Obama explains his risky move

President Barack Obama just hung up with 65,000 people who had their hopes dashed and won't be seeing his acceptance speech in Charlotte tonight.

"I just want to begin by saying how much I regret that we're not all gathering in one place," Obama said.

His campaign wanted to maximize people's participation in the convention and his campaign, he said. "That's why we wanted to take a chance" by having the final night at the outdoor Bank of America Stadium. Democrats announced Wednesday they would move tonight's events to Time Warner Cable Arena.

"The problem," Obama said, "was a safety issue. I could not ask you (and authorities) to subject themselves to the risk of severe thunderstorms. You can imagine with all the nagging and security issues involved, getting 70,000 people into a place ... and getting them out of there (in case of storms) is even tougher. If we started seeing severe thunderstorms and lightning in particular, it would have been a problem.

"I know it's disappointing. ... My main message is, you can't let a little thunder and lightning get us down. We're going to have to roll with it."

Weather.com forecasts clear skies with zero percent chance of rain at 10 p.m. tonight. Forecasters say there's a 10 to 30 percent chance of rain and isolated storms in the afternoon and early evening hours.

Obama did not take questions. He said his campaign would try to set up events where people who got left out by the switch will get to see him.

The whole episode is an unnecessary misstep for the campaign. The weather is expected to be gorgeous tonight. Organizers knew there was a chance of rain in Charlotte in late summer when they announced months ago the event would be at the stadium. If anything, the weather tonight is expected to be nicer than you would have baked into your calculations when the original plan was drawn up.

We doubt many voters will switch their vote or stay home based on the Obama campaign's overabundance of caution. But in a state that you won by less than one-half of one-percent in 2008, doing anything to dampen voter enthusiasm is an extremely risky move.

Taylor Batten

Elizabeth Warren and Bill Clinton, graded

We're pleased to welcome Wake Forest political communications professor Allan Louden back to the O - and we're happy he's brought some help with him. Louden, a national champion debate coach who has worked with politicians such as Elizabeth Dole, graded speeches and debate performances for us in 2008. This week, he and his political communications class will cast their critical eyes on key DNC speeches, offering a letter grade to each.

On Tuesday, they examined keynote speaker Julian Castro and First Lady Michelle Obama. Today it's Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senate candidate in Massachusetts, and President Bill Clinton.

First off, Elizabeth Warren:

In mid-July President Obama told supporters in Roanoke, Va.: “If you’ve got a business, you did not build that – somebody else made that happen.” You would have thought the political world was asunder as opponents pounced, generating dozens of political spots and speeches. The reality of Obama’s gaffe was no more a crime than an inarticulate parroting of Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s powerful defense of government’s role.

The Warren convention speech attempted to right that gaffe Wednesday, through the originator’s voice. But a convention speech is different than a YouTube gone-viral video, rising on an edgy authenticity.

In her speech, Warren mercilessly attacked the Republican Party, accusing them of “chipp[ing], squeeze[ing], and hammer[ing]” the middle class on an already uneven playing field. Brimming with passionate energy, Warren unflinchingly refuted Mitt Romney’s big business focus by stating that “corporations are not people [because] people have hearts.” By displaying Romney as a cold, heartless, impersonal machine, Warren very effectively asked her audience to choose sides.

If she positioned the Republican Party the oppressor, she positioned Obama as the knight in shining armor, the hero of the masses, and the defender of the people. Here she lay on the humanistic appeal and the call to unity. Harkening back to an earlier speech, Warren painted a picture of an America that we “root it in fairness, grow it in opportunity, and we build it together.

The theme was a hit on the convention floor but failed to assess reality from a critical standpoint, offering up sound bites in lieu of concrete examples. Despite claims of “running the country for people and not corporations”—an almost inflammatory remark considering the last trillion dollars worth of bailouts went to American corporations and not the taxpayers—Warren seemed effete and preachy; a little fish in a big pond full of like-minded people who don’t make as much money.

Warren ended the speech to a roaring crowd of like-minded, but may have threatened more voters with a too concentrated enshrining of government. The moments of unique insight- those outside the expected political balderdash, were too few. She is often better when her progressive Teddy Roosevelt heart is exposed, but not when replaced by compliance with the convention script.

Grade: B

Bill Clinton:

Who can doubt that Bill Clinton’s political skills elevate above his peers (and who can doubt that he spoke too long – nearly an hour). His big-voice version of political realities resonated through the hall in Charlotte, and with a little media amplification may resound through Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

It is easy to dismiss Clinton’s skills, especially those who cannot forgive former appetites, but he does move audiences with a clarity enjoyed by few. True, the speech after the first few minutes was unashamedly political, but other factors trump. A more interesting question is why is his speaking effective? A few reasons suggest themselves.

Clinton is direct. There is no doubt what the take away is when, in plain language, Clinton makes a point. “I want Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States and I proudly nominate him as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.” Game on . . .

He dissected the Republican platform with poise, relentlessly. Prefacing his attack on the Romney campaign’s budget proposal and its implications for entitlements with a long list of bi-partisan accomplishments gave the former president a rare measure of ethos in today’s political world. He never came across as mean; instead he seemed disappointed that the programs he had once worked with Republicans to strengthen had become issues of such acrimonious debate today; unsolvable, unwinnable.

Clinton uses argument. After more evidence than others would dare to put in a speech, he offered a position that exceeds slogans, concluding on one refrain: “It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it.”

One of Clinton’s most effective rhetorical strategies was the running tally he kept of jobs created under Democratic and Republican administrations over the past 52 years. In that time, Republican administrations have created 24 million jobs; the Democrats, 42. “So what’s the job score?” asked the president. “Republicans: 24 million. Democrats: 42.”

This segued into a comparison of President Obama’s job creation as compared to the jobs Congressional Republicans have created since 2008—Obama: 4.5 million. Republicans: 0 — and a comparison of the jobs saved in the auto-bailouts compared to the number of jobs that would have been saved under the Mitt Romney plan of allowing the companies to fold—Obama: 250,000; Romney: 0.

In this way, Mr. Clinton diagrammed the party’s history of job creation and the President’s own record when tested against his two biggest adversaries these past four years in Mitt Romney and the U.S. Congress. Whether or not party or presidential platforms were directly responsible for every job created in Clinton’s analysis was irrelevant last night, all that mattered was the score.

Clinton did not disappoint during his speech. Using a combination of humor, facts, and anecdotes, he captured the crowd with his charismatic rhetoric “I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside. . . I want a man for president who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.” There were echoes of an emblazoned Ted Kennedy of conventions former, but in a voice that invited rather than instructed.

Grade: A+

Student participants: Joe Perretta, Lillis Hendrickson.

DNC Day 3: The Good and Bad (and Ugly)

The Democratic Party's biggest star took the microphone Wednesday - and wouldn't let it go. Guess who's among the winners and losers of the day?

The Good:

Bill Clinton: At 11:03 Wednesday night, President Bill Clinton grabbed the stack of papers that was supposed to be his speech but was really only a guide, and said: "That brings me to health care." By then, his speech already had gone over the time allotment.

At 11:14, he said, "Let's talk about the debt."

Backstage, President Barack Obama probably didn't mind at all.

There will be no better endorsement offered to Obama this election. Clinton was his usual mesmerizing self and more. He methodically tackled the Republicans position by position - from health care to jobs to welfare. He was thorough and passionate, scholarly and charming. "Y'all need to listen," he said more than once. On Paul Ryan attacking Obama on Medicare: "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did."

Yes, we all remember Clinton's failings. But on this night, to this crowd and beyond, he was a perfect complement to Obama in personality and style. Both of the presidents, like all great speechmakers, can make the big point in simple ways that resonate. But Wednesday, Democrats needed Clinton also to be the sensibility to Obama's soar. Forty-eight minutes later, he'd done just that.

The Bad:

So, we checked the weather forecast this morning - you know, just in case anyone was thinking of making some evening plans. Nothing's changed - 30 percent chance of rain all evening, 20 percent by the time Obama takes the stage. In other words, September in Charlotte.

We've already said we think Democrats blew it Wednesday by moving the president's speech from Bank of America stadium to the arena. We get the concern about lightning, and we understand the worry about optics if everyone decides to avoid a potential storm and show up at 9, clogging the lines and leaving seats empty. All of which were considerations - or should have been - months ago.

Democrats, of course, don't want to go around disappointing 65,000 people, so they'll offer the suddenly ticketless a conference call with Obama this afternoon. That pales with the history of seeing the president accept the nomination, so there understandably was some dismay Wednesday from those who volunteered or stood in line for the opportunity.

There also was some thoughtfulness. Said Teresa Meyers of Waxhaw, who had waited in line for tickets for nearly eight hours: “I may not be in the arena, but I will be there in spirit.”

And the Ugly:

We thought we'd already covered this: No Nazi references, people. Direct or indirect. On Monday, it was the chair of the California Democratic Party linking Republicans to Joseph Goebbels. On Tuesday, it was a Kansas delegate linking Republicans to Hitler.

And now, South Carolina Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian compared S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley to Hitler's mistress. Harpootlian, commenting on Haley appearing at an RNC news conference in the basement of the NASCAR Hall of Fame, told S.C. Democrats that Haley "was down in the bunker a la Eva Braun."

Harpootlain declined to apologize later, instead blaming Haley for having "some hurt feelings."

Peter St. Onge

Duke Energy feels heat of protesters

Helmeted police on bicycles outnumbered the protesters in front of the Knight Theater Wednesday but the group demonstrating against Duke Energy still managed to put the Charlotte utility in an uncomfortable spotlight again.

Duke is still reeling from a public shellacking in North Carolina for how it handled its merger with Progress Energy. It fired Progress CEO Bill Johnson, who was set to head the merged company, barely twenty minutes after the merger became official this summer. N.C. regulators who had to approve the merger felt deceived by the action.
Wednesday's protests were more political in nature. Duke is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC. It bills itself as nonpartisan but has endorsed and been providing state legislatures and lawmakers with a template of conservative policies, some of them quite controversial such as "Stand Your Ground" gun laws and voter ID legislation which some view as voter suppression schemes. That has prompted a lot of activists to call on companies to drop their membership.

Duke Energy is a prime target, especially during the Democratic National Convention this week. Duke's chief executive Jim Rogers played a big role in getting the DNC here and Duke has underwritten some of the convention and provided the DNC with a huge line of credit.

So it was no surprise that activists cornered Rogers this week and reportedly tried to get him to pledge that Duke would drop its membership. Rogers reportedly told Whit Jones of the Energy Action Coalition that "he'd be listening," when Jones asked if he'd listen to the 100,000 who've allegedly signed petitions for Duke to drop its ALEC ties. When pressed for a firm commitment to drop ALEC Rogers reportedly said "I'm not going to give you [a commitment right now] but you can trust that I'm paying attention to what you're saying, and you'll know in due time."

The activists are putting on a full court press, getting Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer to say he would urge Duke to “get out of ALEC ASAP.”

Other members of Congress apparently are urging the same. Duke is in an embarrassing spot. The activists gathered on the sidewalk in front of the Knight Theater made sure they felt the heat Wednesday.

Clinton tries to spark another first

Monica Who? Ancient history for Democrats.

Former President Bill Clinton basked in his party’s adulation tonight, then stood with surprise guest President Obama and hoped his uncanny popularity was rubbing off in living rooms around the nation.

The two of them hugging on stage would have been considered an unlikely sight four years ago when Obama was in a bruising fight with Clinton’s wife for the nomination.

But that, too, was a distant memory tonight. Clinton avoided potential pitfalls throughout his 50-minute speech. He took shots at Mitt Romney, but didn’t settle for just that. Clinton also overcame his tendency to withhold full-throated endorsements of his peers, backing Obama without reservation as the man to return America to prosperity. And he managed to remind voters of the muscular economy he presided over in the 1990s without sullying Obama with the comparison.

Some voters still remember Clinton more for his moral failings than for leading the nation during a time of great economic strength. But not many. His approval ratings – 69 percent in a USA Today/Gallup poll last month - are higher than they were on his inauguration day in 1993. Almost two of three independents and even almost half of Republicans give him high marks.

So he was an obvious choice to be the opening act, even if there was a risk of overshadowing the main event.

Obama "stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs were created and saved, there were still millions more waiting, trying to feed their children," Clinton said.

It is testament to Clinton’s political skills that he looked the American public in the eye and lied in 1998, and yet Democrats found him utterly believable Wednesday night.

A president has never won reelection in an economy this bad. But Clinton’s climb from impeachment to widespread popularity was a first. Now with Clinton’s help, Obama might pull off another.

Taylor Batten

The professor is back, grading DNC speeches

The Professor is back - with his class this time. We're happy today to re-introduce Allan Louden, a political communications professor from Wake Forest who was one of the most popular features of the Observer's 2008 election blog, The Ballot.

Louden, a national champion debate coach who has worked with politicians such as Elizabeth Dole, graded speeches and debate performances for us in 2008. This week, he and his political communications class will cast their critical eyes on key DNC speeches. Each speech gets a letter grade.

First off is Tuesday's keynote speaker and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, followed by First Lady Michelle Obama.

Julian Castro:

In an evening designed to “fire-up-the-base” and remind voter why they liked Barack Obama in 2008, San Antonio Mayor, Julián Castro filled both bills in what was an old fashioned Keynote speech. He electrified the convention hall and by inference those constituencies who must rally for a Democrat victory in November.

The speech will inevitably be compared to Obama 2004, offering a narrative of single mothers raising promising sons, but it was not so much about Castro as it was a full throttled endorsement of Obama’s vision. Castro’s speech argued it is individual achievement the builds the country yet only in the context “It Takes a Village.” Government was defended as necessary for there to be Opportunity; the Horatio Alger “rags to riches” retold boldly with a Democrat twist; a not so subtle defense of Obama’s awkward “builds a business” comments.

Castro began the speech armed with a powerful personal story about his family’s generational struggle to make it in America, a pitch-perfect narrative for a Democratic Party seeking to strengthen its economic message. Born to a second generation Mexican-American single mother, he focused largely on the importance of investing in education to promote prosperity and maintain the American Dream. “In the end, the American dream is not a sprint or even a marathon, but a relay,” said Castro, referencing the constant support his mother gave to him and his twin brother Joaquin.

Throughout the speech, Castro sought to draw a sharp contrast between President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, both in terms of their experience seeking success and the policies they would implement if they won. In a particularly biting remark against the controversial budget plan crafted by Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, Castro argued we don’t “accept the idea [that] some folks won’t even get a chance. And the thing is, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are perfectly comfortable with that.”

Mentioning the budget comes with risks, highlighting Democrat’s shortcomings in proposing their own plan to address the deficit. The speech may have also lacked the policy specificity desired by those who think the country needs a clear road map to economic prosperity rather than lofty overtures to the American Dream, especially when said overtures lack strong references to immigration and voter ID laws, two issues Democrats often play up as impediments to equal opportunity.

Regardless, convention speeches generally check detailed policy at the door in favor of allowing potential up-and-comers to show their party why they should be a household name. Indeed, Julian Castro may be on the tongues of many left-leaning Americans in the coming days. If his keynote address was any indication of what’s to come when President Obama formally accepts the party nomination on Thursday night, Democrats may just leave Charlotte with enough inspiration to carry them through November.

Grade: A-

Michelle Obama:

Michelle Obama told a love story that evoked Camelot in perfection, yet grounded in the nitty-gritty of overcoming hard times, sustained by enduring values. The story was compelling, an authentic call to the romantic in all of us. Yet it also was a designed political speech.

If voters feel in love with Obama in 2008, drawn to his optimism, they were reminded that he has not changed at all. The “President” is the same guy she met 23 years ago, the embodiment of the American Dream, the call to the better angel in all of us.

She loved him more now that when they met, more than when be assumed office; and so can you. She eloquently touched basis on every major hot topic during this campaign season, all while paint the picture of her husband as the kind of man America wants running this country.

Still, the Obamas may have suffered economic hardship at times in their life, but in the current economy, their circumstances are far removed from those of the struggling working class, not to mention the unemployed.

But the speech had political weight, touching on Barack Obama’s economic, foreign, and social policies through her perspective as a woman, wife and mother. An example: Citing the hard times she went through in her younger years, Mrs. Obama celebrated Mr. Obama’s legislation to provide equal pay for women and lower financial aid for college students.

Time after time, the contrast was subtly drawn between the her struggles, the President’s struggles and a privileged Mitt Romney, all done without ever openly saying so. “Like so many American families, our families weren’t asking for much.”

Grade: A-

Student Contributors: Taylor Harvey, James Harris, Cameron Goguen, Ryan Bauder, Maeve Coyle, Taylor Barlow, Richard Min, Niko Spezial, Kerrigan O' Malley, Brandon Ng, Delon Lowe.

Democrats blow it by moving Obama

Not that the whole "most open and accessible convention in history" had a leg to stand on anyway, but now that claim is officially dead. The Democrats just yanked credentials from some 50,000-plus potential voters who had planned to cheer on President Obama's acceptance speech in person Thursday night.

The DNC Committee's announcement this morning that Obama's speech was being moved from Bank of America Stadium to Time Warner Cable Arena is what Obama's young supporters would call a buzzkill. Thousands had volunteered for Obama's campaign for hours, and thousands more stood in line for many hours, to secure a ticket to the stadium. Thanks for the effort, guys, but ... never mind.

The DNCC cited the potential for severe weather. Weather.com predicts the skies will be partly cloudy at 10 p.m. Thursday, with a 20 percent chance of rain. It's never higher than 30 percent from 4 p.m. on.

What did organizers think the chance of rain would be on a September evening in Charlotte when they decided to put the Obama event at the stadium in the first place? Zero?

It seems to be part of a pattern by the DNCC: Make big plans, then scale them back. First it was the Monday event at the Speedway being reeled in. Now this.

Republicans are speculating that organizers moved the event because they couldn't fill the stadium and didn't want the embarrassment of Obama talking to empty seats. Highly unlikely. Democratic officials say they gave out 65,000 credentials and had 19,000 more on a waiting list. They say they would have been turning people away, and there's no evidence they wouldn't have.

No, this isn't about lack of Democratic enthusiasm. But given this treatment, it might soon be.

- Taylor Batten

Photo: Work at Bank of America stadium was continuing Wednesday morning up to time that the speech was moved to Time Warner Cable Arena. Photo by MARK HAMES

DNC Day 2: The Good and Bad (and Ugly)

It was the first day of speakers at the Democratic National Convention, but there was plenty happening everywhere. Who had good days and bad days?

The Good

Democrats: Until the first speaker walked forward Tuesday on the big blue stage of Time Warner Cable Arena, Republicans had a firm grip on the national messaging of this convention. (Hope you're not tired of that "better off than 4 years ago" question, because it's not going away.)

But the lens turned toward Democrats Tuesday night, and they showed off what's always been their strength - a diverse lineup of speakers that showcased this party's strong message of giving everyone a chance to succeed. There were plenty of Mitt Romney jokes, but there also was reminder after reminder that without Barack Obama as president, the America that you saw on stage and in videos would be plenty worse off.

Republicans will make sure - as they should - that the economy doesn't leave the political discussion. But on Tuesday, Democrats did a powerful job of putting a face on it.

Anthony Foxx: If Charlotte's mayor decides at some point that he no longer wants to be Charlotte's mayor, he didn't hurt himself at all Tuesday. His short, elegant speech hit all the right notes on Charlotte and Barack Obama.

Julian Castro: So we know that by now that no one is going to match the keynote speech that young Barack Obama gave at the 2004 Democratic Convention, right? You don't re-create moments like that, even if you're the young, hotshot Latino mayor of a flourishing city.

But San Antonio's mayor showed why Democrats think he's a potential star. His speech was more task oriented in the time it gave to Romney than Obama's in 2004 (oops, there we go again), but it also was an artful blend of personal story and purpose. Castro told a familiar tale of humble beginnings, but he more importantly reminded America that, as always, it needs to be patient with its immigrants and others who struggle - and that such patience and investment can pay off.

"In the end, the American dream is not a sprint, or a marathon, but a relay," he said. That's the kind of line that gets you remembered.

Traffic: Sure, there were moments of messiness, and yes, people complained that officers at one intersection sometimes didn't coordinate well with colleagues at the next one. But did anyone expect Tuesday's commute to be better than most Tuesdays heading uptown? It was.

Ted Kennedy: The night's biggest roars? They went to the old lion, who died in 2009 but passed the torch one more time to Obama on Tuesday in a moving, funny, powerful video that had members of the audience chanting "Teddy, Teddy."

You're sure to see at least one element of that video nipped and tucked into a political ad: Kennedy's brutal dismantling of Mitt Romney in their 1994 U.S. Senate race debate. Said Kennedy then about Romney's wavering on the abortion issue: "On the question of the choice issue, I have supported Roe v. Wade, I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice."

The Bad

Bev Perdue: The Democratic party clearly wasn't spotlighting North Carolina's governor Tuesday. Perdue got a speaking spot, which is customary for the governor of the host state, but it was buried early in the evening schedule, between rousing Newark mayor Cory Booker and someone's poignant personal story. Perdue's speech was unremarkable - perhaps fitting for her final significant public moment as governor.

And the Ugly

We thought everyone knew this by now: Don't compare the other party to Nazis. Even if it's not a direct comparison, but a similarity to something a Nazi may have said. Really, don't.

In a story published Tuesday, veteran Kansas delegate Pat Lehman criticized Republicans for saying voter ID laws were designed to combat voter fraud. “It’s like Hitler said, if you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big lie, and if you tell it often enough and say it in a loud enough voice, some people are going to believe you,” Lehman said.

It's another example that extremism is not partisan. But it might be catchy. On Monday, John Burton, chairman of the California Democratic Party, likened Republicans to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Soon after, Burton left Charlotte for California for a previously scheduled dental surgery, the state party said. Insert foot in mouth joke here.

Women talk about women's issues

Women want to be heard during the DNC about their issues. Here are the words of a few who sent responses to our Monday feature.

From Marty Folsom of Statesville:I'm completely on board with the messages of the "We Are Women, Hear Us" feature in the Sept. 3 Viewpoint - equal pay for equal work, health care, freedom of choice, quality education. No rape is legitimate. I would also like to see all forms of harassment and bullying addressed.

My cousin and I (I'm Democrat, she's Republican) recently had several conversations about liberal and conservative viewpoints. After going back and forth, we agreed to disagree, but didn't stop there. We started talking about the issues upon which we do agree, that seem to be lost in today's political environment. We believe addressing these issues would go a long way to solving the rigid partisanship and help us build a better country.

Some of our thoughts:

Abolish the Electoral College: One vote counts as one vote.
Meaningful Election Reform: No donations from other countries, limit the campaign time periods, all primaries/caucuses the same day, no mud-slinging. It's one thing to point out differences. Character assassination is not necessary.
Meaningful Tax Reform: Balanced budget, including balance the burden.
All legislation must be for single issues and voted up or down on its merits and necessity. No riders or amendments.
All nominations for judgeships and other federal appointments - up and down votes.

We had other thoughts, but you get the drift. If we want to fix our country, we have to fix the way we do business, first.

From Joyce Wynes:A big thanks for your article on Women's Issues in your labor day paper today.

I have been a women's activist since the early 70's for Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood so 2 years ago when the GOP won the majority in the house and started out immediately trying to legislate what women could decide to do about their health problems, I became very agitated. As the months rolled by and they failed to raise any issues about the state of our economy, but instead focused on women's bodies, I didn't know what to do to wake up my sisters of today to the problems that they were ignoring or were unaware of trying to be legislated through Congress.

Contraceptives, Personhood, Abortion, Equal Pay for Equal Work! Where is this coming from and why are they focusing on women when our country is in need of bipartisan action? I want to inspire women to speak up for their rights. I don't believe this fight is about whether you believe in abortion or you don't but whether government has the right to legislate our body decisions. That is a personal decision and each woman has to live with their decisions. Also, on June 5, Congress (GOP) voted no for the Fair Pay Act, Equal Pay for Equal Work for Women. Need I say more!

I am an fine artist and professional illustrator and have painted other political paintings to bring clarity to subjects near and dear to my heart and ones that I feel are very important to expose to the American public. It helps me work out my frustrations and seems like the way that I can do something to give back to society and give voice to the issues. I am always surprised that more artists don't use that voice in their paintings or art but it works for me.

I started a series of paintings called, "I Am Woman, I Can Fly" and I have finished 2 in the series but have plans for 4 more. I use live, flying objects such as birds, butterflies, etc., to represent women overcoming the obstacles of society and soaring above them to succeed in their endeavors.

The text says, Sisters, we're not being heard. Don't let the hard work of the past be overturned because we failed to pay attention. Speak louder.