Nathan Newman has a great post up that shares many of my frustrations over the Netroots general attitude towards the Labor movement, or working class issues in general.
I'll admit that part of my annoyance at the full court obsession with FISA is that it reflects the broader liberal blog obsessions with goo-goo process issues, as opposed to a populist focus on the core economic and social justice issues that matter in most peoples' lives. Doug Kendall, who I have the most serious respect for, has the best critique I've seen (written with Dahlia Lithwick) of Obama's defensive responses to the guns and death penalty cases at the Supreme Court. However, his point is that Obama should have played offense by highlighting the pro-big business decisions of the Supreme Court this session-- something most of the blogs haven't done either. ... I've had minor and major rants over the years on the netroots ignoring labor issues-- including criticizing the first Yearly Kos for it. Which goes with my critique of the the criticism of Obama. Here Obama spends a few weeks slamming free trade, attacking the bankruptcy bill, calling for massive taxes ont he wealthy to cut taxes for working families-- and the blogs think he's "betraying" liberalism because of FISA. I can almost guarantee that if in a side comment Obama had said something nice about Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, most of the blogs wouldn't have noticed since they wouldn't know what it was. But mention a subdetail of FISA and many folks went to town on what he was missing, just as they'll criticize him for any distinctions he makes on death penalty or gun jurisprudence. Part of economic populism is actually caring enough to know the details of how corporations are screwing workers every day, whether in the intricacies of labor law or the fine print of trade agreements. And the difference between the modern history of elite liberalism and economic populism has been that liberals know chapter-and-verse on the legal details of process rights, but don't pay that much attention to these details of corporate exploitation and power. ... As I've noted, it's fine and right to criticize Obama on FISA, but if you don't even talk about the other workers rights' litmus tests that matter -- or worse yet don't even know what they are -- it's not a balanced critique.
I'll have to check out those supreme court cases, because in the whirlwind of the last weeks I definitely missed out on that. The only point I'd take up with Newman is that I wish I'd seen Obama slamming free trade, the bankruptcy bill and calling for massive tax cuts on the wealthy! I don't know what he's talking about, but I would have flown through the roof if I'd heard those things! While everybody was in a feeding frenzy over FISA, I remember still being in a rage about his economic advisors and his immediate reversal on trade.
But back to the point, the disconnect on labor and working class issues within the netroots drives me nuts, and it's one of the issues I hope to have a better perspective on after attending the Labor caucus at Netroots Nation which will discuss this very divide. Again like Newman said, there's nothing wrong with intense activisim on these issues, but I wonder sometimes why diaries on trade and working class issues slip right down the recent diary list without much notice at all.
In a comment on my previous post, I mentioned that Iraq was the line had to cross for people like me to really start losing their minds.
Like I said before, all of the "moves to the center" were less moves to the center as they were restating policies he had mearly attempted to cover up or hide in the closet during the primary. With the exception of the FISA vote, it was less of a move to the center, and more pulling back a little more of the curtain to where he'd been standing all along. He said so himself last week:
“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he said. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.” To this, he adds, parenthetically: “And I must say some of this is my friends on the left” and those in the media.
However, after a non-controversy controversy where he appeared to be changing his position on a pullout, he has come back swinging - forcefully restating the need for us withdraw. He ends his OP-ED:
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender. It’s not going to work this time.
It’s time to end this war.
Well said. The end is particularly strong. And even though the rest of the op-ed annoys me at times, I'm thrilled that he felt the need to write it. He didn't seem to care too much about the perception that he'd moved to the center on other issues, but the fact that he got that upset enough to write a clarifying op-ed over the perception that he had moved to the center on Iraq is a great sign.
Well done to anyone who catches the reference in the title.
It's been an amazing week over in Paris and Budapest, and there will be a time to when I will write up more about the trip, hopefully with pictures as well. For now, my jet-lagged mind isn't working quite well enough to pull that off, so I'll just go over a few things that caught my attention.
Jesse Helms is dead. This brings up an interesting question: "Is it possible to show respect for the dead when they spent they had spent their entire lives denying respect to the living?"
"Regardless of any executive proclamation, I do not want the flags at the North Carolina Standards Laboratory flown at half staff to honor Jesse Helms any time this week," Eason wrote just after midnight, according to e-mail messages released in response to a public records request.
He told his staff that he did not think it was appropriate to honor Helms because of his "doctrine of negativity, hate, and prejudice" and his opposition to civil rights bills and the federal Martin Luther King Jr. holiday ...
In a string of e-mail messages with his superiors, Eason was told he could either lower the flags or retire effective immediately.
Though he's only 51, Eason chose to retire, although he pleaded several times to be allowed to stay at the lab. Eason, who had worked for the Agriculture Department since graduating from college, was paid $65,235 a year as the laboratory manager.
L.F. Eason III: Fucking hero.
Another quick note on the bigot's death. For all of the mock outrage that happens any time someone accuses republicans of being the party of racism... go back and look at their press releases about Helm's death. And if they read anything like this, then these are probably not some tolerant individuals:
Throughout his long public career, Senator Jesse Helms was a tireless advocate for the people of North Carolina, a stalwart defender of limited government and free enterprise, a fearless defender of a culture of life, and an unwavering champion of those struggling for liberty.
Question: do people intentionally put things like that last sentence in there as an extra turn of the knife, or are they just unspeakably stupid?
Matt Stoller has a smart post up about the importance of people not labeling Obama as a progressive, because... well he isn't one. This has been true this long before the outrage over the FISA bill, but and I think it's important publicly to point that out, because you don't want someone embodying the mantra of a movement without standing for it's values. He also makes a good point that when he inevitably tries crappy centrist policies and they don't deliver results as promised - it's important that the blame lies in the right place so we can move on from there.
So, as liberals who believe in a different vision for America than Obama, it's important that Obama's centrist policy sympathies are blamed for what goes wrong when he takes over and screws up the country worse than it is right now, which we'll notice after our honeymoon of hoorays some time after the transition. We should not want him to make policies in the name of liberalism unless they are actually liberal policies. America tends to get the right answer after trying everything else first, and this period is no different. After trying out a disastrous top-down financialized conservative framework, the DC elites are moving to more centrist top-down period of transition, much as they did after Bush the first. Just as the 2007-2009 Democratic Congress failed utterly in stopping the war in Iraq or setting us on a different energy future, kicking the can to the next President, the next President is going to try to avoid big ideological fights as post-ideological change agent. ...
Once you absorb this state of affairs, it's a fairly optimistic path forward. All of the work going into getting Obama elected is helping to build the progressive movement and teaching millions of people to get involved, give money, run for office, etc. These people have progressive sympathies and are attaching themselves to important political networks. Some of them paid attention to FISA who were not paying attention in 2006, which is good. The network is just bigger and stronger.
...
So work for Obama, help him get elected, but realize that he doesn't and will never share our values. And we shouldn't try to pretend that he is the progressive we wish he were, since he's a politician, and politicians go where power is. And he's decided that power is not with the liberals. That's fine. But it's important, as people who believe that liberal ideas work, that Obama be understood as who he is, not as who we wish he were. I have tried to broadcast this message over the past few days, but first, I'll make a caveat most of us on this site will recognize.
Caveat: We want to make it very clear that criticism or analysis of Obama is not intended as a repudiation of support for Obama. He's a far superior candidate to McCain, a better person, and will be a much better President. Second, we are not really making an argument that Obama's recent moves will hurt him in this election. They may or they may not. It really doesn't matter what any of us think about his campaign, he's chosen his path, perhaps because he did not think there was a viable progressive alternative or perhaps because he's more of a Jimmy Carter good government Democrat than a liberal populist. Regardless, we don't think this is a sudden swing to the center for him, he has always broadcast his politics as centrist and post-partisan in nature. We don't feel betrayed, because we always took him at his word that he saw incivility and not conservatives as our major political problem. ...
We support him, even though we disagree with his political outlook and policy positions.
I'd also like to point to the recent Obama speech where he essentially says that anyone who thought he was different than he is, should have done their homework and listened to what he was saying, which is a fair point for him to make. But rather than quoting the speech, let's have an episode of Train of Thought - Youtube political debate theater.
First we have Obama telling the his supporters that he his who he is. This is portrayed by Marlo Stanfield stating that "My name is my name!" in one of the best scenes from season five of the wire:
As a response to this, we have members of the left who were frustrated throughout the primary procress by those who did all they could to paint Obama as the next Russ Fiengold. These people are portrayed by Former NFL Head coach Dennis Green, who would state that "OBAMA WAS WHO WE THOUGHT HE WAS! AND WE LET HIM OF THE HOOK! (Bangs hand on table, leaves room):
This has been an addition of Train of Thought Youtube political debate Theater. I'm gonna guess this won't be the last time it makes an appearance.
Also some general news about the site. I will be taking another trip next week, but this time the blog will be coming along too, and in a major way. Next Wednesday I'll be heading down to Austin, TX to Netroots Nation on behalf of my employer... but I will be giving the conference full coverage on this site as well. Should be a fantastic time, and I can't wait.
But more blogging on all subjects will have to wait another day, because I'm picking up Train of Thought contributors Jack and Rb and heading up north to the greatest show on earth: D-apolooza 2008! Let the sleep deprivation continue!
I was going to quote a really well written post that Kos did on the subject a few months back, but I can't find it. As usual, Chris Bowers provides a good response to the truly silly "debate" that some people are having on whether or not criticizing obama ok:
I'm not going write anymore about the "to criticize" or "not to criticize" debate that, in certain quarters of the blogosphere, still seems to have some legs. While it is an interesting abstraction, it also ignores two key realities:
Many progressives will continue to criticize Barack Obama in public between now and Election Day.
Barack Obama will receive more grassroots, progressive activist support than any other Democratic candidate in history.
No matter what we say, both the activism and the criticism will flow. Both are unavoidable, necessary and healthy We would be a pretty lame grassroots movement if we managed to quiet criticism, forge consensus or sit on their hands en masse. I would simply suggest that if you are interested in generating activism for Obama, that you should encourage activism rather than criticizing criticism. Because, in the end, telling someone to SYFPH(Shut your fucking pie hole) really isn't a very effective call to action.
You can count on one hand the democrats who you can assume are doing the right thing and kicking ass at all times. Barack Obama isn't one of em', and it's not looking like he's gonna be. But this isn't the end of the world, and it means that you just have to treat him like any other democrat and pressure him to do the right thing. Take the FISA bill for example. If next time he's debating a move to the right and one of his advisers has to say "But we're gonna take a lot of shit from dailykos, you know that place where our money and man power comes from"... that is a success. A really cool development on this front is people creating group on Obama's own website condemning his FISA vote.
Another point that should probably be made: The people who are doing the criticizing are probably likely the most passionate members of the progressive movement. If they weren't, why would they even bother criticizing? So it's not like these people are gonna for vote McCain, Nader (he's running?), or cast ceremonial ballot in support of Bob Barr's mustache.
Criticism is good. Keeping people honest is good. Politicians are vehicles, and are to be treated as such.
"It would be healthy if (the public) heard more about it... even if the resolution is the same," Pelosi said, when asked by reporters whether she thinks Senate Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, should filibuster the legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as it heads to the Senate floor this week.
What a fucking coward, she has the power to stop this bill dead as speaker of the house, refuses to act, but then calls on the senate to fillibuster when it would be extremely difficult to pull off, especially when you consider that she could have killed the bill by simply saying so. Then in an even bigger dick move, she throws Obama under the bus even though he supported the bill! Good luck trying to this one out Barack! I might have an ounce of sympathy for you if you weren't sleeping in the bed you made.
The bulk of the blame here is squarely on Hoyer, Pelosi and Obama. Hoyer, because he did the deal, Pelosi and Obama because they were the only two individuals who could have stopped it. Enjoy the mess you've made, fuckers.
Aside from a few mass email forwards, unofficial Republican attacks on Obama have been surprisingly absent from this year's presidential race. While "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" was unveiled in early May of the 2004 election cycle, and had ads on the air by mid-June, there are apparently no well-funded groups gearing up for 2008. Ready to Attack Obama, if Some Money Arrives, from today's New York Times, summarizes the situation:
No major independent effort to help Senator John McCain’s campaign has materialized. Although Republican operatives say something will eventually develop, alarm has spread among many, especially after Mr. Obama’s announcement on Thursday on public financing, raising the prospect that he will wield an enormous financial advantage over Mr. McCain in the fall.
Many reasons explain the absence of a serious independent effort at this point, Republican strategists said. Many wealthy donors who might be in a position to finance a 527 group, named for the Tax Code section that covers them, or a similar independent effort that is free to accept unlimited contributions are wary this time because of the legal problems that dogged many such groups after the 2004 election.
Major donors are said to be uncertain of Mr. McCain’s chances as Republicans face a decidedly unfavorable climate in the fall. Lingering, as well, is the possibility that they may anger Mr. McCain, who has a record of campaign finance reform and has in the past been critical of such groups.
Politico offers a deeper analysis of why the money hasn't materialized and won't be coming from the same sources as last time. A piece of the apparent poverty stems from preparations set in place during Hillary Clinton's long presumptive nomination, which soaked up both funds and energy in the production of work that cannot easily be used against Obama. Furthermore, it appears that none of the big-name donors who supported "Swift Veterans" are taking a hand in this election. And why should they, considering McCain's open disgust with that side of politics?
But, in explaining the absence of any anti-Obama groups this time around, every individual interviewed for this story cited the same central reason: a fear that their party’s nominee will publicly denounce them and hold a grudge.
“Both donors and operatives know how much [McCain] abhors these groups,” said John Weaver, the Arizona senator’s former chief strategist, referring to the independent groups that have thrived following passage of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. “If he is ultimately successful and any of these groups played a significant effort in electing him, many believe, probably rightfully, that they would be ostracized.”
Another GOP strategist said that McCain’s denunciation of a 501(c)(4) which aired an ad in South Carolina last November touting McCain when his resources were severely limited sent a chilling message to potential independent expenditure groups.
McCain issued a public statement at the time calling on the group, spearheaded by GOP adman Rick Reed, to “cease and desist.”
"Anyone who believes they could assist my campaign by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws is doing me and our country a disservice,” McCain said then.
He used even stronger language after that, saying at a Texas town hall meeting in late February that 527s “are distorting the entire political process and they need to be outlawed.”
However, as both articles note, McCain has been careful not to strongly criticize Obama attack groups for the last few months, saying that he will not play "referee" during the general election. It is also possible that Obama's massive predicted financial advantage will spur republican donations.
Nor is the lack of widespread attacks caused by a lack of trying, but merely a lack of funds. Floyd Brown of ExposeObama.com has put the following two ads online, and pledges more:
The first ad, in particular, would be scary on a national level. In spite of being thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, the rumor that Obama is a "secret Muslim" has endured for months and was cited in post-primary interviews with voters in states that Obama lost. Seeing "evidence" for the rumor on television could cement many voters' mistaken impression that Obama is lying about a Muslim past, and provide a way for certain voters to maintain racist preconceptions in a more socially acceptable, though still disgustingly bigoted, manner.
However, there is reason to think that a campaign based on ads like that won't be as effective as the "Swift Boat" attacks, which called into question a core aspect of Kerry's appeal in a way that was difficult for Kerry to directly address. Obama's charisma, his on- and off-line media advantage, and his willingness to confront racial issues and "smears" openly and directly make him fundamentally less vulnerable to these sort of attacks. In fact, I'm hoping that race will be as much of a shield for Obama as it is an under-the-table liability: many television companies may refuse to run ads with strong racial overtones for fear of legal or financial consequences, and any race-based attack has the potential to backfire tremendously against McCain. If this is the best they've got, they may be in serious trouble even if money does materialize.
Still, mass funding or no, there's going to be some outrageous mudslinging in the next few months, and it won't always be possible to control the damage. The only real solution Obama has is to run so effective a campaign that a few points lost to disinformation won't hurt. And on that front, even without that totally insane 6/18-6/19 Newsweek poll, he's off to a good start.
George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress
CQreports (sub. req.) that "a final deal has been reached" on FISA and telecom amnesty and "the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday." I've now just read a copy of the final "compromise" bill. It's even worse than expected. When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the "Protect America Act," so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all. ... So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words -- the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists -- and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.
That's the "compromise" Steny Hoyer negotiated and which he is now -- according to very credible reports -- pressuring every member of the Democratic caucus to support. It's full-scale, unconditional amnesty with no inquiry into whether anyone broke the law. In the U.S. now, thanks to the Democratic Congress, we'll have a new law based on the premise that the President has the power to order private actors to break the law, and when he issues such an order, the private actors will be protected from liability of any kind on the ground that the Leader told them to do it -- the very theory that the Nuremberg Trial rejected.
Warrentless wiretapping and immunity for the telecom companies that spied on american citizens! That's what we voted for in 2006! Oh wait, there's more!:
So a deal has been reached on no-strings-attached war funding well into the next President's first year, and all the Democrats get out of it is a GI Bill that isn't paid for (they had to drop the tax on millionaires), some appropriations for flooding in the Midwest and Gulf Coast and modified unemployment insurance for an additional 13 weeks. That's not nothing, but given that it's a signing of a death warrant for tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, it's perverse to even talk in terms of what you "get" out of the deal.
Wow, a blank check for war too! I guess if you're going to bend over for a president with an approval rating in the 20s, you might get it all done all at once right? And granted, it's not all the Democrats, but it's times like these when you find out who the real heroes are. Here's one of them, and one of my heroes, Russ Feingold on the bill:
“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”
What a fucking beast.
It seems like all that's left is the voting, but there is a chance to turn this one around. There's that guy, who won all those votes, and is the new leader of the party... what will he do? If Obama came out against this, there is a very good chance this bill gets stopped dead in it's tracks. He is the new leader of the democratic party and all, wouldn't it be nice for once to have someone - you know- LEAD?
And on a unrelated history nerd and one day late note... Happy Juneteenth! Now an official holiday in 29 states... most recently in California thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger believe it or not!
UPDATE: John Cole at Balloon Juice add humor to the situation:
From: [Redacted] To: [Redacted] Subject: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?
There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American's duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.
Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.
Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.
A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.
Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.
Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.
Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It's upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.
There's only one artist on Barack Obama's iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.
Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.
Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.
Barack Obama's new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.
Barack Obama's skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.
Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.
Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.
In other news, this is proof that Jack could write for slate, and probably should. The pay would sure be higher than the flavored rum and Dr. Pepper stipend he gets from this blog.
WASHINGTON -- Labor union officials and some liberal activists were seething Tuesday over Barack Obama's choice of centrist economist Jason Furman as the top economic advisor for the campaign. The critics say Furman, who was appointed to the post Monday, has overstated the potential benefits of globalization, Social Security private accounts and the low prices offered by Wal-Mart -- considered a corporate pariah by the labor movement.
Officials from several labor organizations phoned the Obama campaign to complain about the appointment and circulated e-mail messages containing quotes from some of Furman's work. Campaign officials responded that some of the quotes were inaccurate or out of context. They expressed confidence in Furman's abilities and said that Obama would be listening to an array of advisors.
The dispute is a fresh reminder that sharp divisions on economic policy remain in the Democratic Party, even though the bruising fight for its presidential nomination has ended. Those divisions are likely to present a recurring problem for Obama, especially as he tries to ward off GOP accusations that he is too liberal.
And Obama is not the first Democratic presidential candidate to confront the problem. Sen. John F. Kerry faced it in 2004. Going farther back, liberal activists resented former President Clinton's support for free trade, deficit reduction and other centrist policies.
Furman, 37, is linked closely to Robert Rubin, a Wall Street insider and Clinton economics aide who eventually became Treasury secretary. Rubin's views on global trade and deficit reduction riled liberal economists and labor activists, though his presence gave the Clinton administration valuable credibility in the business and financial communities.
"We are very much taken aback that Furman has been put at the head of this team," said Marco Trbovich, a senior aide to United Steelworkers President Leo W. Gerard, whose support is considered crucial to Obama's success in heavily unionized areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota and other battleground states.
Trbovich worked with Furman during Kerry's presidential campaign, in which Furman was also an economic advisor.
"He is a very bright fellow, but he is an unalloyed cheerleader for the trade policies that have been very destructive to manufacturing jobs in this country," Trbovich said. "There are very serious concerns" about his appointment.
Perhaps the most enraging part of the record, according to Trbovich and others, were comments attributed to Furman on Wal-Mart.
In a paper presented in Washington, he suggested that there were some economic benefits from the company's low prices and other policies at a time when major labor unions had launched an anti-Wal-Mart campaign.
Furman worked most recently as a budget expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington heading the Hamilton Project, an economic policy research group. It was founded by Rubin, who now chairs the executive committee of Citigroup Inc.
Lori Wallach, a lawyer and leading opponent of free-trade policies, said the appointment was jarring from a policy and a political perspective.
"Furman seems like a liability, given his anti-worker writings and statements about Wal-Mart, fair trade and other middle-class issues," said Wallach, director of Public Citizen's global trade watch division.
Labor union leaders criticized the move, and said that “Rubinomics” focused too much on corporate America and not enough on workers.
“For years we’ve expressed strong concerns about corporate influence on the Democratic Party,”John J. Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, said Wednesday in a statement implicitly critical of the symbolism of the appointment, no matter Mr. Furman’s economic skills.
The Obama camp has cast Mr. Furman, 37, as an experienced operator in Democratic election campaigns, whose task is to tap the expertise of economists representing a broad spectrum of views. “My own views, such as they are, are irrelevant,” Mr. Furman said.
The Democratic Party often struggles to balance the conflicting demands of corporations and labor, and Mr. Furman’s appointment rang some alarm bells that Mr. Obama might be tilting toward the corporate side — a tilt that Mr. Rubin says does not exist. He argued in an interview on Wednesday that his views were essentially in line with Mr. Obama’s already stated policies.
“I totally support Obama,” Mr. Rubin said, acknowledging his long allegiance to Hillary Clinton. “I was not going to leave Hillary until she pulled out,” he said, adding: “I think Barack Obama is very well equipped to provide the presidential leadership that the country very badly needs in a rapidly changing world.”
Mr. Furman, who served as an adviser in John Kerry's 2004 campaign for president, came to his new post suddenly on Monday, moving hastily to Chicago, where Mr. Obama has his headquarters. Until Friday, he was director of the Hamilton Project, a policy research operation founded by Mr. Rubin, who is now chairman of the executive committee at Citigroup. Mr. Rubin provides financing for the project, along with other wealthy Democrats.
Of particular concern to labor is the Hamilton approach to trade. While labor wants restrictions that would preserve jobs, the Rubin camp wants free trade that might cost jobs but would be offset by a broader safety net channeling more income support and job training to the job losers. Mr. Obama talks of “fair” trade agreements that include labor and environmental standards, a position that falls short of what Mr. Sweeney has in mind.
In his statement criticizing Mr. Furman’s appointment, Mr. Sweeney said, “The fact that our country’s economic policies have become so dominated by the Wall Street agenda — and that it is causing working families real pain — is a top issue we will be raising with Senator Obama.”
This is a very good sign for the labor movement, we'll see how Obama moves from here to see if it's also a good sign for progressive economic politics in an Obama administration. One of organized Labor's problems has been it's inability to pressure the democratic leadership on labor issues, and stop the party from siding with big business interests. Well, clearly as this story shows that divide is alive and well, but the good news is that the labor movement is making their displeasure known, and hopefully that can serve as a warning the Obama campaign to stop fucking up.
Like I said, doing this isn't just the right thing to do, it's smart politics. It bothers becayse I think this stuff is horrific policy wise... but it bothers me just as much that he's associating with clods who think republican-lite economic policy will help him win elections. That's really dangerous, because these fucks obviously have trouble adding up their own win-loss records.
Here's how he recovers. At the start of next week, he goes to Ohio or Michigan, and he announces that he will co-sponsor a truly progressive bill, the TRADE Act. That would assure labor that he isn't selling them out (and making sure they give 110% to elect him) in addition to giving star power to an important piece of legislation. There's not a chance in hell of this happening, but hey, more free advice can't hurt right?
Obama's mess of an economic policy team continues with the hire of Jason Furman, the director of the right wing Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution. Another day in the battle for control of Barack Obama's economic policies, we can chalk this one up as a loss for progressives:
ABC News' Teddy Davis, James Gerber, and Gregory Wallace Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., underscored his affinity with Democratic centrists this week when he tapped Jason Furman, who worked closely with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, to be his director of economic policy.
But the selection is now drawing criticism from some on the left who are wondering if the presumptive Democratic nominee will challenge corporate power and make good on his promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
"When people see someone like Barack Obama promise change and then see that same person make their first move the hiring of a Wall Street economic team, that’s what sows disengagement and cynicism in the public,” said David Sirota, a one-time backer of former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., who is the author of “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington."
Furman comes to the Obama campaign from the Brookings Institution where he headed the Hamilton Project, an economic policy research group which was founded by Rubin. Furman is the author of a Center for American Progress report which argues that some efforts to pressure Wal-Mart have ended up undermining low-income consumers. He also has backed a reduction in the corporate tax rate that would be financed by increasing the number of firms covered by the tax.
Associate of Robert Rubin? Pressuring Walmart to pay their employees enough keep them out of poverty=Bad? Less corporate taxes on big corporations balanced out by more taxes on small businesses?
"I think it is a reflection, no reflection at all on Senator -- I was hired, I think, because maybe I've done an effective job in previous campaigns, not because of any particular economic views that I have," said Furman who advised Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.
Huh, I'd actually rather he be hired because of his center-right economic history rather than his campagin "skills". Does anyone remember John Kerry's economic strategy? From this very blog back in November of last year:
Flashback to 2004: A time when even though I was crushed about Dean's defeat, I figured that anybody who could string two sentences together and not lead us into a senseless war would beat George W. Bush. Enter Bob Rubin:
He (Jagdish Bhagwati) was rambling on about Kerry, and the Kerry campaign and said that at some point in the general election, after Bob Rubin had signed on as an advisor, he saw Kerry giving a speech in which he blasted “Benedict Arnold” companies for pursuing off-shore tax havens. According to Bhagwati, he picked up the phone and called Kerry and said “If you ever say that again I’m off the campaign.” Needless to say, the Benedict Arnold line had been getting enthusiastic reception and tested off the charts. It never made another appearance. Another example of the Bob Rubin effect on the Democratic party.
So obviously the 2004 loss was about more than this one thing, but it really shows the idiocy of these DLC consultants. Even though these issues are popular with the public (as well as, you know, the right thing to do) the corporate wing of the party has managed to keep them from ever seeing the light of day. It's funny looking back, because I remember talking to Rahul at the time about Kerry's use of the phrase, and us both thinking that it was a great way to rail against tax cheat companies. For more on Bob Rubin, check out this older profile which includes this shameful story:
In April 2004, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney grew concerned that John Kerry was getting too much of his economic advice from the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. Kerry had just completed his primary sweep. In the general election, he would need the unions. Sweeney proposed a private meeting to discuss living standards as a campaign issue, and the candidate invited the labor leader to his Beacon Hill home. Sweeney arrived at the Kerry manse, bringing his policy director, Chris Owens, and Jeff Faux of the Economic Policy Institute. There, seated in the elegant living room, were Robert Rubin and two longtime lieutenants: investment banker and former Rubin deputy Roger Altman, and fellow Clinton alum Gene Sperling -- Kerry's key economic advisers.
In a three-hour conversation, the group discussed the deficit, taxes, trade, health care, unions, and living standards. The labor people urged the candidate to go after Wal-Mart's low wages. Rubin countered that a lot of people like Wal-Mart's low prices. Kerry eventually announced that the meeting needed to wrap up, because "Bob has to get back to Washington." Rubin responded that, no, he could stay as long as Kerry wanted. Sweeney and his colleagues were ushered out the door; Rubin, Altman, and Sperling remained. "Wall Street was in the room before we arrived," says Faux, "and they were there after we left."
Bob Rubin is the poster child of the wrong side the Populist/Corporate split within the democratic party. As long as he and other impediments to real change hold sway within the democratic party, no election is a sure thing. 2008 may seem that way now, but remember how we felt in the lead up to 2004. Some people still don't understand that Republican lite will never beat Republican: they're just better at it than we are.
Oh yeah, and this cycle Bob Rubin is supporter of Hillary Clinton. Shocking, I know.
Don't go down that road! In addition being shitty policies to propose, it blunts your ability to tap into voter anger on economic issues. It's like putting away your best tool before you've even started to debate McCain on the economy and then trying to fight him with one hand tied behind your back. Granted it's John "I don't understand the economy" McCain and you'll still win the debate, but you have a chance to absolutely destroy him if you keep the populist card on the table.
This hire is just one piece of the puzzle in what to expect economic policy wise from Obama during his campaign, as well as during (knock on wood!) his administration. I'll have more on his significant economic policy speech from last week soon in order to fill in a few more of the blanks.
This wouldn't be so sweet if it didn't feel like it was coming around full circle. Let me explain and give this a bit of personal background. As soon as I first heard about Barack Obama back in 2003, I liked him. When I heard his positions, I liked him more. When I heard him speak, I started to get really excited, and my expectations kept rising. Before the 2004 convention, I was able to tell my friends and family to watch out for the keynote speaker, but I had no idea just how good he was going to be. I debated buying a T-Shirt for his senate run, but ended up making my own with only his picture because I thought it looked cooler (It may have looked cooler, but for historical value, I'm kicking myself for not buying one). When he was elected to the senate I was as excited about him as I'd ever been about an individual politician. (Until Donna Edwards this year!)
I had big hopes. Someone with Russ Feingold's politics but with Bill Clinton's command over a crowd. To say I had set the bar high was an pretty big understatement, and it was the Lieberman-Lamont race that brought me back to earth. As with most in the netroots, I followed the race very closely, and was passionate about Ned Lamont's campaign to unseat Joe Lieberman. When Obama spoke at Lieberman's fundraiser, and subsequently didn't use his starpower on Lamont's behalf in the general, I was stunned. In addition to the war, I figured that a Lamont endorsement or neutrality would be the ultimate repudiation of "old politics" and the everything else he had come to represent. It was one of those moments where I understood why he did it, I was just disappointed. I couldn't help but see him differently, there he was lining up behind Joe like the rest of the dems. I still liked him and remained a fan, I just didn't have the same expectations as I once had.
Throughout the primary I remained at fan level. I ended up leaning towards John Edwards, but I always enjoyed Obama during the debates and was in awe of the support he was building. When it came down to Clinton and Obama, I was one of those people who supported him because I thought (and still believe) the soul of the party was at stake, and I was thrilled to see him win. I watch a lot of speeches like most of us political junkies, but his speech on Tuesday really felt different, and you could definitely sense the importance of the moment through your television.
Returning to the Senate after his securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Lieberman greeted each on the Senate floor in the Well as they were voting on the budget resolution.
They shook hands. But Obama didn’t let go, leading Lieberman - cordially - by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama's speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign.
Watch video of the encounter on the Senate floor HERE.
The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.
Neither party is officially talking. But while Lieberman spokesman Marshall Whitman says the conversation was "a cordial and friendly discussion" and Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says it was "private and friendly," Democratic sources tell ABC News that the conversation was a stern rebuke to Lieberman for his criticism of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee as had just happened on the conference call, as well as a discussion about how far Lieberman is willing to go in his advocacy of McCain, and the tone of the campaign.
It may not have been that big of a deal, but it was exactly the type of thing I've wanted to see from Obama all along. Lieberman had crossed a line and Obama had no problems telling him so right then and there, on the floor of the senate. This story is old news by now and has already been enjoyed by many around these parts, but it felt like a sort of glorious parallel to how I felt after his endorsement during the Lamont-Lieberman race. And for all the "stern words" and looking the other way that most senate democrats have done, it was great to see the new leader of our party take a stand and do something that has been long, long overdue. Democratic Leadership... it feels good to say those words one right after the other, huh?
OBAMA 08!
(If the style seems weird, I wrote it to put up on daily kos, which I haven't had the time to do yet)
This seemingly endless nomination contest has finally come to an end, and let me be the first to say congratulations on your win. And if there's anything you need right now, it's unsolicited advice from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, so here it goes.
I've been watching the stuff you've said about Hillary Clinton over the past couple of weeks, the effusive praise for her and her supporters, and the personal touch you added when you said she has made things that much easier for your daughters if they ever wanted to follow in her footsteps and run for political office. And I sure can't think of anything more empowering for young women everywhere than to dream of growing up to marry someone who goes on to a very popular president of the United States, then use that springboard of enormous amounts of money and a famous last name to become a do nothing senator for 6 years, and then feel entitled to the presidency. My cousin's an amazingly smart and ambitious young woman who is about to graduate high school this weekend... and god knows THAT'S the example I'd want her to look up to as she moves forward. In fact, it's on the card I'm gonna give her:
I wish you the best of luck during this important transition in your life. And remember, if you go through life always seeking the next move that will give you more power, and once in there you only that power to position yourself for your next move... one day you might convince a lot of people that you're a legitimate candidate for President of the United States! Congratulations on Graduating High School, Nina!
I swear, Hallmark must have assumed she'd win cause they printed a bunch of em' ... but I'll get back to the point.
In the next couple of days/weeks/months, there are going to be quite a few losers and stupid people out of work. Lets keep in mind, with the utmost respect for the remarkable race that you have run and the win you've pulled off, you owe your victory almost as much to their stupidity as you do to your own actions. They took someone with the best position to win the nomination, any institutional advantage you can name and former president campaigning on her behalf and ran her into the ground. They managed to blow 100 million dollars in the process, including over 10 million to this clod. They didn't understand the rules of the process, and DIDN'T EVEN PLAN for a race after Super Tuesday. This is incompetence worthy of the Bush administration, and should be kept as far away from your campaign at all costs. Democratic politics has been the only field where incompetent losers like theses get hired over and over and over to attempt their same failed strategies again and again. Uh... scratch that last sentence, but the point remains the same, we cannot let this cycle continue!
Mind-bending incompetence is a pretty good justification for sending this wing of the party out to pasture, but that's not even the most important reason there needs to be a clean break. The Clinton wing of the democratic party has an inherently different view of America than you or I. They may agree with us at heart on some polices, but they will always resort to a centrist strategy because they believe America is an inherently conservative nation. Just look at her career and her husbands for a blueprint. When in office, was there movement towards landmark progressive legislation? We got NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and the defense of Marriage Act to name a few. Do I honestly think these were things that Bill Clinton was passionate about? No, but he believed that because America was inherently conservative, he needed to take these centrist/right wing stands to win elections.
Look at her career. What did she champion while in the senate? China PTNR, Flag burning, video game violence, and the biggest examples of them all the Iraq war and Lieberman-Kyl. While in the senate in 2002 and already planning a run for president, she believed that she had to vote for the Iraq war to look "tough" if she were to run for president. Do I believe in her heart, Hillary Clinton would have done better things if she had voted with what she thought was actually right in a lot of these cases? It may surprise you, but I actually do. But when you believe that this an inherently conservative county and you have to sneak progressive ideas in when no one's looking, you will never bring about real change, and you are certainly not an asset to the movement that we are trying push forward. Senator Obama, although you were not my first choice in this race, I believe that you understand this divide, and in order to to move forward as a party, we must leave this way of thinking in the past.
And while the general election has just begun, you will already be making decisions that will greatly impact your ability to win this fall and then have a successful presidency. There's going to be a lot of pressure to bring the party together by giving theses people jobs, and the campaign has already begun to give the sorest loser of them second spot on your ticket. So please, please don't give in to their pressure and empty threats. Make a clean break with this faction of the party and bury their brand of triangulation and failure once and for all.
I hope you take this advice seriously, for I have 30 years of experience fighting for change. (Hey if she can say it, why can't I?)
-JJ
PS: During your speeches over the next couple of weeks, can you send warning next time you're going to bullshit on and on about how what a classy campaign she ran? I know you "have to do it" and all, I'd just like to make sure I'd finished dinner before hand.
Since at least John F. Kennedy, presidential candidates have campaigned as tough on trade and then governed as free traders. Some business leaders are expecting the same if Barack Obama makes it to the White House.
Don't count on it.
Sen. Obama, the Democratic party frontrunner, and his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, have expressed some support for trade liberalization during their careers, as public opinion and congressional politics have shifted markedly against free trade. A coalition of anti-free trade activists and labor unions also has used the long primary season to wring commitments from the two candidates on an astonishingly detailed list of trade issues, making it hard for them to reverse course.
…
In the general election, Sen. McCain plans to use his stance to present himself as outward-looking on economic issues, says an adviser, while the Democratic nominee is likely to counter that Sen. McCain is out of touch with ordinary Americans.
The political environment has been weakening for a decade as Americans blame trade for job loss and stagnant wages.
A number of trade skeptics won seats in the 2006 Congressional elections and the Democratic party is recruiting other anti-free traders to compete for open seats in 2008. Even Democratic free-trade intellectuals are focusing more on the downsides of global integration.
The change in Democratic Party politics makes it less likely that Sens. Obama and Clinton would change their views if they make it to the White House. For the past 50 years, presidential candidates have wooed voters with pledges on trade and sometimes cracked down on specific sectors. Presidents Kennedy and Richard Nixon restricted textile imports. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton took on Japanese imports. And George H.W. Bush promised to help the West Virginia steel industry and delivered import restrictions.
But all of them governed largely as free traders, negotiating arduous rounds of global and regional trade negotiations that lowered tariffs and opened the U.S. and foreign markets wider to international competition, sometimes at the cost of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
I’ve always had very serious doubts Obama’s commitment to his criticisms of free trade, mainly because he has a record of voting for further free trade deals and hiring free trade economists as his chief economic advisers. But what this article suggests is that believe it or not, that whole democracy thing might be taking hold of the trade issue after all these years.
If there is enough popular support, and hopefully with the help of the newly created leftist infrastructure on trade, we can fight back any attempt to go back on those promises, or even stop their plans before they start with a continued show of power. Obama and his advisers may be free traders at heart, but if we can convince them that it’s not worth wasting their political capital on a costly fight that would alienate a large chunk of his supporters, then we might have a chance. Either way, the good news remains that the support and infrastructure for fighting these deals is better than it’s been at any time in the twenty or so years. And if that remains in place, we will be in a position to make progress or fight back no matter what the next president decides to do.
Hillary Clinton is 20 Million dollars in debt. Hilarious. Not being able to manage a campaign without resorting to lending yourself millions, and yet still finding yourself in massive debt. Now that's someone who should be running a country!
While the Daily Kos diary in question is specifically arguing that the Cooper plan was great (although that is implied), it does take as its main point that health care reform failed in 1993-1994 because Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton, weren't nice enough to conservatives. If only Hillary Clinton had been nicer to conservatives, then we could have had great health care plans like Jim Cooper's. Hell, Jim Cooper himself says so. And look, David Brooks agrees, so it much be right. This is a very disturbing argument. The moment when dislike of Hillary Clinton is combined with calls for Democrats to compromise in the manner of Jim Cooper, and it is all justified by citing David Brooks, is a moment when I really fear for the internal logic of some Barack Obama support.
Paul Krugman once again lets his feud with Obama get the better of his judgment:
Discussions of how and why Mr. Obama’s support narrowed over time have a Rashomon-like quality: different observers see very different truths. But at this point it doesn’t matter whose fault it was. What does matter is that Mr. Obama appears to have won the nomination with a deep but narrow base consisting of African-Americans and highly educated whites. And now he needs to bring Democrats who opposed him back into the fold.
Not to get all racial up in here, but have any of you noticed how quickly white folks start talking about "it doesn't matter whose fault it was" . . . when the responsible party is white? You hear the same kind of rhetoric whenever the uncomfortable topic of race comes up, "Let's not go pointing fingers now," or "Playing the blame game isn't going to help anyone." Those statements, and similar ones, are really just euphemisms to avoid saying "Now, let's not go blaming white people for anything!"
In Krugman's case, I can't say that he's trying to deflect blame away from white people in general. He's definitely trying to deflect blame from Hillary and her campaign, though. If Krugman had any plausible way to put the entire blame for the recent racialization of the Democratic primaries on Obama, "It doesn't matter whose fault it was" is the last sentence he would have written.
So who is responsible for the increase in racial tension? Well, did Obama go on tour in front of exclusively black audiences and tell them that Clinton does not care about "people like you?" Has Obama ever gone before a black audience and told them that Hillary, the white candidate, was making fun of them for supporting him? Has Obama ever referred to "hard working Americans, black Americans" or stated that Clinton has no support among black voters?
No?
Okay, next question: Has Clinton done the reverse?
Few things piss me off more than a whitewashing (no pun intended) an event and pretending there was equal blame to go around. It's always important to understand who is to blame for what and why, for the simple reason of not repeating your mistakes or trusting people who should not be trusted or listened to.
And just for the record, the first paragraph of One Drop's response is also describes what's wrong with the current discussion of colonialism. "Look, it's not about assessing blame, its about what we can do now" is the most common response from European powers when it comes to issues of the developing world. Ok, it's about right now, but how the hell can you understand what's going on now if you don't acknowledge how we got there, who got us here and why?
On another note, it'll be fun to see how Hillary Clinton responds tonight after a win in West Virginia. Her speeches have really been comedy gold recently, with all her talking of "winning" and "being the nominee". It's a level of delusion that would be hard to keep up, and it'll be interesting to see how she plays it. Interesting enough to watch during one or two commercial breaks of the Spurs-Hornets game. Maybe. If it's a blowout.
We've spent the last few years in the netroots working to discredit Fox News as the propaganda network strives for mainstream respectability. The more it is viewed as a legitimate news outlet, the better it will be at injecting right-wing narratives into the broader media stream. It's why we fought so strongly against the attempts by the Nevada Democratic Party and the Congressional Black Caucus to partner with Fox on several Democratic primary debates. Debating on Fox made as much sense as Republicans debating on Air America. Or Daily Kos.
Given Fox's role in pushing several bullshit attacks against Obama (including the one about Obama attending a Muslim Madras while living in Indonesia in his youth), Obama had wisely steered clear of the network during the primary. Yet he clearly hit on a dilemma -- Indiana is an open primary, hence Republican crossover support could be key to victory in the state. And where do Republicans hang out? Yup. Fox News.
On the other hand, the network had consistently taunted his refusal to visit Fox. His appearance essentially sends the message that Obama is susceptible to caving to right-wing bullying taunts and threats. Perhaps not a surprise since that appears a trait embedded in the Democrats' DNA.
It was a mistake for Obama to go on FOX’s Sunday show and treat the experience as if it was a real news interview. Democratic politicians need to understand that FOX is a Republican mouthpiece masquerading as a news outlet. When dealing with FOX, you either burn them or they will burn you.
It's well documented that FOX executives send morning memos to anchors and reporters dictating Republican talking points. In 2006, one said, “Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents...thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress.” Robert Greenwald's videos have shown FOX's consistent pattern of smearing Barack Obama, smearing Hillary Clinton, smearing African Americans, and denying global warming.
FOX's power lies not in its audience size – which is puny and consists mostly of unpersuadable voters. Instead, FOX's power comes from tricking politicians and real journalists into treating their “breaking stories” like real news, thereby propelling smears like the Swift Boats and Rev. Wright into the mainstream political dialogue. That's why progressives fought (successfully) last year to deprive FOX of the legitimacy that comes with hosting a Democratic presidential debate. And that's why Democratic politicians should never treat FOX like a real news outlet - including FOX's Sunday show.
So I've gone back and for on this. I agree with most of the stuff written above, and successfully marginalizing fox as a conservative news network is a very important goal, and the tool we have on that front is to stop democrats from legitimizing it as a network. But even though I wouldn't have advised him to go on, the narrative of his campaign kind of paints him a in corner for these situations. If you build your campaign on inclusiveness and ending divisions, you could see why he wouldn't want to be seen as freezing out a right wing news outlet because of "politics" or "partisanship".
[Tangent: This and racism are the only two actual weakness I see in Obama's general election campaign. His narrative painting himself into a corner when it comes to strongly taking on the GOP and undercurrents of racism that still exist in a big way. Other than that, he's pretty much as good as we could hope for in a general election candidates ]
And for the record... I am fully aware this whole debate doesn't have very much significance outside of dailykos and that world, but I found it interesting nonetheless. Oh yeah, and for those how cared about how the ACTUAL interview went, here are some pieces (Transcript here):
The recent shit-storm surrounding Obama and Rev. Wright has really been too much to take. I was struggling on what to write about it first, and then a funny thing happened, David Sirota did it. Not only did he write an amazing essay, but he also did it in his nationally syndicated newspaper column that runs in quite a few places that weren't going to be as welcoming of this piece as a audience of liberal blogs. First he gets into a few of the Joe Buckish reactions of many political pundits:
Pat Buchanan billy-clubbed Wright for saying, "God damn America." The MSNBC commentator, who avoided the draft, implied that Wright, a former Marine, lacks sufficient loyalty to country. Out of context, Wright's exclamation was admittedly offensive. But remember: It punctuated a speech about segregation. Buchanan, nonetheless, unleashed, deriding "black hustlers" and insisting descendants of those "brought from Africa in slave ships" owe whites a thank you. "Where is the gratitude?" he asked.
Fox's Charles Krauthammer berated Wright for saying the 9/11 attacks were "chickens coming home to roost." Krauthammer labeled the pronouncement "vitriolic divisiveness" despite our government acknowledging the concept of "blowback" -- or retaliation -- Wright was referencing. The CIA knows that when it supports foreign dictatorships, there can be blowback from radicals. While blowback is often immoral and undeserved, its existence is undisputed. Yet, Krauthammer alleged that Wright takes "satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents."
"Where's the gratitude?" Defending slavery in 2008... you gotta love cable news!
Sirota goes into the "controversy" that has them so riled up:
In promoting the Wright "controversy," most media outlets joined this mob and embraced "colorblind racism," says Duke University's Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, author of "Racism Without Racists."
It is polite pinstriped prejudice shrouding bigotry in feigned outrage against extremism -- the operative word being "feigned." After all, John McCain solicited the endorsement of John Hagee -- the pastor who called the Catholic Church "a great whore." Similarly, according to Mother Jones magazine, Hillary Clinton belongs to the "Fellowship" -- a secretive group "dedicated to 'spiritual war' on behalf of Christ." She is also friendly with Billy Graham, the reverend caught on tape spewing anti-Semitism. But while Wright's supposed "extremism" blankets the news, McCain and Clinton's relationships with real extremists receive scant attention.
Why is it "controversial" for one pastor to address the black community, racism and blowback, but OK for another pastor to slander an entire religion? Why is it news that one candidate knows a sometimes-impolitic clergyman, but not news that his opponent associates with an anti-Semite? Does the double standard prove the dominant culture despises a black man confronting taboos, but accepts whites spewing hate? Does the very reaction to Wright show he's right about racism?
Clinton seems to think so. Her aides have been calling the states they believe Obama will lose their political "firewall." That's campaign-speak for "race wall" -- one built with bricks like Pennsylvania and Indiana. These aren't the near-purely white states where racial politics is often muted (and Obama won). They are the slightly diverse states where racial politics simmers and where the black vote is too small to offset a motivated racist vote. This race wall is now being fortified.
ABC News reports that Clinton's campaign is "pushing the Wright story" ahead of the Pennsylvania and Indiana primaries. The crass tactic is designed to motivate the racist vote by reminding whites of Obama's connection to the African-American community. Put another way, Clinton's message has become simply: Obama Is Black.
Wright probably expected this brouhaha. He says our government is "controlled by rich white people" and our culture afflicted by racism. Though these statements are also deemed distasteful by the Establishment, they are truisms. You can see their veracity in the collected portraits of white millionaires commonly called the congressional photo directory. Or, just turn on your television and watch the mob continue stoking the Wright "controversy."
For more of his thoughts on the situation, he wrote a longer blog post explaining it here. When these things get out of hand, its nice to know that someone with a voice in the traditional media is out there making sense.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community toda
