. . . is what I got after reading this convoluted article by Professor Akhil Reed Amar on how Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, (D-NY), and Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), could serve a co-presidents, or something like that.
But which should it be: Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton? In fact, voters in November could actually endorse both versions of the ticket—truly, two presidents for the price of one. How? The Constitution’s 25th Amendment allows for a new paradigm of political teamwork: The two Democratic candidates could publicly agree to take turns in the top slot.
Then, at some agreed upon point, the President would cede power to the vice-president and, with Congressional approval, become the vice-president. The same team would then run for re-election four years later and four years after that, after which one of them would have to drop out because they would have been elected president twice. The remaining person could then run for president on his her own power.
Akhil Reed Amar teaches constitutional law at Yale University and he wrote “America’s Constitution: A Biography.” He is also a winner of the American Bar Association’s 2006 Silver Gavel Award. He is, in other words, a very smart guy and he said this could be done.
Whether it should done is, of course, another matter entirely.
Obama addressing a crowd the day after his race speech (Davis Turner/European Pressphoto Agency)
A not-too-bad round-up on the history that led to the Speech Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), gave in Philadelphia last week. The article shows, in some ways, how far we still have to go in our society to get to that bridge called fairness. I mean the place where we could actually be honest and fair and true with each other.
Dick Gregory at State of Black Union ’08
The veteran comedian/civil rights activist long ago made a practice of packing his humor with a stiletto scalpel that cuts so quick you sometimes don’t know whether to laugh, or cry. This late February 2008 event was no different:
Tricking Bill (Clinton)
I have read Roger Cohen in The New York Times over the years but began reading him in earnest during the 2006 World Cup in Germany, some op-eds and most often his brilliant blog posts on the matches and the game of soccer. The pieces were elegant and learned, almost too much for the assignment.
The trouble, of course, is that he is published by The International Herald Tribune, not regularly by the Times.
It is a treasure to see him, if not in the pages of the Times, then at least on its website. Today’s piece by him is one of the most graceful I’ve read by him. I would quote him, except I would not know where to begin and Fair Use laws prevents me from plopping the whole piece here.
Let me offer one paragraph. You’ll have to go read the rest:
It takes bravery, and perhaps an unusual black-white vantage point, to navigate these places where hurt is profound, incomprehension the rule, just as it takes courage to say, as Obama did, that black “anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”
Nicholas Kristof would go back to writing about prostitutes. Better yet, he should leave the country for a long expedition to Asia and Africa, purchasing (and rescuing) every last prostitute he comes across. Until after the election.
Dwill at Sports on My Mind has already covered this a lot better than I will. Others have chimed in. Tom Withers, in an Associated Press report picked up by Huffingtonpost, breathlessly reported that “The Cleveland Cavaliers’ superstar will appear on the April cover of Vogue, joining actors Richard Gere and George Clooney as the only men to do so in the influential fashion magazine’s 116-year history.”
If we agree that these magazines sell fantasy, here are Lebron and Gisele in the image below. The next image, which was forwarded to me, comes courtesy of Amazon.com. George Clooney and I don’t know who are in the last image. Clooney is in a suit, a smile on his face, a woman in his embrace. Whatever is going on with Ms. Bundchen, how did Lebron end up with the yell, in workout clothes?
Let me start with my friend Jim Sleeper:
As a demonstration of grace under immense pressure, his performance in Philadelphia will be a classic study for orators. As an act of moral witness and prophecy for a trans-racial America, the speech was straightforward yet profound in an inimitably American idiom that few partisans and pundits, soused in stale pieties and rancid evasions, comprehend.He’s gambling that most Americans will comprehend him anyway. Here’s hoping. Let me explain what I think Obama accomplished with a story I’m sure he’d appreciate, an experience I had 15 years ago with Brooklyn’s equivalent of Obama’s pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright.
* * *Mr. Sleeper mentioned some history about New York racial politics, especially his part in that history as a columnist for the New York Daily News. Some people heaped venom on him for some of his views and he and I debated some of those views. Although he often frustrated me in those days, our discussions were always civilized. I am not nearly as wise or as learned as Mr. Sleeper (he’s also a touch older than I am) but I take a measure of pleasure in the fact that our views seem to be a bit closer now.In his current TPMcafe column,
Two friends, I’ll identify them as “M” and “Anon,” offered these reactions to the part of the speech by Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), that I said rang false to me.
First “M”:
It is a tactical decision indeed, as all actions and words are by all the candidates. And by all politicians in general. This looks to me like an insurmountable problem.This is not a government for the people, by the people.
Regarding the Israel comment of his I highlighted, it seems that he has acutely changed or modified his attitude. (Again or the attitude he tactically puts out in the public). It may be hard to believe, but my Arab-ness has really nothing to do with my feelings about Israel. I was also raised Coptic Orthodox (and am agnostic) and relate little if at all to Muslims or any religions. That being said, I do have very strong feelings about Israel occupying a country and committing countless inhumane acts (on a regular basis) against Palestinians.
The worst, almost laughable part of it, is that Zionism was born from the horrifying reality of the Holocaust.
And yet, here they are perpetuating and creating apartheid on another group of people. And no country is brave enough to stand up to Israel? To even discuss it in THOSE terms? For fear they may be labeled an anti-semite? It’s preposterous. Just today the news reported the German chancellor paying her visit to Israel.-and all the “shame” Germany felt for the past.I wonder if she took a look over the wall.
M
It was a consciously somber, serious disquisition on an incendiary topic. Going into it, I lamented the absurdity of Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), having to make the speech in the first place. A third of the way into it, I was glad he was making the speech.
I don’t believe the speech will settle anything for those who were not going to support Obama anyway. It may not even have persuaded former supporters who broke with him over the issue.
But, if you’re open-minded, this was the nuanced, heartfelt speech you hoped for. He eschewed the obvious rah, rah political applause lines and spoke quietly, calmly, without anger or frustration. I am glad he gave the speech.
I should say that one line in the speech rang false to me:
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.