Gioacchino Livigni's Blog

Obama- Webb and a new Populism

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Thu, 22 May 2008 07:25:33 EDT

The coming onto the scene of Jim Webb with his discussion on Scotts-Irish poverty, introduced on Morning Joe, could in my opinion lead to a profound transformation of the Red State Blue State map, if I am reading this correctly.

There is a potential for a much broader argument on race emerging. Frankly, I was not expecting this dialogue at all, but I welcome it!!

I can tell you that as an Italian, born in Brooklyn and living in Philly, my people do not feel responsible IN THE LEAST for slavery in America. But we do understand there is a historic and a present level of discrimination when it comes to African Americans that needs to be overcome; but that feeling has a real spectrum of intensity and relevance in every day life.

A lot of folks, not only Italians, don't feel they are historically responsible for the plight of African Americans in this Country, but they live the reality of the consequences of this battle in inner city politics. The Italians have their political reps in Unions, City Officials, etc. The Black people have their guys, that represent their interests in inner city life, etc. The battle between races is a battle of constituencies bringing their interests to the table, vying for a piece of the pie.

I don't know the sentiment among Scotts-Irish, but I can understand Jim Webb's point about the cultural backlash of disenfranchisement when it comes to groups among Whites, considered White, but who were not historically involved in slavery, and who feel they have missed the opportunities of empowerment that came with Affirmative Action.

Cleary we have to understand that Affirmative Action is not just making up for slavery, but rather is about an ongoing process of transformation of society aiming at allowing generational wrongs to be made right... giving opportunity to human beings who for generations were pushed down and hurt to overcome the ripple effect of those generational wrongs through time. I think Jim Webb's point was, in fact, that this description is felt as relevant for more than just African Americans in this Country.

We should ponder the fact that there are groups among Whites in America who hold more culpability than others for what happened to African Americans, and some groups may feel a common sense of disenfranchisement in society, like the Scotts-Irish according to Webb, which unavoidably leads to an ongoing battle of interests. I think this was what Webb was getting at in his recent interview on Morning Joe. So, I believe there is an opportunity here to unite these interests, these segments of society that feel they have been hurt and neglected.

This dialogue can and should be conducted carefully as one meant to unite rather than divide.

If we could look at the common plight of our ancestors, which has lead to the kinds of division existing in our country, I believe many could feel a sense of being disenfranchised by power. The question is WHAT WILL WE DO WITH THAT NOTION?

Will we use this notion to foment anger and rebellion within and without, which Webb sees at the basis of the Appalachian vote; or will we use it to find a new form of Populism as Jim Webb suggests?

Clearly, there is racism in Appalachia, no matter how we slice it or dice it. In fact, this whole issue is about explaining how that anger and bitterness Barack was speaking about in San Francisco is finding a narrative in society. Will we hide our heads in the sand, or can we find a path to healing? I think Jim Webb has found a narrative for this, perhaps relevant within the consciousness of Appalachia, and that we should pay close attention to.

If we choose to pay attention, listening rather than judging, we have a historic opportunity to start a dialogue among racial segments that are in the same boat when it comes to economics, uniting these groups more fully under the banner of similar goals. Racism no doubt has a basis in socio-economic struggles. Perhaps in working together along these very lines we have an unprecedented opportunity at hand to start a dialogue which is relevant to each party in question, and which has the potential to bridge gaps in ways that words alone are unable.

I think the Democratic party already has this message of unity within its agenda, but has been unable to motivate a very large segment of Red States to vote in their economic interest because it has not united the cultures, the histories, the narratives - correctly.

Can Obama and Webb start a movement to unite disenfranchised people of different cultures and races under one populist banner? What impact would this have on the geography of Red and Blue States?

Can you imagine the opportunity at hand when it comes to furthering equality in this Country?

I sense a profoundly impactful opportunity at hand.

Special Interests causing Democratic Congress to quake

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:59:32 EDT

The Hill is reporting that Congressional Democrats are backing away from promises and positions of the Presidential candidates regarding healthcare reform.

Listen in particular to what the Hillary Clinton supporters are saying:

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is 'not sure we have the big plan on healthcare.'...'Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan,' Schumer said...Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), a Clinton supporter who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said "the money is not necessarily there right now" to enact the plans.

In essence, there is no chance with Clinton to get Healthcare passed because the Clinton people and Clinton herself are tied to lobbyists way too much. Of course, Clinton wont say what her supporter Schumer is saying, and once she is in office she will blame others for her lack of leadership.

Lets see what Hillary has to say about this latest development.

I hope Barack comes out strongly against this evident lack of committment in the Congressional Democrats. I hope he denounces their work as "politics as usual" and decries the evident pressure of special interests.

What I learned in Philadelphia - race and class

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:50:34 EDT

this is a continuation of my "GO POSITIVE" blog entry.

I think at this point, not only must he remain positive. Barack has to actually sway consciences. If there is ONE THING that we saw in Pennsylvania that caused us great trouble, it is that many have deep seated biases linked to the political games conducted on the ground from neighborhood to neighborhood. People have developed over the decades, perhaps even longer, a sense of "natural constituency." The Italians want to vote for an Italian candidate; the Irish for an Irish; the African Americans for African Americans, etc. The "other guy" is not sticking up for "us" - is the underlying sentiment, even if not spoken. Barack Obama for many Blue Collar White Americans is "the other guy's man." It is a fear borne of the divisive political realities that infect all parties and unions.

So, Barack needs to literally "convert" people. His inspiration needs to be brought up even further, and I believe its not only about Hillary, but even McCain at this point. His instinct the other day to compliment John McCain was swiftly punished by the Clintons. He has to show he is different,yes. But that is not enough. He has to actively engage this community. He has to give decisive speeches about the doubts the Clintons have sewn.

Many fear he is a Black guy that hates Whites. They believe his preacher is a reflection of what he feels about Whites. They fear that any negative aspect of Black Liberation Theology is exactly the essence of Barack Obama. They fear the rumors of his being Muslim. They fear even the lapel pin issue. These ridiculous accusations are ridiculous to us, but in the irrationality of those driven by bias, they are relevant, and they equate to Barack being the "other guy's man." The "Black guy representing the Blacks in Philadelphia" is a specific type of candidate in the minds of Blue Collar workers. Barack fits into that mold automatically... and with these distractions, that sentiment has been enhanced.

Going negative wont change that. He needs to bridge that divide, a real racial political divide.

Jack

Go Positive

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:00:21 EDT

My Dear Fellow Obama Supporters,

Thank you so much for what you have done!! Think about this clearly. You in Philadelphia gave Barack Obama a 30 point victory in our City. You gave Barack Obama such a tremendous boost in numbers. Remember, the media is going to try to push this all the way to the convention. PA was the last major State for Hillary Clinton to try to ignite a "catching up" in any possible way. Now she can ONLY win by negating the Democratic process, overthrowing the will of the people. That WILL NOT HAPPEN. It just won't. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Superdelegates are not going to overturn the will of the people. All this has been sealed by PHILADELPHIA. We negated Hillary Clinton a substantially greater victory.

We canvassed hard! We got the vote out! We put door hangers out! We rallied! We marched! We mobilized time after time, and delivered Philadelphia to Barack Obama, all over, and not just in the African American community. I am so proud of the Philadelphia grassroots Obama movement!

Now, lets talk frankly my friends, because in the end I am going to ask you to do something.

Can we agree that a substantial number of White Blue Collar Pennsylvanians showed great resistance in voting for Barack? I think I saw this in my canvassing in South Philly. Also, we can agree that negative campaigning does not help. <b>Some</b> folks motivated by an irrational negative bias are not swayed by negative campaigning. When an individual's conscience is compromised by a negative bias, they know it almost always. So they look for reasons to justify and validate themselves. Often, negative campaigning gives them that justification, not because they resolve their moral dilemma, but because they can accuse the object of their bias of being immoral, negative, a bully, etc. We all probably were jumped by out of State Hillary people on the street telling us how negative Barack was, and we just chuckled, right? People see what they want.

So, what is the solution? We have to return to promoting the Obama revolution of hope, positivity, unity, and higher destiny for our country. Hillary wants to go even more negative? Let her. We know she is negative, divisive, lying, and disingenuous. So does everyone else... more than 60% of Americans think of her as dishonest. That statistic was valid in PA too... and yet 55% voted for her. Why? Because many consciences were not swayed to a better place. They accepted a liar rather than vote for Obama. Why? Because he hasn't reached them enough to move them. I think he can. He has to bridge the racial divide. He has to reach out and touch the conscience and bring us to a better place.

He got an immediate boost after his speech on race. Why? Because he touched consciences. That is what we need. He must dig into the deep resources his soul abounds in. He must talk about the possibilities we have when we transcend racial barriers. He must talk about the possibilities we have when we transcend and overcome poverty, disease, global conflicts and perils. He must talk about how he is more qualified to offer sticks and carrots in our difficult foreign policy... While Clinton is talking about annihilating Iran, he needs to be talking about forming a positive coalition of Arab and non Arab nations around Iran exerting pressure on it to stop its provocations.

In essence, Barack needs to verbalize all those things which we sense he will be great at, and that Hillary could never do.

There is word that some in Barack's campaign want him to go even more negative in the next two weeks. I think he should announce a major speech and announce that he will abandon all negative campaigning with Hillary Clinton and give a series of policy speeches about race, gender, peace, national security, foreign policy, etc.

I know he has a tight two weeks ahead of him. I ask all of you to write in your blogs, and to your contacts in the campaign to exert our pressure to abandon the negative campaign.

Look, I was the first to say a month and a half ago that he needed to hit back hard. I believe now that I was wrong... and its not the first time. It doesn't work because Obama is not a negative person nor is this movement, and because the people he needs to convince most need to be touched in their conscience and heart, which requires a tremendous positive force, almost, in fact, an internally healing one. Plus, we need this to get the Clinton followers to abandon their Obama-hate. He needs to reach out NOW to the Hillary people, because he, in fact, will be the nominee, and we need them before November. We can't wait to be united in November. We need to be united in July.

Can you reach out with me by blogging a push for abandoning negative campaigning? I sense clearly that Barack is more intelligent and deeper than I am, and he senses this need to go positive, and I don't want him to feel pressured by his campaign too much, and I think he will feel our support if we voice it.

Thanks

Jack Livigni

People See What They Want

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:36:04 EDT

I have spoken to a lot of folks in PA in the last 48 hours. We have all been so upset at the media for their distortions about the SF comments, etc. People are asking themselves "why" reporters would do what they have. Why can't they just accept Obama's clarification? Why can't they accept that "clinging to religion" is not meant in a negative way, but rather as a positive, especially coming from one who has done exactly that very thing? Given, he misspoke in that he lumped together positives and negatives - religion with antipathy, etc., but it is clear to anyone who actually wants to see based on the facts of the man's life.

People see what they want to see, and reporters want to be famous for bringing down the famous Black guy who almost became President... these news outlets are as far from embodying the 4th Estate as ever in American history!

I would not be too worried about all this. As soon as they see that people are too smart for their attempts at steering this Primary all the way to Denver (their pathetic quest for ratings, money, and self-importance) and their manipulations, they will abandon this story for another.

We should never give too much weight to any of these news channels. Its a pathetic state of affairs.

Richardson Endorsement

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:41:15 EDT

I am so happy to hear that Gov. Richardson is endorsing Barack. I have long supported the idea of an Obama-Richardson ticket. I think it would be a fanstastic ticket.

Suggestions on how to explain Barack's staying with his Church

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 04:07:47 EDT

I am a Mormon, and as such I have had to explain many times my membership when questioned about past practices and statements of Church leaders.

Perhaps Barack can garner some ideas from my experience.

God calls us to him, and gives us faith and inspires us with a desire to change and transform our lives. There is no Church or organization that is perfect, because the people that make up the Church body are all imperfect. However, God still calls us through the ministry of those organizations, and through people who turn out to have made serious mistakes, at some point or another. But it is not the preacher, but rather God that calls us! We cannot deny the fact that it is in a specific context that God revealed himself to us, and that we experienced his love.

The fact that we are called to God through a specific ministry, and or minister, is part of who we are and our experience with God. It is significant.

GOD CALLS US TO A SPECIFIC PLACE BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Barack Obama is a bridge between a previous generation of African Americans, who have grown up under very difficult circumstances, like Pastor Wright, in the 60s, and a new generation of African Americans. Barack cannot just abandon the reality of pain and anger from the past without also losing his ability to significantly impact the community he was called to serve. He has to show the way of reconciliation between the previous generation and the new one; between the reality of pain and hurt from a previous generation and the hope and new horizons of a new generation. He can only do this by not abandoning those who are angry and hurt. He can condemn their words, their actions,when these are not in harmony with his sense of right and wrong, but he has a duty and an obligation to stick with his Church and group, showing the older generation the way. You can accept the sinner without accepting their sin. And accepting the sinner transcends petty politics.

God calls us to our Church because we are meant to make a difference there until he tells us otherwise. It is our mission and our test of faith.

People can't argue against our mission and our desire to make a positive contribution to our religious community. We can reject the teachings of a pastor and still feel called by God to stick with the community because we feel we are meant to make a difference there. We are the bridge between the wrongs of the past and the hope of the future.

Ridiculous Bill Clinton: WE WILL NOT BE ROBBED!

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:19:43 EDT

I find it so incredibly arrogant of former President Clinton to suggest that Barack Obama would be a great VP for his wife. They have spent weeks now trying to portray Obama as incapable and inexperienced. All of the sudden he would be a great Vice President?

The Clintons are incredibly desperate to sway the minds of super-delegates. Of course they know Clinton would NEVER be picked as a VP by Obama. They also want to give this aura of superiority and inevitability again .

The Clintons, Begala, Dean, Carville, and all the other party officials don't get it. Indepedents like me have registered as Democrats JUST FOR OBAMA; so that we could vote in the Primaries in our States (mine is PA). Many of us, a great number, will never vote for Clinton, even if Obama were her VP. People like me can and will determine the outcome of this race.

This blog message is not meant for Obama. I know he will win, I am, and will fight for this, notwitstanding the hellbound plotting of the Clintons. This message is meant to speak loudly to the Democratic Party and Superdelegates. If you think you can take the will of the people and subvert it for your power games with the Clintons and then take the election in November, you have something else coming your way!

We are excited to finally see a person who fits the description of President for our minds and our hearts, and if you think you can play your power games with the Clintons, then you have something coming your way both in November, and for Congressional elections!

We will not be robbed. This is our campaign and our choice!

Some suggestions about negative ads

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:29:27 EST

OK, first of all, I can't say how darn frustrated I am right now... So, I will make another donation.

All this is unfortunate because it again underscores the fragility of the American electorate when it comes to negative ads. We know that, and we have to stay focused and strong.

Let me vent out loud for a second... An Obama economic advisor, it is reported, tells a Canadian official that Obama's stance on NAFTA is more about politics than actual substance. Obama's man denies, the Canadians deny that characterization, but it sticks. So I ask: why did the Canadians leak a story like that a few days before an important primary in Ohio where NAFTA was so important? Has anyone even asked this question in the media? Why are Canadians playing politics independent of the veracity of the story? I think there are two possible answers here: 1) they hoped to throw momentum the Clinton direction because it prolongs the process and gives McCain - the only NAFTA supporter - a greater chance at victory; or 2) there is some shady stuff going on with the Clinton camp. I suspect the answer is #1. In any case, Obama admin, be focused, and Barack, pounce with great energy and decisiveness on these things!

Now of course, tell the public, that you hear their message that this bothered them, you looked into it further, found nothing wrong, but in the interest of propriety, since you didn't authorize this discussion with the Canadians that you let the guy go. As soon as possible, do some repairing in Ohio. In fact, if Obama were to have a huge rally to discuss the events of the last few days, tell the Americans that he hears their concerns, tell them what he will do, etc... he should have this rally in Ohio. Tell the Ohioans that he is committed, as he said, to fixing their situation in terms of NAFTA, and that even though the Clinton camp went all negative, that he is completely commited to doing what he said for Ohio. He needs Ohio and needs to start repairing the damage she has done. This will get media attention for PA, and it will show Ohio that he really cares and gives a message to superdelegates.

Rezco of course starts a few days before the Primary too. The media can't get enough of it all and swings all attention negative toward Obama. Was there anything positive 3 days before the Primaries? It was depressing how negative the Media went. All these events just fed into the frenzy. So, lesson: next time Obama must organize an emergency interview, get out there and with laser-like words accept that no one is perfect, but that it is better to make a mistake about judging who to deal with about buying a house than taking the nation to war. Saying something like "I am one to take responsibility for my lapses, and leave it up to the Americans to judge between Clinton, McCain, and I as to who commited the most destructive and long lasting error - me in buying a house with Rezco's help, or these other people for putting our nation into a war." A TV ad to that effect is appropriate even now.

Frankly, I don't think the "red phone" ad did any of this. This was the NAFTA issue with the Canadians, and the Rezco issue, and of course his weakness amongst Hispanics. The media couldn't get enough of saying that it hits to the core of his message, which is judgment, so he needs to underscore how destructive the judgment of Clinton and McCain has been. If they want to go after his judgment, then he needs to put a counterbalance in this. More and more. This is why he closed the gap in these states before these later events.

She is saying that she and McCain have the experience, then he should put an add out saying that "Of course, McCain and Clinton share experience, the experience of supporting George Bush," and then have a scrolling list of all the things that she supported George Bush on.

Judgment - where are her tax returns? Her links to special interests need to be exposed now in ads.

He needs to give us a litany of his achievements internationally - from his work against genocide, to nuclear proliferation, etc. and ask her very openly, and in all kinds of ads "since Senator Clinton claims to have more experience in National Defense and international affairs, what has she done, and list all the negatives, including her husband's failures in Rwanda, etc. If she can take the positives, then she can take the negatives too.

OK, so - sigh - unfortunately, as we have seen now for many years, the American electorate is very susceptible to negative advertising, and this proves it again.

This raises a few problems. Is Barack going to get tougher? I think he needs to. Some would think he needs to because Clinton is going all bitchy on him so he needs to show he is a fighter. Personally, I don't think this is the reason. I think he neeeds to get much tougher because he needs to calm superdelegates down, and give them reason to believe that in a general election with the Republicans he will be less susceptible to negative ads which they will throw plentifully, and that he will punch back. If he can have momentum swung away from him, then that worries superdelegates how are much more cynical than the pledged delegates of the general population.

Of course, these negative attacks all seemed very well orchestrated now didn't they... And he needs to be able to respond with much more toughness, but without losing his poise. Touoghness and poise. No hesitation in speaking, a firm but dignified posture, very Presidential.

This, it seems, will all be decided in my state of PA. I guess I have a lot of work to do, unfortunately. I had wished it would be over, but it was not meant to be.

Barack needs to prove that he can be really tough while being poised and firm in his principles, otherwise she is going to go all whiney "shame on you Barack Obama" on him to appeal to people's mercy again, and say that he is not living up to his commitment to a new kind of politics. He needs to cut through her whineyness with his poise and laser like attitude. Now is the time for exteme focus. If she goes all "shame on you" then he needs to rebut saying "Clinton claims to be a fighter, and she has proven that she fights dirty, so she should be able to handle the truth about her deficiencies."

He needs to underscore the fact that Clinton fights dirty.

It doesn't matter that she says he is going negative. If she has negative things about her, then like a laser he should expose them and put her on the defensive, but do so with calm, poise, and accentuating his achievements to contrast her negatives.

I am sure, all these things are evaluated already, but you know what, as a common citizen, I think I have a feel for what works for me, and what works for me seems to have resonated with others too. I don't expect to counsel Obama, but if I could this is what I would tell him.

An Important Stand: Obama's recent speech on equal rights

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:56:41 EST

Barack recently wrote an open letter to the homosexual community in the USA. Here is the text:

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It's wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.

Equality is a moral imperative. That's why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who's willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that's what I've done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.

Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

***END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

I may not understand fully the challenges homosexuals face in our society, but as an Opera singer, I have many friends who do.

I think it is clear that this issue is going to be a big one once we get into the actual debate and choice between the Democratic candidate and McCain and the Republicans.

No doubt, this clearly worded letter is being examined carefully by the Republicans. It is not an easy issue, and there will be unavoidable battles that will be fought in the general election that will require compromise and a strategy that brings people to the table. Being one who wants to bring parties together, we must expect that Obama will make choices that will not perfectly harmonize with what the opposing parties <b>fully</b> want.

Here is the difference - Clinton is a self described "fighter". So we can choose to continue to fight and push our agendas to the extreme, alienating and demonizing the other side, or we can actually work on constructive compromises.

I think Obama did something VERY IMPORTANT with this letter. He set the basic lines in the sand as to where he will stand in terms of compromise with the Republicans he will be trying to bring to the table. The issue is equality. The framework he drives focuses on the moral imperative of being fair and equal in society. It is not required that I change my beliefs on homosexuality in order to treat a homosexual fairly. This is a point people can come to the table with because it forces them to analyze and choose whether the rejection of homosexuality as sin, and the commandment to love and treat others with respect are as incompatible as some Evangelicals would want their groups to believe. Can one treat with equality homosexuals and still be faithful to his or her religious views? Is it possible to come to the belief that one can stand for equality without feeling like an "enabler" of sin? These are the real issues. As distasteful as they may be for the various parties.

Peace is appealing to all, especially to the truly religious. I think religious would understand that God loves his children, period. I think all believers can sense that if they try. This is truly an important and, in my opinion, historical start to a movement that could lift our culture to far greater respect.

I think this statement comes at a very opportune time in the campaign. It is up to us to decide: do we want a fighter who will push and shove the other side and get little done except continue the usual tug of war for another decade, or do we want someone who will actually embrace both sides and sit down to constructively build a consensus?

- Jack Li Vigni

Change You Can Xerox - laugh at this....

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:58:50 EST

Clinton Tonight: "You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about." - Democratic Debate, 2/21/07

John Edwards: "What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine." - Democratic Debate, 12/13/07

John Edwards: "I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine." - Edwards Speech, 1/30/08

Clinton: We will TAKE BACK America

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:57:11 EST

I saw the typical Hillary Clinton the other night on the news screaming red in the face saying "WE WILL TAKE BACK AMERICA."

Take back America from whom? When Obama says "take back America from lobbyists" I can understand that and praise it. But when Clinton says it, it just feels like she is saying that she will take back America from that segment of America (half of America in fact) who have voted Republican over the last years.

I am a registered Democrat and I feel offended by her divisive attitude. I can imagine what a Republican feels when he or she hears Hillary Clinton screaming about taking America back.

We don't need anymore taking. We need someone to bring together.

Registering Democratic in PA

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:54:08 EST

When this site opened up some time ago I posted about how I felt we would have to work on getting Obama supporters to register Democratic so as to be able to vote in the primaries in PA, and how this would be important to defeating Hillary Clinton.

I want to renew that call. Many folks ready to vote for Obama do not have a party affiliation and will not be able to vote in PA. This will be a significant disadvantage for Obama, who would otherwise win PA hands down thanks to the big cities.

Organizers?

Anti-War Democrats? We have a problem with perceptions.

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Wed, 02 May 2007 22:15:16 EDT

This is what was reported a few hours ago, May 2, 2007: By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

1 hour ago

WASHINGTON - Congress failed to override President Bush's veto of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Wednesday, a defeat for anti-war Democrats that triggered immediate talks on a new measure to fund the conflict.

The House vote was 222-203, 62 shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. With few exceptions, Republicans stood fast with Bush in the wartime clash. The original vote on the bill was 218-208.

_______________________________________________

As long as Democrats are characterized as ANTI-WAR and Republicans are defenders of the WARTIME President, all Democrats seem like cowards and spineless half-patriots.

We need to wake up, and frankly the Obama camp needs to as well, to stop calling this a WAR. The war is over. This is an occupation. There is no war in Iraq, except for a civil war, which is not against the United States. We are in an occupation, not a war. It is ok to leave a senseless occupation, but it is not so OK to run away from a war.

This psychological ploy must be addressed because it can hurt Democratic chances of taking the White House.

Harry Reid and the "lost war." Watchout Obama!

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:13:15 EDT

I believe when Harry Reid said the “War in Iraq is lost” he made a profound mistake playing completely into the manipulations and hypnotic ploys of the right wing conservative think tanks that frame Democrats as spineless cowards.

Harry Reid misspoke because the Iraq War ended when the President declared May 2, 2003 aboard the USS Lincoln that the mission was accomplished. This pre-emptive aggression motivated by unspoken, hidden domestic financial and social goals, was easy to win.

Since May 2, 2003 this has not been a war, it has been an OCCUPATION. An occupation in a country that sees us as invaders; an occupation in the midst of a civil war that the local population wants to resolve without our presence; an occupation where we are viewed as an enemy by the very people we are called to serve, an occupation where the very rulers we have propped up are covertly aligning themselves with a dangerous Iran.

The war is won Senator Reid. But this country was never built on principles that support occupations of this kind. To prevail in an occupation in these circumstances we would have to use methods typical of transformative occupations much more brutal than our principles as a country allow us to ponder.

The right wing wants a war against terror, a war against an emotion. War provokes terror, and so a War on Terror is in and of itself a self propagating machine they have invented.

Every time a Democrat says we have lost the war and should pull out they are surrendering. They become spineless cowards, unwilling to put their all on the line, unwilling to risk their necks for the God-blessed USA. They become the very puppet the right wants to paint them as.

The true debate is whether or not this country ever should have gone and invaded a country that was on its knees. The true debate is whether Iraq was a threat to start with. The true debate is whether or not we should persist in OCCUPYING a country that doesn’t want us and that will not be transformed into anything that even resembles an ally.

Occupying this country creates more enemies within it because of the very culture that prevails within it, unchangeable toward the positive through the use of the US miliatary machine. We should use the money we spend on military actions to help them rebuild their infrastructure FROM OUTSIDE, not as occupiers. More carrots and less sticks.

Senator Obama should be careful, because he will be asked about Harry Reid’s comment, and he should be careful to not fall into the manipulation of considering the current OCCUPATION a “war”, which it is not. There is no current War in Iraq, and there is no “War on Terror.” These are mental images aimed at controlling the minds of people in this country to make them more malleable and susceptible to control and bending toward scenarios where civil liberties and rights are diminished.

- Jack Livigni

(PS. The ideas expressed here are influenced strongly by George Lakoff’s book “Thinking Points,” an important read for progressive thinkers.)

Matching Your Contribution

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:39:13 EST

As many of you are already aware, Barack Obama has announced that he will not be accepting donations from lobbyists and PACs.This courageous move, which many of his opponents are happy about, has one objective: keeping power with the people. When a small segment of society is able to donate funds to a campaign and create a relationship of mutual dependency, the needs of the whole can easily suffer.

We have witnessed how big oil can sit down at the table and dictate to a Presidential administration what policy should look like. While contributions meant to influence decision makers is not illegal, Obama shows greater courage in following his own slef imposed higher law, with the benefit of democracy in mind.

After all, isn't this very quality - the relevance of moral and spiritual imperatives in policy making - the very strength that attracts many to Obama in the first place? It is refreshing to see consistency in this, but also sobering in that there is the real risk of lack of funds. This really is in many ways our campaign and our moral responsibility!If we want to give the Obama campaign power, we must transform the potential energy of our heart and minds, the spirit of our beliefs, into real action by ensuring the funds will be there to promote the ideals and imperatives we so want our President to embody. As you may know, Obama has invited his supporters to consider being a matcher of contributions. At first glance that may be scary. What if someone donates more than you can afford? How will you be able to match it?No worries! You can determine how much you are willing to match and then the Obama campaign will match you up with someone that donated the amount you specified. You will then be put in contact with the person to let them know you matched their donation.

You can also do this with your friends, asking them to contribute and pledging to match their contribution. This shows our commitment and inspires curiosity.

Best of luck in helping to raise funds and protect democracy!

Jack Livigni, administrator Society Hill for Obama and Liberty Bell.

Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:16:27 EST

Link out the above link, scroll down, and find out what a wonderful endorsement Mitt Romney gave to Ann Coulter, one of the most hatefilled and disgusting women in politics.

He shames himself and reflects negatively on the Mormon community. That's all I have to say.

Burnout

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:56:46 EST

You know, I was thinking about how fast things are going. It's been a few days since most of us started, and we have seen the media swirl around Barack, and a flurry of activity.

May I suggest that we do not make the mistake of looking at polls too much right now. It's easy to burn out before starting. Many have never been involved with a campaign before. We are not going to see the polls change much right now. In fact, we may not see the polls change much till the very end. Think of Dean and Kerry. There will be many attempts to cause burnout in Obama followers. The opposing camps may believe we are here just out of a fleeting whim or hope.

We need, in my opinion, to not pay attention to the Hillary Camp and their flag waving in the media with their poll numbers on them. That is meant to scare away those who are easily fatigued.

May I suggest we make it a routine to analyze the issues and remind ourselves constantly why we are supporting Barack Obama. Don't allow yourself to get sucked into the manipulation that would have us believing that polls should change in the short term. They are meant to shake down this network and divert our attention from the reason we are here. They are meant to induce us to be pessimistic and lose the energy to organize and recruit. They are meant to have us lose the audacity of hope and friendship that brings us together from many walks to support Barack Obama.

Stand firm in this course because of the principles that drew you here in the first place!

What can we do?

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:55:44 EST

Dear Singing friends,

Yes, we are officially nuts. Not only are we opera singers, but we are also actively engaged in politics. Good Lord!!

What do you guys think we could do as a group to make a difference?

One thing I can think of is simply inviting our opera friends to participate in our site and blog to simply discuss stuff. I think Barack does a lot of the work for everyone by just opening his mouth... that does 90% of the work, but I am afraid many are beyond the reach of the voice.

I was thinking also that if anyone finds interesting news that could benefit us to increase our knowledge of the situation, or have things you would like to talk about, concerns, etc., we could discuss it together on the blog.

Eventually I would love to see us actually be able to use our voices somehow for this campaign, but first things first.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate having fellow singers to be with in this journey. I don't need to tell you how inspired and inspiring Barack Obama is, and how he can change the shape of this world's future. That is going to require a lot of courage and work.

My best to you all.

Jack Livigni

Habeas Corpus: Obama should act on this

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:32:23 EST

The New York TimesPublished: February 22, 2007

American Liberty at the Precipice

In another low moment for American justice, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that detainees held at the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to be heard in court. The ruling relied on a shameful law that President Bush stampeded through Congress last fall that gives dangerously short shrift to the Constitution.

The right of prisoners to challenge their confinement — habeas corpus — is enshrined in the Constitution and is central to American liberty. Congress and the Supreme Court should act quickly and forcefully to undo the grievous damage that last fall’s law — and this week’s ruling — have done to this basic freedom.

The Supreme Court ruled last year on the jerry-built system of military tribunals that the Bush Administration established to try the Guantánamo detainees, finding it illegal. Mr. Bush responded by driving through Congress the Military Commissions Act, which presumed to deny the right of habeas corpus to any noncitizen designated as an “enemy combatant.” This frightening law raises insurmountable obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. And it gives the government the power to take away habeas rights from any noncitizen living in the United States who is unfortunate enough to be labeled an enemy combatant.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which rejected the detainees’ claims by a vote of 2 to 1, should have permitted the detainees to be heard in court — and it should have ruled that the law is unconstitutional.

As Judge Judith Rogers argued in a strong dissent, the Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that detainees do not have habeas rights because Guantánamo is located outside the United States. Judge Rogers also rightly noted that the Constitution limits the circumstances under which Congress can suspend habeas to “cases of Rebellion or invasion,” which is hardly the situation today. Moreover, she said, the act’s alternative provisions for review of cases are constitutionally inadequate. The Supreme Court should add this case to its docket right away and reverse it before this term ends.

Congress should not wait for the Supreme Court to act. With the Democrats now in charge, it is in a good position to pass a new law that fixes the dangerous mess it has made. Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, have introduced a bill that would repeal the provision in the Military Commissions Act that purports to obliterate the habeas corpus rights of detainees.

The Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties does not end with habeas corpus. Congress should also move quickly to pass another crucial bill, introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, that, among other steps, would once and for all outlaw the use of evidence obtained through torture.

When the Founding Fathers put habeas corpus in Article I of the Constitution, they were underscoring the vital importance to a democracy of allowing prisoners to challenge their confinement in a court of law. Much has changed since Sept. 11, but the bedrock principles of American freedom must remain.

Barack Obama is involved in Specter's Bill, but I think this is an important fight to be waged against those who would take away Constitutional protections and degrade this Country's principles. No steps toward fascism should ever be tolerated in our Union. Bush has made many. This one can be fixed now.

Clinton Smear Strategy

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:18:16 EST

Why are the Clinton's accusing Barack Obama of "trash" politics?

David Geffen of Dreamworks hosted a $1.3 million fundraiser for Obama on Tuesday. He used to be a strong Clinton supporter in Bill's days. Now he is supporting Obama.

The Clinton campaign argued that Obama had pledged to bring a more civil tone to the campaign but that Geffen's words amounted to "slash and burn" politics.
Geffen was once a top donor to President Clinton, but he said in the interview that Clinton is "a reckless guy" and he doesn't think Sen. Clinton can bring the country together during a time of war, no matter how smart or ambitious she is.

Geffen expresses the reasons why he no longer supports the Clinton's, and so Obama shouldn't accept his money, because the judgment he expressed was too harsh? Nonsense. The Clinton's are very cunning people! Obama is TOO GOOD, TOO CHARISMATIC, TOO CLEAN... so the Clinton's figure that they need to break the momentum by slinging mud on his image.

[H. Clinton's] communications director, Howard Wolfson, said there is no room in the campaign for "personal insults."
"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money," Wolfson said.

Clearly this is manipulation and we need to speak up and email our friends about it. We shouldn't let ourselves be Swiftboated at any point in this campaign.

When Ford said Obama would pull down the whole Democratic party did the Clinton's denounce him? No they hired him and agreed to pay him $10000 a week to work with them on their campaign in the South.

So my suggestion to the Obama camp... DO EXACTLY WHAT HILLARY DID WITH FORD - follow their lead and say something like:

Senator Obama wouldn't have said what Mr. Geffen did, but he realizes that everyone has their personal reasons for supporting one candidate or another, and renews his desire for a positive campaign aimed at highlighting the issues....etc...

....neither denouncing nor agreeing.

Clinton's disagreed with Ford but hired him... so if they want Mr. Obama to return the money to Geffen, then Clinton should say she doesn't want Ford's endorsement and fire him from the $10000 per week job they have hired him for. Nasty people...

Reality check... the Clinton's want to make Obama appear like a villain and a liar because whenever he opens his mouth Clinton's chances shrink. This is going to be a nasty campaign.

Party affiliation

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:51:50 EST

Dear fellow Obama Group admins.,

You may have caught this post on the blog previously, and some of you may have received listserve mail regarding voter registration, but I got an error message saying that the email was not delivered to some addresses, so I apologize for the repeat.

I am a bit concerned because I have been getting some nasty mail regarding how stupid I am for bringing the idea of having to register as democrats in order to vote in Primaries (which is the case in MOST STATES)

The simple hostility of some of the messages I have received have surprised me and have seemed quite odd, out of the ordinary. Things like that make me a tiny bit suspicious, so I think I need to reiterate the importance of what I said.

We are going to have a hell of a time in the Primaries. I think we know that. Clinton and her machine are not going down without a HUGE fight, so we are going to have to have to make sure every Obama supporter can and does vote.

Each of us can look up and find out if party affiliation is necessary to participate in Primary elections in our States. I know it is so in PA and in NJ, and in most States, but you can check for your State.

May I suggest that we make this issue right from the start a very important and crucial item of our agendas and action plans. We need to help our people, and those whom they come in contact with get registered as Democrats if they are to vote for Barack at the Primaries, or at least that will be the case in most States.

If like me you deal with inner city people, potentially a fertile ground for Obama supporters, then I suggest starting this campaign from the very start.

I didn’t know I couldn’t vote in the 2004 primaries for my candidate until I got turned away at the polls here in Philadelphia, and I am afraid that is going to happen to a lot of Obama supporters come Primary election. We can make a huge difference in that.

Please include this in your agendas and action plans. Make voter registration to the Democratic Party specifically a priority for your group members, and in your neighborhood activities and all.

Perhaps we should talk about simple ways to get people registered, even off the streets, or canvassing house to house, etc… are there ways that this can be done without unaccommodating people too much?

Jack Livigni, Administrator Society Hill for Obama, Philadelphia

Voter Registration

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:17:29 EST

Dear fellow Obama Group Administrators and bloggers,

I know I am not the only Barack supporter who’s Voter Registration says “Independent.”

I went knocking on doors on Election Day in 2004 for John Kerry, and have supported Democratic ideas for many years now, but have never registered for the party. In many ways I prized my status as an “Independent” voter.

Many of Barack Obama’s supporters are young people who have never registered as voters. Many are Independents. I think our first big push as a network of hopeful citizens of this great Country in support of Barack should be to work with all of our GROUP MEMBERS to ensure that they have registered as Democrats.

Our registering as Democrats will be essential in getting Barack on the Democratic ticket. We should start this push now in my opinion and make this a high priority in at all of our events. I sent in my new registration yesterday.

You can register at: Link

Best of luck!!

Jack Livigni, Administrator Society Hill for Obama, Philadelphia

(If this post has been of any help, consider contributing $10 at Link - It will take serious fundrasing for Barack's message to reach every ear in this nation.)

The War in Iraq: demonstrating to our friends that Barack has wisdom,

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:51:46 EST

Most of our friends are concerned about Barack Obama's experience, and whether or not he will have what it takes to guide this country forward in a world full of uncertainties and dangers. They wonder if he will know how to identify accurately the courses of action that will lead to America’s long term good, or whether his lack of “experience” will lead to poor choices for our country.Will he know how to protect us against our enemies? Will he know what steps to take to ensure America is safe from terrorists? Will he be able to curb the threat from radical Muslim groups worldwide? As I have written before on my blog, the real question to be asked is not about “experience.” Experience doesn’t always lead one to make the right choice for everyone. Often experience leads simply to political cunning and strategizing. What we need is a leader with great wisdom, critical thinking, interpersonal skills, and vision to see possible outcomes, and the integrity to then make consequent choices that follow a set of moral and civic imperatives that benefit the nation as a whole.

This Administration’s choices have benefited largely some very powerful families and the rich of America, while the divide between rich and poor has become wider as the Middle Class has been consistently under attack. Sure enough, the existence of a robust Middle Class is not ideal for fascist undercurrents in Democratic nations. Poverty reduces a citizens reach and impact on the whole of society, and all that is left to do is reduce Civil Liberties, rig election machines, and degrade the Judicial, and then the imposing of power agendas on the whole can proceed unobstructed.

This Administration’s idea of “America” is a metaphor for the rich and powerful, to be measured up by the quantity of stock options in their portfolio, a vision in which the common American is a useful tool, a useful worker bee, a useful foot soldier. Where is the wisdom in those who have supported over time this President’s agenda? Where is Senator Clinton’s wisdom in supporting this President? Did Barack Obama show wisdom and vision on the eve of this monstrous mistake which was the war in Iraq? What are some talking points we can use to help share with others what Barack foresaw back in 2002?In reality, his words are convincing enough:

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

Did any of Barack Obama’s rivals for the ‘08 Presidency show the kind of vision and wisdom he did?

Let me quote Rudy Giuliani. He said about George W. Bush at the 2004 RNC in NYC:

There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.

Rudy Giuliani, Zell Miller, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton have supported George W. Bush and his “strong,” beliefs. Those beliefs were not founded on a wisdom that benefited the common American, as all can see now.

It is now up to this congress and to the next President to reverse the damage these fascist forces have inflicted upon this nation at home and abroad.

Giuliani’s words well apply to Barack Obama who opposed the war in Iraq when most Americans were under the spell of this Administration’s media manipulation. While everyone was infected by Condoleeza Rice’s “mushroom cloud” virus, and Dick Cheney’s treasonous lies on “Meet the Press” regarding Saddam’s WMD cache, Barack Obama’s wisdom cut through the fog.

I want a President with wisdom and vision, and that uses those qualities for the good of America as a whole, not for a fascist, oligarchic vision of America.

Barack says it best:

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

Experience is no good unless it leads to wisdom. Judge Barack based on his wisdom, not on the amount of time he has been in Washington!

(quotes from Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq, October 26, 2002 - Link)

(If this post has been of any help, consider contributing $10 at Link - It will take serious fundrasing for Barack's message to reach every ear in this nation.)

Iraq and deception - Barack Obama's wisdom for all to see.

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:37:18 EST

I am very concerned because of the pervasiveness of certain ideas in the general citizenry of our nation, mostly the consequence of lack of critical thinking, and of deception imposed upon them by manipulators, inside and out of the Government, well represented in this Administration.

There is an underlying idea whereby because the United States and its allies have been attacked numerous times by Muslim terrorists, that we are justified in waging wars with Muslim nations that support these terrorists - the terrorist becoming the extension of the nation.

According to this view we did not conduct a “pre-emptive war” against Iraq, but are responding to multiple attacks already perpetrated against our nation. “You are either with us, or with them” – the black and whites of fascists.

By this rationale many citizens accepted the war in Iraq as justifiable. After all, this Administration lifted its incontrovertible intelligence on the hilltops for the whole world to see, confirming links between Iraq and terrorist attacks and activity, and unveiling sinister plans by Saddam Hussein to use terrorists to lift up mushroom clouds over US cities.

Now lest someone accuse us of being naïve in this conversation lets say clearly that the dynamics of warfare are far more complex than the label “pre-emptive” allows for. By some opinions most nations, including the USA, have conducted pre-emptive warfare for a very long time. There are “Wars” and there are “wars.” Nations conduct battles all the time on many fronts aimed at influencing events for their national interests. We as a country are subject to aggression all the time. In fact, in this sense we are in a constant small scale war.

When the USA supports a group that then turns around and commits horrible crimes, have we also committed them?

If the leaders of Iraq supported terrorists in Palestine by sending them money, does that mean that they committed the attack on the World Trade Center, or on the USS Cole? Is a military invasion against an entire nation justified by scarce intelligence regarding covert actions of leaders? Did we have incontrovertible evidence that the alleged covert actions resulting in the attacks on the USA were sanctioned and directed by the leadership of Iraq? Do we wage a full scale invasion, with the unavoidable loss of innocent life, based on assumptions? Is that what America stands for?

The whole “you are either with us or with them” mentality is truly very dangerous. While everyone on the GOP side, and many on the Democratic side, cheered at President Bush’s deception, Barack Obama did not. His wisdom gave him a different perspective.

At some point this administration used the fear of mass murder to sway public opinion, which in turn sways elected officials. They told the American people in systematic attacks through the media that Iraq represented a clear and present danger for the USA; that Iraq not only could, but planned on giving weapons of mass destruction they had to terrorists so that these could be used against US cities. They were like a computer virus poisoning the collective mind of our nation with lies meant to bring us to war under false pretense, and in so doing committed, in my opinion, treason.

Because Saddam refused UN inspectors, or impeded investigations when they were allowed in, the Administration increased the speed of the planned attack. They banked on Hussein’s stupidity and arrogance. Eventually, about two weeks before the attack, Saddam agreed to unconditional inspections, and this administration said it was “TOO LATE”, that the time for diplomacy had come and gone. The objective was now “regime change.” Did the GOP congress stand up against this morphed rationale for war? Were the Democrats standing up? Barack Obama was!! So much for lack of experience!

So this war was not “pre-emptive” at all. It was an aggression of the USA on a foreign country, a straight up military invasion that ignored diplomacy when it mattered most. The agenda of those behind the invasion was more important than the lives of the soldiers and of the innocent civilians that would fall as a consequence of the invasion. This administration sent our citizens into a country that did not attack us because of the geo-political agenda of a specific power group well represented in the neo-cons.

The Republican Party and some democrats, including Hillary Clinton, are directly culpable for this action. Some have admitted and apologized for their lack of vision and action. Others, like Hillary Clinton, refuse to admit to any wrong doing, placing culpability and responsibility for their lack of judgment on the President entirely. When the President changed his motive for the war from imminent threat to regime change did none of these experienced politicians’ alarm bells go off? The phone calls and conferences must have been very effective! Or maybe this goes to show how much people like Clinton are influenced by the mood of the electorate. They follow power opportunities like a hound follows its pray. The public was infected by this virus spilled out by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and many others, and they did what people wanted rather than what was right. Their's was not experience, it was cunning. Obama showed great wisdom and vision.

Perhaps the most worrisome ideological trend I see is that we have been spoon-fed the idea that - Muslim nation equates to terrorist cell attacking US. Yes, Muslim populations will be in part sympathetic to terrorists because of the dynamics in the relations between USA, Israel, Palestine, and the Muslim world in general, especially now. The lack of trust toward the USA is not unmotivated in their view. So it behooves us to not engage in promoting stereotypes and generalizations of Muslim countries but rather renewing a dialogue that promotes clear thinking and facts rather than skewed perceptions.

I don’t know that I see a desire for this dialogue in a segment of the nation. Patriotism and Rush Limbaugh go hand in hand for many. “Rush” should be a new four letter word in my book.

In pondering the profound deception we as a nation were subject to at the hand of this Administration, the GOP run Congress, and the GOP party in general consider this: these groups of people and individuals just mentioned are representatives of very powerful individuals, families, and groups in this country who think they are “America” and who equate their interests with “American interests,” who use the word “patriotism” as a metaphor for a defense of their power at the expense of the dispensable foot soldier and the pocket book of the middle class. They wage war and give themselves tax cuts so as to pocket more of the profits for the resulting positive economic developments. They wage wars and recruit soldiers aggressively in neighborhoods where they influenced the under-funding of schools, infrastructure development, public services, police, and where they rigged and disrupted elections. While all along, these brave guys and gals go out to defend their country with honor and true respect for the Constitution.

We do not know well what the secret works were that lead to this war because they are protected by strong powers within and without the government, just look at the farce with Sooter Libby. But we do know that this group of men seek power and are willing to take it by sacrificing the lives of US soldiers as well as the lives of people in other nations that have not attacked us.

Terrorists say that there are no innocent American lives. Are we going to commit the same mistake and attack and hate nations as if there were no innocent lives there?

This administration and the former GOP Congress have manipulated the conscience of the citizenry and have inspired intolerance and hatred in the process... and for every action there is a reaction for sure. It is no surprise that anti-American sentiment is at an all time high. Perhaps that was the whole goal in the first place. These fascist forces want instability and fear. No surprise Bin Laden was allowed to escape.

I hate conspiracy theories, and I can’t stand Michael Moore “mocumentaries” – but I am not blind to evidence and proof of wrongdoing, especially when it is in my face. I expect the highest scrutiny to be applied to our leaders, and the treason committed against the United States citizenry by this administration warrants tremendous scrutiny and consequences.

One of the reasons why I support Barack Obama is because he will not be controlled by these powerful groups of conspirers. He is smart enough to sort through the deceptions that will come his way from forces within the government machinery hostile to the common American, and will make choices that reflect his high moral imperatives and worldview.

Barack Obama, because of his background, is in a unique position to use all of his God given talents to make a difference in the relations between the USA and Muslim countries, and set them on a course toward peace. He truly is our best hope for defeating terrorism and curbing radicalism, and will not shy away from defending this country when needed. Given his moral directives and worldview he is clearly governed by, I would expect Barack to make choices that are not meant merely to enhance “American” power, but to actually bring about or set us on the road for greater World peace, and strengthen the real America.

-Jack Livigni, Administrator Society Hill for Obama, Philadelphia

(If you feel this message has helped you in any way, consider contributing $1 to my-BarackObama fundraising goal at my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/livigni - it will be very much through fundraising that Barack Obama can become our next President.)

We are one family

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:11:26 EST

I found Barack's speech on the importance of not disconnecting one's religion from one's politics a really profound and thought out one.

You can find it at

www.barackobama.com/issues/faith

I have thought to myself - how do I keep my faith without imposing it on others in the political process? How can I shield myself from the lack of faith that comes when I am arrogant enough to impose my moral and spiritual beliefs on others rather than letting them develop those ideas as God sees fit, or as they feel inspired but whatever power they feel speaking to their souls?

I think a lot of this has to do with faith, believing that others can discover faith through the spirit as God calls them in his way, in their path, in their way, in their life.

I think it also has to do with believing firmly that human beings can develop spiritually when they are left to make their own choices and that government should have minimal invasion into a person's free agency and privacy, and rather be a means through which high standards and principles are brought to its citizens.

I believe Government should not be about imposition of values, but rather the communication of values that aim at binding us together and empowering our development as human beings.

When I read Barack's books and speeches and pondered the depth of his words and the thinking process behind them, I can't deny feeling a renewed hope and optimism for our political process.

It's inspiring to see how God has shaped the mind of Barack Obama to be the man that he is. His background, his education, the depth of his thinking process that manifests itself in his writing and words not only reveals his spiritual searching, but also actual spiritual discovery.

I am inspired by the idea that Barack lead us toward the future because of the profound moral imperatives that guide his thinking in terms of equality, justice, humanitarian efforts, and religious and racial relations.

I can see no better candidate to lead America at home and abroad toward an increasing religious tolerance and in making wise choices leading away from radicalism and hatred.

I can see no better candidate to address issues like global warming and clean energy, poverty in Africa, AIDS, healthcare, the development of social justice world wide. A man of Barack Obama's values and moral imperatives could be the bridge toward humanity's future. A quantum jump in civilization may be at hand here.

I believe in humanity. I will not accept the pessimism of apocalyptic thinking and ideas that break the faith of people in their future. I will not accept the idea that humanity and politics are inherently evil and will be till God comes. As far as I am conerned, God is here, right now, with humanity as a whole. Not with Mormons, not with evangelicals, not with Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., but with all.

If God is love and we want to be Godlike, then it behooves us to take a good look at the agenda of our politicians and parties. I have and look where I feel I should be writing a blog entry....

Jack Livigni

- administrator Society Hill for Obama, Philadelphia, LDS

(PS. If you feel my message has helped you in any way, then please consider contributing $1 to my-BarackObama fundraising goal which you can find at my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/livigni - through active fundraising our chances of Barack Obama being the next Presdient will be greately enhanced.)

Experience and Wisdom

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:24:44 EST

If you are like me, most of your friends with whom you have shared your impressions and hopes for Barack are concerned about his experience, right? Will he know how to lead this nation given his "lack of experience?" We have heard that, haven't we?

Well as I pondered this issue to come to a choice, I asked myelf: "What is experience for? Why do I care about experience?"

My answer was that we want our President to have experience because it leads to making wise choices. So in reality, it is not experience that we want, it's wisdom.

When I am presented with the issue of experience now I ask my friends "why is experience important in your view?" - and I try to guide their thinking toward the real issue, which is in fact wisdom.

Hillary Clinton's refusal to admit to making a mistake on her vote for the war is in her view wise, but is it?

If you think about it carefully, you will see that it's a very smart choice, but is it wise? She is following "experience." When she voted for the President and supported him while other democrats didn't, she wanted to be in the middle, rather than be part of the polarized political arena. She thought it was best to do so, it was politically expedient. Now that her past choices have shown themselves profoundly flawed she still follows "experience" in denying wrong-doing because "experience" says this is the best way to keep power, that the human mind can trust a person more if in doubt in regards to culpability. But is this wisdom? No! It is cunning. There is, in my book, a difference in the mental process that leads to cunning and that which leads to wisdom. The difference is in the underlying moral and human values. There are also differences in the long term impact those choices bring. Consider the long term impact of Senator Clinton's "experienced" choice. Was it actually wise? Hell no.

Consider Barack's comment about the 3000 dead in Iraq. His apology is being viewed by some critical to him as smart and cunning. Is it so?

Obama's ideas are rooted in a set of moral imperatives which mold his thinking and approach to charity, war, healthcare, the environment, education, class justice, civil rights, and so on. Reading his books, listening to his words, reveals to perceptive people how the underlying thinking process in his mind is profoundly rooted in sentiments that are truly inspiring, almost heroic. One can feel the power of his ideas on the beauty of what it means to be human, and our potential. One can discern how these thoughts branch out into his political goals for this nation, and their potential to shape the future of our world. That is why he inspires me, and most others too.

What is attractive and charismatic about him, in my view, is that he is not willing to sit down at the table with power brokers and lose sight of those values in the effort to compromise and gain power. He was clear in his Lincoln start off speech that compromise should not cause a leader to lose site of values. As a side note, this is why I am actively fundraising, so as to empower his choice to refuse to compromise on those values and not pay a price in terms of his chances on succeeding due to lack of funds from these power groups.

This is a man of great and far reaching moral imperatives that shape his wisdom. This wisdom is the fruit of intelligence, meditation, genuine spiritual research AND DISCOVERY, and profound life experiences of the type that can mold individuals of great character.

Concluding, experience doesn't impress me in politicians. I am done with the arrogant and manipulative tactics that see the electorate as a mass to be swayed here or there with carefully crafted statements and sound bites. I want someone with true WISDOM, not cunning, not arrogance, not manipulation, but wisdom. I want a leader that is guided by ideas that propel humanity forward. I believe Obama has that wisdom and so his choices will be good. I feel grateful that someone like Obama is rising to this occasion.

Jack Livigni

- Administrator Society Hill for Obama, Philadelphia

(If you feel this message has helped you in any way, consider contributing $1 to my-BarackObama fundraising goal at my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/livigni - it will be very much through fundraising that Barack Obama can become our next President.)

Obama's speech on religion and politics

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:15:08 EST

Hi there,

I found Barack's speech on the importance of not disconnecting one's religion from one's politics was a really profound and thought out one.

You can find it at

www.barackobama.com/issues/faith

How do we keep our faith without imposing it on others in the political process?

I think a lot of this has to do with faith, believing that others can discover faith through the spirit as God calls them in his way.

I think it also has to do with believing firmly that human beings progress when they are left to make their own choices and that government should have minimal invasion into a person's free agency and privacy.

What do you think?

Jack

Let's talk about experience, shall we?

Gioacchino (Jack) Livigni — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:39:59 EST

Obama's speech announcing his candidacy was incredibly inspiring!!

I have heard a lot about Obama not being ready from my friends. So lets talk about this elefant in the room, shall we?

What does it mean to be ready to be president?

I believe intelligent choices are made because of the intelligence of the person. I don't think Obama is going to become more intelligent with years. Younger minds are sharper. Then what about wisdom?

I believe wisdom is a type of discernment in decision making that is ruled by a mesh of qualities: experience, realism, vision, good information about the scenario in question, common sense, knowledge of history, analytical intelligence, and so forth.

Its my opinion that experience is important because it leads to wisdom. Exposure to national or international politics does not ensure that one has achieved wisdom. What I want to figure out is whether or not a person has wisdom, and I see that by analyzing the content of what they say, their answers to important questions. I think Barack has a lot of wisdom!!

If we actually take a look at the issue of Obama's experience, we will find that the fear that he doesn't meet the mark isn't really rational. Is it a tactic from opposing camps? Is it something that we are assuming because of his age and exposure to the political arena, or is it something that people who want someone else as President are planting in the population's mind subliminally?

Apparently Obama has one strength that all those who know him are talking about: his ability to listen. I think listening goes a long way in making wise decisions!

I want someone with vision to be president. I want someone with integrity that will stand up to big money represented by lobbyists and power brokers to be President. I want someone with a kean and penetrating mind to be President. Someone with sharp intelligence, that understands the power of words, that ponders choices not with irrational fear but with sharp and calculating intelligence.

I want someone to lead our nation who feels it is a moral imperative to save our Planet's environment; someone who feels responsibility and can lead us in addressing the moral imperative of saving the poor who are withering away in hunger and outside earshot in Africa and other third world countries.

Most of all, I want someone who feels that the cause of equality and justice are the keys to a brighter human future. Someone who feels that the world will be better if we address the development of justice and development in every part of the world, so as to build a world where nations are not envious of others, and where education, hope, security and prosperity are possible for those who try.

I don't believe in Hillary Clinton. She is a status quo politician. She knows who to sit at the table with in order to increase her odds of winning. She won't stand up against power, like her husband didn't. They have good ideas, but they compromise where they shouldn't. She didn't show wisdom at all in Bush's first years of Presidency. What did "experience" do for her decision making? She was constantly trying to strike a balance to be in the middle at a time where everything was polarized. She did it to position herself for her bid for the White House. What kind of wisdom did she show? She showed cunning, not wisdom, and the price has been paid by common Americans and by soldiers. AM I THE ONLY ONE REMEMBERING?

What, now, a few years later she has found a different magic? Now that many have seen the scam of Bush's politics of fear and its consequent polarization and are coming back to their senses, Hilary has mutated to the more powerful and popular position, and wants to convince others that she hasn't changed? That was her husband's weakness too. He didn't stand up. He knew where power was and made the compromises, not for the people, but to keep in power, thinking that this was for the greater good, and stretched his values to maintain power.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and so forth... Most of these men had the experience to not reveal that they were pawns in the hands of powerful interest groups. Who among these men had vision and experience?

Bush jr. is a disaster.

Clinton was good, but pandered a lot to power, and didn't have the vision and strength to keep his personal weaknesses from harming his goals, and didn't have clarity and harmony in his priorities to stand up to big money and influence.

Bush senior was a representative of power groups.

Reagan was a representative of power groups. We got lucky with Reagan as a world because his irrational, quasi nutjob religious zeal was perfect for the times. The Soviet Union was on its knees and he kicked it over with his strong religious beliefs about it being an "evil empire." He had no particular intelligene in this matter except to believe in black and whites. The time was right for someone like him to just kick the pot. Luckily, Gorbachev was there to make the equation just right. George W. Bush thought he could do the same with Iraq. That is because the moron has never realized that Reagan was just part of the equation... Lets not forget Reagan was the man of ketchup being a "vegetable!"

Carter, Ford, Nixon? Do we want to talk about intelligence, experience, vision, etc?

Experience? You know what, maybe what we need is a man of vision, someone who believes so much in human equality as to actually make a difference in the Middle East, for America's poor and middle class, for AIDS, for Global Warming, for poverty worldwide, for education, for healthcare, etc. Are we really going to buy this propaganda about "experience?"

Thank God Obama doesn't have the experience of his predecesors!! Please... the experience to make the world what it is... a polarized place where the poor can't take it anymore, and where radicals are spreading their type of ideas of power... a place of double standards. That is what "experience" has brought us?

Wisdom is not experience. Wisdom is knowing what is right and figuring out a way to arrive at the implementation of it. It means knowing how to compromise with opposing parties only inasmuch as your main objective is not jeopardized.

Political experience? For what to know which lobbyist to sit down at the table with to ensure your political survival? Forget that!

As to me, I am ready for real change, not for status quo, bullshit-me politics.

I may be nuts, but I really feel Obama is "the hero" we have all been waiting for. The catalyst for civilization's evolutionary leap toward a better, more civil future. Read his books. Listen to his words and then make your judgement as to his wisdom and vision.

GL

-----------
Obama 2008 - The Bridge Toward America's Future