I am presently very concerned by a story that ran in the NY Times on 1/30, front page, detailing Bill Clinton’s trip to Kazakhztan in 2005 with two of the main contributors to the Clinton Institute. It seems they were arranging insider deals for the purchase of uranium futures. If any of you have further information regarding this, please circulate it. This story remarkably has not been picked up by Buzzflash.

Your post is well-written, well-reasoned and heartfelt. It may be the best thing I have seen written by an Obama supporter. I am unsure who you think is reluctant to support Obama because of a “single issue” approach to politics.

As an individual, I am probably going to be voting for Obama in the caucus. I may even come to a point where I am willing to recommend to others that they do the same. But I think PDH as an organization has to ask whether it makes sense for the organization to make an endorsement of him. How would it help Obama’s campaign? What are the costs to the organization if we do so?

Had we endorsed Edwards –and had Edwards remained at all viable– I think we may have helped push him over the 15% threshold in Hawaii. It may have also provided an opportunity to strengthen interpersonal ties with key leaders and staff at Local 5, a union that I regard as one of the most dynamic, progressive and strategic in Hawaii. Edwards, in my view, was running a fairly progressive campaign.

On the other hand, I see very little gain for Obama if PDH endorses him. From talking to members of the Obama campaign, I know you folks are nervous about the potential strength of the Old Guard mobilization on the 19th. How many people will respond to Senator Inouye’s call for a “Last Hurrah” of the old machine? Dunno, but it gets smaller and smaller each year. HGEA will call on its members to turnout as well, and that probably will result in some significant numbers.

I have said from the beginning that Obama will win decisively in Hawaii on the 19th. Several months ago in one of the very first news stories about the upcoming presidential campaign, I was quoted in the Advertiser as saying the only question left to be decided was who would come in second. I think Obama has incredible “home court advantages” and I am confident that the local Obama camapaign is able to mobilize those resources. God knows they have tapped into the Punahou Alumni network for great effect in their fundraising. (That is not an unfounded generalization–I have looked at the FEC filings and recognize a lot of the names.) And I am confident they will be able to turnout lots and lots of people on the 19th.

Now a cheap shot: If they’ve got the Punahou Alumni Association, why do they need PDH? They don’t.

It is common to accuse Hillary of “triangulating,” but what does that mean? Being a fan of Stephen Colbert, I have learned to respect Wikipedia as THE source for knowledge, so here is their definition:

“Triangulation is the act of a candidate presenting his or her ideology as being “above” and “between” the left and right sides of the political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one’s political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent’s ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.”

Y’know, that sounds suspiciously a heckuva lot like what Obama is trying to do with his talk of rising above the historical fights from the Sixties and moving beyond the bitter “partisanship” that is crippling political discourse.

If we mean that Hillary “panders”, or that her statements are calculated to win support, I don’t see Obama’s approach as being superior to hers. I see his campaign strategy as one that allows voters to make assumptions about what kind of man he is and make assumptions about what kind of policies he might pursue, without committing himself to anything. His talk of “unity” provides him an opportunity to avoid alienating any potential base of support. Obama fans find this refreshing and “transcendent.” Possibly even “transformative.” I don’t. I think it is slick and vacuous and STILL recommend that people watch the old Robert Redford movie, “The Candidate.” (Maybe I should get a copy and do a showing. Folks, let me know if you are interested in coming and I’ll find a space. Or we can do it at my house.)

I am reminded of Jerry Brown confiding to someone that he planned to confuse observers by moving to the left and to the right at the same time. (Sorry, I can’t find the exact quote.)

Obama fans (I’m sorry, but the infatuation many people have with Obama strikes me as extremely similar to the non-rational feelings kids had for the Monkees when I was in intermediate school). Obama fans like to emphasize Obama’s opposition to the war from the beginning. That is preferable to Clinton’s refusal to admit that she was wrong to vote for the “Authorization to Use Force” against Iraq. But let’s strip off the blinders. Obama consciously and deliberately laid low on the war in Iraq at a time when courage was needed. Yeah, he was brave trying to harness anti-war sentiment in Chicago as a means to win the Democratic primary, but once the primary was over, he removed his anti-war rhetoric from his website as he went into the General. And, once elected he consciously and deliberately did not make “anti-war” speeches in the Senate AT A TIME WHEN IT TOOK COURAGE. As public opinion eventually moved against the war, and as it became clear that this would be a MAJOR issue for the “Democratic base” in the primary, Obama re-emerged to make speeches against the war and to speak of having always opposed it. Since the JFK comparison is being played so deliberately by the Obama camps, I gotta point out that this was no “Profile in Courage” performance at a time that needed such courage and leadership. No, Obama hid when the moment called for him to show courage.

Both Obama and Hillary support building more nuclear power plants “as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” This is VERY troubling. I think the environment-friendly segment of the US population has been asleep as the nuclear industry has been laying the groundwork for a MAJOR expansion of nuclear power in the US. The current climate change debate in the political arena is being framed in such a manner that nuclear will be promoted as an acceptable solution to the climate change crisis. When we finally wake up, it will be a “done deal.” At the risk of seeming “single issue” in my approach, Obama’s pro-nuke stance, and the corresponding campaign contributions, cause me great concern.

And finally, the “single issue” that always causes trouble– well, in my opinion it OUGHT to always cause trouble– the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hillary was once fairly “good” on the issue, calling for US recognition of the Palestinian “right to statehood” at a time when such talk was verboten. (Nowadays, everyone can talk about “Palestinian statehood,” so long as they don’t propose anything viable, contiguous, with access to the outside world, and the basic national right to self-defense. A more accurate word would be “bantustan”, but that has not caught on, despite hints from Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela himself.)

Obama was once “quite good” at recognizing basic human rights for Palestinians. He regularly attended the annual dinners of groups supportive of Palestinian rights as a rising politician tied into Chicago’s “progressive” community. As he has positioned himself to run for President, he has moved more and more into a position of uncritical support for Israel’s hardliners. He might be excused this, as every “viable” candidate has traveled this same path. Hillary made the transit as she positioned herself to run for the Senate from New York. Howard Dean had not properly adjusted his thinking when he began his run for President in 2003, but was essentially beaten into submission on the campaign trail by AIPAC and the rest of the “Israel Lobby.” At one point, in response to a question from the audience on the Middle East, Dean had said that a Dean administration would have a more “evenhanded policy” in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Israel Lobby fell upon him like a ton of bricks and were not happy until he took his hat in hand and announced publicly, on-stage, that he would never again use the word “evenhanded” in speaking of desirable US policy toward the area. (Nice use of “never again!”)

In Obama’s defense, Neil Abercrombie is one of the strongest advocates for Palestinian rights in the US House and Neil is one of the strongest Obama supporters in Hawaii. And maybe in Congress, for that matter. Another area where we may need to rely upon “hope.”

So we are left with questions of which candidate do we “trust” more, or “like” more. Which candidate are we willing to HOPE will provide better leadership, or perhaps a leadership of a different, more benign type. On that score, Obama wins. While I have not learned to trust Obama, I actively DISTRUST Hillary.

At this point, with both Kucinich and Edwards out of the race, PDH is scheduled to revote on a possible endorsement. That is the primary question posed in my post above. I might be persuaded to cast an individual vote for Obama in the caucus. I might even send out an email to friends advising them to do the same. But I see no benefit to PDH for doing so.

BTW- there is a similar discussion going on among self-described “centrists” over which candidate is more “moderate”, Obama or Hillary? It is sometimes instructive to walk in someone else’s “moccasins” in order to recognize patterns in our own behavior. Here is a link to the Donklephant Blog

Further to the right, we can imagine a debate over which of the two is more “neo-con.” Oh, we don’t have to imagine? Well, one half of that discussion is available from noted neo-con “theorist”/apologist, Robert Kagan,
here in the Washington Post.

I think PDH should stay clear and stay clean. Let’s make our compromises (or not) as individual voters. I change out of my good clothes and into my slightly grungier work clothes when I show up at the jobsite. I may be willing to vote for Obama in the caucus, but I will change out of any PDH shirt and take off any PDH ballcap before casting the vote.

Good luck to all of us in this,

Bart

Most of us would consider those who base political decisions on a candidate’s position on ‘right to life’ or ’sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman’ hopelessly one dimensional and manipulated. Those people are just as sincere as us, just as sure they are working for justice as we are. I never thought I’d see the same political reasoning, looking at the universe through a straw, here at pdh.

We selected five important points, and if a candidate doesn’t agree with us 100% on those specific issues, then he’s not progressive, is that right? I know I should try harder to understand, but it just seems nuts to me.

I remember how strongly this group supported Senator Akaka, and how each of us did what we could to help him win. For my part, his vote against this illegal and unnecessary war won my support. If you remember that time, theirs was not a popular position. Senator Obama made that position known while running for his current office, which was even more courageous than our good Senator.

You might not have read any of his speeches or read much that he’s written. These are as good a start as any: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms&feature=PlayList&p=B03F10C0072F4762&index=2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Barack has my wholehearted support. I don’t agree with him on some important points, but I feel profoundly that he’s going to help bring this country back to sanity. The liberal/conservative thing, while based in reality, is so much bullshit sometimes- as if the right is in any sense conservative. Finding common ground is not just a tactic, it’s the truth about our interests as Americans. Lakoff had an interesting article about this today on Huffington Post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

” This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major “issues” dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right — adopting right-wing positions — to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by “bipartisanship.” Obama means the opposite by “bipartisanship.” To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves “conservatives” or “independents,” but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn’t have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of “bipartisanship.”

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about “I,” I,” “I” (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about “you” and “we” (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama’s thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.

For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.”

I may have given a couple of Paul Rogat Loeb’s book, “Soul of a Citizen: How to Live with Conviction in a Cynical Time” to some of us here. Paul Loeb wrote a good article summing up his newfound support for Barack that you can read here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/124418/149/483/446991

As far as what pdh should do about endorsement, I think that’s a question for the membership. Since we can’t get everyone to a meeting, maybe a poll by email is the way to go. Probably since this is such a strong Kucinich team, we’ll end up with a majority that doesn’t want to endorse. As long as the process is open and fair I think you’re on solid ground.

Peace.

IF YOU WERE OPPOSED TO THIS WAR BEFORE IT STARTED,
THE CHOICE IS CLEAR–BARACK OBAMA GOT IT RIGHT!

Dear Erick,

PDA’s roots began in opposition to the Iraq War. PDA’s entire existence has been a daily fight to end a war that never should have been started. We all know that. And over the next few days, we have a chance to act in harmony with our antiwar roots.

Here’s the essence of the situation: if Senator Obama can make it through next Tuesday in decent shape–or better–the electoral terrain in the rest of the month of February seems very favorable to his candidacy. But Senator Clinton is going for a knockout punch right now, this week, trying to dominate in places where PDA has some strength, states like California and Massachusetts.

Why should PDA care? Well, since PDA’s top-ranked candidates–Kucinich and Edwards–have now withdrawn, PDA supporters who wanted to could still make a difference in the next few days for our third-ranked candidate, Barack Obama, especially in California and Massachusetts.

PDA supporters who wanted to could still make a difference in the next few days, especially in CA & MA. We could email our personal lists, call our friends, blog our support online, volunteer, vote. We could, if we wanted to, choose to act.

My own thoughts, as a lifelong antiwar activist, are pretty straightforward at this point. There are two main candidates left.

One of them, Barack Obama, spoke out against the war in October of 2002, before it started. http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

The other one, Hillary Clinton, voted to authorize that war only 8 days later.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

Their speeches are worth reading. Obama got it right. Clinton got it wrong. I’m going to support the one that got it right.

Yours in the movement,

Steve Cobble
PDA from Roxbury on,
Formerly with Kucinich ‘04 & ‘08

This message was not paid for or coordinated with any candidate or campaign.

Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket?

Of the people now running, other than Mike Gravel, isn’t he’s the only one pledged to end the war now?

His position of the failed, War On Drugs, is outstanding, imho.

There’s a great piece on truthout.org making the case for progressives to ally themselves with Dr. Paul.

I’ve seen pieces on the web stating that Team Obama and Team Clinton, (with Zbig Breshinski endorsing Obama, his son being Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisor, plus Hillary’s advisor Mark Penn for example), look more like Team Bush/Cheney.

Then, there’s mad dog McCain. Jeez.

What if Democrats and other disinfranchised citizen constituencies joined forces supporting Ron Paul?

Obama, Clinton and the War
By Robert Scheer
Truthdig.com

Tuesday 29 January 2008

It should mean a great deal to progressives that in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Ted Kennedy favors Sen. Barack Obama over two other colleagues he has worked with in the Senate. No one in the history of that institution has been a more consistent and effective fighter than Kennedy for an enlightened agenda, be it civil rights and liberty, gender equality, labor and immigrant justice, environmental protection, educational opportunity or opposing military adventures.

Kennedy was a rare sane voice among the Democrats in strongly opposing the Iraq war, and it is no small tribute when he states: “We know the record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth.”

But that is precisely the truth that Sen. Hillary Clinton has shamelessly sought to obscure. Her supporters have accepted Clinton’s refusal to repudiate her vote to authorize the war, an ignominious moment she shares with other Democrats, including presidential candidate John Edwards, who at least has made a point of regretting it. It was a vote that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,940 U.S. service members-five more on Monday-and a debt in the trillions of dollars that will prevent the funding of needed domestic programs that Clinton claims to support. And it doesn’t end with Iraq. Clinton has been equally hawkish toward Iran and, in a Margaret Thatcher-like moment, even attacked Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden.

Clinton’s apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists, who should know better than to betray the women’s movement’s commitment to peace in favor of simplistic gender politics. It is disturbing, not because they conclude that Clinton is the best candidate, but because they refuse to challenge their candidate to be better. Does it not matter that Clinton’s key foreign policy advisers are drawn heavily from the ranks of the neoliberals, who cheered as loudly for President Bush’s war as did the neoconservatives? Are they not concerned that Richard Holbrooke, who exploited his experience and access to secret information during the Clinton presidency to back Bush’s Iraq invasion, is a likely contender for secretary of state should she win?

Sandy Berger, a key Clinton adviser, played a major role in convincing Kennedy’s congressman son, Patrick, to vote for the war authorization against what the younger Kennedy said was the advice of his father and his own better instincts. According to a Knight Ridder report at the time, “Patrick Kennedy said the most persuasive arguments for attacking Iraq came from members of the Clinton White House,” including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is often described as the foreign policy expert closest to Hillary. Patrick J. Kennedy refuses to be burned twice and now supports Obama.

Yes, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate, she probably will be better than the Republican alternative and, as Ted Kennedy made clear, deserving of our support. But isn’t it troubling that she can’t hold a candle to Sen. John McCain when it comes to fighting Pentagon waste or pushing for campaign-finance reform to curtail the power of lobbyists? Isn’t it disturbing that Sen. Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors, according to a report on the Huffington Post? Why have the war profiteers given her twice the campaign contributions that they sent to McCain, if not for the expectation that she is on their side of the taxpayer rip-off that has seen the military budget rise to an all-time high? It’s for the same reason that the bankers, Wall Street traders and other swindlers who produced our economic meltdown fund Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has made “experience” key to her claim to the presidency and tells us she will do the right thing from “day one.” The reality is that her extra four years in the U.S. Senate hardly provides better experience than Obama’s eight years in the Illinois state Senate battling for progress with the nation’s most hard-boiled politicians. And if she lays claim to her husband’s presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, and killing the federal welfare program-a political gambit that deeply wounded millions of women and children. Her political career began with the Senate and she hit the ground running, but, as her craven support for Bush after 9/11 shows, it was in the wrong direction.

Judging by that vote we took at the last meeting, clearly there is a wide divergence of opinion. Why not respect that.

Option 3.

Of course.