Lessig » presidential politics http://www.lessig.org Blog, news, books Sat, 12 Nov 2016 16:31:06 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 Change 2.0 http://www.lessig.org/2008/12/change-20/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/12/change-20/#comments Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:16:39 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/change_20.html
newsweek_3.JPG
]]>
newsweek_3.JPG

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/12/change-20/feed/ 4
words would not do http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/words-would-not-do/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/words-would-not-do/#comments Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:02:18 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/words_would_not_do.html
2096982084_6005cba624_b.jpg

Joe Crimmings Photography

Creative Commons License

]]>
2096982084_6005cba624_b.jpg

Joe Crimmings Photography

Creative Commons License

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/words-would-not-do/feed/ 12
Winning Tuesday: An urgent plea to Obama supporters http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/winning-tuesday-an-urgent-plea/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/winning-tuesday-an-urgent-plea/#comments Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:46:12 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/11/winning_tuesday_an_urgent_plea.html tracking.001_600.png I awoke in New Zealand today to an article in the New Zealand Herald, and I had a strange sense of deja vu. It is still Monday in America. And like the Monday before the 2004 election, and the Monday before the 2000 election, there is enormous confidence among Democrats that we are going to win this. But as with 2000, and 2004, I have become a bit terrified about where we’ll be Tuesday. For as presented by the New Zealand Herald, however optimistic the static view of the swing states is, the dynamic view — what is the trend — is sobering, to say the least. As this graph shows, only Florida is trending in the right direction. Every other critical state is trending away from Obama. Now of course, maybe not quickly enough. Of course, the advantages are significant, especially relative to 2004. And of course, McCain would have to move mountains to overcome the enormous machine that the Obama campaign has built. But here’s the weird deja vu I feel. In 2004, I got on a plane Tuesday to fly to London. When I got on the plane, I watched every pundit, as well as Kerry’s daughter, speak about how all the polls were with Kerry. The “exit polls” indicated a clear Kerry victory. But then when I landed, I sat it utter disbelief in the United lounge at Heathrow, watching the Ohio numbers go against us, and therefore, delivering 4 more years to Bush. We Democrats have trouble closing the deal. We have trouble continuing the push to the very last moment. We have repeatedly been blindsided by the fact that the other side votes regardless of the expected result, while we’re more contingent — making the effort if it seems necessary, relaxing when it doesn’t. Please, don’t let this happen again. Please, if you’re an Obama supporter, do absolutely everything you can in the next 24 hours to make sure every single possible Obama vote turns out to vote. Volunteer for a phone bank, or use my.barackobama.com to phone bank from home. And beyond this, do the sort of things that too few of us ever have the courage to do: Express to your friends, and anyone you know, why you want them to support your candidate. Send an email with a personal story, or an argument important to you, to as many people as you can. Apologize for the intrusion, but intrude nonetheless. (How weird is it that engaging people about democratic issues in a democracy is generally viewed as inappropriate). And don’t let up until 8pm Pacific time. I’m doing this. I’m exhorting you. I’m writing to everyone on my twitter/facebook/indenti.ca/flickr lists. If I can find an smtp server that will let me, I’ll dump an email to as many of my friends as I can telling them they this is so important. And when my plane lands in the US Tuesday morning, I will join my wife (who is running a phone bank in San Francisco), spending the day on the phone). I will mark myself as weird in doing all this, no doubt. But we can all afford this, if only just once in our life. I understand the other side has their reasons. I respect them, even if I disagree with them. But I am genuinely afraid about what happens to our side if we let this slip away. There is enormous energy and passion among young people for Obama. There is a passion and hope that makes me cry each time I think about it among African Americans, and those who think about and live the discrimination of our past, and present. There is an energy I have never imagined could be behind any politician. I have known for more than a decade that this man is the real deal. And it gives me enormous hope for this democracy that we are about to vote to make him President. Unless we don’t. Unless we let this slip by, again. Unless we sit in our comfortable cubicle, and let politics be run by the other side. Don’t do this. Do something this time. Please at least help spread this message. Make sure everyone who could matter here knows what you believe. And don’t stop until the clock runs out. ]]>
tracking.001_600.png

I awoke in New Zealand today to an article in the New Zealand Herald, and I had a strange sense of deja vu. It is still Monday in America. And like the Monday before the 2004 election, and the Monday before the 2000 election, there is enormous confidence among Democrats that we are going to win this.

But as with 2000, and 2004, I have become a bit terrified about where we’ll be Tuesday. For as presented by the New Zealand Herald, however optimistic the static view of the swing states is, the dynamic view — what is the trend — is sobering, to say the least. As this graph shows, only Florida is trending in the right direction. Every other critical state is trending away from Obama.

Now of course, maybe not quickly enough. Of course, the advantages are significant, especially relative to 2004. And of course, McCain would have to move mountains to overcome the enormous machine that the Obama campaign has built.

But here’s the weird deja vu I feel. In 2004, I got on a plane Tuesday to fly to London. When I got on the plane, I watched every pundit, as well as Kerry’s daughter, speak about how all the polls were with Kerry. The “exit polls” indicated a clear Kerry victory. But then when I landed, I sat it utter disbelief in the United lounge at Heathrow, watching the Ohio numbers go against us, and therefore, delivering 4 more years to Bush.

We Democrats have trouble closing the deal. We have trouble continuing the push to the very last moment. We have repeatedly been blindsided by the fact that the other side votes regardless of the expected result, while we’re more contingent — making the effort if it seems necessary, relaxing when it doesn’t.

Please, don’t let this happen again. Please, if you’re an Obama supporter, do absolutely everything you can in the next 24 hours to make sure every single possible Obama vote turns out to vote. Volunteer for a phone bank, or use my.barackobama.com to phone bank from home. And beyond this, do the sort of things that too few of us ever have the courage to do: Express to your friends, and anyone you know, why you want them to support your candidate. Send an email with a personal story, or an argument important to you, to as many people as you can. Apologize for the intrusion, but intrude nonetheless. (How weird is it that engaging people about democratic issues in a democracy is generally viewed as inappropriate). And don’t let up until 8pm Pacific time.

I’m doing this. I’m exhorting you. I’m writing to everyone on my twitter/facebook/indenti.ca/flickr lists. If I can find an smtp server that will let me, I’ll dump an email to as many of my friends as I can telling them they this is so important. And when my plane lands in the US Tuesday morning, I will join my wife (who is running a phone bank in San Francisco), spending the day on the phone). I will mark myself as weird in doing all this, no doubt. But we can all afford this, if only just once in our life.

I understand the other side has their reasons. I respect them, even if I disagree with them. But I am genuinely afraid about what happens to our side if we let this slip away. There is enormous energy and passion among young people for Obama. There is a passion and hope that makes me cry each time I think about it among African Americans, and those who think about and live the discrimination of our past, and present. There is an energy I have never imagined could be behind any politician. I have known for more than a decade that this man is the real deal. And it gives me enormous hope for this democracy that we are about to vote to make him President.

Unless we don’t. Unless we let this slip by, again. Unless we sit in our comfortable cubicle, and let politics be run by the other side.

Don’t do this. Do something this time. Please at least help spread this message. Make sure everyone who could matter here knows what you believe. And don’t stop until the clock runs out.

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/11/winning-tuesday-an-urgent-plea/feed/ 20
Presidential Tech Debate http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/presidential-tech-debate/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/presidential-tech-debate/#comments Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:44:39 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/presidential_tech_debate.html Wired_NAF_Tech_Smackdown.jpg]]>
Wired_NAF_Tech_Smackdown.jpg

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/presidential-tech-debate/feed/ 3
Powell’s endorsement http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/powells-endorsement/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/powells-endorsement/#comments Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:08:18 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/powells_endorsement.html This is the most important, most profound, more powerfully argued 7 minutes of this campaign. ]]>

This is the most important, most profound, more powerfully argued 7 minutes of this campaign.

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/powells-endorsement/feed/ 31
McCain’s Push Polling http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/mccains-push-polling/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/mccains-push-polling/#comments Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:04:58 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/mccains_push_polling.html Yosem's diary on Daily Kos has a transcript of a McCain push polling call. It is extraordinarily depressing to read, especially when you remember that it was this tactic precisely (employed by Bush) that derailed his 2000 campaign in South Carolina. ]]> Yosem’s diary on Daily Kos has a transcript of a McCain push polling call. It is extraordinarily depressing to read, especially when you remember that it was this tactic precisely (employed by Bush) that derailed his 2000 campaign in South Carolina.

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/mccains-push-polling/feed/ 3
extremely well done http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/extremely-well-done/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/extremely-well-done/#comments Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:03:04 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/extremely_well_done.html
Obama '08 - Vote For Hope from MC Yogi on Vimeo.]]>

Obama ’08 – Vote For Hope from MC Yogi on Vimeo.

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/extremely-well-done/feed/ 5
The scary context of this election; the decent efforts to calm http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/the-scary-context-of-this-elec/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/the-scary-context-of-this-elec/#comments Sat, 11 Oct 2008 06:13:02 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/the_scary_context_of_this_elec.html CBS:
Some of the questioners said they were scared of an Obama presidency, and one woman said she couldn’t trust Obama because “he’s an Arab.” McCain shook his head. “No ma’am, he’s a decent family man, a citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is all about.”
]]>
From CBS:
Some of the questioners said they were scared of an Obama presidency, and one woman said she couldn’t trust Obama because “he’s an Arab.”

McCain shook his head. “No ma’am, he’s a decent family man, a citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is all about.”

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/the-scary-context-of-this-elec/feed/ 29
and then things got ugly http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/and-then-things-got-ugly/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/and-then-things-got-ugly/#comments Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:57:07 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/and_then_things_got_ugly.html It has surprised me that this, the tremor before this recent financial disaster, the Keating Five scandal, has not been at the center of this campaign before. But now, apparently in response to Palin's suggestion that the fact Obama knows Ayers is relevant to whether he should be president, the Obama campaign has released this very strong 15 minute documentary about the Keating scandal. For those not old enough to remember, here's the outline: 5 Senators, all of whom had received campaign funding from Charles Keating, intervene with regulators to get them to overlook criminal behavior by Keating, leading to the collapse of Lincoln Savings, leading to a $3.4 billion bill for Americans. The only one of those 5 Senators to receive both personal and political benefits from Keating: McCain. Fair? Totally relevant to the question whether the judgment of this candidate is the sort that's needed at this time. Totally relevant to the basic question whether his philosophy -- deregulate -- is what this sector needs at this time. Wise? Not sure. I'm not sure Americans distinguish between hard-hitting-and-fair criticism (which this is) and hard-hitting-and-unfair criticism (which Palin's is). One might worry that they're "burn[ing] down the house to roast the pig" but I assume they've reckoned that. But ugly? You bet. ]]>

It has surprised me that this, the tremor before this recent financial disaster, the Keating Five scandal, has not been at the center of this campaign before. But now, apparently in response to Palin’s suggestion that the fact Obama knows Ayers is relevant to whether he should be president, the Obama campaign has released this very strong 15 minute documentary about the Keating scandal.

For those not old enough to remember, here’s the outline: 5 Senators, all of whom had received campaign funding from Charles Keating, intervene with regulators to get them to overlook criminal behavior by Keating, leading to the collapse of Lincoln Savings, leading to a $3.4 billion bill for Americans. The only one of those 5 Senators to receive both personal and political benefits from Keating: McCain.

Fair? Totally relevant to the question whether the judgment of this candidate is the sort that’s needed at this time. Totally relevant to the basic question whether his philosophy — deregulate — is what this sector needs at this time.

Wise? Not sure. I’m not sure Americans distinguish between hard-hitting-and-fair criticism (which this is) and hard-hitting-and-unfair criticism (which Palin’s is). One might worry that they’re “burn[ing] down the house to roast the pig” but I assume they’ve reckoned that.

But ugly? You bet.

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/10/and-then-things-got-ugly/feed/ 20
On Palin’s “experience” http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/on-palins-experience/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/on-palins-experience/#comments Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:01:24 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/09/on_palins_experience.html I was intrigued by Governor Palin's hint in her ABC interview that her experience was comparable to other VPs across history. I was surprised by how incorrect she was. Here's a mp4 version. Here's the version at blip.tv. Here's a version at the Internet Archives.]]>

I was intrigued by Governor Palin’s hint in her ABC interview that her experience was comparable to other VPs across history. I was surprised by how incorrect she was.

Here’s a mp4 version.

Here’s the version at blip.tv.

Here’s a version at the Internet Archives.

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/on-palins-experience/feed/ 35
Traveforchange.org http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/traveforchangeorg/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/traveforchangeorg/#comments Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:43:24 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/09/traveforchangeorg.html TraveforChange.org. The basic idea -- use frequent flyer miles to help Obama volunteers get to places where they can do some good. ]]> Some Stanford alumni have started a travel project for Obama, TraveforChange.org. The basic idea — use frequent flyer miles to help Obama volunteers get to places where they can do some good.

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/traveforchangeorg/feed/ 1
John McCain invented the BlackBerry http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/john-mccain-invented-the-black/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/john-mccain-invented-the-black/#comments Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:16:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/09/john_mccain_invented_the_black.html Politico:
Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry. "He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry.
]]>
From Politico:
Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate’s top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.

“He did this,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry.

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/john-mccain-invented-the-black/feed/ 7
taking responsibility http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/taking-responsibility/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/taking-responsibility/#comments Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:40:09 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/09/taking_responsibility.html ]]>

]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/09/taking-responsibility/feed/ 16
Self-Swiftboating, Supersized http://www.lessig.org/2008/08/selfswiftboating-supersized/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/08/selfswiftboating-supersized/#comments Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:49:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/08/selfswiftboating_supersized.html Self-Swiftboating Obama -- acting in a way that undercut his most important character. But (as an Obama supporter), I am really pleased (if as one-time admirer of McCain, saddened) to see that McCain is out-doing Obama in this respect, big time. Below are a brace of ads by Brave New Film (on whose board I sit) and MoveOn.org that make the substance of the point well. Here's the Self-Swiftboating analysis: McCain's strongest feature as a candidate was the perception that he was a no bullshitting, straight talking, truth speaking maverick. Though I was an admirer, I never quite saw the image as true. (I wrote about an extraordinary exchange I saw with him and Zittrain last year.) But that's certainly what makes people like and respect him -- and what distinguished him so completely from Mitt "I'm running so I need to be a Rightwinger" Romney, and Rudy "I'm running so I need to be a Rightwinger" Giuliani. But now, McCain's acting in a way that will turn off this base completely. The absurdity of the flip-flop on off-shore drilling, and the shameful suggestion that this is a solution to the problem of high gas prices (all after he had met with oil execs, and then received a huge influx of campaign cash from the same), and the totally baseless charge that Obama's decision not to visit troops was motivated by the unavailability of the press coverage: Shame on you, Senator. But please, don't stop now!
Brave New Film Ad:

McCain's Ad:

MoveOn.org Ad:

]]>
So I didn’t make many friends in the Obama campaign when I suggested his campaign was Self-Swiftboating Obama — acting in a way that undercut his most important character. But (as an Obama supporter), I am really pleased (if as one-time admirer of McCain, saddened) to see that McCain is out-doing Obama in this respect, big time.

Below are a brace of ads by Brave New Film (on whose board I sit) and MoveOn.org that make the substance of the point well. Here’s the Self-Swiftboating analysis:

McCain’s strongest feature as a candidate was the perception that he was a no bullshitting, straight talking, truth speaking maverick. Though I was an admirer, I never quite saw the image as true. (I wrote about an extraordinary exchange I saw with him and Zittrain last year.) But that’s certainly what makes people like and respect him — and what distinguished him so completely from Mitt “I’m running so I need to be a Rightwinger” Romney, and Rudy “I’m running so I need to be a Rightwinger” Giuliani.

But now, McCain’s acting in a way that will turn off this base completely. The absurdity of the flip-flop on off-shore drilling, and the shameful suggestion that this is a solution to the problem of high gas prices (all after he had met with oil execs, and then received a huge influx of campaign cash from the same), and the totally baseless charge that Obama’s decision not to visit troops was motivated by the unavailability of the press coverage: Shame on you, Senator. But please, don’t stop now!

Brave New Film Ad:


McCain’s Ad:


MoveOn.org Ad:


]]>
http://www.lessig.org/2008/08/selfswiftboating-supersized/feed/ 8
The immunity hysteria http://www.lessig.org/2008/07/the-immunity-hysteria/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/07/the-immunity-hysteria/#comments Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:11:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/07/the_immunity_hysteria.html
  • Obama is no (in the 1970s sense) "liberal": There are many who are upset by this who believe this (and other recent moves) shows Obama "moving to the center." People who make this argument signal they don't know squat about which they speak. You can't read Obama's books, watch how he behaved in the Illinois Senate, and watched how he voted in the US Senate, and believe he is a Bernie Sanders liberal. He is not now, and nor has ever been. That's not to say there aren't issues on which he takes a liberal position. It is to say that the mix of views he actually has and has had doesn't map on a 1970s spectrum of liberals to conservative. He is not, for example, "against the market," as so many on the left still make it sound like they are. He is for same-sex civil unions. So if you're upset with Obama because you see him shifting, you should actually be upset with yourself that you have been so careless in understanding the politics of this candidate.
  • Obama has not shifted in his opposition to immunity for telcos: As he has consistently indicated, he opposes immunity. He voted to strip immunity from the FISA compromise. He has promised to repeal the immunity as president. His vote for the FISA compromise is thus not a vote for immunity. It is a vote that reflects the judgment that securing the amendments to FISA was more important than denying immunity to telcos. Whether you agree with that judgment or not, we should at least recognize (hysteria notwithstanding) what kind of judgment it was. The amendments to FISA were good. Getting a regime that requires the executive to obey the law is important. Whether it is more important than telco immunity is a question upon which sensible people might well differ. And critically, the job of a Senator is to weigh the importance of these different issues and decide, on balance, which outweighs the other. This is not an easy task. I don't know, for example, how I personally would have made the call. I certainly think immunity for telcos is wrong. I especially think it wrong to forgive campaign contributing telco companies for violating the law while sending soldiers to jail for violating the law. But I also think the FISA bill (excepting the immunity provision) was progress. So whether that progress was more important than the immunity is, I think, a hard question. And I can well understand those (including some friends) who weigh the two together, and come down as Obama did (voting in favor).
  • Obama's shift was in his promise, as relayed by a member of his staff, to filibuster any bill with telco immunity: First, and most obviously, that promise was a stupid promise. However important holding telcos responsible is, certainly there is something more important that Congress could have done. E.g., if telco immunity were tied to a bill requiring a 70% reduction in green house gases by 2015, would it make sense to filibuster that bill? But second, even given it was a stupid promise, in my view, it was political mistake to change -- even if it was the right thing to do from the perspective of a U.S. Senator. It was a political mistake for the reasons I've already explained: it was self-Swiftboating. This shift is fuel for the inevitable "flip-flop" campaign already being launched by the Right. Their need to fuel this campaign is all the more urgent because of the extraordinary "flip-flops" of their own candidate. So anyone with half a wit about this campaign should have recognized that this shift would be kryptonite for the Barack "is different" Obama image. Just exactly the sort of gift an apparently doomed campaign (McCain) needs. But again, to say it was a political mistake is not to say it was a mistake of governance. To do right (from the perspective of governance) is often to do wrong (from the perspective of politics). (JFK won a Pulitzer for his book about precisely this point.) So at most, critics like myself can say of this decision that it was bad politics, even if it might well have been good governance. Bad politics because it would be used to suggest Obama is a man of no principle, when Obama is, in my view, a man of principle, and when it is so critical to the campaign to keep that image front and center.
  • Unless, of course, it was good politics: I actually don't personally believe that this was a decision motivated by politics, because, again, I've seen the actual struggle of some who advised on this issue (and I wasn't one of those few), but we should recognize, of course, that this decision to pick a fight with us liberals may well have been worth more than the campaign would lose by this one clear example of flipping. And here, if you let cynical instincts run wild, there's no limit to the games that might be imagined. For what better way to demonstrate (accurately, again, for remember #1 above) that Obama is not beholden to the left than by this very visible fight that Obama doesn't cave in on. When I received the blast from Moveon, demanding that Obama reverse himself (again), it was absolutely clear that he wouldn't. For how could he reverse himself then, and avoid the tag of being tied to the left? And certainly (more cynicism) Moveon recognized this. What greater gift than a chance to act independently of a movement that (while good and right and true, in my liberal view) is not anymore a spokesman for the swing votes that will decide this election.
  • But assume you reject #4 completely. Then one more thought: Isn't it time for Obama to resign from the Senate? Why should he allow the weird framing of issues that will come from this spineless institution to define his campaign? (Notice, McCain didn't even deign to show up.) Why not simply confess to his constituents that he can't do his job as United States Senator from Illinois while running for President of the United States. That the clarity of message necessary for the latter isn't consistent with the obligation of compromise required for the former?
  • Finally, and 2bc: please, fellow liberals, or leftists, or progressives, get off your high horse(s). More on this with the next post but: it is not "compromising" to recognize that we are part of a democracy. We on the left may be right. We may be the position to which the country eventually gets. But we have not yet earned the status of a majority. And to start this chant of "principled rejection" of Obama because he is not as pure as we is, in a word, idiotic (read: Naderesque). That taunt will be continued. ]]> The hysteria that has broken out among we on the left in response to Obama’s voting for the FISA compromise was totally predictable. Some more cynical types might say, so predictable as to be planned. National campaigns are dominated by people who believe a leftist can’t be elected to national office. That means events that signal a candidate is not a leftist are critical for any election to national office.

    But without becoming part of the cynical plan, some reactions to the outrage.

    1. Obama is no (in the 1970s sense) “liberal”: There are many who are upset by this who believe this (and other recent moves) shows Obama “moving to the center.” People who make this argument signal they don’t know squat about which they speak. You can’t read Obama’s books, watch how he behaved in the Illinois Senate, and watched how he voted in the US Senate, and believe he is a Bernie Sanders liberal. He is not now, and nor has ever been. That’s not to say there aren’t issues on which he takes a liberal position. It is to say that the mix of views he actually has and has had doesn’t map on a 1970s spectrum of liberals to conservative. He is not, for example, “against the market,” as so many on the left still make it sound like they are. He is for same-sex civil unions. So if you’re upset with Obama because you see him shifting, you should actually be upset with yourself that you have been so careless in understanding the politics of this candidate.

    2. Obama has not shifted in his opposition to immunity for telcos: As he has consistently indicated, he opposes immunity. He voted to strip immunity from the FISA compromise. He has promised to repeal the immunity as president. His vote for the FISA compromise is thus not a vote for immunity. It is a vote that reflects the judgment that securing the amendments to FISA was more important than denying immunity to telcos. Whether you agree with that judgment or not, we should at least recognize (hysteria notwithstanding) what kind of judgment it was. The amendments to FISA were good. Getting a regime that requires the executive to obey the law is important. Whether it is more important than telco immunity is a question upon which sensible people might well differ. And critically, the job of a Senator is to weigh the importance of these different issues and decide, on balance, which outweighs the other.

      This is not an easy task. I don’t know, for example, how I personally would have made the call. I certainly think immunity for telcos is wrong. I especially think it wrong to forgive campaign contributing telco companies for violating the law while sending soldiers to jail for violating the law. But I also think the FISA bill (excepting the immunity provision) was progress. So whether that progress was more important than the immunity is, I think, a hard question. And I can well understand those (including some friends) who weigh the two together, and come down as Obama did (voting in favor).

    3. Obama’s shift was in his promise, as relayed by a member of his staff, to filibuster any bill with telco immunity: First, and most obviously, that promise was a stupid promise. However important holding telcos responsible is, certainly there is something more important that Congress could have done. E.g., if telco immunity were tied to a bill requiring a 70% reduction in green house gases by 2015, would it make sense to filibuster that bill?

      But second, even given it was a stupid promise, in my view, it was political mistake to change — even if it was the right thing to do from the perspective of a U.S. Senator.

      It was a political mistake for the reasons I’ve already explained: it was self-Swiftboating. This shift is fuel for the inevitable “flip-flop” campaign already being launched by the Right. Their need to fuel this campaign is all the more urgent because of the extraordinary “flip-flops” of their own candidate. So anyone with half a wit about this campaign should have recognized that this shift would be kryptonite for the Barack “is different” Obama image. Just exactly the sort of gift an apparently doomed campaign (McCain) needs.

      But again, to say it was a political mistake is not to say it was a mistake of governance. To do right (from the perspective of governance) is often to do wrong (from the perspective of politics). (JFK won a Pulitzer for his book about precisely this point.) So at most, critics like myself can say of this decision that it was bad politics, even if it might well have been good governance. Bad politics because it would be used to suggest Obama is a man of no principle, when Obama is, in my view, a man of principle, and when it is so critical to the campaign to keep that image front and center.

    4. Unless, of course, it was good politics: I actually don’t personally believe that this was a decision motivated by politics, because, again, I’ve seen the actual struggle of some who advised on this issue (and I wasn’t one of those few), but we should recognize, of course, that this decision to pick a fight with us liberals may well have been worth more than the campaign would lose by this one clear example of flipping. And here, if you let cynical instincts run wild, there’s no limit to the games that might be imagined. For what better way to demonstrate (accurately, again, for remember #1 above) that Obama is not beholden to the left than by this very visible fight that Obama doesn’t cave in on. When I received the blast from Moveon, demanding that Obama reverse himself (again), it was absolutely clear that he wouldn’t. For how could he reverse himself then, and avoid the tag of being tied to the left? And certainly (more cynicism) Moveon recognized this. What greater gift than a chance to act independently of a movement that (while good and right and true, in my liberal view) is not anymore a spokesman for the swing votes that will decide this election.

    5. But assume you reject #4 completely. Then one more thought: Isn’t it time for Obama to resign from the Senate? Why should he allow the weird framing of issues that will come from this spineless institution to define his campaign? (Notice, McCain didn’t even deign to show up.) Why not simply confess to his constituents that he can’t do his job as United States Senator from Illinois while running for President of the United States. That the clarity of message necessary for the latter isn’t consistent with the obligation of compromise required for the former?

    6. Finally, and 2bc: please, fellow liberals, or leftists, or progressives, get off your high horse(s). More on this with the next post but: it is not “compromising” to recognize that we are part of a democracy. We on the left may be right. We may be the position to which the country eventually gets. But we have not yet earned the status of a majority. And to start this chant of “principled rejection” of Obama because he is not as pure as we is, in a word, idiotic (read: Naderesque).

      That taunt will be continued.

      ]]> http://www.lessig.org/2008/07/the-immunity-hysteria/feed/ 133 Self-Swiftboating http://www.lessig.org/2008/07/selfswiftboating/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/07/selfswiftboating/#comments Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:12:46 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/07/selfswiftboating.html injunction]: All signs point to an Obama victory this fall. If the signs are wrong, it will be because of events last month. These events constitute a so-far-unnamed phenomenon in Presidential campaigning -- what we could call "self-Swiftboating." To understand "self-Swiftboating," you've got to first understand "Swiftboating." Some use the term "Swiftboating" to refer to harsh, even vicious attacks on an opponent. I use the term in a more restrictive sense: "Swiftboating" is (1) attacking the strongest bits of a candidate's character, with (2) false or misleading allegations. That was what Kerry suffered -- attacking his courage as a soldier, the characteristic that distinguished him most from Bush, with misleading (at least) allegations by some who knew him when he served. Self-Swiftboating is to Swiftboat yourself: For a campaign to do something that has the effect of undermining its own candidate's strongest characteristic, with actions that are (at best) misleading. The Obama campaign has now self-Swiftboated candidate Obama. (1) An attack on a core characteristic: There are at least two views about what makes Obama so compelling. One that he happens to have the mix of positions on policy questions that best matches the public's. The other that he is perceived by the public as "different," and hence (given the public hates politicians so) someone the public can like, or more significantly, get enthusiastic about. I'm strongly in the second camp. It seems to me nothing more than consultant-think to imagine people choosing a President with a checklist of issues, finding the one to vote for the way they pick a place to vacation. It seems to me nothing less than obvious that people are passionate about Obama because he strikes them as a different kind of candidate -- one that stands for his beliefs, that speaks clearly and directly, that can be trusted to stick by his beliefs, that says what he believes regardless. Such a creature, in most people's minds, is "not a politician." Such a creature (i.e., "not a politician") is what people want in a President. Democrats never seem to get this. The last two campaigns were lost (in my view) because the campaign was working overtime to bob and weave to match the program of the candidate to the pollsters' latest work. That the shifts would signal that the candidate was nothing different just didn't seem to compute. Better, for example, to have people believe the candidate (Kerry) was against gay marriage than to worry that most would see the position as a political ploy. Republicans, on the other hand, seem obsessed with this. It was the defining feature of the success of Reagan that he made it appear as if he did what he believed, not what the polls said. It was the part Bush v2 mimicked best. It is the clear dream of the McCain campaign to do the same. "You may not like what I say, but at least you know where I stand" is the signal virtue in a GOP campaign. It is the signal blindness of a Democratic campaign. I am not saying that Republicans are consistent and Democrats not. I am saying something very different: that Republicans believe appearing consistent/principled/different is the key to victory, where as Democrats (apparently) do not. The Obama self-Swiftboating comes from a month of decisions that, while perhaps better tuning the policy positions of the campaign to what is good, or true, or right, or even expedient, completely undermine Obama's signal virtue -- that he's different. We've handed the other side a string of examples that they will now use to argue (as Senator Graham did most effectively on Meet the Press) that Obama is nothing different, he's just another politician, and that even if you believe that McCain too is just another politician, between these two ordinary politicians, pick the one with the most experience. The Obama campaign seems just blind to the fact that these flips eat away at the most important asset Obama has. It seems oblivious to the consequence of another election in which (many) Democrats aren't deeply motivated to vote (consequence: the GOP wins). Instead, and weirdly, the campaign seems focused on the very last thing a campaign should be doing during a campaign -- governing. This is not a try-out. A campaign is not a dry run for running government. Yet policy wonks inside the campaign sputter policy that Obama listens to and follows, again, apparently oblivious to how following that advice, when inconsistent with the positions taken in the past, just reinforces the other side's campaign claim that Obama is just another calculating, unprincipled politician. The best evidence that they don't get this is Telco Immunity. Obama said he would filibuster a FISA bill with Telco Immunity in it. He has now signaled he won't. When you talk to people close to the campaign about this, they say stuff like: "Come on, who really cares about that issue? Does anyone think the left is going to vote for McCain rather than Obama? This was a hard question. We tried to get it right. And anyway, the FISA compromise in the bill was a good one." But the point is that the point is not the substance of the issue. I'd argue until the cows come home that in a world where soldiers go to prison for breaking the law, the government shouldn't be giving immunity to (generous campaign contributing) companies who break the law. But a mistake about substance is not why this flip is a mistake. I agree that a tiny proportion of the world thinks defeating Telco Immunity is important. The vast majority don't even understand the issue. But what this perspective misses is just how easy it will be to use this (clear) flip in policy positions to support the argument "Obama is no different." Here, and in other places, the campaign hands the other side kryptonite. The issue cannot just be the substance alone. It has got to also be how a change on that substance will be perceived: And here (as with the other flips), it will be perceived in a manner that can't help but erode the most important core of the Obama machine. It is behavior that attacks Obama's strongest feature -- that he is different. It is, therefore, Swiftboating. Or at least, it is Swiftboating if it is false. So is it? Is the impression that this bobbing and weaving gives a misimpression? Or are we seeing, as the pundits are now beginning to chant, the true face of Obama? (2) That is false or misleading: It is false. I know it is false because I believe I know the man, and because I know some inside the campaign struggling with these issues. I see them struggling to get it right. They are struggling, in short, to govern. The ones I know at least are not bobbing and weaving for political gain. They're tuning the campaign as governing best requires. The flip on Telco Immunity gave Obama nothing, except the opportunity to do what he believes is right, in light of the compromises in the new bill. He acted to do what he believed was right. So the impression it gives -- of a triangulator, tuning the campaign to the song of the polls -- is misimpression. But that means it fits the definition of self-Swiftboating: The campaign sabotages its strongest characteristic, through steps that are misleading at best. The campaign needs to stop this. This is not the time for governing. It is the time for making clear precisely what kind of President Obama will be. But in making that clear, it is critical to keep a focus on how actions are perceived. Will they signal a triangulator? Or will they signal a strong, principled man who stands for what he believes. No doubt, compromise is the duty of anyone within government. But in the ADD culture we live in, compromise is poison to anyone trying to do what every politician now tries to do -- appear not to be "a politician." And thus if the oath to represent Illinois is getting in the way of signaling who Obama is, then maybe it is time to step away from being a Senator from Illinois. This is the time to keep the message focused on who (I know) this man is: someone different. Hey HQ: You've got a guy who really stands for something (the tall thin guy, the one from Illinois). A man whose word really does matter. You've got to be extraordinarily careful not to give the other side the power to neutralize that. ]]> [breaking my "focus" injunction]:

      All signs point to an Obama victory this fall. If the signs are wrong, it will be because of events last month. These events constitute a so-far-unnamed phenomenon in Presidential campaigning — what we could call “self-Swiftboating.” To understand “self-Swiftboating,” you’ve got to first understand “Swiftboating.”

      Some use the term “Swiftboating” to refer to harsh, even vicious attacks on an opponent. I use the term in a more restrictive sense: “Swiftboating” is (1) attacking the strongest bits of a candidate’s character, with (2) false or misleading allegations. That was what Kerry suffered — attacking his courage as a soldier, the characteristic that distinguished him most from Bush, with misleading (at least) allegations by some who knew him when he served.

      Self-Swiftboating is to Swiftboat yourself: For a campaign to do something that has the effect of undermining its own candidate’s strongest characteristic, with actions that are (at best) misleading. The Obama campaign has now self-Swiftboated candidate Obama.

      (1) An attack on a core characteristic: There are at least two views about what makes Obama so compelling. One that he happens to have the mix of positions on policy questions that best matches the public’s. The other that he is perceived by the public as “different,” and hence (given the public hates politicians so) someone the public can like, or more significantly, get enthusiastic about.

      I’m strongly in the second camp. It seems to me nothing more than consultant-think to imagine people choosing a President with a checklist of issues, finding the one to vote for the way they pick a place to vacation. It seems to me nothing less than obvious that people are passionate about Obama because he strikes them as a different kind of candidate — one that stands for his beliefs, that speaks clearly and directly, that can be trusted to stick by his beliefs, that says what he believes regardless. Such a creature, in most people’s minds, is “not a politician.” Such a creature (i.e., “not a politician”) is what people want in a President.

      Democrats never seem to get this. The last two campaigns were lost (in my view) because the campaign was working overtime to bob and weave to match the program of the candidate to the pollsters’ latest work. That the shifts would signal that the candidate was nothing different just didn’t seem to compute. Better, for example, to have people believe the candidate (Kerry) was against gay marriage than to worry that most would see the position as a political ploy.

      Republicans, on the other hand, seem obsessed with this. It was the defining feature of the success of Reagan that he made it appear as if he did what he believed, not what the polls said. It was the part Bush v2 mimicked best. It is the clear dream of the McCain campaign to do the same. “You may not like what I say, but at least you know where I stand” is the signal virtue in a GOP campaign. It is the signal blindness of a Democratic campaign.

      I am not saying that Republicans are consistent and Democrats not. I am saying something very different: that Republicans believe appearing consistent/principled/different is the key to victory, where as Democrats (apparently) do not.

      The Obama self-Swiftboating comes from a month of decisions that, while perhaps better tuning the policy positions of the campaign to what is good, or true, or right, or even expedient, completely undermine Obama’s signal virtue — that he’s different. We’ve handed the other side a string of examples that they will now use to argue (as Senator Graham did most effectively on Meet the Press) that Obama is nothing different, he’s just another politician, and that even if you believe that McCain too is just another politician, between these two ordinary politicians, pick the one with the most experience.

      The Obama campaign seems just blind to the fact that these flips eat away at the most important asset Obama has. It seems oblivious to the consequence of another election in which (many) Democrats aren’t deeply motivated to vote (consequence: the GOP wins).

      Instead, and weirdly, the campaign seems focused on the very last thing a campaign should be doing during a campaign — governing. This is not a try-out. A campaign is not a dry run for running government. Yet policy wonks inside the campaign sputter policy that Obama listens to and follows, again, apparently oblivious to how following that advice, when inconsistent with the positions taken in the past, just reinforces the other side’s campaign claim that Obama is just another calculating, unprincipled politician.

      The best evidence that they don’t get this is Telco Immunity. Obama said he would filibuster a FISA bill with Telco Immunity in it. He has now signaled he won’t. When you talk to people close to the campaign about this, they say stuff like: “Come on, who really cares about that issue? Does anyone think the left is going to vote for McCain rather than Obama? This was a hard question. We tried to get it right. And anyway, the FISA compromise in the bill was a good one.”

      But the point is that the point is not the substance of the issue. I’d argue until the cows come home that in a world where soldiers go to prison for breaking the law, the government shouldn’t be giving immunity to (generous campaign contributing) companies who break the law. But a mistake about substance is not why this flip is a mistake. I agree that a tiny proportion of the world thinks defeating Telco Immunity is important. The vast majority don’t even understand the issue. But what this perspective misses is just how easy it will be to use this (clear) flip in policy positions to support the argument “Obama is no different.” Here, and in other places, the campaign hands the other side kryptonite.

      The issue cannot just be the substance alone. It has got to also be how a change on that substance will be perceived: And here (as with the other flips), it will be perceived in a manner that can’t help but erode the most important core of the Obama machine. It is behavior that attacks Obama’s strongest feature — that he is different. It is, therefore, Swiftboating.

      Or at least, it is Swiftboating if it is false. So is it? Is the impression that this bobbing and weaving gives a misimpression? Or are we seeing, as the pundits are now beginning to chant, the true face of Obama?

      (2) That is false or misleading: It is false. I know it is false because I believe I know the man, and because I know some inside the campaign struggling with these issues. I see them struggling to get it right. They are struggling, in short, to govern. The ones I know at least are not bobbing and weaving for political gain. They’re tuning the campaign as governing best requires. The flip on Telco Immunity gave Obama nothing, except the opportunity to do what he believes is right, in light of the compromises in the new bill. He acted to do what he believed was right. So the impression it gives — of a triangulator, tuning the campaign to the song of the polls — is misimpression. But that means it fits the definition of self-Swiftboating: The campaign sabotages its strongest characteristic, through steps that are misleading at best.

      The campaign needs to stop this. This is not the time for governing. It is the time for making clear precisely what kind of President Obama will be. But in making that clear, it is critical to keep a focus on how actions are perceived. Will they signal a triangulator? Or will they signal a strong, principled man who stands for what he believes.

      No doubt, compromise is the duty of anyone within government. But in the ADD culture we live in, compromise is poison to anyone trying to do what every politician now tries to do — appear not to be “a politician.” And thus if the oath to represent Illinois is getting in the way of signaling who Obama is, then maybe it is time to step away from being a Senator from Illinois. This is the time to keep the message focused on who (I know) this man is: someone different.

      Hey HQ: You’ve got a guy who really stands for something (the tall thin guy, the one from Illinois). A man whose word really does matter. You’ve got to be extraordinarily careful not to give the other side the power to neutralize that.

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/07/selfswiftboating/feed/ 67
      focus http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/focus/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/focus/#comments Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:12:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/focus.html As with many of my friends, the last couple weeks have brought decisions I would wish went the other way. Whether or not Obama can raise all the money he needs from small contributions, candidates for the House and Senate can’t. So I am worried about a decision that makes public funding for them less likely. I understand it. But I worry about it. Likewise, with the FISA compromise. Or at least, likewise in the sense that I don’t like the FISA compromise. Or at least, the telco immunity in the FISA compromise. I can’t begin to understand why in a war where soldiers go to jail for breaking the law, the US Congress is so keen to make sure telecom companies don’t have to fight a law suit about violating civil rights. Obama doesn’t support that immunity. He promises to get it removed. But he has signaled agreement with the compromise, which I assume means he will not filibuster immunity as he had indicated before he would. I wish he had decided differently.

      But the key thing we need to keep in focus is what the objective here is. This is a hugely complex chess game. (Or I’m assuming it’s complex, since how else can you explain losing twice (ok once) to this President.) The objective of this chess game is to keep focus on the issues that show America why your candidate should win. Keeping focus (in this media environment, at least) is an insanely difficult task. But one tool in that game is picking the fights that resonate in ways that keep focus on the issues that show America why your candidate should win.

      That doesn’t mean you (as a candidate) should change what you would do as President. Or change what you would fight for. But it does me that we (as strong supporters of a candidate) need to chill out a bit for about five months.

      We (and I think that means all of us) can’t afford to lose this election. When we win, we will have elected a President who will deliver policy initiatives I remain certain will make us proud. If he doesn’t, then loud and clear opposition is our duty.

      But that is then. This is now. And we need to remember now: you don’t sacrifice a pawn because you want to kill pawns.

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/focus/feed/ 45
      Hilary on Hillary (from the better-than-I-could-put-it department) http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/hilary-on-hillary-from-the-bet/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/hilary-on-hillary-from-the-bet/#comments Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:26:21 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/hilary_on_hillary_from_the_bet.html I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her "Al Gore moment." And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due. Instead she left her supporters empty, Obamas angry and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would "use" her 18 million voters. But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obamas campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat. From Huffington Post.]]> Longtime HRC supporter Hilary Rosen on Hillary Clinton:
      I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her “Al Gore moment.” And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due. Instead she left her supporters empty, Obamas angry and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would “use” her 18 million voters. But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obamas campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.

      From Huffington Post.

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/06/hilary-on-hillary-from-the-bet/feed/ 17
      A letter to Pennsylvania (or how to become a superdelegate) http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/a-letter-to-pennsylvania-or-ho/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/a-letter-to-pennsylvania-or-ho/#comments Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:01:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/a_letter_to_pennsylvania_or_ho.html I grew up in Pennsylvania, and went to university at Penn (as did just about everyone on my Dad's side of the family). I spent a couple days near where I grew up about three weeks ago, speaking at Penn State and Bucknell, and then travelled to Philadelphia to speak at an Obama event at Penn. It is surprising how home never quite leaves you, no matter how far away you may be. And so as I saw PA leading up to a primary, I thought about writing a letter. Pennsylvania was the last place where I dreamed about life as Superman (at the age of 7); here's 9 minutes asking PA Democrats to become super-delegates. (There's a version at YouTube, but the quality is astonishingly poor. I don't get the reason for the difference -- it is the same file uploaded in both places. But the sync is way off.)]]>

      I grew up in Pennsylvania, and went to university at Penn (as did just about everyone on my Dad’s side of the family). I spent a couple days near where I grew up about three weeks ago, speaking at Penn State and Bucknell, and then travelled to Philadelphia to speak at an Obama event at Penn.

      It is surprising how home never quite leaves you, no matter how far away you may be. And so as I saw PA leading up to a primary, I thought about writing a letter. Pennsylvania was the last place where I dreamed about life as Superman (at the age of 7); here’s 9 minutes asking PA Democrats to become super-delegates.

      (There’s a version at YouTube, but the quality is astonishingly poor. I don’t get the reason for the difference — it is the same file uploaded in both places. But the sync is way off.)

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/a-letter-to-pennsylvania-or-ho/feed/ 16
      Tech Policy in an Obama Administration http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/tech-policy-in-an-obama-admini/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/tech-policy-in-an-obama-admini/#comments Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:58:49 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/tech_policy_in_an_obama_admini.html here. ]]> If you’re near Philadelphia, and you’re interested in tech policy in an Obama administration, some key figures will be talking about it at the Wharton School. Saturday, April 12, at 5pm. Read about it here.

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/tech-policy-in-an-obama-admini/feed/ 2
      Me @ UPenn 4 Barack http://www.lessig.org/2008/03/me-upenn-4-barack/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/03/me-upenn-4-barack/#comments Sun, 30 Mar 2008 08:32:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/03/me_upenn_4_barack.html My talk at UPenn about Barack. Download other formats at blip.tv.]]>

      My talk at UPenn about Barack. Download other formats at blip.tv.

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/03/me-upenn-4-barack/feed/ 14
      Me @ Obama Rally @ UPenn http://www.lessig.org/2008/03/me-obama-rally-upenn/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/03/me-obama-rally-upenn/#comments Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:13:24 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/03/me_obama_rally_upenn.html change-congress.002.png I'm going to be speaking at an Obama rally at the University of Pennsylvania (my alma mater) on Saturday, March 29, at 5pm, in Huntsman Hall - 3730 Walnut Street (or 38th and Locust Streets). Though I've made slideshows for Obama (first, second), I've never done this. If you're around, or have friends who are around, come!]]>
      change-congress.002.png

      I’m going to be speaking at an Obama rally at the University of Pennsylvania (my alma mater) on Saturday, March 29, at 5pm, in Huntsman Hall – 3730 Walnut Street (or 38th and Locust Streets).

      Though I’ve made slideshows for Obama (first, second), I’ve never done this. If you’re around, or have friends who are around, come!

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/03/me-obama-rally-upenn/feed/ 14
      on the vitality of free speech http://www.lessig.org/2008/03/on-the-vitality-of-free-speech/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/03/on-the-vitality-of-free-speech/#comments Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:11:41 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/03/on_the_vitality_of_free_speech.html ]]> That Olbermann gets television time is the best evidence that free speech lives.

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/03/on-the-vitality-of-free-speech/feed/ 16
      More on the meaning of “change” http://www.lessig.org/2008/02/more-on-the-meaning-of-change/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/02/more-on-the-meaning-of-change/#comments Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:12:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/more_on_the_meaning_of_change.html represent "real Americans") is the leading recipient of earmarks. From "day one," business as usual. That's "change" in Washington-speak.]]> Both Dems say they are for “change” in Washington. One (the one who believes lobbyists represent “real Americans”) is the leading recipient of earmarks. From “day one,” business as usual. That’s “change” in Washington-speak.

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/02/more-on-the-meaning-of-change/feed/ 30
      Remix America http://www.lessig.org/2008/02/remix-america/ http://www.lessig.org/2008/02/remix-america/#comments Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:39:04 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/remix_america.html From ObamaVideo08.]]>

      From ObamaVideo08.

      ]]>
      http://www.lessig.org/2008/02/remix-america/feed/ 6