Support Barack Obama
These past few months following the primaries have been a lot of fun for me, as I’ve found the Democrats running for President this year to be the most interesting in quite a long time. The candidates ran the gamut from middle of the road candidates like Hillary Clinton to traditional liberals like Joe Biden and Bill Richardson to more progressive candidates like Dennis Kucinich, and it was healthy for us to hear the spectrum of ideas within the Democratic Party. Early on I supported Joe Biden because of his experience and his plan of partitioning Iraq. When he dropped out, I briefly supported Bill Richardson but he soon dropped out. When the California primary came along, I settled on supporting Hillary, as I was impressed with her toughness. Now that the primaries are over and Obama is now the Democratic candidate, I wholeheartedly support Barack. I think this was an especially strong Democratic field of candidates, and they all would be better as President than George W. Bush and the Republican field this year. Though I didn’t vote for Barack during the primaries, I’ve always thought of him as being an intelligent and charismatic leader who brings unique gifts to the Presidency.
Coming into the primary season, I was looking for certain qualities that I wanted in the Democratic nominee. In terms of policy, I thought all of the Democratic nominees had political positions that were more progressive than Kerry had in 2004, as I see the political center of this nation having moved farther to the left after 8 years of Bush policies. Kucinich and Edwards, especially, have influenced the field to take more progressive positions on health care and the working poor. With even the more moderate Democrats offering more progressive agenda in health care, immigration, and economic policy, I looked for qualities that a candidate needed to tough out a fight to get those changes enacted. I wanted someone who was tough enough to withstand a Republican onslaught to stall Democratic reforms, the political savy to bring together various groups and cobble the votes to get things through Congress, and the communication skills to educate the public and gain their support. Good ideas don’t mean a thing if a President doesn’t have the political skills to translate those ideas into legislation. We don’t another repeat of the Carter presidency of the 1970s, of a well meaning and intelligent man who struggled to get things done in Washington.
I do not think Obama will become another Carter for a variety of reasons. When Carter became President, he relied on a coterie of Georgia advisers who knew little about Congress and the culture of Washington D.C. and struggled despite having Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Obama, on the other hand, is drawing among his advisers a wide variety of Democratic veterans. As a Senator, Obama has worked to get to know his Senate colleagues and has worked across the aisles to collaborate with moderate Republicans to get bills passed. Carter’s presidency was deeply hurt by sticking too long to Bert Lance, while Obama was able to cut his relations to Reverend Wright after Wright’s comments threatened to overshadow Obama’s message. Obama used the controversy to try to open up a dialogue on race in America. I think Obama has the political skills to overcome his lack of experience, in much the same way that Abraham Lincoln overcame his meager experience with his patience and great political skills in handling a disparate group of people.
Hillary supporters have good reason to vote for Obama in the Fall. If you compare Obama’s position on major issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) with Hillary’s (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/), they share similar views on how to help America on the economy, on the environment, on weaning ourselves off of our oil dependency, on departing from Iraq. Obama is a strong proponent of getting universal health care for every American, for getting a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for a program to give illegal immigrants a chance to gain citizenship, for a middle class tax cut and government stimulus for the economy, for a measured policy in Iraq. When compared to John McCains’ stand on various issues (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/), Obama is more progressive. And Obama has amog his advisers people who had worked in the Clinton administration: Jeffrey Liebman, a Harvard economist who advises Obama on budget issues, was a top aide to President Clinton’s top economics adviser; Michael Froman, a Citigroup executive who advises Obama on Wall Street issues, was a top aid to former Clinton Treasure secretary Robert Rubin. I voted for Hillary during the California primary, but I’m too young to have lived through the battles that feminists had to go through in the 1960s and 1970s to gain respect for women’s skills and abilities. I understand the disappointment these older feminists feel from not seeing a woman become our chief executive. But we have another candidate breaking ground, as the first African American candidate who could seriously become President. The ground he breaks will benefit all Americans.
For those Progressive Democrats who might be tempted to vote for Ralph Nader, I only have to say that there are good reasons to stay in the fold and vote for Obama. It is true that Obama is not as progressive as Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards. I think though that radicals have to look at Obama’s openness to moving farther left when prodded by new opportunities. I think Obama’s relationship with the more radical progressives will be similar to Lincoln’s relationship with Frederick Douglass and the abolitionists. Though Lincoln was not an abolitionist himself, he was sympathetic to their cause and was himself deeply opposed to slavery. Under the influence of Frederick Douglass and the sacrifice of countless African American soldiers who fought for the Union cause, Lincoln gradually moved towards the abolition of slavery and the protection of African American rights. Howard Zinn, in the article Abolitionists, Freedom Riders and the Tactics of Agitation in The Zinn Reader, wrote:
“In all ages, it has been first the radical, and only later the moderate, who has held out a hand to men knocked to the ground by social order.
The moderate, whose sensitive ears are offended by the wild language of the radical, needs to consider the necessary division of labor in a world full of evil, a division in which agitators for reform play an indispensable role… In Abraham Lincoln we have the prototype of the political man in power, with views so moderate as to require the pressure of radicals to stimulate action. The politician, by the very nature of the electoral process, is a compromiser and a trimmer, who sets his sails by the prevailing breezes, and without the hard blowing of the radical reformer would either drift actionless or sail along with existing injustices…
In the fascinating dialogue- somtimes articulated, sometimes unspoken- between Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists, we have the classic situation of the politician vis-a-vis the radical reformer. It would be wrong to say that Lincoln was completely a politician- his fundamental humanitarianism did not allow that- and wrong to say that some of the abolitionists did not occasionally play politics- but on both sides the aberrations were slight, and they played their respective roles to perfection.”
Though Obama was criticized for this, I thought it was a good sign that Obama was willing to associate with a Reverend Wright or a former 1960s radical. Though he may not be as Progressive as a Ralph Nader, Obama doesn’t shirk from identifying himself with progressive causes and will be more effective than Nader in enacting needed Democratic reforms. I think if progressives do the hard work of agitating and changing people’s opinions and moving the politcal center farther to the left, Obama as President is willing to take advantage of the opportunities that open up for change.
Though I was not an original Obama supporter during the primaries, I happily support Obama now. He is an intelligent and focused man who has shown the ability to inspire the young and disaffected in much the same way that JFK inspired the young in the 1960s. During the primaries, I worried about Obama’s inexperience and toughness. In the last few months fighting Hillary, Barack Obama has shown great resilience and toughness, and I see in his handling of the Reverend Wright controversy a hint of the political savy that he will need to be a successful President. While I saw a Hillary Presidency as being like Harry S Truman, I see an Obama Presidency as being like Abraham Lincoln. It will be a Presidency of great thought and sensitivity to finding common ground among the divisions in our country and around the world.
- Angelo Lopez's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Another Reason to Thank Nader
Thank you Ralph for A) delaying the full federal funding embryonic stem cell research; B) relaxing environmental regulations; C) excessive tax cutting on the wealthy; D) Iraq; and now--
--the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Second Amendment which made a mockery of the Founders' intentions.
And Nader told us all with a straight face that there was no real difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore!
No Problem Supporting Obama Now
If my supporting Obama annoys Ralph Nader, well then does it for me!
Thank you Ralph for doing more than anyone else to unify us Democrats.
where are you Naderites?
I agree Frank.
Thanks for sending me this link:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/nader-critical-of-obam...
Where are the Naderites now? Someone try to defend that nonsense.
This confirms what I've said before, Nader is an egotistical with serious racism problems. Nader should shut up and go away. He does nothing useful in our political process in thirty years. If he was concerned about anyone except himself he would be support Obama or at the very least lifting up younger progressive voices.
There's no basis for thinking that...
...Nader's a racist.
What did he say? He referred to Obama not talking about economic exploitation in the ghetto. Then he asked, rhetorically, "What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterward."
It's clear that Obama doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson. When Bill Clinton made that comparison, Obama's people criticized him for covert racism, for racializing Obama by defining him as the black candidate with black issues. It's also clear that Nader thinks an African-American candidate should be talking about black issues. Nader, for example, supports Affirmative Action while Obama doesn't bring it up. By criticizing Obama on those grounds, Nader did the opposite of the racial thing that Clinton did.
Granted, "talk white" was not as good a choice of words as "talking in a way that appeals to whites" would have been. (Also his characterization of Obama as "half African-American" was clumsy as one could say that he's "half-black" - but he's entirely "African-American".)
Nader's clarification of what he meant seems to me to be unexceptionable: "He wants to show that he is not a threatening...another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."
I think that's an accurate assessment of Obama's campaign style and campaign strategy, regardless of whether you like or dislike that style and strategy. Obama, like every other candidate, talks publicly about the economic problems of "the middle class". "Working families" is part of campaign rhetoric. "The poor" is not -- though they have a place in Obama's platform's Plan to Combat Poverty. But there are weaknesses in that part of the platform -- Nader went into more detail after Obama criticized his remarks:
Senator Obama said earlier today that I haven't been paying attention
to his campaign.
Actually, I have.
And it's clear from Senator Obama's campaign that he is not willing to
tackle the white power structure--whether in the form of the corporate
power structure or many of the super-rich--who are taking advantage of
100 million low income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near
poverty.
Senator Obama is opposed to single-payer national health insurance.
Why?
Because he favors the health insurance giants over the millions of
Americans in poverty or near poverty who are uninsured or
under-insured. Eighteen thousand Americans die every year because they
cannot afford health insurance, according to the Institute of Medicine.
Senator Obama wants to expand the military budget which is loaded with
waste, fraud and abuse--instead of cutting it and investing the
long-ignored peace dividend in the inner cities with good jobs and
public works--including schools, clinics, and libraries.
Why?
Because he fears and favors those thousands of lobbyists in charge of
enlarging the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower
warned us against.
Senator Obama says he favors a living wage. But he doesn't say he would
immediately increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which is the
equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation, because by
doing so he would offend the big corporations who exploit labor in
places like Wal-Mart and fast food chains. (The minimum wage needs to
be increased immediately, not phased in over a number of years, as
Senator Obama would have it.)
So Senator Obama, let's get specific.
We're looking for deeds, not, as Shakespeare put it, words, words, mere
words. Your public career, which I have also been paying attention to,
is long on words, and short on action when it comes to consumer
protection, cracking down on corporate crime, curbing the violence of
toxic environmental racism, and extending clean, affordable public
transit, among other issues.
For the purposes of the here and now, three things:
One, why don't you support single-payer national health insurance,
which is supported by a majority of doctors and the American people?
Two, why do you favor expanding the military budget which is replete
with waste, fraud and abuse?
And three, why don't you come out and support an immediate increase of
the minimum wage to $10 an hour? When can we expect the authenticity of
hope and change?
Though there are things that can be argued about in that statement, including other elements of Obama's platform that look more positive but aren't mentioned, not a bit of it seems racist.
Where's the nonsense, Steve?
Bill
Nader is a racist
Bill,
Nader is clearly a racist. If he cared at all about people of color he would stop promoting himself and start promoting and mentoring young leaders of color who will be responsible for this country long after he is gone. Instead, he makes it all about himself.
And what does the criticism about Obama speaking white mean? First of all the cadence of his speeches is actually very grounded in the African American church so Ralph shows his complete ignorance of the dialect. Furthermore, what does he mean? He's implying there's a certain way to talk if you are African American or otherwise you are acting too white. First of all, as white guy its not for him to frankly say. Secondly, the assumption that black folk are supposed to speak a certain way is racist. What else is it? It sounds like something Ann Coulter would say.
No sense in trying to defend the indefensible Bill. Nader is an egotisitcal
His platform and criticism of Obama mean absolutely nothing, because Nader has not been able to get anything done in the last 30 years. He's chosen pursuit of his own ego rather than pracitical politics of what's possible. Therefore nothing on his platform gets done. If it does, it has nothing to do with his own blabbing about it...He's refused to let any other progressive share the stage. He's built no leadership behind him. And now add racist on top of that.
We finally have a chance to elect an African American leader who may not be perfect on all the issues but is CLEARLY PROGRESSIVE, and what does this egotistical (insert explicative here) do?---attack. We'll never get anywhere as a progressive movement if we can't accept a candidate who is 90% of the way there on the issues we care about it.
He should go away or choose a different path of lifting up the next generation of progressive leaders. Its not about you Ralph.
Defending the "indefensible"
I think those are specious arguments, Steve.
1. "If he cared about people of color...he would start promoting and mentoring young leaders of color..."
His focus has always been on corporations and corporate power. It's not an issue that has grabbed many African-Americans. His approach has been advocacy, not community organizing -- he's not a "people person". If that makes him racist, then by your standard everyone who works primarily on other than race issues is racist. Someone doing research and advocacy work on environmental justice but not out there mentoring or organizing in communities would be racist, too. From Nader's point of view (and mine -- except that mine is much farther left than his), fighting against corporate power benefits everyone, including people of color.
2. The "talking white" thing has nothing at all to do with dialect or the cadence of his speeches. I think you've totally misconstrued his comments in that article that Rocky Mountain News article. It was, as I tried to show, about appealing to whites and white guilt, and reducing white fears.
Obama's "rightward lurch", as it's called in a piece in Counterpunch, has a lot of progressives and people on the left rather worried about how "clearly progressive" he is. You may think that Obama is 90% of the way there on the issues we care about. I calculate it differently. I still want him to win -- but I think that "attacks" from the left are necessary and even helpful. More on that later. I recommend reading the Counterpunch piece just to get an idea of how some other lefties are looking at the Obama/Nader issue.
I intend to vote for Cynthia McKinney for president on the Green Party ticket. (If I lived in a battleground state I'm sure I'd vote for Obama regardless of his campaign's lurches.) And I just donated $6 to the Nader/Gonzalez campaign. More on that later, too. And if you think that makes me racist, then I will remind you of my years in the Mississippi movement in the 60s and 70s. Unlike Nader, my focus on corporatism was preceded by long immersion in the civil rights struggle. I think I know racism when I see, hear, or smell it. Yes, I know -- personal history is no guarantee that I've got it right this time. But I think you haven't come close to making a viable case. "Racist" is one of the worst things you can call a person nowadays. My concern is that it not be used in ways that seem to me to be reckless.
Bill
too bad
Bill,
I think its too bad that you can't get behind the Obama campaign. For the first chance in a long time we have the chance to elect a true progressive, historic because he's an Africa American, but necessary because he's everything the Bush is not. Politics is the art of what's possible and any candidate with a chance of winning needs to demonstrate he's more centrist, but I have no doubt the Obama is a true progressive. Holding out for 100% when you have 90% is what gave us George Bush...indeed, Nader's comments about Bush and Gore being the same seem even that much ridiculous given the history of the last 8 years.
As for Nader being a racist, I'm not using the term lightly. His comments on speaking white clearly show he has a lot ignorance in him. Whatever the purpose the comments were wrong. What's worse because he's such an egotistical person, he refuses to acknowledge his own prejudice. If sounds like a comment that would be said on Fox News. Nader shouldn't get a pass because he did something progressive 40 years ago.
It doesn't make you a racist to defend, but I do think you have some real blindspots on this issue. I have no idea why you support someone who chooses to be all about himself rather than doing movement building work, but you do. But that support shouldn't get in the way of taking a fair look at what the guy said which was racist by any definition of the word.
Not so bad
Steve,
I live in NY. It's a lock for Obama. His campaign doesn't need me. (If it's even close in NY, say within 10%, it would mean that McCain would have a landslide victory nationally.)
I agree with the writer of that Counterpunch article that Obama needs to be pressured from the left and that he'll do better if he doesn't "lurch rightwards". I don't think we "have 90%" with him. Neither do I think that he's a "true progressive". I do think he offers the hope that he will be progressive in his response to pressures from the left. He speaks as a former community organizer who makes it clear that he won't do it but that we must do it and only then will he respond. And I'm not holding out for perfection, anyway. I agree with Chomsky that small differences can lead to big differences in outcomes. (For that, he's been attacked by some of the most intransigent lefties as being a tool of the mainstream media!) And I also agree that electing an African-American is immensely important in itself. However, I don't want it to turn out to have been, in retrospect, a hollow victory.
Your insistence that what Nader meant is of no importance reminds me of McCain's insistence that Wesley Clark was impugning his military service when Clark said that having been a fighter pilot is not a qualification for being president. It seems to me that you're insisting on taking form over substance. It's like insisting that Obama was dissing small town whites and being "elitist" when he made the bitterness comment. That approach to analyzing "texts" leads inevitably to the conclusion that what Obama said was as "elitist" as what Nader said was "racist". From the perspective of literary criticism and of socio-political analysis, I don't buy either conclusion. From the perspective of political organizing and media communication, both of them could have said it better.
Of course Nader, like anyone who runs for president, has a large ego. That's an irrelevant issue. I support him precisely because I think he continues to do important work that should be incorporated into our movement building work. I don't look for him to be a movement builder in the grassroots manner. From all that I've heard from people who've worked with him, I wouldn't want to work with him directly.
Peace,
Bill
Nader's statements unfair
Your comments Bill are as usual very insightful. But I do believe Steve has a point about Nader's comments being unfair. I think they're unfair for a few reasons.
I respect Jesse Jackson and think he would've been a Democratic candidate than Michael Dukakis in 1988. But I don't think every African American candidate for office has to be a clone for Jackson. Isn't the whole point of the civil rights movement for every person to be judged as an individual? Shouldn't Obama be judged on his own terms, on his own strengths and weaknesses? Instead of asking Obama to try to be Jackson, shouldn't Obama just be himself?
And shouldn't the plight of the poor in the inner cities and of rural areas be the concern of all Presidential candidates, and not just African American candidates? The President is the one office that is elected by all the people in the U.S. and they have a responsibility to all the various segments of the American populous. The plight of poor African Americans, of inner city poverty, of the rural poor, should be the concern of a candidate regardless of their race. Though Obama is not confronting corporate power in the way Nader would, the solutions that Obama offers for helping the inner city poor and rural poor are valid and pragmatic.
In saying this, I'm not saying that Nader is necessarily racist. I think Nader's comments reflect the generational difference between Nader and Obama. Nader came of age during the 1960s, during the time of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and blatant institutional racism. Obama came of age after the civil rights revolution, in a generation that benefitted from the victories of the civil rights generation and face different and subtler forms of racism.
And since no one seems to have mentioned this, Jesse Jackson supports Obama for his run for President, not Nader.
Reply to Nader
While writing my post for Obama, I didn't mean to be putting down Nader. I think Obama and his staff had the proper response to Nader's comments: show disappointment, then point out Obama's redord.
First, here's another link from the Rocky Mountain News on Nader's remarks in more detail: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/partial-transcript-ral....
To win over Progressive Democrats who might possibly vote for Nader, let's just look at their platforms from their websites: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/ and http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Nader is specifically criticizing Obama for not "...describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law." Nader is right that Obama is not going to take on corporate interests in the same way Nader would, but Obama has a specific plan on tackling poverty in the inner cities and rural areas. You could find it here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/. From his site, the Obama site states:
"Obama will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in areas that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement in cities across the nation. The Promise Neighborhoods will be modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone, which provides a full network of services, including early childhood education, youth violence prevention efforts and after-school activities, to an entire neighborhood from birth to college.
Obama will work with community and business leaders to identify and address the unique economic development barriers of every major metropolitan area. Obama will provide additional resources to the federal Community Development Financial Institution Fund, the Small Business Administration and other federal agencies, especially to their local branch offices, to address community needs.
Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas.
Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.
Obama will create a program to directly engage disadvantaged youth in energy efficiency opportunities to strengthen their communities, while also providing them with practical skills in this important high-growth career field.
As president, Obama will work to ensure that low-income Americans have transportation access to jobs. Obama will double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program to ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account.
Obama will work to ensure that ex-offenders have access to job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling, and employment opportunities. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program and reduce barriers to employment. "
Obama seems to be focusing on practical ways of helping the inner city and rural poor that Nader is worried about. Though he won't confront corporate interests as aggressively as Nader, Obama would amend the NAFTA agreements to make them more fair to American workers, and update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries to help workers retrain, raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation. I think John Edwards' campaign influenced Obama to focus on more on the poor and working class during the campaign and it shows in Obama's policy proposals.
I agree with Nader that the Democrats have been influenced in the past by too much corporate money. But in this 2008 campaign, we've had candidates like Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards battling against corporate power and for the poor. We have the Congressional Progressive Caucus and leaders like Barbara Lee in Congress fighting for the same causes as Nader has. I think this year the Democrats could make some real changes if they win this election.
great reply Angelo
Angelo,
Great reply on this. Obama does have a very specific agenda on poverty. This is something that he has given a great deal of credit to John Edwards in pushing Obama to do more in addressing poverty.
The racist stuff is what I really disagree with...who is Ralph Nader, an old white guy, to say Obama is "talking to white"? What does that even mean? Nader should go away.
Just want a good Democratic leader in the White House
Thanks Frank and Stephen. I don't really have the anger against Nader that you both have, but I do think his comments against Obama were unfair. And I do think there's a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I just want a Democrat who will be a good President for our country and could win the election.
Last weekend I read an article about a rally with Clinton and Obama. It was a good rally. I heard that the Obamas donated $4600 to the Clintons to help them retire the $20 million debt from their campaign and the Clintons donated $4600 for the Obama campaign for the Presidency. In my next pay check I'll donate to both (although in smaller amounts).
donating to Hillary and Obama
If you want to help Hillary pay down the debts she incurred during the campaign, go here https://contribute.hillarycampaign2008.com/form.html?sc=2492. To donate to Obama go to https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/standard?source=mainnav.
Here's a letter from Hillary in her website:
"On February 8, in Unity, New Hampshire, 107 people voted for me, and 107 people voted for Senator Barack Obama.
Today, Barack and I were in Unity to celebrate a unified Democratic Party focused on electing him the next president. I was proud to stand with him today, and I will do whatever I can to help his campaign between now and November.
Senator McCain and the Republicans may have hoped that we wouldn't join forces like this. They may have wished that we wouldn't stand united to fight this battle with everything we've got.
But I've got news for them: We are one party; we are one America; and we are not going to rest until we take back our country and put it once again on the path to peace, prosperity, and progress in the 21st century.
Sincerely
Hillary"
Here's what Barack said to Hillary supporters in his website http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/joinourmovement
"Senator Clinton made history over the past 16 months -- not just because she has broken barriers, but because she has inspired millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to causes like universal health care that make a difference in the lives of hardworking Americans.
It's time for all of us to come together to take on John McCain in the general election."
How 'bout we put Ralph Nader and Bob Barr in the same boat and--
Hey guys,
How 'bout we put Nader and Barr in the same boat and ship 'em off to a desert isle? Let 'em argue all they want. Both are loney tunes to me.
Rich
Loony tunes?
Disregarding for the moment the disrespect shown to the democratic process and to legitimate contenders who may impact the election results despite their status as doomed also-rans, I find much to respect in Bob Barr's issues platform. Though I think that some of his views are way off-base, they're in line with the thinking of significant numbers of US voters whom we are unwise to dismiss as loony tunes folks.
Nader's issues platform, in contrast, is probably in sync with a majority of voters. Crosslefties should take lessons from the way the Republicans handled the Perot rebellion. If I remember correctly, they didn't demonize Perot afterwards, and they wooed Perot supporters. Democrats gain nothing by scapegoating Nader, dissing "Naderites", and using the epithet "loony tunes". (That doesn't fit very well with your post, Rich, on forgiveness and Iran. Even if Nader's votes were more more than the margin of Bush's "victory" in Florida -- which I continue to think is questionable, unproven, and basically unprovable -- there were so many factors at work that to select one on which to project bile, loathing, and scorn is to give in to the urge to deflect attention away from self-examination and sober analysis and to project it onto scapegoats. Forgiveness trumps vengeance.)
The typo "loney tunes", however, is apt. In comparison with the two-party mainstream, Barr and Nader and the eventual Green candidate, will be singing separate solos.
I'll post something on their platforms soon, starting with Bob Barr.
Aside from their platforms, there are strategic arguments that can be made on their behalf. If I can muster the energy (something I've been having big problems with lately), I'll dig into that, too.
Bill
Loony tunes?
Bill,
While my post may sound disrespectful, I think Nader's continuing run is pure ego. He long ago lost most of his influence and now is uncutting his legacy, especially with younger voters to whom his earlier good works are ancient history. I don't really blame him for Gore's loss, the Supreme Court did that so there's nothing to forgive him for. I just think he has made himself irrelevant.
As far a Bob Barr, his highly biased attacks on Bill Clinton were, in my book, the type of personal attack dog politics that Sen. Obama is trying to lead us away from. Unfortunately we are witnessing an even more intense effort aimed at Sen. Obama, and now his wife. "Muslim terrorist, baby mama," and the like. I remember a comment from one West Virginia voter who proclaimed she wasn't going to vote to put "no darky in the white house". A recent poll revealed that one in 3 American voters consider race an important factor in their voting attitude.
Bob Barr's attack dog politics, IMO, represents the worst in American politics, very unchristian in attitude and actions no matter what his platform is.
Maybe the vitrol aimed at Sen. Obama will get so intense, so vicious, as to create a huge backlash and start to diminish the effectivness of attack dog politics.
So maybe my typo is correct, loney tunes from two men, who, IMO, are driven by instincts that represent the worst in human behavior.
Sorry for the name calling on Nader
Hi Bill, sorry for all the name calling on Nader. I support Obama and hope Democrats who may potentially vote for Nader stay in the fold and stick with Obama. But I don't have any of the anger against Nader that many others do. I heard a few months ago that Nader was supporting John Edwards because of Edwards' anticorporate stances and I have a feeling that when Edwards dropped out, Nader decided to run. I guess I don't have the anger against Nader because I know too much about what he's accomplished for consumer rights with his Nader's Raiders.
I think though that Nader's best role and the role he may have the most influence in should be as a gadfly outside the system that agitates others for change. This is Nader's third run for the Presidency, and I think with each election he's having less of an influence, in much the same way Norman Thomas and Eugene Debs received less votes with each successive time they ran for President. The difference between Ross Perot and Nader is that Perot garnered 18% of the vote in 1992 as compared to Nader's 2% in 2004. Fairly or unfairly, as Frank, Stephen and Rich are showing, there are just too many Democrats who are angry at Nader for the results of 2000 for Nader to have that influence now. There are others now, like Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and Barbara Lee, who have similar messages as Nader who'll be more effective in influencing the Democrats to move more to the left.
You're right that Nader's platform has many things that would appeal to a majority of Americans. I don't know Bob Barr, but I'm interested in reading what you have to say about his platform, as well as Nader's. To get the potential Nader voters to vote for Obama, I personally think that Obama has to show that he can be influenced by more Progressive voices. I think Edwards influence on Obama's platform shows that Obama can be moved.
i wouldn't be sorry about Nader
Nader is a racist and not only because of his comments about Obama. He has done little to lift up minority leadership in the organizations he's been a part of. Rather, its all about Ralph. His ego at this point far outstrips any good policies that may be on his platform. If he really wanted to make the changes he proposes he would organize people, low-income people and people of color. He would get behind a minority Green candidate in McKinney or a Democrat like Obama. Instead its all about Ralph. Call him a Looney Tune or whatever, just get him to go away.
Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, John Edwards and Nader
I'm not sure what Bill will write yet about Barr and Nader's platforms, but I'm sure it's good. Bill can do a better job of defending Nader than I can. But I do have my own thoughts on Nader.
I feel ackward about defending Nader because I agree with your comment that Nader should be organizing low income people and people of color if he really wants to help them. It's just that I don't think Nader is running purely because of ego. I think during the primaries, he was looking for someone who was voicing the same anticorporate positions that Nader holds dear. As long as Edwards and Kucinich were in the race, we didn't hear much from Nader. I think this is important to Nader because consumer advocacy groups have been struggling to influence politics ever since the Reagan years and the growth of corporate power to influence Congress. I listen to Nader's rhetoric and it all has to do with limiting corporate power: he criticizes the Democrats in the 1980s for being too influenced by corporate power; he talks about limiting corporate power to allow other groups to have some say in the government; he talks about cutting back on corporate lobbying and corporate donations to politicians. Here's his stand on issues http://www.votenader.org/issues/. I think these are valid issues that need someone to voice them. The problem with Nader is that people like you and others are so angry at him, that Nader is not being listened to. The focus is on the messenger and not the message.
I think the role that Nader wants to play is being played best by John Edwards. Edwards is not as radical as Nader is, but I think he's influencing the Democrats to take stronger positions on the poor and working class. I think Nader wants to play the role that Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas played in the early 20th Century when they ran as Socialists for President. They both ran to push for issues like unemployment insurance, minimum wage legislation, a shorter work week, the abolition of child labor, collective bargaining, social security, government responsibility for the economy. In 1912 Debs won a million votes, and in 1932, 900,000 people voted for Norman Thomas, a large percentage for that time. Though they didn't win the elections, they influenced the New Dealers to adopt many of their measures to help deal with the Depression. In the book, American Reform and Reformers, Scott Molloy writes:
"Although he could applaud various reforms and reformers as representing short steps in the march toward socialism, Debs believed that real reform hinged on society's ownership of the means of production. Ironically, the other major parties nibbled away at the Socialists' practical suggestions, sanitized them, and claimed the credit. The Democrats and Progressive Republicans took over the Socialist message to such an extent that they drained off its distinctiveness. In the 1930s Franklin Roosevelt incorporated standard Socialist planks into the New Deal. Social Security, workers' compensation, and a host of other institutional reforms reflected Debs's platforms since the turn of the century."
I respect Nader's anticorporate message and I think it's a message that needs to be heard. I think though that his influence has been drasticly reduced since the 2000 election, and that others can carry that message better. I think what others see as ego, may be Nader just trying to regain some of the influence and the good name that he once had in the 1970s.
Barr has more potential to harm his side than Nader
Good point Rich, although Bob Barr seems to have a lot more potential to harm McCain than Nader, Obama. If you look at the numbers in Georgia, Barr's influence could swing the state to Obama. That would be something else.
One more thing on Nader, Obama actually comes from a community organizing background. He knows what its like to work in the inner city and mobilize people for change. I think Nader has long forgotten his community organizing experience choosing an ego centric run for President rather than the hard work of organizing the grassroots like he did 35 years ago.
Point of Clarification about Obama and CrossLeft
To clarify I want to share that we at CrossLeft have not endorsed any candidate for this years election nor do I anticipate us doing so.
Thanks for clarification
Hi Kety, thanks for the clarification. This post is just my own feelings and my own journey towards supporting Obama. It's not meant to represent anybody except myself.
Supporting Barack Obama & CrossLeft
Hello Angelo, Thank you for sharing this wonderful post.
An Obama Presidency like Abraham Lincoln... I must admit I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Lincoln presidency...