Lessig

quick.. upload this to youtube! there is till time till super tuesday!

Great. Unfortunately, I'm Scottish, and Scottish people cannot vote in this election. But your message was the most impressive I have listened about Obama. Thank you. I trust on you, U.S.

reposted to see if I can get it through the spam-trap] [part 1]

Reasonably argued, but regrets, I don't buy it.

1) Obama's no angel

From factcheck.org: Harry & Louise Again? February 4, 2008
Obama mailer on Clinton health care plan lacks context.

Summary: An Obama mailer stretches the differences between the candidates on health care"

2): Running for President requires an ENORMOUS amount of money. It has to come from somewhere. And Obama gets plenty of fat-cat support (can't give links or the spam-trap will eat this message).

3) US foreign policy in the Middle East is majorly driven by the economics of oil and alliances thereof. What the "Arab street" is going to see is not "change" but a colonial administrator, of a type they know real well. You're putting way more importance on symbols meaningful to US liberal intellectuals than make any real difference on the ground.

This is a first rate thoughtful piece. For what it's worth and that's probably not much, what persuaded me about Obama was that of the roughly 250 democrats who make a living from foreign policy, 90% supported him for president, primarily because they believed he had the best chance to restore America's positive standing in the world. The other reason was a speech he gave on education and its importance to our future. Hopefully, we'll see him in action.

I'm working on transcribing this now, using a Gobby server at monad.printf.net to edit collaboratively. I'll link to the transcript once we're done.

Thanks,

- Chris.

Obama 08'

Before I post a comment to the video...I found it funny that the two words I helped digitize were 'shady' and 'judge.'

As for the video, plenty of great points made. This man is the real deal, or off the charts as lessig says.

A point not made in the video, that Seth may consider, is that Obama can beat McCain, which Hillary will have a hard time doing. McCain vs. Clinton would be a throwback to the split decisions we've seen in the past.

Does this sound like a familiar Illinois politician? : "He went along with the... leaders in blaming the... administration for bringing on war...though he always voted for appropriations to sustain it. His opposition to the war was unpopular in his district, however." (Encyclopedia Americana, Grolier)

And Seth may be surprised to learn that this Illinois Congressman also lacked much experience in office with only 6years in the state house (same as Obama?) and a term in the U.S. house. But when the 1860's America needed to be United, Lincoln stepped up. (the war he earlier opposed was with Mexico)

Obama can take the veteran McCain, and all they throw at him.

Best all, and Seth, nothing but love for another interested and intelligent citizen.

Mark

Thank you Dr Lessig. You are an inspiration. I have appreciated you on so many levels. I have always valued your opinions, and even though I found Barack Obama without knowing you supported him, when I heard you did months ago, I was reassured.

Sadly, I see that the RNC and the Rovian politicans weren't discouraged from posting even here, even against you. FYI, I am one of those "fat cats" that donated to Barack Obama. I make about 50k a year and am a single mother of a disabled child. I don't get child support, I don't get any government handouts. I donated because this man IS THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THIS JOB. I donated to the maximum, just so you know. I've never donated to any political campaign before. I've' never participated in the primary process before.

But what you don't know and clearly don't realize is that I FULLY researched EVERY candidate in this race. This man is IT. And anyone who studies it and researches, as have so many Obama supporters (I even read the expose), knows it. So maybe you should go back to the drawing board!!

Barack is from Chicago; do you really think that Clintons wouldn't have 'exposed' whatever secrets, and do you really think he can't defend himself, after watching him brush off the Clintons' attacks??? C'mon. It's because of people like you, who have no hope and nothing but hatred to spew that people don't feel safe in trusting. What is it that keeps YOU from trusting? Sad....

Thank you again, Dr Lessig. It seems we will all have a place in an Obama Administration!!

Seth: Yikes, my father actually built a Wurlitzer like contraption...he said the drum was for me, but I never got to play it. I've never heard the term used as you did. Cheers.

Why can Obama win? Well, it's late so I'll try to slip this one by you...

Clinton votes + Republicans that don't like Clinton and don't like McCain > Republicans who like McCain + Democrats that don't like Obama

Mark

Nice video. One small error I noticed was that the video claims that when Obama made his anti-war speech in 2002, he was a candidate for the US Senate. According to Wiklipedia, Obama didn't announce his candidacy for US Senate until 2003.

p.s. no one cares about Michael Bloomberg? Anyone be willing to reconsider if he ran? Just curious 'cause I kinda like the guy.

@Seth:

1) Barack has attack Hillary Clinton, on her policy choices using accurate facts. The quote on the mailer you are referring to says "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it." This is a fact that she has on her website, and has repeated everywhere. This is what her mandate means. Everyone will have to buy a health care plan or face as yet unnamed (although hinted at) consequences.

2) Barack has raised an enormous amount of money, and yes, some of it is from wealth people, but he has also, in the month of January alone, gotten more than 250,000 DONORs (not dollars, donors).

3) Actually, symbols have far more importance than you realize. When you compare the symbolism of an Obama presidency, a man who has spoken out against the war in Iraq; a man whose father was a native African Muslim; who has deep familial ties outside of the United States to a Clinton, or even a McCain presidency - two people who supported the war in Iraq, vociferously, Clinton who has deep ties to Israel (especially through her AIPAC lobbyist friends), McCain who has said he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years if needed; both who say that even being seen in the same room with someone they are against would forever stain the prestige of the presidency - the Islamic world will see a significant difference in our foreign policy, even before any changes have been made.

4) Obama has been faced with probably the most hardened, difficult to defeat political combination the Democrats have to offer. Noone would have ever expected a "rookie" to be able to stand up against one Clinton alone, much less both of them in a focused attack. But he did it and came out shining. You are right that Clinton is a stronger trench fighter, but the fact that Obama has been able to do as well as he has against her has shown that he can hold his own against whatever the Republicans throw at him.

5) He has faced significant costs to do what is right. The Illinois Senatorial race would have been lost because he stood up for what is right were it not for his initial opponent so often doing what is wrong. He has repeated done what is right and not what is easy in fighting for lobbying reform, both in Illinois and in the Federal Congress (there is still work that needs to be done there though, which he acknowledges).

Bravo, Professor. Thank you for your superb contribution, as usual.

Seth: 4) Obama is a rookie. Going up against an experienced, mean, veteran in many senses. I don't see he can handle it. Bleating "Change!" isn't going to cut it.

Well, beating 'Change' got him to win Iowa, and all democrat AND republican candidates were beating 'Change' the next week. The Daily Show had a startling comparison of Romney praising Bush's Iraq policy the week before and talking about needing change the week after. Listen to the video about 'Change' again, Clinton doesn't mean it.

Seth: 3) US foreign policy in the Middle East is majorly driven by the economics of oil and alliances thereof. What the "Arab street" is going to see is not "change" but a colonial administrator, of a type they know real well. You're putting way more importance on symbols meaningful to US liberal intellectuals than make any real difference on the ground.

Obama's plan calls for us being out of Iraq 16 months after he takes office. Hilary doesn't have a plan. Her plan is to get advice within the first 60 days she's in office. Seeing a black man who had always opposed the war start bringing home our colonial troops the month after he takes office WILL make them see us differently.

@John J.

1) See the factcheck.org analysis - "But the Obama mailer leaves out any information on cost-reduction measures and low-income help that Clinton's plan offers, while it touts such measures found in his plan".

2) Every serious Presidential candidate has small donors. It doesn't matter nearly as much as hyped.

3) I see this point is going to get endless repetition of respondents saying that THEY like symbol :-(. I suspect people don't even know what I'm talking about in terms of what he's really going to symbolize.

4) The stuff he's been getting from the Clintons is nearly trivial compared to what the Republicans will do to him. I meant, he's gotten basic Usenet flame-war level distortions, not the character-assassination that'll come from the Rove-style smear-artists.

5) After reading the link I gave above, I'm again less inclined to think of him as a beacon of moral purity than someone who took a calculated risk which paid off.

Seth,

The issue is not whether the Clinton campaign is worse than the republicans. The issue is that there is a line, that Larry calls Rovian politics, and to many of us that line must not be crossed.

It does not matter if you are 10% Rovian and the Republicans are 100% Rovian. The issue is that they are using Rovian techniques to achieve their goals. And electing people that use these techniques over people that do not will only reward the people that continue using them. Minute 13 articulates this very well.

Miguel.

Larry - that was great, but I think you didn't focus upon easily the most important issue - electability. This is the number one issue for me Since Obama and Clinton aren't far apart on policy issues, I want the Democratic nominee to be the one that has the best chance to win against the Republican candidate in the national election. Obama is clearly that candidate.

The problem with Hilary Clinton is that she is -- for whatever reason -- a very polarizing figure to moderates and conservatives (and even some liberals). Her presence on the ballot would surely galvanize Republicans to the polls in November in a way that Obama's presence certainly would not.

This upcoming election is crucial. More than likely, the next president will appoint at least two Supreme Court justices (Stephens, Ginsburg), and many more lower court federal judges. Democrats cannot afford to screw this one up. We have a history of being blinded by our insularity, and selecting primary candidates that are utterly unpalatable to the population at large (Mondale, Dukakis, Humphrey). We live in our little blue enclaves of New York, Massachusetts, California, and D.C., not caring as to what appeals to the country at large. We can't afford to do this here.

While I think that Hilary would make a fine President, she simply will not win the national election. The combination of her polarizing image to the right, and her inability to attract independents (especially against a candidate like McCain).

We have to be sensible, and put our differences aside, and select the most electable candidate. This is what the Republicans have done in focusing on McCain - by far the most electable of the Republicans. I'm sure that many would have liked to have seen President Huckabee, but taking electability concerns into account, cast their ballot for McCain. It amazes me how many Democrats are not taking electability into account – a naïve, simplistic, and ultimately, fatal flaw.

I hate to say it, but Obama is electable, Clinton is not, and this is the issue that Democrats should be focused upon.

[second try]
Miguel, I think the characterization of what Hillary Clinton did as Rovian is overwrought. I'm not defending it, but Rove is on another level entirely. There's a lot of lying in politics.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_creative_clippings_part_deux.html
"The Obama campaign's new ad uses an old trick and takes quotes from newspapers out of context."

After reading up on the website speech issue, I think Hillary Clinton had an underlying reasonable point and went too far with it. But I'm not going to put her on different moral plane for that.

I understand the impulse to play up the favored candidate and play down the disfavored candidate. But I'm saying I find these arguments unconvincing.

Michelle Berman: - I don't see the utter obviousness of Barack Obama's electability, especially factoring in what he'll look like after the 2008 Swift Boaters get through with him. In fact, I think Hillary Clinton's argument that basically they can't smear her any worse than they've done already is a pretty good, if sad, case for her candidacy.

I was actually extremely disappointed in this video. I expected a little discussion of Obama's tech policy! It was just another "Obama is better than crazy old Clinton video." Sure, I guess it helps to hear that message from your mouth, Lawrence, but I think you're in a position to say a lot more on certain subjects. Please don't squander that opportunity.

Thanks for trying to get this out before Super Tuesday, though.

Seth Finkelstein said: "Obama is a rookie."
After 8 yrs with another member of the Bush family, I'll take a newb.

thanks for the video; i will link it from
http://www.electionlogs.com

Thank you, Professor, for this cogent presentation. I'm sending your guy success vibes from across the pond. Go, Obama!!!

While I'm at work and can't watch your video with sound at the moment, I've already spread your video to those I know who are undecided or even decided. I hope you've followed the advice given above and uploaded this to YouTube. You could be instrumental in changing minds (along with the "Yes We Can" video).

Thanks for the detailed response to the request. Obama will certainly fair better for it.

I read the transcript, and I thank you for your well thought-out views. To the individual who posted the transcript, thank you as well!

I'm registered as a Republican, yet I've always been closer to the conceptual middle ground. That said, on this important day (I'm voting in TN), I shall be casting my vote for Mr. Obama. I've been reading about the candidates for some time, but your words are what essentially decided things for me. Thank you for taking the time.

The minutia of factual correctness is lost on me. We all know that this is the biggest game there is and it will get garbled and dirty. On the whole the Obama and Clinton platforms are quite similar so I turn to my sense of character, conviction and the direction the country might take.

I have to give the nod to Obama on all three counts, with the last being the most important. We simply must curtail the power of the presidency. If indeed Obama lacks the experience that Clinton has in the White House and inside the beltway, that's probably a good thing. There's plenty of talent in the Democratic party to provide him with staff and departmental guidance and the Congress clearly needs to reassert it's constitutional authority.
It's unlikely that the Clintons, especially the messianic Mr. Bill, would be willing to back off presidential authority one inch.

Thanks for the video piece. Nicely done. Okay, maybe it's not perfect but, hey, that's politics ain't it?

Yet Obama didn't have the integrity to vote against funding the war, nor of voting against the Patriot Act.

Ron Paul has far more integrity and courage that Mr. Obama.

Great Piece, I passed this onto our Precinct Captain for tonight, thank you!

as to Ron Paul, other than being a kook with a very iffy voting record and affiliations with some less than savory organizations, all you GOPers vote away for him, it is sweet irony that you get the Nader this time, lol

i voted for barack in illinois this morning

video here

> Unfortunately, Hillary is the one Democrat who will unite the right and lose the general election.

Pete Ashdown: You are *absolutely* right about this. This is the main issue - electability.

Imagine if the Republicans selected Rush Limbaugh or David Duke a similar polarizing figure as their candidate. Democrats would stream out in droves to the polls simply to vote against him -- regardless of who their own nominee was.

You can imagine your visceral reaction to this idea -- this is essentially the reaction of the core of the Republican party to the idea of HIlary Clinton as President. While she is electable in a blue state like New York, she is unelectable nation wide. It has nothing to do with her ability to weather "Swift Boat" attacks -- that is totally irrelevant. She inspires the opposition to vote, and that alone means that she has no chance nationally.

Obama, while certainly not a sure-fire winner, and not without problems, is immensely more electable that Clinton for the reason that he won't passionately unite the GOP against him (the same way that McCain won't passionately unite the Democrats against him the way a Limbaugh might).

This video on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo

Dynasties in power = not a Democratic model = not an example for US to show to a world in trouble and in which US influence is needed.

The world is watching and the world needs example.

Wouldn't it be great if the USA could set an example...the USA as the first of the colonies to leave the British Empire with its amazing DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and what an example it showed for a new democratic model rather than an inherited privilege ?

And then Civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's and what it inspired around the world ?

And now this? We are in a changing time and we need innovative thinking

IF the USA can reinvent itself and send a message by example to younger democracies and to democracies which have yet to be formed and to those in trouble, corrupted and failing.

CHANGE......?

YES YOU CAN USA...............I LOVE America for this, for this window of opportunity.

Carpe diem

In others words wote for change, what ever that is. Of course this is the election of a candidate, not the president. After 8 years of Bush i'd rather stay in the realist based community than join a cult.

Nice words from a former young Republican.

Great thoughts... trackbacks don't seem to be showing up, so here's my response:

http://www.tallent.us/blog/?p=24

Thank you for this video. Doing my best to get this out to as many people as possible. Any possibility to get this on youtube?

I'm a 23-year-old Stanford alumna with close family and friends throughout the Middle East. I've worked extensively with Iraqi refugees in Beirut. It's safe to say I've spent a fair share of time listening to "the Arab street." And contrary to what Mr. Finkelstein claims, the Arab world is eagerly anticipating the outcome of this election--in favor of Obama. Because of Senator Obama’s long-standing position against the war, and because of his own cultural background (African father, white mother, childhood in both Hawaii and Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country), his presidency could restore our standing in the Middle East and throughout the international community, a feat not to be undervalued. Lebanese cab drivers and Baghdadi doctors alike have expressed this sentiment, sharing the view that Obama would radically change the face of America. In the words of one Egyptian barista, "If Obama's elected, it's not just a change for America. It would be like the entire US extending a handshake. We'd be living in a different world." After eight years of the Bush Administration--not to mention the sanctions carried against Iraq throughout the Clinton Administration, claiming the lives of nearly 800,000 children--an Obama presidency would signify to the Arab world that we, the American people, seek a change in policy. Their animosity toward the US would be, at least to some extent, defused. Mr. Goemaat has it right.

Just as American youth have been inspired, more than ever before in our nation's modern history, to reengage in political discourse, so too will the international community be inspired to reengage with the American people.

professor lessig, hopefully you can pause the bush-bashing long enough to acknowledge that President Buch has the same "moral courage" -- he pursues what he thinks is right regardless of the political cost or poll data. bur somehow his critics find this to be a bad quality.

also, i don't understand the notion that we need to somehow restore the USA's popularity or respect in the world. particularly in the arab/muslim world -- the attacks on 9/11 did NOT come about because of bush policies! he was in office for less than 8 months when 9/11 occurred. simply electing obama will not magically umdue the c;ash-of-civilizations between the west and the islamic world, a struggle which has been hot and bloody for 1200 years and which contemporary difficulties over oil or the Shah or Israel/Palestine are symptoms, not the disease.

any case, again, if we somehow magically "undo" the effects of the Bush administration, all we are left with is... the world which created 9/11

@insider: dogged obstinence is not the same thing as moral courage.
It is not moral to invade countries based on faulty intelligence and suspicion.
It is not moral to take away the civil rights of citizens in the name of security.
It is not moral to bankrupt an economy as you leave office.
It is not moral to make nuclear threats against a country that your own intelligence agencies tell you is no threat.
It is not moral to torture prisoners of war and detainees.

We don't need another "decider," we need someone with a much stronger moral compass.

You make a good point about 9/11, but the reality is that those people hate us and attack us because of the last 50 years of us meddling in their affairs.

So yes, the problem already existed, but Bush had just exacerbated it with his indiscriminate warmongering, playing into Bin Laden's goals (which, stated recently, are to drain us financially just as we helped him drain the USSR in Afghanistan back in the 80's).

You've done more than anyone to persuade me that Obama is the right candidate for me. I hope I can vote for him in November.

Thank you, Professor.

Are you serious? Are you off your damn rocker?? You're favoring a MUSLIM, whose religion has an allegiance to Africa, (and that is NOT optional)!! Not to mention the fact that when the American Flag was raised and all were raising their hands to their hearts and singing praise to our beautiful country, Obama turned his back on OUR FLAG, and refused to put his hand over his heart, nor pledge his allegiance to the Flag of our country. ...You know, that country he's running for PRESIDENT of.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU IDIOTS?! Open your eyes you morons!! He wants to pull our troops out, and you think that is a good idea?! Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves for all they did to give us this nation, only to have an uprising of an evil generation come in and ruin it.

Bush did the RIGHT thing sending troops into these countries. He caught a man who has been murdering his own, and putting fear into Americans for DECADES, and sent a clear message that we as Americans will not sit with our eyes closed and allow MUSLIMS to kills thousands of our people senslessly because A: they're jealous of our freedoms, and B: because they're so sick they think that murdering people will take them to heaven and they'll have 40 virgins waiting for them. What!?!? Won't they be surprised after they drove those planes into our buildings, leaving thousands of families without mothers, husbands, FATHERS, MOTHERS, sons, daughters...

I could go on and on about how warped, ignorant, and stupid you all are, but quite frankly, you're NOT worth the time.

You're all ignorant morons, and Obama would be doom for our country. Trust me, if he gets in office, he's got something up his sleeve.

I am 27 years old, I've followed politics since I was 11 years old, and I am STUNNED by the lack of intelligence, lack of any sense of devotion to this country and what it stands for, and lack of KNOWLEDGE, or IGNORANCE of ... FACTS. Democrats wouldn't know FACTS if their life depended on it. You're all a disease to this WORLD.

Thank you, thank you, Dr. Lessig! I knew Obama was our person at the beginning of this race. But your video has given me something I can share with others to explain our position.

Clinton does not have the solid values I teach my children. Obama does. This is why so many young people have come out in droves to vote for change. They are without hope with our current politicians who have run this country in the ground, raped our planet and have severely diminished our image. They need hope that only a leader with a clean spirit and solid values can give them. They need hope for tomorrow. We all do.

I am SO READY for change. My money is on Obama!

To the person who commented about Common Sense, I would just like to say how thankful I am that you are not able to run for office. Your idiocy up above is honestly one of the most frightening things I have ever read, it scares me that there are people as stupid and easily manipulated as you. You have been following politics since you were 11? After reading your unintelligible banter, I feel as though you yourself may very well be a religious zealot who views the Muslim religion as a threat, and that is not the case. There are religious extremists in every religion, and I get the sense you may be one yourself. Islam does not have an "allegiance" to Africa, it's 72 virgins not 40, Obama is not very religious, and he NEVER turned his back on the American flag. I am a 29 year old Roman Catholic though not deeply religious, a veteran, and I wholeheartedly support Obama and what he is trying to do. If any of your idiotic insight were true, he would not have gotten as far as he has, so please do the world a favor and A) castrate yourself, ASAP, and B) stop trying to spread your unfounded, baseless accusations and actually open up a book and learn a thing or 2.

Did you go to war? Did you see men & women hurt or killed? Did you sit in briefings for hours and leave with no clear concept of what your objectives were because there were none? Yeah, until you face the enemy, you have no right to determine who we should and shouldn't focus on.

Go OBAMA!!!

awsome video

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

Lessig,
Great video, but might I ask what font was used in said video? Thanks.

@Common Sense
You do realize that Obama is not a Muslim, right? He is a Christian and has been his entire life. Don't believe every e-mail you get or everything you hear from Rush Limbaugh.