(I've posted some of this elsewhere, but I think it deserves its own thread.)
Here is a recent Nation editorial endorsing Obama:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/editorsThis magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for postpartisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years. But as Christopher Hayes argued in our cover story last week, Obama has also exhibited a more humane and wise approach to foreign policy, opposing the Iraq War while Clinton voted for it, and has been a reliable progressive ally over the course of his career. While his rhetoric about "unity" can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought. Most important, we feel his candidacy, in its demonstrated investment in organizing and grassroots activism as well as his personal appeal, represents the best chance to forge a new progressive majority. For these reasons we support Obama for President.
Here is Christopher Hayes endorsing Obama:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayesThe 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.
Here is Katha Pollitt, a well-known feminist, endorsing Obama:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing?bid=25&pid=279745When Obama won Iowa, I was surprised that I was glad. Much as I would love to pull the lever for a woman president -- a pro-choice Democratic woman president, that is --I realized at that moment how deeply unthrilled I was by the prospect of a grim vote-by-vote fight for the 50 percent+1 majority in a campaign that would rehearse all the old, (yes, mostly bogus or exaggerated) scandals and maybe turn up some new ones too. I wasn't delighted to think success would mean four more years of Bill Clinton either, or might come at the price of downticket losses, as many red-state Democrats fear. Democrats have nominated plenty of dutiful public servants over the years -- Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry . They have always lost (or in Gore's case, not won by enough to not lose). Obama may not be as progressive as we wish over here at The Nation-- and maybe someday we can have a serious conversation about why Edwards' economic populism, promoted for years by important voices at the magazine, was such a bust. But Obama is a candidate in a different mold. He's a natural politician who connects with people as Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, just doesn't, and appeals to the better angels of their nature. He sparks an enthusiasm in people--independents, the young, the previously disengaged. An Obama victory could have big positive repercussions for progressive politics.
And here is Frank Rich, another progressive, supporting Obama and complaining about the dirty politics the Clinton campaign has been engaging in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?ref=opinionAnd here is a Nation article that points out that Obama is more anti-nuclear-proliferation than Clinton:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/schellThe most significant conversion to abolition, however, was made by Barack Obama in a major foreign policy speech in October. He stated, "We'll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons.... As we do this, we'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules. It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse."
Hillary Clinton took note of the Journal article in an article of her own in Foreign Affairs, but her substance and tone were notably different from Obama's. She reported that the Journal four had advocated "reducing reliance on nuclear weapons" and promised to do the same. But the very title of the article had been something quite different: "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons"--a goal unmentioned and not embraced by Clinton. As if to underscore the evasion, she claimed she could "reassert our nonproliferation leadership" merely by negotiating an agreement to further reduce US and Russian arsenals. In a remarkable piece of double-think, she added that this "dramatic initiative" would "send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world, while we retain enough strength to deter others from trying to match our arsenal." Deterring others from matching the United States is crucially different from deterring them from attacking the United States, for it commits the nation, as the Bush Administration does, to indefinite nuclear superiority over all other nations. In short, her "dramatic" act of "restraint" would leave the United States in a position of global nuclear dominance for the indefinite future. It's hard to imagine a stance more likely to accelerate nuclear proliferation.
The statements of Obama and Clinton have drawn a line between the campaigns of these two Democratic front-runners on an issue of supreme importance for our time. Obama has embraced the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Clinton has not. Wouldn't this matter be as worthy of a few questions in the debates as, say, driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants or Obama's readiness to get verbally tough with Clinton?
While progressives may wish that Obama had spoken out more loudly against certain things, it has to be remembered that he was a new Senator. If he had spoken out more loudly, he might not have had a chance at the presidency right now. Here is a LTE that was published in The Nation, which explains what happens to freshman Senators who don't toe the party line:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/letterIt doesn't matter how much charisma or intelligence or promise any legislative minority freshman has; s/he's still a freshman in the minority. To earn the respect and trust needed to exert principled influence on policy-making over the long run, a freshman simply must show some deference to veteran colleagues and avoid the temptation to grandstand.
Case in point: Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston African-American, was one of only thirteen Democratic freshmen elected to the House in 1994, the year Newt Gingrich engineered the end of her party's nearly four-decade control of that body. Lee, a graduate of Yale Law School who won the seat of the late House giant Barbara Jordan, was seen as a rising star, like Barack Obama. But the voluble Lee sought the media spotlight for every left-wing cause. As her communications director at the time, I failed to dissuade her from this imprudent approach. Lee developed a reputation as an egomaniacal prima donna and has since squandered much of her credibility with the media and colleagues. And though she could remain in Congress for decades--indefinitely winning re-election in her gerrymandered district--no one in Washington expects her ever to exert serious influence on policy-making.
Obama's been in office only twenty months. If Sirota and other impatient progressives want to see him go down in history as an effective leader, they should climb off his back and be thankful he understands that real progress takes time.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(771 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
