An Appeal to Barack Obama
“The Democrats have been stuck in the arguments of Vietnam, which means that either you’re a Scoop Jackson Democrat or you’re a Tom Hayden Democrat and you’re suspicious of any military action. And that’s just not my framework.” - Sen. Barack Obama
Barack, I thought Hillary Clinton was known as the Great Triangulator, but you are learning well. The problem with setting up false polarities to position yourself in the “center”, however, is that it’s unproductive both politically and intellectually.
Politically, it is a mistake because there last time I looked there were a whole lot more “Tom Hayden Democrats” voting in the California primary and, I suspect, around the country, than “‘Scoop’ Jackson Democrats.” In fact, they are your greatest potential base, aside from African-American voters, in a multi-candidate primary.
More disturbing is what happens to the mind by setting up these polarities. To take a “centrist” position, one calculates the equal distance between two “extremes.” It doesn’t matter if one “extreme” is closer to the truth. All that matters is achieving the equidistance. This means the presumably “extreme” view is prevented from having a fair hearing, which would require abandoning the imaginary center. And it invites the “extreme” to become more “extreme” in order to pull the candidate’s thinking in a more progressive direction. The process of substantive thinking is corroded by the priority of political positioning.
I have been enthused by the crowds you draw, by the excitement you instill in my son and daughter-in-law, by the seeds of inspiration you plant in our seven-year old [biracial] kid. I love the alternative American narrative you weave on the stump, one in which once-radical social movements ultimately create a better America step by step. I very much respect your senior advisers like David Axelrod, who figured out a way to elect Harold Washington mayor of Chicago. You are a truly global figure in this age of globalization.
But as the months wear on, I see a problem of the potential being squandered. Hillary Clinton already occupies the political center. John Edwards holds the populist labor/left. And that leaves you with a transcendent vision in search of a constituency.
Your opposition to the Iraq War could have distinguished you, but it became more parsed than pronounced. All the nuance might please the New York Times’ Michael Gordon, who helped get us into this madness in the first place, but the slivers of difference appear too narrow for many voters to notice. Clinton’s plan, such as it is, amounts to six more years of thousands of American troops in Iraq [at least]. Your proposal is to remove combat troops by mid-2010, while leaving thousands of advisers trying to train a dysfunctional Iraqi army, and adding that you might re-invade to stave off ethnic genocide. Lately, you have said the mission of your residual American force would be more limited than the Clinton proposal. You would commit trainers, for example, only if the Iraqi government engages in reconciliation and abandons sectarian policing. You would not embed American trainers in the crossfire of combat. This nuancing avoids the tough and obvious question of what to do with the sectarian Frankenstein monster we have funded, armed and trained in the Baghdad Interior Ministry. The Jones Commission recently proposed “scrapping” the Iraqi police service. Do you agree? The Center for American Progress, directed by Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, is urging that all US troops, including trainers, be redeployed this year. Why do you disagree? Lately you have taken advantage of Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness on Iran to oppose bombing that country without Congressional authorization. But you carefully decline to say whether you would support bombing Iran when and if the time comes.
This caution has a history:
- you were against the war in 2002 because it was a “dumb war”, but you had to point out that you were not against all wars, without exactly saying what wars you favored; - then you visited Iraq for 36 hours and “could only marvel at the ability of our government to essentially erect entire cities within hostile territory”; - then as the quagmire deepened, you cloaked yourself in the bipartisan mantle of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group, which advocated leaving thousands of American troops in Iraq to fight terrorism, train the Iraqis until they “stand up”, and sundry other tasks of occupation;
Perhaps your national security advisers are getting to you when it should be the other way around. Their expertise is not in the politics of primaries. If anything, they reject the of populist peace pressure influencing elite national security decisions. The result is a frustration towards all the Democratic candidates for what the Center for American Progress has recently called “strategic drift.” The political result is the danger of returning to John Kerry’s muffled message in 2004. The policy result may be a total security disaster for our country, draining our young soldiers’ blood and everyone’s taxes on the continuing degradation of our national honor in a war which cannot be won.
Just for the record, let me tell you my position on Iraq. I think the only alternative is to begin a global diplomatic peace offensive starting with a commitment to withdraw all our troops as rapidly as possible. That is the only way to engage the world, including the Iraqi factions, in doing something about containing the crises of refugees, reconciliation and reconstruction. It means negotiating with Iran rather than escalating to a broader war. If you want to “turn a new page”, it should not be about leaving the Sixties behind. It will be about leaving behind the superpower fantasies of both the neo-conservatives and your humanitarian hawks. And yes, it is to be “suspicious”, as Eisenhower and John Kennedy came to be suspicious, of the advice of any Wise Men or security experts who advocated the military occupation of Iraq. Is that position as extreme as your rhetoric assumes?
Your problem, if I may say so out loud, and with all respect, is that the deepest rationale for your running for president is the one that you dare not mention very much, which is that you are an African-American with the possibility of becoming president. The quiet implication of your centrism is that all races can live beyond the present divisions, in the higher reality above the dualities. You may be right. You see the problems Hillary Clinton encounters every time she implies that she wants to shatter all those glass ceilings and empower a woman, a product of the feminist movement, to be president? Same problem. So here’s my question: how can you say let’s “turn the page” and leave all those Sixties’ quarrels behind us if we dare not talk freely in public places about a black man or a woman being president? Doesn’t that reveal that on some very deep level that we are not yet ready to “turn the page”?
When you think about it, these should be wonderful choices, not forbidden topics. John Edwards can’t be left out either, for his dramatic and, once again, unstated role as yet another reformed white male southerner seeking America’s acceptance, like Carter, Clinton and Gore before him. Or Bill Richardson trying to surface the long-neglected national issues of Latinos. I think these all these underlying narratives, of blacks, women, white southerners and la raza - excuse me, Hispanic-Americans - are far more moving, engaging and electorally-important than the dry details of policy.
What I cannot understand is your apparent attempt to sever, or at least distance yourself, from the Sixties generation, though we remain your single greatest supporting constituency. I can understand, I suppose, your need to define yourself as a American rather than a black American, as if some people need to be reassured over and over. I don’t know if those people will vote for you.
You were ten years old when the Sixties ended, so it is the formative story of your childhood. The polarizations that you want to transcend today began with life-and-death issues that were imposed on us. No one chose to be “extreme” or “militant” as a lifestyle preference. It was an extreme situation that produced us. On one side were armed segregationists, on the other peaceful black youth. On one side were the destroyers of Vietnam, on the other were those who refused to submit to orders. On the one side were those keeping women in inferior roles, on the other were those demanding an equal rights amendment. On one side were those injecting chemical poisons into our rivers, soils, air and blood streams, on the other were the defenders of the natural world. On one side were the perpetrators of big money politics, on the other were keepers of the plain democratic tradition. Does anyone believe those conflicts are behind us?
I can understand, in my old age, someone wanting to dissociate from the extremes to which some of us were driven by the times. That seems to be the ticket to legitimacy in the theater of the media and cultural gatekeepers. I went through a similar process in 1982 when I ran for the legislature, reassuring voters that I wasn’t “the angry young man that I used to be.” I won the election, and then the Republicans objected to my being seated anyway! Holding the idea that the opposites of the Sixties were equally extreme or morally equivalent is to risk denying where you came from and what made your opportunities possible. You surely understand that you are one of the finest descendants of the whole Sixties generation, not some hybrid formed by the clashing opposites of that time. We want to be proud of the role we may have played in all you have become, and not be considered baggage to be discarded on your ascent. You recognize this primal truth when you stand on the bridge in Selma, Alabama, basking in the glory of those who were there when you were three years old. But you can’t have it both ways, revering the Selma march while trying to “turn the page” on the past.
This brings me back to why you want to stand in the presumed center against the “Tom Hayden Democrats.” Are you are equally distant from the “George McGovern Democrats.”, and the “Jesse Jackson Democrats”? How about the “Martin Luther King Democrats”, the “Cesar Chavez Democrats”, the “Gloria Steinem Democrats”? Where does it end?
What about the “Bobby Kennedy Democrats”? I sat listening to you last year at an RFK human rights event in our capital. I was sitting behind Ethel Kennedy and several of her children, all of whom take more progressive stands than anyone currently leading the national Democratic Party. They were applauding you, supporting your candidacy, and trying to persuade me that you were not just another charismatic candidate but the one we have been waiting for.
Will you live up to the standard set by Bobby Kennedy in 1968? He who sat with Cesar Chavez at the breaking of the fast, he who enlisted civil rights and women activists in his crusade, who questioned the Gross National Product as immoral, who dialogued with people like myself about ending the war and poverty? Yes, Bobby appealed to cops and priests and Richard Daley too, but in 1968 he never distanced himself from the dispossessed, the farmworkers, the folksingers, the war resisters, nor the poets of the powerless. He walked among us.
The greatest gift you have been given by history is that as the elected tribune of a revived democracy, you could change America’s dismal role in the world. Because of what you so eloquently represent, you could convince the world to give America a new hearing, even a new respect. There are no plazas large enough for the crowds that would listen to your every word, wondering if you are the one the whole world is waiting for. They would not wait for long, of course. But they would passionately want to give you the space to reset the American direction.
What is the risk, after all? If “think globally, act locally” ever made any sense, this is the time, and you are the prophet. If you want to be mainstream, look to the forgotten mainstream. You don’t even have to leave the Democratic Party. It’s time to renew the best legacy of the Good Neighbor policy of Roosevelt before it dissolved into the Cold War, the Strangelove priesthood, the CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala, the sordid Bay of Pigs, the open graves of Vietnam. It’s time to renew the best legacy of the New Deal before it became Neo-Liberalism, and finally achieve the 1948 Democratic vision of national health care.
May you - and Hillary too - live up to the potential, the gift of the past, prepared for you in the dreams not only of our fathers, but of all those generations with hopes of not being forgotten.
Tom Hayden is a former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His books include The Port Huron Statement [new edition], Street Wars and The Zapatista Reader.
Great article! Obamas comments have struck me as nothing more than platitudes spun by consultants. To talk of brining America together, while the bendovercrats have been legitimating Bush at every corner, and furthermore dividing the opposition?
Nothing teaches like contrast. Compare MLK to Nancy and the Bendovercrats today. Please post this on big newspaper websites to counter the corporate media censorship. Easily one of the top five speeches in America history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U
Interesting article. Renders an either/or perspective. Since I am not a Democrat nor a Republican I can appreciate Hayden’s disassociation of reality to churn out ideologies much like sausage links and for sale to status quo types like himself. The awful truth about contemporary politics which Hayden is apparently in denial about is this: the Democrat or Republican Party cannot be changed from within.
The likelihood of Obama or Hillary living up to the legacy of RFK is pretty incalculably small. A high-powered coke lawyer and, well, an absolutely empty husk - it’s like the Wizard of Oz got control of the story and Dorothy’s helpers are from a horror story. There is one candidate who would dare to end war and statist control. THAT is living up to the likes of RFK.
It seems, though, that his name is anathema here.
The man that Nurse Kucinich would look so, so good holding the tray beside. The one man capable of performing empire surgery on the U.S.
The rest of them all work for the drug-dealing Stalinist-influenced Nazis running the show, who are working their way around to getting everyone to blame a certain convenient group for their troubles…again.
I don’t know, it seems none here dare speak of this man or his policies….
perhaps you want more of what you’ve been getting lately?
just aksin.
Peace (in our time)
Lord R.
“It doesn’t matter if one ‘extreme’ is closer to the truth. All that matters is achieving the equidistance.”
Kinda like today’s ‘impartial’ media reporting. The ‘middle ground’ in the US has moved so far to the right that it’s getting very difficult to know where an extremity in that direction might be found.
Tom Hayden’s article was a nice walk down memory lane…unfortunately it seems to ignore the nature of corporate-big money-militarized control of the “two” party system.
We had the streets in the 60s, hope, vision, a cultural movement not easily co-opted (at least not at that time), but little to nothing in terms of a grassroots progressive third party movement. What kind of sustainable social change could we expect to see, without independent political power?
So, are we at a tipping point now?
It seems only natural that a 60s activist (who is still an activist) should be out front helping millions of rank and file voters storm the exit doors in this “two party” system… knocking down some walls (ballot access) along the way.
learn from the past, build the future:
http://gp.org
eb
http://ebbortz.blogspot.com
Great article by Hayden- I intend to forward it to many. I’d like to imagine that Obama could actually read it and honestly take in the good sense of Hayden’s thinking. Obama’s ‘centrist’ strategy could be dropped for a more genuine approach- if he allows himself to listen to his own heart, instead of the opinions of his big-money supporters and the DLC. I’m not holding my breath, but Hayden’s attempt is valiant. Imagine Obama saying, “I was wrong to compromise my values with the militarists who told me I had to campaign for Joe Lieberman in the primary against Ned Lamont. We need people like Lamont in the Senate, and Lieberman’s support of the Bush/Cheney agenda is disastrous for the US and for the Democratic party. Well, I’m not going to listen to those advisors anymore. I’ll take my advice from genuine patriots like Tom Hayden”.
we have all been here before,,,,if someone acted like Bobby, they would be shot….we have lost control, of democrazy, lock and load. head for the hills, or get motivated and Vote out the cronies, revolving door balonies, two bit nobackbonies,,,change the executive branch, to a board, elected from each region of the country, eliminate the oligarchy, by extending, election day to election weekend, or a paid day off,,,limit amounts that can be spent, to reasonable, it is as Will Rogers use to say about the closing of the bars at 2am “if a man ain’t drunk by then he ain’t trying hard enough…” if a coulple of million ain’t enough to tell what your gonna do then they ain’t speaking plain enough!!!
I just have one question for Tom Hayden.
Why are you encouraging him?????!!!!
Well Tom, what advice will you have for President Obama
when he bombs and invades Pakistan or some other hapless country so he can prove to us how tough he and the Democrats are?
[quote]Will November 10th, 2007 1:46 pm — Obama’s ‘centrist’ strategy could be dropped for a more genuine approach- if he allows himself to listen to his own heart, instead of the opinions of his big-money supporters and the DLC.[/quote]
What is it about US indoctination techniques that makes people so willing and eager to grasp at so many weak and improbable ‘if only’ straws:
- if only the Dims had courage
- if only AIPAC wasn’t so persuasive
- if only Pelosi would set them free
- if only the candidates would follow their hearts
and so on ad infinitum.
Is it not painfully obvious by now that people who ‘follow their hearts’ cannot possibly be partipants in a totally corrupt system? Conversely, until the system itself is fixed, all of the other ‘if onlys’ are mere wishful thinking.
Obama’s a clever phony not much different from Clinton or Lieberman.
Only Kucinich has the guts and principle to stand up to the National Security State and his record speaks for itself.
Good Lord, people, do you read other websites? There is a man out there, working inside the party system, who is talking about bringing home the troops, immediately, from everywhere. Whatever else you want to argue with him about, for crying out loud, can you not see that he is ready to end the dominion of your increasingly obvious overlords?
Nurse Kucinich for Vice! He’s a great man, but the Eagle needs empire removal surgery, and there is a Doctor in the House.
Amazed that the shouting in the streets, the cries not heard since the farmers tossed out the British, are inaudible to you even as they shake my far northern rock,
Lord R.
PS
Plus, watching the man eat Giuliani for lunch in the debates and Hannity for dinner after is the best thing I’ve seen on my screen in many, many years. And then there’s the bit where he schools Helicopter Ben. Good God, I had no idea. Walt Kelly would have loved this guy, and I’ll just say the name, you chickens.
Vote Ron Paul. End the War. End the Empire.
PPS You can always re-register as your favourite wing of the Party after the R-type primaries. Unless Kucinich switches and runs with Ron (personal dream team).
Horrified that nobody here seems to know about Dr. No’s policies, even though there was a decentralization advocate here,
Lord R.
The tallest person running for president, who shames the rest with his straight forward, no-consultant-spin is Kucinich. He is head and shoulders above the rest. He doesn’t waver on his platform, tells it like it is and makes no apologies for common sense. Oh, I forgot to mention he as guts with a capital G, which appears to be in a rather anemic state right now for the rest of the candidates and congress as well.
You are wasting your time on these “corporocrates”. Wake up. They all feed from the same trough - military-industrial complex, Israeli lobby and big money.
Annabelle, you made me think of that great Python skit with the archaeologists who end up competing by climbing on their worker’s shoulders and eventually collapsing in a heap.
Get Dr. Paul into the pole position on the one wing, then re-register and vote for big D on the other. Can’t lose that way, and it’s all one Party anyway.
Riding with all of us westerners on the shoulders of the rest of the world (until we fall, or elect Dr. Paul),
Lord R.
Obama transcends the living past, opting for a clean break into the future?
Obama once refereed to Wellstone as a “gadfly” (Barack Co., Harpers Magazine -Silverman).Obama’s take on Hayden is no departure. Obama seems very clearly defined. If anything, Hayden’s letter of appeal is better as an example Obama doesn’t hit home. Hayden is still hopeful, but acknowledges Obama’s direction, while crafted with references to the civil rights era, is detached from the past. It is almost as if Obama himself is personally detached. The alarm must be hard for civil rights era Democrats to hear. After all, even if many of the most prominent leaders of the era were killed, the Hayden’s of the world aren’t dead. To be treated as if they are a footnote or sound-bite in Obama’s march for presidency must really sting.
Then again, perhaps this detachment from the past also illustrates why Obama (much like Bill Clinton) appeals so well to younger crowds; the need for breaking out of the mould is essential –to define one’s self independent. Transcendent.
Detachment or divorce from the past is modernism for you. Contemporary Americana. One has got to break the mould, if you want to transcend the restraints of dogma? But one downside to this model (because contemporary Americana’s mould breaking can be just as dogmatic as, say, a traditionalists) is commercialism. Devoid of context. Much like the young modeling their rebellious selves in 1980s American punk memorabilia -instead of their own unique voice- appear completely unaware of the marketing scam selling retro “80s punk” era ( minus all the historical baggage of union-busting, labor squashing, civil rights-mocking, too-busy, coked-out Reagan Democrats). Selling 80s punk today is dependent on safe, low-risk, regurgitated clichés. Revolution becomes fashionable and is temporized. (Revolution is for sale. Freedom isn’t free, it too is on sale).
All I have to say is, look for the long con, 20 to early 30 -somethings. Today you are pitched as the bright future of tomorrow -rushed in “to do your part” through “volunteering” -”making America the bright example it once was…”, (Was what?). It can just as quickly turn on you, and you’ll be labeled slackers -and made the excuse –the problem. Or you could become an example of the disillusioned gay-activist under “don’t ask, don’t tell”. In the case of the Hayden crowd, you might become the example of an antiquated era pulled out for annual parades.ˇ
“Hillary Clinton already occupies the political center. John Edwards holds the populist labor/left.”
Extremely dissappointing article. One of the champions of the left has abandoned another. It boggles the mind that such an insightful person, who in criticizing Obama for “setting up false polarities” has done so himself by announcing Edwards as the “left.” It seems Hayden too has bought into the MSM’s denial of Kucinich. It’s a dark day for us and Mr. Hayden.
Ruthru—–too many who have some sort of public forum in which to speak, so we bloggers can comment upon their utterances, value their credibility more than they value their self proclaimed ideals.
Kuchinich indeed—and not even an Independent, a fellow Dem, and still the party faithful, looking for a “winner” ( their view, not mine) have bought into the tyranny of limitation. My God! Tom Hayden! You were radical once! Not all the graduates of the 60’s muted the fierceness of their vision for justice and truth. How many times are you willing to vote your head, not your heart–the very same head that has been beating up against a brick wall for most of your adult life? Rethugs aren’t the enemy although they make a handy target. Anyone who accepts, over and over again, a crooked system, of counterfeit choices, ones that erodes all that we hold dear, albeit more slowly at times, they are the real enemy.
In other words, forgive the sexist phrasing, “Obama, grow a pair!”
It’s funny how some of the candidates try to show strength by not shunning war and imperialism, etc. Yet Congressman Dennis Kucinich does come out against war and U.S. Imperialism, while standing with a strength that puts the current president to shame.
We have nothing to be ashamed of regarding the idealism of the 60s. That was just the first blush of a youthful country trying to live up to its reputation. I believe that what Obama was trying to get at is that we cannot elect someone on their high profile during that era; he wants Hillary to move over for a man with new ideas. I agree.
Vote Kucinich.
I read Obama’s first book and got the sense that he’s a quick study with a racial identity crisis. Apparently, he’s settled on the white man’s status quo to fill the blanks in his persona. Pity, we could have used a different cultural perspective in the White House.
Barak, drop out of the race - you’re doing a better job as Senator.
I have liked Barack from the beginning because his focus has been on uniting this country, not dividing it. In that regard, it is troubling to me to hear him being only called a black man. The reality is he is a person of mixed race, 1/2 white and 1/2 black. That should be his strength, being not only smart and discerning, but a person of mixed heritage who reflects the cultural diversity of this country.
dn
Coyotita, I’m with you! I would rather feel really really good about the leader I support, than hop onboard to back the perceived(annointed) front runners, POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
Obama’s not even in the picture. But the article is a good attempt at putting him in perspective historically, and gratifying rhetoric in terms of taking him to the woodshed. By the way, can’t somebody copy-edit the article? Sheesh!
Lord R.,
Ya’ll have sane gun control, and access to safe, legal abortions up there in Canada, don’t you? Those of us south of the border are losing the latter, and have never really had the former. Your unnamed good doctor, whose views on Iraq while commendable, don’t excuse him on these two counts. His 2nd Ammendment views are, in fact, extreme, even when compared to the rest of his colleages in the Rethuglican Party. The good doctor opposes ANY gun control of ANY kind for ANY reason. Assualt weapons, anyone? They’re great for the sportsman-like hunter! Where’s the “EVOL”… in mean, love? You’re almost there, Lord R., so keep trying. It’s Dennis Kucinich you want to be making that diplomatic trip up to Ottawa.
http://www.dennis4president.com
I wouldn’t expect any substantive change from “President” Obama. I suspect that there would be a lot of pressure from all over the place on the first “black” president to prove that he could toe the party (corporate) line as well as all those white guys have. And that’s aside form all the indications he’s given that he does in fact believe in the sanctity of the oligarchy.
For the life of me, I really don’t get the support that Ron Paul is receiving from some supposedly “progressive” quarters. He is a LIBERTARIAN. He would, without any question whatsoever, facilitate the growth of the chasm that already exists between the rich and the poor. He is all about removing inconvenient obstacles to leveraging one’s current economic advantage so as to be better able to exploit other people and resources. I suppose I can see why ANY message that contains differences to that of the current administration might SEEM automatically desirable. But that would be a false impression.
My aunt & uncle gave me Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope” last Christmas. I was relatively intrigued, just like many of us, by the 2004 Democrat Convention Dynamo.
I politely read about halfway through the book, and just thought, “this dude is supposed to be the second coming?” It’s all conciliatory feel-good schlock. Al Gore’s “The Assault on Reason” has more gravitas in its book jacket than Obama’s 400-odd mealy-mouthed pages.
Evoking grand, sweeping rhetoric, and really not accomplishing much beyond a centrist compromises, is NOT hope. As Mike Gravel said at his alternate debate in Philadelphia, “hope without substance means nothing.”
Or, as I like to turn a phrase: HYPE SINKS.
Gravel/Kucinich ‘08
*** Mike Gravel is excluded from the upcoming CNN debate in Las Vegas. He will be holding another alternate debate in which he tears down the media mystique and distortion of politial discourse. Check it out (and Tivo the regular debate to get Kucinich highlights). Check this site later in the week for it’s broadcast:
http://www.ustream.tv
While I support Dennis Kucinich in his bid, and understand the anger of those on the post here for calling Mr. Hayden out on not mentioning him, I think I nevertheless understand his motives.
This is, after all, not an editorial, but a letter. Right now Dennis is among the 2nd tier candidates, though I’m donating $ and time up here in NH to change that. Senator Obama is one of the leading contenders, and Hayden obviously understands this. He frames his letter accordingly, appealing to what he knows Mr. Obama’s concerns are. And while I hope Dennis soon becomes one of his concerns, I can’t delude myself that right now he really is. Niether can Hayden. He’s appealling to him in the hopes he can pull him in a more progressive direction, and for my part, I hope he succeeds.
It is, whatever else you might think, an eloquent and moving personal appeal, and I profited from reading it. Thanks, Tom, from another 60s baby (and 80s punk rock boy) who owes alot to those of you in your generation who not only lit the fire, but tended it all these years.
The author says to Obama:
“Your problem, if I may say so out loud, and with all respect, is that the deepest rationale for your running for president is the one that you dare not mention very much, which is that you are an African-American with the possibility of becoming president.”
The author’s “problem” is that a statement like this is not made “with all respect” as he’d have us believe.
A bi-racial, bi-cultural, teacher of constitutional law, as Obama is, has more to say to America than
“elect me because I’m black.”
We should remember that Obama presently is America’s #2 hope, Edwards is #3, Mrs. Clinton is #1. There is little to be gained by a bunch of criticism followed by a half-hollow well-wish.
Response to some posts above:
There are more important things to do than plead with Obama-as-presidential-runner for specifics about how he intends to reform later, all that he bewails now.
Obama’s ego-tunneled goal, like Hillary’s and most other candidates, is simply to become president — not to take action, now, as a congressperson, or to create campaign issue consciousness about specific reforms that might obligate a presidential policy follow-thru later.
Better we spend our time RE this crucial issue, on demanding that reelection-skittish lawmakers who are already in office (including all reform-blabbing presidential candidates presently in congress), simply legislate that the FCC can allow no further consolidation of media
What the hell is the point in begging ANY presidential candidate to DO LATER what he/she can easily TRY TO DO NOW as a sitting lawmaker?
Love reading more and more about Kucinich.
I marvel at his guts, his happiness as a newly-wed, his energy, convictions, and understanding of politics and timing. The “Kucinich can’t win” population wouldn’t have thought much of Ghandi or Mandela, either.
OK, now wait a minute,
I try to stay relatively well-informed compared to most sheeple I know, but something that I did not know just struck me here..
Did Obama really “…campaign for Joe Lieberman in the primary against Ned Lamont…”
(Will–1:46 pm) ???
OMG! I’m devastated. Not that I was leaning towards Obama as a winnable candidate in the general election or anything (do you really think Amerikka is ready for a “black” president?), but I had been finding some measure of inspiration in the fact that Senator Obama had gained quite a bit of popularity and had been placed as a front-runner in the democratic presidential race.
WOW. To think this guy Lamont took out Lieberman in the primary, forcing him to run as an independent, and then GoBombthem comes along and helps Lieberman win in the general?,,, fuck!
NEVER will I vote for Obama now. That dude just lost the vote of one Mr. Reginald Rocktone!
Hayden made a lot more sense during the days when he hung out with Abbie Hoffman in the 1960’s. He had the right idea then. Fight thes system from the outside and oppose both major parties.
Too bad he is now part of the establishment he once opposed. He is part of a political party whose leadership thinks it is ok to bomb other countries and kill innocent civilians(as the great Bill Clinton did during the 1990’s. This same leadership refuses to repeal the atrocious Patriot Act.
Sad.
I got the feeling I was sitting in a Dem party strategy room with Hayden. The only problem with his article is the fact that he thinks every reader is also a once-radical-now-sellout-Democrat.
Sorry Tom. This guy never bought the corporate line. Too bad you did. One can only imagine what you could have led us to had you stayed on the outside.
Obama, Clinton, Edwards…does it even matter Tom??? They’re all cardboard cutouts of what a real progressive leader should be.
Obama campaigned for Lieberman. Expecting anything of him is sheerest folly.
Although Barack was incognito during the CT. primary fight between Lieberman and Lamont, he came out in support of Lamont during the General election even though Lieberman had a double-digit lead over Lamont at the time.
Barack Obama released the following statement:
“Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government. Ned Lamont’s campaign is about delivering on these goals in Washington.
The November 7th election is right around the corner. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign.”
We have had 20 consecutive years of either a Bush or a Clinton in the white house and I for one am ready for a change.
Right now the only candidate who has a chance of wrestling the nomination away from Hillary is Barack.
I will of course support Hillary if she is the nominee but like I said, I am ready for a new direction.
While I am not yet completely familiar with the total picture of Barack, I like what I see so far.
The Hillary camp tries to portray Obama as too inexperienced for the job, but he is right now 5 years older than JFK was when sworn into office.
You have to like his academic credentials, a graduate of liberal NYC Columbia University and Harvard Law School, and elected president of the Harvard Law Review, not an easy accomplishment.
I think he is eminently qualified to fill the position of president of the USA, a lot more qualified than the current occupant of the white house or any of the republican candidates.
If my main man Dennis Kucinich is unable to get the democratic nomination than my second choice would be Barack Obama.
I am ready, I am really ready for a new leader who will restore our standing in the world and be a true egalitarian representative for all Americans.
Excellent article. How many of us were only thrilled with Obama because he is a man of color, without fully listening to him. So much potential is being thrown away. As one who fought for rights for a long time, we can not afford to back any farther. How can we win an election, with results that are everlasting, when our own party is into “ME” instead of “WE”?
http://appalachianwoman.blogspot.com
Sequoiabison, if this site on which you and I both post can be believed, Obama was not “incognito” during the CT primary.
“Although Obama said such high-profile primary endorsements were rare, a similar controversy arose a few weeks later. Just as Ned Lamont’s antiwar primary campaign against prowar Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was gaining momentum, Obama traveled to the state to endorse Lieberman. Like the Duckworth endorsement, Obama’s move was timed to derail an insurgent, grassroots candidate. To progressives this may seem surprising, given Obama’s progressive image. But remember, according to the New York Times it is Lieberman–one of the most conservative, prowar Democrats in Washington–who is “Obama’s mentor in the Senate as part of a program in which freshman senators are paired with incumbents.”"
source: Mr. Obama Goes to Washington
by David Sirota
originally in The Nation, reprinted here on June 9, 2006
“I think the only alternative is to begin a global diplomatic peace offensive…”
If only we had a leader of substance instead of a severely vision impaired adolescent who likes to fart-shock White House interns, this could have been done in the aftermath of 9/11.
Better late than never, maybe, but this late may be too late. The time it would take to repair our reputation enough for anyone to listen to, no less trust, us would be far too much time.
Who else is there? No one. The world at large is suffering from bad to mediocre leadership and there is no candidate capable of even starting some road back to what the idea of America is supposed to be.
How much darkness we’ll have to live through before we come out the other side, I just don’t know.
America needs to wake up and renew its revolution. That’s what we need.
Obama is a conservative, corporate militarist candidate. Paul Street at ZNet has written critique after critique of Obama’s policies. Hayden is wasting his time writing to Obama.
Here is an illustrative quotation from Obama’s book:
>>“Calvin Coolidge once said that ‘the chief business of the American people is business,’ and indeed, it would be hard to find a country on earth that’s been more consistently hospitable to the logic of the marketplace. Our Constitution places the ownership of private property at the very heart of our system of liberty. Our religious traditions celebrate the value of hard work and express the conviction that a virtuous life will result in material rewards. Rather than vilify the rich, we hold them up as role models…As Ted Turner famously said, in America money is how we keep score.”>>
Obama’s true conservativism is thus revealed, along with support of his threats of force against Iran and Pakistan, which are war crimes according to Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter.
Hayden’s policies are fine. He is a true progressive. Rather than appealing to the corporate conservative militarist Democrat Obama, Hayden should run himself. He’d get my vote. We need more Kuciniches, Frankens and Sheehans. We need more Lamonts. The Green Party doesn’t have a presidental candidate yet. How about Hayden running with our one national progressive party, the Green Party? (Kucinich represents the progressives in the Democratic Party.)
Looks to me like the Dems, except Kucinich and Gravel, have two faces. When on the street they come closest to campaigning for the votes of the people, but, when in front of any camera, they are simply AUDITIONING for the Trilateral, Bilderberg and Council on Foreign Relations. Parsing, fudging, shading, evading, quibbling– all the necessary skills of a front (wo)man for the global elite.
The biggest reason to not elect the machine candidates is that the revolution HAS ALREADY STARTED. We need people at the top who know how to guide a revolution, not maintain a tricked-out, one-sided status quo stealth empire.
Democracy, not plutocracy.
Send Dennis money.
Send Gravel money, too! Support the Veterans President on this Veterans Day:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AP1UPufmC0Y
Two voices holding the rest accountable is better than one. Unfortunately, Dennis will again have to fend for himself at the next CNN debate. Mike will be holding his own alternate debate, condemning the bought-and-sold corporate political system.
If ever there were a time to make a major change in direction in the country, Bush and Cheney have laid the groundwork. Lots of talk about Clinton being the candidate already. So, splinter the Democrats and maintain control of the electronic voting machines. A Republican could take the election (notice I didn’t say “win the election.”). The destruction and scorched earth we’ve endured since Bush/Cheney 2000 could go on, a possibility I’ll do everything I can to ensure doesn’t happen.
Obama’s appeal to me is that he can see more than one side of an issue. The world is not all evil vs. good. Evil lurks in the heart of every man, just as some measure of good can be found there. He comes from a Christian/Muslim background and a black/white marriage. If ever we needed someone to see both sides of issues, it is now.
I, too, have been disappointed in what I have (or have not heard) from him since he announced his candidacy. His dancing around issues is hurting him. I also don’t appreciate his willingness to throw away the ideas and support of those of us who grew up in the sixties. Some of us did learn the lessons of Vietnam. That’s why we were so adamant about not allowing Bush to go after Iraq. Bush and Cheney, obviously, missed those lessons.
So, wake up, Obama. Make us proud to support you. Make us proud to follow your lead. Get aggessive, but make your case on changing the directions Bush and Cheney have set.
The nominee of the Democratic Party, whether Obama or not, must level with the American people about the danger we are in from a Radical right wing executive branch and a Congress who enables it. This must begin with mea culpas from the Democratic Party admitting that during Bill Clinton’s administrations the GOP and its backers were able to set in motion a “rolling coup” due largely to a takover of the media via the Communications Act of 1996. Bush and Company would never have been able to enact their tax cuts and drive the economy towards a fiscal train wreck without Democratics crossing over and voting with them. John Edwards at least sounds like he wants to correct this.
Tom Hayden makes an excellent case. However, he will forever be questioned because of Jane Fonda. It’s high time to stop bickering and take a risk to support the election of Barack Obama.
Barack Obama’s wave crested over a sea change that started long ago with the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. However, the War in Iraq and more importantly, the Middle East-Arab/Muslim region (including Darfur) offer an overlay of separate but related circumstances in a new century that require 21st Century strategies.
Bobby Kennedy is not coming back. The old anti-Vietnam War Coalition will not win the White House for Obama. Independents now outnumber Democrats and Republicans. Bill and Hillary Clinton squandered their unique opportunity as part of that coalition by losing universal health care and both houses of Congress. While they have an edge with the Democratic Party and all the outstanding IOUs, they are a divisive force in America. The Bush-Clinton dynasties are ready for the history books.
Hillary can strengthen her status by remaining in New York and serving her state constituency. She is no Bobby Kennedy!
The Kennedys are another dynasty. Bobby’s widow, Ethel, Teddy and the rest of the Kennedys, could become instrumental in rallying the necessary coalition behind Obama, true profiles in courage.
Like a fourth dynasty, the Roosevelts, party affiliation takes a back seat. It’s now or never.
I winced at Obama’s statement. Yet the paradox of the full NYT interview, where it appeared, is that Obama does very clearly choose to be a peace Democrat. He is packaging himself as overcoming divisions of the past, which he says Hillary Clinton would accentuate, while he is much more dovish than Clinton. And he was willing to defend those choices — in quite specific terms — in the interview with the NYT’s most hawkish reporter, Michael Gordon. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/politics/02obama-transcript.html?pagewanted=all
So while I understand Tom Hayden’s frustration, I still think that Obama is quite promising. And I think it is a bit easy for progressives to find fault with everyone but Kucinich and Gravel. Kucinich and Gravel are doing something important in staking out perfect positions, but that isn’t the same as running to win. That doesn’t mean one accepts just anything: my standard is significant differences. I do think Obama, Edwards, and on some issues Richardson offer that compared with Clinton.
Dear Tom Hayden,
At the outset let me say that I respect and admire your contribution to American politics. I sincerely believe that this country and the world are both a better place because of people like you. Likewise, I sincerely believe that Barack Obama shares my admiration and respect for you. I think I understand why your ire is up as the use of your name in Obama’s quote could seem as though he’s treating you as a caricature of sorts. All that notwithstanding, I don’t think you get it insofar as what Obama is trying to say.
To start with I do not accept your premise that because Obama described Democrats as being stuck in Vietnam era choices of either Scoop Jackson Democrats or Tom Hayden Democrats that that means he is trying to position himself in the middle. What that means to me is he’s trying to break out of the box. He’s trying to redefine and elevate the political discourse beyond the narrowly defined labels we’ve been boxed into defending. Those labels and that box make it easy for the party establishment and the political pundits to manipulate the electorate and avoid the complexities of a real discussion.
Likewise I do not accept your contention that Obama is trying to sever or distance himself from the 60’s generation or that he is attempting to say the conflicts of the 60’s are behind us. What he’s attempting to say as I understand it, is that the conflicts of the 60’s have transformed and we need a new “framework” within which to effectively address those conflicts.
In challenging what you call Obama’s “false polarities” you say, “No one chose to be “extreme” or “militant” as a lifestyle preference. It was an extreme situation that produced us. On one side armed segregationists, on the other peaceful black youth. On one side were destroyers of Vietnam, on the other were those who refused to submit to orders…”
Without realizing it you yourself help make the point that we need to “turn the page” on the Vietnam era “framework” for our political analysis. In the 60’s we were facing clear cut, black or white extremes that lent themselves to clear cut, black or white answers. That “framework” worked for the 1960’s — it does not necessarily work today. The issues today do not present themselves in that clear cut black or white fashion. Racism still exists today but the manifestation is far more subtle and sophisticated than it was in the 1960’s. As a consequence our approach must be far more sophisticated and subtle in addressing racism today. It’s not George Wallace on the school house steps in 2007 or Bull Connor with police dogs and a fire hose. It’s not images of death, destruction and body bags from Vietnam [Iraq] on the evening news in 2007. It’s embedded journalists, war as video game entertainment and complete corporate control of news and information in 2007. In my estimation Obama is right when he complains that Democrats are stuck in Vietnam era politics and that we need a new “framework” for our political analysis – we need to turn the page. Obama’s point as I understand it is not that the “opposites of the 60’s were equally extreme or morally equivalent” as you suggest, but that the 60’s political “framework” is not necessarily effective in politics today.
In my view Obama is not attempting to have it both ways as you suggest, in “revering the Selma march while trying to “turn the page” on the past.” Here again, in my opinion, you don’t get it. It’s not a matter of turning the page on the past. Obama himself frequently speaks about the hard fought struggles of the 1960’s that made it possible for him to run for president and stand a real chance of winning today. He’s turning the page in terms of the political analysis, in terms of the “framework” upon which we wage the battle going forward. It’s ridiculous to think that this man who is a product of everything the 1960’s struggles were about is trying to turn his back on that past. We’re not dealing with a Clarence Thomas type in Obama.
On the subject of race, I am troubled by your statement that, “the deepest rationale for your [Obama] running for president is …. that you [Obama] are an African-American. I’d like to understand what you mean by that. Do you also think that the “deepest” rationale for Hillary’s run is the fact that she is a woman?
The nation became intrigued with Barack Obama after his keynote address at the Democratic convention. What struck a cord with many people who listened to that speech was his challenge to Americans to see themselves as one people, all Americans, all in the same boat, one family, all caring about the well being of each other and wanting a government that works to improve the lives of all Americans and not just a select few. The fact that he is black is irrelevant to what struck a cord with people when they heard him speak and why they wanted to know more about him. After 8 years of the disastrous, destructive, divisive, incompetent, corrupt, crony driven, ego maniacal presidency of George W. Bush, the deepest rationale for Obama’s run is the fact that he is the right man, with the right message, at the right time. The fact that he’s a black man is just icing on the cake.
I think Obama, to his credit, listened, finally woke up, and took this article to heart, incorporating it in the thread of his Saturday night Iowa speech.