Milwaukee Renaissance |
Roger Cohen, “A Realist Called Obama”Op-Ed Columnist NYT
NEW YORK — Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic wrote a simple sentence recently that cut to the quick of this U.S. election: “What you think of a presidential candidate is in large measure determined by what you think of the world.” In an eloquent column, he argued that “We are heading into an era of conflict.” From Waziristan to Gaza City the world of the next U.S. president will be one of foreboding. The threats, he suggested, were of a nature a neophyte senator called Barack Obama, who’s long on hope and short on hardness, is ill-prepared to confront. I share the concern that the feel-good conciliation propelling the Obama bandwagon is light on fierceness. Change is great but constancy can be greater, especially when the threat is mortal. Readiness to talk to everyone, enemy dictators included, does not a foreign policy make. When Obama says that in a globalized world the security of Americans is tied to the security of all people, he sounds pleasing. But this won’t help when U.S. security imperatives prove distinct, even inimical, to those of others, as one day they will. I also find Obama’s commitment to a 16-month timetable for withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq rash: a free and stable Iraq is now inextricable from long-term U.S. security interests. How that can be squared with flicking the switch at Camp Victory in 2010 is a mystery to me and to most U.S. generals. And yet, I disagree with Wieseltier. I disagree about the nature of the world the next president will face. Because of this, I believe Obama is the candidate best placed to grasp and exploit a transformative moment in global affairs. Far from Wieseltier’s era of conflict, I see an era of tremendous global potential for advancement in which the jihadists — force-multiplying internet invective notwithstanding — are marginalized. George W. Bush has shown a talent for burying progress and squandering opportunity (not least with Iran) in a torrent of vituperation. But even the Great Alienator can’t hide the fact we’re hardly in the Dark Ages. As Bush’s war on terror has unfolded, one third of humanity in Asia has been busy joining and bolstering the world economy. Hundreds of millions of people, from the Mekong Delta to central China, have emerged from poverty. Huge problems remain, but the emergence of India and China does put the caves of Waziristan in perspective. China holds a lot of U.S. debt, counters U.S. talk of freedom with talk of no-strings-attached “harmony,” and cares nothing for a nation’s politics if it can grab that nation’s riches (Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe). But China is also tied at the hip to the United States, whose market it needs, and hell-bent on stability for the next half-century. Its cooperation with Washington on North Korea is more significant than its ideological confrontation. In Africa, strong growth, spreading democracy, and growing regional cooperation have naturally ceded the headlines to doom in Darfur and Harare. But the progress is no less real for that. Throughout the world, the access technology provides is connecting people in ways that make governments less relevant. Terrorists benefit from such networks. But the linking of a humanity in flux is of deeper historical significance. An era of conciliation is more persuasive to me than an era of conflict. The fight between Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination is increasingly portrayed as one between romantics and realists. But a realistic view of Obama would be that he is best placed to seize and shape a new world of such possibilities. He has the youth, the global background, the ability to move people, and the demonstrated talent for reaching across lines of division, even those etched in black and white. He would, as Andrew Sullivan has written, “rebrand” America. Wieseltier dismisses such rebranding. But even the Papacy was rebranded in our times, by a Pole, and Poles then precipitated the fall of the Soviet empire. A romantic view of Clinton might be that she has the guts and savvy to free herself of her husband’s coterie of the world’s rich and famous, with its dubious deal-making from Kazakhstan to Colombia, and ensure that a White House with a president and ex-president in it projects U.S. renewal rather than the tawdrier sides of Clintonism. I’m just not enough of a romantic to believe it. Obama is the expression of a hybrid world whose promise outweighs its menace. He needs to recall what he once said: “No president should ever hesitate to use force unilaterally if necessary to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened.” If he does, and a tough foreign policy team would help, hope and hardness will in time find a fecund balance confounding even to Iran’s mullahs. Blog: www.iht.com/passages ATTORNEYS NEEDED FOR OBAMA IN VIRGINASee below. Please forward to attorneys, law students, and BLSA chapters in VA. Hello my friends - CALLING ALL ATTORNEYS AND LAW STUDENTS The Barack Obama campaign is looking for lawyers and
As the Primary Season continues, we have been seeing
We all remember the voter suppression that has taken
If you haven’t already - NOW IS THE TIME TO GET
A strong voter protection program will ensure that the
Primary day is fast approaching, so please sign up
If you are interested in helping the Campaign, please
Thank you in advance for your assistance. We hope to see you soon! Hope to see you! Tanya Clay House, Esq.
Velvet D. Johnson, Esq.
Milwaukee’s “Activist of the Year” Endorses ObamaIt’s worth considering, about Obama, that the African American
But I’ve tipped to him. I also see Bill’s campaign intrusions as the
My well meaning friends have said I should not vote for him because
Yes, I could choose not to vote. But as Will Rogers said, ‘I’m not a
So, is the other choice to NOT vote? Well, Not voting is the most popular thing you can do these days.
You will be voting, or you will be…. Let us know. Bill Sell http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-heeds-hawks-how-_b_85853.html Hillary Foreign Policy Advisors Contrasted With Obama’s by S.F. Political ScientistIn their focus on the electoral horse-race, the media have ignored a key difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton—the positions of their foreign policy advisors on the Iraq war. As political scientist Stephen Zunes points out in “Foreign Policy in Focus,” Clinton’s key advisors overwhelmingly supported it, while Obama’s opposed it. The differences in their positions on whether to go to war mirror those of the two candidates. They also give a sense of how Clinton and Obama are likely to deal with the immensely difficult foreign policy challenges they’ll face if elected, including dealing with Iraq. Zunes’s article, revised and shortened for HuffPo: The President makes the decisions, but who advises the President? We know Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle insisted to Bush that American forces would be treated as liberators if we went into Iraq. McCain has surrounded himself with people likely to encourage him to follow a similar disastrous path if he becomes President. But what about Obama and Clinton? A major difference stands out among those they are likely to appoint to key posts in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs: Almost everyone in Senator Obama’s foreign policy team opposed the U.S. invasion. By contrast, most of Senator Clinton’s foreign policy team, which largely comprises veterans of her husband’s administration, strongly supported George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. It should come as no surprise that during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Obama spoke at a Chicago anti-war rally while Clinton went as far as falsely claiming that Iraq was actively supporting al-Qaeda. And during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent. Clinton’s advisors are confident in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force. This is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon. Clinton’s top foreign policy advisor – and her likely pick for Secretary of State – Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.” He rejected the broad international legal consensus against such offensive wars and insisted European governments and anti-war demonstrators who opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein. Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband’s national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region” and insisted on the necessity of “regime change.” Other top Clinton advisors – such as former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. By contrast, during the lead-up to the war, Obama’s advisors recognized as highly suspect the Bush administration’s claims regarding Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” and offensive delivery systems capable of threatening U.S. national security. Now advising Obama, former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.” Brzezinski seems to have learned from mistakes like arming the Mujahideen. He warned that invading a country that was no threat to the United States would threaten America’s global leadership because most of the international community would see it as an illegitimate act of aggression. Another key Obama advisor, the Carnegie Endowment’s Joseph Cirincione, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved as a result of sanctions, the return of inspectors, and a multinational force stationed in the region serving as a deterrent. Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors – such as Susan Rice, Larry Korb and Samantha Power – raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a large Middle Eastern country and the risks of American forces becoming embroiled in post-invasion chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war. These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposing views in the lead-up to the war, with Clinton voting to let President Bush invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his choosing, while Obama was speaking out to oppose a U.S. invasion. Taken together, they support the likelihood that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush’s, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, as The Nation magazine noted, a Barack Obama administration would be more likely to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America’s allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country’s international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort. In terms of Iran, for instance, Cirincione has downplayed the supposed threat, while Clinton advisor Holbrooke insists that “the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler. This is consistent with Clinton’s vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that opened the door to a potential Bush attack on Iran, and with Obama’s opposition to it. Given the problems exemplified by the tragic legacy of the current administration, primary voters should recognize that Obama’s promise of change is the most prudent course in these dangerous times. Web Links to Obama’s Legislative AccomplishmentsObama’s record of legislative accomplishment. I found several articles
Love, David http://www.progressivepatriots.com/senate/senObamaIL.html http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html http://wizbangblue.com/2008/01/04/some-of-obamas-legislative-record-in-illinois.php http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfwiTMvbxKZec4z-ouww5y_5zfhgD8U753I80 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x275 Viva, Obama: Community OrganizerWe, life, need community
Our physical and mental health
This yearning for community, for immersion in daily rounds,
We, many of us, are atomized like wandering exiles
This yearning for belongingness, for community, for organic society, This quest for community has something to do with the Obama Movement. Obama, at his deepest public level, is a great community organizer,
His oratory and Harvard level mind and organizing skills,
But I submit that his experience as a community organizer,
Intermediate, and long term goals.
And thereby set people up for a collective sense of failure.
At a time when the need to create community,
Viva, Obama the Community Organizer! Olde
Betting a Farm Would Work in QueensBy ROBIN POGREBIN
 A model of the proposal by Work Architecture that won this year’s Young Architects Program at the P.S. 1 Contemporary Arts Center in Long Island City, Queens. One can only imagine how the judges reacted when the architects walked in lugging the kind of hulking concrete-pouring cardboard tubes used at construction sites filled with flowering heads of cabbage.  Jacob Silberberg for The New York Times Dan Wood and Amale Andraos with elements of their design, which includes growing heads of lettuce and harvesting them. The proposal by Dan Wood and Amale Andraos, the husband-and-wife duo behind Work Architecture, was clearly a departure from previous design proposals to transform the courtyard of the P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center in Long Island City, Queens for a summer. But the urban farm concept — including an abundance of fresh produce and a genuine harvesting plan — was apparently just too darn offbeat to pass up. “It’s just so unlike anything that’s been done before,” said Barry Bergdoll, the chief curator of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art, which jointly sponsors the annual Young Architects Program with P.S. 1. “It’s the first one that’s not canopies or party spaces. In some ways it’s almost in counterpoint to the program.” The seven-year-old competition calls for creating an outdoor social space for dancing and drinking in the summer months. Ms. Andraos and Mr. Wood were chosen over four other finalists, all of them based in New York: Matter Architecture Practice; su11 architecture & design; Them; and Monad Architects, which also has an office in Miami. The Work team’s presentation — which included Mr. Wood’s donning of a pouffy green gardening skirt with specially designed pockets for his trowel and gardening gloves — made an impression. “The two of them looked like stock actors from the background of a Mozart troupe where they needed some rustic peasants,” Mr. Bergdoll said. On Tuesday at Work’s East Village offices, Ms. Andraos, 34, and Mr. Wood, 40, and their staff raised a glass of Champagne to celebrate their winning design for a rural oasis in Queens. Mr. Wood described the project as “kind of a folded farm with a pool carved out of the middle.” “We’re interested in the surrealistic object,” he explained. Yet the architects’ creative process started with the more traditional P.S. 1 courtyard concept of an urban beach, focusing on themes like the striped bathing costumes of a 1928 photograph called “La Plage.” They moved from there to contemplating “Sous les pavés, la plage” (roughly, “under the paving stones, a better life”), a slogan dating from the 1968 student riots in Paris. Finally they arrived at the notion of “Sur les paves la ferme,” meaning, “Over the pavement, the farm.” “We wanted to find what our generation’s symbol would be,” Ms. Andraos said, “embodying our preoccupations, our hopes for the world.” In working out their design, the architects also kept in mind the movement from industrialization to postindustrialization, from global to local, from the free market to the farmer’s market, and from sand to hay. “This is one of those designs that is both a homage to and a critique of the architecture of the ‘60s and ‘70s,” said Glenn D. Lowry, director of MoMA. “But it also has a playful and whimsical dimension.” To organize the space they chose the heavy cardboard tubes — the largest is a yard in height, and in diameter — in part because of the shadows they would cast and because of their resilience. Columns will be bolted together to form a span that rises on either side of a pool like a large V. Each tube will play its own role. Some will contain plantings on dirt shelves equipped with liner bags to prevent leakage. There is a fabric tube that people can enter through a curtain “where you can hide from the party, if you’ve had enough,” Ms. Andraos said. There will be two sound columns — one that plays farm sounds when you sit down, another in which you can look upward, see stars and hear crickets. There is a phone-charging column, a children’s grotto of columns with swings, an herb-growing column with circulating fans dispersing scents like basil or lavender, and a juicer column where fresh juice will be made and sold. “It kind of hits a tenor of the times,” Mr. Bergdoll said. “It’s both a real and humorous response to sustainability.” The architects also threw in a stand-alone bundle of spiraling columns that they refer to as “a mini Tatlin’s Tower,” a tribute to a Constructivist building envisioned by the Russian architect Vladimir Tatlin for Petrograd that was conceived after the 1917 Revolution but was never built. “For us it’s an opportunity to create an exciting structure,” Ms. Andraos said of the project, “but also to talk about issues and ideas — to be engaged with the world.” The couple met in 1998, when Mr. Wood was working at the Rotterdam headquarters of the Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas; Ms. Andraos took a job there a year later. They started their firm in 2002, and their projects include the recently completed new headquarters for Diane von Furstenberg in Manhattan’s meatpacking district. The architects are also working on the master plan for the BAM Cultural District in Fort Greene, Brooklyn. As is typically the case with such projects, the architects will have to scale back their vision. They have imagined growing everything from mint to peas, fennel and pumpkins. Mr. Wood said he hoped to grow fresh tomatoes for bloody marys “and barley and hops, so we can make P.S. 1 beer by October.” The ultimate result, of course, is likely to be more modest. The project budget is $85,000, although the architects said they hope to raise $60,000 more in funds and in-kind donations of materials to cover additional costs. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the plant palate changes a bit,” Mr. Bergdoll said. “But its conceptual infrastructure is so strong — it’s such a radical and on some level outlandish idea — that these modifications don’t fundamentally change it.” The architects said they had consulted with the Horticultural Society of New York and with the Queens Botanical Garden and were open to adjusting their plans. “We’re talking about combining it with a real farmer’s market,” Mr. Wood said. “We’re not sure what’s going to grow.” From The New York Times
Renewing American Soil to “Re-Spirit” Our Industrial CitiesFrom Rust Belt to Greening CitiesPrudence dictates that we reexamine the ways in which we feed ourselves. Obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are endemic in the U.S.A. The effects of poor nutrition are impacting more of us at earlier ages. Further, our health care system isn’t really focused on health. Rather, it is all about disease intervention. Successful bypass surgery may extend the life of an individual, but it has had no positive effect on improving the average life expectancy of the general population. Management of diabetes is becoming more sophisticated, but the incidence of new cases is skyrocketing. Failures abound, yet no significant reallocation of resources toward “prevention” is in the offing. Instead, political candidates debate about new ways to pay for the same old thing. ON AMERICAN SOIL by Howard Hinterthuer Above bedrock and beneath the blackness of space there exists a thin layer of basically three things; air, water, and soil. Look at the big blue marble from the moon and those are the things you see. Even the bedrock that punctures the soil is soil-in-the-making, just an eon or two from being worm habitat. The environmentally aware have a long-standing concern for the degradation of our air and water, two key elements in our life support system. Those who aren’t concerned are either already dead or spiritually vacant. For all practical purposes, Al Gore succeeded in silencing those who question global warming and mankind’s contribution to it. A few remain, too embarrassed to admit to their own complicity in discounting the overwhelming evidence. To them I say, “Get over it. There’s work to do. All are welcome. Go and sin no more.” The work we face with regard to air and water is international in scope. After all, the air is everywhere, crossing international boundaries with impunity. Likewise water has no regard for nationhood. It goes where it wants. Even the Hoover Dam is temporary. Don’t kid yourself. Addressing air and water pollution issues requires international cooperation and an acknowledgement that we need each other. It may be that nations must sacrifice a measure of sovereignty as a necessary step to saving humanity’s life support system. I pray we will have leaders who have the courage to place American interest secondary to the cause of human survival. To leaders who cling to power I say, “George Washington proved his greatness at the moment he relinquished power.” I fear for the U.S.A. Our stature in the world has been frittered away by dull people, people without vision. Manufacturing has moved offshore. Currently a substantial portion of the service sector resides in India, and more will migrate to China when the Chinese master English. China has been importing English teachers for decades. The writing is on the wall, from left to right, top to bottom. What will be left? What will be our contribution to the new world order? We have soil—humongous amounts of it. We have tracts of agricultural land so large that a person can stand in the middle and not see a building in any direction. “Enough to feed the world” people used to say. But it turns out there are problems—huge problems with our current over reliance on industrial-scale agriculture. Entire regions of North America are devoted to vast expanses of single crops like corn and soybeans. The plants themselves are genetically identical. Many may soon be grown from terminator seeds, assuring they can’t be planted again next year because subsequent generations of seeds will not germinate. Instead farmers will be on the hook to purchase seed next season and every season thereafter. The concern is that these plants cross pollinate with heirloom varieties, terminating many of them as well. As a result, we will lose genetic diversity, the rich array of genetic traits that help to assure species survival. “Same-ness” is attractive because it is predictable. It is the concept that drives cloning. Livestock producers are able to predict weight gain, milk production, butter fat content, wool quality and more. When consumers cry out, “We don’t know the consequences of eating cloned meat,” the FDA counters with studies showing there are no ill effects. “Rest easy,” says the FDA and may be right about consuming cloned critters. But the bigger danger is loss of genetic diversity. “Same-ness” increases vulnerability. When grasshoppers or stem rust attacked the wheat crop in Alberta, the economy collapsed. When blight struck the potato crop in Ireland, starvation soon followed. Nematode worms in the soil can ruin a corn crop. Monoculture, massing identical plants on large tracts of land, is an invitation to disaster. http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/terminator.html Staving off the demons requires excessively large inputs of chemical fertilizer and pesticides, all of which are very bad for the soil. After all, healthy soil is a complex and living thing. It is mixture of minerals like sand, fiber and nutrients from decaying organic matter, clay, microorganisms like fungi and bacteria, worms, shrews, bugs, reptiles, mammals, and more, all living together in mutually dependent ways. When a farmer pours on the nematode worm killer he is also wiping out other organisms and those that depend upon them. It is like gassing New York City. Manhattan would still look like a city from thirty-thousand feet, but there would be no life left in it. Chemical fertilizer and pesticides are also bad for our national security. Most are made from oil and/or natural gas, in whole or in part. Additionally, mechanized agriculture requires massive energy use for production, transportation, processing, refrigeration, and more. If the oil dries up literally or politically, our ability to produce food profitably on a large scale using current methods goes away. WHAT CAN WE DO? Prudence dictates that we reexamine the ways in which we feed ourselves. Obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are endemic in the U.S.A. The effects of poor nutrition are impacting more of us at earlier ages. Further, our healthcare system isn’t really focused on health. Rather, it is all about disease intervention. Successful bypass surgery may extend the life of an individual, but it has had no positive effect on improving the average life expectancy of the general population. Management of diabetes is becoming more sophisticated, but the incidence of new cases is skyrocketing. Failures abound, yet no significant reallocation of resources toward “prevention” is in the offing. Instead, political candidates debate about new ways to pay for the same old thing. Feeding ourselves in healthy ways seems to boil down to individual and unified action at the grassroots level. Here are guiding principles that will help to save our own lives as well as our nation’s place in the world. Strategy #1: Produce Locally Plant a garden. It is an optimistic thing to do, especially in an urban environment where air quality, aesthetics, and one’s sense of well being will benefit immensely. It doesn’t take a large area. All that’s required is good soil (we’ll get to that later) and sunlight. People garden in window boxes. Some may have only one tomato plant on the fire escape, but that one plant makes a huge statement to the world. It says, “I will not be defeated.” A small back or side yard can produce a substantial amount of nutritious and tasty food—food that doesn’t have to be shipped from California or Chili, or even Oostburg for that matter. Think of all the oil that will be saved; no ships, no trucks, no refrigeration, no packaging. Plus, and here’s the really great part, it will be ripe. You can do this by yourself. Gardening requires physical effort at times, but not so much that one has to be in great condition to start. Unlike soccer players who have to be finely honed at the whistle, gardeners are able to play themselves into shape. Plus you get to set the pace. Gardening is idyllic. That’s one of the charms. Or you can garden with others. Swap labor with your neighbor. Share seeds. No one needs an eighty-foot row of zucchini. My friend did that. It was a nightmare. All you need are one or two plants, and even then you may end up with too much. Community gardens are great places to grow vegetables, and they are also fantastic places to grow “community.” The required tools are simple and relatively inexpensive; a pointy shovel, maybe a cultivating fork, a garden trowel, an iron rake and a hoe. My favorite hoe belonged to my grandfather. The left and right ears broke off sometime during the last millennium. Someone, probably my dad, smoothed the edges with a file. Now it’s shaped like and Russet potato. It’s small enough to get between closely placed plants in a tight space. Opening-up a garden by turning over the soil with a shovel may be the most physical task of all. The first season can be difficult. Hire a teenager. Once the shovel-size clumps are piled-up, breaking them into smaller chunks with a cultivating fork is an easier task. Next chop-up those lumps with a hoe. Finally use the rake to push the loosened soil where you want it. Each year it gets easier, especially if you use every opportunity to amend the soil. “Amend” means adding things to make it better, like the Amendments to the Constitution. Strategy #2: Build-up the Soil Strategy #3: Cherish and Protect Genetic Diversity Scrutinize laws allowing the ownership of genetic material. The genetic diversity of the planet must always be a resource held in common by mankind. Collective ownership of the genome assures that we are more likely to feel a responsibility to protect it. Farmers must be allowed to own their own seeds Strategy #4: Downsize Strategy #5: Cooperate/Educate Tool banks Grace Lee Boggs’ “MLK’s Visionary Legacy”By Grace Lee Boggs
I’ve learned a lot from MLK celebrations over the years. For example, during the 15th annual University of Michigan
The conference agenda included time for each of us to create our own
My story was about how life for Detroiters in 2032 had been
That vision still motivates my activism in the Detroit-City of Hope
The next year I was the keynote speaker for the University of
The abundance created by unlimited economic growth, Gandhi warned,
The struggle for independence, Gandhi also warned, should not be mainly
Last Friday night I participated in the monthly film/speaker series at
The reports from the small groups were transformative. For example,
The next day, at a family and community visioning meeting in my
As we brainstormed around these questions, I was reminded of MLK’s
Wikipedia List of Notable Community Organizers in U.S. HistoryDefinition and History of Community OrganizingObama, Community Organizer, Community Co-CreatorWe are intensely in need of communities
The Great Atlantic Migrations, some totally forced by
All of these great movements find a good measure of the “American character”
We, many of us, are atomized like the wandering ostracized and exiles
The depth of our roots in organic, local communities of people
This yearning for belongingness, for community, for organic society,
This quest for community has something to do with the Obama Movement. Obama, at his deepest public level, is a great community organizer,
At a time when the need to create community,
Viva, Obama the Community Organizer! The immigrant people of North America,
See also List of organizers Category:Community organizers
Community organizing is a process by which people are brought together to act in common self-interest. While organizing describes any activity involving people interacting with one another in a formal manner, much community organizing is in the pursuit of a common agenda. Many groups seek populist goals and the ideal of participatory democracy. Community organizers create social movements by building a base of concerned people, mobilizing these community members to act, and developing leadership from and relationships among the people involved. 1880 to 1900 People sought to meet the pressures of rapid immigration and industrialization by organizing immigrant neighborhoods in urban centers. Since the emphasis of the reformers was mostly on building community through settlement houses and other service mechanisms, the dominant approach was what Fisher calls social work. During this period The Newsboys Strike provided an early model of youth-led organizing. 1900 to 1940 Community organization was established distinct from social work, with much energy coming from those critical of capitalist doctrines. Studs Terkel documented community organizing in the depression era, perhaps most notably that of Dorothy Day. Most organizations had a national orientation because the economic problems the nation faced did not seem possible to change at the neighborhood levels. 1940 to 1960 The emergence of the distinctive approach of Saul Alinsky spurred new thought and new blood into community movements. Those influenced by Alinsky were (and still are) concerned with social justice without having socialist thought as their primary framework. Alinsky promoted greater awareness of community organizing in academic circles, and those affiliated with Alinsky trained a generation of organizers, including César Chávez. 1960 to present The American Civil Rights Movement, the anti-war movements, the Chicano movement, the feminist movement, and the gay rights movement all influenced and were influenced by ideas of neighborhood organizing. continued… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing I was wrong - the Obama Yes We Can video is posted on YouTubeat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY Here’s the transcript of it: Song & video, featuring a star cast, by Will.i.am of The Black Eyed Peas. Inspired by Barack Obama’s ‘Yes We Can’ speech. http://factcheck.barackobama.com/ It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation. Yes we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom. Yes we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness. Yes we can. It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land. Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world. Yes we can. We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change. We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics… they will only grow louder and more dissonant… We’ve been asked to pause for a reality check. We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. Now the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea - Yes. We. Can. Celebrities featured include: Jesse Dylan, Will.i.am, Common, Scarlett Johansson, Tatyana Ali, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Kate Walsh, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Adam Rodriquez, Kelly Hu, Adam Rodriquez, Amber Valetta, Eric Balfour, Aisha Tyler, Nicole Scherzinger and Nick Cannon
Sweet Red Cherry Tomatoes From Your Harambee Garden   Have you ever wished to venture forth beyond
Have you ever longed for sweet red cherry tomatoes
Have you ever felt the joy of sacred fatigue
 Joyous work laughter moments with friends? Have you ever imagined that… Your nation gave rise to a movement
With an eye, strong body, and heart
With 4 chickens (no rooster) each
 Eyes on the prize of… Ten Thousand community farms and gardens,
Transforming themselves into Planetary villages of grace, beauty, and health? And the nation chose a leader
 Olde
   Stephanie Philipps, founder of the Harambee Reclamation Garden, meets with one of the initiators of Shorewood High School’s Parking Lot Into Urban Farm Demonstration Project, Eric Gietzen    Michael Pollan’s “In Defense of Food” Now NYT Best SellerObama Campaign Only One to Solicit His Views on Link Between Broken Health System and Toxic Industrial AgricultureIt is only a matter of time before the Obama movement’s top policy workers awaken to the enormous possibilities of urban agriculture for self-reliance/job development, community building/despair busting! In Milwaukee a rainbow group is slowly gathering to create a Will Allen inspired and soil furnished community garden in Harambee. Good food and beauty at backyard farms and community gardens will bring the people from different “urban villages” together! Sweet Red Cherry Tomatoes at Your Harambee Garden Have you ever wished to venture forth beyond
Have you ever longed for sweet red cherry tomatoes
Have you ever felt the joy of sacred fatigue
Won’t it be grand when Obama’s movement
Some Exerpts from Pollan’s Book Drawing upon a buried study in 1939 by Weston Price, a dentist
“Wherever he found an isolated…race that had not yet encountered the ‘displacing foods of modern commerce’…refined flour, sugar, canned and chemically preserved foods, and vegetable oils, he found little or no evidence of ‘modern degeneration’--…chronic diseasecancer, heart attacks, diabetes?, tooth decay, and malformed dental arches …the processing of foods typically robs them of nutrients, vitamins especially. Store food is food designed to be stored and transported over long distances, and the surest way to make food more stable and less vulnerable to pests is to remove the nutrients from it.. In general, calories are much easier to transport—in the forms of refined grain or sugar—than nutrients, which are liable to deteriorate or attract the attention of bacteria, insects, and rodents, all keenly interested in nutrients.(More so, apparently, than we are). Greetings from Polyglot Working Class Sacramento:We are a multi-ethnic, mult-generational ad hoc group which came together to oppose the view of Blacks and Latinos as permanent adversaries and to stand together with Whites who oppose racism. As part of our efforts, we have recorded statements about why we support Obama, supplemented by a Hip Hop contribution and an original song written, performed and recorded to make clear that we plan to work for Obama’s election and to work with him after his election. We hope that you will listen to our CD, whick is attached in an mp3 file, then consider forwarding it to others across the country. We also hope that as you forward it, you will add your own positive comments and encourage others to do the same. We are people of the grassroots and working class. Some of us are or have been homeless. Many of us have many years of education and experience, yet still face job discrimination based on age, gender, orientation, age, disability and veteran status. But no matter what personal struggles we are enduring, we recognise that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the masses to gain control of our government, our lives and our futures. Many years ago, millions of Americans, on a Sunday, learned that President Nixon had fired Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox in an effort to stop the criminal investigation. On that same Sunday, 5 million of us, myself included, sent telegrams to Washington, DC demanding the appointment of another prosecutor. Leon Jaworski was appointed, the investigation continued and Nixon was forced from office. As one of those 5 million, I know that every voice and every vote counts. It doesn’t matter what the party regulars want, in their own interests. It doesn’t matter that our votes are sifted through the Electoral College (we can eliminate that in 2009). It doesn’t matter if there are some issues on which we disagree. What matters is that we must survive or nothing else is possible. Our survival is on the line. The power elite and their overseers, who look like us but are not like us in visions and goals, did not take Obama seriously. They did not believe the masses could fund his campaign. They did not believe Whites would vote for a Black president. They thought they could bank on all Whites being racist. They did not believe the young would participate in government. On all of these issues they were wrong. If 5 million strangers, in the era before the Internet, could change the course of this country in a day, then surely with all the technology at our disposal and with the knowledge and wisdom we have gained through the years, we can change history again. We cannot throw away the greatest opportunity for our country in its history, the chance to live according to the principles we say we believe in. The time has come to walk the talk with freedom and justice for all. A note to those working on urban gardens: I am originally from Philadelphia, PA and began work with Viola Bethea on urban gardening there in the 1960′s and know its great value. I also know from experience how much the land grant universities could and should do to support this work. Viola and I and other community women also developed the first Police Athletic League for girls in this country and Girls, Inc. We’ve been at this and other tasks including peace work with World Without War, American Friends Service Committees, Philadelphia and Media (PA) Fellowship Houses, Fellowship Farm, National Town Meeting on a Sustainable America and much more. It is our intention to work together in unprecedented ways, facilitated by Obama’s election, because for the first time as activists we will not have to fight our government but can participate in it and direct it. No, it won’t be easy. Ending slavery wasn’t easy and isn’t finished but progress comes only from struggle. An ugly part of the struggle has become painfully obvious. Many who we thought were civil and human rights advocates for us, were in fact working for personal aggrandisement. We thought they were on our side but they are in the boat of the power elite, and have abandoned us. Obama’s election will be unprecedented progress, a major stride toward freedom. More than anything, it will make clear that we can define our own destiny through our own activism. They can take away they boats and leave us behind, but we can swim and, if need be, we will learn to walk on water. No one can make us give in or give up but ourselves. We are entitled to be free and we will be free if we accept nothing less. With good wishes for the work you do and with the vision of new coalitions between our organizations. Sincerely, Suzanne Brooks, CEO
Riverwest Raised Seeton Hall Law Professor Rachel Godsil Collection of Articles re Obama CampaignFrom friend James Forman:
This article makes some GREAT points:
The short answer is that Obama is simply one of the most talented and appealing politicians in recent memory. Perhaps the most. Pollster.com shows a series of polls taken in the Democratic campaign. The graphs plotting national polling numbers as well as those in the first four states show a remarkably consistent pattern. Hillary Clinton starts out with either a modest or, more commonly, a massive lead, owing to her superior name recognition and the popularity of the Clinton brand. As the campaign goes forward Clinton’s support either climbs slowly, plateaus or dips. But as the actual contest approaches, and voters start paying attention, Obama’s support suddenly begins to grow exponentially. In addition to persuading those who already vote, Obama has also delivered on one of the hoariest promises in politics: to bring in new voters (especially the young). It’s a phenomenon that, if it were to continue with him as nominee, could completely alter the electoral math. Young people are by far the most progressive voters of any age cohort, and they overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama by stunning margins. Their enthusiasm has translated into massive increases in youth turnout in the early contests. Finally, there’s the question of coattails. In many senses there’s less difference between the two presidential candidates than there is between a Senate with fifty-one Democrats and one with fifty-six. No Democratic presidential candidate is going to carry, say, Mississippi or Nebraska, but many Democrats in those states fear that the ingrained Clinton hatred would rally the GOP base and/or depress turnout, hurting down-ticket candidates. Over the past few weeks a series of prominent red-state Democrats, most notably Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, have endorsed Obama. When I asked a Democratic Congressional candidate in the Deep South who he preferred at the top of the ticket, he didn’t hesitate: “Obama is absolutely the better candidate. Hillary brings a lot of sting; he takes some sting out of them.”
Another from James Forman
P.S. I’ve gotten a bunch of emails back in the last 48 hours from folks on this list saying that you are forwarding these pieces along, and some Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich supporters and undecideds are becoming Obamans. Glad to hear it. Keep up the pressure. About 20% of folks decide in the last day or 2, so there is still time for reason, good arguments and passion to carry the day. Here’s the key excerpt from the WSJ Op Ed:
Mrs. Clinton’s willingness to ignore the truth for short-term political advantage is exactly what breeds the partisanship that’s paralyzed Washington for too many years, and the cynicism felt by so many Americans, especially the young. Getting ahead by any means possible is the strategy. Once elected, the candidate falsely believes that he or she will be able to set things right and govern differently. All that was said in the campaign is rationalized - it will be forgiven and forgotten as part of the hyperbole of the election process.
This is incredible!Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised a staggering $32 million in contributions for January, his campaign reported Thursday, and will use the massive haul to finance a broad radio and television campaign in most Super Tuesday states and seven others holding contests in February.
A nice endorsement in the Jerusalem Post by Mel Levine, a former Congressman:You wouldn’t know it from the flood of hysterical emails we have all seen, or from a fair amount of the commentary, but there is a groundswell of Jewish American support for Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. That should hardly be surprising, for it is a reflection of the nature of our community. When he speaks - with eloquence, unmistakable authenticity, and passion - for the values we hold most dear, he renews our hope for America in these difficult times. As a state legislator, a congressman, and a private citizen, I have been politically active in Jewish causes, including pro-Israel causes, for over 40 years, and have observed many presidential candidates. But Barack Obama is the first to so thoroughly capture the imagination of Jewish Americans.
Dan Gerstein with an Op Ed in the NY Daily News last week, encouraging Obama to be more bold. Give the teachers unions an ultimatum: Either you are with the kids or against them. For Obama to be credible on special interests, he has to show he is willing to fight some on his side. The obvious candidate would be the teachers unions, which have been the nation’s biggest obstacle to educational change for years. Conservatives in Orange County and single mothers in Bushwick would both rejoice if a progressive black man drew a line in the sand - work with me to reward the best teachers and fire the bad ones, or get out of the way.
A well-deserved smack of Bill Clinton for his recent behavior: Last week, Clinton was blasted by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, an Obama supporter, for taking “glib cheap shots” that are “beneath the dignity of a former president.” He was excoriated by Ed Schultz, the nation’s top liberal radio talk host, for “lying about Barack Obama’s record” and “embarrassing” the Democratic Party. Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader who has endorsed Obama, warned that Clinton’s “overt distortions” were “not presidential” and could “destroy the party” if not checked. A past chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party charged the Clintons with practicing the “politics of deception” and likened the former president to Lee Atwater, a Republican operative who became infamous for his ruthless political warfare. “The Clintons play dirty when they feel threatened,” wrote William Greider in a scathing piece for The Nation, a leading journal of the left. “The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy.”… If recent weeks have made one thing clear, it is that the current Clinton campaign is as much about returning Bill to the White House as about making Hillary president. Bill Clinton’s angry outbursts, his lack of self-control, his overpowering presence in the public arena are surely a preview of what a Clinton Restoration would be like. Hillary might be the president, but Bill would still be, as he has always been, the dominant Clinton. To whom would he be answerable in a second Clintonadministration? Not to the woman whose political career is a derivative of his, that’s for sure.
The Choice, by CHRISTOPHER HAYEShttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes
It’s gotten to that time in the primary contest where lines are drawn, camps are solidified and conversations around dinner tables grow heated. My friend Dan recently put it this way: “You start talking about the candidates, and next thing you know someone’s crying!” The excellent (and uncommitted) blogger Digby recently decided to shut down her comments section because the posts had grown so toxic. The recent uptick in acrimony is largely due to the narrowing of the field. While once the energy was spread over many camps, it is now, with the exits of Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, concentrated on just two, leaving progressives in a fierce debate over whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make the better nominee, and President. According to polling data as well as my conversations with friends and colleagues, progressives are evenly split or undecided between the two. This is, to me, somewhat astonishing (about which more in a moment), but it also means that at a time when other subgroups within the Democratic coalition are leaning heavily toward one candidate or the other, progressives are at a moment of maximum leverage. Insofar as the issues discussed during a presidential campaign are circumscribed by the taboos and pieties of the political and media establishments, they tend to be dispiriting for those of us on the left. Neither front-runner is calling for the nation to renounce its decades-old imperial posture or to end the prison-industrial complex; neither is saying that America’s suburbs and car culture are not sustainable modes of living in an era of expensive oil and global warming or pointing out that the “war on drugs” has been a moral disaster and strategic failure, with casualties borne most violently and destructively by society’s most marginalized and—a word you won’t be hearing from either candidate—oppressed. And yet, this election is far more encouraging (dare I say hopeful?) than any in recent memory. The policy agenda for the Democratic front-runners is significantly further to the left on the war, climate change and healthcare than that of John Kerry in 2004. The ideological implosion of conservatism, the failures of the Bush Administration and, perhaps most important, the shifts in public opinion in a leftward direction on war, the economy, civil liberties and civil rights are all coming together at the same time, providing progressives with the rare and historic opportunity to elect a President with a progressive majority and an actual mandate for progressive change. The question then becomes this: which of the two Democratic candidates is more likely to bring to fruition a new progressive majority? I believe, passionately and deeply, if occasionally waveringly, that it’s Barack Obama. Had you told me a few years ago that the left of the Democratic Party would be split between Obama and Clinton, I’d have dismissed you as crazy: Barack Obama has been a community organizer, a civil rights attorney, a loyal and reliable ally in the State Senate of progressive groups. For the Chicago left, his primary campaign and his subsequent election to the US Senate was a collective rallying cry. If you’ve read his first book, the truly beautiful, honest and intellectually sophisticated Dreams From My Father, you have an inkling of what young Chicago progressives felt about Obama. He is one of us, and now he’s in the Senate. We thought we’d elected our own Paul Wellstone. (Full disclosure: my brother is an organizer on the Obama campaign.) That’s not, alas, how things turned out. Almost immediately Obama—likely with an eye on national office—shaded himself toward the center. His rhetoric was cool, often timid, not the zealous advocacy on behalf of peace, justice and the dispossessed that had characterized Wellstone’s tenure. His record places him squarely in the middle of Democratic senators, just slightly to Clinton’s left on domestic issues (he voted against the bankruptcy bill, for example). As a presidential candidate, his domestic policy (with some notable exceptions on voting rights and technology policy) has been very close to that of his chief rivals, though sometimes, notably on healthcare, marginally less progressive. But while domestic policy will ultimately be determined through a complicated and fraught interplay with legislators, foreign policy is where the President’s agenda is implemented more or less unfettered. It’s here where distinctions in worldview matter most—and where Obama compares most favorably to Clinton. The war is the most obvious and powerful distinction between the two: Hillary Clinton voted for and supported the most disastrous American foreign policy decision since Vietnam, and Barack Obama (at a time when it was deeply courageous to do so) spoke out against it. In this campaign, their proposals are relatively similar, but in rhetoric and posture Clinton has played hawk to Obama’s dove, attacking from the right on everything from the use of first-strike nuclear weapons to negotiating with Iran’s president. Her hawkishness relative to Obama’s is mirrored in her circle of advisers. As my colleague Ari Berman has reported in these pages, it’s a circle dominated by people who believed and believe that waging pre-emptive war on Iraq was the right thing to do. Obama’s circle is made up overwhelmingly of people who thought the Iraq War was a mistake. Clinton’s fundamentally defensive conception of how to defuse the Republicans on national security (neutralizing their hawkishness with one’s own) is an example of a larger problem, rooted in the fact that so many of her circle served in her husband’s Administration. Their political identities were formed in the crucible of crisis, from the Gingrich insurgency to the Ken Starr inquisition. The overriding imperative was survival against massive odds, often with a hostile public, press or both. Like an animal caught in a trap that chews off its leg to wriggle away, the Clinton crew by the end of its tenure had hardly any limbs left to propel an agenda. The benefit of this experience, much touted by the Clintons, is that they know how to fight and how to survive. But the cost has been high: those who lived through those years are habituated to playing defense and fighting rear-guard actions. We know how progressives fared under Clintonism: they were the bloodied limbs left in the trap. Clintonism, in other words, is the devil we know. Which brings us to the one we don’t. A President cannot build a movement, but he can be its messenger, as was Reagan. Part of what tantalizes and frustrates about Obama is that he seems to have the potential to be such a messenger and yet shies away from speaking in ideological terms. When he invokes union organizers facing Pinkerton thugs to give us our forty-hour week, or says we are bound to one another as “our brother’s keeper…our sister’s keeper,” he is articulating the deepest progressive values: solidarity and community and collective action. But he places more rhetorical emphasis on a politics of “unity” that, read uncharitably, seems to fetishize bipartisanship as an end in itself and reinforce lame and deceptive myths that the parties are equally responsible for the “bickering” and “divisiveness” in Washington. It appears sometimes that his diagnosis of what’s wrong with politics is the way it is conducted rather than for whom. In its totality, though, Obama’s rhetoric tells a story of politics that is distinct from both the one told by Beltway devotees of bipartisanship and comity and from the progressive activists’ story of a ceaseless battle between the forces of progress and those of reaction. If it differs from what I like to hear, it is also unfailingly targeted at building the coalition that is the raison d’être of Obama’s candidacy. Consider this passage from Obama’s stump speech: I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election. Obama makes a distinction between bad-faith, implacable enemies (lobbyists, entrenched interests, “operatives”) and good-faith ideological opponents (Republicans, independents and conservatives of good conscience). He wants to court the latter and use their support to vanquish the former. This may be improbable, but it crucially allows former Republicans (Obama Republicans?) to cross over without guilt or self-loathing. They are not asked to renounce, only to join. Obama’s diagnosis of the obstacles to progress is twofold. First, that the division of the electorate into the categories created by the right’s culture warriors is the primary means by which the forces of reaction resist change. Progress will be made only by rejecting or transcending those categories. In 1971 a young Pat Buchanan urged Richard Nixon to wield race as what would come to be known as a wedge issue. “This is a potential throw of the dice,” he wrote, “that could…cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.” Obama seeks to stitch those halves back together. Second, that the reason progressives have failed to achieve our goals over the past several decades is not that we didn’t fight hard enough but that we didn’t have a popular mandate. In other words, the fundamental obstacle is a basic political one: never having the public squarely on our side and never having the votes on the Hill. In this respect the Obama campaign is uniquely circular: his political appeal is rooted in the fact that he’s so politically appealing. This means that when he loses, the loss affects him worse than it would other candidates, since it also cuts against his message. But when he wins, particularly when he wins big, as he did in Iowa and South Carolina, the win means more because it reinforces the basic argument of his campaign. The question of who can best build popular support for a progressive governing agenda is related to, but distinct from, the question of electability. Given a certain ceiling on Clinton’s appeal (due largely to years of unhinged attacks from the “vast right-wing conspiracy”), her campaign seems well prepared to run a 50 percent + 1 campaign, a rerun of 2004 but with a state or two switching columns: Florida, maybe, or Ohio. Obama is aiming for something bigger: a landmark sea-change election, with the kind of high favorability and approval ratings that can drive an agenda forward. Why should we think he can do it? The short answer is that Obama is simply one of the most talented and appealing politicians in recent memory. Perhaps the most. Pollster.com shows a series of polls taken in the Democratic campaign. The graphs plotting national polling numbers as well as those in the first four states show a remarkably consistent pattern. Hillary Clinton starts out with either a modest or, more commonly, a massive lead, owing to her superior name recognition and the popularity of the Clinton brand. As the campaign goes forward Clinton’s support either climbs slowly, plateaus or dips. But as the actual contest approaches, and voters start paying attention, Obama’s support suddenly begins to grow exponentially. In addition to persuading those who already vote, Obama has also delivered on one of the hoariest promises in politics: to bring in new voters (especially the young). It’s a phenomenon that, if it were to continue with him as nominee, could completely alter the electoral math. Young people are by far the most progressive voters of any age cohort, and they overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama by stunning margins. Their enthusiasm has translated into massive increases in youth turnout in the early contests. Finally, there’s the question of coattails. In many senses there’s less difference between the two presidential candidates than there is between a Senate with fifty-one Democrats and one with fifty-six. No Democratic presidential candidate is going to carry, say, Mississippi or Nebraska, but many Democrats in those states fear that the ingrained Clinton hatred would rally the GOP base and/or depress turnout, hurting down-ticket candidates. Over the past few weeks a series of prominent red-state Democrats, most notably Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, have endorsed Obama. When I asked a Democratic Congressional candidate in the Deep South who he preferred at the top of the ticket, he didn’t hesitate: “Obama is absolutely the better candidate. Hillary brings a lot of sting; he takes some sting out of them.” Whoever is elected in November, progressives will probably find themselves feeling frustrated. Ultimately though, the future judgments and actions of the candidates are unknowable, obscured behind time’s cloak. Who knew that the Bill Clinton of 1992 who campaigned with Nelson Mandela would later threaten to sanction South Africa when it passed a law allowing the production of low-cost generic AIDS drugs for its suffering population—or that the George W. Bush of 2000, an amiable “centrist” whose thin foreign-policy views shaded toward isolationism, would go on to become a self-justifying, delusional and messianic instrument of global war? In this sense, Bill Clinton is right: voting for and electing Barack Obama is a “roll of a dice.” All elections are. But the candidacy of Barack Obama represents by far the left’s best chance to, in Buchanan’s immortal phrasing, take back the bigger half of the country. It’s a chance we can’t pass up.
Hillary’s Smear Campaign
Beginning with the South Carolina debate, and continuing as an applause line in many stump speeches thereafter, Hillary Clinton has accused BarackObamaof representing an inner-city slum lord while practicing law in Chicago.Of all people, Sen. Clinton should know better. During the Whitewater investigation, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigated the legal work performed by Mrs. Clinton, then a partner in the Rose law firm, on behalf of Jim McDougal and his bank, Madison Guaranty. Mr. Starr believed that Mrs. Clinton helped orchestrate the fraudulent land deal known as Castle Grande. He subpoenaed her billing records, hauled her before a grand jury, and relentlessly pursued her. In her defense, Mrs. Clinton and her attorneys asserted that her involvement in the matter was de minimus. As one of independent counsels who preceded Mr. Starr, I was interviewed repeatedly on the subject. I wholeheartedly defended Mrs. Clinton. I believed that the evidence revealed that Mrs. Clinton, who spent a total of only 60 hours of work on the case over a 15-month period, was not substantially involved in the matter and did nothing improper in her work on behalf of Madison Guaranty. In the end, no charges were brought against Mrs. Clinton because there was insufficient evidence to prove that she knowingly assisted anyone in the perpetration of a fraud. Yet, when an opportunity presented itself in the debate, Mrs. Clinton, without so much as a blink of an eye or the slightest blush, denounced Sen. Obama for representing “Tony Rezkoin his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago.” Her accusation invites scrutiny. Not so much for the truth of the accusation (the facts are quite straightforward and completely benign) but as a window into Mrs. Clinton’s character and as a lens with which to see whether a Clinton presidency will be a vehicle for change. The facts are well documented: Upon graduation from Harvard Law School in 1991, Mr. Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law review, could have named his job at any law firm or corporate legal department in America. Instead, he selected a boutique civil rights law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he represented community organizers, discrimination victims and black voters trying to force a redrawing of city ward boundaries. During his tenure at Miner Barnhill, the firm accepted the representation of the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., a nonprofit group that redeveloped a run-down property on Chicago’s South Side. Mr. Rezko, not the client of the firm, was assisting Woodland with City housing redevelopment projects. As a junior associate, Mr. Obama was asked by his supervising attorney, William Miceli, to do about five hours of basic due diligence and document review. That began and ended his involvement in the case. No one who has ever practiced law, let alone Mrs. Clinton, could argue, with a clear conscience, that these five hours on behalf of a church group that partnered with a man who at a later point in time would be alleged to be a scoundrel equated to knowingly representing a Chicago slumlord. Yet she could not resist leveling the accusation. I suggest that this provides a window into Mrs. Clinton’s character because notwithstanding the enormous suffering she had to endure when accused of wrongful conduct in her representation of Madison Guaranty - a representation that appears to have been no more than a routine business transaction - she is willing to behave no differently than did her Whitewater accusers if she can gain politically. She appears to have learned no lessons from the Starr investigation. Mrs. Clinton’s willingness to ignore the truth for short-term political advantage is exactly what breeds the partisanship that’s paralyzed Washington for too many years, and the cynicism felt by so many Americans, especially the young. Getting ahead by any means possible is the strategy. Once elected, the candidate falsely believes that he or she will be able to set things right and govern differently. All that was said in the campaign is rationalized - it will be forgiven and forgotten as part of the hyperbole of the election process. Sadly, it just isn’t so. No one forgets and no one forgives in Washington. (Ask John Kerry if he has gotten over the Swift boat smear campaign.) How you get elected defines who you will be once in power. Mrs. Clinton has shown us with this one simple, baseless accusation why it will be hard for her candidacy to represent a change. She appears too comfortable with the politics of personal destruction if she can gain a political advantage. Mr. Zeldinis a former independent counsel and federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. He has volunteered for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary campaign.
Obama Fund-Raising Soared In January, Campaign Says
LOS ANGELES - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised a staggering $32 million in contributions for January, his campaign reported Thursday, and will use the massive haul to finance a broad radio and television campaign in most Super Tuesday states and seven others holding contests in February. If cash is a measure of popularity, Mr. Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, may be catching up to Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who holds a polling edge in several of the largest Super Tuesday states. Super Tuesday is Feb. 5, when Democratic candidates will compete in 22 states for 1,700 party delegates and a potential big edge in the nominating battle. In a conference call with reporters, David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said the January money came from 170,000 new contributors who donated in “remarkably consistent” fashion throughout the month. Mr. Plouffe said the biggest contributor day came shortly after Mr. Obama lost a close battle for New Hampshire on Jan. 8. “We took a lot of encouragement from that because it showed the resolve of our existing donor base,” Mr. Plouffe said. It’s unusual for a campaign to release contribution figures on anything but a quarterly basis, as required by the Federal Election Commission. But with Mrs. Clinton leading in popular polls in large Super Tuesday states such as California, New York and New Jersey, the Obama camp clearly saw the cash haul as an effective momentum tool. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to release a similar accounting. “We put out our numbers quarterly,” campaign spokesman Phil Singer wrote in an email. To be sure, both candidates have blown the doors off fund-raising totals this political season. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had banked about $100 million apiece through the end of the year. The Center for Responsive Politics in Washington said all candidates had raised $450 million through the three quarters of 2007 alone. The two campaigns have also spent a lot of money. Both reported spending about $40 million before the first voter had cast a ballot. That rate of spending eclipses the entire year’s fund-raising for most of the Republican field. Contribution levels have been more disappointing this political season for Republicans. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the most well-heeled Republican candidate, had raised about $44 million through October 2007 and had plowed an additional $17 million of his own money into the campaign. And the campaign of Arizona Sen. John McCain, the front-runner on the Republican side, said earlier this week that it had raised a comparatively paltry $7 million through the first three weeks of January. The campaign reported raising $36 million during 2007. Though the relationship between cash and voter popularity may remain a loose one, as evidenced by the current Republican field, there’s no doubt that it comes in handy for candidates competing on Tuesday, when an unprecedented number of states are holding nominating contests. Advertising analysts say that buying time to air television and radio ads in all of those states could cost upwards of $30 million. Mr. Plouffe said the campaign’s cash flow would allow it “to advertise in just about every Feb. 5 state at pretty high levels.” He added that the campaign was planning a separate ad buy in seven states holding nominating contests shortly after Super Tuesday. Some 500 Democratic delegates will be at stake during a 10-day stretch in mid-February. Mr. Plouffe said the campaign expected the race with Mrs. Clinton to go on for several more months, calling the nominating schedule “a very challenging calendar.” Both Mr. Obama and his campaign surrogates have cast themselves as big underdogs in the Tuesday contests. Laying Mr. Obama’s January contributions aside, the Center for Responsive Politics said that as of last fall, the money race in Super Tuesday states was relatively even, at least technically. The nonpartisan, nonprofit group said Mr. Obama slightly beat Mrs. Clinton in these 22 states, trumping her 12–10. But Mrs. Clinton had the edge on the biggest states: New York, New Jersey and California raised more money for the Clinton campaign, where she also holds a decided edge in recent polls. Mr. Obama took fund-raising honors in Illinois, Colorado and Massachusetts. He leads in the first two states but continues to trail in Massachusetts despite the recent endorsement of several members of the Kennedy clan, including Sen. Edward Kennedy. Campaign officials say Mr. Obama’s landslide win in South Carolina last week has helped tremendously in the money race. Indeed, after a scheduled televised debate Thursday evening in Los Angeles, Mr. Obama was expected to attend a high-dollar fund-raiser that the campaign expected to attract about 1,000 attendees. Mr. McCain was also in California Thursday evening, slated to attend a Hollywood fund-raiser hosted by MGM studio head Harry Sloan. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201523778582&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Why I support Obama, by Mel Levine, THE JERUSALEM POSTJan. 28, 2008 You wouldn’t know it from the flood of hysterical emails we have all seen, or from a fair amount of the commentary, but there is a groundswell of Jewish American support for Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. That should hardly be surprising, for it is a reflection of the nature of our community. When he speaks - with eloquence, unmistakable authenticity, and passion - for the values we hold most dear, he renews our hope for America in these difficult times. As a state legislator, a congressman, and a private citizen, I have been politically active in Jewish causes, including pro-Israel causes, for over 40 years, and have observed many presidential candidates. But Barack Obama is the first to so thoroughly capture the imagination of Jewish Americans. The reason, in my view, is that American politics for far too long has been dominated by partisanship, hate-mongering, and influence-peddling. The results are everywhere to see - a country where divisiveness thrives, whether it is between races, religions, or the haves and have-nots. (The top 2% of Americans earn 50% of America’s income now - and decent health care and a quality education are beyond the reach of many Americans.) Now, into this polarized nation comes Barack Obama - with a strikingly different message, and a history of bridging divides and crossing frontiers, through his 25 years of political activism. As a community organizer and leader in Chicago and New York, and throughout his 12 years in public office, he has epitomized the notion of tikkun olam (“repairing the world”). Barack Obama understands that we can only surmount our greatest challenges by finding common ground and nurturing an inclusive style of politics - in a radical break from the polarization which plagues our polity. More than most, Jewish Americans have benefited from progressive ideas and inclusive politics, and no candidate better represents that tradition than Barack Obama. SOME, INCLUDING in these pages, have raised questions about whether Barack Obama is truly committed to maintaining the United States’ support for Israel. In his speeches and public statements, his legislation and his voting record, he has proven himself to be a stalwart friend of Israel, committed to helping Israel in its search for peace with its neighbors, while standing strong with Israel against those who do not share this vision. “I start with the premise that Israel is a stalwart ally of ours and their security cannot be compromised,” Senator Obama pledged last year to an AIPAC audience in a widely-praised speech that described his travels in Israel, confirmed his unwavering commitment to the Jewish state and laid out his vision for protecting American interests in the Middle East. He understands the threats Israel faces, especially from terrorism and Islamist radicalism. “Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real,” he told AIPAC. In addition to burgeoning grassroots support, many Jewish leaders and pro-Israel activists are also joining the Obama campaign. “I am proud to say that he is unyielding in defending Israel’s security,” said longtime Jewish leader and philanthropist Lester Crown, “Obama’s conviction holds fast whether the threat comes from Gaza or Teheran.” In the United States Senate, Barack Obama has led the charge to tighten sanctions against Iran and make it easier for state and local governments to divest from companies that do business with the radical regime in Teheran - a high priority of the pro-Israel community in all 50 states. Consistently - before non-Jewish audiences as well as Jewish - Senator Obama insists that Israel must remain a Jewish state and strongly condemns anti-Semitism and anti-Semites. Barack Obama has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Jewish community in raising the alarm about genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. “We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense,” Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs, including cases of genocide and mass atrocities. Unlike our current leaders, Barack Obama will confront the destabilizing and debilitating impact of America’s reliance on imported oil. Closer to home, Jewish Americans support Senator Obama because of his dedication to other bedrock causes in our community: promoting strong families and women’s rights, including advancement in the workplace, protecting a woman’s right to choose, and maintaining the separation of church and state. “I don’t think that people of any faith background should be prohibited from debating in the public square,” Obama said in a recent presidential debate, “But I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state. By the way, I support it not just for the state but also for the church, because that maintains our religious independence and that’s why we have such a thriving religious life.” Barack Obama is a rare combination of an uncommon intellect, extraordinary decency, and proven leadership. Jewish Americans are understandably anxious about the direction in which our country is headed - both at home and abroad - and are eager for change. Barack Obama’s unifying message, experience and life story promise to lead America toward a new and better future, renewing our community’s faith in government and restoring our nation’s standing on the world stage. The writer is a former Member of Congress from California and a former member of the board of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Obama, you say you want a revolution? Then prove it
As the Democratic primary campaign has taken fuller shape over the past several weeks, many Democrats I have talked with are still wrestling with the same head-heart conflict. They are seduced by the possibilities of Barack Obama but not yet ready to abandon the security of the Clintons. For most of the campaign, that split was due in large part to doubts about Obama’s readiness. Now, it seems, Obama has less of an experience problem than an expectations problem. He is so inspiring and his rhetoric so grandiose that many voters come in anticipating a comparably breathtaking agenda - only to walk away shaking their heads at the dearth of status quo-shaking ideas. No 21st century equivalent of the New Deal. No moon shot. No ending welfare as we know it. Nothing yet that truly breaks the mold, exceeds our imagination or challenges Democratic orthodoxy. Is it audacious to hope for more than conventional solutions from such a transformational figure? Like a lot of uncommitted Democrats, I am excited by Obama’s promise. But he ought to know he’s in trouble when his opponent is stealing her strategy from Walter Mondale - Hillary Clinton actually revived the famous “Where’s the beef?” line at one point - and it’s working. If this keeps up, we may soon see there is a thin line between hope and hype. Obama still has time to close the deal with the fence-sitters - provided he has the guts to take some stands that match the scope and force of his rhetoric. Here are five big leadership acts that could prove Obama means business about changing the way Washington works: 1) Call for a series of “unity” debates with the Republican nominee this fall. Before he was killed, John F. Kennedy had secretly worked out a plan with Barry Goldwater, his possible opponent in the 1964 campaign, to charter a plane together and hold a series of Lincoln-Douglas-style debates around the country. This idea is tailor-made for Obama - it would cement his place as the natural heir to the New Frontier and demonstrate that he is not going to wait to be President to elevate our democracy. 2) Commit to veto any legislation until Congress passes a credible climate change bill. As things stand now, Congress is not going to approve legislation to cap greenhouse gases without external pressure - i.e. the presidential leadership President Bush has failed to exercise. Obama could use the unique power he has to force them to behave like adults, act quickly - and show the world our seriousness about this existential threat. 3) Give the teachers unions an ultimatum: Either you are with the kids or against them. For Obama to be credible on special interests, he has to show he is willing to fight some on his side. The obvious candidate would be the teachers unions, which have been the nation’s biggest obstacle to educational change for years. Conservatives in Orange County and single mothers in Bushwick would both rejoice if a progressive black man drew a line in the sand - work with me to reward the best teachers and fire the bad ones, or get out of the way. 4) Promise to convene a bipartisan congressional war council on Inauguration Day. Relations with Capitol Hill will determine the fate of Obama’s change agenda. By making House and Senate leaders a formal part of his advisory circle on Iraq, Afghanistan and other terrorist hot spots from day one, Obama can quickly rebuild the cross-party and crossbranch bonds of trust that Bush helped de |