Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Clinton's Former-DNC Chair Switches to Obama: 'I Have Been Inspired.'
May 1, 2008
Dear Friends:
I have been inspired.
Today I am announcing my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I am changing my support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, and calling for my fellow Democrats across my home State of Indiana, and my fellow super delegates across the nation, to heal the rift in our Party and unite behind Barack Obama.
The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.
Here is my message, explained in this lengthy letter that I hope is perceived as a thoughtful analysis of how to save America from four more years of the misguided polices of the past: you can be for someone without being against someone else. You can unite behind a candidate and a vision for America without rejecting another candidate and their vision, because in real life, opposed to party politics, we Democrats are on the same side. The battle should not be amongst ourselves. Rather, we should focus our efforts on those who are truly on the opposite side: those who want to continue the failed policies of the last eight years, rather than bring real change to Washington. Let us come together right now behind an inspiring leader who not only has the audacity to challenge the old divisive politics, but the audacity to make us all hope for a better America.
Unite the Party Now
I believe that Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of our nation's great Presidents, and Senator Clinton as one of our nation's great public servants. But as much as I respect and admire them both, it is clear that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain.
I ask Hoosiers to come together and vote for Barack Obama to be our next President. In an accident of timing, Indiana has been given the opportunity to truly make a difference. Hoosiers should grab that power and do what in their heart they know is right. They should reject the old negative politics and vote for true change. Don't settle for the tried and true and the simplistic slogans, but listen to your heart and dare to be inspired. Only a cynic would be critical of Barack Obama inspiring millions. Only the uninformed could forget that the candidate that wins in November is always the candidate that inspires millions.
I ask the leaders of our Party to come together after this Tuesday's primary to heal wounds and unite us around a single nominee. While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our Party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us. John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives.
We need to be talking about fixing the economy, not whose acquaintances once said what to whom. We need to be talking about stopping the attacks in Iraq, not stopping the attacks in Indiana. We need to be talking about policy, not politics.
Barack Obama is the Right Candidate for Right Now
While I am a longtime critic of our Party's rules that created so-called super delegates, we have the rules we have and we must live with them. I am humbled and honored to be a super delegate, and I understand the seriousness of the duty it entails. I recognize that this is a difficult decision for super delegates like me, who owe so much to President Bill Clinton. It is right to be loyal, to be grateful and to be consistent. But it is also right to acknowledge the inevitability of change, right to dare to dream for a better world, and right to know what in your heart is the right thing for the future even if your friends and family disagree. Good things, just like good people, can disagree. But as Democrats, we must disagree with dignity, debate with admiration of each other, and in the end, go forward with mutual respect.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore gave me the opportunity to serve as the Chair of the Democratic Party. I pledged my loyalty to them, and I will never forget Al Gore putting ego aside, gently demurring, and simply asking me to put our country ahead of politics. It is a lesson I will remember forever, and it is what guides me now in this decision. What is best for our Party and our country is not blind loyalty, but passionate support for the candidate who can best correct the misguided policies of the last eight years.
We need a candidate who will re-invigorate the economy and keep good jobs here in America. We need a candidate who will end the war in Iraq. We need a candidate who will provide health coverage for our 45 million uninsured neighbors. We need a candidate who will end our addiction to high-priced foreign oil by investing in renewable energy here at home.
That candidate is Barack Obama.
What was best for America sixteen years ago was electing Bill Clinton. What would have been best for America eight years ago was not only electing Al Gore, which we did, but allowing him to serve as President of the United States. Imagine how the world would be different if Al Gore and not George Bush, would have been President of the United States. Let's seize the opportunity and vote for someone who like Al Gore, was against the war from the beginning, and who brings a new energy, a new excitement, and a new politics to our country.
Let's put things right.
Time to Act
Many will ask, why now? Why, with several primaries still remaining, with Senator Clinton just winning Pennsylvania, with my friend Evan Bayh working hard to make sure Senator Clinton wins Indiana, why switch now? Why call for super delegates to come together now to constructively pick a president?
The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late. The time to act is now.
I write this letter from my mom's dining room table in Indianapolis, Indiana. Four generations of my family have argued and laughed around this table. But what I humbly believe today is that we, as Democrats and as Americans, face what Dr. King characterized and what Senator Obama reminds us is the fierce urgency of now. As a nation, we are at a critical moment and we need leaders with the character and vision to see us through the challenges at hand and those to come. I can't guess what will happen tomorrow, so I can't tell you what kind of experience our next President will need to have to deal with those challenges. But I can tell you what kind of character and vision they will need to have -- and that is what inspires me about Barack Obama.
As Democrats, however, we risk letting this moment slip through our fingers. We risk ceding the field to the Republicans and allowing the morally bankrupt Bush Agenda to continue unabated if we do not unite behind a single candidate. Should this race continue after Indiana and North Carolina, it will inevitably become more negative. The polls already show the supporters for both candidates becoming more strident in their positions and more locked into their support. Continuing on this path would be a catastrophe, as we would inadvertently end up doing Republicans work for them. Already, instead of the audacity of hope, we suffer the audacity of one Democrat comparing John McCain favorably to another Democrat. When that happens, you know it is time for all of us to stop, take a deep breath and unite to change America.
We must act and we must act now.
The Problems of the Process: 2000 and 2008
When Al Gore got a half million more votes than George Bush in 2000, yet the Electoral College elected George Bush President, we saw the absurdity of any system that does not elect the person who gets the most votes. That is why the Democratic Party's nomination process is flawed. I will continue to fight for a 2012 process where there are only primaries, and which ever Democrat gets the most votes becomes our nominee. Delegates should decide the party platform -- voters should decide who our nominee is.
But we are struck with this absurd system for 2008, and, flawed though it may be, we must work within it without betraying the voice of the people. No amount of spin or sleight of hand can deny the fact that where there has been competition, Senator Obama has won more votes, more States and more delegates than any other candidate. Only the super delegates can award the nomination to Senator Clinton, but to do so risks doing to our Party in 2008 what Republicans did to our country in 2000. Let us be intellectually consistent and unite behind Barack Obama.
A New Era of Politics
My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign. If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a "Judas" for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton.
When they use the same attacks made on me when I was defending them, they prove the callow hypocrisy of the old politics first perfected by Republicans. I am an expert on this because these were the exact tools that I mastered as a campaign volunteer, a campaign manager, a State Party Chair and the National Chair of our Party. I learned the lessons of the tough, right-wing Republicans all too well. I can speak with authority on how to spar with everyone from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove. I understand that, while wrong and pernicious, shallow victory can be achieved through division by semantics and obfuscation. Like many, I succumbed to the addiction of old politics because they are so easy.
Innuendo is easy. The truth is hard.
Sound bites are easy. Solutions are hard.
Spin is simple and easy. Struggling with facts is complicated and hard.
I have learned the hard way that you can love the candidate and hate the campaign. My stomach churns when I think how my old friends in the Clinton campaign will just pick up the old silly Republican play book and call in the same old artificial attacks and bombardments we have all heard before.
Yet, despite the simple and overwhelming pressure to do anything and everything to win, Barack Obama has risen above it all and demanded a new brand of politics. People flock to Senator Obama because they are rejecting the hyperbole of the old politics. The past eight years of George Bush have witnessed a retreat from substance, science, and reason in favor spin, cronyism and ideology. Barack Obama has dared not only to criticize it, as all Democrats do, but to actually reject playing the same old game. And in doing so, he has shown us a new path to victory.
Uniting for Victory
The simple fact is that Democrats need to be united in November to win, and Clinton supporters, in particular, will be vital to victory. We will not convince Clinton supporters to join the Obama campaign, however, by personally criticizing them. We must welcome everyone and avoid doing Republican work for them. It is therefore incumbent on all of us who once supported Senator Clinton to welcome the thousands who should now switch their support to Senator Obama. Similarly, a necessary part of the healing process for our Party is for those who supported Senator Obama early to have the grace and good sense to broaden the tent and welcome newcomers into the fold.
The old players of the old political game will claim that I am betraying my old friend Senator Evan Bayh by switching my support to Senator Obama. I believe that Evan Bayh would be a great President, and therefore a great Vice President. I will continue to argue that he would be a great choice to be on the ticket with Barack Obama. Evan Bayh is uniquely positioned as a successful governor with executive experience who is now a U.S. Senator with foreign policy experience and who is young enough to not undercut the message of vitality and hard work that Barack Obama represents. Part of healing the Party may be to have a Clinton supporter on the ticket, let alone someone who would help with Indiana, Ohio and the moderate Midwest in the general election.
Being for Evan Bayh, however, does not mean that you have to be for Hillary Clinton. The important message to Hoosiers, and to super delegates, is that being for someone does not mean that you agree 100 percent of the time. Regardless of whether Evan Bayh and I support different candidates, I will support Evan Bayh.
We must reject the notion that we have to beat the Republicans at their own game -- or even that the game has to be played at all. It is so easy for all of us involved -- candidates, campaigns and the media -- to focus on the process and the horse race that we forget why we got into it in the first place. Barack Obama has had the courage to talk about real issues, real problems and real people. Let's pause for a second in the midst of the cacophony of the campaign circus and listen.
In 1992, I was inspired by Bill Clinton because he promised, and delivered, a framework for addressing America's problems. President Clinton ended a long-running left-right debate in our Party, and inspired millions. He drew giant crowds and spoke passionately for a generation of Americans who often disenfranchised and rarely participated in governing. Today, Barack Obama does the same thing. Winners redefine the game. Winners connect with the American people and not only feel their pain, but inspire them to take action to heal the underlying cause. Barack Obama is that kind of candidate and that kind of leader, which is why he will win in November.
Welcoming Everyone into the Party
We face significant challenges as a nation and as a Party, but time and again, Americans have shown the resilience and determination necessary to overcome even the highest obstacle. We have a difficult road ahead, but I have complete confidence that Barack Obama is the candidate who can lead our Party to victory and the President who can guide us to even greater heights.
Many Democrats know me for one short speech I gave over and over again in the 2000 Presidential campaign. That speech was about welcoming people into our Party and welcoming undecided voters to our campaign to elect Al Gore. Today, we need to welcome Clinton supporters, undecided voters, and all Americans to join Barack Obama's cause to fight for a better America. My speech ended with these words, which are even more relevant today:
The difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is that you are always welcome in the Democratic Party.
Because Democrats don't care if you are black or white or brown or a nice shade of green, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.
We don't care if you pray in a church or a synagogue or a temple or a mosque, or just before math tests, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.
We don't care if you are young or old, or just don't want to tell your age, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.
We don't care what gender you are, or what gender you want to hold hands with; as long as you want to hold hands, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.
We don't care about the size of your bank account, just the size of your heart; and we don't care where you are today, just where you dream you want to be tomorrow.
That is your Democratic Party.
That is Barack Obama's Democratic Party.
That is the Party that will win in November.
Sincerely,
Joe Andrew
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...

81 Comments so far
Show AllJoe Andrew tells it like it is. Barack Obama may not be perfect, but he is ready and able to take us down a new path that may even lead to healthcare as a right and not just for the priveleged few.
Thanx,
Ray O. Driskill
Barack Obama threw Rev.Wright under a bus. Twice. Just like Peter when he denied Christ. The third one will come too.
That's not "real change" - - which, by the way, has not yet been articulated.
Obama? The Democratic party savior? He doesn't vote Democrat, he is more moderate and conservative like a Republican. There is no TRUE Democrat in this race. The party is split as half of us don't have a REAL candidate that represents our views. Nader is the closest. Obama is slick, talks well but has been bought by the corporations that are running this country and the war.
There will be no change with any of the candidates running. People feel they have to support someone, but you know what? They don't. A support for Obama, McCain or Clintion is for more of the same..no change will ever come.
medusa and critical thinktank:
No President is going to make real or lasting change only the people will. So listen closely and don't tell me why I support Barack Obama-- I am voting for the candidate that is moving people, that is uniting people that is bringing in new people so that WE can make change.
I only visit this site once a week or so now, because "true" progressives are now using the old Republican playbook of arguing against something that no one is actually suggesting.
I agree, if you think Obama will change America, you need to wake up. But if you don't realize that Obama is starting a movement that CAN facilitate change then you need to wake up.
I gotta admire this guy for going with his conviction at the exact moment a racism tsunami is threatening to drown Obama. He speaks in positives, but we might sense between the lines that he's mad as heck at destruction being wrought on all the liberal initiatives by his old "friends", the Clintons, and even moreso by the corporate media. He's a bit like a guy carrying the flag for a soldiers' charge up a tough hill with heavy fire. (Perhaps also he's seeking to "pave" and justify an eventual team-up. Hard to say on that.)
We could use fifty or a hundred so-inspired "supers", and right now.
The only way radical change can ever come to America is from below, from the people.
I am voting for Obama because of his movement, his movement gives me hope.
Obama cannot speak too boldly to power, because he has to get elected. Rooservelt was elected in the same way.
Once elected, it is up to his inspirational movement to hold Obamas' feet to the fire, to enable him to be a truly progressive president. The power in the suites can only be changed by the power in the streets
I am placing my vote for democratic hope, the only way radical change has ever been possible. A new vision and a new hope is the lifeblood of democracy.
One minor point: The electoral college didn't elect George Bush, either. The AP analysis showed Gore won Florida by any measure that counted all the eligible votes.
The Supreme Court appointed George Bush.
I know Scalia wants me to get over it but I'm just not ready, yet ...
He was going along OK until he got to, "That candidate is Barack Obama". That candidate may be a Democrat, but he is first an Uncle Buck. He works with and for Wall Street. If you really want an independent candidate you have to get out of the box. Once there you will see Cynthia McKinney. It will be an inspiration.
Hoa binh
what only 8 comments and some of those are not even luke warm? That is because so many cynics read common dreams - YES!! embrace the positive message of Obama and Unite NOW-- what insanity is this to run around winning votes till then the Fall election and then the President is in charge of the planet basically- without the time to listen to wise men and women to read anything or just plain recouperate-
It would not bother Hillary- she never read the intelligence reports before deciding on Iraq invasion but lets hope the world will see a peaceful rational person who does not pander down the gas tax as Hillary is doing right now.. It shows he has principle.
Hillary wants it to be an election between a woman and a black man because 50 % or more of the voters are women and only 20% are black.
But how about the Fall- then- half the voters are men and will they be voting Hillary? Will the 30 % Blacks show up to vote for anybody? Will Republicans who are luke warm to Mccain show up just to vote against somebody?
I know I have run into many Republicans who want to vote for a peacemaker- that is not McCain- don't anybody complain about Obama being too Republican- he is not a warmongerer and he is certainly not going to do war profiteering so let him get some Republian votes and WIN.
I agree with you,metamorph.Obama is our best choice,our doctrinair lefty friends,with their self righteous purity,not withstanding!Do they really want Macky to win this election?
I'm so sick of "hope" and "change" I could puke ! Obama can tell me over and over that he's different, but I haven't SEEN it. To me, he's just the same old same old dressed up with flowery speeches. He's a rich ivy-league egomaniac who will do anything to get elected, most recently trashing his self-described 20 year friendship with his self-described "spiritual advisor". I wish that Wright would nail him for that !
The Democratic party really screwed up on this one. The entire party is divided and many will not cross over to vote for the other candidate. Hello, President McCain.
Wow..... some people really surprise me. I'm not even sure some of the commenters here at CommonDreams are real people. I may be paranoid but I wonder whether there are planted commenters who come in to progressive websites just to throw noise and chaos around. I guess the term for that is "troll".
Every now and again I hear this talking point "Obama is the candidate of Wall Street."
Where does that idea come from? Obama has raised more money from individual, small-time donors than any other primary candidate ever. He takes no money from PACs. He is the only candidate among the three major remaining candidates who calls it like it is about the proposed "Gas-tax Holiday", which, if enacted would simply allow oil corporations to get away with charging more at the pump, diverting potential tax revenues into oil profits.
He has explained himself very clearly, and admirably, regarding his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. The good and the bad of that relationship and why, at this point, but not until now, it has become necessary to distance himself from the man. Both Obama AND Wright have clarified that Wright was never his "spiritual advisor".
Ivy League education? Why is that a problem? Did you know that Ralph Nader is a Princeton graduate? Al Gore -- Harvard?
Sure there are good leaders out there with all different kinds of educational backgrounds.... but why would you hold it against someone who got himself a scholarship at a top-flight college (Columbia) based on his hard work in high school? Then did well enough as an undergraduate to go to Harvard Law and become the editor of the Law Review journal?
Then, with that educational background, went back to the streets in Chicago and worked as a community organizer?
Why are those bad things? Where do you folks get this idea that Obama is some kind of Wall-Street Elitist?
Like I said, I'm not even sure if I should be engaging in this discussion, because I'm not sure some of you, such as "Atheist" or "Since1492" are real people.
And if you ARE real..... where have you been? Though you may feel like you are in solidarity with some sort of "progressive" movement, you come out sounding like some crusty old conservative who already knows what she thinks before anyone else gets a chance to speak.
Obama's emergence as a (not entirely perfect) potential leader and unifier did not follow the script you've been writing and reading for the last I-dont-know-exactly-how-many years.
Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich.... they are all great spokespeople for the progressive movement, and I fully support them in their continued efforts to educate and legislate America into the 21st century. But none of them has a snowball's chance of becoming a President who can restore dignity, clarity, vision and trust to the US government. Obama is the one who CAN.
I don't think he is perfect, I don't think he is the messiah... I don't even agree with all of his policy positions.... but I don't agree with ANYBODY's policy positions 100%. Should I just vote for myself?
What I do think Obama has going for him is.... he is very intelligent and he's not wrapped up in the old-style Washington political bullshit. That's all I want in a President, and I think Obama will deliver.
What it boils down to is.... the next President will either be Obama or McCain, and maybe, possibly Clinton. If you like Clinton or McCain better than Obama.... fine... tell us what you think is great about those two... If you think the long-term project of establishing a viable third party is important enough to put your efforts behind Nader or McKinnery.... I can respect that too.... that's how I felt in 2000...
BUT don't just spew out all these BS un-informed ANTI-Obama talking points..... you are just making noise.
Unless that's your job.
I can see an Obama/Richardson, Obama/Dodd or even an (ugh) Obama/Clinton ticket as realistic ones, but Bayh is too conservative and corporate for a Democratic VP.
With Bayh, there would be no electoral reform. Elections would continue to depend totally on corporate bribes in a kindler, gentler, fascism that sets the stage for the next Bush.
Thank you gimmesometruth -- I was surprised to find so many disingenuous comments here. Sounded like a Republican computer troll signed on to the URL and just posted random Obama slams that don't even reflect the story.
Thank you EVEN MORE to Joe Andrew. You are a patriot and an honest man. I appreciate the courage it took to make this decision. I also appreciate the effort you are taking to go public and urge sense in this situation.
It is immensely telling that the Clinton's first attack was to claim he was not from the state he is from. Never debate the issue, just attack your opponent on some other grounds. Clinton is sounding more GOP every day.
JOE! JOE! JOE! Thank you!!!!! You are a true courageous American, and a great Democrat. Where else have you posted this message? (Everywhere...I hope.) Would that other super-delegates and average Democrats would have the same sense and logic. It is time to unite behind this candidate and start defending him. How does it look to the rest of the country and the world if we let our leading candidate be attacked by the Republican attack dogs (FOX News, etc.) and the supposedly liberal media, and then we vote for Hillary? Shall we let them dictate our nominee? No way! It was a close election and it may get closer, but Hillary cannot win without a betrayal of the Democratic voters. She ran a good campaign (I'll eventually forgive her for the negativity and minor damage she's done to Obama's chances in the fall...if this ends well!). It's time to unite and end this madness. We must beat McBush in the fall!
It hasn't been that many weeks ago that we were urged by progressive organizations (in other words, Obama-supporting ones) to contact the superdelegates (sd's) and INSIST (in the name of Holy Democracy) that they vote for that candidate who got the majority of votes of "the people." If this meant anything, it should mean that the said sd's would vote for the one getting the votes in their particular states: California sd's should vote for Clinton, etc. When the sd's starting breaking for Obama, the hypocrites in his campaign forgot all about their moral outrage about sd's and welcomed with open arms, for example, the endorsement of the Governor of Oklahoma, which voted for Clinton in its primary. Now, with Indiana's primary coming up next Tuesday, comes Joe Andrew urging sd's to join a chorus of "let's all join in a chorus of unity under our Inspiring Leader" exhortation to the sd's. With Indiana voters not yet having spoken and about as likely to speak for Clinton as for Obama, why is HE so speaking now? Shouldn't we all now write Andrew and tell him to wait til May 6 and THEN express the will of Indiana people? Where's the outrage among the slew of commenters here so ready and eager to join the Andrew Chorus? (You don't need to tell me, it disappeared as soon as its expression was no longer convenient to the Obama candidacy...but of course we've been there before in a way that neither an Obama nor Clinton presidency would change: we're all for Holy Democracy somewhere else until people in Venezuela or Palestine elect folks we don't like. Hypocracies R Us, or so it seems.)
gimmesometruth - I'm for real. To see Obama's ties to Wall Street just goggle 'obama wall street' and read away. Also check out Counterpunch, ZNET, and Dissident Voice. Then read WAR IS A RACKET by General Smedley Butler to see who our military fights for. Then vote for Obama and watch the empire continue to crumble.
Hoa binh
Hey, if voting for Obama ensures that the empire continues to crumble, I'd like to vote a few dozen times.
We have to support Obama to be classified as a progressive? ___ Wow!
If Obama is the Demo nominee, I will send a nice check and fully support and vote for him. ___ But the Repugs are going to have a field day with him and he will probably lose.
Another sad situation is. If the Florida and Michigan primary votes are not allowed at the Demo convention, the majority of the Demo voters in those two states will either stay home, or vote for McCain in the general. And that will be all she or he wrote, the party will be over, the fat lady will sing and McCain will be our new Bush.
We cannot afford another four years of Bushism. And some can say it, but Hillary and Obama are not the same as Bush, not even close. And Hillary and Obama are also far apart, on many important issues, in spite of what the press writes and the media jocks say. Check out their actual voting records as U.S. Senators.
I will not vote for Clinton, due to her extremely hawkish ideology and her disgusting behavior in this campaign. If she is the nominee, I will vote Green.
I will vote for Obama, realizing he is far from perfect, but recognizing his many good qualities and the chance he presents to change our relationships around the world.
Those of you waiting for perfect should realize that Jesus may not be coming back in your lifetime.
Inspired, Huh? When the crusaders ran out of money and luck,they were inspired to send hundreds of children (innocents) to march off and attack the Mohammedans.The children's crusade, they called it. Of course, the children, as soon as they marched around the bend, were kidnapped and sold into slavery. Another inspirational guy was George McGovern, who Gary Hart and the Dems were goggled-eyed over in 1972. He lost, after jettisoning "Sparky" Eagleton, in a landslide, against a known crook, liar and slimeball in the form of Richard Nixon. It' is no surprise that both Hart and McGovern have endorsed this empty suit. They still want to be right, so they're willing to dig us all into the same hole they dug for us in 1972. Joe Andrew isn't thinking of that. He isn't thinking at all.
When Obama issued his Orwellian remark that when Wright, or I, raise our voices against injustice, and refuse to accept the official line that 2+2=5, we are actually promoting " divisiveness and hate"...
Well, let's just say I have had hell of a headache for the past couple days right now trying to control my rage.
Obama can go to hell.
Hillary can go to hell.
And, every other filthy, self-serving politician who promotes these vile amerikkan myths, hides it's ongoing crimes, and diabolically conflates the cries of the downtrodden - From Palestine, to Iraq, to Homewood-Brushton with "hate"(!?!?) - CAN ALL GO STRAIGHT TO HELL!
Wow. That's all I can say.
(except to 1492 -- thanks for verifying that you are real... I believe you, and I appreciate it. I disagree with some of your opinions, but I believe that they are genuine.)
In case it wasn't clear, the quotei'm referring to is:
"[Wright's] comments were not only divisive and destructive, but they give comfort to those who prey on hate."
criticalthinktank,
"There will be no change with any of the candidates running. People feel they have to support someone, but you know what? They don't. A support for Obama, McCain or Clintion is for more of the same..no change will ever come."
You are right that change will never come with your wasted vote for Nader.
You just help McSame.
Did anyone notice that 'policy' never got mentioned in the entire letter? Not one word about how the policies of Obama would be right for the nation. Or certainly not any specifics.
This is all from the point of view of a big-shot in the Dem party. He wants the Dem party to win because that means money, influence and maybe a job for him. Period. Not a word about how Obama would be good for the country. Only this strange mantra we get from the Democrats that the Democrats must win ... because ... well ...because they are the Democrats.
For the Democrats, its all about them and their quest for power. They don't give a damn about the rest of us. Isn't that clear by now? Doesn't this letter just scream that? If you are a Dem party hack looking for a job in the next administration, I can understand why you'd vote Democrat. For anyone else, I haven't a clue why voting Democrat isn't a complete waste of your vote.
Reading Joe Andrew reminds me of Don Corrleone as he says, "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse". If you think there are not more strings to his "offer" you are crazy. If possible "they" (by which I mean the political establishment) will twist Barack like a pretzel. If not, they will break him into a million pieces and put him back together any way they choose. (like the North Vietnamese did to McCain).
Medusa got it right--if Barack will treat a life-long friend and spiritual mentor in such a manner he will do the same and worse to the rest of America.
Will every commenter on this thread who works for the Obama campaign please stand up and identify themselves?
I'd vote for Rev. Wright over Obama any day. And if I lived in Chicago, I'd vote for Rev. Wright many times. :)
I wasn't an Obama fan to start with. But watching him abandon his friend, preacher and adviser for twenty years has lowered my already low opinion of the man. I don't care so much about Rev. Wright's words, although when I ignore the corporate media and go check him out for myself, I don't really have any problem with him.
But what it really tells me is a bit about Obama's character. Just how power-hungry he is that he's willing to stab a long-time friend in the back.
Thanks to Joe Andrew for his inspired and well-reasoned statement on behalf of Senator Obama.
Thanks also to the CD posts, gimmesometruth's stands out.
Obama inspires me, too, yet there is no shortage of angst in all of this.
As a white male Demo Catholic Teamster who also supports Obama, I am an anomaly when I see my demographic rejecting Obama in Ohio, Boston, western Pennsylvania.
Presidential campaigns are nothing if not angst!
Forty years ago I resented RFK for jumping into the race during that spring as I supported Clean Gene who I knew would end the war. Bobby's popular appeal increased dramatically until his June death; now he's in a pantheon of inspiring and immortal leaders. Gene's campaign collapsed following RFK's assassination.
The ultimate angst was delivered that November with Nixon's election, and he managed to expand a futile war and spawn today's health care crisis, see M. Moore's Sicko.
This race is full of twists and uncertainties, yet like Joe Andrew I have to believe our best candidate to present to the American electorate is Obama!
I'm heartened by the discussion.
However, I'm worried about something.
I've found that the naturally math-talented, many lawyers, and the overachievers -- like Obama and, perhaps, anyone who feels he or she could possibly be a political leader -- tend to feel that an emphasis on early childhood education, enough money, and time will get ALL students up to passing the ever-higher "standards" -- especially in the easily-scored Math.
I would suggest that they try to "document-justify" their position, that they check the education level of the area's adults. Concentrating on the young children would still leave the communities poor, families needing demeaning, endless welfare.
They could study the plight of the food banks in today's economy and the attitudes of the public about welfare recipients.
They could also talk to some of those who have been "left behind" for the past generation, ask about their natural talents/interests/abilities, and learn about the need for broadly, varied talents to keep our country going smoothly and safely.
They could understand that we don't know the "standards" of those countries and groups that are supposed to be so much better than Americans.
They would find that other countries don't even try to educate everyone -- as the U.S. has always tried to do. They just skim off the top-"producers", which is what the Business Roundtable is trying to do.
Leaders need to do their "homnework." Obviously, it's difficult as they mut try to raise $millions.
However, there won't be "change" until our mindset "changes." I know he can do it. We must work with him, help him, give him a chance to use us.
Self-development of ALL -- nurturing the realistic best in each one of us -- must be the goal!
I would suggest that leaders think about, learn about, the danger of "leaving behind" unjustly humiliated, angered, frustrated people all over our once-beloved country.
Otherwise, we're ALL "responsible" for the poverty, hunger, despair, other problems.
Since we don't have run-off voting and not enough politically savvy people to give us a real candidate (Kucinich) whose goal is the enhancement of the whole community of man, we now have to choose one who is more inclined than the others to creatively utilize both human and material resources more responsibly than we have seen in many years....and certainly over the last 7+ years.
How will any of our major problems ever get resolved if we vote for a candidate whose "advisors" are the same jerk-offs that created these problems in the first place?
The one thing I know for certain is that I don't want another non-visionary, war-monger running this country!
gimmesometruth - It is true Obama doesn't take money from PACS BUT he does take money from their wives and lawyers. It's called bundling!
Nice to see a little ball sac from Joe,
The dishonest, almost disgusting campaign the Clinton's have been running should give some insight into their characters (or lack thereof).
gimmesometruth, and realitychecker: good posts, however I would argue that cynicism towards american politics is absolutely warranted. I can assure you that I am real, and yet I agree that there is not much that will change if Obama gets elected. The American empire is just that, a freaking empire. Obama will be the most powerful man in the world (visible at least) and therefore will play by new rules. One of those rules being truth cannot be told! We all just witnessed Obama lying about how deeply upset he is with Wright. Please! Granted, he must say that to get elected, but it just shows the type of pressure he's under. Impossible to stick to your guns under that pressure. Thats the problem...Politics as usual, no change...
But for some hope, maybe we will hold his 'feet to the fire' and therefore enact some real positive change, but not likely. Just look at how easy we have been on the new congress. any thoughts?
vesselpessel :
In that sense, where is the difference?
Obama is restrained and will not attack other countries that is why I want him in over the other two. Obama has been active in insisting on kicking out special interests. I am idsgusted with warprofiteering- did any of you see the recent Democratic Senate Comittee hearing on warprofiteering? You know- it is about people like CEO of Blackwater , Mrs Prince- he is the guy who wears a flag lapel pin to show his patriotism while he is ripping off our taxdollars and making Iraq unsafe by sending his guys into Fallusiah and causing warfare.
So Clinton had Mark Penn as campaign manager and her buddy for years and on the side Penn was also representing Blackwater to whitewash them after they killed 19 civilians in Iraq.
So get me Obama- who will not cooperate with war profiteering and while stop the crappy warfare- how about that Somalia country we insisted on upsetting and sponsoring an invasion from Ethiopia into Somalia and now the whole place is full of terrorists- that is what warlike posturing results in and Clinton has demonstrated that she is as warlike as anybody. She admitted she will wipe out Iran for heavens sake- one of the oldest countries on the face of the earth. .. stop the warmongering military industrial complex.
Who cares about Reverend Wright- he is a sideshow.
metamorph:
Of course Wright's a sideshow, but he's probably had a bad effect for Obama already, ridiculous.
Ok, what about Obama's support of the complete BS propoganda driven machine that is the 'war on terror'? What did terror just start after 9-11? why does he talk within the very vacuum that the freakin neoCONS created?
To Samson:
Thank you. Same here. Obama would have lost my support, too, after what he did to Wright (that is, if he had had my support in the first place, which he didn't.) (I'm voting for McKinney.)
Obama basically negated his Philadelphia speech about race by failing to use his disagreements with Wright to point out how many African-Americans, especially of Wright's generation, remember all too well the 40-year Tuskegee syphilis experiment or Dr. Chester M. Southam, who injected Ohio State Prison inmates with live cancer cells in 1952, performing the same procedure in 1963 on 22 senile, African-American female patients at the Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in order to watch their immunological response.
The list of known assaults is a long one
http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html
I'm sure the list of unknown experiments is even longer.
Obama could have explained how the different experiences of black Amerikans versus white would naturally affect each group's relationship to the power structure. But no, like any politician Obama instead chose the politically expedient path and severed any ties he had to Wright.
Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not a Wright fan for one main reason: as a militant atheist, I consider religious education to be a form of child abuse, often permanently crippling a person's critical thinking process and placing said child directly under authority's thumb. I see ministers as con artists who have taken an easy road to an easy life, living off the superstitions, fears, and prejudices of said-educated people. And especially someone like Wright should see and talk about the connection between imperialism, colonialism, and "missionary" forces, those who are often in the vanguard of conquering military forces, purging indigenous peoples of their culture, heritage, language, and spiritual traditions before converting them to be obedient, compliant workers, helping the conquerors to plunder their own resources (people or otherwise). (If we can keep the slaves singing spirituals on the plantation, one little overseer can control a hundred workers.) It's been done throughout history, and for that reason I am not a Wright fan. But politically, he speaks truth to Obama's pandering.
nice Kgarry,
except for the militant atheiest part, i'm right there with you... Obama had a chance to leverage some truths that have been throughly documented to further his campaign against the so-called 'powers that be' and did not, which takes actual credibility away and instead gives him political leeway..
just a quick question, do you think that the profound positive impact that religion has had on probably billions of people's lives is worth anything ultimately? and if no, what would you replace it with?
i'm surprised to see people complaining about obama 'abandoning' his friend and spiritual advisor for the last 20 yrs, etc etc etc...
didn't you guys watch the interviews with wright before the latest drama in which he said that obama is a politician, so he will act as a politician. he himself is a preacher, so he will act in his capacity. if obama becomes president, he will attack him as a president.
there is obviously a dynamic that is beyond your simple notions of loyalty. wright is enjoying his celebrity status and is pushing the envelope- he knew PERFECTLY WELL how obama would react- this is part of the game.
if you think wright is 'hurt' or surprised by obama's denunciation you are incredibly naive to the political (or human?) process.
kscola23:
A discussion better had somewhere else? If you wish, email me at kgarry@katlover and maybe we can find a more quiet corner in which to stumble about.
Oh, and thanks for stating the point so much more clearly than I managed.
sure Kgarry, thanks...i may just do that
Klimt, so what would you do if you were Wright? denounce yourself, say you misspoke for the last 20 years? Of course I agree maybe wait until the campaign is over, but its not like Wright brought this issue about. He is on more than a political mission obviosuly, so he hates politics and is not willing (although he is certainly being used) to compromise himself for any sake, what is naive about respecting him for that, and disrespecting Obama for playing politics as usual? we all acknowledge Obama 'did what he had to do'
I don't think Obama had to do what he did, he had other options. If he wished to say anthing, he could and should have briefly repeated what he said in his speech in Philadelphia about the Wright issue. There was no necessity to cut off his good friend, mentor, and advisor as he had professed him to be. That is hurting him badly and he cannot take the words he has now spoken back.
And ~KLIMT~, you are 'assuming' Wright would attack Obama if he were the president. And you are also 'assuming' what Obama said didn't hurt him. I would find that to be most uusual, based upon their 20 year long, very personal family relationship.
Wright never once stated he was against Obama being a politician, in fact he avidly supported Obama when he was a State Senator and a U.S. Senator. And to say any here are naive, is really an insult. Perhaps you didn'realize that is exactly like saying, "other bloggers here are being ( childishly foolish )", the definition of the word naive. which I personally don't observe with anyone posting here.
kscola.
i think you misread my post. i didn't say anything about respecting or disrespecting anyone. re-read it if need be.
should wright denounce himself? no- why would he? he said what he said deliberately and provocatively- that is the point. he knowingly set obama up for a necessary public denunciation.
despite some obviously foolish comments i find wright a fairly well spoken man- but does that mean obama is 'disloyal' for breaking with him in an obviously politicized environment? of course not.
but since you brought it up i can't say that i respect wright for what he did. anyone can be a firebrand and make provocative public statements and many people do it much more eloquently than he does. but on the other hand i never said anything about respecting obama for his behavior- only that it was 100% predictable for everyone involved.
I'm sorry, I don't usually speak this way, but some of the posters here are beginning to just sound stupid. All of you whining about Obama betraying his pastor are just being silly. How easy do you think it will be for a black man to become president? Get real, it's called choosing your battles, you can't win every one of them so you need to sacrifice the smaller battles in order to win the larger war. That is what Obama had to do with the Wright situation. He was as intelligent and moderate in his response to the controversy as was possible, and further sought to raise the conversation to a higher level in his now famous speech. The United States IS a racist country. It IS! And for Barack Obama to become President of this Mother*#@!er is no small feat. Anyone who thinks he can just waltz around wearing his heart on his sleeve, and not have to occasionally say or do something he would prefer not to (such as denounce his pastor's remarks), is living in a total dream world. He is a black man who is poised to actually become President. Anyone who doesn't understand the significance of that or the reality of the slippery slope he is on is just a fool.
kem patrick.
actually, i'm not assuming anything. wright explicitly stated that if obama were to become president, he would attack him as a president, not treat him as a buddy. i don't remember the exact source but it is somewhere on youtube.
it was clear as day, and he knew as well the way obama would 'be forced' to react.
so yes, i do assume that, given this kind of relationship, people are naive to claim that obama was a mean little boy for betraying his friend. there were never any illusions, as far as anyone who saw the interviews that i saw, that wright would be crying in the corner over obama's denunciations. this has all been as deliberately played up as can be imagined.
by the way lol at 'naive' being a big insult. have you seen some of the garbage people say on this forum?
I thought Gimmesometruth said it so well that it deserved a second posting:
Wow….. some people really surprise me. I'm not even sure some of the commenters here at CommonDreams are real people. I may be paranoid but I wonder whether there are planted commenters who come in to progressive websites just to throw noise and chaos around. I guess the term for that is "troll".
Every now and again I hear this talking point "Obama is the candidate of Wall Street."
Where does that idea come from? Obama has raised more money from individual, small-time donors than any other primary candidate ever. He takes no money from PACs. He is the only candidate among the three major remaining candidates who calls it like it is about the proposed "Gas-tax Holiday", which, if enacted would simply allow oil corporations to get away with charging more at the pump, diverting potential tax revenues into oil profits.
He has explained himself very clearly, and admirably, regarding his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. The good and the bad of that relationship and why, at this point, but not until now, it has become necessary to distance himself from the man. Both Obama AND Wright have clarified that Wright was never his "spiritual advisor".
Ivy League education? Why is that a problem? Did you know that Ralph Nader is a Princeton graduate? Al Gore — Harvard?
Sure there are good leaders out there with all different kinds of educational backgrounds…. but why would you hold it against someone who got himself a scholarship at a top-flight college (Columbia) based on his hard work in high school? Then did well enough as an undergraduate to go to Harvard Law and become the editor of the Law Review journal?
Then, with that educational background, went back to the streets in Chicago and worked as a community organizer?
Why are those bad things? Where do you folks get this idea that Obama is some kind of Wall-Street Elitist?
Like I said, I'm not even sure if I should be engaging in this discussion, because I'm not sure some of you, such as "Atheist" or "Since1492″ are real people.
And if you ARE real….. where have you been? Though you may feel like you are in solidarity with some sort of "progressive" movement, you come out sounding like some crusty old conservative who already knows what she thinks before anyone else gets a chance to speak.
Obama's emergence as a (not entirely perfect) potential leader and unifier did not follow the script you've been writing and reading for the last I-dont-know-exactly-how-many years.
Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich…. they are all great spokespeople for the progressive movement, and I fully support them in their continued efforts to educate and legislate America into the 21st century. But none of them has a snowball's chance of becoming a President who can restore dignity, clarity, vision and trust to the US government. Obama is the one who CAN.
I don't think he is perfect, I don't think he is the messiah… I don't even agree with all of his policy positions…. but I don't agree with ANYBODY's policy positions 100%. Should I just vote for myself?
What I do think Obama has going for him is…. he is very intelligent and he's not wrapped up in the old-style Washington political bullshit. That's all I want in a President, and I think Obama will deliver.
What it boils down to is…. the next President will either be Obama or McCain, and maybe, possibly Clinton. If you like Clinton or McCain better than Obama…. fine… tell us what you think is great about those two… If you think the long-term project of establishing a viable third party is important enough to put your efforts behind Nader or McKinnery…. I can respect that too…. that's how I felt in 2000…
BUT don't just spew out all these BS un-informed ANTI-Obama talking points….. you are just making noise.
Unless that's your job.