Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Barack Obama Got My Vote
I just flew back from Australia, where I was speaking about the erosions of our civil liberties. Believe me, the rest of the world is agog at our inaction as what makes us Americans is being set aflame; and they are more scared of what an unsheathed US could do to the rest of the world than we are.
They also get more news out in the rest of the world about these depredations than we do here in our media bubble.
For instance: As the Australian reported earlier this week, New South Wales Justice of the Peace Mamdouh Habib is suing the Australian federal government -- which under the Howard administration had colluded with the US in committing various abuses against detainees and due process -- for having allowed him to be arrested wrongly in Pakistan in 2001, kidnapped and sent illegally to Egypt. There this Justice of the Peace was illegally imprisoned and tortured for six months. After that the United States held him for FOUR YEARS in Guantanamo. His complaint notes that he is a law-abiding citizen who was swept up under false pretexts. "It turns out that Habib has incontrovertible proof of his good standing," the Australian noted. "[H]e is a fully accredited Justice of the Peace in NSW. A search of the NSW Attorney General's Department website reveals that not only Habib, but his wife Maha Habib, is a JP." To become justice of the peace in New South Wales, the Australian added, "you have to be NOMINATED BY A MEMBER OF THE NSW PARLIAMENT and submit to a full character inquiry, including a criminal records check by NSW Police." (ALL CAPS mine)
Get that? A justice of the peace in a developed-world democracy. Had you heard of that?
Me neither.
This gave me chills because, once again, it is so scarily predictable: when I first started trying to alert people about the ramifications of the Military Commissions Act, and how it gives the US power to seize innocent people off the street simply by the President's naming them 'enemy combatants', I pointed out that nothing would prevent the US from rendering an EU minister off the streets of Belgium -- and flying him or her to a `black site' for torture -- if he or she opposed a US pipeline plan, or was prosecuting US war criminals such as Rumsfeld in the Hague. And that the clear lesson of Germany and other closing societies such as Argentina is that once those 'disappearances' begin, that is it; few are then brave enough to object -- and at that point objection is too weak to be effective anyway.
They rendered an Australian justice of the peace -- and that rendition did not even make the US news. So how can we be sure there is something so sacred about an American justice of the peace or even a judge? Say, an American judge who ruled against the Military Commissions?
This kind of leap to the next level of threat to us as citizens seems implausible to many people because they assume that there is an orderly and effective democratic response to this kind of eruption of lawlessness --- (oh gosh, actually it isn't lawlessness any more, now is it) -- or, I should say, to this kind of abrupt shift to a heightened level of state sadism; Well -- someone would bring charges!, one assumes. Or: someone would sue! Or: surely the ACLU would do something!
But seriously, I ask you to consider: What would indeed happen as a countermove if a US justice of the peace or a judge was rendered? The Bar Association would protest? Scary. Intimidating.
I raise this as an urgent matter in part because of a recent conference call I participated in with Hamid Khan, the head of the courageous movement of Pakistani lawyers and judges. In the call, which he made in spite of great danger to himself and probably to his family, there was a moment when he described the internecine warfare and factionalism of the opposition to Musharraf. In his voice was the tired, frustrated sound I have heard so often in this country when groups on the left JUST CAN'T GET IT TOGETHER. No matter how urgent the need is. Whereas in Pakistan's case they were having trouble getting the anti-Musharraf forces to act together -- and there was so much at stake.
What became clear from that call is that we are fools to assume that if the government makes a dramatically violent move, which all the laws I have highlighted now make entirely possible, that anyone will know clearly what to do or how to implement what should be done in response. In Pakistan, it was clear, in spite of this powerful grassroots movement, no one had a clear Plan B when Musharraf declared a state of emergency and began rounding up the lawyers and arresting the judges. No one had an unquestioned leadership structure in place for the countermovement; no one had a subcontinent-sized phone tree or a nice big -- oh, nation-sized -- conference room in which to meet.
We need to consider this right now when we think about our own country: In a sudden sharp move on the part of the US government, even a `small' one such as this imagined scenario of the rendition of a handful of US judges, there is nothing a democracy is prepared effectively to do; that is the nature of democracy. There is no War Room for democracy; no one has an organizational chart detailing who would do what; no one would have a master strategy.
When people think about the many laws that invite this kind of overreaching now in the US -- the National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51), for instance, that would give the President control over all branches of government -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- in the event of an emergency -- they just assume that, gosh darn it, WE WON'T TAKE IT. And it may well be that we wouldn't want to take it and we would be willing in great numbers to run to the ramparts. But here is what I have to report to you, that the conference call made clear, and my Pakistani friend would confirm this: in a crackdown, even in the best-case scenario, NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE RAMPARTS ARE.
Many people have expressed faith in the Military. I am sure most of our military are patriots and cherish freedom; but who would direct a resistance to such an edict? What would be the chain of command? What about ordnance? Many people have expressed faith in the courts, but if they went after the judges -- just a handful of judges -- as they did in Pakistan, would the judiciary prevail? How? All closed societies have judiciaries; the judges just know which way to rule.
Many others assume the media will cover such a depredation and rouse people; well, ideally -- but just days ago we saw a curious blackout of a 60 Minutes report on Don Siegelman, the Democrat probably wrongly jailed in Alabama, by a TV affiliate with close ties to the White House.
Resistance? Sure, but how? The trouble with an aggressive move in any one of these directions on the part of the government is that THEY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN and we have not. They aren't surprised or shocked; we are. They have a plan; we don't.
So surely, better to roll back these terrifying laws. Just in case.
I have noted it is always true that societies that begin by torturing people at the margins end up torturing members of their own citizenry. Consider again: the Oscar-winning documentary for this year, Taxi to the Dark Side, which proves that any of us can become a monster torturer, following orders, and proves also that the edict to torture was systemic and came from the very top, won't be seen by most Americans. This is because the Discovery Channel bought it hoping to air it -- but then backed out. (Its affiliates have close ties to the military-industrial complex.) Will the Oscar win get it on the airwaves? Doubtful. Watch it somehow and drag all your friends to see it. Then consider that what happened to Dilawar, an innocent Afghani taxi driver, could happen to you or me.
When I went to see it in a theatre there were six people present. So America can't know in time what is being done to others to take steps to protect ourselves.
What is leadership? Leadership means getting out in front of where people are and waking them up. Right now, given these violent possible threats to us and our families, we are sleeping.
Which is why I am formally coming out of the closet with my support for Senator Barack Obama. Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action, not just mouthing soundbites, on the need to deny torturers space in our nation and to restore the rule of law.
"Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama," read a recent headline on the Boston Globe's political blog. In the article, reporter Charlie Savage notes that "More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to 'restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.'"
The lawyers who signed this letter -- prominent names on the list included Washington lawyer Thomas Wilner, retired federal appeals court judge John Gibbons, and retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who was the Navy's top JAG officer from 2000 to 2002 -- applauded Obama for having stood up in 2006 against aspects of the Military Commissions Act. Unfortunately, his fight was ultimately unsuccessful -- which is why we are all still in danger. But unlike other candidates he truly fought and he understood the nature of the danger: "When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," the lawyers wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."
Senator Clinton also opposed the law. In 2006 she said: "If enacted, this law would give license to this Administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse." She gets the danger; many of her colleagues do too. But this issue requires bold language and action. Senator Clinton has not foregrounded the issue of the subversion of the rule of law in her appearances or speeches; and I am very VERY sorry to say that she did not oppose torture until she opposed it.
I say this with regret: She and her husband really know how to run a country; they delivered eight years of peace and prosperity. I know her to be a skilled politician and motivated by sincere love of country. Mrs. Clinton would be a terrific executive -- in a stable democracy. But that is not enough right now. These are times that should try men's souls -- and women's also. In a closing society, a leader has to be willing to face down evil, engage it and call it by its name.
Remember: when activists started to push hard to raise awareness of the dangers of torture and indefinite detention, many on the Hill were scared to join the fight because it was then politically unpopular. But to me, if you are not really against torture -- always and under every political change in climate, and let us note that former torture victim and prisoner of war John McCain shamefully dropped his fight against the torture loopholes in the law as well -- then you are not really, in my view, fit to be an American President.
Gender has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it.
Integrity has something to do with it.
That is why Barack Obama has my vote. Of all the leading candidates, he is the only one on these issues who has consistently acted like a true American.
And if I hear -- as I am likely to -- from legions of US feminists outraged at me for choosing this man over that woman, I will gladly sit down and explain why I am certain that these issues are so urgent that they overshadow absolutely everything else.
Anyway, the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision. And while it would be a thrill to see the first woman elected President, in the last analysis, a real feminist need not define people or support on the basis of gender. Certainly not when our house -- with the precious Constitution held without representation within it -- is burning down.
Naomi Wolf is the author of The End of America (Chelsea Green) and the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
113 Comments so far
Show All"Mrs. Clinton would be a terrific executive — in a stable democracy. But that is not enough right now"
That about sums it up. She would be fine leading a caretaker government. We need more than that these days. Obama, who can articulate a bolder vision, and do so by connecting with voters at a deeper level, may be the person for the job. We may as well try him. It's not like we have other short-term choices.
I agree. Wholeheartedly. I say this as someone who was disgusted with the choices being offered up, including Obama,just a few months ago.Obama is not the candidate I want. The candidate I want is not running. Among the candidates Obama is by far the most courageous, most inspiritational, and most visionary. He will the first genuine liberal to be nominated, assuming he IS nominated (which I think is a pretty safe bet now)for president since George McGovern in 1972. He has all of McGovern's strengths with none of McGovern's weaknesses. Although I worry that a racist and xenophobic America may not elect him because of his heritage, I feel that he can win, while I feel Hilary cannot.
To those who say he hasn't enough experience to serve effectively, I have two words: Abraham Lincoln. Full disclosure: I stole that line, but I can't remember from whom. My apologies. You may say, "Obama is no Lincoln," and I say, "Neither was Lincoln until circumstances made him." Obama is made of the same stuff as Lincoln. He has backbone, vision, and strength of character. I think we can trust him to turn America. Will he turn it enough? For me, probably not. But turn it toward the right direction he assuredly will.
To those who say there is little difference between the two major political parties and that both are in thrall to the vested interests, I say, "You're absolutely right." There is maybe five degrees of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on the essential elements of our country. I agree with Noam Chomsky, however, when he points out that within those five degrees lies the difference between mere hard times and real desperation for millions of people. I refuse to turn my back on them by casting a protest vote for Nader, as much as I like Nader.
For what it's worth.
Naomi wrote: "And if I hear — as I am likely to — from legions of US feminists outraged at me for choosing this man over that woman..."
One-dimensional thinking rarely works out very well in a multi-dimensional world. The fascists and corporatists have won when they can convince most, or a significant proportion of, voters to focus on single issues or single facets of the race when those issues and facets have nothing to do with corporatist rule.
In power, Hillary didn't get it done. Barack will.
Both Barack and Hillary say they can lead America through sweeping legislative changes, yet only Barack has a convincing plan for getting it done.
Hillary's plan is to do what she always has, that is, to work as hard as she can, and care a lot—a strategy which has resulted in creditable incremental changes, but which promises only more-of-the-same.
Barack's plan for getting it done is daring, plausible, and perfectly aligned with his uniquely charismatic and inclusive leadership style.
He will begin by bringing in so many enthusiastic new voters during the general election that he will sweep a solid majority of Democrats, like-minded Independents, and Republicans amenable to his agenda into office along with him.
After he's elected President, he'll use his remarkable consensus-building abilities to transparently bridge divisions and identify workable solutions to pressing common problems.
Then he'll eloquently sell his legislative package to a devoted American public, who by that time will know and trust him far more than they'll trust opposing politicians or special interest lobbies, no matter how much money is spent on media campaigns to the contrary.
Finally, Barack will ask his devoted followers to hound their Members of Congress, and if necessary, turn out in the streets to protest, to get his legislation passed. And they will. And he will.
Hillary is wonderful, but her leadership style just doesn't get it done. During fifteen years of unlimited opportunities, connections, and insider information at the center of power—eight years as First Lady and seven years as a U.S. Senator—Hillary diligently chipped away at the edges of big problems, making praiseworthy differences in many lives, all good stuff, but hardly the leadership America needs now.
We need a widely popular President who can articulate, orchestrate, and legislate the urgent changes mandated by a solid majority of newly-mobilized followers—a President who gets it done.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a similarly-populist President who led the country through sweeping legislative changes cherished by the American working class, told the activists who sought his support, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it." They turned out to protest, and his legislation passed.
All through FDR's Presidential campaign, detractors had complained loudly that he would prove a flash in the pan, "only" a great communicator, a man of "mere" words. All such complaints ended abruptly, however, on Day One, a day which, after all, turned out to be far less significant than the many other truly transformative days that followed.
(Nancy Pace blogs on breaking news at the intersection of politics, peace, culture, and spirituality at www.epharmony.com. She loves Naomi Wolf and gives her book to everyone....)
An interesting and important article. I was unaware of this angle and Naomi Wolf has done an excellent job of warning us about the manner fascism sets in. We live in perilous times.
While I certainly understand your logic, I feel you and others will -- out of desperation -- place your faith in the democratic party. We will all see, if elected (and I think he will be) that Obama will make no difference. But again, I understand why you will vote for the party. Its in your DNA at this point.
That's all well and good, but what's with these match up polls showing McCain beating Obama? If this election is even slightly close, the Republicans will easily steal it. We need a landslide, and right now that looks remote.
True, these polls leave 18% uncounted, but how many of them are right wingers who don't want to vote for McCain? I'm sure the GOP is cooking up state ballot initiatives to drag them out the door and vote.
kathyodat
5280, it's not in my DNA. This is my first vote for a Democrat since 1972. Once for LBJ - the liar and once for George McGovern - the betrayer. After that I was done.
Obama is different. He's exciting, he energizes people, they feel empowered, and we need that. he brings in young people and we really need that.
kathyodat
Though I think he is a great guy, the democrats commited political suicide with Obama.
I can see the spin now and the shitty slogans:
"Osama loves Obama."
"A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama."
I guess I'm voting for Nader.
Again, the democrats ruined it.
WHY CAN'T ANYONE SEE THIS?
I think its the high-fructose corn syrup.
The US has made war on twenty countries in the past 60 years. All except the Korean War were illegal. It's committed illegal violence against another thirty countries. It's illegally overthrown many other national governments.
US civil society is more violent than that of any other advanced western democracy. The US jails more of its residents than any other country in the world. It exports more weapons than any other country in the world. It spends more on war weapons than the rest of the world put together. It has been torturing enemy combatants since it invaded the Phillipines over a hundred years ago.
The country is the biggest bully on the block, and its citizens follow suit. (If you're a psychologist, you probably think it's the other way around. Many agree Bush is a symptom, not a cause.)
Then why are we shocked to learn that the US illegally kidnaps and tortures innocent people from other countries? It isn't a rhetorical question. We're shocked because we still believe in the dream of a city on a hill. We believe it against all the evidence. We believe it whether we live in Paris, Texas, or in Paris, Ontario, or in Paris, France. We want to believe it. We need to believe it. To not believe it is to fall into despair.
That, more than anything else, is what Barack Obama appeals to. We are desperate to hope.
Can this one man actually turn the US bully into a humane nation? I doubt it, but I too am desperate to hope.
By the way, Naomi, Bill Clinton's "eight years of peace" included war on Serbia and several bombings elsewhere. Dreams are mighty persuaders.
So, jruebl, you're voting against Obama because of his name?
Since I'm reading 'The End of America' now and fully agree with Naomi Wolf's historical parallels between former fascist/authoritarian/totalitarian regimes and what we're now witnessing here, right under our noses to scarcely ANY outrage, protest or even tame complaint, she's just persuaded me that Obama may indeed be able and willing to turn this Bush-Cheney monster wagon around and work to restore some vestige at least of our long gone democracy. I've been super-skeptical of Obama doing anything substantive for the same reason others here have--he's Wall Street's choice, his plans for getting out of Iraq sound more like plans for staying there forever (see Jeremy Scahill in CD yesterday), and his health care plan sounds like tweaking things gently that won't in any way threaten insurers' profits. He's a committed protector of capitalism, but possibly he's enough of a Constitutionalist that he'll strike down the Bush-Cheney national security/police state Wolf describes as being already more than half constructed. If he can do that, he's more than worth voting for.
"what's with these match up polls showing McCain beating Obama? If this election is even slightly close, the Republicans will easily steal it."
Polls suck. People can change their mind until election day. Some newspapers cherry pick their polls because they're biased. Here's a better look if you want polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Kathyodat, you're right. If it's close they will steal it. But I don't think it will be close. I think Obama will destroy McCain in the campaign and debates.
BTW nader should be in the debates as well. Fat chance.
All signs are that Obama will just continue business as usual if he becomes president, just with different rhetoric. And as a previous commenter predicts, there will be a right-wing campaign of defamation and probably impeachment that may make the one against Clinton look benign. I keep picturing accusations of drug connections, sexual dalliance, and money misuse by the right wing, sure to be eaten up by a white public that believes Blacks to be innately criminal partyers. Nonetheless, of the current Dem candidates, he seems less right-wing than HIllary on several issues, though he will be required to be as much of a militarist as any other once he's in office. And don't rule out the even more militarist McCain winning. Americans love the idea of slaughtering vast numbers of people under cover of the flag, and McCain appeals to a lot of Americans because of his eagerness to kill.
The polls reported over at DailyKos show Obama beating McCain in most parts of the country.
Take the Feb-6 NYT/CBS "if the election were held today" poll for example:
Obama McCain
50 38
Clinton McCain
46 46
It's going to get ugly, very ugly, when the swiftboat committees get fired up. But if you read Obama's 2002 anti-war speech on CD yesterday, you might agree with me that he'll be able to take it, and to dish it out too.
The right-wing has never been so fractured and dispirited. And this time, democrats "know where the ramparts are". We didn't fight back on Kerry's behalf, but we will for Obama.
Why I will vote for Obama...
Hillary grasps during her last gasps... it wasn't so long ago that I thought I might vote for her... but Hubby's attacks began to sour that possibility... then her own petty attacks took their toll...Obama's continuing display of gentility have won me over... Obama is a wonderful blend and mixture of America at its best... a man who is called black even though he's half white... a man who grew up without wealth... a man whose mother was of a special giving nature and who travelled extensively to help others...a man who succeeded in getting the best education America can offer... this guy is so special in his attributes that I consider America lucky to have such a one in our midst...
we can act now to repeal laws like the Mil' Commissions Act and to make people who voted for them pay the political price. also we can support the impeachment effort.
While Obama's stance on this was good, the trouble is that there's ever-increasing evidence he's a fraud in most every way that matters (see Taylor Marsh's blog for the evidence you won't see in the MSM - and tell me again, why does the corporatist MSM want Obama to win?). Maybe he's motivated by real concerns in this instance, but it's looking like in general, he's a sleek opportunist with only one real motivation, and that's personal ambition. Those things override even the possibility he'd be good on this subject; Hillary might need to be pushed a little more on it, but there's no doubt that she loves this country.
A PRO-WAR RECORD
Then there's the matter of his actual policy and political record. If Obama is such (as many "progressives" seem to need to believe) an "antiwar" candidate, why has he offered so much substantive policy support to the criminal occupation and the broader imperial "war on [and of] terror" of which Bush says O.I.F. is a part?
Here are some highlights from a summary of Obama's U.S. Senate voting record:
"1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2"
"2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General)."
"2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture...[and a] man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10."
"4/21/05: Obama voted to make John 'Death Squad' Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107"
"4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 [W FOR PRO-WAR VOTE]"
"7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed 'The Nuclear Bill' by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 [W]."
"9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees."
"10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 [W]."
"11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. [W]."
"12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. [W]"
"5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 [W]."
"5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 [W]."
"6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W]."
"6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 [W]."
"6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 [W]"
"6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 [W]"
"6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183[W]."
"6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 [W].
9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 [W]"
"9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 [W]."
"11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 [W]."
"12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 [W]"
"Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 [W]...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…"
Obama's intra-Democratic political record also defies those who insistent on wrapping him in an antiwar flag. In 2006 Obama lent his celebrity and political finance assistance to neoconservative war Senator Joe Lieberman's ("D"-Connecticut) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Obama supported other mainstream Democrats fighting genuinely antiwar progressives in primary races, collaborating with Democratic muscle man Rahm Emannuel's campaign to marginalize "peaceniks" within the party (see Sirota 2006, Silverstein 2006 and Cockburn 2006).
In a November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha's (D-Pa.) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama advocated "a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq" and made repeated references to the need to "defeat" the "insurgency." This language meant continuation of the war (Ford and Gamble 2005).
Earlier that same year, Obama shamefully distanced himself from his fellow Senator Dick Durbin's (D-IL) forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo (Street 2005; Cockburn 2006).
And he still refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran (Gerson 2007). As Kucinich pointed out during last night's debate, this is what Obama's comment that "all options are on the table" in regard to Iran really boils down to: the potential first black U.S. President is willing to seriously consider the launching of a thermonuclear attack on that country. Debate participant Mike Gravel (a left former U.S. Senator of Alaska)was thinking of that horrific possibility when said the following about the leading Democratic candidates (Obama included of course) last night: "these people scare me."
More here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687
Thanks hamster, I hope you're right.
Unfortunately too many Americans want to believe that the "surge" is working. Of course, what is working is paying the Sunnis to stop killing Americans, but that won't last.
Bush is doing everything possible to bandaid our problems until the next election. After that, tough shit. And the ignorant American public will blame the president holding the bag when the bottom falls out of our economy. They always do.
kathyodat
kathyodat
God help those voting for Obama. My goodness.
Amen to what kivals said. What kind of capitalist hack writes with caps? Do people actually listen to Wolf? Sure the country is sliding further down the corporatist/fascist path, and she should know since she is a corporate capitalist. But can't the Dims put out that message from someone who has some experience in fighting corporatism/fascism? Why did they choose the one who writes about body image? It's like refering to a nutritionist as an expert in police harassment.
A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. Sorry, Naderites, but you're fooling yourselves that the guy has even a snowball's chance of winning this late in the race, and he seems to be out to put McCain in office so that he can keep his day job as an anti-establishment agitator. Gee, imagine if we had a great President who actually did good things for the country? What would Ralph do but sit on his hands and have nothing to do?
He's just being another windmill tilting Don Quixote. Sorry, Ralph, methinks you ought to give it up and let the race continue unabated. We had our chance to elect a progressive in Kucinich, but none of you would support him enough to make him a viable candidate, so he dropped out. You should have supported Kucinich. Instead, he just couldn't raise the money or get the support he needed to be able to equitably stay in the race. Yes, the media did its share to deep-six his candidacy as well, so they share some of the blame, but if all of you who are sending bucks to Hillary or Obama would have sent that money instead to Kucinich, he might still be in the race. Instead, he saw the writing on the wall and left the race gracefully and with no reproach. That took guts, and it showed class on his part.
Nader, on the other hand, is just satisfying his own personal vanity. And I have a great deal of contempt and disrespect for people who act in such a manner.
And chlamor, I think you missed "voted to reauthorize The Patriot Act." Here's a very thoughtful and interesting column by former Green Party mayoral candidate (San Francisco) Matt Gonzalez detailing why he can't support Obama: http://againstobama.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/why-matt-is-against-obama/
I like Nader. I think it's great that he's running. If Obama loses it will be because he runs an inept campaign (fat chance!), not because Nader is running. You might as well say that every vote for McCain is a vote taken away from Obama. True, but so what? Are you saying that McCain doesn't have the right to run?
To all those who say that Nader is on an ego trip, NEWSFLASH! THIS JUST IN! It takes brass balls and an ego the size of my ass (and believe me, my ass is a sight to behold) to run for president. They're ALL on ego trips. Get used to it.
This is by far the best article written why voters should support Obama. #Everyone elese seems to say, "He's Black", He's Mixed race", He's Not a GOP", and "He's not Hillary".
I'm supporting Ron Paul and Ralph Nader.
"She and her husband really know how to run a country; they delivered eight years of peace and prosperity. I know her to be a skilled politician and motivated by sincere love of country. Mrs. Clinton would be a terrific executive — in a stable democracy..."
In an otherwise very good piece, this statement is simply false and has become a knee-jerk response to the Clinton years.
The economic "miracle" of the Clinton Era was based on a securities and financial system that Billary helped to de-regulate, resulting in a false financial boom that quickly went bust. The vast majority of economic gains went to the wealthy -- and corporate criminality soared.
Naomi Wolf has written about a number of these things.
In addition to the comments of previous writers,BomberBill inherited the Iraq sanctions policy and pursued it with a vengeance -- not to mention the incessant bombing of the Iraq infrastructure throughout his term. One of many Clintonian war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Clinton continued the development of Star Wars. Hillary turned the health insurance debate away from single payer vs. private insurance and private control of the health care industry to her failed "managed competition" scheme that was rightfully laughed off the block.
But shhh, we can't say these things. Get back to the closet you. DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL said Billary, setting back the fight for free expression of personal identity by decades.
And Madeline Albright live on a Diane Sawyer interview saying that the price of the deaths of 1 million Iraqis(500,000 of them children) was a "necessary price."
Exactly where does this close Clinton advisor shop? Hell on Park Ave.?
...and 800,000 more dead in Rwanda while parsing the meaning of "genocide."
...and support for deaths squads in Columbia and Haiti.
...and literally renting out the White House, the People's Property, to rich buddies.
There's so much more, but this is enough to make me stop and puke.
"Peace and prosperity..."
C'mon Ms. Wolf. Get real.
Obama is a Democrat. The Democrats have done so much to help America since being elected in 2006. Just look at all they've done!
Obama will talk and talk and talk. He makes good speeches.
The only viable candidate in this election is Ralph Nader. The other candidates are either mentally imbalanced, pathological liars, or lack the qualifications necessary for the office.
Obama is the perfect candidate for people that "just don't get it".
Ralph Nader -- or anybody else who qualifies under the Constitution has the right to run for President. End of story.
I would like to say that it matters who we vote for. But it doesn't. Clinton's gave us the subprime housing mess by give away legislation to wallstreet, NAFTA, and Welfare "Reform". And W continues with his fascism. Does voting matter? I don't know, I have voted all my adult life, and the same shit seems to keep happening.
America has a storied tradition in supporting facism or colonialism. Federalists at this nations inception screamed against challenging Englands' rule over America.
What's changed is that these same people have persuaded
America's middle and underclass to support their classist colonial predelictions. Without a free media, localized, we're doomed to the dominate memes of corporate America, who certainly don't ask how will this or that policy affect our beloved middle class. No, unless America launches a serious Manhattan like project to wean people off the TV and get them reading, we're flushed. And what about a country, a so called democracy that jails one percent of it's citizens. Sweet.
I'm saddened to read of Naomi Wolf supporting Obama. As some of the above posters have stated both Obama's and Hillary's records are clear on the issues of peace and health care. Neither voted against continuing to fund this terrible war and neither have taken a stand to demand health care for all.
Hope is crucial but blind faith that Obama or Hillary will magically become different politicians once in the oval office is just stupidity. I will believe a politician's cliams that corporate support won't influence thier votes once I see evidence of that but so far I never have seen it. I think at one time Obama and Clinton both had respectable ideals. I don't know if they have lost them or are just unwilling to act on them.
For me the choice is clear -- GO NADER!
Naomi Wolf, thank you from the bottom of my heart for writing this article. You have articulated so splendidly what I have tried to put together in my thinking and in my heart about this election cycle. Everybody, whoever you want to vote for please help preserve our constitution.I am appalled that I just read in the news here in San Antonio Texas, that Mrs. Clinton is trying to change our districting rules to favor her campaign.
"More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to 'restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.'"
enough said.
about nader.........
of course nader has the right to run and his insight can broaden the political discussion. but why has he refused to represent people in the past (he's 72 and has never held public office, hence there is no record to criticize. nader has no experience working with other politicians, who have competing opinions, in a legislature).nader was asked this question by a listener who called in on npr's talk of the nation, why haven't you run for a congressional seat? his response was weak, essentially claiming the run for presidency draws more attention to issues. but what about working with others to solve our countries ailments? (the jest of the callers question). nader has no intention of being president (he also has no coalition in the congress to work with, his presidency would not be a departure from the status quo gridlock).
i trust n wolfs opinion. bob mcchesney (over there at media matters 02/17/08) recently interviewed ms wolf. the subject parallels between the rise of fascism in germany and the current US political climate.
http://www.will.uiuc.edu/am/mediamatters/default.htm
please donate to kucinich and sheehan..........
peace....................................
NEWSFLASH
I can't find a link, but Kevin G. Hall of McClatchy newspapers has a report today entitled "Canada, Mexico ahead of US concerning labor rights"
Excerpts:
"Canada and Mexico already subscribe to the core standards of the Int'l Labor Organization. Mexico has subscribed to 70 ILO conventions, and Canada has adoptoed 28 of them. The US has agreed to only 14."
"Many more jobs, however, were lost to China and other nations that NAFTA doesn't cover."
"In interviews with McClatchy newspapers, ... the Clinton and Obama campaigns couldn't cite a single labor or environmental dispute in Mexico or Canada when... the two countries have shirked NAFTA or ILO commitments"
"Canada... has sought tighter controls on pollution from coal-fired plants that are upwind in the US"
"A top Canadian trade official... said... 'We've both signed on to more core labor standards than the US has. This is the biggest joke of the whole thing"
Draw your own conclsions.
My take is the whole nafta debate is a lot of hot air designed to get votes in certain states and it will blow over after the election. WTO and China trade are much more important. My other take is the candidates may be disingenuous on other issues as well.
Having said all that I still prefer Obama of the three leading candidates still standing. But he needs a lot of grassroots pressure right now to correct his stands on a lot of issues.(Single payer is the only solution, out of Iraq entirely, out of Afghanistan entirely, etc.)
To paraphrase Ben Franklin
All that is necessary for the triumph of tyrrany is for good men and women to do nothing.
chlamor
Thank you that's the info I was hoping to look up. (and will to confirm)
Oh by the way didn't see any mention of END AROUND U.S. SOVEREIGNTY Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of Obama's leading campaign advisers.CFR/Trilateral Commission/ Bilderburger.
So Naomi can look forward to more of the same push for: One World Company ,One World Government,One World Army,One Big Mother Fucking Brother.............
See you all in the FEMA Camps.
RON PAUL
All I can say about Obama being the "Savior" of the Constitution, is that I'll believe it when I see it. I think there's a better chance of teaching my cat to shit on the toilet than Obama reversing the slide into fascism.
Maybe Ben Franklin didn't say that. OK, I said it. Good enough.
If the meeting of the Obama cult has ended I might offer a word in contrast.
The article itself is a rather blatantly egregious appeal, not to logic or reason but to emotion, the very kernel of the support for Barak Obama. Such things as Barak Obama supported such and such and oh by the way so did Hillary Clinton but look here not there. Obama offers hope, Obama offers a fresh start, a new face, kissing sweet breath and an end to dandruff......
What Barak Obama offers me are speeches filled with promise and empty of fact. What Barak Obama offers me is a denial of the taking of corporate monies and a castigation of his opponents doing so, when the record shows that he has taken about as much as she. Folks, please stop ignoring the pesky little details that are cropping up and piling up.
When the voters ignored the skimpy resume of one George Walker Bush, who had failed in every single stage of his life , and now can count his eight year term among those failures, I knew that a consideration of whom to vote for as the Chief Executive of this land should be a laborious process. I owed it to my children and to this nation that I love to make it so.
Barak Obama is certainly no George Walker Bush, but neither is he a Robert Kennedy, not even a Dennis Kucinich. He is a vastly inexperienced person who has held an office in Illinois and one in the Senate of the USA for a brief period of time. During his time in Washington DC he has voted consistently for that which he now claims he opposed while still in Illinois. He is on the record as missing votes, voting "present" on bills that might have seemed controversial, and has not in any way distinguished himself as a person who champions that which everyone now sees him as doing. He has a talent for speeches, does that make him Presidential timber?
Our nation is in desperate need of a great turning, a refocussing on what exactly is important and what is less so. If you choose to support Senator Obama at least do so in full and complete understanding of everything about him, his strengths and his weaknesses. If you can do that and continue to support him, well then do so, but I, in all good conscience simply cannot.
elmysterio February 29th, 2008 5:26 pm
as a person who has trained a cat to shit on the toilet, your point elmysterio is well taken. it's going to take a little time to train kitty, but if you have a positive attitude and you are willing to work with your cat (participate in the process) anything is possible -it's not as hard as it seems. in fact kitty will love you when she gets over the trauma of learning.
2 quotes from online article about training your cat.
http://www.karawynn.net/mishacat/toilet.html
"The central idea is that the transition from litter box to toilet be accomplished in a series of stages. You make a small change and then give your cat time to adjust before you make another small change. If at any time Felix gives the whole thing up and pees on the rug instead, you're pushing him too far too fast; back up a stage or two and try again, more slowly."
"Ready? First start by training yourself ..."
if you scoff at real possibilities, why not just off yourself? the masses can be engaged if we work at it and democracy is possible if we remember the constitution is a living document, that requires constant attention (like the lawyers in n wolfe's article demonstrate with their work on guantanamo detainees). it's our responsibility to engage the president whoever is elected (as nader does so well). grasping to the campaign of an intellectual who has no political base (not 1 green voice in congress) in hopes of capturing the white house does not seem like a reasonable possibility (last 3rd party candidate that was successful t roosevelt, came in 2nd in 1912).
help build the coalition.
donate to kucinich and sheehan............
peace..........................................
Slide into fascism? Yeah I know that's Naoimi's take but really. Apparently she grew up in the north, as she has no knowledge of people held without charges during the duration of the Civil War for telling jokes about Lincoln. She doesn't know he shut down newspapers. Suspended habeus corpus. Put military tribunals in in charge of the courts. He also issued an arrest warrent for the head of the Supreme Court. Yet I constantly hear from the same people who hate Bush, that Lincoln was a genius and brilliant man.
Apparently she never heard of FDR, and Japanese- Americans and German- Americans put in camps. Unless I'm mistaken, the same people who attack Bush say FDR was the bomb! FDR also had secret jails for interrogations during the war. Was that ok?
If Hillary doesn't bow out within 14 days she is going to play the Superdelegate card. If that happens, there will be riots at the convention. So much for Obama bringing the country together!
I live in Illinois. Obama did nothing to stop police torture in police stations. He did nothing to help the poor when the city started gentrifying. His house was bought by a mobster who also gave him money to run. Yet I'm supposed to believe the nation will rally around him? When he couldn't do anything in Illinois? Except support closet Republican Mayor Daley? Who didn't even bother to be seen with Kerry when he ran?
To help the poor the city spent hundreds of millions on a football stadium remodelling. They raided teachers pensions to do so. The city is spending billions to beautify the transit system. Nothing on security. In fact, even though all of Al Qaedas attacks have been on transit systems since 911, the Mayor pulled undercover cops off the trains to "save money". There are no metal detectors, or areas for injured being built as they "beautify the platforms".
None of which Obama did a thing to stop.
Yet we are told, he will be able to bring change.
By the way- find out the truth about our first military dictator here:
http://lincolntruth.blogdrive.com
The problem with Bush- IS HE IS LIKE LINCOLN.
Why Obama shouldn't get anyones vote:
Count Me Out
The Obama Craze
By MATT GONZALEZ
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html
He is a shady politician, and I wouldn't buy his rhetoric...Not that Clinton is any better. We are all totally screwed either way.
Obama also had peaceful protesters outside his office arrested just this past year. They only wanted to meet with him to talk about impeachment. It doesn't seem that he likes dissent any more than the Repukicans.
Here's something really puzzling me. I have been making myself a little sick reading about Barack and Hilary. I wish I would stay out of any website with talk of politics. I should know better.
But I have given into temptation, interested in Obama's surge, fascinated by Clinton's whining descent (didn't you just know, deep in your heart, that she was a whiner?!). . . so here I am fretting about the state of the world.
In the last few days, I have read many comments, all over the net, that suggest that a majority of Americans support staying in Iraq. I seriously don't think this is true. Didn't we elect a Democratic Congress in 2006 to get out of Iraq? One thing I hope we'll see in the fall election, after the Democratics have chosen their candidate, will be lots of clear, direct, unequivocal statements about the fact that the majority of American people want us to get out of Iraq? Even the Democrats make statements suggesting that there is not a clear majority against the war. . . but there is. Even Republicans want us out. The folks who want us to stay are loud and vocal but they are a minority. I'd like to see that point get real clear in the presidential run-up.
McCain is already setting up Obama as soft on terrorism. I'd like to see a lot of rhetoric blasting away at the idea that Americans can be intimidated into making bad choices out of fear. Who are these Americans who believe being in Iraq is keeping us safe?
And another thing, when is someone going to start shouting from the rooftops that conservative, evangelical Republicans are a very tiny minority and the rest of us are sick and tired of their dedicated attempt to shove their worldview down our throats? ?????? I listen to some of the conservatives whining that McCain aint conservative enough and McCain seems to think he needs them to, what, win? Maybe he needs them to steal a close election but he does not need them to govern. They aree a very tiny group. Why are the rest of us so weak-willed that we let them bully us with their homophobia and fearmongering and anti-choice bullying, etc? Never mind. I know why. Because the people with the bullyl pulpit are politicians and politicians don't care about real people, they care about votes and they buy votes with ads paid for by corporate money.
I am home today, sick with the flu. I pray this is the last day I spend reading about politics until January.
Thank you tj. I'm so tired of hearing about the wonderful Clinton years.
Obama bashers, if he had voted in the US Senate the way you want, his candidacy would be headed the way of Dennis Kucinich's campaign. When he entered the Illinois state senate, his positions were very progressive - single payer health care, IRV, publicly financed campaigns with free TV and radio time for candidates, and lots more. He quickly observed that to get these positions passed would require the right person in the White House and the right people in Congress - which we presently do not have. And which the DLC and the Senate and Congressional campaign committees are ferociously fighting to prevent. Personally I believe he's keeping his head down so it doesn't get shot off. That's my opinion.
You Nader bashers, in particular, SallyUUKent, Nader's reasons for running is that certain issues are being avoided and he wants to bring them out. This is supposed to be a democracy where we are entitled to have choices, although some people seem interested in limiting those choices to whoever the corporations permit.
Dennis Kucinich left the campaign primarily because the DCCC was bankrolling a corporate flack to take his district away from him and he needed to go tend to business in Cleveland. Technically the DCCC stays out of local primaries, but we all know that's a farce. The Democratic Party is as fascist as the Republican party. They just pretend they aren't.
kathyodat
If elected, Obama should not only close Guantanamo and let everybody go or give them proper trials (excluding so-called evidence obtained by torture), he should also appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration for war crimes and violations of the Constitution.
DoughyDen: What Lincoln did was abominable. He was a war criminal and established the mind set that gave us George Bush. I wish you would realize that.
Tree Fitz: Perhaps you misread the polls. Americans want to stay in Iraq if they can win and leave if they are going to lose. They are starting to think they can win. Its a monkey trap, designed to keep the taxpayer and citizen on the hook. The ones who make the money designed it, the monkey is the citizen, and the nut in the coconut is oil, and "security". Americans are greedy, therefore they will be trapped.
So now that we know there is NOBODY to vote 'for' to be president, what to do? May as well vote for Obama, as the unknown entity. He was endorsed by Kucinich as a second choice in Iowa. He was endorsed by Kerry and Kennedy, as the more liberal candidate. Already the rightwingers are formulating their strategy to present Obama as the most liberal politician America allows. So why not swing with it.
We know what we get with McCain, the Bushkissing warmonger, a blockhead who admitted he didn't know squat about the economy, other than his wife picked up $50 million from Bud Beer for the exclusive beer rights at the Arizona stadium McCain intervened with to get built, so his own economy is doing pretty good. And Hillary, well, her biggest accomplishment in seven years in the Senate was an anti-flag-burning amendment. How brave, how courageous, how progressive!
The Clintons were poor hicks from Arkansas when they entered the White House. And now, after Washington, they are filthy rich, so rich that Hillary can loan her campaign $5 million dollars, and she is embarrassed by their tax returns. Did Hillary say way back when Bill was first elected that 'Washington experience mattered' as she does now? Look at the people with the most Washington experience: Cheney and Rumsfeld and Kissinger. So much for THAT horseshit. It should be the one with the LEAST Washington experience.
And Nader, even he knows his is a pointless vanity campaign. As are all the other twenty tiny parties running candidates. And there are always going to be rightwingers and other idiots, who think the archcriminal Bush is akin to Lincoln, who will not vote for Obama, or Clinton for that matter. But Obama is the best we got now. Even though we may have dreamed of better.
So Obama is the one. Or just stay home, sit on it and twirl.