Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
Backyard Democracy
"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush," said Robert Maynard Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago during the second quarter of the 20th Century, creator of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and chair of an audacious undertaking in 1947 called The Committee to Frame a World Constitution. "It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."
I didn't see much democratic undernourishment on the afternoon of April 13th, when I ran to be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, in one giant classroom in Taper Hall at the University of Southern California, to represent the 33rd Congressional District in south Los Angeles -- pledged to Barack Obama. Similar caucuses took place at the same time on the same day, in all 53 of California's congressional districts - one in each for Obama, another in each for Hillary Clinton, 106 in all.
I didn't win.
My caucus had 84 filed candidates vying to fill only four slots (three delegates and one alternate). The two top vote getters, Robert Cole and Danny Bakewell Jr., both good and able Democrats, had had their candidacies promoted a couple of days earlier in a full page ad in the Los Angeles Sentinel, the city's leading African-American newspaper (and owned by Danny Bakewell Sr.). Although it doomed my candidacy, I must say that I was delighted to discover that, at least at this place on this day, print media still mattered. It does suggest, though, that what this caucus really measured was not so much whether one could win the support of the people in the room through the power of one's ideas, but instead, about one's success, ahead of time, in mobilizing a network of friends and supporters to be in the room in the first place. "In politics," as Jesse Jackson once shrewdly recognized, "an organized minority is a political majority."
Yet once we did all show up, the caucus itself was an amazing experience. More than 700 citizens, many packed inside the classroom, others spilling out into the Taper Hall corridor, others even onto the USC campus sidewalk outside -- cornering each other, lobbying each other, hectoring each other, working the room. It reminded me of a Norman Rockwell painting. It reminded me of a Jimmy Stewart movie. It reminded me of the late great Molly Ivins, who said, "The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion." And it reminded me that this, probably, is what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Benjamin Franklin had in mind.
My most interesting conversation of the day was with Marcel, who serves as the teen librarian at the Baldwin Hills Branch Library a few miles west of USC, on La Brea just south of the 10 freeway, where I teach chess to about a dozen little monsters every Monday night (drop by!). Marcel is from Rwanda originally, and grew up speaking French. He follows American politics avidly, including the recent controversy over Senator Obama's remarks about citizens who are "bitter," citizens who "cling" - and the onslaught against him that ensued. "Tell me, Tad," said Marcel, "I am confused about something in your language. In my language, there is this word, and it means someone who is intelligent, distinguished, talented, accomplished. But in your language, tell me Tad, it is a bad thing, for one to be, an 'elite'?"
I told Marcel that this citizen, at least, craves a president who is intelligent, distinguished, talented, and accomplished ... not someone with whom I might enjoy "having a beer."
Finally, Judi, the lead volunteer caucus convener, quieted everyone down, and invited each of the 84 candidates to give a 30 second speech. I had agonized to prepare a dynamite one-minute speech ... and then panicked when I was told that I would have to cut that in half!
But in my time on stage, I managed to hammer (or yammer) away about preventing a new war with Iran and getting serious about getting rid of every nuclear weapon forever and taking on the bloated corrupt militaristic imperialistic profiteering permanent war economy at home and arrogant American empire abroad.
It was a pretty good speech, for 30 seconds.
But it wasn't the best one the audience heard.
I wish I could remember the guy's name. Middle aged. Didn't stand out in the crowd. Clearly wasn't "connected" in any way to the local Democratic Party honchos in the room. Dressed sort of frumpy, like he was in his backyard on a Sunday afternoon.
He didn't win. I don't think he even came close to me in the vote count.
But here is what he said. I remember it almost word by word.
My fellow citizens, our greatest president, who before he took office had been an inexperienced member of Congress from Illinois, gave his greatest speech just a month before he died - in his second inaugural address. In it, he described the post-Civil War attitude he wanted Americans to cultivate, as he urged his listeners, "with malice toward none, with charity for all ... to finish the work we are in, and to bind up the nation's wounds."
My fellow Obama supporters, after Barack Obama defeats Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, all of us must act, toward our fellow Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton, with malice toward none, with charity for all.
And my fellow Democrats, after Barack Obama defeats John McCain for the presidency, all of us must act, toward our fellow citizens who supported John McCain, with malice toward none, with charity for all.
That is the vision of one America, perhaps even the vision of one world, that I think Barack Obama, and all of us together, at this pivot point in history, now have the opportunity to forge.
That remarkable 30 seconds reminded me that, if Senator Obama pulls it off - wins the Democratic Party nomination, wins the November election, and is sworn in as our nation's 44th president on January 20, 2009 - he will do so just 23 days before the 200th birthday of our greatest president, who was born on February 12, 1809.
And it reminded me of the famous remark by the author, child psychiatrist, and Harvard professor Robert Coles (almost the same name as the guy who won our caucus), who said, "Abraham Lincoln did not go to Gettysburg having commissioned a poll to find out what would sell in Gettysburg."
And it reminded me, finally, of the statement by the archaeologist Howard Winters, who, after a lifetime of the study of humanity, concluded, "Civilization is the process in which one gradually increases the number of people included in the term 'us' and at the same time decreases those labeled 'them' -- until that category has no one left in it anymore."
It was a good thing I had not yet cast my vote.
Because I immediately marked my ballot card down for the frumpy guy from the backyard. I imagine he's back there now.
I wonder how many other such amazing resources America possesses today, in how many other backyards.
It is possibly not hyperbole to suggest that the fate of our republic may depend upon the answer.
Tad Daley, tad@daleyplanet.org, is Writing Fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, www.ippnw.org, winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. He ran to serve as an Obama delegate as an individual, not on behalf of IPPNW.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

18 Comments so far
Show AllObama is our best chance so lets put away the barbs and get on with the support. Go Obama
Unfortunately its not looking like Senator Obama can knock her out before the convention.
As to the general election, obviously Obama cannot win the general election as it stands now. Its quite evident that he will not get the vootes of the people he needs to win. The frumpy people are America.
Of course anything could happen between then and now.
Read "Lincoln Unmasked" - he wasn't even remotely a good president, let alone a great one! Myths endure...
The fantasy of Barack Obama as the savior continue unabated. How sad! Instead, let's support the people who support our progressive ideals: Nader and McKinney. Viability? Who cares!! How dare we complain when we ourselves are complicit in our own oppression by supporting the two-party duopoly!
I would imagine that after being defeated by Obama, the corporate Clinton machine would continue to try to undercut him in order to get their second choice, McCain, elected.
If I were a Republican big shot and Obama were the nominee, I would pass down the order to the police of every big city: Get tough on blacks. Piss them off with some racist killings, and make sure you incite some big-city riots and looting.
Then of course there are the issues of Obama's homosexuality, his drug addiction, and his long criminal record. Plus he's a loser and a racist. I just don't see how he has a chance. Republicans can think of even worse tactics than I can.
He's also a candidate of the corporate, pro-war Democratic Party. In no way is he the polar opposite of the Republicans.
"Civilization is the process in which one gradually increases the number of people included in the term 'us'..."
I have continually called for a united Democratic party, just so the number of 'us' would be increased enough to tidal wave the uncivilized Rethuglicans, creating a movement so profound that odious Rovian tactics would not be enough to steal another election.
Instead, the insanity will continue and the Democratic candidates will rend their party in two, all so that one side can 'win' and the other's supporters 'lose'.
The 'loser' might even go independent, increasing McCain's chances ever more.
This 'he said/she said, he's better, she's better' politicking is not what the USA needs.
Unity. That's the key.
I now go back to my regular job of tilting at windmills.
I firmly believe the Dems have committed suicide - with the only 2 contenders remaining, financed by the GOP, to be stalking goats for MCCain.
All the bad feelings between Obama and Clinton are a smokescreen covering the facy that neither one can defeat McCain. I hope it is NOT so, but I do not think that this country is ready to elect a black or a woman.
Think about it. Almost every other major Dem candidate polled better than McCain - how did we end up with this false choice?
The same monied interests have backed both sides to their advantage.
The same thing happened in 2004 when a weak Kerry was pushed by Bush backers into the Dem nomination; He was the only Dem candidate early in the primaries who did not best Bush in a head to head poll as I remember.
It's not too late to declare an unbreakable impasse between Obama and Clinton, then have convention draft a compromise candidate along the lines of Edwards or Gore(even) or....?... that the Dems could support wholeheartedly.
just a thought.
Obama is our best chance so lets put away the barbs and get on with the support. Go Obama
No barbs for Senator Obama here. Just an opinion. Till he answer the questions he simply can't win. He gave a great speech, close to King and Kennedy, but it evaded the question's he was asked.
Be sure the Republicans will kill him with them in the Fall.
Of the three probable contenders, McCain is easily the most flawed. For the Democrats, Obama (however flawed you want to paint him) comes across better than Clinton. To suggest that we shouldn't vote for Obama because the Republicans will use his flaws to skewer him makes no sense. Do you think the neocons are going to kiss the hem of hillary's garment?
dems best choice = anyone besides Obama or Clinton
Your democracy is buried in someones backyard, has been since 1963, maybe earlier.
The Ayatollahs have elections for President in Iran. They choose who can run. We are no better. You can vote for Obama today, because he has been chosen as suitable by the elite. That means he will do their bidding, or end up like JFK.
Obama now has the look of malaise that Jimmy Carter had. He looks tired and uninspired. His actions are more error filled.
Meanwhile, Hillary has the look and demeanor of a junk yard dog. If this is progress, I wonder what failure looks like.
I think Obama is the most flawed of the three. McCain has the worst policy ideas. I know I'm tilting at windmills - the Obamaniacs will have to wake up to reality after he wins, if he wins. It's all so sad! Vote for Nader, McKinney, even Ron Paul (wrong on domestic policies); please take a look at Obama's actual POLICIES and realize he's not a worthy person to be President.
I'm leaning towards Cynthia McKinney - viability be damned, she's the best candidate with the best party we have for now.
Obamaniacs make me feel so sad! How sad someone thinks it's a good idea to be his delegate! What a waste of time.
Vote for Cynthia McKinney, or Ralph Nader, heck even Ron Paul (terrible on domestic issues) is a better vote than Obama! I wish there were some way to stop Obama, but I guess it won't happen - hoping for a miracle!
Perhaps we could perform a simple exercise,We each make out Our Own ballot slip,
then fill in JFK, or Cynthia, … ( whomever ),
And then think about who we want every day
( inside of that sealed envelope )
Thomas More, you have me confused. You wrote, "Till he [Obama] answers the questions he simply can't win. He gave a great speech, close to King and Kennedy, but it evaded the questions he was asked."
I try to keep up with all the political developments daily, but what questions are you referring to???
Rich Griffin:
More and more often I am thankful to you for saving me time by your posting of such righteous comments, such as:
Instead, let's support the people who support our progressive ideals: Nader and McKinney. Viability? Who cares!! How dare we complain when we ourselves are complicit in our own oppression by supporting the two-party duopoly!
Well said! And while we're all at it, may I please ask Minnesotans to not be fooled by the poor comedic con game of centrist, pro-occupation, wishy-washy Al Franken and, instead, lend support, financial or otherwise, to the true progressive in the race, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer.
Rich, let me also recommend a really great book that examines the history of political parties in Amerika and how the current mirror-reflected two-party scam came to be: Jamin Raskin's Overruling Democracy.