Why Barack Obama Got My Vote
I just flew back from Australia, where I was speaking about the erosions of our civil liberties. Believe me, the rest of the world is agog at our inaction as what makes us Americans is being set aflame; and they are more scared of what an unsheathed US could do to the rest of the world than we are.
They also get more news out in the rest of the world about these depredations than we do here in our media bubble.
For instance: As the Australian reported earlier this week, New South Wales Justice of the Peace Mamdouh Habib is suing the Australian federal government -- which under the Howard administration had colluded with the US in committing various abuses against detainees and due process -- for having allowed him to be arrested wrongly in Pakistan in 2001, kidnapped and sent illegally to Egypt. There this Justice of the Peace was illegally imprisoned and tortured for six months. After that the United States held him for FOUR YEARS in Guantanamo. His complaint notes that he is a law-abiding citizen who was swept up under false pretexts. "It turns out that Habib has incontrovertible proof of his good standing," the Australian noted. "[H]e is a fully accredited Justice of the Peace in NSW. A search of the NSW Attorney General's Department website reveals that not only Habib, but his wife Maha Habib, is a JP." To become justice of the peace in New South Wales, the Australian added, "you have to be NOMINATED BY A MEMBER OF THE NSW PARLIAMENT and submit to a full character inquiry, including a criminal records check by NSW Police." (ALL CAPS mine)
Get that? A justice of the peace in a developed-world democracy. Had you heard of that?
Me neither.
This gave me chills because, once again, it is so scarily predictable: when I first started trying to alert people about the ramifications of the Military Commissions Act, and how it gives the US power to seize innocent people off the street simply by the President's naming them 'enemy combatants', I pointed out that nothing would prevent the US from rendering an EU minister off the streets of Belgium -- and flying him or her to a `black site' for torture -- if he or she opposed a US pipeline plan, or was prosecuting US war criminals such as Rumsfeld in the Hague. And that the clear lesson of Germany and other closing societies such as Argentina is that once those 'disappearances' begin, that is it; few are then brave enough to object -- and at that point objection is too weak to be effective anyway.
They rendered an Australian justice of the peace -- and that rendition did not even make the US news. So how can we be sure there is something so sacred about an American justice of the peace or even a judge? Say, an American judge who ruled against the Military Commissions?
This kind of leap to the next level of threat to us as citizens seems implausible to many people because they assume that there is an orderly and effective democratic response to this kind of eruption of lawlessness --- (oh gosh, actually it isn't lawlessness any more, now is it) -- or, I should say, to this kind of abrupt shift to a heightened level of state sadism; Well -- someone would bring charges!, one assumes. Or: someone would sue! Or: surely the ACLU would do something!
But seriously, I ask you to consider: What would indeed happen as a countermove if a US justice of the peace or a judge was rendered? The Bar Association would protest? Scary. Intimidating.
I raise this as an urgent matter in part because of a recent conference call I participated in with Hamid Khan, the head of the courageous movement of Pakistani lawyers and judges. In the call, which he made in spite of great danger to himself and probably to his family, there was a moment when he described the internecine warfare and factionalism of the opposition to Musharraf. In his voice was the tired, frustrated sound I have heard so often in this country when groups on the left JUST CAN'T GET IT TOGETHER. No matter how urgent the need is. Whereas in Pakistan's case they were having trouble getting the anti-Musharraf forces to act together -- and there was so much at stake.
What became clear from that call is that we are fools to assume that if the government makes a dramatically violent move, which all the laws I have highlighted now make entirely possible, that anyone will know clearly what to do or how to implement what should be done in response. In Pakistan, it was clear, in spite of this powerful grassroots movement, no one had a clear Plan B when Musharraf declared a state of emergency and began rounding up the lawyers and arresting the judges. No one had an unquestioned leadership structure in place for the countermovement; no one had a subcontinent-sized phone tree or a nice big -- oh, nation-sized -- conference room in which to meet.
We need to consider this right now when we think about our own country: In a sudden sharp move on the part of the US government, even a `small' one such as this imagined scenario of the rendition of a handful of US judges, there is nothing a democracy is prepared effectively to do; that is the nature of democracy. There is no War Room for democracy; no one has an organizational chart detailing who would do what; no one would have a master strategy.
When people think about the many laws that invite this kind of overreaching now in the US -- the National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51), for instance, that would give the President control over all branches of government -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- in the event of an emergency -- they just assume that, gosh darn it, WE WON'T TAKE IT. And it may well be that we wouldn't want to take it and we would be willing in great numbers to run to the ramparts. But here is what I have to report to you, that the conference call made clear, and my Pakistani friend would confirm this: in a crackdown, even in the best-case scenario, NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE RAMPARTS ARE.
Many people have expressed faith in the Military. I am sure most of our military are patriots and cherish freedom; but who would direct a resistance to such an edict? What would be the chain of command? What about ordnance? Many people have expressed faith in the courts, but if they went after the judges -- just a handful of judges -- as they did in Pakistan, would the judiciary prevail? How? All closed societies have judiciaries; the judges just know which way to rule.
Many others assume the media will cover such a depredation and rouse people; well, ideally -- but just days ago we saw a curious blackout of a 60 Minutes report on Don Siegelman, the Democrat probably wrongly jailed in Alabama, by a TV affiliate with close ties to the White House.
Resistance? Sure, but how? The trouble with an aggressive move in any one of these directions on the part of the government is that THEY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN and we have not. They aren't surprised or shocked; we are. They have a plan; we don't.
So surely, better to roll back these terrifying laws. Just in case.
I have noted it is always true that societies that begin by torturing people at the margins end up torturing members of their own citizenry. Consider again: the Oscar-winning documentary for this year, Taxi to the Dark Side, which proves that any of us can become a monster torturer, following orders, and proves also that the edict to torture was systemic and came from the very top, won't be seen by most Americans. This is because the Discovery Channel bought it hoping to air it -- but then backed out. (Its affiliates have close ties to the military-industrial complex.) Will the Oscar win get it on the airwaves? Doubtful. Watch it somehow and drag all your friends to see it. Then consider that what happened to Dilawar, an innocent Afghani taxi driver, could happen to you or me.
When I went to see it in a theatre there were six people present. So America can't know in time what is being done to others to take steps to protect ourselves.
What is leadership? Leadership means getting out in front of where people are and waking them up. Right now, given these violent possible threats to us and our families, we are sleeping.
Which is why I am formally coming out of the closet with my support for Senator Barack Obama. Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action, not just mouthing soundbites, on the need to deny torturers space in our nation and to restore the rule of law.
"Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama," read a recent headline on the Boston Globe's political blog. In the article, reporter Charlie Savage notes that "More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to 'restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.'"
The lawyers who signed this letter -- prominent names on the list included Washington lawyer Thomas Wilner, retired federal appeals court judge John Gibbons, and retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who was the Navy's top JAG officer from 2000 to 2002 -- applauded Obama for having stood up in 2006 against aspects of the Military Commissions Act. Unfortunately, his fight was ultimately unsuccessful -- which is why we are all still in danger. But unlike other candidates he truly fought and he understood the nature of the danger: "When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," the lawyers wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."
Senator Clinton also opposed the law. In 2006 she said: "If enacted, this law would give license to this Administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse." She gets the danger; many of her colleagues do too. But this issue requires bold language and action. Senator Clinton has not foregrounded the issue of the subversion of the rule of law in her appearances or speeches; and I am very VERY sorry to say that she did not oppose torture until she opposed it.
I say this with regret: She and her husband really know how to run a country; they delivered eight years of peace and prosperity. I know her to be a skilled politician and motivated by sincere love of country. Mrs. Clinton would be a terrific executive -- in a stable democracy. But that is not enough right now. These are times that should try men's souls -- and women's also. In a closing society, a leader has to be willing to face down evil, engage it and call it by its name.
Remember: when activists started to push hard to raise awareness of the dangers of torture and indefinite detention, many on the Hill were scared to join the fight because it was then politically unpopular. But to me, if you are not really against torture -- always and under every political change in climate, and let us note that former torture victim and prisoner of war John McCain shamefully dropped his fight against the torture loopholes in the law as well -- then you are not really, in my view, fit to be an American President.
Gender has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it.
Integrity has something to do with it.
That is why Barack Obama has my vote. Of all the leading candidates, he is the only one on these issues who has consistently acted like a true American.
And if I hear -- as I am likely to -- from legions of US feminists outraged at me for choosing this man over that woman, I will gladly sit down and explain why I am certain that these issues are so urgent that they overshadow absolutely everything else.
Anyway, the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision. And while it would be a thrill to see the first woman elected President, in the last analysis, a real feminist need not define people or support on the basis of gender. Certainly not when our house -- with the precious Constitution held without representation within it -- is burning down.
Naomi Wolf is the author of The End of America (Chelsea Green) and the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Barack Obama doesn't stick his neck out on any issue; he never takes a hard line or unpopular stance. He voted "present" more than 130 times while serving in the Illinois legislature. While Hillary marched in New York's glbt parade, Obama refuses to be photographed with Gavin Newsom, even though the San Francisco mayor supported him. He's completely "whitewashed" for electability.
What matters for purposes of this primary is each candidate's prior body of work. Obama's is unremarkable. In 2000, he lost a bid in Illinois for U.S. congressman. In 2004, he ran against the reactionary Republican Alan Keyes - who didn't even live in Illinois - for his U.S. Senate position. The initial Republican nominee was caught in a scandal, thus making Obama virtually unopposed in heavily Democratic Illinois.
While many in Chicago thought Obama would accomplish great things for his constituents, he used the Senate position as a power grab, and almost immediately started campaigning for President. Anyone without the patience and determination to put in at least one full term at a national political level doesn't have the maturity to be President. At least a third of Illinoisans have buyers' remorse. As Obama said in Tuesday's MSNBC debate, he's got no time for national security subcommittee meetings now!
"Barack Obama doesn't stick his neck out on any issue; he never takes a hard line or unpopular stance. " Does that include his speech against invading Iraq prior to our invasion? How do you feel about Hillary Clinton serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee and not introducing legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell?" These oversimplified talking points don't elevate the discussion. Ms. Wolf supported her argument with facts. The use of the "present" vote in Illinois has been explained repeatedly. Have you seen the statement by Lorna Brett Howard who worked with Sen. Obama on reproductive rights during his Illinois years? If not, here
s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
Oh give Hillary a break. As a woman, she couldn't afford to LOOK weak on Iraq. She telegraphed her weakness with that one cowardly act. We need courage.
Isn't it time that someone got their facts right on the "present" votes? Even Anderson Cooper of the Clinton News Network has debunked this smear. And even if one doesn't understand what voting "present" means in the Illinois State Senate, 130 "present" votes out of 4,000 votes doesn't seem very meaningful to me.
Reading the essay I am struck by how many Democrats still view Sen. Barack Obama as an "empty suit." Some argue that Sen. Obama is a sexist who has usurped Sen. HIllary Clinton's right to be the Democratic candidate. These Democrats refer to the Obama campaign as a "cult" and accuse those of us who support him of "drinking the Kool-aid." They threaten to vote for John McCain in the general election if Sen. Obama receives the nomination. As Ms. Wolf writes, "In a closing society, a leader has to be willing to face down evil, engage it and call it by its name." Naomi Wolf is a leader.
Well, I think your logic is flawed in this case...so is your timing...I expect more from you.
Naomi Wolfe, you DO realize Barack Obama voted in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot Act, DON'T you? I'm so disappointed to see you jump on the Obama bandwagon! The only presidential candidate who has consistently fought for our civil liberties is Ron Paul.
Who is not a candidate for the Democratic nomination and won't be the Republican nominee.
I agree this is the most important issue facing America. I originially supported Sen Dodd because of his position on the Constitution. Sen Obama has at least stated (and please we need to hold him to this) that he would examine and review each of these new laws to determine if they are truely within the spirit of the Bill of Rights. Redition was started under the Clintons as well as using the IRS against opponents. I don't trust her with these powers. I intend to vote for Obama, as I did in the Maryland Primary. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will vote McCain for the simple fact that I trust him with these powers far more than I do Sen Clinton. From a historical prepective, this infringement on individual rights and general corporatism is akin to 1920s Italy.
John McCain does not yet have the republican nomination, and there's no guarantee he'll get it.
Sadly when I saw "Taxi to the Darkside" there were only a handful of people in the theatre. Of course we aren't being told what's going on in this country. The media focuses on Britney and other celebs, while refusing to print the truth of the Bush administration assault on our democracy. Not that Huffpo is much better. Why did they close the comments on the new pictures of abuse from Abu Ghraib? Why the small type headline posted only on the politics page, instead of a giant banner on the main page? Huffpo maybe new media but it sure acts like old media.
Wat to go, Naomi.
There are those who will call you a traitor to Womankind, when you are simply voting for the candidate you think will do the best job. Those who condemn you for that, who think that women should vote for the woman candidate, are of course practicing the same sexism they claim to condemn.
As long as self-interest remains the organizing principle of social interaction, state sanctioned terror is inevitable. Which is to say, it's a pretty safe bet there's nothing that can save humanity from itself. I'm quite sure those who promote rendition, torture and all the other inhumane endeavors governments eventually resort to do not think of it as the monstrous evil it is, but simply as part and parcel of looking out for their own self-interest. And since the ruling elites see anything in their own interest as in the nation's interest as well, they're never troubled by pangs of conscience. Opposing their accumulation of wealth becomes for them tantamount to jeopardizing the nation's security. I would like to think that Senator Obama - or any politician who's been thoroughly vetted by the establishment - would look beyond the narrow focus of the ruling elites to something embracing all the people; but I won't hold my breath. An excellent article I read a couple days ago (I forget if it was in Salon or Truthout) made the point that any candidate, to be electable, must pay lip-service to the military-industrial complex; and that it would be "political suicide" for any candidate to call for any serious reduction in the military budget. That being the case, there's absolutely no hope of slowing, let alone stopping, our march to fascism. Because, at the end of the day, it's not so much big oil as it is big defense that's calling the shots.
Well said Ms. Wolf, well said indeed.
When I read Stephen Grey's book, Ghost Plane, one of the more disturbing things I learned was that Extraordinary Rendition was Clinton's idea -- and the Clinton administration started it, and demonstrated that it could be gotten away with. This is what set the stage for the more widespread abuses of the Bush administration.
Naomi Wolf would have been well-served to highlight this.
Damn! I almost fell asleep reading this and waiting for her to get to the POINT!
I'l tell you why Obama should get your vote :
He votes PRESENT most of the time
He is too busy to hold meetings because he is running for president
He votes to fund the war although he says he is against it
He "lifts" words from other speakers ( yes, more than once and from more than one person)
He has shady dealings with Rezko
He has a free pass from the main stream and corporate run media
He recieves lots of money from drug industries and insurance ( more than Hillary)
He has basically the same voting record as Hillary
He gets all the Carl Rove independent and Republican votes
I guess you get the point!
wow! what a winner
Should HIllary get your vote.
She voted for the war in Iraq.
She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman bill which opens the door for a war in Iran. She hasn't taken this vote back.
She voted against a ban on the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Cluster bombs kill alot of children. I find this vote interesting considering her blog on Child poverty. Her concerns about children in the U.S seems contradictory to her vote on cluster bombs which affect children who are the main victims.
The Present vote refers to the Illinois legislature. Not all "Present" votes are cowardly. There are trategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.
I doubt that Barack is such a coward that he decided to be one 130 times.
Barack's relationship with Tony Rezko has been debunked:
www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/29/171056/015/838/445627
Naomi, I'm reading " The End of America" right now and I agree with you on the majority of what you say. I just don't understand how you could vote for the socialist Hussein Obama. He will dilute the constitution as much as Bush has, only in different ways. Can you honestly say that the founding fathers and mothers would support Obama? If you can, you shouldn't be mentioning the constitution as if you understand it.
Rubbish.
Your racism and stupidity are overwhelming. You must be an American.
Your first sentence is right on. Your second sentence is full of the same bigotry you say you condemn.
Flagged for being an absolute m.o.r.o.n.
Call yourself a fan of the founding fathers, let alone the Constitution? Had they been alive today, El Busho would have been impeached YEARS ago.
If you have the cajones, please itemize what you perceive as Obama's threats to the Constitution -- as well as what the current administration has ALREADY done to wipe their feet on it -- and I, perhaps others too, will be happy to engage.
And, btw, the potential next President's first name is Barack. At least you spelled Obama right. Fercrissakes.
True THAT!
The ONLY person the founders would have voted for would be...
dare I say it on a Liberal website......shhh......ron paul
No, the Founding Fathers wouldn't support Obama because he is BLACK and he would have been a slave at the time the Constitution was written.
"Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader ..."
- you've got to be kidding me. Obama voted "present" over a 100 times. Imagine someone asking JFK if he wants a blockade of the russian cargo to Cuba, and he doesn't say yes or no; instead says "PRESENT." How about his comments about Iraq war:
"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence; What I'd have done? I don't know." (NYT July 26, 2004). "There is not much difference (on Iraq) between my position and George Bush's position." (Chicago Tribue 7/27/04).
It gets even more hilarious about Obama's leadership. A true leader shall always give his opinions rather than toe the party line or kneel before the establishment. This is Obama in Meet the Press regarding his 2004 statements in support of George Bush's Iraq position, ".. comments were made when we had nominees for president and VP who had voted for the war. it was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against my party's nominee." (Meet the Press 11/11/2007).
Essentially ,he sensed that Democratic grass roots are against the Iraq war and wanted to seize on the Lamont effect. He resurrected his speech to a fee hundred supporters in an anti-war rally and told everyone that that was his position all along.
Great leader. Huh!
Obama's fundamental difference with Hillary is his stand on war. Yes there is a difference, he is a flip-flopper of the worst kind--makes statements on both sides of the issue and uses the very side that is right for the moment.
Drink up the kook aid.
Actually Senator John F. Kennedy ducked his vote on censuring Joe McCarthy.
The Present vote refers to the Illinois legislature. Not all "Present" votes are cowardly. There are trategic reasons for voting "present" rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A "present" vote can send a signal to a bill"s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting "present" can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.
I doubt that Barack is such a coward that he decided to be one 130 times.
Can't wait till Obama starts moving back to the center and basically gives you Liberals the middle finger. He will NOT get elected running on a "Liberal" platform. Noami, you should know this. What was the name of your book again?? Oh yes, The Shock Doctorine. You Liberals will be shocked all right.
Naomi KLEIN wrote "Shock Doctrine." Naomi WOLF wrote "The End of America, along with this column."
Shake your head vigorously; maybe you'll be able to keep facts straight.
Why Obama got my vote, by Naomi Wolf: Because he's the most liberal candidate running.
That's really all she needed to say.
Another woman kicking Hillary. This is why women will never make it to the promise land.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, seriously, I do not want to go to the 'promised land', I just want to live in America with my Constitution intact and my civil liberties protected.
Hillary has said nothing about restoring habeas corpus, nothing about protecting the Constitution. That's the president's job, to execute our laws and protect and defend the Constitution.
duh . . . a woman for the sake of a woman . . . that it just plain nuts . . . we want the best candidate . .. a lot of women (me included) don't think that hillary the best candidate for the job . .. end of story . . .
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
