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
Both Obama and Hillary are roughly the same in terms of experience and policy -- but Obama communicates better, has less personal baggage and history. That's why Hillary is failing! It's not that there is this massive difference betweent he two of them that she can talk about. They are basically the same, it's just that Obama is nicer and easier to work with. So all things being equal we're all gonna go with Obama. Hillary simply has waaaaay too much baggage between her and the Republicans to ever successfully work with them. All her "solutions" will be stalled and blocked by Republicans who just hate her on principle. They DON'T hate Obama and their base doesn't hate Obama either. If a Republican helped Hillary pass her legislation, that would be viewed as a betrayal by the Republican base (again, because of all the anti-Hillary baggage). The base really wouldn't care if Obama passed that exact same legislation.
The difference is that Hillary has alraedy been an intimate
member of a White House team that added 22.7 million jobs
to the US economy in 8 years, and is well positioned to put
a similar team together to do it again.
If adding jobs to the US economy is your number one priority
then a vote for Obama is just plain STUPID.
It's as simple as that.
Agreed.
Maybe we need a YouTube video with EmploymentGirl?
Intimate member of the White House, yes. But not exactly "intimate" with the president, which has made her whole career seem a compromise.
Had she dumped that scoundrel, she might well be on her way to be president now.
It's called (Bill) Clinton fatigue.
Of course, the high tech bubble had NOTHING to do with adding those jobs. And the Republican Congress had NOTHING to do with balancing the budget. Senator Clinton was an intimate member of a White House team that ignored genocide in Africa and slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians through the use of sanctions which accomplished nothing.
'...the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision'
You're not the only one who's noticed Obama 'tapping into his inner chick':
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?scp=3&sq=maureen+dowd&st=nyt
And thank you for speaking out! I've been waiting for to hear your opinion on this campaign and here you are!
Fems for Obama!
Integrity has everything to do with it, and it's unfortunate that it's such a rare commodity in politics. That's why I support Barack Obama.
You've got to be kidding. The only candidate for the presidency with consistent, principled integrity is Dr. Ron Paul. You "liberals" are supporting a charlatan. The left/right paradigm is a fraud. I used to consider myself a "liberal" as well and then I woke up. Who is the only candidate who voted consistently against the Patriot Act and the illegal wars? Who is the only remaining presidential candidate (other than Mike Gravel, who really never had much support) who is not controlled by the globalist cabal the CFR? It's Ron Paul. Who should all Americans who want to save America, and stop the North American Union and the New World Order be supporting? RON PAUL. I would not vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. If his name is not on the ballot, I will write him in. It's Ron Paul or bust. Literally.
Anyone can vote for anyone they want. But Naomi goes on and on and in the end chooses Obama even though both he and Clinton voted against the same bill. And, of course, HRC is not for torture either. Was it necessary to write a few thousand words about a distinction without a difference?
Because she is trying to educate you and all Americans on the clear and present danger.
Also from Albert Camus: "Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better."
It was Albert Camus who said that our fight t protect our values must be guided by those same values. This is diametrically opposed to the current administration's tactics and strategy.
Let us all hope that our next president will understand and follow Camus' tenet.
Obama08
Last night, a "liberal" talk show host* was asked by a caller if a new president would support investigations and indictment of Bush, Cheney and the war/Constitution criminals of this administration.
The host could not have been more abrupt and haughty. "No." When asked why, with the verbal back of his hand, he simply sneered, "Because the American people are tired, and they want to move forward. Hello, you're on the air..."
Got that? We don't care about indictment, impeachment, or the Constitution. We just want to forget. Next!
Amazing what Establishment Democrats have determined as the mood of the American people... no messy populism here! And they will continue to instruct us what this mood is, until we squeaky wheels just shut up and go away.
(* = The neutered "Democratic" one, who gets his paycheck from a GOP propaganda arm, and knows how to behave, and knows that whatever his positions, he always has to defend his paymasters.)
Yes that will be the mantra constantly repeated by the media, "We must move forward." The media will tell us that the country doesn't want to look back. That what's done is done, just let sleeping dogs lie.
the media are corporate whores . . . they push no accountability no responsibility .. .just like the bush administration . . . I think most Americans would like to see accountability and we deserve it . . . pelosi is part of the same problem . . .
If we don't examine these issues bring these criminals to trial, we are tacitly supporting their actions.
Do you want your Congress to actually accomplish something for the welfare of the country (not that they ever do) or would you prefer they spent most of their time on punishment? Yes, these jerks deserve it, but do we?
I remember you saying that it was someone else that brought you to the point of actually looking in to fascism coming to America. I think it's time to do more digging.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj2kee8nMPc&feature=related
thank you Naomi . . . thank you . . . so happy to hear that Australia is pursuing the US through the courts about rendition . . . this should be headline news . . . but too much censorship . ..
we do live in dangerous times and it seems as though most of the danger comes from the WH . . . the sooner pelosi can get off her complacent go-along DCL ass and be made to put impeachment on the agenda or is replaced by someone who will .. . if not America will continue to diminish in stature internationally . . . Obama is our only hope for restoring some of America's prestige and undoing some of our fascist laws .. .
Ron Paul was the only one raising these Constitutional issues--for the longest time, twenty years, as a matter of fact, often standing alone on the floor of the House. Obama is now suddenly going to go to bat for the Constitution? How convenient. He's a Johnny-come-lately who has no understanding of economics and would continue this nation's slide into socialism and spendthrift federal undertakings that never achieve their stated purpose and inexorably destroy the purchasing power of our currency, and pave the way for more federal government control and regulation, and ultimately totalitarianism AND ENDLESS WAR. He has never once mentioned the role played in this unfolding tragedy by the Federal Reserve System, primarily because he fails to see the connection between the manner in which money is created via debt and the growth of an intrusive and deadly bureaucracy. His unqualified and pandering support for Israel will ensure that our children and grandchildren will be mired down in the Middle East, with the result that he will inadvertently fullfill John McCain's one hundred year prediction.
Look beyond the facade. Just for once, America, go for the substance and not the glitz and the empty rhetoric. Obama is a nice and attractive man, but his unwavering belief in the power of government makes him simply a statist, and not a freedom-lover. You can't love freedom and want bigger government, no matter how well-intentioned.
Ron Paul is a lunatic that somehow imagines that we are still a union of colonies and the year is 1780. America is a modern empire with all the social problems one could imagine. Cut-taxes-and-spend-us-into-centuries-of-debt republicans have destroyed the government's ability, and clout carrying reputation, to affect substantive domestic changes.
The "freedom" you speak of is a load of de-regulationist hooey; the same that is killing our planet, ruining our children's health & education, ruining our culture, and making America not only a danger to itself and her citizens, but to every country that would dare oppose our international corporate interests.
When a single, or handful of, companies and corporations are powerful enough to not only buy a majority in congress, but also to seat a Vice President and President then we have all of us failed our obligations to each other to ensure democracy.
You can have social programs that benefit public AND private interests. We all can. Yes we can.
No one would buy the government if it had no power. Maybe Obama is above all of this, but what about his successor? Will he/she be as pure and ethical as Obama appears to be? 4-8 years of trust then back to a lifetime of corruption!
Ron Paul wants us to return to the gold standard. How's that for forward thinking?
Ron Paul also has submitted bills to 1) declare life as starting at conception and 2) making persons born in the states to illegal immigrants non-citizens no matter what their present age
While looking for other confirmation (which I have not yet found) that Mr. Habib is (or was) a JP, I came across reports of a claim by former Australian high commissioner to Pakistan Howard Brown that Mr. Habib was originally arrested in Pakistan by U.S. DEA agents and not Pakistani authorities.
Ms. Wolf, you describe, in perfect detail, how the end of America is destined to come. It may not happen this time, but it will not be for lack of trying. Subvert and intimidate the rule of law through fear, greed, nationalism and finally extortion. Treason, sedition and subversion are too kind characterizations of the concerted attack by our President on the government which he has sworn to defend.
But it has played out thousands of times, from tribal councils to monarchies to global empires and parliamentary governments. No one man, no cabal of like minds can stand for long against the simple hopes of the people they would subjugate. If history has one lesson, it is that the nature of man is to throw off tyranny, from Moses to Lech Walesa. We do know where the barricades are. The barricades are in our hearts, and wherever one man takes a stand is where the line is drawn.
What you write here is fervent and apocryphal, as it should be, but the order of business is not to incite a riot but to prevent the need for one, or many. What is needed is to make a clear statement to the power of the treasonous dogs that are indifferent to the existence America. That statement has to be that for however long this representative democracy accedes to the wishes of the public is how long this nation will last. Because if the rule of law, embodied in the Constitution, is not to be relied upon, the rule of fist and claw, fang and knife, gun and mob will be the court, as ever history has shown. And in that history, the mighty fall prey equally with the weak.
In the face of all the world’s experience of history, always comes a man that somehow deems his needs and his powers greater than the sum of mankind. His ego so enormous, his ambitions so far flung, that he believes no power exist that can stop him. Gotta tell ya buddy. If you fuck with us too much, we will start fuckin’ with you.
I'm replying for two reasons:
1) Simply to draw eyeballs to yet another insightful comment by Herrington; and
2) To append the following classic...
"When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
P.S. Per H's profile, "day trader, retired 1990 and again in 1999." LOL. There's a Mensa-worthy story in there somewhere. ;-)
Okay, Naomi....I want to see your pseudo'feminist reaction when Obama tells you, in a debate, that you're whining. Nice that he treated Sen Clinton like she's one of his little girls, isn't it? Oh, and today he said she spent her days as first lady pouring tea...funnny, he just had said she somehow was responsible for NAFTA during that same period.
That's not what he said.
Obama, "Well, I think what is absolutely true is that when Senator Clinton continually talks about her experience, she's including the eight years that she served as first lady and often says, "You know, here's what I did, here's what we did, here's what we accomplished," which is fine.
And I have not in any way said that that experience is not relevant, and I don't begrudge her claiming that as experience.
What I've said -- and what I would continue to maintain -- is you can't take credit for all the good things that happen but then, when it comes to issues like NAFTA, you say, "Well, behind the scenes, I was disagreeing."
That doesn't work. So you have to, I think, take both responsibility, as well as credit.
Obama's first run was against a popular Black American woman activist. In order to insert himself into the election process, Obama hired an election expert who challenged the four Democratic candidates--effectively forcing them out of the election based on their nomination petitions. This enabled Obama to run without opposition. Says a lot about allowing the people to participate in government, doesn't it? One can hope that past isn't prelude.
Obama barely has time to learn one job before he is off to take on the next. Couldn't call a meeting of his committee in the Senate because he starting campaigning after one year! A friend's husband told her not to stress on the fact that yet another guy who looks good in a suit will trump the hard-working woman. Life is not fair, and summer is short. Too bad, right now the country does not need another preener. We need a person who has shown the ability to throw herself into a job and learn it well. Alas, it's billed as thrilling as the Second Coming, but I just see another Chauncey in "Being There." Shrub redux.
Yes, his winning that first election says a lot. it says he knows how to win and he's not going to let someone else break the rules to beat him. It says that he's an extremely fast learner. And if what he's been doing day after day after day for over a year now hasn't convinced you that he's a hard worker, you simply haven't been paying attention.
Now Senator Obama is a feminist, a brilliant man, a hard worker, and a winner. What exactly is your objection, California?
So California, judging by your profile you have taken a sudden if well studied, perhaps even rehearsed, interest in politics. To what do we owe the pleasure of your comments?
Yes, he is new as a Senator. But please remember that Hillary started campaining for her Presidential race right after getting elected in NY, and has use her Senator-ship (in a state she didn't live in) to launch her run at the white house. In looking at the bills that the two Senators were able to author, it seems that most of Hillary's legislation has been about renaming Post Offices and recognizing and honoring people, while Obama was able to pass the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, among other things. Not too shabby.
I think that Hillary makes a fine New York politician, and there is still time for her after the race is over to go back and perform her duties as a Senator. Just look up the facts for yourself at http://thomas.loc.gov/, the Library of Congress site.
As I'm sure Jerzy Kosinski would've told you, we all "project" ourselves onto our candidates. To compare Senator Obama to the mentally challenged Chance the Gardener, reveals your own challenge to perceive intellect.
"Of all the candidates, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action" Naomi Wolf.
Why then has Obama voted to keep the Patriot Act? I mean he taught Constitutional law.....how can this be rationalized?
Good one.
How about his vote for the amendment which would strike telecom immunity... vs. his absence from the vote on the bill which still contained it when the amendment failed?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
