Let's talk about this friggin' campaign, and just exactly why I've suspended all activities that involve working WITH my fellow Obama supporters.

Make no mistake. I am as dedicated as ever to Sen. Obama's candidacy, and I'm thrilled with the choice of Joe Biden as a running mate, and my motto continues to be, "If Obama does not get elected President, it will NOT be MY fault."

I have skills. I can write halfway decently, and I LOVE to write -- letters, blogs, postcards for the campaign, what have you. I have an eagle eye for typos, and I can put together a list of email addresses and phone numbers that is not riddled with typos to the point of utter unusability.

I have aversions. I hate getting phone calls. I hate MAKING phone calls. I hate standing on street corners waving signs. I'm getting better at knocking on doors and registering voters if they're willing, and talking to voters who aren't sure about Obama and worry that he's a Muslim or some such thing.

Not that there is anything wrong with being a Muslim. There's just something wrong with SAYING that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim. But I digress.

Last week I was dragged by our official campaign coordinator to the grocery store where I shop regularly, and urged to accost customers coming in and out of the store, to sign them up as registered voters. The manager hustled us off the property, and I was informed by our official campaign coordinator that it's what we have to do -- bend the law, break the law, annoy people -- because that's how you win elections.

Fuck that.

Just let me write. Just let me put email lists together so that we can communicate with each other better.

****************

The support for Obama in my very Republican county is disgustingly unenthusiastic. And I also live in a county comprised largely of elderly citizens, and most of the women who are active politically (I'm talking about Democrats now) are all boo-hoo-hoo over the fear that they might never see a woman elected President during their lifetimes.

I'm not here to bash Hillary. I think she's a great champion of liberal causes and is more deserving of a shot at the presidency than at least 99% of our current political population. But I'm still remembering how the health insurance problems didn't get fixed in 1992-93 and I blame her for it. Please don't argue with me about that. I'm just saying -- I'm only involved in politics this year because of the magnificent qualities of Barack Obama.

He is The One.

But I hate politics. I used to be so thoroughly cynical that I never ever contributed to a campaign, I never ever stuffed an envelope or canvassed or registered a voter.

And now I hate politics more than ever.

Seven weeks ago, we had a Fourth of July parade.

I was the ONLY Obama shirt in that very large parade. The ONLY Obama sign. I did some good. When I passed by each of the parade watchers, my presence gave them a chance to cheer for our candidate. Where were the other "supporters?" Who knows?

There's more. Oh, there's more.

These people who are here in this county supposedly organizing and conducting the campaign never heard of the word courtesy. I'm not talking about the rudeness of accosting would-be voters on the phone or at their doors or on street corners or at grocery stores.

I'm talking about courtesy to ME.

Listen. My wife and I are 65 and 68, respectively, and we are very very busy people and both of us are under a doctor's care for issues related to constant stress. The clinical details are unimportant. Just take my word for the fact that we are both in pretty good health but we don't have the stamina for THIS kind of crap:

A campaign worker who is among the hardest-working and most significant people in the local campaign called our house on a Friday afternoon -- about 2 p.m. -- asking us to attend a "very important meeting" at which we would receive $1,000 worth of tickets to be distributed to attenders of a future event. The meeting would be sometime early that evening, but my wife cut her off by saying she was unfortunately too busy to attend.

As it happened, we got our chores done earlier than expected and found that we COULD attend, assuming we knew exactly where or when. We called her back, and could only leave a message. "Call us back and tell us the time and place."

No callback. We guessed the meeting would be at 7 p.m. (which was the right guess) at a certain restaurant, which turned out to be a WRONG guess but when we went to the wrong place we were steered to the right place, a local Starbucks where the group often meets.

As we arrived, we encountered an 82-YEAR-0LD woman who had received even shorter notice than we did. We chatted amongst ourselves until 7:45 p.m. and finally left.

The next night, at another meeting attended by myself and that "hard-working and significant" campaign worker (HWSCW), I asked for an explanation. "Oh, the tickets didn't get printed so I didn't go to the meeting. Here are ten envelopes with invitations inside, that you can send out to the attenders."

Not a word of apology.

A week later, the tickets have been printed, and were supposed to have been delivered to us yesterday. Here's how the phone conversation went two days ago:

HWSCW: I can bring them to your house tomorrow. What time will you be there?

Us: Please, we want YOU to pick the time, and we will try to be here at that time.

HWSCW: I don't want to inconvenience you by doing it too early in the morning. How about 10:30?

Us: Fine. Bring them here at 10:30. We'll be here.

Come Saturday morning, we have inconvenienced ourselves by being home at the time SHE selected. I'll give her credit for one thing: at least this time she called.

"Unfortunately, I have to speak at a luncheon and I can't make it."

I'll leave out my sputtering response, but cut to the chase here.

Take my word for this. This young lady is not the FIRST person in the campaign who has abused us by asking for our presence at a certain place and time and forcing us into a position where we have totally wasted our precious time. I cannot tell you how many times this has occurred, or how much rudeness we have experienced from a high percentage of our fellow Obama supporters.

I can't tell you because I have lost count.

When I had that last conversation -- check that; next to next to last conversation -- yesterday, I felt my chest tighten and my breathing shorten.

I have had it.

I called our esteemed campaign coordinator -- and there have been serious issues with him as well -- to tell him I'm done with participating in the campaign with this crowd. He didn't seem to think my reason was sufficient. It was such a small thing.

"It is a small thing, yes," I said, "but it was the LAST STRAW."

**************

I'm going to wrap up this here blog for today.

If anyone wants to make use of the skills I DO have, and treat me with a minimum of respect and courtesy and consideration, I'll do what I can.

I would like to be alive and able to enjoy Obama's presidency. Getting aggravated to the point of having to spend five hours in the Emergency Room last week getting my brain CAT-scanned for what I think was a mere tension headache, is not worth it.

My health is good, I think. They ruled out stroke. They ruled out heart attack. They ruled out brain tumor.

But I am through working WITH these rude people that the campaign wants me to work with.

They're Kidding, Right?
Oh, They're Serious,
But They've Been Lied to

"Your taxes will go up if Obama gets elected."

Huh?

"You KNOW that, don't you? Obama will double your taxes. And you don't mind?"

That's what a friend of mine told me a coupla months ago. My reply was inadequate, but I didn't know about the email that's been making the rounds. In fact, I said: "I don't believe that's true. The Bush tax cuts would be repealed for the top 2%. It's just the wealthy who will pay more in taxes."


"No," my friend said. "YOUR taxes are going up."

"I don't believe that," I said. "But if they do, then I'll pay them. I like Barack's programs, and I've got plenty of money. What do I care?"

**************

Now, I'm not really rich. Don't get me wrong. But I WAS sincere. So get me right.

The problem was, I never knew about those stupid emails -- the ones that start out with:



"INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES

"Spread the word.....

"This is something you should be
aware of so you don't get blind-sided.
This is really going to catch a lot
of families off guard. It should
make you worry."

-- and then continue with garbage like



"Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:

"CAPITAL GAINS TAX

"MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000
per home (couples) McCain does not
propose any change in existing
home sales income tax.

"OBAMA

"28% on profit from ALL home sales

"How does this affect you?
If you sell your home and make a profit, you
will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.

"If you are heading toward retirement
and would like to down-size your
home or move into a retirement
community, 28% of the money you
make from your home will go to taxes. This
proposal will adversely affect the
elderly who are counting on the income
from their homes as part of their retirement income.

"DIVIDEND TAX

"MCCAIN 15% (no change)

"OBAMA 39.6%

"How will this affect you?
If you have any money invested in stock
market, IRA, mutual funds,
college funds, life insurance, retirement
accounts, or anything that pays
or reinvests dividends, you will now
be paying nearly 40% of the money
earned on taxes if Obama become president."

There is more, much more, but I'm sure you get the point. And now I understand where these people are getting these crazy ideas.

So.

To borrow a phrase (or two):

INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON (EMAILS)

Spread the word.....

(And check out the truth at places like www.snopes.com and www.FactCheck.org)

What the Founding Fathers created has served this country admirably, even though it has been subject to interpretation and re-interpretation over the past two centuries plus.

**************************************************​ *************

All of you must know by now how resolute I am in support of Barack Obama's candidacy. I was accused once of being capable of justifying the hypothetical discovery of Obama in bed with a dead choirboy. An exaggeration, to be sure, but nothing like that has happened or is going to happen, so let's get serious.

*********************************

Obama is being hammered by the left and by the right, by formerly steadfast supporters such as Keith Olbermann, for heaven's sake, for abandoning not only his own principles (shared by his fans) but also the Constitution.

And I respectfully disagree with the hammerers. Let's take the three amendments listed above, one at a time.

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What the first sixteen words mean to me is that the State cannot declare any particular religion to be the "official" religion of our country, that the People can worship at the shrine of their choice, and that they are free to not worship anywhere, if they so choose.

Now I'll admit. You start muddying the waters a bit when tax dollars collected by the Government start getting used to support religious institutions. But first of all, the First Amendment says nothing about that, and second of all, opening the government coffers in aid of charities sponsored by faith-based organizations isn't even, per se, support of the churches, synagogues, and mosques themselves. It would be support of charitable activities, nothing else.

I know all about cans of worms, and slippery slopes, and about the low approval rating of Congress and about the right-wing orientation of certain members of our Supreme Court.

And I've admitted previously -- in spoken conversations and in comments around Xanga -- that Obama's proposal for government support of faith-based initiatives is not my favorite thing that he's ever said. And if Constitutional scholars, whether credentialed or not, want to argue about constitutionality, I'm not qualified to argue back.

But I CAN say, leave Obama the hell alone. He taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for ten years, and if you read the chapter in "The Audacity of Hope" that deals with our Constitution, you'll come away with the understanding that HE understands our Constitution, even if you don't.

We supporters are supposed to have his back. We're entitled -- more than entitled, we are urged -- to express our counter-opinions and he listens to us. And Obama is a big enough man to have said he's willing to take his lumps on this and other subjects. So we are free to abandon our candidate.

But I think that's just stupid. Especially when he hasn't said anything wrong. Just arguable.

The Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here, Obama is being hammered for agreeing with a Supreme Court decision that I think sounds perfectly right. Though we can't be sure, I think (and the Court thinks, and Obama thinks) that the Founding Fathers intended for citizens to be allowed to arm themselves, to protect themselves from encroachment.

I DON'T think that the Founding Fathers would be pleased to see this amendment used as justification for irresponsible firearm usage and possession, and Obama makes perfectly good sense when he observes that the recent Supreme Court ruling offers "guidance" about how far we can go, and how far we can't go, in the difficult area of gun control.

The reason we "can't be sure" is that the Second Amendment is first of all almost ungrammatical, and second of all too many terms are undefined. Well regulated. Militia. Necessary. Security. Free. Right. Arms. Infringed.

Are people free to join a militia, and thus be well-regulated and bear arms? And is that all? Ambiguities abound throughout the Constitution. There is no way around that, and that is why we have a Supreme Court. Of course, the President is supposed to act responsibly in appointing members to that Court, and Congress is supposed to act responsibly in ratifying such appointments, but that is another matter altogether.

But my point continues to be: idealistic voters who have embraced Obama because of his liberal orientation need to understand that Obama intends to be President of ALL the people, not just the leftwing idealists who adore him. There are reasons why these issues are controversial. If they were simple, they wouldn't be controversial.

So I implore those of you who have been supporting Obama. Do not abandon him over this. We are supposed to have his back. Not stab him in the back. Disagree, fine. Try to change his mind, fine. But abandon not.

The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This one's a lot more problematical for me, but I'm staying with the guy who brought me to this dance. He promised last year to filibuster if FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), the bill that is before Congress, includes a provision for retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies that have been spying on our phone calls and emails.

I understand this Amendment, and its reason for being. And I understand the outrage. I also understand that President Bush has already violated this Amendment, and that the bill before Congress, if unamended, will continue to license reprehensible acts.

What I don't understand is the rationale of people who dispute Obama's contention that the provision for Attorney General review of wiretapping practices will be sufficient to correct the abuses that have occurred and that might occur in the future. The immunity provision deals only with civil suits. That's my understanding. And given the paranoia that has engulfed this country since 9/ll/01, and despite the sacrosanctity of civil liberties, and given that Obama feels some kind of bill is necessary (I don't understand why it is, because the old 1978 law would be in effect if the current act isn't renewed; I confess ignorance on this subject), I still think it's an overreaction to literally intend to not vote for Obama as a result of his position on all of this. Criminal prosecutions will still be possible, and Obama has vowed to carefully examine the reviews that will be conducted by his Attorney General.

Why is that not enough?

Why do I feel that I have to single-handedly rescue this candidacy from the brink of failure?

The Issues, Please

The Issues

So now they're hammering Michelle Obama for selfishly wanting every voter in America to find ways to help Malia and Sasha Obama (her two young daughters). At least that's the way Michelle Malkin is making it sound.

Anyone reading this who even remotely has any respect for Malkin, please stop reading and have the courtesy to let me know (privately, of course) that you have unsubscribed.

Malkin is worse than Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh combined, because most of the intelligent public is already aware of their biases, and is on guard. Malkin's not quite as famous, and hence more dangerous, because some folks might unwittingly read her garbage and be influenced by it. She even pretends to be a journalist. At least Limbaugh is unabashedly a comedian doing a schtick, not that he admits it in those words. But I wouldn't say he pretends to be a pundit, noting that his tongue MUST be in his cheek. Mustn't it?

I shouldn't worry so much. Anyone who would be influenced by Malkin is solidly in the other camp, anyway. I am happy and anxious to welcome uncommitted and Republican-leaning citizens into the Obama movement, if they're of a mind to join. But for the ones whose minds are made up to never vote for Obama, well, I will generously hold good thoughts for their financial and physical well-being, but if they don't want to think about joining us, then all I can ask is for them to please get out of our way.

We ARE going to talk about issues, folks. We are NOT going to talk about Jeremiah Wright.

Which was EXACTLY Michelle Obama's point, in her interview with Meredith Vieira, as any intelligent person listening could plainly hear. After one or two opening questions that also had to do with Rev. Wright, here's how it went:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: Michelle, do you feel that the Reverend Wright betrayed your husband?

MICHELLE OBAMA: I think Barack has spoken so clearly and eloquently about this.

MEREDITH VIEIRA: But do you personally feel that the Reverend Wright€¦

MICHELLE OBAMA: You know what I think Meredith? I think we gotta move forward. You know, this conversation doesnt help my kids. You know, it doesnt help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how were going to better fund education.

In other words, practically in the same breath the Senator's wife correctly switched her focus to the importance of ALL kids, not just her own. Not that there was anything terribly wrong in personalizing the answer, conveying quite appropriately that she is a parent who is concerned for her kids just as any parent would be.

But of course the other Michelle -- Malkin -- has learned her lesson well from the garbagey likes of O'Reilly and Hannity. Find the crucial sound bite, and twist the meaning and then bombard the reader/listener with constant repetition.

She's right about one thing, this Malkin person is. Mrs. Obama was tired of answering variations of the same old Wright questions, and wanted to talk about the issues.

*****************************

From now on, every single question about Rev. Wright should be answered in approximately the following vein:

I think Rev. Wright might agree (or might disagree; it doesn't matter) with our plan to launch a Childrens First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children from birth up to five years old. Barack believes that the goal of No Child Left Behind was the right one, but that it was written and implemented poorly and it has demoralized our educators and broken its promise to our children. Barack will fund No Child Left Behind and improve its assessments and accountability systems.

Our schools will be improved by recruiting well-qualified teachers to every classroom in America, by rewarding expert, accomplished teachers for taking on challenging assignments and helping teachers succeed, and by reducing the high school dropout rate and closing the achievement gap by investing in proven intervention strategies in the middle grades and in summer learning and afterschool opportunities.

Barack will create a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that will make tuition at the nations community colleges completely free and will cover up to two-thirds the cost of tuition at the nations public colleges and universities. This $4,000 tax credit will be fully refundable and available at the time of enrollment in college when families need the money.

(My suggested answer is just one of several possibilities and is taken mostly verbatim from www.barackobama.com.)

Monday night they were talking on CNN about some huge gaffe made by Michelle Obama when she said she was "very proud of our country."

Then a friend called me up and we wondered what the hell they were talking about.

I STILL don't know, BUT my friend called me back moments later to alert me to a C-SPAN telecast of Michelle speaking in Wisconsin. If it's on YouTube I haven't found it yet. But tomorrow's another day.

I tried making "Dream Big" the title of an entry only. My other problems have to do with how do I get people to make comments. What am I not doing that I should be doing?

I'll save the introductions for later (OK OK if you MUST know more about me, visit www.xanga.com/twoberry and read to your heart's content), but first I want to be outrageous and compare Barack Obama to John F. Kennedy.

You can forget all about the classic encounter between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen (you youngsters in the audience, I'll explain if you ask me), Barack Obama is the real deal.

JFK's legendary status is, in my opinion, based on the fact that he was a spellbinding orator and inspired a generation of Americans to accomplish programs that they all said was impossible.

Two examples: Peace Corps and a manned landing on the moon. The Peace Corps wasn't just a good idea. It was a good idea that never would have been realized had it not been for a massive commitment on the part of young Americans. And that commitment never would have been made, had it not been for Kennedy's capacity to inspire.

And NASA's space exploration program was similarly a result of longterm dedication and determination. Credit JFK again.

My favorite Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has yet to propose anything as daring as starting a Peace Corps, or landing on the moon, but I think because our nation faces such a host of mammoth problems, Sen. Obama, like all of the other candidates, have all they can do to formulate programs to tackle the issues that face us.

But those issues are so daunting, so much more serious than anything the world has ever faced before, I'd say that the power of Kennedy-like inspiration is sorely needed.

Global warming concerns me as much as anything, and we've also got a broken economy, a broken health care system, crises in education and energy -- I could go on -- but the thing is, none of those issues can be properly addressed as long as we're in Iraq, as long as we're mired in a "War on Terrorism" which has no military solution.

And that's where I dream big. Even Barack Obama hasn't had the nerve to propose what I'm about to propose, but I'm saying that the goal should be nothing less than lasting peace in the Middle East.

DID I JUST LOSE MY AUDIENCE?

I don't blame you. But I'm serious. Maybe my dream will never be realized in my lifetime, but I won't give up the dream.

And as Barack Obama just -- by god this is unbelievable -- just this very second said, in quoting JFK himself:

America should never negotiate out of fear, but should never fear to negotiate.

The first two steps should be (1) stop shooting and (2) talk. Obama has already said he'll talk -- to the leaders we don't like.

Kennedy would have done no less.