Obama and the Progressive Community

As January 20th approaches and President-elect Obama becomes America's new Commander-in-Chief, those who helped propel him to the presidency will anxiously be waiting to see where on the ideological spectrum his actions will fall.

Attending events around New York City, I have consistently been hearing two points of view.
The first is, "Thank God he got elected. Let's give the man a chance." The second is, "We're going to have to hold his feet to the fire." And that's the exact phrase that is invariably used. The euphoria of November 4th and the upcoming excitement surrounding the inauguration are competing with the reality of each looming crisis, from the economy to Gaza.

Disappointment came early for many when Obama named Hillary Clinton as his choice for Secretary of State. At a Code Pink fundraiser in Manhattan, hosted by Paulette Cole, CEO and Creative Director of ABC Home, the optimism was cautious. Given that Code Pink is a highly activist and energized community (Cole spoke passionately about using "commerce as a tool to effect change" and the work of the ABC Home & Planet Foundation), it came as no surprise that opinions were clear and strong.

Jodie Evans, a co-founder of Code Pink, told me plainly, "I'm a little concerned about foreign policy. The wave he [Obama] rode was an anti-war wave." Evans continued, "I'm unhappy there isn't one anti-war voice" [in foreign policy]. She spoke about Code Pink's new campaign, "War is so over." Reflecting on when she heard the news of Hillary's appointment she said, "I was in Iran when it happened. It was painful." Referencing the m.o. that Code Pink has become known for, Evans explained, "We're multi-layered. We're visual, vocal, persistent and consistent...We're constantly trying to get to the truth. We just can't continue the status quo." The point of view for Code Pink is that war can't be the answer. This may put them on a collision course with the Obama cabinet - especially regarding future policy in Afghanistan.

Former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman was present at the gathering. "Code Pink is about the audacity of truth," she said. Medea Benjamin, Evan's co-founding partner, was succinct when she said, "We are going to lead this administration in the direction we want to go." Benjamin's concern centered on how Code Pink could help to tell the story surrounding the issue of sanctions on Iran, which she believes only hurts the populace. "We realize our commonality with a lot of the Iranian women. They have told us that U.S. sanctions and military threats give their government more power."

Nancy Kricorian, the coordinator of Code Pink New York City, said, "When Obama was elected,
I felt giddy with relief because the alternative was going headlong over a precipice." After a pause she added, "He's surrounding himself with hawks. I'm waiting to see."

Democracy Now! founder Amy Goodman echoed Kricorian's concerns. "It's a very serious issue -- who has his ear. Movements now are absolutely critical. On November 4th, the world breathed a sigh of relief. But it's not about Barack Obama anymore." Goodman was clear that the attitude of "wait and see" was a "deadly" one. "Global warming, health care, the economy... how are these issues going to be resolved?" she asked rhetorically. "What matters now," she answered, "is policy. Who pressures him [Obama] and who is around him."

CodePink is building out a campaign housed on their site which is being called RemindObama. It has a seven-point program of holding Obama to his election promises.

Look for their presence at the Washington festivities.

* * * * *

Growing out of a letter from
feminist historians to President-elect Obama for a "new new deal," a January meeting was
held in Manhattan bringing together academics working to formulate an agenda for their view of an economic recovery policy. Arriving early, I was able to chat with Professor Annelise Orleck, who
mentioned that she was deeply unhappy about Rick Warren's presence at the Inauguration.

"That said," she indicated, "I'm keeping an open mind." There were copies of the National Council of Women's Organizations recommendations being handed out. The top paragraph included the premise of recognizing the mission to ensure that "women's traditional work, caring for children, families and communities, is properly valued by society, supported by government, and increasingly undertaken by men as well as women."

It was put forth that "a first goal should be to raise issues that are otherwise going to be neglected." There was the concern of "where are women in the stimulus package?" and the nagging question of whether "care was being gendered." A key component voiced was to ensure that women and people of color were adequately represented in getting jobs through federally funded projects. The group was focused on making sure that the New Deal era protocol of giving the majority of jobs to white men was seriously revamped.

In a follow-up phone conversation with Felicia Kornbluh, I learned that feminist economists were joining the pre-existing group of historians, and they were establishing themselves as a combined presence at the blog Women for a Fair Economy. Kornbluh qualified their role as "maintaining a focus on women and gender in any economic plan" and "making sure we're part of the conversation."

* * * * *

A litmus test for many will be the stand that the Obama administration puts forth on accountability regarding the actions of Bush and his key players on the issue of torture and civil rights. The conversation is out there, and has been featured in numerous posts including a January 9th article at Talking Points Memo by Elana Schor. Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, has been seen on both the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow shows, where he has been explaining the high stakes for all Americans in getting this right.

Congressman and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced H.R. 104 entitled "The National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties," which would establish a Blue Ribbon Commission of experts from outside the government to investigate the policies that were "undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers."

Pamela Lyn Kemp, a political blogger told me, "No one admires Obama more than I, but I am not going to give him a free pass." Kemp has been active in promoting an Internet action advising people to contact their representatives to support H.R. 104, and to keep a watch on the bill's progression on OpenCongress.org.

Daniel Noonan, a Master's student at George Mason University in the Peace Operations
Policy Program (POPP), who is interested in the Resolution from a policy and national security perspective, has created a Facebook page to raise visibility and awareness. He wrote me by e-mail:

"...With all of the other important issues that are going to be top-priorities, this [H.R. 104] could easily be lost among the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the nation's financial troubles. I believe that it is important as a nation to identify and confront our history and mistakes that have been made as we have struggled to adapt to a post-9/11 world. I don't necessarily see this as an effort to pursue criminal action (however I would not take that option off the table), but more as a truth and reconciliation effort to repair the damage that has been done at home and abroad.

There have been mixed signals from the administration and in congress as to whether there is currently enough support to move forward with this legislation...My hope is that in a small way, the H.R.104 group on Facebook will be able to contribute to that effort."

As Amy Goodman said to me, referencing the election of Obama, "This is just an opportunity. The change hasn't happened yet." Underscoring the need for each individual to be a part of the solution, she stressed, "The lesson is -- it is completely up to you."

I'd like to believe that Barack Obama wouldn't have it any other way.

Technorati Profile

Comments

[ArchAngel]

A person is known by the company that they keep. Not very promising for Progressives.

Example: Think how many highly paid jobs would be created through health care for all.

[ArchAngel]

Instead of tax breaks for businesses, why not remove the cost of providing health care from all businesses?

Why not set up the government to directly compete with or even replace private health insurance for all Americans? This would get a huge expense off of the backs of all American industries, create millions of positive useful jobs, and create many millions of jobs through the multiplying effect.

Why is Obama instead seemly prepared to rush through huge debts that will shackle America to the status quo for decades to come?

[joebhed]

ummmmm.... we've got Larry Summers taking over for the tax-dodging hotshot that Obama picked to guide us out of this financial mess.
Either Obama was looking for some lunchtime pick-up games, or he looked around for the smartest kid in the room to hand the ball to.
Geithner has no plan, and Summers is its proof.
He headed the New York Fed while that private banking institution ran the country's international financial relations into the ground.
He is the banker's guy, and Obama is putting him in charge of the taxpayers' pocketbook.
But then again, where do you find a progressive banker?
I'll get back to that.
Obama picks Hillary and she absolutely parrots George W. Bush's policies regarding the Islamic nation of Iran, one of the most powerful countries in the MiddleEast.
They propose to deny Iran its inalienable rights under the NPT to enrich uranium for reactor fuel.
It's hard to find a progressive atomic weapons expert to ensure global security from nuclear weapons.
On the call for a progressive banking reform, monetary-reform, really, see Dennis Kucinich provide true leadership as needed right now by the American people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR2EtMteHCg&feature=channel_page00

Maybe if we provide the lead, Obama will follow.

[SeanGardner]

Marcia, what are you doing? You know full well that Jodie Evans of Code Pink is mischaracterizing Obama's position on war. If you know this, why are you playing along?

Ms. Evans knows that Obama didn't ride an "anti-wave" as much as it was an "anti-Iraq war" wave. Obama NEVER said he was anti-war. Can you are Jodie Evans point to one single sentence in which he said he was against war? No, you can't. Obama is not anti war. I think back to the text of his famous speech in Chicago in 2002, where he spoke out against an impending invasion of Iraq. In that very speech Obama said he was not against wars in general, but was against "dumb wars". And the Iraq War was dumb, expecially when bin Laden is navigating through caves and producing videos.

Come on Marcia. Why even be a willing participant in someone else's misinformation?

[Marcia G. Yerman - Huffpost Blogger]

Sean, thanks for your comment. However, I think that you missed that this was a
reported story about events happening in the progressive community, which I attended.

My goal is to write about a wide range of people and organizations, soliciting their opinions
to present to HuffPo readers.

If everyone stopped writing about subjects that others felt were disseminating
"misinformation," there would be a dearth of material to read.

[SeanGardner]

That's fair Marcia.

But I felt you could have corrected the crap Jodie Evans was articulating. Because that's exactly what it is: crap! You could have corrected that Marcia, but hey, its your blogpost. Do what want.

And for the record, you can take the quotation marks from around the word "misinformation". In light of the facts I laid out, Jodie Evans clearly got it wrong. Saying that Obama rode an "anti-war wave" is wrong. It was an "anti-Iraq War wave". Most people don't want war, but they do want a commander-in-ghief who stands up for this country when attacked.

So I believe Jodie Evans mislead, and clearly promoted misinformation about Obama and the notion of war.

[FearlessFreep]

Push or get rolled.