U St Visibility Craziness and Virginia Canvassing

Last night I did visibility, in campaign terms that means standing at a street corner making noise and waving Obama signs, on U St with Andrew and Janice. We got lots of honks and waves, made lots of noise, tons of Yes We Can! chants.
There were three young black girls going nuts with yelling, they were fantastic. I chatted with a few Hillary voters trying to change their minds. I walked one lady across the street trying to change her vote. Hopefully I've influenced a couple of votes. We had an old Sikh cab driver say Vote for Hillary. We'll never crack that choke-hold she has on the Sikh taxi voting bloc.
I canvassed in Virginia today with Matt Merry. Its crazy to do this stuff with my friends, you get to see such interesting sides of people. He was a bit shy about it, weird for a guy like him, but I loved that he was pitching in and "walking the walk" as he called it. It took an hour and a half for us to get started because of our inability to follow directions or use our I-phones correctly. We got done really fast, we had a five person team for a small area.
The support was solid. We had won lady talk to us at length about how John Kerry would make a better running mate than Oprah, I couldn't help but agree with her tricky choice. Maryland tomorrow, DC on Tuesday! I'm so sick of primaries I could vomit.

OBAMA 08!

January 20th, 2009

I never knew what politics had to do with faith until a few days ago. I came to a realization in a strange bed in South Carolina, 500 miles from home, weary after a day of canvassing. What was I thinking coming down here to walk through mud and rain for a man I’d never met?

It was an act of faith really, though not the kind with altars or bibles. Yet, there's definitely prayer. I found myself praying in Mt. Prospect Baptist Church in Rock Hill, South Carolina. How did a faithless wretch like me find myself with the faithful? Two words: Barack Obama.

When I got up in front of all the elegantly dressed worshipers in church, wearing muddy jeans and a sweatshirt, I was surprised to find myself unabashed. I was happy and confident as introduced myself and my fellow volunteers to the crowd and spoke for two minutes about Senator Obama. I had never spoken in front of a church before. My voice carried through the church, up into the rafters, and hopefully to a few voters’ ears.

I joked with them about my silly attire, lamenting the red southern mud that we trudged through to knock on doors. They laughed and smiled, bemused by this pudgy Latino stumping for a candidate they couldn't definitively say was black. They were reluctant, but opening up and I understood because I felt the same way.

I didn’t realize I needed Barack Obama until I realized it. I didn’t think I needed change until he told me to imagine it and then it would be. I didn’t see that politics was personal until he showed me it was because when I thought about him as my leader, as our leader, I got chills. I got a feeling of rightness I'd never experienced before. Maybe this is what it feels like to be a sycophant, but then maybe this is what it feels like to have faith, to finally believe.

I’ve been a skeptic my whole life but I'll tell you what - this skeptic stood up in an all African-American Baptist Church and talked about faith. Faith placed in an imperfect man. At the end of the day he is no son of God, nor is he a spirit. Yet I have faith that he can change us and lead us to new places. I'm fascinated by the possibilities for policies and politics, but I'm astounded by the new possibilities of faith.

You have to understand how much of a godless heathen I am, but honest to goodness, hand to God; I prayed that God would grant people the wisdom to see that this man was right for them. I prayed that people would listen and imagine for one second a world without Clintons and Bushes or Republicans and Democrats and think about a world with Americans united in picking up the pieces of a shattered and broken nationality.

I talked about faith for two minutes. I talked about the letter that Senator Obama wrote to the pastors and reverends of churches all over South Carolina explaining his faith and how it made him a better man and how he understood these people better because of his faith. I believe he does. I said that his faith would allow him to connect with people all over this country. I believe it will because I understand faith a little bit better now.

I have to believe or I wouldn't have gone to New Hampshire or to South Carolina in the dead of winter. I’ve knocked on maybe 500 doors, been bitten by a dog, been yelled and cursed at, frozen and thawed, soaked, and for what? I believe I've taken personal responsibility to the future of my country by exhorting others to have faith - to have faith not in miracles, but in something miraculous. Not in saviors, but in someone that could help us save ourselves. Why bicker when we can talk? Why argue when we can listen? Why stagnate with the same old politics when we have something fresh and new and untainted right under our noses? Really - why be cynical when its so empowering and freeing to have faith?

This was not personal for me three weeks ago, it is now. In became personal in an old stone home in Gilmanton and a street corner at 7am in Tillton and dusk in Barnstead and rainy days in Chester and a cold morning in church in Rock Hill. I have spoken to so many people who are so tired of politics that it strains them to lift their eyes and see what's happening.

Something’s happening.

We are raising our heads from a dry oasis, breathing new air, and drinking clear water. Americans are waking up slowly to new possibilities. We'll all come around, hopefully by Election Day, but if not at least by 2012 or 2016. I can be patient because I know Barack Obama will be.

Americans are seeing finally, as I have seen that we are on the brink of something historic. Finally after years of an America in furious drift, showy with economic brilliance then mired in stagnation, wallowing in dirty politics followed by worse, there is a chance that next January 20th we will raise our heads high and be proud again to be Americans. We just have to have faith. I do.

That's why I stood up in church on a chilly Sunday in January 2008 and said, at ease, head held high, "Hello my name is Anthony Elmo and I am here on behalf of Senator Barack Obama".

You got to have faith.

National Intelligence Estimate on Iran

The latest national intelligence estimate on Iran severely undercuts the Bush administration's case for targeting Iran with increased sanctions or possibly military action. It refutes the conclusions in the 2005 NIE by saying with high confidence that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The debate over the NIE will be interesting to watch over the next few months and the rest of Bush's presidency, as he either attempts to 'massage' the NIE to fit his political purposes or backs off. Already conservative analysts are attacking the NIE and the intelligence-gathering process. Is there ire a product of their firm belief that Iran is an enemy dedicated to acquiring nuclear weapons or of an intellectual dissonance with the arguments in the NIE?

Rationality here is the crux of their problem. They regard Iran as an irrational actor with an imbalanced military, political, and religious structure. They see Ahmanijehad as another Islamic dictator, to be toppled like Saddam and the Taliban. Is the neoconservative and traditional conservative irascibility when it comes to Islam and dictators that stops them from objectively dealing with the NIE's findings? Liberal and moderate political analysts are applauding its findings and even congratulating Bush and the international community for having exerted the pressure on Iran that forced them to curtail their weapons program.

At the end of the day, this NIE is 180 degrees from the 2005 NIE. We are seeing a fundamental shift in the intelligence community's take on Iran. This new view must have an effect on policy, to the point that the factual impetus in the Bush administration for another UN Security Council Resolution sanctioning Iran or unilateral military strikes against its weapons facilities has dissipated.

Crime against humanity in Darfur right now

The Sudanese government has made it clear they intend to negotiate with one hand while crushing Darfur with the other. The Sudanese government, as the peace talks in Libya began, called a unilateral ceasefire. At the same time, they were forcibly relocating internally displaced persons from Otash camp in Southern Darfur, near Nyala. United Nations humanitarian chief, John Holmes:

"Given that security forces were threatening the displaced with sticks and rubber hoses at Otash camp, the involuntary nature of this relocation is clear…10 armed pickup trucks rounded up refugees at Otash on Sunday. U.N. and aid workers were initially barred from the camp, but eventually got in to see eight large commercial trucks being loaded with the belongings of women and children”.

The images conjured by what is happening in Otash are not pretty (please go to the link for more details). Women and children being separated from their male relatives, from their belongings, and being forcibly relocated to “safety” is reminiscent of the treatment received by Jewish women and children before they were loaded onto trains and sent to concentration camps during the Holocaust.

My purpose in making this allusion is neither to shock nor to shame, and not to minimize the gravity of the Holocaust, but to describe what is happening in Darfur. A semantic debate over genocide has no purpose other than to distract from the fact that innocent people are being forced from their temporary homes, rounded up into trucks, and driven off in the middle of the night by government troops brandishing semi-automatic weapons, sticks, and rubber hoses.

Deportation or forcible transfer of population is a crime against humanity according to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court when it is committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. What happened in Otash on Sunday night and into Monday in October 2007 fits this definition. Please go to the Aegis Trust to learn more about this situation and what you can do.

President Carter came to my office to meet with my boss and a variety of Middle East experts. The Elders are considering a trip to the Middle East to bolster and support the peace process. I had the chance to sit in on these meetings and take notes. It was an incredible experience listening to history. President Carter is much maligned, unfairly at times, but in the few hours I got to spend with him I saw vitality, commitment, and honesty. Its strange that there are times in American history when we as citizens are graced with a leader that desperately cares about freedom and human rights. Now is not one of those times. President Carter was one of those leaders and still is, though history has written him off. He's not your average politician. He's really the epitome of an Elder. A strong, principled, wise person that I found a new respect for in a few short hours.

I spent all morning in meetings with President Carter.

Biased Reporting Hurts Venezuelan Democracy

Venezuela is undergoing rapid economic, political, and social change. El proceso, as the country’s reformation is called, is being undermined by international media outlets that distort or misreport current events. The Voice of America (VOA), acknowledged as a pro-American news source, is particularly lax about accurately reporting Venezuela. Brian Wagner, from Miami, published this story on October 18^th. Wagner’s piece is another example of the subtle criticism and ignorance that characterizes most reporting on Venezuela.

Venezuela’s National Assembly is debating constitutional reform, the third round in a constitutional process, underway since Chavez was first democratically elected in 1998. Wagner’s first criticism is the controversial nature of “new powers” that would allow the government to suspend rights to due process and access to information in the event of a “state of emergency”. Wagner uses words from Venezuelan RCTV president Marcel Granier and former U.S. State Department official Roger Noriega to support his contention that these reforms threaten civil rights and centralize too much power in Chavez’s hands.

It’s unfortunate that Wagner doesn’t place Venezuela’s current round of constitutional reform in historical context. Venezuela has been saddled by authoritarian, undemocratic regimes for almost all of its existence. It has never had a constitution that reflected the will of its people. The process that brought about the newest constitution was certified by international observers and experts as free, fair, and representative of the will of many Venezuelans that have been systematically shut out of the political process.

Each round of constitutional reform must be passed by referendum. Any changes or amendments are voted on directly by the people, not by the people’s representatives as in the United States or other representative democracies. The Venezuela form is more democratic and populist, which should not bring summary judgment from Western journalists like Wagner. If the Venezuelan people vote the government new powers in a free and fair election then we as foreigners are in no position to judge, particularly when such powers already exist in the United States.

Authoritarianism is inimical to our political nature and understandably angers democrats the world over. Yet, journalists like Wagner view Venezuela’s proceso through red-colored glasses, red being Chavez’s color of choice and the color historically associated with authoritarian Soviet communism. Constitutional reform in Venezuela is a natural reaction to that country’s long history of authoritarian government, not an indicator of its future tyranny. Chavez and the growth of his political and social movement is an extension of a revolutionary moment sparked by the Caracazo in 1989. Wagner ignores this history.

Journalists use quotes from experts to bolster and/or balance their story’s content; everyone understands how news stories work. Journalists run into trouble when they use biased or partisan experts as sources. Wagner quotes RCTV president Marcel Granier as saying the latest reforms pose new threats to the Venezuelan people. Critics of Granier have argued he poses the greater threat after his company’s role in the April 11^th, 2002 coup d’etat attempt against Chavez’s government. There is mounting evidence that Granier and RCTV purposely misled the people of Venezuela about the coup. Wagner’s use of him as a credible source is suspect.

Wagner quotes former State Department official Roger Noriega who said that reforms under Chavez have actually harmed democratic rights. He goes on to say that Chavez is a threat to US interests. Noriega has long supported hard-line US policies in Latin America. In the 1980s, Noriega ran President Reagan’s “non-lethal aid” programs to Central America. He has advocated for the political isolation of Venezuela and Cuba. Noriega was also behind the Haiti policy that forced former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s resignation. Noriega’s political history is not alluded to by Wagner. Wagner presents Noriega as an unbiased bureaucrat, which does not fit with Noriega’s history of political activism against leftists movements in Venezuela.

This reporting is irresponsible and harmful to Venezuela’s democratic aspirations. American foreign policy is complicated enough without further muddying the waters with biased reporting and ignorant sourcing. Wagner’s report is unfair to the dynamic political process taking place in Venezuela. It distills the grassroots political activism underway on a daily basis across Venezuela to moralistic kvetching over Hugo Chavez. There is a dissonance between how Western journalists view Venezuelan politics, the push and pull of American politics, and the varying interests of American foreign policy. This dissonance negatively affects Venezuela’s domestic politics and exacerbates simmering conflicts.