EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Shock Doctrines' Show the Way to Resist
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
Popular content
Today's Top News
Valerie Jarrett Heckled And Hissed At Netroots Nation
One year ago at the Netroots Nation conference in Austin, Texas the mood of the crowd was one of excitement and elation over the possibility of a Barack Obama presidency.
Moderator Baratunde Thurston, left, listens to White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett talk with the audience at a Netroots Nation Convention in Pittsburgh, Saturday, Aug. 15, 2009. A year later, with that possibility achieved, a sense of cynicism has begun to creep in. On Saturday morning, one of the president's closest advisers, Valerie Jarrett addressed the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh. And while attendees were largely supportive throughout the question and answer session, the reception was warm at best. The defining moment, in fact, came when Jarrett was hissed and heckled.
Roughly midway through the session, Jarrett was pressed to explain why the President was "continuing so many of [Bush's] policies many of which he criticized as candidate Obama." Knowing the mood and makeup of the audience - largely progressive activists from across the country - she acknowledged off the bat that it was "a fair question." But from there, things grew a bit rough.
Jarrett defended the work Obama has done outlawing torture, and releasing Office of Legal Counsel memos detailing how such interrogation practices came to be. At that point, a protester in the audience screamed out a question about why the White House was trying to keep additional photographs of detainee abuse from becoming public.
"I heard somebody shout out about the pictures," Jarrett replied. "Everybody knows what's in those pictures. And this is where it gets very delicate and I know it is a touchy subject for this audience. But what he is trying to balance as president, is keeping us safe, not giving ammunition to people who already have ample ammunition from what they've seen before to be adverse to us."
More shouts and protests followed. "I can't hear you," Jarrett said. "You know what you've got to do? You've got to figure out a way to get your question on here [pointing to the computer on stage that was receiving emails from questioners]. We are not going to have shout outs from the audience."
The moderator agreed. "This is not a town hall meeting like that," said Baratunde Thurston, of Jack and Jill Politics and The Onion. The crowd got the reference to the boisterous demonstrators at health care town halls. But they didn't stop. From the back of the room, someone shouted a question about why the private security contractor, Blackwater, was still being paid for work overseas.
"Well we are certainly trying to get rid of the no bid contracts," said Jarrett. "He has been very clear about that."
A group of individuals sitting at a table off to the side started hissing. "I hear the frustration and I hear the kind of hissing," said Jarrett. "I hear you. Settle down over there, settle down."
"I'm asking you to trust [the President]," she pleaded. "And I know that's hard. Because I know how pure you are to the cause. But he also has to keep in mind that he has to keep those folks safe."
At that point the protests ended. It was a minor glitch in an otherwise smooth, albeit little news making, a four minute portion of an hour-and-fifteen minute long event. Still, it provided something of a window into the small but mounting frustrations the progressive community has with the president they helped elect.
Ironically, when it came to policy questions, Jarrett hit all the right notes for the audience. On a public option for insurance coverage, which progressives hold near to their hearts, she insisted that it was and remains a philosophical commitment for the president.
"Let me be very clear and I talked to the president yesterday about this, knowing I was coming here," said Jarrett. "The president wants the public option, he has made that clear everywhere he has gone."
On Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act - two places in which the administration has taken some heat from its more liberal backers - Jarrett was firm in saying the White House wanted both laws repealed.
"He believes that DADT is wrong and he attempts to seek repeal in Congress," she said. "He believes the DOMA discriminates."
In fact, the only other place Jarrett got tripped up was when the topic, once again, turned from policy to politics. Asked by Thurston why the administration didn't push back hard against Blue Dog Democrats for not backing the president's health care agenda, Jarrett tried to play diplomat rather than offer the type of aggressive, red meat response that the crowd wanted to hear.
"I know that obviously that hit a note here," she said. "And, I know that there is a lot of frustration here and around the country. I'm telling you, I'm convinced this President has it right... He is not one to punish or do any of the things that perhaps you want to do in a moment of spontaneity or a moment of anger. But he is going to count on you. He is going to count on the American people to put the pressure on their elected representatives because that is the way the system works the best. It doesn't work the best when he decides to punish them from the Oval [Office]."
The crowd clapped softly. "Not quite as much applause [as the question got]," Jarrett said. "But trust me, this will work."
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...
73 Comments so far
Show All"But trust me, this will work". How many times have we heard that before, eh?...."Trust me"...yeah, right.
80% of Americans want single payer. Who's ,.istening to them? No one...certainly not our reps and definitely not Obama.
More lies.
80% ???
No policy in the history of America ever got 80% approval. You couldn't get 80% to agree that free ice cream is a good idea. What's your source for this statistic?
The most recent (to my knowledge) Times/CBS poll is available at
nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html
It shows 85% in favor of fundamental change, but "only" 72% in favor of a government-administered insurance plan.
Thanks for the cite.
Neither of those numbers calls out single-payer. The responses to several questions posed as "If the government creates a system of health care for all Americans" showed a majority that were concerned that: their own care would get worse, their own access to tests and treatment would be more limited than now, and that they would be required to change doctors. 37% believed that such a system would harm the economy, while only 28& felt that it would help it.
When asked whether, if the cost of their own insurance were to go up, they thought that the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, the support was only 47%. This was down from 64% without the caveat of increased costs on the respondent.
The participants in this poll were, by nearly 2-1, Obama voters (48% v. 25%) and the Republican/Democratic/Independent split was 24/38/31.
Structurally, this is not a great poll, and the numbers don't come close to 80% in favor of single-payer.
To clarify my response, it wasn't intended as a defense of any particular position on the issue. Just providing a statistical reference. Obviously, as with all polling, much depends on the questions and how they are asked -- not to mention the fluctuating political enviroment.
I totally understand, RV. My point is that if 80% of voters really wanted single payer and were willing to pay for it, Washington couldn't get it passed fast enough. Every drug dollar in the world in campaign contributions isn't worth thumbing their nose at 80% of the population.
Bullshit. Washington is owned by 1%. The 80% of us who want
HR676 aren't in that 1%. I feel sorry for you. Did you get your PHD from Tufts, maybe? I love these faux liberals that worship elitism. You remind me of the dinosaurs just before they became extinct.
You must be part of the 10% that never get the word. The other 10% are in a comma. That makes 20%. If you don't like HR676, you must be related to superman. A Nietzsche fan, perhaps. EIN VOLK, EIN REICH! GOT MIT US!
I'm curious, would you volunteer to help the new goverment assisted suicide social security/medicare funding program? I knew you cared. Bring your own bottle of morphine. Knives and gins are messy.
I have not expressed an opinion about the merits or desirability of HR676 or anything else. I did challenge an unsubstantiated assertion that 80% of Americans wanted a single-payer system, and pointed out that a recent poll indicated a less overwhelming level of support. I further alleged that should the level of support eventually reach 80%, even the 1% would find it difficult to convince politicians to cut their own throat in the next election.
waltdimm said: "You couldn't get 80% to agree that free ice cream is a good idea."
False.
I recall seeing polls last Sept., when 90%+ said they didn't want $700. Billion of their money going to Wall St. in TARP. Well that didn't work. Bush/Paulson threatened Congress with martial law, so the "Democratic" Congress passed it against the broad consensus of the people. At least that was the Dems excuse.
How [conveniently] short some people's memories are. Or...what planet have you been living on?
Which is what the bastards are counting on, since they know by the next election a large percentage of those half-witted enablers will vote for them again, because they don't have the attention span of a gnat, and/or will make the usual excuses like: "a vote for a third party is a wasted vote".
Got a source for that poll? I'd love to read it.
Trust Me, put the pressure on elected officials; it will work.
That's why everybody is yelling from the audience.
In one sense, this is all predictable and even necessary.
While I don't like the idea of trucking in hecklers from around the country, I do like the fact that people are finally showing that they have had enough of the doublespeak from Washington. We KNOW that things are bad and our backs are against the wall.
You're right, Bill, we need to keep the pressure on elected officials, from our town councils all the way up to Obama. Every method (except violence) of communication is good and sends a message. Those who say writing letters and calling and even heckling don't do anything just don't know what they're talking about. Communication works. The more forceful, yet respectful, the better. However, as things go from bad to worse, communication is bound to devolve to angry outbursts. All valid as long as it doesn't devolve to abusive behavior (as it already has in some instances).
Keep it strong, keep it loud, keep it concise, and keep it respectful!
That will Work!
Netroots Nation claims to be a progressive organization. Why weren't the "protester's" valid questions being addressed in the first place? Without tough questions, Jarrett may as well been giving her pitch on a Sunday morning talk show.
Exactly.
I just heard via radio news that Kathleen Sibelius, head of HHS, said on a Sunday AM talk show that the public option is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care reform as long as competition is offered to Americans on health care. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/16/sebelius-public-health-ca_n_260511.html
Yet another Obama double-cross.
"Trust Me"???? Trust the govt. (that is paid for w/ corporate and wealthy pigs campaign donations???)? When has the American citizenry EVER been able to trust the govt??? They lie to drag us into wars (go all the way back to the Spanish American War and look at every war since then....all based on lies and twisted logic of "manifest destiny". They lie to quiet us into silence (using the IRS or the FBI to go after people who disagree w/ govt. or societal ideology...remember John Lennon???) so we "BEHAVE" and "DO AS YOU ARE TOLD". They lie when it is convenient to back foreign dictators and they lie when they tell us they do not engage in coupes.
Trust me??? When pigs fly!!!
WE NEED A MASS MOVEMENT AND WE NEED IT NOW!!!!!
Direct Action.....no more meetings and discussions!!! We know what is wrong and we know what we want in our society (at least I hope everyone does)!!! Power does not concede...it must be taken.
Right on!
Direct action without meetings and discussions?
If everybody agreed and were psychic.... maybe when pigs fly.
But work on it anyway...who knows and let me know how it is working.
Open Mind
Why freethinker, you're channeling someone famous!
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan was one of those "special" folks who spoke out of so many orifices of his body along with the body language of either fatherly assurance or the fatherly gimlet eye of a promise of punishment for your lack of patriotism that he can always be quoted, like the bible, to attack or defend any position. He wasn't even a good actor.
Valerie Jarrett... another "spokes-liar" on the road to kingdom come.
Free speech is great for these spin-doctors as long as the speech is monitored, cherry-picked, sanitized, and distilled for distribution.
Someone should've thrown their shoes at her like the guy who threw his shoes at Bush. Obama bought the presidency just like Bush did. BAN OR LIMIT CAMPAIGN SPENDING!!
"Trust me" is another way to say "let me f*#k you."
>>> "... he has to keep those folks safe."
"Those folks" being the war criminals in past (and current) administrations.
"I heard somebody shout out about the pictures," Jarrett replied. "Everybody knows what's in those pictures. And this is where it gets very delicate and I know it is a touchy subject for this audience. But what he is trying to balance as president, is keeping us safe, not giving ammunition to people who already have ample ammunition from what they've seen before to be adverse to us."
These words are vomit at the feet of honest and dignified people of the world. Of course everyone knows the thousand words that these pictures represent. The people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan know by word of mouth and personal experience by those who have had their human rights and dignity ripped from them at the hands of the US military empire forces. Their wives and daughters know of the rape and sexual torment they have suffered and ask their families to end their lives. The young and old men of their country that stood against the invaders have been hideously tortured and dehumanized spread the word of their treatment to their family, tribes and clans. The whole world knows of the depravity of these actions and so who does Obama seek to protect?
He seeks to protect the past administration that reinvented and instituted a program of illegal and horrendous behavior in America's name and at our expense. He seeks to protect his own actions, weakness and inability to stop what all the world knows is the worst acts of human degradation since Hitler or the rape of Nanjing.
Those who stand in the defense of such inhuman treatment deserve no voice on any public stage only the spit and shoes of those whose honor has been disgraced.
From all the previous posts, I'd say the progressives are inching up on the repugs. All negativity and seeing only the black and white. Guess I am in the wrong place.
You have a valid point. But, considering the limited availablility of any truly effective outlet for growing frustration, it's hardly surprising if its exasperated expression tends to become increasingly extreme.
The tighter the lid on the pot, the higher the pressure as the contents approach the boiling point. It remains to be seen whether the "relief valves" that have been provided will prove sufficient. I suspect they've been pretty well calibrated for the populace at large.
Not really, wilmore, Just realize that this is the safest place on the planet to vent anger to the world without anyone asking for your real name and address.
Ya gotta be tough to survive here. Survival Shows are nothin compared to Common Dreams Discussions.
Good points.
CD is one of the few forums where real discussion takes place, and polemics and dissent are being voiced. All very important activities to the political health of a community, as we know from 19th century United States political practice.
Negativity? Black and white? I guess in your giddy, rose-colored world, wilmoor, you'd have us all as a bunch of dissembling pollyannas in perpetual excuse-making mode for The Great Black Hope™?
"Pshaw! Here...have a flower! Keep looking forward! It's all good!"
President Yes We Can...But Didn't® and his bought-and-paid-for Congress are the ones that have made their own beds, and now they must lie in them. Honestly exposing these whores, not obfuscating for them, is something to be applauded by every clear-thinking citizen.
duplicate deleted
When Hatch on George Stephanopolous said that 110 million people would eventually take the public option, and then later said that 70% of the public was satisfied with the health insurance that they had, I couldn't believe that he wasn't called on it. They are so afraid that the public option would be so attractive that soon private insurance would go out of business. That speaks volumes. NOBODY REALLY WANTS TO PAY FOR PRIVATE INSURANCE. THEY WANT HEALTHCARE, WHEN THEY NEED AND FOR WHAT THEY NEED IT! Hatch is an asshole, and a liar. The Senate, Sanders aside, are bought and paid for by one corporation after another. I'll say this, though, Obama doesn't make the laws. He is just a cheerleader. He will eventually sign a bill if one makes it to him. If HR 676 got to him intact, he would sign it. To me, that is the benchmark; HR 676. We need a bill as close to that as possible.
"I'm asking you to trust [the President],"
"He is going to count on the American people to put the pressure on their elected representatives"
Trusting someone in power is dangerous and O'Bamba's cozy relationship with others in power is destructive. But we have to stand up and do what she said if we want change. It's inefficent for each and every citizen to participate in policymaking. But we already tried "leaving it to the professionals" and we see how badly that works. So let's stop thinking of them as professionals, and start thinking of them as servants. The people have to become the policymakers. But it's not either-or. We also can benefit from the servants talents/efforts but POWER SEEKERS ARE NOT RELIABLE SERVANTS. We should have switched to viewing them as servants back when the whitey was in the whitey house. It's a little more difficult with an African-American in there, ehh? They played the race card on us, didn't they? Suck it up.
"Ironically, when it came to policy questions, Jarrett hit all the right notes for the audience. On a public option for insurance coverage, which progressives hold near to their hearts, she insisted that it was and remains a philosophical commitment for the president."
Yes, the "public option" that PhrMA helped broker is near to our hearts like a blockage that our HMO won't cover.
Obama's "philosophical commitment" is so reassuring. I wonder if it's an existential commitment where he ponders "does healthcare really exist? Does anything? Do we?". Or maybe he's a Taoist taking "the path of least resistance" to giving corporations everything they desire.
Apparently his "philosophical commitment" is "not the essential element" of his plan, according to his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Maybe it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The parsing of political statements sure is an interesting, if quite futile, exercise.
there is no dialog left in the united states
there are behind closed door meetings, meetings we never get to hear about, and meetings we are never going to hear about. not exactly the open forum where obama promised to air on c span now is it
our dialog has been poisoned by yelling and screaming hooligans with agendas - there is no exchange of ides or even the farce of a conversation
health care is one of the big issues upon which obama could have made a stand on principle - one payer, the government who then negotiates with the various industries involved to maximize our collective purchasing power
anything less than that is worthless and could very easily leave us worse off, as unbelievable as that sounds
but healthcare is not the biggest nor the only problem with this prez, hardly
he has ratcheted up the war in afghanistan, is planning on invading pakistan, he hasn't eased off on iran either
obama has ordered four new bases in colombia as a preamble to attacking the left leaning governments of central and south america
obama is a bigger supporter of israel than was bush
then there are the civilian armies of spies and rats that obama foresees as being as large as the military - what is that even all about
obama also has - dare i say it - fascist ideas about mandatory public service - rahm emmanuel has stated that they foresee a three month tour of public duty every two years
these days everyone is pointing the fascist finger at everyone else - ask not for whom the bell tolls
then there is the bank bail out...
obama is in a dangerous position, with a lot of issues swirling about - we all live in dangerous times
i remember candidate obama saying he would not have lobbyists in his government but his government is chock full of them - more than bush, most of them from wall street overseeing the truckloads of cash being given to them
all in all i would say that there are a lot of problems with this guy
I think that these two quotes need to be highlighted and really remembered and understood:
1.--"This is not a town hall meeting like that," said Baratunde Thurston, of Jack and Jill Politics and The Onion. The crowd got the reference to the boisterous demonstrators at health care town halls.--
2.--"I'm asking you to trust [the President]," she pleaded. "And I know that's hard. Because I know how pure you are to the cause. But he also has to keep in mind that he has to keep those folks safe."--
In 1. we have the President's allies using the example of recent Repub protesters activity at health care (now insurance) reform "town halls" to stifle legitimate frustrated dissent by the President's own supporters.
Interesting isn't it it? I mean the implication that if you have any anger at the significant betrayal of -admittedly vague- campaign promises that Obama's first 8 months in Office represents -and have the audacity to show it loudly while one of your "betters" is speaking- you are immediately lumped in with the least rational and least repectful of those on the "right". What can possibly be the good purpose of this attempt to stifle dissent through shame and slander?!?
2. is even more interesting -and telling. It is sort of a B.S. and Anti-Democratic sandwich. A short condescending statement and a short dismissive of values or principles statement wrapped in two slices of Paternalism that wouldn't be out of place coming from the lips of an aide to an old-fashioned Autocrat like Nicholas II !
"Trust"?!? Screw "trust"! "Trust" in Executives or Central Government is NOT what this Republic was founded on, and is certainly NOT a habit the founders would have encouraged in the Citizenry. Democracy and Republicanism REQUIRE mistrust in Government, lest tyranny make its way back under the door. As far as "those folks" Obama "has to keep in mind that he has to" (nice English) keep "safe", if "those folks" means the military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest of our Overseas Empire, then I have two arguments on this point with this woman:
a) "those folks" keep THEMSELVES "safe", lady. They are highly trained, highly armed, and highly organized. The idea that Barack Obama -who has never put on a uniform or seen combat- is the one keeping them "safe" as if they have nothing to do with it themselves would be laughable if the paternalistic implications of it were not so disturbing.
b) One sure way for Obama to ensure the safety of our military personnel -no matter what pictures those scary Muslims see- would be to BRING THEM HOME! Not just by withdrawal/turning over to the locals/UN in Iraq and Afghanistan, but by beginning the process of dismantling the entire Empire. And don't fool yourselves, the President can accomplish much of both of these things without anyone else's assistance.
Then there's the meat of this evil sandwich. The condescension of "know(ing)" how "hard" it is for some of us to just shut off our hearts and minds, cease to be Citizens and become the "trust(ing)" sheeple SUBJECTS that the Corporatist-Imperialists (and/or Imperialist-Corporatists) and -apparently- Obama would like us to be, is as obvious as it is disgusting. The dismissal of the possibility that any person might actually adhere to a moral value system or set of principles in the face of "practicality" (that involves letting the powerful and Anti-Democratic do whatever they want to you no matter the cost) that is contained in the label "pure" will be just as obvious and disgusting to those familiar with the Nets Left. We get that all the time here on CD don't we?
My last thought is how interesting it is to me that ALL of the tricksy bits that lie within the two quotes I have highlighted are the same as, or similar to, the "arguments" that many Obama critics on the Left have thrown at them by the alledgedly independent and individual Obama apologists on this site and many others.
To borrow and modify the smear-tactic-for-cowards used by Mr. Thurston above: If we heard a politician on the Right spouting the same pithy junk at an event that we saw "Citizens" on the Right spouting on the Nets, what would we conclude about those "Citizens" and their independence from that politician?
This whole thing is a new low for the Obama Admin. if you ask me.
Oh well,
-matti.
matti
"In 1. we have the President's allies using the example of recent Repub protesters activity at health care (now insurance) reform "town halls" to stifle legitimate frustrated dissent by the President's own supporters.
Interesting isn't it it? I mean the implication that if you have any anger at the significant betrayal of -admittedly vague- campaign promises that Obama's first 8 months in Office represents -and have the audacity to show it loudly while one of your "betters" is speaking- you are immediately lumped in with the least rational and least repectful (sic) of those on the "right". What can possibly be the good purpose of this attempt to stifle dissent through shame and slander?!?"
You make the same argument that Baratunde Thurston made, only pointed in another direction. Anger at a politician's actions in contrast to their responsibility to represent their constituents is always legitimate, whether the constituent voted for them or not. Rationality and respect, and irrationality and disrespect, are not isolated to those who hate or love the same people you do.
The ONLY rational way to deal with this administration is with anger and disrespect. They use civilized behavior as a shield for their prevarications. If you think that dialogue is useful at this stage, you are being gamed or are trying to game us. Which is it?
EXACTLY!!
Loud, angry invective, disruption, and disrespect is the only way to deal with any politician or policy-maker (unless they agree with you). There is no legitimate reason to ever squelch speech because of its fury, no matter which side it comes from.
Perhaps you've forgotten, waltdimm, that "civilized behavior" will only get you so far in certain circles. It gets returned with equally milquetoast responses, condescended, or ignored.
We've tried the limp-wristed, wet dishrag approach for quite some time and found it lacking. What this gov't needs is a goddamned good scare from the people, and a hard boot out the door.
Seditious, re-read my post please. I haven't forgotten anything...I made the same point you did. Why the reflexive opposition?
I agree. Why on earth shouldn't we shout and make angry noise like the
"Teabaggers"? It is working very well for them in case we haven't noticed. Obama has backed down sheepishly from their energy.
Barack is wearing a hansome Turncoat these days.
Valerie Jarret is smart, articulate and a pleasent eyeful too! However, at the end of the day she is just another mouthpiece for hire who is told exactly what she is suppossed to "know" so that when the White House pulls the rug out from under her she has "plausible deniability" (in other words "how could anyone have known what was ablout to transpire?")
Just in case you are encouraged by her answer about the public healthcare option, see the article elsewhere that details the detailed denials by other White House flacks on all the Sunday talk shows-exactly one day after Valerie's appearence in Pittsburgh.
Valerie is probably as much a victim as the growing number of disillusioned voters who supported the beige Bush now in the White House--at least she is making some good cash for her disillusionment.
Poet
Anybody know anything about VotingBloc.org?Trying to get a clue.Tony
"she insisted that it was and remains a philosophical commitment for the president"
What exactly is a "philosophical commitment?" Is that something you think would be nice, but you have no intention of pursuing?
Kind of like Peace is a "philosophical" goal, along with others like Equiality of Opportunity and other BS.