I know what I want. I want peace and by that I don't just mean saying it as something that sounds nice but view it as some unreachable goal. I think my best chance of living in a world with peace is to vote for someone who supports peaceful solutions over military ones. I want fair trade policies not free trade ones. I think the best way to reach that goal is to support a candidate who supports fair trade. I want UHC. I don't think Obama is the answer to many of the changes I'd like to see in this country so he will not be getting my support. It has nothing to do with wanting to be against everything....I'd say the opposite is true. And the same thing can be applied to the 'electable candidate crowd'. It seems people are so against letting a Republican get in again that they'll compromise their own morals and vote for the front runner even if he's not about the change they really want in this country.
Man, I really want to argue with the middle of this post, but the logic in the rest is so pure and sound that I'll simply applaud. Well done abook.
and what is it that people want? or rather, seeing as i probably wouldn't be considered 'progressive' by those who are so self-righteous and misleading with their information, what is it that the "real true progressives" want? you [since i'm probably banished from the group now] REALLY think someone is going to get elected in 2008 that is as radical as the collective you? is that it?
personally i'm pretty much on obama's team. who know why? I READ THE FUCKING BOOK and read other things about him--including many things with which i agree with and some that i don't. but these days i think i became more realistic and figured out that probably not soon, if ever, would a president be elected that i completely agree with. this country is not going to go radical left in 2008. and i personally think for me that obama is a good place to start. and i think he can win.
but most of all, i hate to see a "side" be so divisive. since when did that become the new, "good" strategy? who thought that was a good idea? and who thought it would be good to stoop to the extreme right's tactics?
I'm just not voting apathetic anymore and giving up on what's important to me. I did with Kerry and I now consider that to be a mistake. I can't keep voting for these people and then turn around and act surprised at how everything seems the same *Aka Clinton*. I just don't see much of a difference in the many of the Dems and Reps except for the little letters beside their names and the trival issues they bicker about to keep us distracted.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I wish progressives/liberals could debate the merits of the Democrat primary candidates a little more objectively.
I differ with the Senator's stances on more than on issue, but I don't think that articles like this one are useful when attempting to truly weigh the pros and cons of any candidate.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Someone inquired "who is not supporting Obama?" To that, I say, not enough information. Let's see where we are on this guy in a year after the press and the opposition have a chance to put a magnifying glass on his party days in Hawaii and muslim dad. Im not saying I dont like the guy. Im saying its one thing to like a politician. Its another to waste your vote on someone who cant win. I say, this guy cant win. Therefore, I wont waste my vote..
Someone inquired "who is not supporting Obama?" To that, I say, not enough information. Let's see where we are on this guy in a year after the press and the opposition have a chance to put a magnifying glass on his party days in Hawaii and muslim dad. Im not saying I dont like the guy. Im saying its one thing to like a politician. Its another to waste your vote on someone who cant win. I say, this guy cant win. Therefore, I wont waste my vote..
Of the announced candidates, who do you think has the best shot at winning and would you vote for him/her?
Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a “Hamiltonian” believer in “limited government” and “free trade” by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having “a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS.” Or that he had to be shamed off the “New Democrat Directory” of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator (Bruce Dixon, “Obama to Have Name Removed From DLC List,” Black Commentator, June 26, 2003).
reading the source provides a bit more insight, which is one major irritation i have with this terrible article:
Barack Obama will not be carrying the Democratic Leadership Council’s baggage in his race to become the second Black person to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. The state senator and professor of constitutional law has told The Black Commentator that he is acting to have his name stricken from the “New Democrats Directory,” a list of several hundred DLC-affiliated elected officials.
“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. “It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC…listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory,” Obama continued. “Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.”
The statement caps a three-week public dialogue (see links at bottom of page) between and Obama, a veteran progressive organizer who headed the voter registration and mobilization drive that carried Carol Moseley-Braun to the U.S. Senate in 1992 – the first and only such achievement by a Black woman. Obama faces a crowded and richly financed field of contestants for the Democratic senatorial nomination, next year. African Americans make up about a quarter of the Illinois Democratic electorate.
was shocked to find Obama’s name associated with the New Democratic Movement, an affiliate of what Bruce Dixon calls the “Republican Trojan Horse in the bowels of the Democratic machinery” – the DLC. In a June 19 Cover Story that included a letter from Obama, posed three “bright line” questions to the candidate, “that should determine whether you belong in the DLC, or not.”
1. Do you favor the withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?
2. Do you favor the adoption of a single payer system of universal health care to extend the availability of quality health care to all persons in this country? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?
3. Would you have voted against the October 10 congressional resolution allowing the president to use unilateral force against Iraq?
asserted that a “Yes” answer to all three questions would be “anathema” to the DLC, whose leadership “has been unequivocal in their support of NAFTA, opposition to anything resembling national health insurance, and fervently in support of the Iraq war – basic issues of war and peace, life and death, and livelihood.”
Aware of Obama’s consistently progressive legislative record, suggested that the only “honorable option” was that he “publicly withdraw from the DLC.”
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Let me begin by saying that I’ve enjoyed the dialogue that we seem to be developing on these e-pages, and hope it continues as my campaign progresses.
I also appreciate your desire to focus on specific issues that should be of interest to all progressives, both inside and outside of the Democratic Party. My views on universal health care, the unilateral use of force in Iraq, and NAFTA are in fact what you might expect given my previous history and voting record.
I favor universal health care for all Americans, and intend to introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end in the U.S. Senate, just as I have at the state level. My campaign is also developing a series of interim proposals – such as an expansion of the successful SCHIP program – so that we can immediately provide more coverage to uninsured children and their families.
I would have voted against the October 10th congressional resolution authorizing the President to use unilateral force against Iraq. I believe that we could have effectively neutralized Iraq with a rigorous, multilateral inspection regime backed by coalition forces. Nothing since the end of the formal fighting has led me to reconsider this stance; indeed, the inability of Saddam Hussein to mount even token resistance to American forces, the failure to discover any significant, deployable arsenals of biological or chemical weapons inside Iraq, and the on-going turmoil currently taking place in post-war Iraq, have only strengthened my views on the subject.
And although I believe that free trade - when also fair - can benefit workers in both rich and poor nations, I think that the current NAFTA regime lacks the worker and environmental protections that are necessary for the long-term prosperity of both America and its trading partners. I would therefore favor, at minimum, a significant renegotiation of NAFTA and the terms of the President’s fast track authority.
You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC. That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC. As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.
I do think a broader question remains on the table. What is the best strategy for building majority support for a progressive agenda, and for reversing the rightward drift of this country?
One important part of that strategy - and on this I think we agree - is for progressives within the Democratic Party to describe our core values (e.g. racial justice, civil liberties, opportunity for the many, and not just the few) in clear, unambiguous terms.
A second part of that strategy - and again, I think we agree here - is to stake out clear positions on issues that put those values into action (e.g. the need for universal health care), and to stand up for those values when they are under assault (e.g. opposition to the Patriot Act).
But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better. Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance. I favor affirmative action, but I’m still going after the votes of white union members who oppose affirmative action, because I think I can convince them that it’s Bush’s economic agenda, and not affirmative action, that is eroding their job security and stagnating their wages. And while I may object to the misogyny and materialism of much of rap culture, I’m still going to spend the time reaching out to a hip-hop generation in search of a future.
In other words, I believe that politics in any democracy is a game of addition, not subtraction. And I believe deeply enough in the decency of the American people to think that progressives can build a winning majority in this country, so long as we’re not afraid to speak the truth, and so long as we don’t write off big chunks of the electorate just because they don’t agree with us on every issue.
All of which explains why I’m not likely to launch blanket denunciations of the DLC or any other faction within the Democratic Party. I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong.
To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I’m headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I’ve always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience. Hopefully, by listening to the people I seek to serve, and with the occasional jab from friendly critics like The Black Commentator, I can stay on that course, and ultimately do some good as the next U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois.
Sincerely,
State Senator Barack Obama
Candidate for the U.S. Senate
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
BC is relieved, pleased, and looking forward to Obama’s success in the Democratic senatorial primary and Illinois general election.
There is plenty of room to argue over such things as whether NAFTA is a “free trade” agreement or an “investor rights agreement” – that’s the stuff of the progressive conversation. is not seeking to martyr Barack Obama on a left-leaning cross. Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, who worked with Obama on the 1992 Illinois Project Vote campaign, puts it this way:
As to the senator's larger goal of building a multiracial coalition around a progressive agenda, we think the broad outlines of an answer are quite visible. The core demands of the Black Consensus for universal health care, quality education for all, peace, full employment and economic justice address the needs of rural and downstate Illinois voters just as they do those in the inner city and suburbs of Chicago. Candidates who work to consistently advance this agenda in every community and region of this nation can count on a large and unified black vote as the foundation of a progressive majority. The opportunity is before us.
The DLC holds its “National Conversation” in Philadelphia, July 19. It is a corporate conversation, a racially coded attempt to re-institutionalize within the Democratic Party the ever-roiling White Backlash against Black political expression. Lots of African American enablers will be on hand, drawn by the scent of money. As we wrote in our September 19, 2002 Trojan Horse Watch, “Every African American politician associated with the DLC should be considered suspect, and closely watched. There is no reason for them to be there except to make deals with the party's right wing.”
Progressives will either purge the DLC from the commanding heights of the Democratic Party, or leave it to die like the terminally compromised Whig Party during the years immediately prior to the Civil War.
It’s time to draw some very “bright lines.”
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Never mind that Obama (consistent with Brooks’s description of him) has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, “Mr. Obama Goes to Washington,” the Nation, June 26).
i'm not too aware of the hamilton project, they might be evil but this doesn't sound so bad to me:
The Brookings Institution today launched a new economic policy program: the Hamilton Project. This initiative will advance an economic strategy to restore America's promise of opportunity, prosperity and growth—and inject new policy options from leading thinkers across the country into the national economic debate.
"Our nation's large fiscal imbalance and inadequate investment in key growth areas is placing America's promise of economic growth and opportunity at risk," said Peter Orszag, project director and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow. "The Hamilton Project is offering a strategy that is strikingly different from theories driving current economic policy."
"As we celebrate the 90th anniversary of Brookings, we are pleased to be launching this new and exciting initiative featuring the ideas and proposals of some first-rank economic thinkers," Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott said. "We anticipate that the policy options will spark a much needed national debate about our economic future."
At the Brookings launch event, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and the Rev. Jim Wallis, a founder of Sojourners and author of God's Politics, participated in a discussion of the project's white paper, "An Economic Strategy to Advance Opportunity, Prosperity and Growth." The paper calls on the nation to address the two most significant risks to economic growth and opportunity: the country's large fiscal imbalances and inadequate investment in key growth enhancing areas. The project's approach to these challenges reflects a judgment that:
* Broad-based economic growth is stronger and more sustainable than growth accruing to a small segment of the population;
* Economic security and economic growth can be mutually enforcing; and
* Effective government can enhance economic growth.
Going forward, the Hamilton Project will release a series of policy proposals from leading economic thinkers and academics—grounded in evidence and real world experience—focusing on four critical investment areas: education and work; innovation and infrastructure; savings and insurance; and effective government.
To begin the debate about economic policy options, the project also released this morning three new papers focused on education and savings:
* Identifying Teacher Effectiveness Using Performance on the Job—Effective teachers are critical to our children's future. This paper tackles the controversial issue of how teachers are hired and evaluated. It shows that students' performance is little affected by whether their teachers hold traditional teacher certifications, and that regardless of whether they are certified, some teachers are consistently better than others at helping their students learn. The authors therefore recommend that school districts allow a broader range of initial qualifications and hire a greater number of teachers, but then award tenure only to those most effective on the job. This approach would not only improve student performance but also help address the looming teacher shortage in the country. The paper also recommends that the federal government provide funding for the development of teacher effectiveness measures and for incentives to encourage the most effective teachers to work in schools in high poverty areas.
* Improving Opportunities and Incentives for Saving by Middle- and Low-Income Households—Many Americans retire without having accumulated sufficient savings to enjoy a comfortable retirement. Much of the problem arises because families lack time to focus on saving decisions, and because the tax incentives to save for many middle- and low-income households are weak. This proposal would provide new tools to address both issues. To make it easier to save, the proposal would require every firm (with potential exceptions for the smallest businesses) to automatically enroll new workers in a traditional defined benefit plan, a 401(k), or an IRA. Workers could always choose to opt out of these savings vehicles. The proposal also would replace the existing "upside down" set of tax incentives for retirement saving with a simple 30 percent match for everyone.
* Summer Opportunity Scholarships: A Proposal to Narrow the Skills Gap—During the regular school year, low-income and high-income students progress at roughly the same rate. During the summer months, however, reading and math skills decline disproportionately among low-income children. To mitigate this loss, the proposal creates Summer Opportunity Scholarships to finance summer school or other summer enrichment programs for low-income students.
The project also will release two additional papers in the near future. One will focus on more effective ways to measure and then improve productivity within the government. The other would reduce the compliance costs associated with federal income tax returns through a system of return-free tax filing.
The project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first treasury secretary, who laid the foundation for the modern American economy. An immigrant who was born into poverty and self-schooled in his early years, Hamilton symbolizes the traditional American values of opportunity and upward mobility that motivate the project's work. He fostered the nation's capital markets, encouraged commerce, and stood for sound fiscal policy.
Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, “Obama’s Game,” the Nation, April 24, 2006).
Misleading Claim #3: Support for Other Democrats
Harper's Magazine says Obama only gives funds to moderate, establishment Democrats, failing to note that Obama has donated to every Senate Democrat running for office in 2006. Harper's says "Obama's PAC has given to candidates that have been carefully culled and selected by the Democratic establishment on the basis of their marketability as palatable 'moderates'-even when they are facing more progressive and equally viable challengers." Harper's cites as examples Obama's political donations to Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, and Tammy Duckworth over Christine Cegelis. [page 37]
Fact:
Obama donated to every Democratic Senator running for reelection and then contributed to Ned Lamont after he won the primary. Harper's takes exception to Obama's decision to donate money to Senator Lieberman, but fails to note that Obama endorsed Ned Lamont and gave him $5,000 the day after Lamont won the nomination. Obama also donated money to every Senate Democrat up for reelection and to every Democratic challenger in a closely contested Senate race, including Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar.
Harper's Magazine misrepresents Tammy Duckworth's position on Iraq. Harper's also implies that Duckworth is a pro-war candidate, noting "When asked about her stand on the Iraq war by a reporter, Duckworth had replied, 'There is good and bad in everything.'" [page 37-38] Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran, says on her website "invading Iraq was a mistake."
well sure-- and if my back allows, there will be more. unless you're being facetious of course .
No, of course I'm not.
On a personal level I am impressed with this guy, but as a candidate for the democratic nomination for president, i don't know that, in a lot of ways, I'm just hearing the same old song and dance.
Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
what's interesting is that the author leaves out that obama voted against the confirmation of alito, and for the filibuster of alito.
for your entertainment:
Supreme Court Nomination of Samuel Alito
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Later this morning the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Obama discusses his decision to vote against the confirmation.
Related: Obama to Vote No on the Nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court
Hello, this is Barack Obama, and today is Tuesday, January 31, 2006. As many of you may be aware, today is the vote to confirm Judge Alito the Unites States Supreme Court. There's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach the confirmation process. There's some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint the nominee, and that the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and is nice to his wife, or she is nice to her husband. That, once you get beyond issues of intellect and personal character, then there shouldn't be further question as to whether the Judge should be confirmed. I disagree with the view.
I believe that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent, that, meaningful advice and consent includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. When I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Judge Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled. I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. He's a smart guy, there's no indication that he is not a man of good character. But, when you look at his record, what is clear is that when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless. If there is a case involving an employer and an employee, and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the employer. If there is a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not already a clear rule of decision then, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the state. When it comes to how checks and balances in our system are supposed to operate, the balance of power between the executive branch, Congress, and the judiciary, Judge Alito consistently sides with the notion that a president should not be constrained by either Congressional acts, or the check of the judiciary. He believes in the overarching power of the president to engage in whatever the president deems to be appropriate policy. As a consequence of this, I'm extraordinarily worried about how Judge Alito might approach issues such as wire tapping, monitoring of emails, or other privacy concerns that we have seen surface over the last several months.
In sum, I've seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for the United States citizen, and for that reason, I will be voting against his confirmation. I do hope that if Judge Alito is confirmed, he proves me wrong. I know that all the Senators who will be voting against him ardently hope that the Supreme Court continues to serve the vital role that it plays in preserving our liberties. Thank you very much; I will talk to you guys next week.
not my president. if he says something that you like then fine, more power to you and him, but i don't agree w/ his stances. also, his actual stances kinda contradict the image he puts out as a 'progressive'
if you live in the U.S. then whoever is in the office IS your president...whether you voted for him or not.
anyone who looks at a voting record based on ONE piece of information from the bill voted on is being deceived and is tryin to deceive others by passing that information on as something that should be used to refute someone's stance on issues. there is so much that goes into those votes and so much that is being voted on than just that ONE thing.
this seems to be going against someone because they are not as progressive or as left as you want them to be. it doesn't take progressive or left to be a good president...it takes SENSE. everyone knows that bush didn't have it in 2000...and still, even moreso, in 2004...
obama, at least, has some sense.
anyway, i wouldn't vote for him...is gore going to run?
No, of course I'm not.
On a personal level I am impressed with this guy, but as a candidate for the democratic nomination for president, i don't know that, in a lot of ways, I'm just hearing the same old song and dance.
oh sure, i understand and to an extent i feel the same way. how can we ever know for sure? we can't.
and i think forces in washington many times work against what a candidate wants to do in office. not that i think you think this, but it's not that just because a candidate feels or thinks a certain way about an issue, that he or she can accomplish that. i guess that's why we have those checks and balances and not a dictator. there is so much give and take in our system.
and i've been so disenchanted with candidates recently but for some reason, i don't feel obama is doing the same old song and dance. reading his book really helped--he really seems different to me. and that's me, and that's all i'm saying.
and i can't go past paragraph 2 now because i can no longer sit. but it's funny how much the author of that 'original' article cribbed from a nation blog--which is actually interesting if you go to the source because there's a short interview with obama.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
VG, that was quite well done. The point that I stated and you have proven with lots of effort is that when people seek out to trash a candidate, it isn't that hard to do. There are plenty of bad sources of less than truthful information out there to mislead voters.
After reading your post, it makes me wonder who added Obama's name to that list? Was it all part of plan to deliver him up as 'an illusion' and not a real progressive?
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Begala, Carville and Associates are going full force these days.
I ,too, READ THE FUCKING BOOKS. Crazy as it seems, it's an effective view into Obama's stance on the various issues. No need to rely on hit pieces and generic spin to dumb down the discussion.
I would like to add my comments from the "Who said this?" post that I created last week and have added to today....only it's too long to copy and paste.
Begala, Carville and Associates are going full force these days.
I ,too, READ THE FUCKING BOOKS. Crazy as it seems, it's an effective view into Obama's stance on the various issues. No need to rely on hit pieces and generic spin to dumb down the discussion.
In this democracy, dumbing down the discussion is a vital part of the election process.
I would like to add my comments from the "Who said this?" post that I created last week and have added to today....only it's too long to copy and paste.
Thanks again to the New York Obama campaign plant. Keep ut the good work!
Begala, Carville and Associates are going full force these days.
I ,too, READ THE FUCKING BOOKS. Crazy as it seems, it's an effective view into Obama's stance on the various issues. No need to rely on hit pieces and generic spin to dumb down the discussion.
I don't view opinion pieces as dumbing anything down. I've read plenty of pieces praising Obama and I've read many posts here prasing him. This whole board is an opinion piece. I don't see a problem with sharing an opinion piece that tells how other left leaners are feeling about him especially when the vibe here often is that the guy is the answer, when i just don't see it. I don't expect anyone to read this and grasp on to this one piece for all they need to know... because that would be dumb. It's simply putting an alternate view out there. If people choose to take it as the holy truth and nothing else then thats their stupidity. It made some good points and I see no problem with it being posted.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
Man, I really want to argue with the middle of this post, but the logic in the rest is so pure and sound that I'll simply applaud. Well done abook.
I'm just not voting apathetic anymore and giving up on what's important to me. I did with Kerry and I now consider that to be a mistake. I can't keep voting for these people and then turn around and act surprised at how everything seems the same *Aka Clinton*. I just don't see much of a difference in the many of the Dems and Reps except for the little letters beside their names and the trival issues they bicker about to keep us distracted.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Thank you, ffg. A compliment on my logic coming from you is truly flattering.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I wish progressives/liberals could debate the merits of the Democrat primary candidates a little more objectively.
I differ with the Senator's stances on more than on issue, but I don't think that articles like this one are useful when attempting to truly weigh the pros and cons of any candidate.
Of the announced candidates, who do you think has the best shot at winning and would you vote for him/her?
reading the source provides a bit more insight, which is one major irritation i have with this terrible article:
Barack Obama will not be carrying the Democratic Leadership Council’s baggage in his race to become the second Black person to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. The state senator and professor of constitutional law has told The Black Commentator that he is acting to have his name stricken from the “New Democrats Directory,” a list of several hundred DLC-affiliated elected officials.
“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. “It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC…listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory,” Obama continued. “Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.”
The statement caps a three-week public dialogue (see links at bottom of page) between and Obama, a veteran progressive organizer who headed the voter registration and mobilization drive that carried Carol Moseley-Braun to the U.S. Senate in 1992 – the first and only such achievement by a Black woman. Obama faces a crowded and richly financed field of contestants for the Democratic senatorial nomination, next year. African Americans make up about a quarter of the Illinois Democratic electorate.
was shocked to find Obama’s name associated with the New Democratic Movement, an affiliate of what Bruce Dixon calls the “Republican Trojan Horse in the bowels of the Democratic machinery” – the DLC. In a June 19 Cover Story that included a letter from Obama, posed three “bright line” questions to the candidate, “that should determine whether you belong in the DLC, or not.”
1. Do you favor the withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?
2. Do you favor the adoption of a single payer system of universal health care to extend the availability of quality health care to all persons in this country? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?
3. Would you have voted against the October 10 congressional resolution allowing the president to use unilateral force against Iraq?
asserted that a “Yes” answer to all three questions would be “anathema” to the DLC, whose leadership “has been unequivocal in their support of NAFTA, opposition to anything resembling national health insurance, and fervently in support of the Iraq war – basic issues of war and peace, life and death, and livelihood.”
Aware of Obama’s consistently progressive legislative record, suggested that the only “honorable option” was that he “publicly withdraw from the DLC.”
cross the river to the eastside
Dear Black Commentator:
Let me begin by saying that I’ve enjoyed the dialogue that we seem to be developing on these e-pages, and hope it continues as my campaign progresses.
I also appreciate your desire to focus on specific issues that should be of interest to all progressives, both inside and outside of the Democratic Party. My views on universal health care, the unilateral use of force in Iraq, and NAFTA are in fact what you might expect given my previous history and voting record.
I favor universal health care for all Americans, and intend to introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end in the U.S. Senate, just as I have at the state level. My campaign is also developing a series of interim proposals – such as an expansion of the successful SCHIP program – so that we can immediately provide more coverage to uninsured children and their families.
I would have voted against the October 10th congressional resolution authorizing the President to use unilateral force against Iraq. I believe that we could have effectively neutralized Iraq with a rigorous, multilateral inspection regime backed by coalition forces. Nothing since the end of the formal fighting has led me to reconsider this stance; indeed, the inability of Saddam Hussein to mount even token resistance to American forces, the failure to discover any significant, deployable arsenals of biological or chemical weapons inside Iraq, and the on-going turmoil currently taking place in post-war Iraq, have only strengthened my views on the subject.
And although I believe that free trade - when also fair - can benefit workers in both rich and poor nations, I think that the current NAFTA regime lacks the worker and environmental protections that are necessary for the long-term prosperity of both America and its trading partners. I would therefore favor, at minimum, a significant renegotiation of NAFTA and the terms of the President’s fast track authority.
You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC. That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC. As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.
I do think a broader question remains on the table. What is the best strategy for building majority support for a progressive agenda, and for reversing the rightward drift of this country?
One important part of that strategy - and on this I think we agree - is for progressives within the Democratic Party to describe our core values (e.g. racial justice, civil liberties, opportunity for the many, and not just the few) in clear, unambiguous terms.
A second part of that strategy - and again, I think we agree here - is to stake out clear positions on issues that put those values into action (e.g. the need for universal health care), and to stand up for those values when they are under assault (e.g. opposition to the Patriot Act).
But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better. Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance. I favor affirmative action, but I’m still going after the votes of white union members who oppose affirmative action, because I think I can convince them that it’s Bush’s economic agenda, and not affirmative action, that is eroding their job security and stagnating their wages. And while I may object to the misogyny and materialism of much of rap culture, I’m still going to spend the time reaching out to a hip-hop generation in search of a future.
In other words, I believe that politics in any democracy is a game of addition, not subtraction. And I believe deeply enough in the decency of the American people to think that progressives can build a winning majority in this country, so long as we’re not afraid to speak the truth, and so long as we don’t write off big chunks of the electorate just because they don’t agree with us on every issue.
All of which explains why I’m not likely to launch blanket denunciations of the DLC or any other faction within the Democratic Party. I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong.
To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I’m headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I’ve always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience. Hopefully, by listening to the people I seek to serve, and with the occasional jab from friendly critics like The Black Commentator, I can stay on that course, and ultimately do some good as the next U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois.
Sincerely,
State Senator Barack Obama
Candidate for the U.S. Senate
cross the river to the eastside
BC is relieved, pleased, and looking forward to Obama’s success in the Democratic senatorial primary and Illinois general election.
There is plenty of room to argue over such things as whether NAFTA is a “free trade” agreement or an “investor rights agreement” – that’s the stuff of the progressive conversation. is not seeking to martyr Barack Obama on a left-leaning cross. Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, who worked with Obama on the 1992 Illinois Project Vote campaign, puts it this way:
As to the senator's larger goal of building a multiracial coalition around a progressive agenda, we think the broad outlines of an answer are quite visible. The core demands of the Black Consensus for universal health care, quality education for all, peace, full employment and economic justice address the needs of rural and downstate Illinois voters just as they do those in the inner city and suburbs of Chicago. Candidates who work to consistently advance this agenda in every community and region of this nation can count on a large and unified black vote as the foundation of a progressive majority. The opportunity is before us.
The DLC holds its “National Conversation” in Philadelphia, July 19. It is a corporate conversation, a racially coded attempt to re-institutionalize within the Democratic Party the ever-roiling White Backlash against Black political expression. Lots of African American enablers will be on hand, drawn by the scent of money. As we wrote in our September 19, 2002 Trojan Horse Watch, “Every African American politician associated with the DLC should be considered suspect, and closely watched. There is no reason for them to be there except to make deals with the party's right wing.”
Progressives will either purge the DLC from the commanding heights of the Democratic Party, or leave it to die like the terminally compromised Whig Party during the years immediately prior to the Civil War.
It’s time to draw some very “bright lines.”
cross the river to the eastside
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
well sure-- and if my back allows, there will be more.
cross the river to the eastside
i'm not too aware of the hamilton project, they might be evil but this doesn't sound so bad to me:
The Brookings Institution today launched a new economic policy program: the Hamilton Project. This initiative will advance an economic strategy to restore America's promise of opportunity, prosperity and growth—and inject new policy options from leading thinkers across the country into the national economic debate.
"Our nation's large fiscal imbalance and inadequate investment in key growth areas is placing America's promise of economic growth and opportunity at risk," said Peter Orszag, project director and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow. "The Hamilton Project is offering a strategy that is strikingly different from theories driving current economic policy."
"As we celebrate the 90th anniversary of Brookings, we are pleased to be launching this new and exciting initiative featuring the ideas and proposals of some first-rank economic thinkers," Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott said. "We anticipate that the policy options will spark a much needed national debate about our economic future."
At the Brookings launch event, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and the Rev. Jim Wallis, a founder of Sojourners and author of God's Politics, participated in a discussion of the project's white paper, "An Economic Strategy to Advance Opportunity, Prosperity and Growth." The paper calls on the nation to address the two most significant risks to economic growth and opportunity: the country's large fiscal imbalances and inadequate investment in key growth enhancing areas. The project's approach to these challenges reflects a judgment that:
* Broad-based economic growth is stronger and more sustainable than growth accruing to a small segment of the population;
* Economic security and economic growth can be mutually enforcing; and
* Effective government can enhance economic growth.
Going forward, the Hamilton Project will release a series of policy proposals from leading economic thinkers and academics—grounded in evidence and real world experience—focusing on four critical investment areas: education and work; innovation and infrastructure; savings and insurance; and effective government.
To begin the debate about economic policy options, the project also released this morning three new papers focused on education and savings:
* Identifying Teacher Effectiveness Using Performance on the Job—Effective teachers are critical to our children's future. This paper tackles the controversial issue of how teachers are hired and evaluated. It shows that students' performance is little affected by whether their teachers hold traditional teacher certifications, and that regardless of whether they are certified, some teachers are consistently better than others at helping their students learn. The authors therefore recommend that school districts allow a broader range of initial qualifications and hire a greater number of teachers, but then award tenure only to those most effective on the job. This approach would not only improve student performance but also help address the looming teacher shortage in the country. The paper also recommends that the federal government provide funding for the development of teacher effectiveness measures and for incentives to encourage the most effective teachers to work in schools in high poverty areas.
* Improving Opportunities and Incentives for Saving by Middle- and Low-Income Households—Many Americans retire without having accumulated sufficient savings to enjoy a comfortable retirement. Much of the problem arises because families lack time to focus on saving decisions, and because the tax incentives to save for many middle- and low-income households are weak. This proposal would provide new tools to address both issues. To make it easier to save, the proposal would require every firm (with potential exceptions for the smallest businesses) to automatically enroll new workers in a traditional defined benefit plan, a 401(k), or an IRA. Workers could always choose to opt out of these savings vehicles. The proposal also would replace the existing "upside down" set of tax incentives for retirement saving with a simple 30 percent match for everyone.
* Summer Opportunity Scholarships: A Proposal to Narrow the Skills Gap—During the regular school year, low-income and high-income students progress at roughly the same rate. During the summer months, however, reading and math skills decline disproportionately among low-income children. To mitigate this loss, the proposal creates Summer Opportunity Scholarships to finance summer school or other summer enrichment programs for low-income students.
The project also will release two additional papers in the near future. One will focus on more effective ways to measure and then improve productivity within the government. The other would reduce the compliance costs associated with federal income tax returns through a system of return-free tax filing.
The project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first treasury secretary, who laid the foundation for the modern American economy. An immigrant who was born into poverty and self-schooled in his early years, Hamilton symbolizes the traditional American values of opportunity and upward mobility that motivate the project's work. He fostered the nation's capital markets, encouraged commerce, and stood for sound fiscal policy.
http://www.brook.edu/comm/news/20060405_hamilton.htm
also read this: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/THP_Summary.pdf
cross the river to the eastside
Misleading Claim #3: Support for Other Democrats
Harper's Magazine says Obama only gives funds to moderate, establishment Democrats, failing to note that Obama has donated to every Senate Democrat running for office in 2006. Harper's says "Obama's PAC has given to candidates that have been carefully culled and selected by the Democratic establishment on the basis of their marketability as palatable 'moderates'-even when they are facing more progressive and equally viable challengers." Harper's cites as examples Obama's political donations to Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, and Tammy Duckworth over Christine Cegelis. [page 37]
Fact:
Obama donated to every Democratic Senator running for reelection and then contributed to Ned Lamont after he won the primary. Harper's takes exception to Obama's decision to donate money to Senator Lieberman, but fails to note that Obama endorsed Ned Lamont and gave him $5,000 the day after Lamont won the nomination. Obama also donated money to every Senate Democrat up for reelection and to every Democratic challenger in a closely contested Senate race, including Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar.
Harper's Magazine misrepresents Tammy Duckworth's position on Iraq. Harper's also implies that Duckworth is a pro-war candidate, noting "When asked about her stand on the Iraq war by a reporter, Duckworth had replied, 'There is good and bad in everything.'" [page 37-38] Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran, says on her website "invading Iraq was a mistake."
read the rest of the page too:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/061023-senator_obamas_office_responds_to_misleading_harpers_magazine_story/index.html
cross the river to the eastside
No, of course I'm not.
On a personal level I am impressed with this guy, but as a candidate for the democratic nomination for president, i don't know that, in a lot of ways, I'm just hearing the same old song and dance.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
what's interesting is that the author leaves out that obama voted against the confirmation of alito, and for the filibuster of alito.
for your entertainment:
Supreme Court Nomination of Samuel Alito
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Later this morning the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Obama discusses his decision to vote against the confirmation.
Related: Obama to Vote No on the Nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court
Hello, this is Barack Obama, and today is Tuesday, January 31, 2006. As many of you may be aware, today is the vote to confirm Judge Alito the Unites States Supreme Court. There's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach the confirmation process. There's some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint the nominee, and that the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and is nice to his wife, or she is nice to her husband. That, once you get beyond issues of intellect and personal character, then there shouldn't be further question as to whether the Judge should be confirmed. I disagree with the view.
I believe that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent, that, meaningful advice and consent includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. When I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Judge Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled. I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. He's a smart guy, there's no indication that he is not a man of good character. But, when you look at his record, what is clear is that when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless. If there is a case involving an employer and an employee, and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the employer. If there is a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not already a clear rule of decision then, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the state. When it comes to how checks and balances in our system are supposed to operate, the balance of power between the executive branch, Congress, and the judiciary, Judge Alito consistently sides with the notion that a president should not be constrained by either Congressional acts, or the check of the judiciary. He believes in the overarching power of the president to engage in whatever the president deems to be appropriate policy. As a consequence of this, I'm extraordinarily worried about how Judge Alito might approach issues such as wire tapping, monitoring of emails, or other privacy concerns that we have seen surface over the last several months.
In sum, I've seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for the United States citizen, and for that reason, I will be voting against his confirmation. I do hope that if Judge Alito is confirmed, he proves me wrong. I know that all the Senators who will be voting against him ardently hope that the Supreme Court continues to serve the vital role that it plays in preserving our liberties. Thank you very much; I will talk to you guys next week.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060131-supreme_court_nomination_of_samuel_alito/index.html
cross the river to the eastside
if you live in the U.S. then whoever is in the office IS your president...whether you voted for him or not.
from my window to yours
You definitely don't need any help in this thread.
this seems to be going against someone because they are not as progressive or as left as you want them to be. it doesn't take progressive or left to be a good president...it takes SENSE. everyone knows that bush didn't have it in 2000...and still, even moreso, in 2004...
obama, at least, has some sense.
anyway, i wouldn't vote for him...is gore going to run?
from my window to yours
oh sure, i understand and to an extent i feel the same way. how can we ever know for sure? we can't.
and i think forces in washington many times work against what a candidate wants to do in office. not that i think you think this, but it's not that just because a candidate feels or thinks a certain way about an issue, that he or she can accomplish that. i guess that's why we have those checks and balances and not a dictator. there is so much give and take in our system.
and i've been so disenchanted with candidates recently but for some reason, i don't feel obama is doing the same old song and dance. reading his book really helped--he really seems different to me. and that's me, and that's all i'm saying.
and i can't go past paragraph 2 now because i can no longer sit. but it's funny how much the author of that 'original' article cribbed from a nation blog--which is actually interesting if you go to the source because there's a short interview with obama.
cross the river to the eastside
After reading your post, it makes me wonder who added Obama's name to that list? Was it all part of plan to deliver him up as 'an illusion' and not a real progressive?
well, i can't go past the second paragraph due to shooting pains, so i cannot complete the job this evening.
cross the river to the eastside
I ,too, READ THE FUCKING BOOKS. Crazy as it seems, it's an effective view into Obama's stance on the various issues. No need to rely on hit pieces and generic spin to dumb down the discussion.
In this democracy, dumbing down the discussion is a vital part of the election process.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
95% of the nation is stupid...
from my window to yours
Thanks again to the New York Obama campaign plant. Keep ut the good work!
I don't view opinion pieces as dumbing anything down. I've read plenty of pieces praising Obama and I've read many posts here prasing him. This whole board is an opinion piece. I don't see a problem with sharing an opinion piece that tells how other left leaners are feeling about him especially when the vibe here often is that the guy is the answer, when i just don't see it. I don't expect anyone to read this and grasp on to this one piece for all they need to know... because that would be dumb. It's simply putting an alternate view out there. If people choose to take it as the holy truth and nothing else then thats their stupidity. It made some good points and I see no problem with it being posted.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Fuck him.
Vote Pat Buchanan.
-Enoch Powell
There is something lower than "dumbing it down", and this is a pretty good example.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.