Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
GOP Mocks Public Service
For the first time in American history, a major political party devoted a substantial portion of its national convention to attacking grassroots organizing.
Speaking Wednesday at the Republican National Convention, former New York Governor George Pataki sneered, "[Barack Obama] was a community organizer. What in God's name is a community organizer? I don't even know if that's a job."
Then former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered his own snickering hit job. "He worked as a community organizer. What? Maybe this is the first problem on the résumé," mocked Giuliani." Then he said, "This is not a personal attack. It's a statement of fact. Barack Obama has never led anything. Nothing. Nada."
A few minutes later, in her acceptance speech for the GOP vice presidential nomination, Sarah Palin declared, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."
The party of Ronald Reagan was touting government experience over civic engagement.
At a convention whose theme was "service," GOP leaders ridiculed organizing, a vital kind of public service that involves leadership, tough decisions, and taking responsibility for the well-being of people often ignored by government.
But the controversy surrounding these snide remarks may have backfired. Within hours, Obama sent an e-mail to his supporters, challenging the Republicans who "mocked, dismissed, and actually laughed out loud at Americans who engage in community service and organizing" and soliciting funds for his campaign. His campaign manager David Plouffe sent another fundraising e-mail, saying, "Let's clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies."
Palin, Giuliani and Pataki denigrated not only the tens of thousands of community organizers who help everyday citizens to participate in shaping their society and the millions of Americans who volunteer as community activists but also a long American tradition of collective self-help that goes back to the Boston Tea Party.
Visiting the United States in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed in his Democracy in America, how impressed he was by the outpouring of local voluntary organizations that brought Americans together to solve problems, provide a sense of community and public purpose and tame the hyper-individualism that Tocqueville considered a threat to democracy. In the same speech in which Palin ridiculed Obama's organizing work, she touted her own experiences as a PTA volunteer and "hockey mom"--the very kinds of activities that Tocqueville praised and that community organizers support.
The Republicans' nasty attacks on grassroots organizing reflect another longstanding tradition in American politics--the conservative elite's fear of "the people." Some of the founding fathers worried that ordinary people--people without property, indentured servants, slaves, women and others--might challenge the economic and political status quo. In The Federalist Papers and other documents, they debated how to restrain the masses from gaining too much influence. To maintain their privilege, the elite denied them the vote, limited their ability to protest, censored their publications, threw them in jail and ridiculed their ideas to expand democracy.
But grassroots activists wouldn't give up. Every fight for social reform since colonial times--including battles to abolish slavery, promote workers' rights, fix up slum housing, strengthen civil rights, clean up the environment, expand women's rights and protect consumers--has reflected elements of that self-help tradition.
Modern community organizing, an important strand of grassroots activism, began with Jane Addams, who founded Hull House in Chicago in the late 1800s and inspired the settlement house movement. These activists--upper-class philanthropists, middle-class reformers and working-class radicals--organized immigrants to clean up sweatshops and tenement slums, improve sanitation and public health and battle against child labor and crime.
In the 1930s, another Chicagoan, Saul Alinsky, sought to organize residents the way unions organized workers. Drawing on existing groups--particularly churches, block clubs, sports leagues, and unions--he formed the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council to get the city to improve services to a working-class neighborhood adjacent to meatpacking factories.
A half-century later, in 1985, 23-year-old Barack Obama moved to Chicago to work for the Developing Communities Project, a coalition of churches on the city's South Side. His job was to help empower residents to win improved playgrounds, after-school programs, job training, housing, and other concerns affecting a neighborhood hurt by large-scale layoffs from the nearby steel mills and neglect by banks, retail stores and the local government. He knocked on doors and talked to people in their kitchens, living rooms and churches about the problems they faced and why they needed to get involved to improve their communities.
Obama often refers to the valuable lessons he learned working "in the streets" of Chicago. "I've won some good fights and I've also lost some fights," he said in a speech during the primary season, "because good intentions are not enough, when not fortified with political will and political power."
There are at least 20,000 paid organizers in the United States, according to Walter Davis, executive director of the National Organizers Alliance. They work for community groups, environmental organizations, unions, women's and civil rights groups, tenants organizations, churches and school reform efforts--touching the lives of millions of Americans every day. They work long hours, usually for low pay. Organizers identify people with leadership potential, recruit and train them and help them build grassroots organizations that can win victories that improve their communities and workplaces.
They force cities to put up stop signs at dangerous intersections, organize crime-watch groups and make sure their churches or synagogues shelter the homeless. They force slumlords to fix up their properties, challenge banks to end mortgage discrimination and predatory lending, improve conditions in local parks and playgrounds, increase funding for public schools, clean up toxic sites, stop police harassment and open community health clinics. They even help parents organize hockey and soccer leagues and get local governments to let them use municipal fields and rinks.
As mayor of New York, Giuliani had many confrontations with community organizations. One was East Brooklyn Congregations (EBC), an affiliate of the Industrial Areas Foundation network of community groups. In the 1990s, EBC, comprised primarily of religious congregations and their working-class members, pressured Giuliani to provide city-owned land so the group could expand its nonprofit Nehemiah housing development of affordable single-family homes.
Giuliani agreed to provide a large swath of vacant public land in a neglected part of Brooklyn. At the groundbreaking ceremony for the Nehemiah homes (depicted in the documentary film The Democratic Promise) Giuliani, surrounded by hundreds of EBC activists, lavished praise on the group. "Most of the political establishment in this city opposed them [and] tried to undercut them," he said. Then he lauded EBC because "they do not pay homage to political figures.... They require you to answer their questions. They remind you that you are a public servant."
Giuliani has since forgotten those words of praise, but he was correct. Community organizers make democracy work by mobilizing people to inject long-ignored issues onto the public agenda and hold politicians accountable. They help give people the confidence they need to use the tools of democracy. In a society where wealth and income is concentrated in a few hands, grassroots organizations make it possible for ordinary Americans to find their civic voice and exercise influence in politics.
Our democracy works best when people come together to solve problems, not simply by voting every few years but also by participating in a wide array of voluntary organizations--the "civil society" that serves as a mediator between the power of business and money and the authority of government. Politicians need to listen to people's problems, help them forge solutions, and give voice to their hopes, rather than stoke people's fears and prejudices.
At critical moments, Presidents have embraced activist movements and helped propel them forward.
To win the right to vote, the suffragists combined decades of dramatic protest marches and hunger strikes with lobbying and appeals to the consciences of legislators--some of them the husbands and fathers of the protestors. Woodrow Wilson, no friend of feminism, reluctantly changed his position and supported women's suffrage.
During the Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized that his ability to push New Deal legislation through Congress depended on pressure generated by organizers. He once told a group of activists who sought his support for legislation, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."
Lyndon B. Johnson, initially unsympathetic to the civil rights movement, later recognized that the nation's mood was changing because of the willingness of activists to put their bodies on the line against fists and fire hoses, along with their efforts to register voters against overwhelming opposition. That activism transformed Johnson from a reluctant advocate to a powerful ally.
To win significant reforms, organizers and politicians need each other. Voter drives, boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience and mass marches help inject new issues on the agenda, dramatize grievances, generate media attention and get people thinking about things they hadn't thought about before.
Today, we need grassroots organizing more than ever.
"The last thing we need is for Republican officials to mock us on television when we're trying to rebuild the neighborhoods they have destroyed," said John Raskin, a community organizer in New York. "Maybe if everyone had more houses than they can count, we wouldn't need community organizers. But I work with people who are getting evicted from their only home. If John McCain and the Republicans understood that, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to make fun of community organizers like me."
Now comes Obama, a one-time community organizer, who consistently reminds Americans of the importance of community activism. If he's elected President, he will have to find a balance between working inside the Beltway and encouraging Americans to organize and mobilize. He understands that his ability to reform healthcare, tackle global warming and restore job security and decent wages will depend, in large measure, on whether he can use his bully pulpit to mobilize public opinion and encourage Americans to battle powerful corporate interests and members of Congress who resist change.
Republicans thought they were being smart mocking community organizing. But what they didn't understand is that their smug comments weren't simply an attack on Barack Obama but on the entire grassroots chain of change that has, for over 200 years, made America a more democratic and humane country.
- Posted in





146 Comments so far
Show AllRemember though how the word "liberal" became a negative. Perhaps they think to do the same with "community organizer." To make it sound communist or something.
I canvassed for the first time yesterday for a professor at my university running for statehouse. Aside from the heat (Florida), walking for an hour and a half, and getting heat exhaustion (I am very heavy), it was a fun experience. I'd like to see those morons at the RNC try some physical activity for something they actually believe in. Maybe they could work an oil rig?
Exactly! Thank you Peter!
How about the "liberal media" giving the GOP/RNC a free pass for mocking community organizers over and over again only minutes after Palin brought down the house by invoking the power of the PTA she road in on...?
Should community organizers from coast to coast feel belittled by the GOP's ELITIST comments or is it only okay to call out the uppity blacks for such language?
Fine and good. But let's be very clear here: every time the "democratic" party has hired political hit people to drive third parties off of the ballot, every time it has engaged in political smears of Ralph Nader, whom the "democratic" party continues to blame for its own shortcomings and unwillingness to investigate the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida and Tennessee in the year 2000, the "democratic" party has contributed to the political atmosphere that was seen at the "republican" party convention the other night. Every time any person here implies that a third party effort, an effort which seeks more direct and independent representation of a constituency ignored by both parties, any time it is implied that that is a waste of time or a waste of a ballot, the sort of mentality which this editorial decries is fed by the so-called "democrats" among us.
Both parties, in the last ten years, have actively bullied and denigrated any organizing effort which does not serve their interests. Until that problem is spoken to with some integrity, I and many others do not want to hear about what one side of the aisle is doing.
You guys just don't get it, do you! All this crap about comparing Dems and Repugs is like comparing apples to oranges. I don't care how few Dems, like Pelosi, or Feinstein, are on the take. The Repugs do not have ANYONE like Sheila Jackson, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Paul Wexler, Ron Feingold, Barbara Boxer, and many, many others who aren't on the take, who are progressive Democrats, and aren't in any way, shape , or form anywhere near the capitalist goons you've tried to make out Democrats to be as a whole. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who votes for Nader or McKinney is handing the election over to two right-wing kooks, two fascists if you will, who have no business being anywhere near the White House. So, are you going to say that Obama is a right-wing kook too? Last time I checked, Obama still believes in a woman's right to choose, accepts the theory of evolution, champions a new "green " industry, and favors stem-cell research. Those facts about Obama, compared to what McCain and Palin believe in and want for this country, should be enough to wake you up, but I realize I might be sending this email off to a 5th columnist Rovian!
As I recall Obama was fairly dismissive of Nader and his constituency. How easily he could have embraced some of those concerns - accountability for crime and malfeasance in government, single payer health coverage, corporate transparency, the war. Instead he trotted out the standard invective about Nader's ego, a cheap ad hominum effort to discredit his character. If Obama would speak for me (as Nader does) I would vote for him.
I watched the Nader speech (instead of McCain's) the other night. Small auditorium, cheap banners, terrible technical problems with the audio. He was old, a little dotty, a little hysterical. He hasn't got a chance of winning, and if he did win he wouldn't be a very effective president. But I'm going to vote for him. He speaks the real issues out loud, and he describes the kind of world I want to live in. I will never again vote for something in which I do not believe. I will never again vote for the lesser of evils. I've heard those arguments over and over - handing the election to the bad guys - and always nothing changes. This country is going to have to redeem itself without my help. For Obama to win would be a hopeful sign, considering the alternative. But when I opted out of the Democratic party in 2004 I opted out of Democratic groupthink. If they want my vote they will have to start making sense to me.
I can't vote for Nader, but I haven't decided who to vote for yet. But you hit the nail on the head with..."If they want my vote they will have to start making sense to me."
Why can't you vote for Nader? What state are you in that he's not on your ballot? I'm in South Carolina and he and Mckinney are on.
If I were to follow your logic then I would vote for my own mother in November. She doesn't stand a chance in getting elected but she supports all of the things I do.
On the other hand, I might be accused of throwing away my vote.
You guys just don't get it ... do you? Your vision of leadership is NOT enough! That you have "settled" and desperately NEED to justify your inability to champion real change is patently obvious. So be it. For you to denegrate those of us who will not accept "more of the same" as a solution to the ills of this country, merely demonstrates how much you have become "embedded". That you don't recognize who you sleep with is tragic.
"As far as I'm concerned, anyone who votes for Nader or McKinney is handing the election over to two right-wing kooks,"
No your wrong. Anyone who doesn't vote for Nader or McKinney is handing the election over to one of the two corporately bought and paid for right wing parties running this country.
It takes a lot more than believing in the woman's right to choose, accepting the theory of evolution, championing a new "green" industry, and favoring stem-cell research to be called a progressive Democrat. On other equally important issues Obama and McCain aren't that far apart.
Rickster
republicans are openly the party of the rich, yet they have adopted a few issues which the everyday citizen can "cling" to like guns, religion, terrorism, etc. It seems alot of america will vote against their own interests as long as these issues are a priority.
democrats also serve the rich, but you rightly point out are not obvious capitalist goons, or more importantly do not have that reputation. It seems that the right to choose, evolution, better-than-republican, etc. are also issues that many cling to, rather than see the big picture of the democratic party.
"The Republicans do not have ANYONE like Sheila Jackson, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Paul Wexler, Ron Feingold, Barbara Boxer"
Thank goodness for that! What a group of loons.
Someone on CD calling Kucinich a loon? Who the hell are you? A Republican?
No you don't get it ldnearthesea. Dems have sold us out. What have they done for you the last 2,4 or even 8 yrs? This is what Democrats have done:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Grant Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________.
You must be self deluded and a lesser-evilist and okay with all this.
A vote for the Dems is a vote for the status-quo. The DPA argument "What About Kucinich?" is a dog that doesn't hunt and a red herring because Kucinich doesn't affect policy nor does he make important decisions. The sold out Democratic "leaders" like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do. If the majority of Dems weren't sold out Republicans in drag why did they choose her and not Dennis to be their leader? The answer is more than obvious.
The Democratic ranks are full of pseudo-Republicans like the Blue Dogs. My representative (laura Richardson) is in the "progressive" caucus but she like Obama voted to fund the illegal/immoral war/occupation and for FISA. She is no progressive at all except in title. Every single thing the Republicans have done that Democrats decry they have either helped them do it or done nothing to stop them.
The Democratic ranks are full of pseudo-Republicans like the Blue Dogs. My representative is in the "progressive" caucus and she, like Obama, voted to fund the illegal/immoral war/occupation and for FISA. She like a lot of "progressives" are progressive in name only.
Every single thing the Republicans have done that Democrats decry they have either helped them do it or done nothing to stop them. Democrats love to cry wolf but ignore their complicity. If we had a real opposition party Bush would be in jail.
When an apple gets rotten the smartest thing to do is throw it out not waste your time trying to find some tiny part that isn't rotten and use that as justification to eat it. It's not apples and oranges, it's rotten apples and even more rotten apples.
Vote for the Greens, Nader or any 3rd party that is antiwar and against corporate and government corruption!
No, I get it all to well! Too many thrown away votes give McInsane and Caribou Barbie the White House! Bush doesn't even have to invoke Executive Order 51!
Cheney gets four more years to pull the strings behind these two puppets.
Fer criisakes, I listed a good number of Democrats in the House and senate that would love to have impeachment, for all those I listed in that other post want impeachment. Here, I'll name a few more; Ron Waxman, Sam Farr, Mike Honda, Pete Stark, Robert Byrd, Jim Webb. Yeah, there are some so-called Repugs wearing donkey jackets, like Pelosi and Reid and Feinstein. i'm not about to let a replay of 2000 happen again, with the election so close. Those Nader voters in Florida would have given the election to Gore had they voted for him instead.
I do not trust anyone coming on this website stating that they want to vote for Nader or McKinney. I do not know how many Repugs changed their registration where they could (and switch back for November) to have followed Limbaugh's call to vote for Clinton in primaries against Obama, but I do not put it over Karl Rove to "plant" McKinney and Nader "voters" on this site to try to sway people from voting for Obama. By the way, I voted for Kucinich here in California, knowing full well that I would support the Democrat when the national election would come around. I've been a Democrat since I was 22 years old, and I'm 54 now, and have seen the Repugs turn into a nasty vile organization, going back to the time of Nixon, and before that Joseph McCarthy. The Democratic Party might not be perfect, nothing is, but we do not have a parliamentary system, or enough states with runoff elections, to make a third party viable. That's a fact, and face it, and enough with this nonsense of giving it all away to a party that is 99% fascist, versus a party with a handful (and unfortunately its in the leadership) of corporate fascists!
There were more Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida than there were people who voted for Nader. Gore still won Florida. The election was stolen by the Republicans,using the Supreme Court, and anyone who blames Nader for Bush is showing their ignorance and their inability to remember facts when being bombarded with propaganda.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
Ask yourself why the Democrats spent more time attacking Nader for the stolen election of 2000 then they did attacking Bush and the Supreme Court. Ask yourself why you fell for it.
Ask yourself why the Democrats spent so much time, money and effort trying to keep Nader off ballots in 2004 then they did attacking Bush. Ask yourself why Kerry gave up the day after the election, before the votes were even counted, with widespread reports of election fraud. Ask yourself why the Greens and the Libertarians paid for the recount in Ohio, (seriously flawed) instead of the Democrats, still flush with cash. Ask yourself why Democrats ignore the mounting evidence that the 2004 election was stolen as well. Can you say exit polls?
If you insist on voting Democrat, although you have been betrayed for 32 years, that's your business. Some of us learn from our mistakes. To insult us by calling us Republicans just shows that you have problems with critical thought. But I knew that when you insisted that Nader cost Gore the election.
Ask yourself this wagelaborer: Why were the people who signed for Nader to be included on the Arizona ballot in 2004 mostly registered Republicans? Why did the Nader campaign repeatedly seek out contracts with the Republican consulting firm, Arno Political only to be refused each time? Hell even their attorney was a Republican with very close GOP ties.
I was there at the time and this is one of the reasons I have very little respect for Ralph.
Some of Nader's staunchest defenders have been and currently are Republicans. Ask yourself why. Because they know that Nader and McKinney are a very good wedge in the Left. As for Libertarians, I have yet to meet one that would vote for a candidate on the left. Why? Fact is that most Libertarias are closet Republicans.
Yes wagelaborer ask yourself why because somebody needs to put down the kool-aid and ask the tough questions about Nader.
Libertarians aren't closet Republicans, they are uber-Republicans. Their basic belief is "I got mine, screw you."
Of course Nader isn't going to take votes from Repugs, but the fact is the Nader speaks the truth about the current rotten and corrupt system that the Dems are a part of. The fact that Pugs want Nader to run doesn't mean Dems are worth a bucket of warm spit!
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Webber. As Guiliani said, the community organizers "... remind you that you are a public servant."
The GOP don't look at themselves any longer as a public servant, but rather the ones in charge, and they're gonna make damned sure we all understand that. They'll no doubt figure out something to make any kind of community organizing a crime, just as they're now doing with protests.
Again, critism of the Democratic party elicits snarky insults and threats.
You have proved FiddlerJones's point, by the way. Well done.
Meanwhile, here in southernest California, Republicans met to watch McCain's acceptance speech, thanks to Bush loyalist Darrell Issa.
Where?
At a country club, of course. 'Nuff said.
Grillo
Yeah, Darrel Issa, the exact opposite of: Lee, Jackson, Kucinich, Farr, Stark, Feingold, Boxer, etc. etc. The Repugs have NO ONE LIKE THEM in their party. I GET THAT, but there's some on this site who don't, and want to pain the Dems as just as eveil as the Repugs. I'm a lifelong Dem, and I'm not gong to take that crap, and I will respond! so Fiddler Jones, I'm not baking off one bit! Some on this site are either 1. stupid 2. quislings working for Rove and the repugs (it's the devide and conquer thing!), or 3. extreme left-wing kooks who didn't pay attention when they took civics in the 12th grade, and don't know the difference between a parliamentary system, where third and fourth parties can exist, and what (unfortunately) our Founding Fathers set up, making it difficult for third parties to survive with a winner-take-all set up, and an electoral college system that doesn't allow for one person-one vote for the presidency!
Want change? Get in touch with the progressive Dems and have them kick Rham Emmanuel, Steny Hoyer, and Nancy Pelosi out of the party. Maybe they can form, with Lieberman, a Middle of the Road Bullshit Party!
The Founding Fathers did not set up a 2 party system. Read the Constitution.
OF COURSE! Nothing is so PROFITABLE as running an Administration- calling it a Government to keep up apperances, and really running a kleptocracy whereby parts of the REAL Governementt are systematically downgraded/debased/outsourced/privatized and so- regardless of Societal consequences- TO MAKE MONEY for the utter trash that passes for too much of the uber-rich and related Janissaries from other classess...only a grass-roots educational effort to produce a visceral understanding of the true/effective benefit of Government (ie common thoughts and ACTIONS for the demonstrable common good) will allow us to transcend the theocratic/Neo-CON/greedy culture foisted on us while we sleep- so many good men/women/children/religious leaders and so on are NOT standing UP- we are all being pushed down...I cannot believe a turnaround will not be coming soon...we will be effectively dead if it does not!
You describe your desire for real change, but you stump for more of the same... don't you recognize the futile feedback loop for which you've opted?
Successful class warfare first requires destroying sense of community. In like manner, both Democrats and Republicans work together to destroy any sense of political community outside their "domain". That reality should lead you to question why you have bought into your particular brand of defeatism. The fact that it doesn't register... is crystal to many of us who reject your "solution".
If JFK were a Republican at the convention in 2008, he might deliver a speech that said something to the effect of:
"Ask not what you can do for country. Ask what your country can do for us - I mean you."
Actually, comparing the Dems and Reps is akin to comparing Granny Smiths to Golden Deliciouses ...or maybe like comparing Valencias to Navels. If ldnearthesea thinks Dennis Kucinich is illustrative of the Democratic Party...there's somebody else who "doesn't get it". You can't use anomalic members of the party to characterize the institution. We'd all be better served if true progressives forswore any further association with the duoply. The Dems are the problem as much as the Reps...perhaps worse, as the last eight years has shown us the degree to which the Dems help to abet Reps' crimes and then to insulate them from any accoutability.
Idnearthesea never said that Kucinich is "illustrative" (buy yourself a thesaurus) of the Democratic party.
The Democrats could run a ticket of Satan and Hitler and still not be as bad as the republicans.
q
You got that right. Unfortunately, I suspect there's a number of quislings on this site trying to convince sane people not to vote for Obama, comparing him with one of the worst Senators ever, who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk (ever heard of the Keating 5 Scandal?) Last time I checked Obama voted for the New GI Bill of Rights, McInsane, the supporter of the troops, voted NO. Reason enough to vote for Obama over McBush, McwannabeKinney, and past-it Nader any day!
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/barack.obama.altgeld.2.335433.html
Obama's Community Service Called Under Question
Altgeld Gardens Resident Who Worked With Senator In 1980s Says He Is Exaggerating His Role
CHICAGO (CBS) ― Some say Illinois Senator Barack Obama gave himself a little too much credit for his work as a community organizer. Obama's past work in the troubled Altgeld Gardens housing project is a staple of his presidential stump speeches, and a significant part of his first book.
As CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, at least one resident who worked with Obama back then is unhappy with the senator's recollection.
Hazel Johnson and her daughter Cheryl are disputing some parts of the version of events Obama tells. They do not, however, dispute that he worked hard at Altgeld Gardens and say they are supporting his presidential campaign.
"I like Obama. And I think he's a young, bright and intelligent man, and I wish him all the luck in his endeavors," Johnson said.
But, Johnson says in his book, "Dreams from My Father," and in campaign stump speeches, Obama gets some things wrong about the months he spent working in Altgeld Gardens in the 1980s.
She and her daughter Cheryl produced a document, for example, showing Obama's 1987 salary as an organizer in the development to be $25,000 – not the $13,000 he often talks about.
There is a very simple explanation for that, Obama's aides say. He did indeed make $25, 000 in 1987, but he was initially hired in 1985 at a salary of $13,000.
And, they claim, Obama didn't work cleaning up asbestos at Altgeld, but fiber glass, another environmental hazard.
They also dispute his version of an incident in which Obama claimed Altgeld Gardens residents beat on the car of a government official they were unhappy with.
"I think he portrayed us as barbaric that we ran behind CHA officials beating on the car, and that didn't take place, because I was in that particular meeting" Cheryl Johnson said.
Still, a former Jesuit priest who hired Obama to work on the South Side said he has carefully read the senator's book, and believes Obama's account.
"I discussed every item of this," said Greg Golluzzo of the Gamaliel Foundation. "Barack was working his tail off. Barack was in the community. There's many young men who go to colleges who wouldn't even have the guts to walk around Altgeld Gardens. Barack was there, in the community, talking to the people, sensing their passion, their anger and he wanted to create an opportunity for them to express that anger and resolve the problem."
Johnson says that since all of this has come up, she thinks Obama should go talk to her.
One of the things that affected residents at Altgeld was Obama returned to the development with a "60 Minutes" crew -- we will see if he wants to come back and meet with them.
What a load of BS! This station digs up one person with a grudge against Obama and tries to make a case against him.
q
Don't worry. atheist is just a disgruntled Hillary voter who is just showing her anger on Obama instead of thinking outside the box. It's a pity her kids and grandkids won't look kindly to her when they realize what a sexist she showed herself to be at a time this country had a chance to turn around for the better and undo the damage. Hillary and Obama are no different from McSame.
P.S.: Don't get me wrong on atheist. If Obama had been a populist from campaigning to legislating and had stood up to the "conservative" agenda instead of caving in more often than not, atheist wouldn't be forced to show her anger against Obama. When Democrats let the culture wars dominate, they lose before the battle has even been started. As for me, I've given up both parties and am going 3rd out of protest. Better to vote for what's closer to what you believe in, win or lose. Sorry.
My sister and I grew up in the same house but have some really different memories of what went on. Memory is funny and plays tricks. The basic fact remains that he started out his public role as a hard working community organizer. If one wants to criticize Obama, no need to go back to that time. Talk about now.
Joe
Obama may have been a hard-working, genuine, community organizer with his heart in the right place. But that was then and this is now. He now represents one of the two parties of Big Business, Big Oil and the MIC. The party of Joe Lieberman and Nancy Pelosi. The party that funds the war the Republicans started, with no end in sight.
He is a thoroughly conventional, status quo, pro imperialism and pro militarist candidate. He has changed his positions and has veered to the right and even embraced McCain's surge.
The US is an empire and Obama is running for emperor. His job is to rescue and strengthen the military in order to be able to expand the use of militarism elsewhere. Obama has saber rattled Iran, Pakistan and even Russia.
A vote for Obama is not a vote against war. Neither mainstream political party allows for the expression of antiwar sentiment. The DNC featured plenty of pro-war sentiment.
Whatever Obama was it's clear what he is now, just another typical politician playing homage to AIPAC and the powers that be in the hopes he can be the next Commander in Chief.
Obama: “And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?”
Well? What do you expect? McSame and Obama are both liars in reporting their biographies and service.
Why aren't you discussing the wonderful historical services of progressive/liberal independent/moderate candidates for president? Oh, I forgot. You're still crying over Hillary's loss and are way too obsessed with hating Obama. Look, I applaud you for pointing out Obama's failures but what about giving Nader and Mckinney their honorable services in trying to help get this nation in better shape?
Don't complain or cry when Mccain/Palin SMASH what's left of you.
RE: Some of the founding fathers worried that ordinary people--people without property, indentured servants, slaves, women and others--might challenge the economic and political status quo.
You think!
Doesn't Harper sound a lot like John McCain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5UDpj4ptEo
RE: Remember though how the word "liberal" became a negative. Perhaps they think to do the same with "community organizer." To make it sound communist or something.
Worse than that even - that, at best, it is a make work project for those who can't get real jobs and, at worse, a job where one undermines the wellbeing of the community by encouraging people to feel sorry for themselves rather than pull themselves up by their bootstraps and either join the Military or get a McJob.
I don't mind if the word "Liberal" is negative. While Tories/Repugs are foxes in the hen house, Liberals are foxes on a diet.
Naoimi Klein is right - we do need to pressure Obama to not be so - er - Liberal - and to embrace more fully Social Democratic principles.
I believe the Republicans justly mocked obama not public service in general.
I believe you are either joking or just throwing chum into the water to try and attract the attention of the sharks.
Republicans only believe in two things: money and power. Anything else like public service or (shudder!) teaching is just for unambitious losers.
"Republicans only believe in two things: money and power."
And you think "progressives" are any different? Have you ever noticed how Bono from U2 always asks us to donate money for his causes but he still lives a life of absolute luxury with his money?
Have you ever noticed the "generous" Oprah Winfrey always seems to give things away that are donated by someone else for promotional purposes? She's a stinkin' billionaire so how come she doesn't give away any of her money?
She put a million or more of her own money into building homes in New Orleans, then asked for matching donations, and solicited stores to donate furnishings and materials. That's a heck of a lot more than I did. How about you? No, we aren't billionaires, but she's earned her money. Why should she have to give it away? I have very little, but I know there are a lot of people with much less than I. Does that mean I should have to give what I have to them?
So one can gather from your response that the famous rich should just bank their earnings and shut up. That is sure what the Repugs want. Bono & Oprah Winfrey use the bully pulpit their celebrity provides and they do so in a way that annoys the Repugs. They also earned their money in a much more honest way, via their talent, than the vast majority of Repugs, who use good old boy networks, corporate tax breaks, rigged government contracts, and gaming the system to earn their money. Considering the attention that comes from wealthy celebrities leading charitable efforts, the embarrassing questions that would follow, such as "How did they get rich in the first place?" Instead, they hide or hire others to ask the question you posed to divert attention.
btw: Bono & Oprah Winfrey are quite well known as philanthropists. Next time, reference celebrities who do not donate to charity all that much. I don't suspect you would, most of them are Repugs.
real world: so do you expect people with money who happen to be progessive all have to live like poor people and not spend some of their wealth? So it's only okay to live the lifestyle of a wealthy person if you have an R (for Repugnantcan) behind your name? So, when Edwards got the expensive haircut, shame, shame, shame; but when Cindy McCain wears a $300,000.00 dress to the convention, it's okay, because she has that R behind her name! HYPOCRISY, BULLSHIT, AND NONSENSE!
The disingenuous statements made by people on the Right never fail to amaze me.
Let's just take Limbaugh. A few months back he bashed Britney's Spear's mother for "allowing" the sixteen year old sister to get pregnant. She hadn't been watching her kid, claimed Limbaugh. Palin's kid get knocked up, but she has an R after her name, so it's okay. When a Right wing extremist like T. Boone Pickens, a Swift-Boat funder, talks up wind and solar energy, it all makes perfect sense. When a Progressive, or Democrat like Obama starts talking up green energy and a new green industry, it's called pie-in-the-sky, and the Right counters with its mantra: drill baby drill!
I'm sick and tired of the kind of crap I read and hear coming from the Fascist Right Wing Repugnantcans!
Actually you know that when right-wing money man Pickens starts talking up wind & solar energy it's a sign that even the Republifascists know the proverbial shit is about to hit the fan.
These contemptable discipes of Ayn Rand are as blind as they are calloused. The very idea of anyone sacrificing to care about or help someone else in more desperate need than themselves they despise. The goody-two-shoes of the Christofascists spit in the face of their own Savior who declared:
"And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." (Lu 12:15)
"Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave--just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:26-28)
Apologies are tendered to the "I hate God" or "I don't believe in God" crowd--my purpose was to expose the hypocrisy of the likes of James Dobson, John Hagee, and Mike Huckabee rather than to proselyte atheists, agnostics, or skeptics.
Poet
The Repugs showed their true colors when they bashed Obama's root as a community organizer. They prefer the plebs be docile and / or disenfranchised. Community organizers come in to help clean up the wreckage the Repugs corporate friends wrought, as Obama did with the Chicago neighborhood with the shuttered steel mill that began his career. If any working or middle class American still buys the Repug Kool Aid, and then wonders why there are still paupers, they only need look in the mirror, as they are the cause of their misery. After all, the Repugs still needs their votes.
Proven again - All Republicans Are Scum.
as if we really needed further proof.
"real world" writes, "Republicans justly mocked Obama, not public service in general"
Hello -- that is fuzz talk!
Why should his public service be mockable and not that of those not running for a public office?
Indeed, there are several commenters in this thread with similar dyspeptic disorders -- what is this crapola that the the Dems are the same as the other party? Bilmon is a Dem and proud of it, Digby and others -- are they also fascists?
In my paranoia, I suspect a shadow campaign to get progressives to say fuggit and sit on the couch when the (s)election comes.
The thing to remember is that democracy is not just a purple finger or being allowed to put your finger on a touch screen. Democracy is something that grows from the roots of an active community -- and that is why every local community organizer, every church or non-denominational that reaches out to the poor and oppressed should be angry, in fact pissed off at the meme the Repugnant party is trying to inject into the public mind!
_________
There is a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round and a promise in the evening when the sun goes down
"Why should his public service be mockable and not that of those not running for a public office?"
I stand corrected. Obama should be mocked for his lousy voting record as a senator too. How many times did he just vote present instead of yes or no?