Of Thee I Sing : a response to What IS leadership and what kind of leader do WE want?

Preface.

This piece was originally a comment on by What IS leadership and what kind of leader do WE want? by Abbyrose86. In response to a request that it be posted separately, and with the concomitant desire to improve and clarify argument and viewpoint, it has been somewhat revised and expanded by the author, hopefully for the better.

Herein I first address the question What is Leadership? ; discuss how I came to support the President ; argue in favour of his record of leadership, with reference to the topics of Leadership as Accomplishment and Leadership as Conduct and Character ; and close with an Apostrophe to the The Great Forty-Fourth in the Annals of the Presidents of the United States of America. I write as an avowed supporter and apologist, with the hope that enough of a rationale has been conveyed to make the exercise worthwhile to the public. The individual reader is invited to season the contents to taste with a grain or grains of salt, as well as freshly ground black pepper, olive oil and balsamic vinegar, lemon juice, and formaggio parmeggiano ; or to dismiss them. It is not the intent of the author to provoke contention.

As befits the splendour of the occasion, the essay is given in a full roadshow presentation, with Intermission, Entr’Acte, Exit Music, and not one but three Overtures. All opinions and technical idiosyncrasies of style are solely those of the author. Enjoy.

FANFARES.

[ Leoš Janaček : Sinfonietta, first movement. 9 trumpets, 2 tenor tubas, 2 bass trumpets ( in that order in the score ), timpani ( 1 player ). ]

INTRADA.

OVERTURE.

What is the answer? In that case, what is the question?

– Gertrude Stein.

I. The question of Leadership : reflexive certainty versus cognitive uncertainty.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule,

WE SHALL NOT FLAG OR FAIL.

WE SHALL GO ON TO THE END.

WE SHALL FIGHT IN FRANCE,

we shall fight on the seas and oceans,

we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,

WE SHALL DEFEND OUR ISLAND, whatever the cost may be.

WE SHALL FIGHT ON THE BEACHES,

WE SHALL FIGHT ON THE LANDING GROUNDS,

WE SHALL FIGHT IN THE FIELDS AND IN THE STREETS,

WE SHALL FIGHT IN THE HILLS ;

WE

SHALL

NEVER

SURRENDER.

Sir WINSTON LEONARD SPENCER-CHURCHILL, K.G., O.M., C.H., T.D., P.C., D.L., F.R.S.
Sixty-first and Sixty-third Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Address to the House of Commons, 4 June 1940

* * *

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union.

For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They’ve done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they’ve done so

IN THE MIDST OF WAR AND DEPRESSION ;

AT MOMENTS OF GREAT STRIFE AND GREAT STRUGGLE.

IT’S TEMPTING TO LOOK BACK ON THESE MOMENTS AND ASSUME THAT OUR PROGRESS WAS INEVITABLE

that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach,

VICTORY WAS VERY MUCH IN DOUBT.

When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday,

THE FUTURE WAS ANYTHING BUT CERTAIN.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Forty-fourth President of the United States of America
State of the Union Address, 27 January 2010

* * *

In my personal experience, there have been two major milestones in the development of my understanding of the nature of human psychology and human society. The first was on first reading Theodor W. Adorno ( né Theodor Ludwig Adorno Wiengrund, 1903 – 1969 ) ; a composer and student of Alban Berg, he became a leading figure in one of the fountainheads of modern sociology, the Institut für Sozialforschung, Frankfurt, and regarded today as one of the most important philosophers and musicologists of the 20th century. One of the first to write seriously about popular culture, he contrasted the reflexive process of commoditised popular music — based upon Pavlovian recognition of a tune, preferred commercial genre, or celebrity performer — with the cognitive process of classical music, exemplified by the Hegelian dialectic not merely mimicked but made manifest in the Beethoven symphony. This introduced me to the basic concept of reflex versus cognition which, after much development and elaboration, remains the foundation of an understanding of human psychology and society – in can be readily observed in the behavior of ideologists ( ” ideology ” having become my shorthand for the reflex-based mental apparatus and accompanying worldview, whether political, religious, social, or of whatever type ) who react positively to whatever message or spokesperson they have been pre-programmed to recognise as ” correct ” — with no regard for facts, logic, or morals — and who reject anything else, however intelligent or morally reasoned and insightful, as meaningless and automatically ” wrong “.

The second, and culminating, milestone was upon finally reading a book I had first heard of over thirty years previously, when its publication received coverage in Omni magazine. The impetus to do so came in reading The god delusion by Richard Dawkins, in which he describes this book as — and his statement is, it should be remembered, the product of over thirty years of reflection — ” either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between ” ; tantalising, no? The book is The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind by Julian Jaynes, and I am morally certain that it is equal to On the origin of species and Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie as one of the most imporant books ever written. ( Read it. ) Jaynes hypothesis, on the basis of archeological, literary, and neurological evidence, hypothesises that what we understand as consciousness is of very recent origin, having emerged within recorded history ; prior to which society was rigidly hierarchical, with a god-idol and its high priest spokesman at the top, and everything on down operating by unthinking obedience to command, provided the commands came from the ” correct ” source – once again, something readily observable in the world around us today.

* * *

The concept of ” leadership ” is not only difficult to define, but is in itself open to some question. I recall early in the President’s Administration an occasion where he did not have an immediate statement on something because ( word to the effect that ) ” he wanted to know what he was talking about first “.

I find this admirable. Those in the ideology-based, non-reality-based, non-cognitive community do not. In their view, value is accorded to producing the ideologically-determined ” correct ” statement as quickly as possible; consideration of such things as questions of fact, uncertain outcomes, the nuances of a particular unique situation, and so on, are indications of stupidity, incompetence, and moral turpitude. This is a concept of ” leadership ” which we may reject, with no small amount of justified smug self-satisfaction; however we should consider to what extent its presumptions colour our notions of ” leadership “, or are indeed intrinsic to the concept ( given the obvious connections of leadership, authoritarianism, and the ideological mentality ). Although it leads outside the scope of the present essay, we should also consider the concept, found in Adorno and Slavoj Žižek, of the ” administrated society “. Do we really want a ” Leader “, or would an ” Administrator ” be more appropriate to a truly cognitive, post-bicameral ( in Jaynesian terms ) society? ( Alas, we are as yet a long ways from this being a pressing practical concern. )

II. The question of Leadership : a memoir of Decision 2008 ; and an argument for pragmatism.

[ In the section, the topic of criticism of President Obama from the Left is used as a springboard for a defense of pragmatism, an account of one voter’s decision process in the 2008 election, and an anticipation of the topic of the outcome of that decision. ]

A frequent criticism of the President from the Left is along the lines of – and this is a crude simplification ( or maybe not ) – why doesn’t he just wave the magic wand, why doesn’t he ” take a stand ” on this or that, why isn’t he doing this particular thing in this particular way that I think it should be done, etc. etc. Often this in basic disregard of the plain facts – how many votes there were in the Senate ; that laws ( such as DADT ) cannot be repealed by executive order; that there are certain issues of institutional prestige and authority around the Government of the United States of America which tend to disincline against facilitating foreign prosecutions of government officials, whether we like or not ( with respect to breathlessly exaggerated claims that the Obama Administration blocked Spanish prosecution of George Walker Bush Administration officials ) ; that it is normally the obligation of the government to uphold existing laws; and so on and so on.

[ IIa. Leadership as Inclusion. ]

WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENCES IN POLICY, BUT WE ALL BELIEVE IN THE RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything is possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

THAT DREAM IS WHY I CAN STAND HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

That dream is why a working-class kid from Scranton can sit behind me.

THAT DREAM IS WHY SOMEONE WHO BEGAN BY SWEEPING THE FLOORS OF HIS FATHER’S CINCINNATI BAR CAN PRESIDE AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Forty-fourth President of the United States of America
State of the Union Address, 25 January 2011

Related to this is the brute fact, often ignored, that the inescapable duty of government is to represent the populace – or, more accurately, interests, of which the populace is one; and the populace, furthermore, is one divided into segments swayed by various interests. The other side is part of our nation: they cannot be saturation bombed, nuked, or gassed into nonexistence; they must be accommodated – and that accommodation can be done with varying degrees of skillfulness, with varying degrees of capitulation or non-capitulation, with varying degrees of compromising in the right places or the wrong places. I believe that the judgment of history will be that our current Administration is doing this job very well. The onerous and loathsome bailouts have been about as successful as they could have been – the Soviet Revolution may have been more admirable on principle on this point, but they were less successful in the long run ( to grossly oversimplify a complex historical subject ); pragmatism, alas, reigns.

Also related is the notion referred to of ” why isn’t he doing this particular thing in this particular way that I think it should be done “. Earlier this evening, I momentarily reflected upon the cliché ” Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. ” – it would be accurate, I think, if the word ” conservative ” were replaced by the word ” pragmatic “. With the passing of some years, the unthinkable moral obscenity, ” compromise “, becomes the very foundation of existence – in political terms, it is the essence of democracy, the accommodation described above; and what become essential are the concepts of ” politics as the art of the possible ” and of ” incremental change “. Prior to, perhaps, mid- or late October 2008, I was not someone for whom political pragmatism or compromise were virtues. My only prior vote for a Presidential candidate was for H. Ross Perot in 1992 – never for a major party candidate ( curiously similar to my father, a Roosevelt-era American Socialist and McCarthy victim – I remember him voting for John Anderson in 1980, and saying he had almost never voted in a Presidential election ). On the other hand, and at about the same time, on one evening in the early 1990s I found myself experiencing an episode of herbally-augmented fascination with the television set ; which resulting in my watching the PBS American Experience program LBJ, and subsequent reading ( and even mostly re-reading ) the volumes to date of Robert Caro’s biography ( which is shorter than Proust – so far ). I came to have a gleefully idiosyncratic reverence for Johnson – the first President whom I actively admired ( as distinct from holding received sentimental notions of such Presidents as Roosevelt or Kennedy ), and the down-and-dirty compromiser and deal-maker par excellence.

[ IIb. Birth of a pragmatist. ]

I WOULD SAVE THE UNION.

I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.”

IF THERE BE THOSE WHO WOULD NOT SAVE THE UNION,

UNLESS AT THE SAME TIME THEY COULD SAVE SLAVERY,

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM.

IF THERE BE THOSE WHO WOULD NOT SAVE THE UNION

UNLESS AT THE SAME TIME THEY COULD DESTROY SLAVERY,

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save TO SAVE THE UNION,

and is not either TO SAVE OR TO DESTROY SLAVERY.

IF I COULD SAVE THE UNION WITHOUT FREEING ANY SLAVES I WOULD DO IT,

AND IF I COULD SAVE IT BY FREEING ALL THE SLAVES I WOULD DO IT ;

AND IF I COULD SAVE IT BY FREEING SOME AND LEAVING OTHERS ALONE I WOULD DO IT.

WHAT I DO ABOUT SLAVERY, AND THE COLORED RACE, I DO BECAUSE IT HELPS TO SAVE

THE UNION ; AND WHAT I FORBEAR, I FORBEAR BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD HELP TO SAVE THE UNION.

I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I HAVE HERE STATED MY PURPOSE ACCORDING TO MY VIEW OF OFFICIAL DUTY;

AND I INTEND NO MODIFICATION OF MY OFT-EXPRESSED PERSONAL WISH

THAT ALL MEN EVERYWHERE COULD BE FREE.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Sixteenth President of the United States of America
Letter to the New York Tribune, 22 August 1862

* * *

In the run-up to 2008, the candidates I was considering were Cynthia McKinney ( I saw her 9-11 Truthism as just one facet, and have a very different view of conspiracy thinking in general today ), Ralph Nader, and Mike Gravel ( pre-primary, after which he swung towards Libertarianism, which I found somewhat dubious then and more than wholly dubious now ). I contributed $25 to McKinney; voted for Gravel in the Democratic primary; and was skeptical of the then-Senator Obama, who struck me as too right-wing – most conspicuously, with his support for expanding the death policy, support for the status quo in Israel, and nods to the Christian semi-Right ( and Hillary Clinton was way out there she lost me forever when she said, to a religious group, ” works without faith cannot be sustained ” ). ( I continue to be amused, at best, at talk of how he ran as a ” progressive ” and has since betrayed his ” base ” with every move of a finger. )

As the election approached, I began to think of the critical state of the nation; of how the two major parties really were crucially different under the circumstances; of how it was perhaps important – at least morally, as I live in a safe state – to vote for the Democratic candidate; and moreover that is seemed that the Democratic candidate would perhaps just possibly be someone like Johnson, who would be able to play the game, keep the country from collapse, maybe accomplish a good thing here or there, and — most importantly — lean the country in a direction which would be preferable to the then-current one.

What is crucial about this is that, in doing so, I made a conscious decision to entirely disregard the notion of ” agreeing ” on policy – on any policy. I accepted that some things would be good, some would be bad, that there was a good chance that overall things would be better than they might be otherwise, and that what good might be achieved could not be micro-predicted from advertised policy points.

The outcome has radically transformed my understanding of, and involvement in, politics, towards belief in pragmatism, compromise and incremental change. ( I saw it pointed out somewhere that the Civil Rights struggle was incremental – in fact, it was. ) I suppose that could seem convenient – it would have been a bummer if it hadn’t, wouldn’t it? – but I believe it is justified. I can only suggest from my own experience that I was not motivated to take that chance on Bill Clinton, nor did his Administration persuade me to such views, nor would have the present Administration ( or one of Hillary Clinton ) if it had been similar.
I do find it striking, in retrospect, that my only previous vote for a Presidential candidate was for a right-leaning one who would arguably have been a fine pragmatist. I can only assert my leftist credentials, and will supply recollections of how I grew up watching Battleship Potemkin on PBS on request.

[ While Perot remains, to some extent, controversial, I will only state that a defense of him and my vote is possible ; it is, unfortunately, outside the scope of this essay. I will only mention that his support in 1992 was 73% liberal and moderate, making him very much unlike today’s Tea Partiers, indeed.

Don’t be too quick to mistake tea party for Perot movement

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/200/04/17/AR2010041701613.html ]

To fast-forward a little bit and give an example of where pragmatic leadership has gotten us, a little over two years later, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, Forty-fourth President of the United States of America, is the historic LGBT Rights President in the history of our nation. There are some notable loose ends to tie up — such as repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and establishing nationwide marriage equality — but it is essentially done. It has happened.

I did not expect that. No-one did. This was a particular area in which the signs — his 2008 campaign stand against marriage equality, and associations with Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren — were not favourable ; in which, in the tallying of the good and the bad, this area was not expected to wind up in the ” good ” column in one’s estimate of a future President Obama. The decision to decide on pragmatics rather than issues, to choose the best of the good-and-evils, has, however paid off. And it is only a small part of the accomplishment.

So how did this happen? I suspect it is a case of a politician’s belief in Leadership as Inclusion trumping his advertised policy points.

Mr. Nader, in the 2008 campaign I enjoyed your lists of what was ” on ” or ” off ” the table for yourself and the other candidates – but, sorry, try again. I have seen that that not all of what it is all about, and that there are more ingredients in an enchilada than policy points.

[ To the doubters, I offer the awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk — a profoundly moving and potently symbolic gesture which surely would not have been forthcoming from President McCain — at the head of a laundry list of advances including absolutely everything but marriage equality : the first-ever transgender appointees ; the unprecedented participation of the President, Vice-President, and White House Staff in the It Gets Better movement ; and so on. Documentation is given in the Coda, below.

And marriage equality by January 2017?

Bet on it. ]

INTERMISSION.

[ Colin McPhee : Tabuh-Tabuhan. I. Ostinatos. ]

ENTR’ACTE.

[ Colin McPhee : Tabuh-Tabuhan. II. Nocturne. III. Finale. ]

III. The question of Leadership : Leadership as Accomplishment.

AND WE SHALL OVERCOME.

LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON
Thirty-sixth President of the United States of America
Address to Joint Session of Congress, 15 March 1965

And that brings me around to the idea of leadership defined as accomplishment, and of how greatly my early, decidedly non-Obamabot hopes that we might have another Johnson have been exceeded. I will not argue this Administration’s record of accomplishment; that is a plain matter of record, and I put the responsibility on the skeptic to make a cursory internet search.

( I won’t pass up the chance to post one of my favorite videos, though. )

And it is, specifically, accomplishment. It is not about such-and-such policy being executed in perfect accordance with someone else’s set of points. It is not about pronouncements being made before we can know what we are talking about ( as with Libya in recent days ). It is not about counter-productive trumpetings of ideologically pure policy – one notes that the then-controversial concessions on offshore drilling have come to be all but abandoned in the wake of the British Petroleum disaster ; and one sees the same beginning to occur for the inclusion of nuclear energy in energy policy, in the wake of the ongoing Japanese disaster. In both cases, an approach has been taken which allows space for real-world events have to duly influence, in the preferred and positive direction, broad policies which made concessions to political opponents ; rather than an approach of leading with ideologically pure policy which would merely expose the policymaker to additional and unproductive policy.

It has been my observation that this is characteristic of President Obama — it is, indeed, his accustomed manner of speaking — to make his point — and quite clearly and unambiguously, too — after a premise which appears to give ground, or embrace the other side. In his 2011 State of the Union Address, the President stated :

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That’s what planted the seeds for the Internet. That’s what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. Just think of all the good jobs — from manufacturing to retail — that have come from these breakthroughs.

Note this statement is very carefully. He is stating very clearly — and boldly, in the face of the opposing ideology and our current political environment — the government, not free enterprise, drives innovation.

And he does so by beginning his statement with ” Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. “

There is a great deal for Left critics of the President to learn in this, if only they would. I read a critique of the Address, by an Ivy League academic ( no less ), which berated the President at length for stating that free enterprise drives innovation, in complete disregard of the fact ( and with a complete absence of the reading comprehension skills one would expect of someone far lower in station than an Ivy League academic ) that he was clearly stating the opposite.

IV. The question of Leadership : Leadership as Conduct and Character.

Another part of leadership is in conduct and character – the reason why there will always be certain ironic qualifier to the achievements of Johnson; the reason why the essential humanism and potential for greatness of Nixon will always be deeply overshadowed; why the myths of Reagan will always be belied by the stark facts; why all conceivable apologies for George Walker Bush are controverted by the ineradicable spectacle of the truly grotesque and appalling buffoon who trampled the world stage for eight long years ( and to whom, curiously, the George Walker Bush of today bears little resemblance – I suspect there may be a parallel with Governor George Corley Wallace, as a person who was profoundly corrupted by political power ). In conduct and character, President Obama is truly extraordinary, given the open, disloyal, and not infrequently seditious hostility with which he has been received. His perennial forbearance, even temper, dignity, confidence, and good cheer does, indeed, make a profound impression on those who choose to see it, and it indicates someone who attention and energy it directed where it matters most, in a way few of us can hope to acheive – towards actual accomplishment; and it is integral to his continued popularity and, more importantly, the restoration of standing of our nation in the world. It is merely crude to mistake his graciousness for weakness.

Coda : Of Thee I Sing.

I see the President often. I think better of him than many do. He has conscience & homely shrewdness—conceals an enormous tenacity under his mild, gawky western manner. The difficulties of his situation have been unprecedented in the history of statesmanship. That he has conserved the government so far is a miracle itself.

Letter from Walt Whitman to James P. Kirkwood, 27 (?) April 1864

So, where has President Obama led?

In his most recent State of the Union Address, the President stated: ” American leadership has been renewed and America’s standing has been restored. “

That is true. It has happened. And that, to paraphrase the finest Vice-President since, I don’t know who, is a Big Effing Deal.

On a more trivial level, I can testify that he has transformed one American’s understanding of and involvement in politics. For me today, while I might prefer some advantages in other systems, the two major parties are not the same, and it makes a difference if and how I vote; and, if of the two major parties, there is one that I have come to unambiguously and emphatically support, I am still free to identify as independent, and expect to continue to do so. Most personally, and most importantly, today I have a President. There is not the endless, grim, grey alternation of the Mild Embarassment and the Acute Embarassment in the White House. ( I regret that I was in my early teens when President James Earl Carter left office and was unable to appreciate his Administration. ) For me today, I am invested and have an active role to play, even it is only voting and preaching to the choir on the internet – that is a fundamental difference from alienation and apathy. For me today, This Matters.

* * *

” His name was Harvey Milk, and he was here to recruit us — ALL of us — to join a movement, and change a nation.

For much of his life, he had silenced himself. In the prime of his life, he was silenced by the act of another. But in the brief time in which he spoke, and ran, and led, his voice stirred the aspirations of millions of people. He would become, after several attempts, one of the first openly gay Americans elected to public office ; and his message of hope — hope unashamed, hope unafraid — could not ever be silenced.

It was Harvey who said it best :

‘ You gotta give ’em hope. ’ “

President Obama Honors Harvey Milk With Presidential Medal of Freedom

President Obama: It Gets Better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geyAFbSDPVk

Vice President Biden: It Gets Better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcyXQJ2Tf4E&feature=related

White House Staff: It Gets Better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Ed_iKiG4&feature=relmfu

LGBT Accomplishments

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433×485790

* * *

Anybody heard of Jackie Robinson? Who was Jackie Robinson? He was a famous baseball player. When Jackie Robinson was a young man, you didn’t have African Americans – black people weren’t allowed to play baseball in the major leagues, and he was the first African American to play in major league baseball.

So I said, “Have I told you that you are brave?”, is what I’m saying to my daughters, and I talk about Jackie Robinson. I say, “A man named Jackie Robinson played baseball and showed us all how to turn fear into respect, and respect into love. He swung his bat, with the grace and strength of a lion, and gave brave dreams to other dreamers.”

Now, when he starting playing baseball, a lot of other people didn’t want black people to play baseball, and so they were being mean to him, and booing him, and throwing things at him; but, he was so brave that he was willing to go ahead and play anyway.

President Obama Reads to Schoolchildren

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWOLc_DYKk4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.obamafoodorama.com/2010/12/holiday-storytime-with-president.html

* * *

WE DON’T QUIT.

I DON’T QUIT.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Forty-fourth President of the United States of America
State of the Union Address, 27 January 2010

* * *

THE FUTURE IS OURS TO WIN.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Forty-fourth President of the United States of America
State of the Union Address, 25 January 2011

* * *

I can’t do it by myself.

No president can.

Remember: Change doesn’t happen from the top.

It happens because of you.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Forty-fourth President of the United States of America

http://www.theobamadiary.com/
http://www.blackwaterdog.wordpress.com/
http://www.obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/
http://www.whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/
http://www.obamaachievements.org/
http://www.propresobama.org/
http://www.republicansforobama.org/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/
http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse
http://www.my.barackobama.com
http://www.democrats.org/

The Best Possible President We Could Possibly Have :

” Kabuki Democracy: Why a Progressive Presidency Is Impossible, for Now ”
by Eric Alterman

http://www.thenation.com/article/37165/kabuki-democracy-why-progressive-presidency-impossible-now

Obama in Command: The Rolling Stone Interview

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-in-command-br-the-rolling-stone-interview-2010092

* * *

2012.

Sí, se puede.

* * *

FINALE.

[ Leoš Janaček : Sinfonietta, fifth movement. Full orchestra, plus the additional forces of the first movement. ]

[ Sorry about the typically poor Boulez performance – Michael Tilson Thomas is incomparably superior – but this has good video of the 13 extra trumpets and tubas from about 5:30. ]

INTRADA.