Strange Fruit Campaign

"Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
blood on the leaves and blood at the root.
…strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
…Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck,
for the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
for the sun to rot, for the tree to drop.
Here is a strange and bitter crop."
--Lewis Allen/ sung by Billie Holiday

You can tell a tree by it’s fruit. The Obama campaign is providing a crop of positive messages. The fruit of the Obama tree is hope. It is safe to serve to your entire family.

The Clinton campaign’s yield has rotted over the weekend. It looked sweet at the end of last week’s CNN debate, but it has a strange and bitter odor now. It is poison, and unfit for democratic consumption.

Central Organizing Principles

"On Saturday afternoon Al Gore called me from Carthage, Tennessee, and asked whether I would help on his acceptance speech. I said of course and asked what he had in mind saying. He spoke for quite a time about global environmental problems, ‘family values,’ the ‘spirit of caring,’ and the need for ‘connections.’ He talked with passion about the rescue of the planet – ‘the central organizing principle for the 21st century.’

"He went on to attack the ‘hubristic’ assumption that we are sufficient unto ourselves and wandered off into a long disquisition about gnosticism, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes ….People are now questioning the assumption that individuals are separate units unconnected to natural world and to society. We are coming to understand the importance of interrelationships – our duty to the environment, to our families, to our communities, etc. Unusual talk from a politician. ….

"He then mused for a while about the generational aspect. ‘The baby-boomers are coming of governing age – and everything is declining as we take over the reins.’ The world is changing, he said, and the shift calls for ‘a redefinition of our relationship to reality. We are going through the greatest change in the world since the scientific revolution.’ He spoke about the potentialities of high technology – supercomputers, fiber optic cables, information highways, and other esoterica. …

"He then discoursed about ‘values’ and returned to his insistence of the day before the urgent need for individuals to locate themselves as part of larger wholes, getting in touch with nature and with society. ‘Our duty is not just to what helps us as individuals but what is good beyond ourselves. …..People living unto themselves feel that their lives have no meaning. We must work to reestablish the balance of nature, and we must work to reestablish the balance of society. As the false assumption that we are not connected to our natural environment creates the ecological crisis, so the false assumption that we are not connected to the larger community creates the social crisis. We must restore the connections. …. We are in a spiritual crisis. The problem is how to define our place in the universe.’ "
--Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; Journals; July 21,1992; pages 724 -727.

When I watched some of the televised coverage of the presidential primaries yesterday, and read through many of the threads on the GD-P forum of the Democratic Underground, I was reminded of how one of my best friends had hoped that Al Gore would run for reelection in 2008. After reading "The Assault on Reason," I thought that Gore had moved beyond competitive politics. The campaign process alone is so divisive, and tends to appeal to the negative side of both candidates and their supporters.

Politicians, like all human beings, have both a "good" side and a "bad" side. An interesting example is VP Dick Cheney: a number of people who used to be on good terms with him in the 1980s have said that they do not recognize him today. Cheney represents the dark potential of humanity.

In the current republican primary, there has been some confusion created by Governor Huckabee’s attempts to portray himself as a positive force in government. It made their party anxious. Willard Romney was forced out of the contest, but secured his place in his party’s future by delivering his most hate-filled speech when he stepped aside.

In a year when their party had no real leader, the republicans are settling on an angry and bitter John McCain, who promises another 100 years of war in Iraq, and more wars in the future. Yet this alone did not seem enough to secure the support of all of the party: it took reports of cheating and scandal to really rally the republican troops.

The democratic party’s primary presents a closer contest – at least on paper -- than that of the republicans. As the field of candidates was reduced to three, and then two, the democrats showed the potential to become as bitterly divided as the republicans could possible have hoped for. Appeals were made to the diseased passions of racism and sexism, and former President Bill Clinton’s behavior during the South Carolina contest will long be remembered as severely damaging his wife’s campaign.

Barack Obama’s campaign, and his supporters, have been attacked by both the Clinton campaign and now the McCain camp for being too positive in outlook. The attempts by Senator Obama to call upon the better natures of American citizens has been mistakenly called a weakness by those confused individuals who believe that dirty politics, with its insults, distortions, misrepresentations, outright lies and cheap attacks are the sign of strength.

In the latest democratic debate, many anticipated that Senator Clinton would resort to ugly tactics. The one most notable attempt by her was booed by the audience, and has been correctly identified as an utter failure by all objective people. However, Senator Clinton the politician was temporarily eclipsed by Hillary Clinton, the human being, at the end of the debate. She spoke about unity – including what appeared a sincere statement expressing her pride at being there on stage with Barack Obama.

That moment clearly opened a door to the potential of the democratic party presenting an extremely strong ticket in the fall, and offering the people of the United States an avenue to travel towards those goals that Al Gore spoke to Arthur Schlesinger about. It is there, and it is real. It is the appeal of our better natures.

Yesterday, of course, there was a step backwards, and some of the negative potential reared its ugly head. By no coincidence, the discussions on DU reflected the dead end approach of divisive "politics." But it is not just on a political discussion forum that is supposed to allow for progressive and liberal democrats to engage in meaningful discourse. The divisive tactics damage the entire party The longer the democratic party is subjected to the ugliness that some of the Clinton campaign advisors have identified as "the way to win," the more we stand to lose.

A Chain Reaction

(Note: This is an essay I posted on the Democratic Underground discussion forum.)

"I am happy to be friendly with the conservatives. If a boat is sinking, it is not a question of progressive and conservative, socialist and capitalist, Catholic and Protestant, Moslem and Hindu – for we are all in the same boat. Better a calm and courageous conservative than a frightened progressive if you want to save the boat. …. We are reaching a critical mass. A chain reaction will soon take place. But it will not be a controlled reaction …."
--Fidel Castro to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; Journals; page 5

This quotes, taken from page 599 of Schlesinger’s recently published journals, was from a meeting that the former Kennedy speech writer had with Fidel Castro on what would have been JFK’s 68th birthday. I think it is interesting, for a number of reasons. The most obvious one, of course, is its historical value: the idea of these two men sitting down and discussing subjects such as the idea of cooperation between adversaries is fascinating.

More, it is worthy of our consideration in the context of the questions asked to Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama during the CNN debate this week. Do we as a nation want to continue the current policy towards Cuba? Or do we wish to continue to hold Cuba to a very different standard than we hold every other country on the planet?

Although it is speculation on my part, I cannot help but think that if Arthur Schlesinger were here today, and heard Senator Obama quote President Kennedy’s line about never fearing to negotiate, but never negotiating out of fear, he would say that Obama understands the meaning of JFK’s words.

And finally, I think the quote is of value, because there are people on DU who – for a variety of reasons – attempt to smear Senator Obama by saying he will compromise democratic values by talking to and working with republicans. President Kennedy talked to and worked with his opponents; he did not compromise his values. Martin Luther King Jr., talked to and worked with his opponents; he did not compromise his values. And Castro, who is probably going to be recognized by history as more of a radical than even the most fierce-talking DUers that support Obama’s opponents, displayed a willingness to talk to others in an attempt to save a sinking ship.

The Bush-Cheney administration has done significant damage to our standing in the international community. I’ve long thought that it will take a generation’s time to repair that damage. One of the reasons that I have decided to support Barack Obama’s campaign is because I am convinced that he has a unique ability, among the candidates from both the democratic and republican parties, to communicate with both our friends and our enemies. I do not think that we have had a president with that ability since JFK.

Change is in the Air

"The great disappointment at the convention was Bill Clinton’s nominating speech. I have very high regard for Clinton, an intelligent, spirited and ( I thought ) sensitive man; and I find it hard to understand how he could have perpetrated so tedious and rambling a speech – and then persevered in it when the response from the crowd made it obvious it was not going over.

"I also find it hard to understand how the Dukakis people permitted it to happen. In my day the presidential candidate took care to control the nominating and seconding speeches. ….I hope that this speech will not go down in the folklore along with Paul Dever’s 1952 keynote and Frank Clement’s keynote in 1956."
--Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; Journals; July 22, 1988; page 656.

My house was filled with young people last night, who gathered to watch the debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on CNN. I’m used to having friends over to watch boxing, and did have family and friends here to watch Senator Kerry debate President Bush. But last night was different: rather than the retired teachers and social workers that I’m friends with; it was the students and young social workers that are my children’s circle of friends.

As an old man, I tend to worry the same worry that people my age have had most of the time during this great American experiment: "What kind of country are we leaving to the younger generation?" There is something reassuring in seeing a roomful of the inhabitants of that future watching a democratic primary debate, and listening to them dissect the quality of both the questions posed and the answers delivered.

I thought it was an outstanding debate. I had been concerned that Senator Clinton would be invested in the potentially destructive approach advocated by Mark Penn. That route would not help Clinton win the nomination, but it could hurt Obama’s chances in November, and would definitely damage the democratic party for years to come.

Yet Hillary Clinton’s decency came through, by and large. I had supported both of Hillary Clinton’s Senate runs in my home state, and was impressed by her in the early part of the primary contest, but have been disappointed by her campaign’s tactics in the past seven weeks. People including Mark Penn and Bill Clinton have behaved in ways that I find extremely offensive. And when I sat down to watch the debate, I was concerned that it would be a continuation of the offensive tactics, and part of a downward spiral that would last longer than Bill Clinton’s speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

All of the young people watching the debate here last night were Barack Obama supporters. But they also really like Hillary Clinton. At the end of the debate, when Senator Clinton spoke in a manner that suggested that she knows that Senator Obama has won this contest, and will be the nominee, one person asked if I thought she should be Obama’s vice president?

Most of these young people will be voting in their first presidential election. I said that this was obviously historic, because they would have the opportunity to vote for either a brown man or a woman as the democratic candidate, but that I doubted either would ask the other to take the VP position. No, I said, I didn’t think that was likely.

Old man, my son said, aren’t you the person who always says that "Yes" is more powerful than "No"? Don’t you always encourage us to look at this as a 50 state strategy? Well, with an Obama-Clinton ticket, we could be strong in every state, and change the make-up of the Congress, as well.

I think it is possible that Senator Clinton will end her run sooner rather than later, not just for her legacy, but because it is what is best for the democratic party. Change is in the air, and this nation will benefit from Hillary Clinton’s being a participant in that change.

Wisconsin: 1968-2008

{1} "I felt that I was being chased on all sides by a giant stampede. I was being forced over the edge by rioting blacks, demonstrating students, marching welfare mothers, squawking professors, and hysterical reporters. And then the final straw: The thing I feared from the first day of my Presidency was actually coming true. Robert Kennedy had openly announced his intention to reclaim the throne in the memory of his brother. And the American people, swayed by the magic of the name, were dancing in the streets."
--Lyndon B. Johnson to Doris Kearns Goodwin

Last night, after the news media was predicting that Senator Barack Obama had won the Wisconsin democratic primary, I posted a couple of questions on the political discussion forum "Democratic Underground." The first question was a request for other old-timers to contribute some of their memories from the 1968 Wisconsin primary, as it was an important event in the events of that year.

Within moments, one person first accused me of comparing apples and oranges, and shortly after said that I was looking for something "romantic" and a "myth in (my) mind" that is of no value. I actually think there are some important lessons from the Wisconsin primary, and I think the level of hostility in the two related responses was actually the proof in the pudding.

The value of the 1968 Wisconsin primary is the same if either Clinton or Obama are the democratic nominee. In fact, the lessons really have far less to do with the candidates, their top advisors, or the media. It has to do with the grass roots. And it is neither romantic nor a myth. Let’s take a look:

A brief history: there are four characters we will focus one – President Lyndon Johnson, VP Humphrey, Senator Eugene McCarthy, and Senator Robert Kennedy. In many ways, although the four had different backgrounds, they were all, by ’68, good solid liberals on domestic policy, with some serious differences on the foreign policy in Vietnam.

At the 1960 democratic convention, Hubert Humphrey had come to dislike the Kennedy brothers with a grudge he never let go of; McCarthy would nominate Adlai Stevenson, even though he wanted LBJ to be the party’s candidate, and expected to be his choice for VP; LBJ hoped for the nomination, but settled for the VP spot; and RFK was upset that his brother picked LBJ, and tried to talk Johnson out of accepting the spot.

At the 1964 democratic convention, the dynamics had changed. President Johnson had tried to get along with Robert after Dallas, but it was not to be. By the convention, he had let RFK know he was not in the running for VP. But LBJ worried the Kennedy family would attempt to force RFK onto the ticket. In the week before the convention, LBJ had narrowed down his choices; among them were Humphrey and McCarthy. Because of some personality traits, Johnson picked Humphrey.

In the years 1964-66, LBJ enjoyed a "working" congress, with circumstances that allowed him to pass significant legislation. After ’66, that window of opportunity had closed. More, LBJ was increasing the US commitment in Vietnam. The war drained the resources needed for Johnson’s domestic "Great Society" programs. This and a combination of other influences made for many of the protests that haunted Johnson’s dreams.

In 1967, some members of the Senate began to question if LBJ should be challenged in the 1968 election by a member of his own party. In March, Senator McCarthy told James Wechsler that he would support Robert Kennedy if he entered the democratic primaries. Months later, when Nicholas Katzenbach informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the concept of a US President needing the Congress to declare war was "outmoded," Senator Eugene McCarthy stood up and walked out. He told reporters that, "There is only one thing to do – take it to the country."

By the fall of ’67, a growing and diverse group of democrats and progressives were pressuring RFK to enter the primaries, in opposition to the President. The group including members of the John F. Kennedy "Irish Mafia"; journalist friends; and members of the "New Left." Among them was Allard Lowenstein, who was known as a student of Eleanor Roosevelt.

When RFK was reluctant to run, Lowenstein and others looked for other candidates. On October 17, 1967, George McGovern (who had been asked), told Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., that Eugene McCarthy was going to challenge Johnson. He would enter four primaries: New Hampshire, Wisconsin, California, and Massachusetts.

In January, 1968, the national polls showed Johnson leading McCarthy by 71 to 18%. The same polls showed LBJ over RFK, 52 to 40%. But then came the Tet Offensive.

In February, McCarthy made a bold move: instead of trying to campaign in four states, he invested almost all of his resources in New Hampshire. Young volunteers were convinced to participate in "Clean Gene" neighborhood-based campaigning.

The New Hampshire primary rocked the Johnson administration. On March 12, LBJ won 49% of the democratic vote, to 42.2% for McCarthy. Today, people sometimes say that these numbers show that it is a "myth" that McCarthy won New Hampshire. Actually, it is not a myth.

Of the democrats voting, LBJ got 27,243 to McCarthy’s 23,380. However, when the write-in votes or republicans and independents were totaled, LBJ had an additional 1778 to McCarthy’s 5511. Thus, the election totals were within 1%. But more important was the way the delegates went: because of the system in place in 1968, Eugene McCarthy won 20 of the 24 delegates available.

Shortly before the New Hampshire vote, Abigail McCarthy had told Kenny O’Donnell that, "if Bobby’s only run, we’d get out tomorrow morning." But after the surprisingly good showing, the McCarthy campaign resented it when Robert Kennedy began to talk about entering the race. It wasn’t just the candidate and his family, or even their top-tier campaign staff, which had divided loyalty. But most of all, it was the grass roots volunteers who had made the New Hampshire primary a success who were offended.

McCarthy and Kennedy were not close, but had discussed the possibilities of challenging Johnson in late 1967. McCarthy did not ask for any advice, and made it clear he was not planning to serve as a "stalking horse." But he understood why RFK was entering the race after New Hampshire.

On March 14, RFK and Ted Sorenson met with Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. They said that if LBJ would admit that his policy in Vietnam was failing, and would appoint a commission to come up with solutions, RFK would not enter the race. LBJ rejected the offer.

On March 15, the Kennedy people met with the McCarthys. They proposed having McCarthy run in some primaries, and RFK in others. Senator McCarthy and Abigail rejected this proposition.

On March 16, as he prepared to announce his candidacy, RFK told friends, "Let’s put something in about healing the wounds of the country by splitting the Democratic party into three pieces."

A Gallup poll the following week showed RFK over LBJ by 47 to 41%, while LBJ was ahead of McCarthy 59 to 29%. President Johnson had assumed that his Wisconsin campaign was strong, until he was told it was poorly organized and out of money. He sent Lawrence O’Brien, JFK’s 1960 campaign manager, to Wisconsin for two days; he reported back that Johnson would lose the Wisconsin primary.

On March 31, LBJ surprised the nation by announcing he would not run for re-election. That night, after watching the speech, Richard Nixon had his son-in-law call his grandfather Dwight Eisenhower, to ask him to endorse Nixon. Ike refused to.

On Tuesday, April 2, McCarthy won the Wisconsin primary. The following day, President Johnson met with Kennedy, then McCarthy, them VP Humphrey. He told each of the three that he "wasn’t a king-maker," and would not endorse anyone in the primary. He told Humphrey that he would, however, give him high marks as vice president.

When Humphrey told Johnson about his detailed campaign plans, LBJ felt betrayed. He also told aides that RFK was a "grand-standing little runt." After he retired, of course, he would tell Doris Kearns Goodwin about RFK haunting his dreams.

Most of the top aides of the McCarthy and Kennedy campaigns were on good terms. Most had, at some time or another, worked with those in the other camp. Many would work together again in the future.

Politics is that way. It’s interesting to note that at the Wisconsin primary, Ronald Reagan was trying to indirectly promote himself as an unannounced candidate. His people had made a film ("Ronald Reagan: Citizen Governor") which was shown to build support for the Gipper. Some of the top guns in the Reagan camp were democrats. People in politics look for the job that pays best.

It was the democrats at the grass roots level that had a sense of loyalty to their individual candidate, who had difficulty transferring that support to other candidates. Of course, there were tragic events in the spring of 1968 that disrupted the course of events that seemed possible after Wisconsin. But there were hurt feelings and hard feelings that kept people from recognizing that they had more in common than not.

In the 2008 primary, there have been a number of highly qualified candidates looking for the democratic nomination. This year, the dynamics surrounding the Wisconsin primary are different in many ways. What is similar is that we will soon be faced with an opportunity to come together to support one candidate, or we can be divided, and allow a republican to be elected.

Across the Universe

Barack Obama is a talented communicator. Even his opponents admit that. Some of his supporters have compared him to John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. These comparisons have been the source of bitter attacks by the Clinton campaign in the democratic primary, and the same attack tactics will be used by the McCain campaign in the fall. I thought it might be interesting to take a look at what different people mean by the comparisons of a living person to a historic figure.

In the early 1990s, there was a struggle between the traditional Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) and those interests that promote gambling in the United States. It created tensions on many levels, and involved the Iroquois’ Grand Council of Chiefs, individual nations/tribes Council of Chiefs, Clan Mothers, the State of New York, and the federal government.

I did an interview with an anthropologist who was recognized as an expert in Haudenosaunee - US relations. He had served as an "expert witness" in some of the most important court cases of recent years. At one point in our discussion, I mentioned how a certain Iroquois leader reminded me of a leader from the Revolutionary War era. The anthropologist then provided a fascinating comparison of the roles of more than a dozen of the chiefs and other influential leaders of the Confederacy in the late 1700s and the late 1900s. He understood.

Each of the member nations select individuals to serve on their Council of Chiefs, and who also serve on the Confederacy’s Grand Council of Chiefs. These chiefs maintain their individual identity. And they also serve in a position which is identified by the name/title of the first person who held that seat.

The best-known position name would be "Tadodaho." He is the "chief among chiefs." Many people around the world knew Leon Shenandoah when he served as Tadodaho. When he spoke in Europe, or to the United Nations, or to a group of students, they recognized him as the Tadodaho. But they also knew he was Leon Shenandoah.

The original Tadodaho was a fierce man, with a crooked mind. It is said that he had snakes for hair. This is symbolic, of course. The original Tadodaho was twisted by anger, fear and hatred. He was as evil as Dick Cheney. But he changed.

The change came from meeting with a man called the PeaceMaker, and his co-worker, who today people call Hiawatha. The PeaceMaker had met Hiawatha at a time when Hiawatha grieved from the loses associated with a society in decay. At first, Hiawatha rejected the words of the PeaceMaker. Eventually, he accepted them, and was transformed. Together, they transformed the Tadodaho, by using words to comb the snakes out of his hair.

As Tadodaho, Leon did not serve one Clan or even one nation/tribe. He served the entire Confederacy. In times of dispute – and there were many – he had to listen to everyone. Friend and foe alike. That was part of the responsibility that Leon the individual man accepted when he took the position of Tadodaho of the Haudenosaunee. It is a difficult role for any human being.

There were often people who felt that Leon should take their side in a dispute, and who said he was betraying this group or that group. But most people who met Leon found him to have a type of strength that only a very few people have: the inner strength of a person who is willing to speak to and listen to those who strongly oppose him.

As the "chief of chiefs," Leon used the name Tadodaho. The actual names of the men we call the PeaceMaker and Hiawatha have been "retired," because of their special meaning. I know that many of the people who are troubled by comparisons of Obama to JFK and MLK are not trying to insult Obama: they hold JFK and MLK in a special place. Like Hiawatha, they have wounds from the decay that struck down Martin and John in the 1960s. I understand why many people want to retire those names. It is because of their admiration for JFK and MLK. But I am convinced that JFK and MLK would prefer that we not place them on a stained glass window, and instead channel their energy into today’s society.

The Iroquois are not, of course, the only people who view the world this way. When we look at the bible, we see people comparing John the Baptist to Elijah. And we see people asking Jesus if he is a prophet returned. Tribal people view the experience of life as part of a great cycle, where modern people tend to view time as a straight line. I believe that it is both a cycle and a straight line. And I think that we are at a point in human history when we can approach the intersection of the two in a good way.

Talk Ain't Cheap

"The Bureau expended much of its energy, it must be said, on singularly inane objectives – trying to stop King’s honorary degrees, the publication of his articles, his meeting with British leaders after he collected his Nobel Prize. The vendetta reached its climax on November 18, 1964, when the director, in a rare press conference, denounced King as ‘the most notorious liar in the country.’ King responded that Hoover must be ‘faltering’ under his burdens."
--Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; Robert Kennedy and his times; page 280.

At a time when her campaign for the democratic party’s nomination for the presidency has begun to falter, Senator Hillary Clinton has begun to attack Barack Obama by saying, "Words are cheap." That would seem to fly in the face of the American experience.

The Founding Fathers recognized that words are not cheap. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights is proof of that: it addresses the need to have both free speech and a free press, in order to have a free nation. Words are not cheap.

Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin and the others who spoke about a new way of forming a more perfect union were risking their very lives. Their words were not cheap.

When great thinkers, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau spoke about self-reliance and civil disobedience, their words were not cheap.

When Sojourner Truth addressed the Ohio Women’s Rights Conference, and when Elizabeth Cady Stanton spoke to the Legislature of the State of New York about Women’s Rights, their words were not cheap.

When Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass focused the nation’s attention on the evils of the institution of slavery, they knew they risked paying the ultimate price. Yet they dared to speak out at a time when the nation needed to hear the truth. Their words were not cheap.

When Langston Hughes spoke of rivers, and Woody Guthrie sang about land, each delivered a valuable message to the people of this nation.

Presidents from FDR to JFK delivered historical messages: their words were not cheap. Rebels like Tom Hayden, in his Port Huron Statement, and Muhammad Ali, in his refusal to be drafted, paid a price for their words. Their message was not cheap.

Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were the conscience of our country. Their words remain a most powerful message and source of inspiration. Their words were not cheap.

In the quote about Hoover’s attempt to discredit Martin, we see what is actually "cheap": the organized actions that aim to deny not only a speaker the right to deliver a message, but also the desperate attempt to deny the public fair access to that message.

We have witnessed this same cheap type of action in every attempt to silence a journalist, or suppress publication of a book. The fear of ideas is cheap. This nation has been subjected to the closed-minded actions of those who fear ideas in every generation. There were those who did not want evolution taught in public schools; there are still those who want to force their prayers to be recited in today’s classrooms.

We also are too often subjected to the abuses of power and criminal activities of those politicians who think that words do not really matter. The president spoke the infamous "16 words" that the administration knew were not true, in his 2003 State of the Union speech. A dozen members of the administration took part in an organized operation to destroy Joseph Wilson for telling the truth about those 16 words. At least four purposely spread either confidential information or outright lies to 10 journalists, regarding Wilson’s wife.

Scooter Libby was charged and convicted for federal offenses that involved lying about words. The president decided that not only are words cheap, but that a federal jury’s decision is also cheap, and he interfered with justice by cutting Scooter’s sentence.

We have lived for too long under an administration that believes that words are cheap. We have felt betrayed too many times by politicians who play word games. But more, we have too long a history of recognizing that words matter ….. and we know that our Constitutional democracy is rooted in that Amendment 1 call for free speech, even though it is expensive, indeed.

Hoover told black Americans not to get their hopes up too high. His message was stark: there was not going to be much change if he could help it. What kind of person wants to deliver a message of "don’t get your hopes up"?

Barack Obama is communicating a living Hope to the people of this country. If Senator Clinton disagrees with the specifics of his message, then she should put her cards on the table. But let’s not try to dismiss him with "talk is cheap."

Restoring Democracy in 2008

"In the course of American history the nation has been confronted with wrongful events that went to the core of its existence, and the resolution of these events spoke of who we are as a people. Beyond question, the U.S. Supreme Court’s handing the office of the presidency to George W. Bush by its ruling on December 12, 2000, was one of them. And with these epochal events there have been Americans who have stood up and spoken out against these wrongs: for example, Tom Paine against British control of the colonies; Edward R. Murrow against the vicious and false charges made by Joseph McCarthy; Daniel Ellsberg leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. With his article in the February 5, 2001, Nation magazine titled ‘None Dare Call It Treason,’ Vincent Bugliosi takes his place in this special pantheon of patriots with his powerful, brilliant, and courageous expose of crime by the highest court in the land. ….
"As Election 2000 recedes into historical memory, it is imperative that ‘None Dare Call It Treason’ be preserved in book form for future generations where it will provide a window on a contentious time and serve as a reminder of how democracy’s central function of letting every citizen express his or her choice in the voting booth went awry. ….

"We hope that as a book, Bugliosi’s dissent will in the months ahead alert a wider audience to the dangerous precedent set by Bush v. Gore. As one of our readers wrote: ‘I’ve never felt so disenfranchised in my life.’ Bugliosi’s words can help mobilize the forces of protest so that such an injustice never happens again."
--The Editors of The Nation; Preface; The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President

The 2000 election theft was one of the most obscene displays of political corruption in our nation’s history. While we might debate and even argue about the merits of one candidate, or piece of legislation, we recognize that there must be "One Person, One Vote" in order for our Constitutional democracy to survive. When there are forces that would deny the will of the people, we should be united in our opposition to them.

There are two issues that should be of concern to all of us in the democratic primary. The first is the fact that there are "super delegates." The idea of "super delegates" is too close to the idea that "all are created equal, with some being more equal than others." If one candidate falls behind the other in both the popular and delegate vote, will their campaign attempt to hijack the process by resorting to a super delegate coup?

If we oppose the Animal Farm swine, such as John Bolton and Karl Rove, who believe that they are "more equal" than the citizens of this country, should we be willing to accept similar behavior by democrats who behave like Bolton or Rove?

Two of the many repulsive personality traits of George W. Bush is his inability to either admit to making any mistakes – including his lying to the nation to bring us to war in Iraq – and his inability to accept that losing – which is why he thinks that cheating is an acceptable tactic to achieve "victory." These are traits that should never be considered as "strengths," or accepted as a toughness our candidates need to "win."

The second thing that should be of concern is the issues involving the disputes with Florida and Michigan. An article in today’s New York Times, "Obama’s Lead in Delegates Shifts Focus of Campaign," notes that:

"Mrs. Clinton’s advisers acknowledged that it would be difficult for her to catch up in the race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning Ohio and Texas in three weeks and Pennsylvania in April. …..

"With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan …."

The democratic party needs to come up with a solution to the issues involving Florida and Michigan without resorting to the incendiary tactics of the republicans in Florida in 2000. And we should all reject any efforts by any candidate who cannot accept the fact that the voters support their opponent, to cheat to steal the victory.

Hopefully, we have learned something important in the years since the 2000 theft of the presidential election.

A Pattern!

This from last week’s TIME:

"I was told by someone close to the President that he thinks he won New Hampshire for Hillary Clinton. If so, he is wrong. …..

"In the past two weeks, though, Bill Clinton has redefined his wife’s campaign. He has made it a co-candidacy. He has cheapened it by using cheesy, misleading tactics against Obama. He began this the night before the New Hampshire primary, when he called Obama’s antiwar opposition ‘a fairy tale,’ which was, well, bullpucky. Obama spoke out against the war before it began. When he reached the Senate, Obama had to deal with the awful reality on the ground: we had troops there; there was chaos. He proceeded to vote like other Senators who had opposed the war – in favor of funding the troops, hoping for progress. As Iraq metastasized into a civil war, he began to vote for a responsible withdrawal. That Bill Clinton would turn this into an attack against Obama was almost as absurd as Clinton turning Obama’s statement that Ronald Reagan had changed the trajectory of the nation – and that, for a time, the Republicans had been the party of ideas – into a claim that Obama had thought GOP ideas were better. Clinton, after all, had said the same sort of things about Republicans in 1992. And he had been tougher on Democrats, decrying ‘the brain-dead politics of both parties in Washington.’ Indeed, almost everything Clinton said about Obama smacked of cheap political trickery …..

"…But even the most casual observer is aware of this: at a moment of crisis in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Bill Clinton was suddenly back and all over the news. His reappearance made her seem weak, and unable to defend herself. It raised the most fundamental question about her candidacy: If she is elected, who exactly will be President? What will happen if there is a real crisis? …."

"For a man known for his cornucopia of appetites, this is the greatest hunger. There is no controlling it, especially when he is in a defiant mood, under attack for his latest eruption of narcissism. It’s his way of saying, ‘No! Look! I’m not overwhelmingly selfish – just extremely, passionately interested in making the world better for you!’ …

"The bond Bill Clinton built with the black community seemed unbreakable. And so it was shocking to see it shattered in South Carolina by a need for victory at any cost."
--In the Arena; Joe Klein; pages 26-27.

And then this from the current edition:

"….Perhaps the most dreadful baby-boom political legacy has been the overconsulted, fanatically tactical, poll-driven campaign –and Clinton has suffered whenever she has emphasized tactics over substance. Her lame attempts to ‘go negative’ on Obama have been almost entirely counterproductive. Her husband’s attempts to paint Obama as a ‘race’ candidate – his resort to the most toxic sort of old-fashioned politics – only reinforced the strangely desperate nature of their campaign. It was the very opposite of "Yes, We Can’ politics. …

"Then again, one of Obama’s most effective lines is about the ‘craziness’ of trying the same old thing in Washington ‘over and over and over again, and somehow expecting a different result.’ The first politician I ever heard use that line – weirdly attributed to everyone from Benjamin Franklin to Albert Einstein – was Bill Clinton. It is a sad but inescapable fact of this election that Bill and Hillary Clinton have now become the ‘same old thing’ they once railed against. In a country where freshness is fetishized – and where a staggering 70% of the way things are going today – the ‘same old thing’ is not the place to be. .."
--In the Arena; Joe Klein; pages 18-19.

There seems to be a pattern here. Some people will tell you not to read TIME. These are the same people who will tell you not to read The Nation, or listen to Keith Olbermann, or MoveOn. They have a pattern of turning on those that have a different opinion on the democratic primary. I curious: if Senator Clinton does win the nomination, will her supporters still identify The Nation, Keith Olbermann, MoveOn, and people like me as their "enemy"? Time will tell.

Changes

"No American, young or old, must ever be denied the right to dissent. No monirity must be muzzled. Opinion and protest are the life breath of democracy – even when it blows heavy.

"But I urge you never to dissent merely because someone asked you to or because someone else does. Please know what you protest. Know what it is you dissent from. And always try when you do disagree to offer a choice to the course that you disapprove. For dissent and protest must be the recourse of men who, in challenging the existing order, reason their way to a better order."
--President Lyndon B. Johnson; June 7, 1966

There comes a time when very generation is faced with choices between "change" and "more of the same." In 1960, the presidential election was between Senator John F. Kennedy, the candidate of change, and VP Richard Nixon, who defined "more of the same."

Four months after LBJ gave the speech quoted above, Senator Robert F. Kennedy delivered a speech at the Berkley campus of the University of California. It was highlighted in one of his official campaign publications two years later. The speech was titled, "We Dissent." Let me quote from it:

"It is not enough to allow dissent. We must demand it. For there is much to dissent from …We dissent from the fact that millions are trapped in povert while the nation grows rich. …. We dissent from the conditions and hatreds which deny a full life to our fellow citizens because of the color of their skin. …. We dissent from the monstrous absurdity of a world where nations stand poised to destroy one another, and men must kill their fellow men. ….We dissent from cities which blnt our senses and turn ordinary acts of daily life into a painful struggle. … We dissent from all these structures – of technology and of society itself – which strip from the individual the dignity and warmth of sharing in the common tasks of his community and his country." (October 22, 1966)

Kennedy offered the opportunity to change; Humphrey was viewed as "more of the same." And Humphrey lost to Nixon, because Humphrey was tied to errors of the Johnson administration.
In November, either Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator Barack Obama will probably be facing Senator John McCain. It will be an election in which the nation will have to decide to vote either for a democratic candidate of change, or for more of the same with John McCain.

Two of the most important issues that will be debated between either Clinton or Obama, and John McCain, will be the US foreign policy in the Middle East – including Iraq and Iran – and the role of the Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) in our modern society.

There have been numerous discussions about which democrat could best be viewed as the candidate of change in a contest against McCain, and which one will be viewed as more of the same. The issue of the congressional vote that allowed the administration to move forward with its invasion of Iraq has caused some dispute among democrats. Obama did speak out against the invasion; Clinton and McCain both voted for it.

The other issue that is worth our looking at is the need to repair the damage done to the Great Writ. Both Clinton and Obama have spoken about restoring habeas corpus. McCain is certain to be against that. However, in any debate, either a moderator or John McCain himself will be able to say that the first step in the dismantling of the Great Writ took place in 1996. President Clinton worked closely with conservative republicans to pass the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (also known as AEDPA) .
Senator Clinton speaks of her experience as First Lady as being part of what qualifies her to be President of the United States. Will she only want to roll back the damage President Bush has done to the Great Writ? Or will she recognize that it was only more of the same thing her husband had done, and be willing to roll back the damage President Clinton did, as well?

I think that Senator Barack Obama represents our party’s and our nation’s best chance for positive change. I think that he has done a better job of describing what it is he disagrees with from the Bush-Cheney administration, and has defined what positive course he would take to correct the damage that has been done to our society.

A Troubling Pattern

"Newscaster Chet Huntley wrote a piece in LIFE magazine, containing what were considered unfavorable remarks. The suggestion for retaliation against Huntly, in a White House memo by Mr. Higley, contained a statement of broad philosophy: ‘What we are trying to do here is tear down the institution.’ …

"The broader tactics used against the press included meetings between Mr. Charles Colson and media representatives. In a summary of his meetings with the three network chief executives, he observed that they were terribly nervous about the Federal Communications Commission. He stated that, ‘although they tried to disguise this, it was obvious. The harder I pressed them (CBS and NBC) the more accommodating, cordial, and almost apologetic they became.’ He concluded by observing that ‘I think we can dampen their ardor for putting on "loyalty oppositions" type programs.’ …."
--The Senate Watergate Report; page 685

Older DUers will remember how the Nixon administration attempted to "control" the news media with heavy-handed tactics. There was everything from the pressure on network executives, to having the FBI "investigate" Daniel Schorr. These types of activities posed a threat to the First Amendment.

Michael Isikoff and David Corn report in their book "Hubris" about the way VP Dick Cheney focused on MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for his reporting on the Plame scandal. Cheney and Scooter Libby attempted to apply pressure on MSNBC executives to silence Matthews. Paul Wolfowitz complained to MSNBC that Matthews was anti-Semitic. Cheney had Libby call executives to say he was angry Matthews’ reporting. The book notes that the executives felt that pressure.

The Scooter Libby trial revealed further evidence of how the Office of the Vice President was monitoring MSNBC programming. These types of activities pose a threat to the First Amendment.

The comment by MSNBC’s David Shuster about Chelsea Clinton was clearly wrong, and there should be a consequence. However, the Washington Post is reporting that at a press conference, Senator Hillary Clinton "part of a ‘troubling pattern of demeaning treatment’ by MSNBC. ‘There has been a troubling pattern of comments and behaviors that has to be held accountable’, " Clinton told reporters. (Clinton Calls Shuster Comment ‘Part of Troubling Pattern’; Perry Bacon, Jr; Washington Post; Feb 9, 2008)

I am troubled by this attempt to "control" the media in a manner that clearly is going beyond simply addressing Shuster’s specific comment It is, I believe, part of a troubling pattern that poses a risk to the First Amendment.

Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party 2008

The potential for a brokered democratic convention, in which the decision to select the party’s nominee could be made despite the will of the voters, reminds me of the historic experience of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in 1964.

In 1964, the democratic party in the state of Mississippi was run by some politicians who had been in office for a long, long time, and who were not used to having anyone question their authority. They were used to ruling the party with an iron fist. They were ruthless in crushing any potential opposition. One of the groups that they despised were the black people who, if they were given full access to the citizenship, could question their power.

The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) was attempting to seat delegates at the 1964 democratic convention. Rather than cover the events in great detail, I will suggest that those who are interested read some of the history books that cover that time. Two that are good are: (1) At Canaan’s Edge: America In the King Years 1965-68; Taylor Branch; Simon & Schuster; 2006; and (2) Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and his times 1961-1973; Robert Dallek; Oxford University Press; 1998.

At the time, the national democratic party was also run by an iron fist, named President Johnson. LBJ was worried about anything that could make his convention look bad. LBJ was concerned about two things in particular: Robert Kennedy, and the MFDP.

Being somewhat of a control freak, LBJ sent Hubert Humphrey to try to control the MFDP. However, the people in the MFDP. They knew that they had the right to challenge the delegate seating proposals of the racist state forces, and they were not going to submit to Humphrey, no matter what he promised for the future.

The MFDP was made up of an early Rainbow Coalition. There were older white progressives, grass roots activists, civil rights advocates, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. They had the support of national leaders from Martin Luther King, Jr., to Malcolm X.
The democratic party struggled with finding a way to resolve that tense stand-off. It is interesting to note that in the next two years, the MFDP was widely recognized as one of the powerful forces that made the democratic party pass historic civil rights legislation.

One more thing: When Martin was struggling in Selma the following year, Malcolm would twice go to the south to make speeches. Those two, made in his last year of life, are among the most important, and of great interest to those people who are interested in building a progressive wing in the democratic party.

The SNCC had invited him to speak to young demonstrators. It was at a time when Martin was in jail. A few of Martin’s people were afraid of Malcolm’s potential influence on those college students, and so they asked Andrew Young to speak to him. Rev Young told Malcolm that he should not "incite" the students; Malcolm responded, "Remember this: nobody puts words in my mouth."

Young and James Bevel spoke to Mrs. King, who then spoke to Malcolm. Now Mrs. King was very progressive, and she found Malcolm’s message reassuring.

The other public event in the south featured Malcolm debating a college student who had been active in the sit-ins. Some of the adults, including James Baldwin, who moderated the debate, were concerned that Malcolm would use the same tactics against the young college student as he did against older opponents. But instead, Baldwin noted, Malcolm treated him with the dignity and respect he would a little brother – for this was what mentoring is all about.

Malcolm asked the young man, "If you are an American citizen, why have you got to fight for your rights as a citizen? To be a citizen means that you have the rights of a citizen. If you haven’t got the rights of a citizen, then you’re not a citizen."

"It’s not as simple as that," the student answered.

"Why not?" Malcolm asked him.

If being a member of the democratic party means anything, it should be having the votes in the primary count. It’s as simple as that.

Tell the Truth

"All people whose minds are healthy can desire peace, and there is an ability within all people -- especially the young -- to grasp and hold strongly to the principles of righteousness. These principles of justice demand that all thoughts of prejudice, privilege, and superiority be swept away, and that recognition be given to the reality that the creation is intended for all equally." – Degan-awida (The PeaceMaker)

When I was young, I had the privilege of being taught by Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman. We talked a lot about the proper relationship between leaders and the people they served. Paul’s grandfather’s grandfathers were among those who met with people like Jefferson and Madison. Some of the older histories of the United States call Chief Hendrick one of the "Founding Fathers."

In one interview I did for publication, I asked Chief Waterman about what the white politicians could learn from the Haudenosaunee (or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) leaders? Paul said, "To tell the truth."

For many years, Chief Waterman and I used to speak at schools and colleges, and Paul taught me that it was a privilege to have that opportunity. The money we were paid went to the Longhouse, to pay for food for elders. We didn’t look to benefit financially, but rather to have society reap the rewards of educated, concerned young people.

One of the most important things about this democratic primary is that so many young people are actively participating in the process. This is a sign of a healthy democracy.

Young people have the ability to recognize those who tell the truth, from those who do not. People from my generation will recall a fellow named Richard Nixon: we just knew that he wasn’t an honest man. Nixon tried to keep secrets from the public, and then from investigators. But when we read the history books, we find that the young folks were right: Nixon was a crook. A lot of his criminal behavior was tied to campaign financial arrangements.

There are questions being raised about the Clintons’ finances. Some people are saying it is wrong to raise these questions. They say this information will become public soon enough. I recognize those words: Nixon said the same thing.

If people in the Clinton campaign wonder why young people trust Barack Obama, it is because they trust him. You can’t buy that trust.

A Stained Mind

This morning I had a :45 minute wait between dropping my daughter off, and the beginning of an 8th grade basketball game. During a stop at a convenience store, I picked up The New York Post. At the counter, I took part in a conversation with three other people about the up-coming primary. All four of us were democrats, which I took as a good sign considering that we are in a very conservative, republican upstate county.

I would have bought the NY Times had the store carried it, and when I opened the Post I was reminded why I rarely read it. There was an editorial titled "Obama: No JFK," by a snake named Jonah Goldberg. He became a right-wing darling when his mother helped fuel the fire of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. (she is the snake who convinced Linda Tripp to record her conversations with Monica).

Goldberg is the editor-at-large of the National Review online. He recently published a book titled "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning." The book reportedly had a "working title" than compared Senator Hillary Clinton to Mussolini. He is a peddler of lies and hatred, and the editorial in today’s paper ranks with the most obscene things I’ve read.

Goldberg is not satisfied to discuss the issues involved in the democratic primary – he would have nothing of value to add – and so spews hatred towards the democratic party at large. He attacks the journalists who have commented favorably on Obama; insults Ted Kennedy and Ted Sorensen; and condemns Barack Obama for the sin of being more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

That alone would merely reinforce the image of Jonah as a neoconservative lap dog – a yappy little poodle barking at the image of a lion on a television screen. But he is far worse than that: Jonah lies about the nature of the Kennedy administration, attempting to reinvent JFK as a conservative hawk, while completely ignoring the reality of President Kennedy’s message of hope. Should anyone question where Kennedy stood on issues, they should read the transcript of the address he delivered at American University in June of 1963 (and compare it to Senator Obama’s message).

Jonah appeals to the darker side of human nature when he focuses attention on Lee Harvey Oswald, who he incorrectly claims was a Marxist representative of the American left. Why would anyone who is focusing on the campaign of Barack Obama today include information on LHO in their editorial? He is a snake. He is more of a hate-monger than Louis Farrakhan, though he lacks Farrakhan’s communication skills.

But the message is the same.

No matter if a citizen of this country is a democrat, and supports either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton; or if they are a republican, stuck with the choice between John McCain or Willard Romney; or is an independent or a member of another party, they should reject the poison that snakes like Jonah Goldberg are attempting to inject into the election. And the media should not promote the hate speech with its not-so-subtle calls to the diseased aspects of our society.

A Nation of Immigrants

{1} "Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history." –Oscar Handlin

In 1958, Senator John Kennedy quoted Harvard historian Oscar Handlin’s 1952 book "The Uprooted" in his pamphlet-sized book "A Nation of Immigrants." Handlin’s work, which studied the experiences of the European immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for history.

Handlin, Ermeritus Professor of History at Harvard, also authored "The American People in the Twentieth Century," "Race and Nationality in American Life," and "Boston’s Immigrants, 1790-1880."

Handlin’s writings influenced Kennedy’s thinking when he tried to reform the 1952 McCarren-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act. Kennedy tried to "end racist restrictions that favored ‘Caucasian’ immigrants and restricted entry from those from Asia and Latin America." (Thomas Maier; The Kennedys: America’s Emerald Kings; Basic Books; 2003; page 285.)


{2} "The contribution of immigrants can be seen in every aspect of our life. We see it in religion, in politics, in business, in the arts, in education, and even in athletics and entertainment. There is no part of our nation that has not been touched by our immigrant background." – JFK; A Nation of Immigrants

Kennedy’s book included information about the hatred and prejudice that many immigrants had experienced in the United States. There were people who questioned why he would write such a book, which exposed the dark side of WASP culture, at a time when he was preparing to run for president. The answer is found in the book itself.

The book has been re-issued twice: first in 1964; and now again in 2008, to mark it’s 50 year anniversary. The 1964 edition had an introduction by Robert Kennedy; the new edition has an introduction by Senator Edward Kennedy, and a foreword by Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League.

{3) "Immigration policy should be generous; it should be fair; it should be flexible. With such a policy, we can turn to the world, and to our own past, with clean hands and a clear conscience." JFK; A Nation of Immigrants.

Immigration is again an important issue in American society. Some of the most important groups in the USA – including the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center – warn us about the dangers in efforts to scapegoat immigrants.

The issues that Senator Kennedy raised in 1958 are as important today as they were then. This is an extremely important issue for the democratic party – and especially our nominee for president – to take a progressive stance on.

Guns & Butter

"I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved. If I left the woman I really loved – the Great Society – in order to get involved with that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. ….And I knew that if we let Communist aggression succeed in taking over South Vietnam ….that would shatter my Presidency, kill my administration, and damage our democracy." --LBJ
--Doris Kearns; Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream; New York; 1976; pages 251-252.

The democratic debate last night was outstanding. Supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have good reason to be pleased with their candidate’s performance. I do not think that any objective person could say that either candidate made anything less than a good impression, showing that they are fully qualified to be President of the United States of America.

In my opinion, Senator Clinton seemed slightly stronger on the domestic economic questions, and Senator Obama appeared slightly stronger on the international issues involving war.

It is important that both Clinton and Obama begin to speak more forcefully on the connection between the damage done to our economy, and the Bush-Cheney war of occupation in Iraq. Just as LBJ told Doris Kearns that the war in Vietnam destroyed his economic policies, because he could not afford "guns and butter," the current administration’s Iraq policy is the cause of the economic depression we are experiencing.

More, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must focus the public’s attention on the fact that there are business interests which are lining their pockets off the suffering of others. These business interests are, of course, closely connected to the family friends of the Bush and Cheney families. It is not just that they are getting huge tax breaks, but far more importantly, that these untaxed profits are "blood money."

Their investment in human suffering is what is causing the most severe damage to our Constitutional democracy. It is time for both candidates to bring this message home.