The Obama Illusion

baraka wrote:

I think it's unfair to play the race card. I think it would be worse to vote for Obama, just because he is black. The simple truth is that Kabong & Abook don't agree with his past political stances, so Obama is not for them. I think it is a sad that we have to settle with someone simply because they are 'electable'. Vote with your heart. For the record, what little I knew about Obama, I liked, but I have to say the article Kabong posted about him suprised me.

I am the one who brought race into this discussion, so my bad. I just watched that conference led by Tavis Smalley and also listened to a discussion on NPR last week regarding Obama and blacks. And I was surprised that Baracks lack of origin in West Africa actually made a difference. Since his father is from Kenya, that wasn't good enough because that isn't West Africa, origin of the slaves. I was also surprised by the comments on the Tavis Smiley conference where they seemed to sort of hold him in disregard since he wasn't of the civil rights movement in the sixties. Since he hasn't been running around for the last 40 years like Jesse and Sharpton, or Cornell West, as a black activist he wasn't good enough for them.

....forgot to log out

polaris wrote:

hey now ... u know "collective we" love ya!! ...

we all want the same thing in this world - some people choose a different route to get there vs others ... that's all ...

oh well that is sweet thank you. you see, i am in excruciating pain and without narcotics so i'm a little . . . rough around the edges now?

anyway, i understand people have different routes and that's fabulous. but what i don't understand is misleading information used in a smear campaign. and that "collective you" is me casting a very wide net-- i'm speaking to other things in the media too. i should have clarified that.

i have to work. but i should say quickly--one thing i liked about the book is that he did discuss universal health care especially in the way that it would be a good way to help (not only) blacks. but that universal initiatives would be more helpful to blacks than just race-specific measures. this was part of a whole chapter about race and how health care and health is quite different when that is a factor. i hate to start talking about this because i can't adequately explain in my limited time . . .

WindNoSail wrote:

I am the one who brought race into this discussion, so my bad. I just watched that conference led by Tavis Smalley and also listened to a discussion on NPR last week regarding Obama and blacks. And I was surprised that Baracks lack of origin in West Africa actually made a difference. Since his father is from Kenya, that wasn't good enough because that isn't West Africa, origin of the slaves. I was also surprised by the comments on the Tavis Smiley conference where they seemed to sort of hold him in disregard since he wasn't of the civil rights movement in the sixties. Since he hasn't been running around for the last 40 years like Jesse and Sharpton, or Cornell West, as a black activist he wasn't good enough for them.

And I agree that all of 'that' is petty. It is cheap shot to play the race card in any instance. I'm the first one to admit that I still have a lot to learn about Obama and other potential candidates and I won't be considering any petty arguments such as the one you stated above.

WindNoSail wrote:

BTW, this is one of the common perceptions that conservatives hold of liberals, that they get so wrapped up in what they are against that they never quite figure out or define what they are for.

I also agree that one should focus on what they WANT instead of wasting time focusing on what they don't want. That only draws more of what you don't want.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Thank you, ffg. A compliment on my logic coming from you is truly flattering.

I dont know how so may people are on this guys bandwagon already when no one knows two shits about the guy.

Last Exodus wrote:

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?

Here is State Senator Barack Obama’s response:

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