggest waste of spending of the past eight years is the occupation of Iraq, which McCain wholeheartedly supports. Most Americans don't think the lack of strong infrastructure, clean energy, decent health coverage, and good education resulted from too much money being spent in those areas.

Whereas Obama's challenge is building the trust that his vision of investment in these neglected areas will be, on his watch, "fiscally responsible" effective spending, not wasteful spending as McCain caricatures.

But what do you think? What do you see in these contrasting visions for America?

First Train Out of Nixonland: What Divides the Democrats Now

Sara Robinson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:58:18 -0400

It's over, at long last. The Democrats have a nominee.

And now the other hard part begins—the part where Democrats try to patch up the party and try to keep a lot of disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters on board.

It's worthwhile to take a moment here and look at the ways we were seduced into this split by our own most cherished ideals. For the past six months, Democratic spirits have been rising high on the historic updraft of nominating either the First Black Candidate or the First Female Candidate. Whichever candidate won, it would be a vindication of 40 years of feminism and 50 years of civil rights; a sign that the world we've been working for was one step closer to reality.

Watching history being made is heady stuff. So it's forgivable that, in all the excitement, we forgot one crucial thing: That triumphal blacks-or-women narrative created a vicious trap for the party as a whole, a trap that is now yawning wide open under our very feet. The hard fact was: One of those sides was going to lose. And, as the months wore on and the primary battles got uglier, the more humiliating that loss was going to be—with the inevitable result that one or the other of the party's two most important constituencies was going to end up nursing massive grudges and hard feelings, and might even stomp off in a snit and withhold their support in the general election as a result.

And the worst part of all is: Thrilling as it all seemed at the time, this wasn't even the core choice that defines the real transformation that's occurring in this election. It never was. What's really happening in 2008 isn't about race or gender—it's about a generational shift that's finally, at long last, about bring an end to our 40 years in Nixonland.

A week ago Saturday, I hosted a Firedoglake book salon featuring Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, authors of Millennial Makeover, which Jerome Armstrong at MyDD has hailed as the best book on elections since The Coming Democratic Majority. The authors—a market researcher and a political scientist, respectively—argue that transformational elections, like the 1932 election that brought in FDR and the New Deal, or the 1968 election that ushered in Nixonland, can be fairly accurately predicted by simply looking at the demographic trends of emerging generations.

1968, say Winograd and Hais, was transformational because that's the year that the Baby Boomers (who started being born around 1944, give or take a year) finally formed a big enough voting bloc to have a real effect on American politics. And, as our own Rick Perlstein documented in Nixonland, the incendiary conflicts both touched off by that generation and taking place within it have defined American politics ever since. The arc of history that connects the radicalism of the 1960s with the radicalism of the Bush Administration runs right through the heart of the Boomer generation.

The primary season's relentless focus on race and gender has distracted us from a far more important fact, which is: Most of America under 50 is sick to tears of the way Boomers (both left and right, but especially right) do politics. The common thread that ties the '60s radicals to the Bushites is the soul-deep conviction that political confrontation is the only way to create any kind of social change. This leads to a political style that is relentlessly ideological and implacably hostile to negotiation, diplomacy, or compromise. Their vision of the future is Utopian (though the utopias vary); but the desire to achieve that all-important glorious end too often justifies means that betray the very principles the group is trying to promote.

To be fair, most liberal Boomers seem to have gotten this out of their systems early, and moved on to find far more wise and nuanced ways of managing power as they aged. But, as they mellowed out and retreated into private life through the 1970s, a second wave of True Believers—the Boomer conservatives—gathered strength for a reactionary ideological showdown of their own. And through the decades that followed, they proved to be far more vicious, more persistent, more organized, and more effective than the Dirty Fucking Hippie stereotype they held up in effigy as their all-purpose excuse for everything they did.

The result, of course, was a culture war that got played out on a battleground that hardly changed between 1968 and 2004. For 10 straight elections, we re-fought the Vietnam War, re-debated women's reproductive rights, and rehashed the meaning of "family," as if these were the most galvanizing problems confronting the nation. While we were wrangling over matters that should have never been politicized in the first place, we never quite got around to discussing why our manufacturing base was going overseas, our debt load was eating the heart out of our common wealth, the environment we depend on was falling into crisis, and our middle class was simply evaporating. America has been run this way for so long now that most of us can't imagine that politics can be done any other way; and the country is suffering mightily under the resulting misrule.

But Winograd and Hais have looked at the demographic data, and they think 2008 will be the turning point where 40 years of Boomer dominance finally begins to fade—the first train out of Nixonland. As of this election year, the vast and rising tide of Millennials (born 1980-2001, give or take a couple years) is arriving in numbers big enough to swamp the Boomers and set the whole American conversation on a whole new heading. The yearning for change is so strong that even the GOP is reaching back to field a pre-Boomer Silent generation candidate, rather than put up another Boomer.

And it is this, it can be argued, is what the Barack-versus-Hillary showdown was really all about. It's not about melanin content or X chromosome status; it's about whether or not we're going to finally get past that eat-shit Nixonland political style that's defined everything for the past 40 years.

Obama won because he looked at those same numbers, and tailored his message to the worldview of the vastly larger X and Millennial generations. These pragmatic voters aren't impressed by high-flying ideology; they just expect their government to work, and are willing to do what it takes to make it work right. Furthermore, they don't have a lot of patience with anyone who lets their personal pursuit of power get in the way of getting the country back on track. The kids don't remember the 1960s and aren't scared by DFH boogeymen. They do know that they're done with Nixon, Reagan, Bushes, and yes, both Clintons, too. They know what we've been doing—confrontation, triangulation, manipulation—isn't getting the real problems solved, and it's time to try something else.

Hillary, on the other hand, was simply perceived by younger voters as the continuation of All That—and the level of support for All That is fading fast as the Boomers age. She staked her campaign on her appeal to a generation that, for the first time in its living memory, is no longer the egg in the demographic snake; and on her experience with a political style that's in very bad odor with younger voters.

As we look across this generational chasm, I have particular sympathy for the over-50 women who have been Hillary's most passionate supporters. You can't blame them for being pissed about her loss. They've been down 40 years of hard road, breaking the first trails of the modern feminist movement. Pioneer life is hard, and you don't always find the paradise you set out for when you were young and full of energy. I've walked enough of this trail myself to be hauling a big handcart of my own baggage, so I viscerally understand the feeling that we're owed some last piece of validation before we exit stage left. (Personally, I console myself with the thought that from abolition forward, important African-American gains were always followed within a decade or two by significant women's rights gains — and often seem to pave the way for them. If that pattern holds, and Obama wins in November, then our turn will come soon enough — as it usually has.)

But, even as we acknowledge these feelings, it's critical to realize that kind of identity (or victim, as you will) politics is a huge part of what the younger voters are trying to move past. They're not only the most racially diverse generation in American history; they were raised to think that gender equality was something much closer to the natural order of things. Beyond that, they're consummate team players, trained from the sandbox onward to focus on what they share rather than what divides them. Arguments that "it's our turn" simply don't make a lot of sense to them: in their world, everybody gets a turn, because that's what's fair. And the girls seem rather confident that their turn will come, so what's the fuss?

Back last fall, Winograd and Hais wrote that the fate of both parties over the next 40 years depends largely on how well the Boomer leadership navigates the generational transition that's coming up in 2008 and 2012 as these younger voters come to dominate American elections. As Democrats, their biggest worry is that the older generation won't yield power gracefully. That concern appears prescient, as we look at the demographics of both candidates' supporters. If Hillary's Boomer core succeeds in making their disappointment the whole party's problem, at least three bad things will come of it.

First: it could leave a very sour taste in the mouths of these new young voters who are coming out in droves. This enormous generation is overwhelmingly progressive in its bones, and should by rights become lifelong Democrats. But, since people's political habits are often formed in early adulthood, alienating them now could push them away from the party, and thus damage progressive prospects for decades to come.

Second: it undermines whatever moral authority the Boomers have accrued within the party over the past 40 years. If Democratic elders want to retain any influence over the younger generation, going back to into confrontation mode and pitching large public fits is going to have the exact opposite of the desired effect. While Boomers consider righteously angry protest as a sort of generational art form, Millennials see it as a tantrum — an attempt to bully your way into something you can't win fair and square according to the rules. They don't understand or respect it.

Third: The Boomers could hold on so tightly that the party will split apart, and thus be in no position to capitalize on the best opportunity for real change we've had since 1968 or will likely have again until 2050. The grueling process of working through this shift could weaken the party to the point where it loses its one shot at the most important political moment in 40 years. We blow this one, we don't get another chance.

We have a stark choice: either empower these kids as smoothly and quickly as possible, and keep the Democrats in power for a long time to come; or thwart them for as long as we can, and in the process also lose our last best shot at the kind of cultural dominance our New Deal grandparents enjoyed for so long. To that end, Hillary and the old girls (and yes, that includes me) need to move over and make way for the new young things.

We need to do this because this moment belongs to them. There are things they get about it that we don't, possibilities that they can seize that are simply beyond us to imagine. As the Prophet said: their souls belong to the house of the future, which we cannot visit, even in our dreams.

We'd do well to listen now, and begin to yield — not least because they're our kids. We raised them to be these amazing activists, to face the future fearlessly, and to look outside the box for better solutions. From here on, our job is to help them grow quickly into leadership, and trust their new and unfamiliar ways of doing things. It will be hard to see it sometimes, but they're out there doing their damnedest to move us out of Nixonland, and on to a place where our fondest Boomer dreams—including presidents, senators, and judges of every color and gender—finally start to come true.

Memo To Candidates: Issues Matter

Bill Scher — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:33:11 -0400

Today, the Omaha World Herald published the following op-ed of mine, exploring why the attacks on Sen. Barack Obama failed to derail his path to the nomination, and failed to deny him a clear lead against Sen. John McCain. Not what it means about Obama, but what it means about our politics, and what lessons other candidates to take from it.The op-ed follows below.

After last Tuesday’s primaries, Sen. Barack Obama earned the majority of delegates awarded through electoral contests, tightening his claim to the Democratic presidential nomination. Despite some late losses and rough media coverage during the past two months, Obama begins the general election campaign with a clear lead. He beats Sen. John McCain in seven of eight major polls taken this month, with margins mostly between 5 and 7 points, and the most recent survey showing a 10-point lead.

Early polls don’t predict final winners, as shown by Gov. Michael Dukakis’ 16-point lead over then-V.P. George H.W. Bush in May 1988. But at that point, Dukakis had not yet suffered the attack blitz questioning his patriotism, challenging his fitness to be commander-in-chief and exploiting racial divisions. Obama’s current lead follows a Democratic primary where he already absorbed the types of blows he would expect to get from Republicans in the fall.

What does that say about the attacks, and about the state of our politics?

Much has been made about Obama’s former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright and how it hampered his ability to win over some white voters. Yet the impact appears limited nationally. Only 27% of Americans, in a May ABC/Washington Post poll, said Obama did “too little” to distance himself from Wright’s remarks. And a May CBS/New York Times poll finds 60% of registered voters approved of Obama’s handling of the Wright situation.

But the limited impact on public opinion may have less to do with Obama’s actions than with voter priorities. With more than 80% of the nation believing we’re on the “wrong track,” many voters are demanding a focus on issues and tuning out these manufactured, phony outrages.

An April NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found less concern with Wright than with McCain’s position on issues being “closely aligned with the Bush agenda.” ABC was deluged with complaints after airing a presidential debate top-heavy with guilt-by-association attacks. And on May 5, CNN anchor John Roberts announced before an interview with Obama, “No questions about Reverend Wright. Our viewers want us to move on.” People are telling the media: stick to real issues.

But Obama has also faced attacks on issues, most notably regarding gas prices. After McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed a summer “holiday” from the federal gas tax, Obama countered with advertisements offering a more detailed discussion. He explained how the temporary suspension would at best cover one-half of a tank of gas for the season, without addressing the root causes of the growing energy crisis. Instead, Obama proposed raising fuel-efficiency standards on cars and developing alternative fuels, so we can use less oil.

Like many Washington pundits, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough declared tax cuts to be “Politics 101” and warned Obama: “If that‘s your best outreach to working-class voters, stay home tomorrow because it‘s going to get ugly in North Carolina and Indiana.” It didn’t. Obama won North Carolina handily and battled back to a thin loss in Indiana. Soon after, the ABC/Washington Post poll asked voters whom they trusted more to handle gas prices. Obama crushed McCain by 20 points.

A Saturday exchange Obama had with an undecided Republican voter crystallizes the current American mood. Campaigning at an Oregon hospital, Obama was approached by a technician “torn” between Obama and McCain. He was trying to assess Obama’s trustworthiness, weighing his dislike of Rev. Wright with his belief that Obama’s gas tax stance was “honest.” After Obama repeated his rejection of Wright’s statements, Spooner encouraged Obama to continue doing “things like the gas tax” -- signaling that more sincere discussion of policy was how to get his vote.

Will Republicans recognize the public’s desire for a serious debate? They were given fair warning this month. Voters handed two House seats in conservative districts to Democrats, after Republicans released coarse ads depicting Obama as a radical left-wing boogeyman.

The message from voters should be clear: failing to address issues affecting us is disrespecting us.

Sadly, President Bush’s crass attack launched on foreign soil, falsely characterizing Obama’s support for direct diplomacy with Iran as “appeasement,” indicates that message isn’t being heeded.

If you want to save Republicans from themselves, or if you simply want a civilized campaign, speak up. Tell national news outlets that if they want your business, then provide probing coverage of the issues, instead of reflexively broadcasting the latest manufactured outrages. When political reporters emphasize substance, candidates will comply out of necessity, and we’ll finally have a campaign worthy of our democracy.

A Fighter, and a Friend

Terrance Heath — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:56:07 -0400

Living in D.C., you can't help; crossing paths wiht some famous political names. In fact, you get used to it. But, as with most things, you never forget your first. And Ted Kennedy was my first.

I was still new to D.C., having moved up from Georgia in the Summer of 1994 to work for the Human Rights Campaign. I was young and (still) idealistic, even two years into the Clinton administration. I'd volunteered for the Clinton campaign in college. On election night I hosted my friends in "a gathering of the cultural elite" to watch the election results come in. (Funny how old memes get recycled, isn't it.) That night we watched the Reagan/Bush era end.

Two years later, I was in D.C., and working in politics. One of the issues I worked on was employment discrimination. The Employment Non-Dicsrimination Act, which scored a Senate hearing.

It was my first time on Capitol Hill, and my first time sitting in on a hearing, let alone being face to face with some names I'd only ever read about before. Our contingent got there early, in order to get places in the front of the line. The opposition was there, of course. I can't remember, but I think they arrived after we were already in line. Again, I came face to face with people I'd only read about, but I would have preferred not to.

I heard a commotion behind me, turned around, and saw Ted Kennedy making his way down the line, shaking hands with the activists from our side. You'd have thought he was a rock star. And, in the realm of progressive politics, he is.

Celebrity magazines hail him as the last son from a glamorous but sorrow-tinged political family. Congressional insiders know that he also embraces his job wholeheartedly, working harder and longer hours than some younger colleagues, and hiring bright aides who often stay for years and are seen as role models by others.

Perhaps because it was impossible, Kennedy never tried to shake his image as a liberal titan to admirers and a left-wing caricature to detractors. But the supposed idealist became a pragmatic dealmaker, sometimes angering liberals by his willingness to bargain with Republicans to enact legislation he saw as less than perfect but attainable.

…Jim Manley, a former Kennedy aide, said that "despite coming from a family of great wealth and privilege, no one has been a more effective advocate for the poor and the middle class." Manley said his former boss "has never been afraid to compromise in order to get things done."

The list is long. In 1973, after the Watergate scandal, Kennedy co-sponsored the first bipartisan campaign finance bill. It established new contribution limits and a public financing provision for presidential elections.

Kennedy was instrumental in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and many other health care initiatives.

He's been described as a "liberal lion", and that day I felt a surge of hopefulness because this man was on our side even though — because of his wealth and power — he didn't have to be. In fact, doing so would probably make him a target for conservatives, much in the way his current illness has; as illustrated by Ben Shepard's post on the response over at The Free Republic.

There's much more behind that response, of course, a hatred for the man's record and what he has and still does stand for; a record Mike Lux illustrated in his post.

Kennedy has been a player in literally every major progressive accomplishment of my life, usually a major player, quite often the leading player: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Legal Services, the War on Poverty, environmental legislation, OSHA, bringing down Richard Nixon on the Watergate investigations, ending the Vietnam War, stopping military aid to the Contras in Central America, the Martin Luther King holiday, stopping Robert Bork, the increases in the minimum wage, Family and Medical Leave, National Service, Motor Voter Act, S-CHIP. His fingerprints are on all of that legislation, and more. And even where he failed, on universal health care and labor law reform and stopping the Iraq war and other battles, he fought the good fight with passion and heart and courage. I hope like hell his fight is not ending, that he does not go gentle into that good night, because we need his passion and heart and courage in these cautious, careful times all the more.

I said a while ago that progressives see injustice and ask "Why?", while conservatives see injustice and ask "Why not?", if they question it at all. Senator Kennedy falls in to the first category. When I saw him coming down the line shaking hands, I thought to myself that this wealthy, heterosexual, white male certainly didn't have to care about those of us standing in in line that day, for a hearing on a bill about our equality. He wouldn't have suffered for not caring. But he did. He eventually came to me, shook my hand, and said a few words of encouragement before moving on.

If there is anyone whose career distills what being a progressive means to me — caring about and standing up for people and issues you don't have to care about, that your circumstances don't require you to care about — Ted Kennedy is such a person. His career in the Senate, and his political commitments are proof that one can be elite — born to privilege, wealth, and power — without being elitist. One simply has to care, as Ted Kennedy has and does. He could have spend most or all of his life coasting on the wealth, power, and influence of the Kennedy name. He chose not to do so.

I thought of that moment, my first time shaking hands with a politician after coming to Washington, when I heard Ted Kennedy was in the hospital, and it has been on my mind since learning of his diagnosis with a malignant brain tumor.

As far as morality is concerned, give me someone who care about people that he doesn't have to, any day. Kennedy's career, and his political stances, have cost fewer lives than the policies of our current president have cost in just 7.5 years, and have helped improved many more as well. Give me 100 more likeTed Kennedy any day, over another George W. Bush.

There are people who caution against "eulogizing" the man too soon. I don't know what outcome awaits Senator Kennedy, though my wish for him and his family is a speedy recovery. But I do know that honoring the man's career, his accomplishments, and his commitments — as one who stood up for issues, stood up for people, and fought battles he didn't have to

— will neither stall or speed along whatever fate awaits him.

I'm reminded of a song a grew up hearing in church occasionally.

Won't you give me my flowers while I'm living
Let me enjoy them while I can
Please don't wait till I'm ready to be buried
And then slip some lilies in my hand
Won't you give me my flowers while I'm living
And let me enjoy them while I can
Please don't wait till I'm ready to be buried

While Senator Kennedy can yet hear me, I'd like to say thank you, for being a friend and a fighter, when you didn't have to be.

Get well soon, Senator, and come back to the fight. You have fought and still fight the good fight, but there several rounds left to go. Perhaps it's selfish to say, but we still need you, and many more like you too.