When President Abraham Lincoln was shot and was bleeding from a gunshot to the back of his head, he was taken across the street and given the state-of-the-art treatment for gunshot wounds.  They bled him!  They did this under the theory that somehow his blood had become contaminated as a result of the gunshot and removing a portion of that "bad" blood would have a therapeutic effect.   Not that anything could have saved the President: modern medicine, the present state-of-the-art treatment, would not call for bleeding!

As an abolitionist in this critical moment in history, committed as I am to the cause with all the fervor my religion and moral sensibility engender, I rue ever having voted for this hypocrite from Illinois.  He has betrayed those of us who helped elect him and more importantly, betrayed the principles of our movement.  

Let it be known that I will not contribute another red cent or moment of my time to help get him re-elected.  If it results in the election of his opponent, that ineffectual military leader and martinet, George McLellan, so be it.  I see little difference between them now.  I will, instead, devote my time and energies to the more important tasks of meeting with fellow abolitionists and ensuring that we support local and state candidates who support our agenda without wavering from vital orthodoxy we must preserve.  

Why am I so incensed?  A letter President Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley was leaked to the press and in it he is quoted as saying the following . . .

In many e-mails and conversations with friends, I have remarked often how much Obama, his campaign and my guess as to how he'll govern so resemble Abraham Lincoln.  Candidates Lincoln and Obama share a very similar resume, represent the same state and share a gift for oratory.  Obama has noted that he'll be using Lincoln's cabinet as an example.  We all know, he announced his presidency on the same spot as the House Divided speech.  And numerous diaries here mention that Team of Rivals would be a good first glimpse at an Obama presidency.

So, if this a politician who's stepping in these footsteps, we need not freak out by his "scolding" of MoveOn.org and Wesley Clark and his recent comments of FISA and the Supreme Court.  (I happen to think only 50% of those examples are mistakes)

The arguments about Obama being pragmatic on FISA are complete and utter bullshit. So I'm not using a strawman, I'll quote from the diary that currently sits atop the rec list:

1. he avoids creating a rift among Democrats, which the media loves

2. he deprives the Republicans of an issue this fall.

I know a lot of you are stunned, shocked, and hurt right now over Obama's support of the new FISA bill. Some of you have even stated on this site that you will no longer contribute to Obama's campaign, that you will no longer actively volunteer for him, and even - most troubling for Democrats - will not vote for him in the fall. He has, in many of your eyes, let you down and voted to limit the protections of the Constitution. He is not the progressive that you believed him to be.

Let me say that I hear you and I know how hard today's vote was for you. It was for me as well. If you will allow me, however, I would like to go back to the 1860 election for President to provide some context on why Obama chose to do what he did. I am not a historian, nor am I a FISA expert, but I think the little knowledge I do have may shed some light on the bigger stakes we have to keep in mind.

... with anguish at loss on one side, unbelievable joy with the winners, the political liberation of the black American, cries of retribution, lost loyalties, the exhaustion of everyone who got into it, let us listen to the advice of a Republican:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

I've had to set aside my strong personal, emotional distaste for Hillary to attack this problem, I think, more rationally. This is not about winning in November. The real debate compares two competing philosophical values -- both equally Barackian.

The value that's been most discussed of late is Barack's movement toward a new kind of politics. Common sense tells us Hillary represents old politics, and, therefore, should not be allowed anywhere near Barack's White House. But the competing value is just as integral to Barack's vision. He's talked about it in terms of Lincoln's "Team of Rivals."

Nations had enemies long before George Bush ascended to the Presidency and declared that talking with them is a bad thing (even though his father and a President named Reagan did an awful lot of it). So here's what some others (and other cultures) have had to say about how best to deal with one's enemies:

in August of 1864 - he wrote a memo and had his cabinet sign it:

This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards.

Remember what happened next: Sherman took Atlanta, Sheridan cleared the Shenandoah Valley and Lincoln was re-elected with 55% of the popular vote.

Religiously speaking, 2008 may seem like an upside-down political season.  John McCain doesn’t do God talk, Barack Obama does.  And the general consensus seems to be that even though Obama acknowledged that he went searching for a church only after he began organizing in Chicago, he genuinely means it.

That may seem upside-down because for seventeen years the U.S. has grown steadily more secular – and democrats pander to secularism, don't they?  The data comes from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) from CUNY, first conducted in 1990 and repeated in 2001.  The study asked thousands of Americans "What is your religion?"  "No religion" came in third after "Catholic" and "Baptist" – and the number jumped from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.5 million in 2001.

So where’s the evidence of rising secularism since 2001?  Well, I interviewed one of researchers behind the survey – and he heartily believed that the trend had continued.  But I can’t really cite that with links here.

There is some citable evidence, however, in modern politics.

The Clinton people are now proposing an unmoderated Lincoln-Douglas style debate in advance of the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. Senator Clinton lobbied for the debate herself at a speech in South Bend today, the  AP reported:

Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions, we'll set whatever rules seem fair

From first glance, this seems like an excellent opportunity to advance the level of political discourse in the nomination campaign, but a careful analysis of the proposal leads me to believe that it's a diabolical and insidious trap, a "win-win" for Senator Clinton and a potential minefield for Senator Obama.

This is an offer he can AND SHOULD refuse!

Cross-posted at Attytood.

News item:

BURBANK, Calif. (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made fun of herself Thursday, telling "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno she almost didn't make it to his studio.

"It is so great to be here, I was so worried I wasn't going to make it. I was pinned down by sniper fire," Clinton said after joining him onstage, referring to her claims—since disputed—that she dodged sniper bullets while arriving in Bosnia as first lady. Clinton later said she had "misspoke."

(cross posted at Fernham); UPDATED TO NOTE: first mentioned in Paul Werner's diary

An old friend who writes in a rather urgent, heated style, emailed me last week with news and a request for action. I skimmed the email, saw that she and her family seemed to be in good health, and moved on.

My hesitation comes partly out of the exigencies of my own life but also the dilemma her email posed: the European Reading Room at the Library of Congress is slated to close to make way for an Abraham Lincoln Exhibit. Would I speak out about this outrage?

Well, I wasn’t sure it was an outrage.

Besides, it’s not just any exhibit. It’s a Lincoln exhibit.

I would love to put my political science background and Harvard Law degree to use and write a deeply researched, deeply though-out diary here on a daily basis.  Unfortunately my current employment status does not allow me to do so.  

But I wanted to say this:  Barack Obama is not John Kennedy.  He is not Robert Kennedy.  He is not Martin Luther King.  He is not the Democratic equivalent of Ronald Reagan.  He is not simply the anti-thesis of George W. Bush or John McCain.  The "change" he promises is not merely change in our tax code, or the way we pay for health care, or the way we deploy our military.  The "change" he promises is not the kind that comes from ten-point plans (though, contrary to the media myth, he has put forth plenty of those).  Barack Obama doesn't speak of the Shining City on the Hill.  He is not a giver of platitudes (contrary to what John McCain might want you to believe).  

[THERE'S MORE]

I saw a beautiful comment today.  

It turns out that folks who spent 8 years in Illinois State legislature and 2 years in US Legislature, give great speeches are not experienced enough to run for president.

I am of course talking about Abraham Lincoln.

Here's what I think: experience means jack. Did you know Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illionois State House of Representatives, and 2 years in the US House of Representatives?

Obama has 8 years in the Illinois State Senate, 3 in the US Senate.

He has Lincoln beat by a year.

Men are wise in proportion, not to their experience, but to their capacity for experience. -- George Bernard Shaw

more after then jump

I've been thinking a lot about Lincoln lately, that former POTUS from Illinois.

Good evening Senator Clinton,

Perhaps it is time to consider your legacy.

Perhaps you can elevate your status from a person passionate about being President - only to fail and cause enormous damage in the process - to being truly Presidential without ever occupying the Office.

How might you do that?

The federal Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission will conclude a two-day event in Kentucky today -- the great president's actual birth date -- to start a national countdown intended to raise awareness of Lincoln's 200th birthday celebration in 2009.