Progressives for Obama

by Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover

This call has been drafted for immediate circulation, discussion, and action.

All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama. We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country. We believe that the movement today supporting Barack Obama continues this great tradition of grass-roots participation drawing millions of people out of apathy and into participation in the decisions that affect all our lives. We believe that Barack Obama's very biography reflects the positive potential of the globalization process that also contains such grave threats to our democracy when shaped only by the narrow interests of private corporations in an unregulated global marketplace. We should instead be globalizing the values of equality, a living wage and environmental sustainability in the new world order, not hoping our deepest concerns will be protected by trickle down economics or charitable billionaires. By its very existence, the Obama campaign will stimulate a vision of globalization from below.

As progressives we believe this sudden and unexpected new movement is just what America needs. The future has arrived. The alternative would mean a return to the dismal status quo party politics that have failed so far to deliver peace, health care, full employment and effective answers to crises like global warming.

During past progressive peaks in our political history -- the late Thirties, the early Sixties -- social movements have provided the relentless pressure and innovative ideas that allowed centrist leaders to embrace visionary solutions. We find ourselves in just such a situation today.

We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama's unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined.

Progressives can make a difference in close primary races like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, and in the November general election. We can contribute our dollars. We have the proven online capacity to reach millions of swing voters in the primary and general election. We can and will defend Obama against negative attacks from any quarter. We will seek Green support against the claim of some that there are no real differences between Obama and McCain. We will criticize any efforts by Democratic super-delegates to suppress the winner of the popular and delegate votes, or to legitimize the flawed elections in Michigan and Florida. We will make our agenda known at the Democratic national convention and fight for a platform emphasizing progressive priorities as the path to victory.

Obama's March 17 speech on racism was as great a speech as ever given by a presidential candidate, revealing a philosophical depth, personal authenticity, and political intelligence that should convince any but the hardest of ideologues that he carries unmatched leadership potentials for overcoming the divide-and-conquer tactics which have sundered Americans since the first slaves arrived here in chains.

Only words? What words they were.

However, the fact that Barack Obama openly defines himself as a centrist invites the formation of this progressive force within his coalition. Anything less could allow his eventual drift towards the right as the general election approaches. It was the industrial strikes and radical organizers in the 1930s who pushed Roosevelt to support the New Deal. It was the civil rights and student movements that brought about voting rights legislation under Lyndon Johnson and propelled Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy's anti-war campaigns. It was the original Earth Day that led Richard Nixon to sign environmental laws. And it will be the Obama movement that makes it necessary and possible to end the war in Iraq, renew our economy with a populist emphasis, and confront the challenge of global warming.

We should not only keep the pressure on, but we also should connect the issues that Barack Obama has made central to his campaign into an overarching progressive vision.

- The Iraq War must end as rapidly as possible, not in five years. All our troops must be withdrawn. Diplomacy and trade must replace further military occupation or military escalation into Iran and Pakistan. We should not stop urging Barack Obama to avoid leaving American advisers behind in Iraq in a counterinsurgency quagmire like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s and 1980s. Nor should he simply transfer American combat troops from the quagmire in Iraq to the quagmire in Afghanistan.

- Iraq cannot be separated from our economic crisis. Iraq is costing trillions of dollars that should be invested in jobs, universal health care, education, housing and public works here at home. Our own Gulf Coast requires the attention and funds now spent on Gulf oil.

- Iraq cannot be separated from our energy crisis. We are spending an unheard-of $100/barrel for oil. We are officially committed to wars over oil supplies far into the future. We instead need a war against global warming and for energy independence from Middle Eastern police states and multinational corporations.

Progressives should support Obama's 16-month combat troop withdrawal plan in comparison to Clinton's open-ended one, and demand that both candidates avoid a slide into four more years of low-visibility counterinsurgency.

The Democratic candidates should listen more to the blunt advice of the voters instead of the timid talk of their national security advisers. Two-thirds of American voters, and a much higher percentage of Democrats, oppose this war and favor withdrawal in less than two years, nearly half of them in less than one year. The same percentage believe the war has had a negative effect on life in the United States, while only 15 percent believe the war has been positive. Without this solid peace sentiment, neither Obama and Clinton would be taking the stands they do today.

Further, the battered and abused people of Iraq favor an American withdrawal by a 70 percent margin.

The American government's arrogant defiance of these strong popular majorities in both America and Iraq should be ended this November by a powerful peace mandate.

The profound transition from the policies of the past will not be easy, and fortunately the Obama campaign is lifted by the fresh wind of change. We seek not only to change the faces in high places, however, but to save our country from slow death by greed, status quo politics, and loss of vision. The status quo cannot stand much longer, neither that of politics-as-usual nor that of our security, energy and economic policies. We are stealing from the next generation's future, and living on borrowed time.

The Bush administration has replaced the Cold War with the War on Terrorism led by the same military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against. The reality and public fear of terrorism today is no less real than fear of communism and nuclear annihilation a generation ago. But we simply cannot continue multiple military interventions in many Muslim countries without increasing the vast number of violent jihadists against us, bleeding our military and our economy, becoming more dependent on Middle East oil, creating unsavory alliances with police states, shrinking our own civil liberties and putting ourselves at permanent risk of another 9/11 attack.

We need a brave turn towards peace and conflict resolution in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Getting out of Iraq, sponsoring a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, ending alliances with police states in the Arab world, unilaterally initiating real energy independence and moving the world away from the global warming crises are the steps that must be taken.

Nor can we impose NAFTA-style trade agreements on so many nations that seek only to control their own national resources and economic destinies. We cannot globalize corporate and financial power over democratic values and institutions. Since the Clinton administration pushed through NAFTA against the Democratic majority in Congress, one Latin American nation after another has elected progressive governments that reject US trade deals and hegemony. We are isolated in Latin America by our Cold War and drug war crusades, by the $500 million counter-insurgency in Columbia, support for the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela, and the ineffectual blockade of Cuba. We need to return to the Good Neighbor policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, policies which rejected Yankee military intervention and accepted Mexico's right to nationalize its oil in the face of industry opposition. The pursuit of NAFTA-style trade policies inflames our immigration crisis as well, by uprooting countless campesinos who inevitably seek low-wage jobs north of the border in order to survive. We need balanced and democratically-approved trade agreements that focus on the needs of workers, consumers and the environment. The Banana Republic is a retail chain, not an American colony protected by the Monroe Doctrine.

We are pleased that Hillary Clinton has been responsive to the tide of voter opinion this year, and we applaud the possibility of at last electing an American woman president. But progressives should be disturbed at her duplicitous positions on Iraq and NAFTA. She still denies that her 2002 vote for legislation which was called the war authorization bill was a vote for war authorization. She now promises to "end the war" but will not set a timeline for combat troop withdrawal, and remains committed to leaving tens of thousands of counter-terrorism troops and trainers in Iraq amidst a sectarian conflict. While Obama needs to clarify his own position on counterinsurgency, Clinton's "end the war" rhetoric conceals an open commitment to keep American troops in Iraq until all our ill-defined enemies are defeated -- a treadmill which guarantees only the spawning of more enemies. On NAFTA, she claims to have opposed the trade deal behind closed doors when she was First Lady. But the public record, and documents recently disclosed in response to litigation, prove that she was a cheerleader for NAFTA against the strong opposition of rank-and-file Democrats. The Clintons ushered in the Wall Street Democrats whose deregulation ethos has widened inequality while leaving millions of Americans without their rightful protections against market shocks.

Clinton's most bizarre claim is that Obama is unqualified to be commander-in-chief. Clinton herself never served in the military, and has no experience in the armed services apart from the Senate armed services committee. Her husband had no military experience before becoming president. In fact he was a draft opponent during Vietnam, a stance we respected. She was the first lady, and he the governor, of one of our smallest states. They brought no more experience, and arguably less, to the White House than Obama would in 2009.

We take very seriously the argument that Americans should elect a first woman president, and we abhor the surfacing of sexism in this supposedly post-feminist era. But none of us would vote for Condoleezza Rice as either the first woman or first African-American president. We regret that the choice divides so many progressive friends and allies, but believe that a Clinton presidency would be a Clinton presidency all over again, not a triumph of feminism but a restoration of the aging, power-driven Wall Street Democratic Hawks at a moment when so much more fresh imagination is possible and needed. A Clinton victory could only be achieved by the dashing of hope among millions of young people on whom a better future depends. The style of the Clintons' attacks on Obama, which are likely to escalate as her chances of winning decline, already risks losing too many Democratic and independent voters in November. We believe that the Hillary Clinton of 1968 would be an Obama volunteer today, just as she once marched in the snows of New Hampshire for Eugene McCarthy against the Democratic establishment.

We did not foresee the exciting social movement that is the Obama campaign. Many of us supported other candidates, or waited skeptically as weeks and months passed. But the closeness of the race makes it imperative that everyone on the sidelines, everyone in doubt, everyone vascillating, everyone fearing betrayals and the blasting of hope, everyone quarreling over political correctness, must join this fight to the finish. Not since Robert Kennedy's 1968 campaign has there been a passion to imagine the world anew like the passion and unprecedented numbers of people mobilized in this campaign.

Read more at http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com/

TOM HAYDEN is author of Ending the War in Iraq, a five-time Democratic convention delegate, former state senator, and board member of the Progressive Democrats of America. BILL FLETCHER, who originated the call for founding "Progressives for Obama", is the executive editor of Black Commentator, and founder of the Center for Labor Renewal; BARBARA EHRENREICH is the author of Dancing in the Streets[2007] and other popular works and, with Hayden, a member of The Nation's editorial board. DANNY GLOVER is the respected actor, activist, and chairman of the board of TransAfrica.

Comments

[madeyemoody]

I very much respect the progressive and feminist credentials of Barbara Ehrenreich. Now if we can only get those working class stiffs in western PA to wake-up and smell the progressive coffee.

[vassiewb]

Thank you so much for this article!

[AMCNYC]

Thank you all, for collecting our thoughts, answering our questions, allaying uninvited doubts and focussing us back to where we were before the gutter broke, and forward to where we all cannot wait to be.

This beautifully written piece should be our Declaration of Progressive Intent and circulated to yon and yonder.

Obama 08

[Pquid]

Tom, I agree with you about everything except Obama. I worry that Obama's followers seem to have a starry-eyed notion about him as the answer to all that is wrong with this country. Expectations are unrealistic and he is promising things that he will not be able to deliver on. When that happens the disillusionment will set in. What will be left is a generation of cynical voters who will stay home in future elections.

This was not how JFK ran his campaign. Kennedy was the "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" President. He was more than a gifted speaker. He inspired people to work for change, not to expect change to be handed to them. We all realize that change is necessary. But if I learned anything from the 60's, it is that change is a notion that strikes panic in the hearts of people who have anything to lose. They got Nixon elected in the '69. I do not want them to elect McCain in '08.

[godsbreath64]

Very well said. Thank you.

[pilgrim7]

"The most important word in the English language is hope.” Eleanor Roosevelt

If people hate Obama because of his race, that's understandable. But getting beyond prejudice to read Obama's views on the issues (BarackObama.com), I find that Obama's expectations are actually doable rather than "unrealistic." Obama reminds Americans that we will have a role in achieving the best for America.

"In the end, this economic agenda won't just require new money. It will require a new spirit of cooperation and innovation on behalf of the American people. We will have to learn more, and study more, and work harder. We'll be called upon to take part in shared sacrifice and shared prosperity." (Obama)

He (Obama) conceded that changing health care, energy practices, immigration, education and poverty will be difficult, but he said it could be accomplished by the American people coming together.

"Imagining and fighting for hope for what didn't seem possible - that's the possibility before us now," he said. "There's a moment when that spirit comes through to ignite change. This is our moment. WE can remake this country, WE can remake this world. There's nothing WE can't do if the American people believe."
http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20080115/NEWS/245859537

[sebocd]

What's the alternative? Hillary? McCain? if Senator Obama can't deliver on everything, and he probally can't, it wont be because he didn't try. The half of the population that have the loyalty of lap dogs have prevailed for eight years. Now it's the turn of the other half that wants to take pride in their president and country and Senator Obama is as good as it gets. Evey choice has a degree of risk.

[Moose49]

Absolutely right.

Time to unify behind the most remarkable candidate for president in a generation. And time to stop the candidacy of an alleged Democrat whose main mission right now seems to be helping her close personal friend John McCain win the general election.

[Nonamnesiac]

I respect and generally support Tom, but not this time.

Obama is Hillary. Hillary is Obama. They oppose immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors from Iraq. That means they will have to support high troop levels, as McCain will convincingly argue that fewer troops meant more US casualties. The American people want out and won't buy "cut and run" or "calamity of biblical proportions" as reasons to remain. They think the Iraq occupation is an Edsel and no outcome justifies the expense in lives, limbs and treasure. But they won't support the Clinton's/Obama's plan, which McCain will successfully sell as more US casualties than his plan at the same price.

Both oppose single-payer, universal heatlh care and both support, despite words to the contrary, unbridled free trade. Both supported extension of NAFTA to Peru.

There is going to be a serious progressive vote this time, regardless of all the Nader-baiting and noise from Democrats, as people want the war ended and realize neither Obama nor Clinton intend to do it. The only way to get the Dems to support it is for them to realize there will be enough votes hemorrhaged to independents (Nader or McKinney or not voting) if they will not end the war. Progressive leaders need to be there to show direction, not functioning within a Democratic Party that can count on their votes while not committing to immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors.

Don’t buy their Edsel.

[trevor01]

You got one thing right, Mr Hayden. This thing you've imagined is bigger than Obama. But you and your progressive friends have decided he's just the ticket to help you on your way to creating a new world order. Is that because you think you can manipulate him or has he manipulated you into thinking that? Who can tell? Who cares? Your dream of the future makes no allowance for the dreams of ordinary Americans and ordinary human beings everywhere who have no interest in being part of your elitist social experiments.

[SamEllison]

So Trev we should allow the neo-cons and the neo-liberals continue to screw up the world.
They had their shot, now it's time for change.

[indie17]

Wrong. The progressive movement is all about the dreams of ordinary Americans ,and ordinary human beings everywhere. Your 'elitist' comment is straight out of Rush's playbook. You sure you want to go there?

[jhNY]

Yeah, it's "all about the dreams of ordinary Americans" as explained back to them by a few lefty celebrity spokesmodels, who would see themselves as ordinary Americans too, if it wasn't for their higher-than-Olympus self-regard.

[indie17]

Wow, this is heavy. So glad to see it finally happen.

[Guitarsandmore]

I went to the blogspot and I joined your list but........

Some of the "so-called" attacks on Obama are just paranoid fantasies. Bill Clinton makes a legitimate request to have the candidates debate the issues instead of a lot of nonsense and Bill is immediately accused of calling Obama unpatriotic. Sorry but I am not buying that line. Obama is going to have to stop playing the vicitm if he wants me to do anything other than vote for him.

[mshawn]

Bill said (paraphrasing), "Wouldn't it be great if, this year in the general electionwe had two candidates who really loved their country vying for the presidency. That's the best argument I can make for Hillary's candidacy"

You don't have to be hypersensitive to see what Bill Clinton was implying about Obama.

[SCG]

Glad to hear more are excited and on board.!

[lfrei]

Outstanding piece. Couldn't agree more on your Mid East thoughts. I also strongly agree that the US economy cannot be separated from the wars. The impact is huge. Thanks you guys.

[chlllfactor]

Thank you, Tom! I hope your post becomes the crying call of the Democratic party and becomes reality when Senator Obama becomes President Obama!
Go Obama!!!!!

[Jazz42]

Mr Hayden, and the rest of the group that appeared with you in writing this article.
I completely agree with you
Thank you,

[OtayPanky]

Until the Obama campaign began to define itself, I was one of those independent progressives who thought that the only cure for the political stagnation in this country was the complete collapse of the democratic party - with a new, responsive progressive party emerging from the ruins.

I now see that there is - or at least there COULD be - a viable alternative.

Count me among those willing to "roll the dice" - in hopes that there will be a fortitious confluence between the top-down leadership of Obama and his team - and the bottom-up coalition of progressives of ALL stripes (even conservative ones!) who want to see a return to moral and principle centered leadership for our nation.

And if we're wrong - we can still torch the palace in 2012.

[lbrillante]

Wonderful!
I keep hearing that if Obama wins Pennsylvania, this would all be over.. and I can't help wishing that if all Obama supporters volunteered just a little time in the next few weeks to talking with voters in Pennsylvania... maybe WE could help bring this contest to an end with the help of the people of Pennsylvania. I know it's a tough demographic state... he apparently needs some big name advocates out in the field in Pennsylvania because Hillary has so much of the party regulars behind her there. I have hope!
Change We CAN Believe In!
Yes We Can!

[jhNY]

There's also the niggling little problem that the voters there, despite all your wishes to the contrary, seem so far, to vastly prefer Clinton to your guy. And it won't be because party regulars in PA support her that she will win there. And it's not because of Limbaugh's dittohead army or an ad with a phonecall at 3AM. It's because the ordinary registered democrat, you know, the fellow this whole progressive thing is largely supposed to be about, is going to vote for her more often than Obama. Probably a lot more often. And that's not a dirty trick on Obama; it's the will of the people of PA.

[unsolved999]

No one's said it will be easy, but there are still 4 more weeks to change a few minds. That being said I think Obama was smart to take his vacation. Now it's time to get to work.

[StandingStill]

No niggling little problem at all, despite all your wishes to the contrary, Sen. Obama has the most states won, the popular vote and the most pledge delegates. Regular Democratic voters in PA can want for it to be a different out come, heck I wanted a different out come in 2000. I didn't get my wanted. Yet the world still went on. Speaking of going on, PA can help this primary season go on or they can get with the majority of Democrats who have already voted, and support our Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Together we Democrats can beat McCain or you can go against the majority of us Democrat and help continue this silly season with primaries and money spent which won't change the math or the nominee and will only hurt the Democratic party. Now we can all hold our breathes until we get the candidate we want or we can work with the candidate who has already WON and move on to kicking Republican booty!

OBAMA 08