Power of Knowledge











Starting even before Barack Obama graduated from law school, his career as a lawyer and politician was nurtured by a Chicago businessman named Tony Rezko.

Now Obama avoids discussing Rezko, and his former backer isn’t in a position to speak publicly. The once-dapper businessman appeared in federal court the other day, unshaven, wearing an orange jumpsuit and leg irons. On Tuesday, Obama hopes to beat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Texas and Ohio Democratic primaries, wins that could ensure his nomination for the highest office in the land. On that same day, prosecutors and defense lawyers are expected to be in a Chicago courtroom in their second day of selecting a jury to decide Rezko’s fate.

In this city’s latest high-profile corruption case, Antoin “Tony” Rezko is accused of extortion for allegedly peddling influence in Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration. The trial could last through June, over four months in the presidential campaign. Obama aides say they know Rezko’s trial will be a distraction but do not believe it will have a serious effect.

Rezko has been a friend and supporter [of Obama’s], as he has been with many politicians,” Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, has told The Times. “It’s always easy in retrospect to say this or that should been a warning flag.”

Blagojevich, believed to be a subject of the investigation though he is not charged, denies wrongdoing. Obama is not implicated. But U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve made it likely that Obama’s name would come up in court when she ruled that prosecutors could introduce evidence that Rezko used “straw donors” to give to politicians, apparently including Obama.

The relationship between Obama and Rezko was based on more than money.

They met in 1990 when Rezko, then starting a low-income housing development business, noticed a news article about Obama being elected the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. One of Rezko’s partners called Obama on Rezko’s behalf and offered him a job, according to a Chicago Sun-Times account last year.

Obama declined. But their paths soon would cross – and Rezko would become an issue in the presidential campaign.

The Syrian-born Rezko, 52, moved to the United States after graduating from high school. He earned a degree in engineering and began developing real estate. Over time, Rezko’s entrepreneurial appetites grew to include a 62-acre development in downtown Chicago, a contract to build a power plant in Iraq, and chains of pizza and Chinese restaurants. He and his wife, Rita, gained the trappings of wealth: a $74,000 diamond ring, a $22,000 mink coat, a $35,000 watch. But his housing projects – many of which were in Obama’s state Senate district – deteriorated.

In a January debate, Clinton jabbed Obama over his legal representation of Rezko “in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago.”

Obama shook his head and said that the characterization was not accurate. “I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project, and I did about five hours’ worth of work on this joint project. That’s what she’s referring to.”

Though Obama did represent a church, he also represented the nonprofit Woodlawn Preservation & Investment Corp., founded by Bishop Arthur Brazier of the Apostolic Church of God. In an interview, Brazier said his role as a Woodlawn director was separate from his work at the church.

Woodlawn was partners with Rezko in four low-income housing projects with hundreds of units. In at least one instance, in 1994, Obama represented Woodlawn on a troubled project it later shared with Rezko. The city of Chicago sued, alleging Woodlawn failed to provide tenants with heat in the winter, and Obama represented the landlord in court.

Obama, meanwhile, was entering politics, announcing his run for the Illinois Senate in 1995. Rezko was there to help, donating the first $2,000 to Obama in July 1995.

Judson Miner, head of Obama’s old law firm, Brazier and others say there was no indication in the 1990s and beginning of this decade that Rezko’s practices were questionable.

In 2003 and 2004, Obama’s relationship with Rezko grew particularly strong. Obama was a junior state senator who decided to mount an improbable campaign for the U.S. Senate. Aides to that campaign recall that to convince pundits he was serious, Obama aimed to amass $1 million in campaign donations by June 2003.

Rezko stepped up, feting Obama at a fundraiser at his suburban Chicago mansion in mid-2003. Obama reached his fundraising goal, ending June 2003 with $1.07 million in the bank.

Between the first $2,000 state Senate donation and the 2004 U.S. Senate race, Rezko raised at least $200,000 for him, a Times analysis shows. Obama, seeking to distance himself from his patron, has donated $160,000 in Rezko-related contributions to charity.

In court documents, prosecutors suggest Rezko skirted the law to help Obama, albeit without Obama’s knowledge. Having donated the maximum allowed by federal law, Rezko allegedly gave money to at least two associates to make separate $10,000 contributions to Obama, one in December 2003 and another in March 2004.

By then, questions were being raised about Rezko.

When Blagojevich took the oath of office as governor in 2003, Rezko became integral to his administration, taking a hand in securing state posts for numerous individuals. At least three who were part of Obama’s political operation are on a list of individuals who got interviews with the new administration or were given jobs, documents filed in the criminal case show.

Rezko’s role in the Blagojevich administration drew the attention of auditors and legislators, including Democratic state Rep. Jack D. Franks. In an interview, Franks said he encouraged Obama to run for president, and he praised his intellect. But Franks has endorsed Clinton and believes Obama’s relationship with Rezko raises questions about his judgment.

It wasn’t a secret that Tony Rezko was a very connected moneyman in the Blagojevich administration who was coming under increased scrutiny,” Franks said.

Soon after being sworn into the U.S. Senate in 2005, Obama was collecting royalties from a best-selling book and preparing to buy a family home, a stately red brick mansion in the Kenwood neighborhood near the University of Chicago.

Rezko, by now linked in news stories to a federal investigation, was there to help. At Obama’s invitation, Rezko and Obama spent 15 to 30 minutes walking around the corner lot, Obama’s aides said recently.

Obama subsequently bought the home for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the original asking price. The sellers owned a vacant lot next the Obama property and needed to sell it to close the deal.

Federal authorities were investigating Rezko, and his financial situation was deteriorating. Business associates and friends were suing for business deals gone awry. But Rezko stepped forward, paying the $625,000 asking price for the lot. He put the land in Rita Rezko’s name, apparently to protect the asset from creditors.

By the time of Rezko’s October 2006 indictment, the mortgage was past due and there was an unpaid $18,500 tax bill. The purchase became public soon after. As Obama prepared to run for president, the senator told Chicago reporters that his dealings were “boneheaded” and raised the appearance of favoritism.

As Rezko’s trial opens today with jury selection, Obama will be barnstorming in Ohio or Texas.

Although the senator won’t be the focus of testimony, pretrial filings make clear that the nature of Illinois politics will be at the forefront. Much of what prosecutors allege took place occurred when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate. As Judge St. Eve said last week, “There are going to be a lot of names in this trial.”



[The Louis Farrakhan endorsement of Barack Obama is considerably more complicated than it seems. For example, the Clinton camp and the media has made nothing of the fact that white supremacist David Duke also endorsed Obama. This may be conclusive evidence of Obama's ability to unite the country or merely further proof that he is but a mirror in which voters see reflections of their own dreams.

But beyond that is the fact that once again the media has mangled a story, oversimplifying it and ignoring key aspects, including that Bill Clinton just three years ago endorsed one of Farrakhan's actions and that Farrakhan's own views have changed substantially over the years]

JAMAL E. WATSON, NEW YORK AMSTERDAM NEWS, 2005 - Former President Bill Clinton said that he supports the efforts of African-American leaders who are organizing the Million More March, a national gathering of Blacks scheduled to take place in October in Washington, D.C, a decade after the Million Man March was convened.

In a rare interview at his Harlem office with the Amsterdam, Clinton said that the gathering – formally announced last week by Minister Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Rev. Jesse L. Jackson – could train a positive spotlight on critical issues impacting African Americans.

“I think this is a very positive idea,” said Clinton, who spoke to the Amsterdam News on his first full day back in his office since his second operation following his quadruple bypass surgery last September. “I think the country’s focus understandably has strayed a little over the last few years,” Clinton said, adding that while America should focus on homeland security, it must also solve the racial and economic disparity that still exists.

“Jesse [Jackson] and Mr. [Louis] Farrakhan and Rev. [Al] Sharpton probably have internal domestic political differences, but they’ve agreed on this and I think it’s a good thing,” said Clinton.

RICHARD PRINCE, JOURNAL-ISMS – Though the utterances Russert referenced are unquestionably anti-Semitic, they are 24 years old, made during the 1984 presidential campaign. As the same Chicago Tribune . . . said of Farrakhan, “In recent years, most significantly after his battle with prostate cancer in the 1990s, he has tried to strike a more conciliatory tone.”. . . Back when the controversy was sparked, in the 1980s, Farrakhan maintained he never used the words “gutter religion,” [about Judaism] going so far as to threaten to sue any news organization that claimed he did. A tape of the event in question was murky. Farrakhan maintained he said “dirty religion,” and that phrase, it turned out, had something to do with the way Muslims view Jews theologically. Later, Farrakhan went on to praise Jews as “the world leaders, in my opinion. They are some of the most brilliant people on this planet.”

WIKIPEDIA -
During the 1984 presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson, Jackson referred to New York City as “Hymietown” in a discussion with a black reporter. Though Jackson thought he was speaking off the record, the reporter printed the quote. Jackson was widely criticized for the slur and received death threats, leading Farrakhan to announce, “If you harm this brother, it’ll be the last one you ever harm. If you want to defeat him, defeat him at the polls.”

In response to Farrakhan’s speech, Nathan Pearlmutter, then Chair of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) referred to Minister Farrakhan as the new “Black Hitler” and prominent Jewish journalist Nat Hentoff, while a guest on a New York radio talk-show, also characterized the Muslim leader as a “Black Hitler.”

In response to the charges of being a “Black Hitler”, Farrakhan responded during a March 11, 1984 speech broadcast on a Chicago radio station:

“So I said to the members of the press, ‘Why won’t you go and look into what we are saying about the threats on Reverend Jackson’s life?’ Here the Jews don’t like Farrakhan and so they call me ‘Hitler’. Well that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn’t great for me as a Black man but he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the First World War. Yet Hitler took Germany from the ashes and rose her up and made her the greatest fighting machine of the twentieth century, brothers and sisters, and even though Europe and America had deciphered the code that Hitler was using to speak to his chiefs of staff, they still had trouble defeating Hitler even after knowing his plans in advance. Now I’m not proud of Hitler’s evil toward Jewish people, but that’s a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don’t compare me with your wicked killers.”

WIKIPEDIA - Farrakhan has rejected the allegation that he is anti-Semitic and in a June 18 1997 letter to a former Wall Street Journal editor, Jude Wanniski stated:

“Countless times over the years I have explained that I never referred to Judaism as a dirty religion, but, clearly referred to the machinations of those who hide behind the shield of Judaism while using unjust political means to achieve their objectives. This was distilled in the New York tabloids and other media saying, ‘Farrakhan calls Judaism a gutter religion.’ As a Muslim, I revere Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets who Allah (God) sent to the children of Israel. I believe in the scriptures brought by these Prophets and the Laws of Allah (God) as expressed in the Torah. I would never refer to the Revealed Word of Allah (God) — the basis of Jewish Faith — as “dirty” or “gutter.” You know, Jude, as well as I, that the Revealed Word of Allah (God) comes as a Message from Allah (God) to purify us from our evil that has divided us and caused us to fall into the gutter. Over the centuries, the evils of Christians, Jews and Muslims have dirtied their respective religions. True Faith in the laws and Teaching of Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad is not dirty, but, practices in the name of these religions can be unclean and can cause people to look upon the misrepresented religion as being unclean.”

FINAL CALL, 2002
- The following statement was released by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan regarding the murder of Daniel Pearl, Wall Street Journal Reporter. “On behalf of the Nation of Islam, I wish to express our deepest sympathy to the family of Daniel Pearl, his friends and colleagues. It is with deep pain and regret that we learned of Mr. Pearl’s murder. It is incumbent upon Muslims throughout the world to not let our hurt or pain cause us to harm the innocent. . . The Muslim World must not let its hatred of America’s policies cause Muslims to do harm to American citizens traveling in Muslim countries who are unaware of foreign policy and have no part in its formulation, and, more than likely would not want to benefit from these policies if they knew the pain and suffering caused to others that allows our apparent economic gain.

MINISTER LOUIS FARRAKHAN PRESS CONFERENCE 2002
- There are two diverse and prevailing views held by the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the Arab and Muslim world that appear to be irreconcilable. On the one hand, we have the Jewish people having suffered for 2,000 years and being persecuted in various countries of the world as they have been scattered throughout our planet, their desire has always been a Jewish homeland, which was promised to them by Allah (God). So, in the hearts and minds of the Jewish people who have immigrated to the state of Israel, there is a feeling of justification of their presence in Israel by their belief that the state of Israel is promised to them by Allah (God) and written of in the Torah and is the fulfillment of Allah’s (God’s) promise to them. Therefore, by Divine right they feel justified that their presence in the state of Israel is divinely ordained.

“On the other hand, the Palestinians view the Israeli presence as the result of the organization of western powers in the United Nations heavily influenced by the Jewish people and various governments that mandated the taking of land from the Palestinians to form the state of Israel. This action, taken by the United Nations in 1948, was never accepted by the Arab states and many in the Muslim world. Therefore, the Arab states made war against the Israeli state; and after each war more and more land was taken from them. So, in their anger and their perception of stolen land and the Arab world’s sharing this perception, the Palestinians, both Arab and Christian Palestinians, have fought the presence of Israelis, only to lose more and more land to a growing Israeli population. . .

For 54 years the Arab and Muslim world has not accepted the existence of the state of Israel. It appears, from the Gadhafi and Saudi Peace Plan, that there now could be a recognition of the state of Israel’s right to exist and the possibility of normalizing relations between the Arab states and Israel should certain conditions be met. These peace proposals are at least a basis for serious dialogue and negotiations. . .

When I see the bodies of Israelis carried to the cemetery and grieving mothers and fathers, I’m touched by that, as the world is. But, I’m also touched by the grieving Palestinian mothers and fathers who are burying their children. To see Palestinian boys and men pulled out of their homes blindfolded, their hands behind their backs strapped, it reminds us of what was done by the Nazis in Poland. I would appeal to those of us who suffer, we should never adopt the way of the oppressor. We must always adopt a better way than to become what we have detested. . .

It is my desire to visit Israel and the Palestinians. I am not fearful of losing support of the Arab and Muslim people by speaking to Prime Minister Sharon any more than Moses lost the support of his people by speaking to Pharaoh. I do not believe that we should not speak. I do not believe that we should not act to try to stop the carnage. If we fail, at least we have tried. I personally believe that these views can be reconciled, but it will take spiritual people as well as highly learned political people to implement a solution that can bring peace to this troubled area of the world. . .

Ali Baghdadi, Arab Journal: Don’t you think that the God who promised Palestine to the Jews, the God of Israel, is a racist God, guilty of promising a land to people who do not belong there? . . .

MLF: Let me respectfully say that I don’t believe that God is racist or unjust to promise land to a people with whom He has found favor. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. If I would call God a racist God for promising that to Jews, then I would not be able to consider His promise to us (Blacks in America). We are in the same position that the children of Israel were in 4,000 years ago. We, too, have been persecuted for 400 years and we do not have a land that we can call our own. . .



{May 16, 2008}   The Obama Craze

February 29, 2008

Count Me Out

The Obama Craze

By MATT GONZALEZ

Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.

Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here’s why:

This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

THE WAR IN IRAQ

Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.
The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation ­ a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”

Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which includes “striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.” What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to “redeploy” the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.

This is hardly a position to get excited about.

CLASS ACTION REFORM:

In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.

By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop “frivolous” lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill’s real objective was to protect corporate abusers.”

Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: “On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions ­ most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations ­ all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work “off the clock,” four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide.”

Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?

CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:

Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.

Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.

Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.

LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:

These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.

In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.

MINING LAW OF 1872:

In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.

The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.

Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News “Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him,” November 14, 2007).

REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:

The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.

The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate” by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: “Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”

ENERGY POLICY:

On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t “green” according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. “It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)

So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capital of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.

SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:

Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:

Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: “In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent’s call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers.”

Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as “pole-vaulting” over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid “right to organize,” “minimum wage,” and other worker protections.

SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:

On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)

On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.

It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.

Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president (“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words “I’m amazed at Democrats cowering with this president’s number’s so low.” Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.

CONCLUSION:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is running on Nader’s ticket as a vice presidential candidate.

Donate to your President hopeful,donations over $100 will receive a free gift.



{May 16, 2008}   What Makes Obama Run?

Lawyer, teacher, philanthropist, and author Barack Obama doesn’t need another career. But he’s entering politics to get back to his true passion–community organization.

 

By Hank De Zutter
December 8, 1995

When Barack Obama returned to Chicago in 1991 after three brilliant years at Harvard Law School, he didn’t like what he saw. The former community activist, then 30, had come fresh from a term as president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, a position he was the first African-American to hold. Now he was ready to continue his battle to organize Chicago’s black neighborhoods. But the state of the city muted his exuberance.

“Upon my return to Chicago,” he would write in the epilogue to his recently published memoir, Dreams From My Father, “I would find the signs of decay accelerated throughout the South Side–the neighborhoods shabbier, the children edgier and less restrained, more middle-class families heading out to the suburbs, the jails bursting with glowering youth, my brothers without prospects. All too rarely do I hear people asking just what it is that we’ve done to make so many children’s hearts so hard, or what collectively we might do to right their moral compass–what values we must live by. Instead I see us doing what we’ve always done–pretending that these children are somehow not our own.”

Today, after three years of law practice and civic activism, Obama has decided to dive into electoral politics. He is running for the Illinois Senate, he says, because he wants to help create jobs and a decent future for those embittered youth. But when he met with some veteran politicians to tell them of his plans, the only jobs he says they wanted to talk about were theirs and his. Obama got all sorts of advice. Some of it perplexed him; most of it annoyed him. One African-American elected official suggested that Obama change his name, which he’d inherited from his late Kenyan father. Another told him to put a picture of his light-bronze, boyish face on all his campaign materials, “so people don’t see your name and think you’re some big dark guy.”

Obama, running to be the Democratic candidate for the 13th District on the south side, was also told–even by fellow progressives–that he might be too independent, that he should strike a few deals to assure his election. Another well-meaning adviser suggested never posing for photos with a glass in his hand–even if he wasn’t drinking alcohol.

“Now all of this may be good political advice,” Obama said, “but it’s all so superficial. I am surprised at how many elected officials–even the good ones–spend so much time talking about the mechanics of politics and not matters of substance. They have this poker chip mentality, this overriding interest in retaining their seats or in moving their careers forward, and the business and game of politics, the political horse race, is all they talk about. Even those who are on the same page as me on the issues never seem to want to talk about them. Politics is regarded as little more than a career.”

Obama doesn’t need another career. As a civil rights lawyer, teacher, philanthropist, and author, he already has no trouble working 12-hour days. He says he is drawn to politics, despite its superficialities, as a means to advance his real passion and calling: community organization.

Obama thinks elected officials could do much to overcome the political paralysis of the nation’s black communities. He thinks they could lead their communities out of twin culs-de-sac: the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation–which helps a few upwardly mobile blacks to “move up, get rich, and move out”–and the equally impractical politics of black rage and black nationalism–which exhorts but does not organize ordinary folks or create realistic agendas for change.

Obama, whose political vision was nurtured by his work in the 80s as an organizer in the far-south-side communities of Roseland and Altgeld Gardens, proposes a third alternative. Not new to Chicago–which is the birthplace of community organizing–but unusual in electoral politics, his proposal calls for organizing ordinary citizens into bottom-up democracies that create their own strategies, programs, and campaigns and that forge alliances with other disaffected Americans. Obama thinks elected officials–even a state senator–can play a critical catalytic role in this rebuilding.

Obama is certainly not the first candidate to talk about the politics of community empowerment. His views, for instance, are not that different from those of the person he would replace, state senator Alice Palmer, who gave Obama her blessing after deciding to run for the congressional seat vacated by Mel Reynolds. She promised Obama that if she lost–which is what happened on November 28–she wouldn’t then run against him to keep her senate seat.

What makes Obama different from other progressive politicians is that he doesn’t just want to create and support progressive programs; he wants to mobilize the people to create their own. He wants to stand politics on its head, empowering citizens by bringing together the churches and businesses and banks, scornful grandmothers and angry young. Mostly he’s running to fill a political and moral vacuum. He says he’s tired of seeing the moral fervor of black folks whipped up–at the speaker’s rostrum and from the pulpit–and then allowed to dissipate because there’s no agenda, no concrete program for change.

While no political opposition to Obama has arisen yet, many have expressed doubts about the practicality of his ambitions. Obama himself says he’s not certain that his experimental plunge into electoral politics can produce the kind of community empowerment and economic change he’s after.

“Three major doubts have been raised,” he said. The first is whether in today’s political environment–with its emphasis on media and money–a grass-roots movement can even be created. Will people still answer the call of participatory politics?

“Second,” Obama said, “many believe that the country is too racially polarized to build the kind of multiracial coalitions necessary to bring about massive economic change.

“Third, is it possible for those of us working through the Democratic Party to figure out ways to use the political process to create jobs for our communities?”

Obama’s intriguing candidacy is the latest adventure in a fascinating life chronicled in Dreams From My Father, published this summer by Times Books. In Obama’s words, the book is “a boy’s search for his father, and through that search a workable meaning for his life as a black American.” In the book, which reads more like a novel than a memoir, Obama comes to terms with the legacy of the African father who left his mother and him when he was two, dropped by when he was ten, and died in an auto accident when he was finishing college. While doing so, Obama takes readers on a multicultural odyssey through three continents and several political philosophies. He casts a skeptical if sympathetic eye on white liberalism, black nationalism, integration, separatism, small-scale economic development, and the transient effectiveness of charismatic black political leaders like the late mayor Washington. While Obama credits all these political movements with bringing some progress to middle-class blacks, he believes that none have built enduring institutions and none have halted the unraveling of black America.

Obama is the product of a brief early-60s college romance and short-lived marriage between a black African exchange student and a white liberal Kansan who met at the University of Hawaii. His critical boyhood years–from two to ten–were spent neither in white nor black America but in the teeming streets and jungle outskirts of Djakarta. Obama’s boyhood experiences in Indonesia–where his mother took him when she married another foreign exchange student–propelled him toward a worldview well beyond his mother’s liberalism.

“The poverty, the corruption, the constant scramble for security . . . remained all around me and bred a relentless skepticism. My mother’s confidence in needlepoint virtues depended on a faith I didn’t possess. . . . In a land where fatalism remained a necessary tool for enduring hard-ship . . . she was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism.”

When Obama moved back to his grandparents’ home in Hawaii, to attend the prestigious Punahou School, he encountered race and class prejudice that would darken his politics even more. At first embarrassed by his race and African name, he soon bonded with the few other African-American students. He quickly learned that integration was a one-way street, with blacks expected to assimilate into a white world that never gave ground. He participated in bitter bull sessions with his buddies on the theme of “how white folks will do you.” Obama, who had to reconcile these sentiments with the loving support he had at home from his white mother and grandparents, dismissed much of his buddies’ analysis as “the same sloppy thinking” used by racist whites, but he found the racism of whites to be particularly stubborn and obnoxious.

Obama objected when his Punahou basketball coach upbraided the team for losing to “a bunch of niggers.” Obama writes that the coach “calmly explained the apparently obvious fact that ‘there are black people, and there are niggers. Those guys were niggers.’”

“That’s just how white folks will do you,” Obama writes. “It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn.”

Obama’s politics were tinged with nihilism during his undergraduate years at Occidental College outside Los Angeles. There he played it cool and detached, and began to confuse partying and getting high with rebellion. After he and his buddies joked about the Mexican cleaning woman’s forlorn reaction to the mess they’d created at a party, Obama was jolted back to reality by the criticism of a fellow black student, a young Chicago woman. “You think that’s funny?” she told him. “That could have been my grandmother, you know. She had to clean up behind people for most of her life.” Obama later transferred to Columbia University, where he was shocked by the casual tolerance of whites and blacks alike for the wide disparity between New York City’s opulence and ghetto poverty. He graduated from Columbia with a double major in English literature and political science, and a determination to “organize black folks. At the grass roots.” He wrote scores of letters looking for the right job, and almost a year later got an offer to come to Chicago. He gave up a job as a financial writer with an international consulting firm and became a $1,000-a-month community organizer.

Here in Chicago, Obama worked as lead organizer for the Developing Communities Project, a campaign funded by south-side Catholic churches to counteract the dislocation and massive unemployment caused by the closing and downsizing of southeast Chicago steel plants.

From 1984 to ‘88 Obama built an organization in Roseland and the nearby Altgeld Gardens public housing complex that mobilized hundreds of citizens. Obama says the campaign experienced “modest successes” in winning residents a place at the table where a job-training facility was launched, asbestos and lead paint were negotiated out of the local schools, and community interests were guarded in the development of the area’s landfills.

Obama left for Harvard in 1988, vowing to return. He excelled at Harvard Law and gave up an almost certain Supreme Court clerkship to come back as promised. Here he met and married his wife, Michelle, a fellow lawyer and activist, joined a law firm headed by Judson Miner, Mayor Washington’s corporation counsel, moved into a lakefront condominium in Hyde Park, and launched a busy civic life. He sits on the boards of two foundations with long histories of backing social and political reform, including his own community work–the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. Recently he was appointed president of the board of the Annenberg Challenge Grant, which will distribute some $50 million in grants to public-school reform efforts.

In 1992 Obama took time off to direct Project Vote, the most successful grass-roots voter-registration campaign in recent city history. Credited with helping elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the U.S. Senate, the registration drive, aimed primarily at African-Americans, added an estimated 125,000 voters to the voter rolls–even more than were registered during Harold Washington’s mayoral campaigns. “It’s a power thing,” said the brochures and radio commercials.

Obama’s work on the south side has won him the friendship and respect of many activists. One of them, Johnnie Owens, left the citywide advocacy group Friends of the Parks to join Obama at the Developing Communities Project. He later replaced Obama as its executive director.

“What I liked about Barack immediately is that he brought a certain level of sophistication and intelligence to community work,” Owens says. “He had a reasonable, focused approach that I hadn’t seen much of. A lot of organizers you meet these days are these self-anointed leaders with this strange, way-out approach and unrealistic, eccentric way of pursuing things from the very beginning. Not Barack. He’s not about calling attention to himself. He’s concerned with the work. It’s as if it’s his mission in life, his calling, to work for social justice.

“Anyone who knows me knows that I’m one of the most cynical people you want to see, always looking for somebody’s angle or personal interest,” Owens added. “I’ve lived in Chicago all my life. I’ve known some of the most ruthless and biggest bullshitters out there, but I see nothing but integrity in this guy.”

Jean Rudd, executive director of the Woods Fund, is another person on guard against self-appointed, self-promoting community leaders. She admires not only Obama’s intelligence but his honesty. “He is one of the most articulate people I have ever met, but he doesn’t use his gift with language to promote himself. He uses it to clarify the difficult job before him and before all of us. He’s not a promoter; from the very beginning, he always makes it clear what his difficulties are. His honesty is refreshing.”

Woods was the first foundation to underwrite Obama’s work with DCP. Now that he’s on the Woods board, Rudd says, “He is among the most hard-nosed board members in wanting to see results. He wants to see our grants make change happen–not just pay salaries.”

Another strong supporter of Obama’s work–as an organizer, as a lawyer, and now as a candidate–is Madeline Talbott, lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization, a group that’s a thorn in the side of most elected officials. “I can’t repeat what most ACORN members think and say about politicians. But Barack has proven himself among our members. He is committed to organizing, to building a democracy. Above all else, he is a good listener, and we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.”

Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side. Conducting a session in a New Horizons classroom, Obama, tall and thin, looks very much like an Ivy League graduate student. Dressed casually prep, his tie loosened and his top shirt button unfastened, he leads eight black women from the Grand Boulevard community through a discussion of “what folks should know” about who in Chicago has power and why they have it. It’s one of his favorite topics, and the class bubbles with suggestions about how “they” got to be high and mighty.

“Slow down now. You’re going too fast now,” says Obama. “I want to break this down. We talk ‘they, they, they’ but don’t take the time to break it down. We don’t analyze. Our thinking is sloppy. And to the degree that it is, we’re not going to be able to have the impact we could have. We can’t afford to go out there blind, hollering and acting the fool, and get to the table and don’t know who it is we’re talking to–or what we’re going to ask them–whether it’s someone with real power or just a third-string flak catcher.”

Later Obama gets to another favorite topic–the lack of collective action among black churches. “All these churches and all these pastors are going it alone. And what do we have? These magnificent palatial churches in the midst of the ruins of some of the most run-down neighborhoods we’ll ever see. All pastors go on thinking about how they are going to ‘build my church,’ without joining with others to try to influence the factors or forces that are destroying the neighborhoods. They start food pantries and community-service programs, but until they come together to build something bigger than an effective church all the community-service programs, all the food pantries they start will barely take care of even a fraction of the community’s problems.”

“In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

In an interview after the class, Obama again spoke of the need to organize and mobilize the economic power and moral fervor of black churches. He also argued that as a state senator he might help bring this about faster than as a community organizer or civil rights lawyer.

“What we need in America, especially in the African-American community, is a moral agenda that is tied to a concrete agenda for building and rebuilding our communities,” he said. “We have moved beyond the clarion call stage that was needed during the civil rights movement. Now, like Nelson Mandela in South Africa, we must move into a building stage. We must invest our energy and resources in a massive rebuilding effort and invent new mechanisms to strengthen and hasten this community-building effort.

“We have no shortage of moral fervor,” said Obama. “We have some wonderful preachers in town–preachers who continue to inspire me–preachers who are magnificent at articulating a vision of the world as it should be. In every church on Sunday in the African-American community we have this moral fervor; we have energy to burn.

“But as soon as church lets out, the energy dissipates. We must find ways to channel all this energy into community building. The biggest failure of the civil rights movement was in failing to translate this energy, this moral fervor, into creating lasting institutions and organizational structures.”

Obama added that as important and inspiring as it was, the Washington administration also let an opportunity go by. “Washington was the best of the classic politicians,” Obama said. “He knew his constituency; he truly enjoyed people. That can’t be said for a lot of politicians. He was not cynical about democracy and the democratic process–as so many of them are. But he, like all politicians, was primarily interested in maintaining his power and working the levers of power.

“He was a classic charismatic leader,” Obama said, “and when he died all of that dissipated. This potentially powerful collective spirit that went into supporting him was never translated into clear principles, or into an articulable agenda for community change.

“The only principle that came through was ‘getting our fair share,’ and this runs itself out rather quickly if you don’t make it concrete. How do we rebuild our schools? How do we rebuild our communities? How do we create safer streets? What concretely can we do together to achieve these goals? When Harold died, everyone claimed the mantle of his vision and went off in different directions. All that power dissipated.

“Now an agenda for getting our fair share is vital. But to work, it can’t see voters or communities as consumers, as mere recipients or beneficiaries of this change. It’s time for politicians and other leaders to take the next step and to see voters, residents, or citizens as producers of this change. The thrust of our organizing must be on how to make them productive, how to make them employable, how to build our human capital, how to create businesses, institutions, banks, safe public spaces–the whole agenda of creating productive communities. That is where our future lies.

“The right wing talks about this but they keep appealing to that old individualistic bootstrap myth: get a job, get rich, and get out. Instead of investing in our neighborhoods, that’s what has always happened. Our goal must be to help people get a sense of building something larger.

“The political debate is now so skewed, so limited, so distorted,” said Obama. “People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change.

“What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer,” he wondered, “as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.

“The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it’s always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.

“Now we have to take this same language–these same values that are encouraged within our families–of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other–and apply them to a larger society. Let’s talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values. Right now we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant, not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more.”

Obama said he’s not at all comfortable with the political game of getting and staying elected, of raising money in backroom deals and manipulating an electable image.

“I am also finding people equivocating on their support. I’m talking about progressive politicians who are on the same page with me on the issues but who warn me I may be too independent.”

Although Obama has built strong relationships with people inside Mayor Daley’s administration, he has not asked for their support in his campaign. Nor has he sought the mayor’s endorsement.

“I want to do this as much as I can from the grass-roots level, raising as much money for the campaign as possible at coffees, connecting directly with voters,” said Obama. “But to organize this district I must get known. And this costs money. I admit that in this transitional period, before I’m known in the district, I’m going to have to rely on some contributions from wealthy people–people who like my ideas but who won’t attach strings. This is not ideal, but it is a problem encountered by everyone in their first campaign.

“Once elected, once I’m known, I won’t need that kind of money, just as Harold Washington, once he was elected and known, did not need to raise and spend money to get the black vote.”

Obama took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C. His experiences there only reinforced his reasons for jumping into politics.

“What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society,” he said. “There was a profound sense that African-American men were ready to make a commitment to bring about change in our communities and lives.

“But what was lacking among march organizers was a positive agenda, a coherent agenda for change. Without this agenda a lot of this energy is going to dissipate. Just as holding hands and singing ‘We shall overcome’ is not going to do it, exhorting youth to have pride in their race, give up drugs and crime, is not going to do it if we can’t find jobs and futures for the 50 percent of black youth who are unemployed, underemployed, and full of bitterness and rage.

“Exhortations are not enough, nor are the notions that we can create a black economy within America that is hermetically sealed from the rest of the economy and seriously tackle the major issues confronting us,” Obama said.

“Any solution to our unemployment catastrophe must arise from us working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent, and international economy. Any African-Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don’t also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers–whites, Latinos, and Asians. We must deal with the forces that are depressing wages, lopping off people’s benefits right and left, and creating an earnings gap between CEOs and the lowest-paid worker that has risen in the last 20 years from a ratio of 10 to 1 to one of better than 100 to 1.

“This doesn’t suggest that the need to look inward emphasized by the march isn’t important, and that these African-American tribal affinities aren’t legitimate. These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ‘em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress. Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn’t care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing.”

“But cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done. Anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements are not going to lift us up. We’ve got some hard nuts-and-bolts organizing and planning to do. We’ve got communities to build.”



MARC GUNTHER, HUFFINGTON POST – Why did Obama introduce the “Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007,” a bill that would promote the use of coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, as a transportation fuel and make global warming a lot worse?

There’s a clue in the fact that the other champions of coal-to-liquid fuels in the U.S. Senate are Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Wyoming, both Republicans. Yes, Illinois, Obama’s home state, is, like Kentucky and Wyoming, a major coal-producing state. Nearly 32 million tons of coal was mined in Illinois in 2005, generating nearly $1 billion in revenues for the state’s producers.

Big coal companies and their allies in the United Mine Workers union want us to fill our gas tanks and airplane jet engines with a liquid fuel made from coal, which is abundant in the U.S. . .

When Obama introduced the coal-to-liquids bill back in January, he drew catcalls from environmentalists. Frank O’Donnell, the executive director of a Washington group called the Clean Air Watch, told Grist’s Amanda Griscom Little: “Obama may be a climate crusader, but in this case he’s marching in the wrong direction.”. . .

As Edmund Andrews reported in an excellent front-page story in The New York Times:

“Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years…

Environmentalists are appalled. Frances Bienecke, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me: “If you fill your Prius with liquid coal, it would be like driving a Hummer.” She described the coal-to-liquids proposal, as now written, as “an ecological disaster.” You can download an NRDC report on coal-to-liquids here.

An MIT researcher told The Times that “at best, you’re going to tread water on the carbon issue and you’re probably going to do worse.”. . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-gunther/barack-obamas-dirty-poli_b_50046.html



et cetera