this exchange was set off by first sirotas great article on the sell out votes on legal issues and also by Obama vote on Rice nomination. I could not contain my concern and upsetness having been enthralled and excited by Obama... i felt i had to get word out quickly to those connected to him.. It is a time for progressives to express our concerns, and not just to each other, but to try and reach those who we want to affect.
dear victoria,
thanks for your response to the concerns i have expressed over Senator Obama's two votes I appreciate your talking to the senator and his staff and respect your hard work and continued efforts.However, i am saddened, disheartened and distraught by the response. The Senator inspired so many of us with his vision for the world, he swayed our hearts, touched our souls and challenged our intellects with his brilliant speechs and advoacy of a moral frame to view events. I had the pleasure of sitting next to him at a dinner in los angeles and was thrilled by his articulate insights into our world, politics and democracy.
How does one reconcile that with " no stopping her confirmation". Should we tell that to senator boxer and kennedy? Has he in a few short weeks in d.c become captive to a viewpoint that advocates positions only based on the immediate, rather the long range, only based on the tactical, not the world view. Havent we seen year after year what that gets us? It is at times like this that heroes emerge, and "not stopping her confirmation" is not what the history books write about, or what inspires people to action.
In regard to Rice the idea that " she represents the policies of the President" strikes terror in my heart. So therefore all Bushs appointments should be supported, voted for? Is that the vision lthe Senator was advocating as he ran his brilliant campaign about truth, vision, a better world for all of us? The fact there is "no one better in line behind her,,",,,,,,, this is the kind of rational i would expect from Lieberman , or someone who had been sucked dry by a culture of compromise.As we all know, when we act with courage and committment, the results can surprise us. Had Rice been stopped, what an extradinary different landscape we would be looking at? I find it impossible to accept that the Senator with the vision, chose instead the must inane of approaches...."no one better in line"
And finally, he planned to vote no to Gonazales..Well why, if is he "represents the policies of the President" or there is no "stopping the confirmation" or there is "no one better in line" This is the kind of thinking and positioning that continues to lose us elections, respect and self-dignity
On the class action suits there is absolutely no explanation. I mean look at the number of democratic senators from all over the spectrum who opposed this,,,, BECAUSE IT IS WRONG. we all know it is wrong,Senator Obama has to know it is wrong, and how can he support this? The fact " it was going to pass" is again, a knife in the heart and souls of those of us committed to winning, by striking a strong,, clear and consistent political and moral position..Should we look forward to other votes of us based on " it is going to win? And the fact he is going to oppose medical malpractice reforms and asbestos issues, only supports the worst insome political hacks,, make a list, divide it up, vote for some, vote against others, and then we have a track record that stands for nothing, allows us to be positioned as weak opportunists, and destroys crediibility and moral framework
i urge you to communicate with the Senator deep concerns, If he is being advised this way, fire the advisers,QUICLY.,,he has only been in washington a short time, and people all across the country and world look to him to be a strong, smart, voice for years to come. Please change course.. NOW.... with respect, robert greenwald
From: Victoria Harper
Subject: BARAK OBAMA's VOTES
Dear friends,
I’ve heard many questions recently about two of Senator Obama's votes in the Senate. I understand how there is apprehension that these votes represent a 'Republican-lite' idealogical drift, but I don’t believe that’s the case at all. If I may, I’d like to share my perspective, in my words, from conversations with the Senator and his staff.
Barak Obama knows, like anyone, he has a certain amount of political capitol to spend. He’s going about things in a deeply thought through, deliberate, and strategic way. His tactic is diplomacy, and he will bring all his accrued influence and credibility to bear in those crucial moments when it counts the most. I believe over time we will see the strength of his success.
The two votes in question are confirming Condi Rice, and approving Class Action lawsuit limitations. This is what I understand to be true:
1. With Condeleeza Rice:
a. There was no stopping her confirmation.
b. The nature of her position was to represent the policies of the President, the President is responsible for the policies. Any President has a certain entitlement to pick who he wants to serve as his mouth piece.
c. That being said, if it could have been possible to block her, there was no one in line behind her who would have been any better…next in line, Wolfowitz?
d. He planned to vote NO, and make an issue, regarding Gonzales.
2. With the Class Action suits.
a. The bill was going to pass with broad bi-partisan support.
b. He plans to oppose the upcoming Medical Malpractice reforms, and Asbestos issues.
It’s the mature approach of diplomacy, and changing the system from the inside out, something I recall we clamored for in the recent days of the Kerry campaign.
This may not be a style that pleases every body, but I encourage you to give Senator Obama some time to reveal his leadership. American culture goes through the unfortunate cycle of building people up and tearing them down. The Senator has certainly been built up, but I don’t think it would benefit our Party or our principles to bring him down in any way.
I’d love to talk with you about this any time, and I’m sure that Senator Obama’s campaign would welcome any constructive input.
All the best, Victoria Hopper
Senator Obama,
i have never given anything to candidate running for office thinking that i had no say really in the outcome, but i think you can make the American dream a reality for all Americans. I suport my race, the human race!
One question though, where do i send the check.
My mom, who has passed on, relayed a story to me when I was younger which I am reminded of whenever I hear these stories of what can only be characterised as betrayal.
When she was working in politics, she met with a very liberal Congressional Representative to discuss an issue that was important to the community.
When he arrived, she put her hand out to shake his and he stared at it, looking for the envelope.
Her advice to me: "Never greet a politician with an empty hand."
It still holds true today.
The class action suits voted by Senator Obama was wrong. Either he stands for the consumer and working class or he stands for the corporations.
Saying he is young and needs time in the Senate is a poor excuse to say the least.
You go to the Senate to work on problems that face American's. You set your self a goal. Senator Obama is working and setting a goal. The only problem is the goal is to help corportations.
What's next, will he vote to take away the overtime pay that Bush tried last time or how about settling the asbestos claims that the Republican's want so badly.
Once again the working class has been defeated. This time from one of our own.
I echo the comment of Dick Mazess above. So you will find in the months ahead that Obama can give a good speech and then go about voting against the interests of the people. Surprised? I'm not. Think Clinton (either), JFK (either) or most other Democrats. Go to www.opensecrets.org and check out who funded Obama's campaign--rich lawyers and corporations.
Then, if you want to know what the issue is about, google Ralph Nader Tort Reform and see how the issue will weaken consumers and workers.
Then, if you want to do something useful, transfer your voter registration from Democrat to Green, independent, or another third party.
The only way to reform the Democratic party is to ensure that mealy-mouthed sycophants (including progressives like Barak, Feingold, Pelosi) are challenged at the polls by Greens and Libertarians. The Dems spent $12,000,000 in the last election on court challenges to eliminate voting access! Make a commitment to vote third party and make sure to let your representatives know that they cannot count on your vote anymore.
Two points...
1. While I despise sports analogies, we must think in terms of TEAM here. Some players are in the trenches, doing the rough stuff, as do Ms. Boxer and Mr. Kennedy. But we also need the finesse players; the ones who score points with stealth and agility, as I believe is the case with Mr. Obama. Fielding a team made up entirely of defensive, er, "linepersons" may make us all feel better, but will never win the game.
2. Our candidates are less important than our values, message and strategic leadership. Carl Rove proved you can get a dill pickle elected with the right message and strategy.
We progressives will never prevail by anointing a messiah. Holding Mr. Obama’s feet to the progressive fire for the sake of symbolic gestures perpetuates the “circular firing squad” mentality for which we are so famous. We don’t need stunningly charismatic candidates (although it couldn't hurt), we need a competent coaching staff. Where is it?
If compromise is necessary in politics then it seems to me that a vote to support something the opposition wants generates
an agreement from the opposition to support something you believe is more important. Did Barack Obama secure support
to oppose further spending in Iraq or Republican backing to stop Social Security 'reform'? If so then perhaps we can cut him some slack if not then we can count him as just another Clinton hack.
I feel sorry for the people who have to respond to overly strident, angst-ridden correspondence from zealots, seemingly unable to accept the inevitability of compromise or the practicality of picking your fights. Whether shots are coming from the right or on the left, it doesn't make much difference to me. I thought her response was well-reasoned.
Not being a political insider, maybe this is the way you all talk to each other, I don't know, but have you been a script writer for West Wing?
"Admittedly the Republicans have an undemocratic purpose, but the status quo in torts serves no one but lawyers."
Whenever the right wing talks about 'reform,' it should immediately raise the b.s. radar of any critical thinker. What the Rethuglicans want to do with our court system has nothing to do with limiting frivolous lawsuits.
For those of you who haven't heard, the vast majority of frivolous-- and other-- lawsuits are filed by corporations. What the Bushies are trying to do is limit access to the courts for all the little people.
This tort 'reform' would be added to the drastic relaxation of environmental and labor protections that have occurred during five-plus years of government watchdog groups being headed and staffed by industry insiders. In summation, don't buy the hype. The Bushies and the Rethuglicans are trying to push this country even further into an unholy condition of fascistic feudalism, where only the rights of the superwealthy-- and their corporate wealth-generating machines-- will have any rights worth respecting. They must be doggedly opposed at every step of the way, with at least as much energy as they expend trying to tear down the vast majority of us.
I'm an impassioned moderate, who would never consider voting for a Republican because they have become the party of deception and special interests.
However on some issues, including tort reform, the Republican position makes more sense than the "progressive" position. Admittedly the Republicans have an undemocratic purpose, but the status quo in torts serves no one but lawyers.
I'd like to see U.S. government return to the hands of sane adults. Let's not be "penny wise and pound foolish" on every issue..
I am from the South Side of Chicago, until recently, Obama's political base. We've been following him for a while, and been very impressed. He's always been a smooth politician, and he said all the right things at the 2003 anti-war rallies, when he probably didn't have to.
But I've met him, and seen him operate. He could be arrogant, as a local politician, with more than a hint of opportunism.
Obama has the talent and the opportunity to do great things for liberal causes. But he's not a saint. He is, at his best, a vessel for his constituency. It's up to us to ensure he keeps his spine.
I agree completely, Johnny, completely!
Yes, it is true that politicians compromise, but that should happen only when necessary. Obama made a big splash with his amazing speech at the Democratic convention. He won his senate seat overwhelmingly. He inspired many of us.
He could have made a great debut as a senator by opposing Rice's nomination. However, he acquiesced. He (and all of the other Democrats who voted for her) looked weak afterward. Republicans snickered. After that vote, I have much more respect for Barbara Boxer -- she is my latest inspiration. It's too bad Obama was too weak to join with her. It would have given him more "political capital." Republicans would be worried about him -- but not now. It's an opportunity lost.
Politicians compromise. It is naive to believe all elected officials can and will vote their conscience, because they won't. This is how the Republicans have become so powerful; they fall in line and vote along a politically organized, team mentality. Democrats expect their agenda to win because it is usually more sensible, but we get whupped like nerds in grade school. Clinton once said Republicans fall in line, while Democrats are waiting to fall in love. If we were to be an organized, united front, then we might have a chance. Half the country thinks we're faithless, baby killing elitists. How we couldn't expose Bush for the faithless, baby killing elitist war profiteer he is shows how deluded we are.
The first time I saw Howard Dean, years ago now, on the pathetic Tim Russert's Meet the Press, I ran to tell my husband, "Now this guy is something." The first time I saw Obama, my antennae went way up and I ran to tell my husband, "What's the big deal? This guy is nothing." That sounds harsh, but there we were, Bush freshly restored to the White House (whether deservedly or not), and there was Obama, talking his smooth, namby-pamby purple-state blather, eliciting what seemed like utter delight at having gotten the big invite to c'mon over to Pennsylvania Avenue for some high fives with Bush and Cheney. It was positively creepy. This guy is savvy? I'm a Liberal Democrat who believes the Repugalumps (a word our oldest son coined when he was 5) are up to no good. This is why Obama makes my skin crawl. I really can hardly look at the guy. Exactly what we don't need is a young Lieberman.
I, too, am from Illinois, and I was just having a half-serious conversation about Barack Obama with my wife. She opined that Obama would be seen as a dangerous commie who would have to be 'taken out' by the far right, and I countered that he is just a very skilled politician who knows how to walk and talk like a progressive, but who will ultimately be absorbed by the DNC Compromise Machine. I guess I was retroactively correct.
I shoulda voted for Nancy Skinner. She's an unabashed progressive warrior, and she's really hot, to boot. Oh, well.
Please keep up the great work, Robert Greenwald. We need a strong counter to the right-wing noise machine. You and your colleagues are making it happen.
Well, I am a citizen of Illinois and I can tell you that it will not do. Obama does not need to develop a wishy-washy profile to succeed here -- one of the best-entrenched Illinois politicians right now is Obama's Senate colleague, Dick Durbin, who is among the most progressive members of that body. We did not elect Obama to kowtow to corporations or to start running for president. He needs to know that and get a clue.
Who cares about being obstructionist. By opposing, the Dems are obstructing the Repubs from moving us backward. We should work with them to move us backward only a little bit? Otherwise we are obstructing?
The first step in moving forward is to obstruct the Republicans in their effort to move us backward.
Looking another way, some say the Dems should work with Repubs things like Social Security and "meet them halfway." What they are saying is, "OK, you can take off half my arm. I won't let you take off my whole arm, but half of my arm is a reasonable place to compromise."
I say I want all of my arm, and to hell with Repubs and any snivelling Dems who want to "work with them."
I'm thrilled that Robert communicated w/ Obama's people on his voting record thus far!
After supporting John Kerry, I will NEVER AGAIN support a weak lily livered Democrat that doesn't stand up for what is RIGHT. Obama may be the 'annointed one' by the media and ONE WORLD ORDER, However, I am NOT giving him a pass unless he DELIVERS!
Thank you Mr. Greenwald for staring this forum! All the best.
Just a quick point: let's not forget that Senator Obama was elected by the good people of Illinois, to represent the people of Illinois in the US Senate.
Yes, he did receive the support, moral encouragement, and no doubt financial backing from the ideologically progressive amoung us, but at the end of the day the voters of Illinois overwhelming elected him to represent their interests, not "ours".
It's a fine -- and difficult, I'd imagine -- line to balance the interests of the party, the progressive movement, and the interests of the super-majority of Illinois residents.
Obama's a smart man, a good politician (and that, my dear friends, is an extremely positive compliment), and ambitious. If he's going to take us to the promised land, he's going to have to get there his own way.
Our opinions no doubt have validity; I'm glad that they are being aired here. Even so, I think the political arena, while it is the place where we express our values in action, is still a practical world where pragmatism and idealism must balance to bear the fruit of success.
My two cents, anyway.
Keep up the good work and good discussion here, Mr. Greenwald. (And good luck with your new projects!)
I am very disappointed in Obama's votes. He MUST stand up for his beliefs, or we will lose confidence in him as a senator. I'm afraid that, with his reasoning, he sounds like "just another politician".
I disagree with Glenda. If there was "no stopping her nomination" then why not use it as a chance to send a message that we demand better qualities in a Secretary of State. We do not want an inexperienced and borderline liar (with regard to the Clarke memo of January 2001).
It's this spineless softy approach that is sapping the power of the Democrats.
Also, Obama was on AirAmerica on Monday talking about why he voted for the class action suits being moved to federal court. He actually supported the aspect of tossing out frivolous lawsuits, and repeated the "pick your battles." I wasn't convinced. Al Franken was very nice to him. Too nice. Didn't challenge him much on it at all.
I agree with Victoria's statements that we have to give the Jr Senator from Illinois a chance to build up his credibility within congress. Voting against both Rice and Gonzales confirmations would label Obama as an obstructionist and would only serve as political fodder for the GOP smear machine which is already being used against newly elected Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Caution is needed when picking and choosing our battles.
Obama looks like the future of the Democratic party. I hope he gets lots of press. Dean should support him.