Time To Celebrate!!!!!

'A World War without War'

In a SPIEGEL interview, British historian Niall Ferguson discusses Barack Obama's historical election, Europe's hopes for the new president, the consequences of the economic crisis and his idea of "Chimerica" -- the economic alliance between Beijing and Washington.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Ferguson, were you moved when you saw the future president, Barack Obama, in Chicago?
Ferguson: Yes, it was a very moving moment. It was similar to the release of Nelson Mandela. When Obama was born, in 1961, mixed marriages between blacks and whites were still illegal in one-third of the American states.
SPIEGEL: Historically speaking, that was yesterday,
Ferguson: Of course. But we are talking about ordinary discrimination, not just the legacy of slavery. And it had not disappeared. It is astonishing that the transformation from a racist America to an America that elects a black man to the White House was possible within that period of time. Even the world's most dogmatic conservative ought to be moved.
SPIEGEL: You initially favored John McCain?
Ferguson: I have become a convert in the last six months because of Obama's extraordinary combination of rhetorical genius, coolness under fire and organizational skills. This was the best election campaign we have ever experienced.
SPIEGEL: Which doesn't necessarily have to mean a great presidency.
Ferguson: What it means is enough: the death of racism, the end of the original American sin and, most of all, the right reaction to end the economic crisis. Obama can stimulate self-confidence because he is so calm and collected. He will not simply put an end to the crisis or ensure that banks lend money again. He is a politician, not the Messiah. But he can change the national mood. Americans are lucky that they were able to elect him now, just as the panic reached its climax. It is as if they had voted Roosevelt into office earlier, in 1930, and not in 1933.
SPIEGEL: Shouldn't the world have seen it coming, the economic crisis we are now experiencing?
ABOUT NIALL FERGUSON
British historian Niall Ferguson, 44, is currently a professor at Harvard University. His most recent book is "The Ascent of Money -- A Financial History of the World," Penguin Press, New York; 432 pages; $29.95.
Ferguson: Of course, it has been clear since 2006. I know that for many people it doesn't feel that way. They are horrified because they were taken by surprise, and they are in a panic because the enemy comes from within. The system is the enemy. And they don't understand the nuances of the crisis, which makes them afraid.
SPIEGEL: In retrospect, historians are usually right. What did you foresee in 2006?
Ferguson: Excessive debt. The debts of private households and the financial institutions reached levels that could no longer be offset. Then came the bubble in the real estate market, when prices doubled even though the houses weren't worth the money. But most of all, there was the ignorance of the bankers, hedge fund managers and financial experts in the political arena, who did not want to recognize something that was plain as day.
SPIEGEL: Namely?
Ferguson: That a liquidity crisis could happen. That they would run out of money. "Impossible," everyone was saying at the time.
SPIEGEL: It sounds a little self-opinionated for you to claim that you had predicted all of this for years.
Ferguson: Oh, I've been wrong before. The thing I was wrong about was the trigger.
SPIEGEL: The trigger?
Ferguson: I had believed that the price of oil would be the cause of the world economic crisis, and that the necessary trigger would be a second defenestration, a second Sarajevo and perhaps even a war, a truly major war.
SPIEGEL: Iraq and Afghanistan don't count?
Ferguson: Too small. I had believed that a geopolitical event would lead to a credit crisis, but this crisis is so fundamental that it was capable of triggering itself. Money disappeared, and now companies can no longer refinance, can no longer borrow anything. Now it'll be bloody.
SPIEGEL: Are the bubbles happening with greater frequency than before, or is this just the way we perceive it? Or has the world economy consisted of a single super-bubble for some time now, as speculator George Soros says?
Ferguson: There have been bubbles large and small, again and again since 1700. First there was the tulip bubble and then, in 1890, it was all about the gold mines. No, we haven't even changed the rules of the game. If a central bank makes loans available to speculators at low interest rates, we have a bubble. Always, it's guaranteed. Yesterday, today and tomorrow again.
SPIEGEL: Do you consider the US government's so-called bailout plan and the Europeans' investments in banks to be pointless?
Ferguson: No, but it is not clear that they will work. We have a situation like 1914 or 1931, and the financial and fiscal authorities have learned from history. They are doing the right thing. They are trying everything to prevent us from getting into a Great Depression.
SPIEGEL: With success?
Ferguson: We will see. So far, success has meant that relatively few banks have collapsed, whereas in the 1930s it was thousands. At that time, the gross national product dropped by 30 percent and there was 25 percent unemployment in the United States. This time we will have a painful recession, but not figures like those. What I truly criticize is the fact that so much time was wasted.
SPIEGEL: What was lost as a result?
Ferguson: Flexibility. Clout. A lot of money. Many, many possible solutions. The US treasury secretary should have flown to Beijing and could have solicited investment in American banks, which would have benefited everyone. Those who combat a crisis early on can prevent its effects from becoming too entrenched.
SPIEGEL: Is confidence in the market's ability to purify itself dead?
Ferguson: Yes. But a true Armageddon was needed before the Republicans could be made to understand. A world war without war, a state of emergency, was needed. Now we are responding the way they did in World War I: with moratoriums, suspension of trading, new money. It's fascinating. And it wasn't the fault of Alan Greenspan ...
SPIEGEL: ... the former Federal Reserve Bank chairman …
Ferguson: ... who believed that the market would regulate everything, and yet the assignment of blame is too simplistic. We are all at fault. Who in America or Great Britain didn't take out a loan for a house that was far too expensive or for a car? And then all of these bubbles come to resemble one another, but the financial world is immune against the whole thing.
SPIEGEL: Why?
Ferguson: Most managers leave the educational system completely unequipped for the decisions they will have to make. They learn business as a mathematical discipline. They know nothing about what happened before their careers began. Many working on Wall Street today don't even know what happened in 2000, after the Internet boom.
SPIEGEL: Does the system teach people to be irresponsible?
Ferguson: And to be naïve. For these people, it must have felt as if nothing could go wrong between 2001-2007. When that happens, one is tempted to make one's own experience part of the theory of financial history.

SPIEGEL: Is it a coincidence that this crash began in the United States?
Ferguson: It could have started anywhere. The system was an upside-down pyramid, a pyramid made up of securities, derivatives, bets and loans, and all of it was balanced on a fragile tip consisting of mortgages. If it had happened someplace else, the consequences just wouldn't have been as dramatic. But it had to tip over. It was a crisis of the Western world, and then it turned into a global crisis.
SPIEGEL: Will Barack Obama truly change the world? Or world politics?
Ferguson: Yes, by virtue of his very existence. The world is waiting for him, ready for a different America. The United States has the opportunity to remake itself without Obama having to make many changes to its foreign policy. He will close Guantanamo and declare an end to torture. All he has to do is change the tone and the game will already change because he is the one playing it. That is the real phenomenon. By virtue of his sheer existence, he reestablishes American credibility.
SPIEGEL: There are concerns in Germany that a President Obama will demand more soldiers for Afghanistan. On the other hand, there is hope that he will pursue multilateral policies.
Ferguson: Both are justified. Obama will certainly focus on Afghanistan, while at the same time attempting to withdraw Americans and get international soldiers. A true challenge could arise if Iran or al-Qaida tried to test Obama. Al-Qaida hasn't been taken over by J.P. Morgan yet, and Iran won't abandon its nuclear policy just because a black man is in the White House. Both dangers still exist. However, I believe that all of these issues, including Kyoto, will initially fade into the background because the economic crisis will demand our attention for a long time.
SPIEGEL: What will the consequences of the crisis be?
Ferguson: New York could turn into Venice.
SPIEGEL: A museum of itself?
Ferguson: At least in the distant future, in 100 or 200 years. The more that happens in Asia, the better London's position will be, even from a geographic standpoint. The same, of course, applies to Shanghai, or Hong Kong.
SPIEGEL: Life is unfair.
Ferguson: Money has never been fair.
SPIEGEL: Isn't Europe better equipped for times of crisis? More modern?
Ferguson: Perhaps, but Europe will be more severely hit by the crisis. In Great Britain, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany, the financial sector constitutes a higher percentage of the gross domestic product than in America, which is why the impact will be far greater in Europe. And Russia, Iran and Venezuela are feeling the brunt of falling oil prices.
SPIEGEL: In other words, the United States could become a winner in the current crisis, for which it bears the blame?
Ferguson: Absolutely. Obituaries are premature. It depends on how China reacts. The Chinese have achieved exchange rate stability and protected the dollar with artificial interventions. They will continue their policies because they now own vast numbers of dollars and export goods that are paid for in dollars. The United States and China are involved in a marriage like my wife's and mine.
SPIEGEL: The wife ...
Ferguson: (laughs) ... spends what the husband saves and earns. A very healthy equilibrium. It will remain that way.
SPIEGEL: What is so healthy about it?
Ferguson: It has always been the case that one economy offsets the weaknesses of others. There is nothing wrong with that. The United States can afford to pay for this crisis as long as it gets cheap money in Beijing -- that is, by paying not much more than four percent interest. And China needs its exports to the United States to continue growing. Chimerica ...
SPIEGEL: ... that's what you call the structure of the Chinese and US economies in your new book ...
Ferguson: ... is no chimera, but rather a functioning alliance. Of the big three -- China, Russia and America -- two always join forces in a coalition, and neither China nor the United States has any reason to prefer Russia as a partner.
SPIEGEL: And yet the American deficit cannot be healthy.
Ferguson: Well, it'll balance itself out a little now. But if the United States had a balanced budget, it would be a shock for the global system. No one can seriously want this to happen. If the Americans started saving the way the Chinese do, that's when we would have a Great Depression!
SPIEGEL: That was one of Barack Obama's key warnings: "We borrow money in China and use it to buy oil in Saudi Arabia." During the campaign, he repeatedly promised that he would put an end to this.
Ferguson: A few foreign policy advisors will probably explain to him very quickly that he would be better off not to touch the relationship with China.
SPIEGEL: But there is some truth to his sentence.
Ferguson: That's true, but it is also an over-simplification. Americans want to buy goods inexpensively, and the Chinese can produce inexpensively. Does anyone want to upset this system? Imbalances should exist in a global economy. Nations grow at different rates, and the system is there to transfer profits and savings from one place to another. This makes much more sense than the financial autarchy of the 1950s, when there were no international transactions.
SPIEGEL: It's hard to believe. In the end, you think everything is fine the way it is?
Ferguson: No, but the subject isn't the deficit or America's dependence on China. China has become somewhat more self-confident and America somewhat more insecure, but China is no rival for America, neither militarily nor economically. The subject is dependence on oil, which is a technological subject, not a financial one.
SPIEGEL: Responsible politicians ...
Ferguson: ... would borrow money in China and invest in clean technology, in wind power and solar power. That would be a rational strategy. It was crazy to borrow money in China and burn through it by speculating in the real estate market.
SPIEGEL: So you don't think lending is the problem?
Ferguson: It never has been. Lending transactions are the basis of the economy. It isn't lending, it's investment. If you don't invest, but just consume, you bring about your own ruin.
SPIEGEL: Will European-American relations change?
Ferguson: Yes, but not in the way many Europeans expect. Democrats and Republicans are not that different on foreign policy. In fact, there is much more continuity than you would think. Will Obama be the antithesis to Bush? No, because the national interests of the United States have remained the same.
SPIEGEL: Obama has not had a relationship with Europe so far.
Ferguson: And for that reason he will see Europe as a single entity. He'll be surprised, because he doesn't know whom to call when he wants to speak to Europe. Europe will present itself to him as a group of sovereign states, and Messrs. Sarkozy and Brown, and Ms. Merkel, will all want to be his best friend, each of them on their own.
SPIEGEL: What will the new American president be able to achieve economically, if anything?
Ferguson: He promises a feeling of change, not necessarily real change. But the feeling is already important enough. This whole crisis has to do with trust and self-confidence. We need a US president who brings renewal.
SPIEGEL: So what can Obama do?
Ferguson: He can give a great inauguration speech.
SPIEGEL: And what else?
Ferguson: Give more great speeches.
SPIEGEL: He can't do more?
Ferguson: No, because he will have the least latitude of all presidents we can remember. Obama wants to assemble a nonpartisan government, and we will experience a more cautious first 100 days than we did under Bill Clinton. He will be cautious to the point of being boring. This will be precisely his great strength.
SPIEGEL: Where does the problem lie?
Ferguson: With Hank Paulson.
SPIEGEL: What does the current treasury secretary have to do with Obama?
Ferguson: Because of his big bailout plan, Paulson has already spent the money for Obama's healthcare reform and for his tax cuts. The money is gone.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Ferguson, we thank you for this interview.

America Has Rediscovered its Political Calling

America has just completed the most radical political about-turn in its recent history by electing Barack Obama, write German media commentators. He won't be able to fulfil all the hopes being pinned on him, but he has the stature to unite America and reinvigorate the nation, they say.
America has reinvented itself by choosing Barack Obama as its new president in an election that has fanned enormous expectations in America and around the world, write German media commentators.
Living up to all those hopes, is an impossible task, but the commentators believe he may be able to unite America by reaching out to religious conservatives who didn't vote for him, and that he could invigorate a country riven by self-doubt as a result of foreign wars and economic decline.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The 44th president of the United States has made history before he has even taken office. Few election nights have delivered so much emotion, and such honest, deeply felt relief and joy. America is rid of a burden. The country will wake up in the morning of Nov. 5 in the certainty that it has renewed itself, that it has achieved what must be the most radical political about-turn in it recent history, and that it has done so of its own accord. And that countless opportunities for internal healing and reconciliation with the world have now opened up."
"The biggest achievement of the new president is that the campaign didn't center on him, Barack Obama, but on America's rediscovery of its political calling. Democracy has returned to a country beset by doubt. "Yes we can!" isn't just an election slogan. "Yes we can!" is a battle cry for a nation that can feel its decline."

"The expectations are so great, and the benchmarks he has set himself are so demanding that Barack Obama will have to develop Herculean powers. The election campaign was only a feeble overture compared with the four years he now faces. Obama will be helped by the fact that there is huge readiness to change. America has reinvented itself, and now the world is waiting for the new president."

.

What Next?

.

A gracious surrender of a mean warrior

.

Obama on MTV

Sway: Senator Obama, thank you first of all for engaging young Americans today, as well as throughout the year. You have always been here for the MTV audience, and I want to say that we appreciate your time.

Barack Obama: Thank you so much, Sway. I appreciate it.

Sway: Well, we have a lot of great questions from our audience, so I'm going to get straight to it.

Obama: Let's do it.

Sway: The first question is from joi0924, and she's from San Antonio: "The young people today cannot afford to go to college because of the cost of tuition. What are your plans as our next president when it comes to making it easier for young people to attend college?"

Obama: Look, this I can relate to. I went to college having to take out student loans, went to law school having to take out student loans. Michelle took out student loans. When we got married, I think together our total loan payments every month was more than our mortgage when we bought a house, and that lasted for about 10 years. And I meet students — I think the average student is taking out $25,000 to $30,000. That's a huge burden, especially in a time when wages and income are not going up. So here is what we want to do: increase the Pell Grant program, eliminate banks as middlemen from the direct loan program — they're taking out billions of dollars in profits — take that money, apply that to increasing the number of loans that are out there and reducing the rates, and then what I want to do is provide a $4,000 tuition credit for every student, every year, in exchange for national service. If they participate in Peace Corps, working in their community in some fashion, obviously joining the military. We are going to make sure that they can afford their college tuition. And in certain areas, like teaching, where we really need teachers, especially in math and science, and nursing, where we really need nurses, we will potentially provide them with even more than that in order to get the high-quality teachers and nurses that we really need.

Sway: OK, and that sounds great for those that want to attend college. What about those who are already in college, say for example we have Sev88. He is from Buffalo. His question is: "I am in my junior year of college. I am very worried about paying back my student loans. I have heard your plans for making college more affordable, but what are you going to do for the graduates that are already tens of thousands of dollars in student-loan debt?"

Obama: We may try to see if we can set up some programs to see if we can consolidate some of these loans. There is only so much we will be able to do going backwards. What we can focus on is going forward. I think there are a lot of students out there who have already paid off their loans and they may not be happy with it. They might not mind getting some of their money back too. What we want to do is just make sure that each student who is currently in school — and by the way, this isn't just four-year colleges and universities. My attitude is, if young people are going back, going for two years at the community-college level for technical training of some sort, they are returning to school after having worked for a while, all of that is part of creating a knowledge-based work force that is going to be the key to our competitiveness long-term. This is not just good for young people, it's good for the economy as a whole.

Sway: What are some of the programs you said for people that have already incurred the debt?

Obama: As I said, what we are looking at potentially is being able to consolidate some of the loans, and if they are part of a broader pool, we may be able to lower interest rates on the debt that they already owe. But the key is going to be going forward, making sure that young people in the future are able to afford to go to college.

Sway: Our next question is from Matt from Iowa: "If your desire is to spread the wealth around, what incentive is there for me to try to work hard? If I am only going to get more taken away from me, the more money I make, why wouldn't I just slide into a life of relaxation and let rich people take care of me? And a lot of people are asking similar questions, and I wanted you to specify. What does this mean exactly?"

Obama: What is amazing to me is this whole notion that somehow everybody is just looking out for themselves. I mean, the fact is, we just talked about student loans. When young people who have the drive and the skill to go to college can't afford to go to college, how do you think we pay for scholarships or loan programs? That money doesn't grow on trees. It's got to come from somewhere, and the attitude that I have is that, if we want to grow our economy, the way it grows is from the bottom up. You don't just give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. What you do is make sure the tax code is fair. I want to give a tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, but in order to pay for that, I'm going to take the tax rates back to what they were in the 1990s for people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year. Now for people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, if they are paying 2 or 3 percent higher in taxes, the notion that they're somehow going to stop working, or that this young man is going to not want to be successful, that just doesn't make any sense. Back in the 1990s, we created more millionaires, more billionaires, because the economy was growing, everything was strong, at every income bracket, people were doing well. So this idea, that somehow everybody is just on their own and shouldn't be concerned about other people who are coming up behind them, that's the kind of attitude that I want to end when I am president.

Sway: Just out of curiosity, for those that are being taxed that are making more than $250,000 a year, how much difference would it be from how they are being taxed today?

Obama: Well, right now, they are getting taxed at 36 percent. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, they were being taxed at 39.6 percent. You are talking about a 3.6 percent difference, and for the average person who is making half a million, a million dollars, now people like you Sway, that's chump change, that's nothing. But it could make a big difference for that young person who is trying to figure out whether they can go to college or not, if we could give them more of a break or more scholarships or grants to go to college.

Sway: For the record, I don't make that kind of money, so I am going to go ahead and say that. All right, my next question is from Joseph from Brooklyn, New York. Joseph says: "Mr. Obama, my name is Joseph Stort, and I come from Red Hook, Brooklyn. I know at least 40 people who were murdered because they grew up in a climate of hopelessness. How can we begin to inject hope into the inner cities, to those society has deemed unreachable?'

Obama: It's a big problem and we are not going to be able to turn it around overnight. I don't want people thinking, "I'm president, and suddenly you don't have any gangs on the streets, and you don't have any drugs being peddled on the corners." But I think that over the course of eight, 10 years, we can start moving in another direction, and it involves starting when they are young, investing in early childhood education, making sure that our kids are getting a healthy start, having a comprehensive health care program, so that every young person is getting the checkups they need, if they need eyeglasses, if they have a hearing impairment, if they're getting their vaccinations, whatever it is, making sure they are healthy and happy when they start school. That is point number one. Point number two is improving K-12 education, improving our teachers, giving them higher salaries. Also giving them more support, having after-school programs and summer-school programs so that the kids have some place to go and having a criminal-justice system that is focused more on prevention and not just apprehending criminals. You look at, for example, the way we deal with nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, first-time drug offenders, it turns out drug courts that force them to go to rehabilitation, where they are carefully monitored, is actually much more successful in preventing them in going back into a life of crime than just throwing them in a jail somewhere, and if we have a smart approach and not just a tough approach, but also a smart and tough approach to how we deal with the criminal-justice program, that can have an impact as well. There is a great example, the Harlem Children's Zone, a guy name Geoffrey Canada started this. It has a comprehensive approach to young people in that area, and you are starting to see graduation rates go up, college-attendance rates go up, reductions in terms of delinquency, so we can make progress on this stuff, but it takes sustained effort, and over the long term in the inner city, we obviously have to create jobs, so people have a path where they can see, "If I do the right thing, that's where I am going to end up," and right now, I think too many young people see that they don't have choices. So economic development in these communities, making small-business loans to communities, making sure we are building infrastructure and hiring young people to work, for example, in making buildings in the inner city more energy-efficient, that's good for the homeowner or the apartment-dweller. It is also an opportunity to train young people to insulate homes and do other stuff that might lead to a career in construction someday.

Sway: What about the relationship between the citizens and law enforcement, what can we do to improve that?

Obama: Law enforcement is generally a local issue, city, state, but one thing I think a president can do is to have a Justice Department that is thinking about working with local law enforcement to create best practices. So instead of waiting until there has been some question about whether there has been a civil-rights violation, have the Justice Department work with these law-enforcement agencies ahead of times, saying if you want a fair, just, law enforcement that has a good relationship with the community, here is what we found has worked over the course of time. So for example, when I was in Illinois, we set up one of the first-in-the-nation laws prohibiting racial profiling, but we didn't just say, "Don't racial profile." We went in and we, the state, gathered statistics in terms of local law enforcement, helped them to train their folks in terms of what is an appropriate traffic stop, how should you treat people. It's not perfect, but what it does is it creates a different kind of culture, that is going to be thinking about, "How do you deal with a community?"

Sway: The next question is from Gonzalez F. from Washington, D.C.: "I have been here in the U.S. since I was 3 years old. I didn't have a choice to come here. I have gotten accustomed to the American lifestyle. I can't even remember what Mexico looks like. My question is, will you help young immigrants, like us, become citizens of the United States?"

Obama: I have been consistent about this. What we need is a comprehensive approach. We are serious about the borders. We make sure folks aren't breaking the law. We crack down on employers who are unlawfully hiring undocumented workers, but we also provide a pathway to citizenship that has to be earned. People have to register, pay taxes, they have to pay a fine if they have come here illegally, they have to make sure they are learning English, if they don't already know English, they go to the back of the line so they don't get a legal residency before people who have applied legally, but I think we have to have a practical approach to this thing, so we make sure we have a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. That has been our history. We've got to do it in a way that isn't about left or right, ideological battles, we've just got to solve the problem.

Sway: The next question comes from GangstaGigz, out of San Leandro, California, which is near my home town of Oakland: "I was wondering, what is your reaction to Proposition 8, and would you vote yes or no on it?" And for our audience, Proposition 8 is the California state ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Obama: I have stated my opposition to that. I think it is unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about. Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them. What I believe is that if we have strong civil unions out there that provide legal rights to same-sex couples that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, that they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that is the direction we need to go. I think young people are ahead of the curve on this, for the most part. I think their attitude generally is, "We should be respectful of all people," and that is the kind of politics I want to practice.

Sway: So you would vote ...

Obama: I would vote no on the proposition.

Sway: Our next question comes from Eric out of Huntington Beach, California: "There are numerous cultures and subcultures in the United States today. Powers-that-be set statutes with monetary penalty on how people wear their clothes. Do you find it intrusive on civil liberties to create such ordinances?" And you know I got 'locks.

Obama: I wasn't going to pass a law, man. You look tight.

Sway: I know people have piercings, tattoos. Eric, in particular, is talking about a ban on sagging pants. Do feel like people should be penalized?

Obama: Here is my attitude: I think people passing a law against people wearing sagging pants is a waste of time. We should be focused on creating jobs, improving our schools, health care, dealing with the war in Iraq, and anybody, any public official, that is worrying about sagging pants probably needs to spend some time focusing on real problems out there. Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on. There are some issues that we face, that you don't have to pass a law, but that doesn't mean folks can't have some sense and some respect for other people and, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear — I'm one of them.

Sway: In regards to piercings, tattoos, I had a friend who worked for UPS and he had 'locks. He almost lost his job, but he fought for it. In regards to those things, how do you feel?

Obama: It's one thing if an employer discriminates on the basis of gender or sexual orientation or, obviously, race or ethnicity. I think employers can set standards. Now you got 'locks, but it looks clean, man, it's tight, and my little girl has twists, Malia, and to me, it looks great. Obviously I would be upset if she were discriminated against on that basis. On the other hand, if you are working at a fancy store and you show up to work in jeans and a shirt and you have a tatoo across your neck like Mike Tyson, for them to say, you know, "That is not the kind of image we are trying to project," obviously, that is in their rights as well. I think any business has the right to say, "This is the kind of tone we want to set," as long as they aren't discriminating on the basis of things people can't control.

Sway: I want to ask you about online rumors. You've been impacted by them as much as any other candidate, and I want to know, what do you do about this? Because a lot of people are going into the polls, and they consider these things they heard online true.

Obama: It's a huge problem, but it is one you've just got to battle through. You can't control the Internet, and I am a big believer in freedom of speech and, obviously, hard-core obscenity or child pornography, there are areas where it is legitimate to intervene. But generally, my attitude is the Internet is something that should be free to access whatever information they want. It is amazing to me that people believe what they read on the Internet all the time, unfiltered. I mean some e-mail pops up, whether it is selling them something that doesn't make sense or some letter from Nigeria saying you can make money if you just send me your bank-account number, or in our politics, we have been subject to a number of people falsely saying I am Muslim — I'm Christian — suggesting I wasn't born in this country, even though I just walked by the hospital where I was born. There have been all kinds of crazy rumors out there taking place, and the best thing we can do is just battle bad information with good information. We try to make sure we get our story out. We use the Internet as well as any campaign ever has, and I want to continue to use the Internet as a way, not just for us to get our information out, but for people to give us back suggestions and recommendations and ideas and input. That's part of what democracy is about, that is part of what has been exciting about out campaign.

Sway: You are in the final hours right now, and you have a gigantic audience that is watching you right now. What can you tell them about the importance of getting out to vote?

Obama: You've got a younger viewership on MTV, so let me be specific to the young people. Every decision that is going to be made in this election, or by the next president, is going to have an enormous impact on your lives. We've talked about some of them: your ability of whether you are going to afford to go to college, whether we have got an economy that's creating jobs for the future, whether we've got a tax code that is fair and gives everybody a chance at a better life, whether or not we are dealing with things like climate change, that could affect the well-being of the planet, are we continuing with two wars and how does that impact young people who are typically the ones who are fighting wars, what are we doing in terms of the criminal-justice system and making sure that's fair. All those issues are going to be decided right now. And you've got a big difference between myself and Senator McCain on almost every issue. And if you are satisfied with how the country is going right now, then I'm probably not your best option, but if you think we need fundamental change to make this country work the way it should and to give you a better future, then I hope you go to the polls. And if you don't know where to go, you can get on our Web site, www.voteforchange.com. You can go and vote. In many states there is early voting, in which case you can vote even before Election Day, but on Tuesday, even if there are long lines, just make sure that you are exercising your voice, because it can make all the difference in the world.

.

Is the system ready for the election turnout of 140million?

.

last pre-election poll

.

Obama's Grandmother

An Unprecedented Election Season

.

The New Poll Tax. Who can afford it?

.

Voting in the Nude?

.

It's Time for Some Campaigning

.

Ron Reagan Making It Official: I Endorse Barack Obama

Michael Moore on voter turnout suppression

.

The Rachel Maddow Experience

.

McCain is looking for a strong finish

.

McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of Spreading the Wealth

By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet
John McCain and Joe the Plumber are campaigning for Barack Obama, and they don't even know it. The more McCain has ramped up his attacks on Obama as a "spreader of wealth," the more the country has lined up behind the Democrat's plan to spread the wealth. If McCain's economic agenda was a gun and his attacks on Obama's agenda the bullets, the old soldier would have shot both his feet clean off a long time ago.

Watching the GOP's coordinated if increasingly delirious attacks on Obama's economic plan, it's clear that the party is even further out of touch with the America of 2008 than previously imagined. After eight years of establishing and then extending America's lead as the most unequal of all industrialized countries, Republicans thought they could deflect a national groundswell of righteous anger by dusting off and hurling every insult in the conservative arsenal, including old favorites "extremist," "radical," "Marxist" and "socialist." One suspects they are saving "anarchist" and "Hessian" for McCain's last-gasp speech on Monday.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Republican hammer-and-sickle-themed haunted house: Nobody showed. The McCain campaign's attempts to smear Obama as a Trojan donkey for socialistic un-Americanism have belly-flopped, if not backfired. Obama has not only maintained a stable lead under the Republican barrage, he has increased his positives in the traditionally Republican territory of taxes. The final national polls before Tuesday all show a national hunger for national wealth redistribution downward. An Ipsos/McClatchy poll finds that likely voters prefer Obama's tax plan to McCain's by 8 points. Pew says Obama added to his edge on taxes and the economy between mid-September and mid-October by 6 points, jumping from 44 to 39 earlier to 50 to 35. On Oct. 30, Gallup released results showing Americans favor Obama's style of wealth spreading by a whopping 58-to-37 margin.
It appears the nation's sanity and sense of fairness has reasserted itself to wipe the floor with condescending GOP red-baiting.
It hasn't hurt that the GOP attacks have been absurd on their face. A 3-point increase in the top marginal income tax rate to 39 percent is not easily morphed into the face of Pol Pot. For much of the 20th century, the top income tax rate in the United States slid between 50 percent and 90 percent, peaking at 94 percent during the final two years of World War II. Most Americans would agree that the mid-century rates were excessive, but support for some kind of progressive tax curve remains widespread. Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran winning campaigns promising to raise taxes on the rich.
"The public has always supported moderately progressive taxation, so I don't think McCain's pitch had much resonance unless he could convince people that Obama would raise their taxes," says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Obama inoculated himself against this attack by saying that he would cut taxes for 95 percent of the public. Basically, McCain was trying to make things up, and most people didn't believe him."
Charges of socialism are especially discordant coming from the McCain campaign. The top marginal income tax rate held steady at 50 percent for five years under McCain's hero, Ronald Reagan. His other hero, Teddy Roosevelt, was a fierce and early booster for federal income and estate taxes. And Sarah Palin? It wouldn't be all that surprising to see her turn up at a commemoration of this year's 70th anniversary of the Fourth International. As Hendrik Hertzberg noted in one of many recent New Yorker pieces debunking the newest GOP attack line, the redistributive principle is practiced with particular gusto in Palin's Alaska, where the governor spreads the oil wealth like creamy butter around the state's absorbent white bread. "One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor," notes Hertzberg, "is that she added an extra $1,200 to this year's (government) check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269." Earlier this summer, Palin boasted to journalist Philip Gourevitch, "Alaskans collectively own the resources. We share in the wealth."
Like Alaskans, we're all socialist now, to an extent, and have been for a long time. It's just a question of daring to speak the adjective's name, which happens to describe hugely popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. Watching McCain's socialist attack line flop, it's tempting to think that the country is edging closer to the day when the word, stripped of its Cold War baggage, no longer has the power to frighten Ohio. Another element is the further eclipse of the culture war by economics. As the country's shifting demographics grow over the divides opened up during the 1960s and '70s, attempts to bundle pinko economics with fears of godless agents of chaos become increasingly meaningless.
The Right is aware of and worried about this growing de-contextualization of the word "socialism." The counterrevolution against the New Deal was aided by the presence of the Soviet Union as a running counterpoint. But it's now almost 20 years after 1989. A generation has matured that never soaked up any of the old propaganda. This generation has studied abroad and knows you can Super-size it in Sweden. It has no memory of "Better Dead Than Red" and can't imagine an elderly British logician making international headlines for saying he'd rather crawl to Moscow on his hands and knees than die in a nuclear war. Conservatives worry about this group much as arms controllers worry that kids today don't understand the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. The right's fright over the post-Cold War generation's immunity to cries of "socialism!" was expressed clearly in an Oct. 27 editorial in the Investor's Business Daily titled "Defining Problems With Socialism for the Post-Cold War Generation."
"John McCain has finally called Barack Obama's agenda by its proper name," it begins. "But if he assumes voters understand what he means when he uses the word 'socialism,' he assumes too much. Sadly, most people under 60 in this country went to schools and universities where socialism isn't considered a bad thing."
Actually, those are two distinct groups -- those who don't understand the word or its gradations, and those who do and wouldn't mind living under most of them. What they have in common is that together they constitute a future United States where the word "socialist" carries an ever-weakening stigma.
Whether we choose to reclaim or dispense with the word, its days as a conversation stopper appear to be over. Over the last eight years, 90 percent of the new income generated has accrued to the top 10 percent, while average family incomes have dropped $2,000. These numbers have engendered bitterness on top of anxiety that has shifted the economic debate. If Democrats get a chance to seek forceful redress in the coming years, Republicans are sure to call Obama a socialist and much else besides. But that's OK. Tuesday's election is going to show that when people are hurting, they don't mind a little "socialism" -- just as long as it's pointed their way.

Rhe End is Near / Just the Facts

.

Rondo of Doom

Start:
The politics of divide and conquer really got started with Lee Atwater in 1988 - but it was perfected by Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Dick Armey and host of other sociopaths in 1994, perfectly cloned specimens of arrogance, vile and poison straight from the Reagan era, wrapped up in old time religion. It was man the torpedoes and full speed ahead - destroy all targets.
These villains promised the world to their constituents, but their real focus was the demonization of their enemies (e.g. The Democrats). While they delivered practically nothing on their promises (but of course said they did), the demonizing part succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. We began 12 years of a complete us vs. them method of governance. There was no big tent -- just a big cesspit.
All campaigns are nasty - that is part just part of the SOP. But for some reason 2008 seems particularly more mean spirited and vitriolic that the norm. Partly because we quickly forget how bad the past ones were. But more because we see the nastiness every day -- sometimes 20 times per day - on the countless news and information outlets that are clamoring to air this crap in the hope of selling more commercials for a few more bucks. The word "news" just doesn't exist anymore -- the Making of the President 2008 is pure soap opera - a really bad version of Peyton Place.
The name calling and character assassination from the right is at an all time high - Democrats are not tax and spend anymore - those would be kind words. To the Republican party anyone on the left is a socialist, a communist, is godless or just plain old anti-American. The GOP does hatred with such aplomb, it is as if they all went to the Lee Strasberg School of Method Acting - they are their characters. Rest assured there is not one iota of guilt in their collective brains - the hate and lies are spewed as if there are no repercussions to this kind of talk. Neither Michele Bachmann nor Sarah Palin have absolutely one shred of guilt in their conscience after labeling half of this nation as traitors. In fact, they are proud of it. Liddy Dole thinks it is just fine to call Kay Hagan godless. And when any of them are caught in their own words - they just lie to deflect all responsibility. Even if they are called on their lies -- they just lie some more.
The Republican party - which has proven to be nothing more than a bunch of fascist brown-shirts - will not go gently into the night - win or lose. The current crop of GOP leaders and loyalists are not driven by love of their country, they do not desire a better life for our society as a whole and they have a deep-seated hate towards intellectual progress. These 21st century Republicans are completely driven by the base emotions of power, greed and evil. Look at how people like Michele Bachmann, Liddy Dole, Norm Coleman and Scott Garrett have been talking to their constituents - saying that electing anyone other than themselves is tantamount to putting enemies of the state in office. And in this season political kabuki, they are ready to pull down the whole country if they slip from the reins of power.
This is more than governing by fear, it is brainwashing. We are the Manchurian Nation. Only it is not Angela Lansbury showing the Queen of Diamonds to Laurence Harvey. We have Sarah Palin winking to Rich Lowry and millions of other hard-up Republicans on national television giving them their cue to begin the "plan of action."
Where did this country go wrong? Even under Nixon and Reagan - two pretty loathsome characters - it was not this bad. Yes they cheated and lied and stole - but I don't remember the country being so split as it is now. I don't remember people hating each other so much because of their President.
The politics of divide and conquer really got started with… (go to Start to continue)

more

.