Smart Dissent

Posted by Al Giordano - July 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm

By Al Giordano

Yesterday, in Independence, Missouri, Senator Obama delivered this speech on patriotism, titled "The America We Love":

If you've been sprouting Chicken Little feathers in recent days, gnashing teeth over the nominee's reported "move to the center" (or "to the right"), worrying about whether Wes Clark got pushed - or leaped on his own - under the proverbial bus after his remarks distracted from the message of this speech yesterday (Clark, himself, on Good Morning America today acknowledged, ""I'm very sorry that this has distracted from the message of patriotism that Sen. Obama wants to put out"), I have an interesting homework assignment for you.

Please put aside 28 minutes and 22 seconds today to give your full attention to the video of that speech. And then, if you still feel this nominee is offering more of the same as previous nominees, come back here and make your case at least with the benefit of the full knowledge of what exactly was trampled upon during yesterday's Chicken Little stampede.

Obama said:

...it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is - or is not - a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.

So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.

That last turn of phrase received such great applause from the Missourians in that hall because most people understand that an early skirmish in the general election fight will determine to what extent Republican nominee John McCain - the former prisoner of war in Vietnam - will or will not have the elbow room to impugn Obama's patriotism. McCain and his surrogates have tried to go there so far with limited success. Those words put up a barrier around their ability to do so in deeper ways. Obama's "I will not stand idly by" was a warning shot. The people in the room got it. They know what is at stake in a depth that perhaps not every progressive pundit or blogger does.

I myself relate very intensely to the paradox, cited by Obama yesterday, that it is often the greatest patriots whose patriotism becomes questioned by lesser lights:

...throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams' Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans - all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.

In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s - in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day...

As a writer, I believe that words should be powerful enough to stand on their own no matter who is writing them. Too many voices (at least among those with access to the media) rest on their laurels to claim authority. That's why, here and elsewhere, I try to limit any autobiographical references in my work. But when it comes to the topic of patriotism, since it is such a deeply personal one for me, I'm going to let loose a few snippets today.

Those of you that have known me over the decades know that my life's work has been deeply fed by my own sense that true patriotism requires dissent (and, most importantly, effective dissent; it is not enough to be "correct" if one can't also bring others over to his or her position). It's what caused me to dedicate the most energetic years of my youth to community organizing. It's what led to my arrest on charges of nonviolent civil disobedience 27 times, and long nights in various jails and prisons. It frankly brought me to the extreme of having to move outside the borders of my own country in order for this American dissident to have the wider vista to be able to describe my country as it truly is and the freedom of movement, economic and political, to be able to continue to change it.

The late Marty Jezer's book, Abbie Hoffman: American Rebel (1993, Rutgers University Press), along with others on the same subject, chronicle parts of my story during the decade of the 1980s when I studied and organized at the right hand of that late and often misunderstood patriot. And American patriot he was, maybe the last truly great one of the 20^th century. It briefly tells the story of my work as an organizer in New England's anti-nuclear movement in my late teens and early 20s, prior to joining forces with the late Hoffman. Jezer - who was also part of that movement and eyewitness to those events - noted in his book that there was a natural tension between some of the older "60s generation" activists in that movement and me that was provoked by - get this - the small American flag pin that, when organizing, I wore on my shirt during that era.

Halfway across the country during those years, another young man of my own generation was organizing, too, on the South Side of Chicago. When I listened to his words, yesterday, I concluded, again, that he was formed by similar generational challenges:

Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views - these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America's traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments - a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal...

Of course, precisely because America isn't perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that's occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expressions of patriotism....

When was the last time that the United States had a president that understood, on such a clear and elaborated level, that dissent is the essence of patriotism?

No president by the name of Reagan, Bush or Clinton valued, or even understood, that central tenet of democracy.

For the last 28 years, at least, in the USA, the executive branch of government has chipped away at the most American of rights and freedoms, not just through restrictions of individual rights by The State, but especially by fostering the private sector's greater powers over us in the workplace, the marketplace, especially in the realms of ownership and privacy.

The space has closed radically upon patriotic American dissidents, including in, but not limited to, my own field of journalism. More often than not, it's economics that clip our wings. (Who would have thought that in 21^st century America, for example, that one could lose his livelihood - and a press pass - simply for mentioning American patriots like Saul Alinsky or Andrew Kopkind? Had I had to pay the high cost of rent and food in the US when that came down last month, would I have enjoyed the time and space to be able to jumpstart this blog anew so rapidly and successfully? Just sayin'. When you factor in economics, the United States as the freest nation on earth ends at a different kind of border today: the one with the toll booth that exists inside national territory where you have to be able to pay to continue to speak freely.)

We have seen, especially post-9/11, hysteria and fear consume the leaders of both major political parties. Not since the McCarthy era has there been so much worry about associations and reputations, and the always-ready-for-a-nasty-witch-hunt "speech cop" mentality plagues the left (in organizations, in academia, in fundraising ventures) as much as, sometimes more than, it does on the right.

Among the baggage from the Clinton era of Democratic Party politics is this narrative about a nominee "moving to the center." I myself have a hard time breaking out of it, even though I know it's generally bullshit, and here's why: I have reported the campaigns of hundreds of candidates in the US and elsewhere, and for a number of years in my reckless youth I worked inside of political campaign staffs. And there's one thing that is evident from that experience: What a candidate says while seeking office has little to no bearing on his or her actions upon obtaining that office.

Too many progressive activists suffer from the illusion that if they leverage a candidate during a campaign that getting him or her to say one thing or another will later translate into policy. Ironically, it was Ralph Nader that pioneered that view of activism and we can all see to where it has naturally led him and some others after the frustration of decades of believing, despite the bad results, in a tactic that did not work. I can find very few examples of that in the campaigns I've covered, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Candidates that clipped to the right turned out to govern quite progressively. Candidates that tacked to the left governed more conservatively, sometimes to authoritarian extremes. A thousand issue organizations and interest groups tell their members to send them money and portray themselves as those who are policing the politicians and leveraging campaign seasons to do it, but their track record producing results from those politicians is abysmal.

And it's also a popular myth these days in some circles that "moving to the right" is what has hurt previous Democratic nominees. That's exactly the opposite of what happened to Michael Dukakis in 1988, whose 17-point lead in the polls was blown not because he moved to the right (he didn't) but because he was unable to frame his more liberal views in a non-ideological or "post-partisan" manner. From his disastrous debates where he boasted to be "a card carrying member of the ACLU" and his stammering, impersonal response when a CNN moderator asked him whether he would still oppose the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered, it was clinging to the left side of the divide that brought down that Democratic nominee.

In sum, I don't think that anything that Obama or McCain say during the campaign is going to determine how each of them will govern. If you think otherwise, can you cite an example of when that happened in US presidential politics? (Think of George H. W. Bush's 1988 mantra - "Read my lips: No new taxes!" - and his subsequent raising of taxes on most Americans when president.)

Nor do I particularly mind when I'm told that one of my big issues or heroes has been "thrown under the bus." Heroes are adults and have to take their knocks at times when they phrase things inartfully or get caught in a "gotcha" moment on TV (like happened to General Clark yesterday).

Here's a recent example that is close to home: No US journalist is as associated as much as I am with the reporting that exposed and beat back the attempted 2002 coup in Venezuela. Few have had the opportunity I've had to report, up close, on that country's president Hugo Chavez and to conclude that he is a democrat of policy and soul. When in his Latin American policy speech, Obama offered stern and errant words about Chavez, my response was neither to whine about "Sister Souljah moments" (another unfortunate concept that floated ashore with the debris from the Clinton era) nor to blindly deny that the nominee's view is wrongheaded. The tone that I recommend taking at those moments can be found in that which I took, when writing about the good, the bad and the ugly of what I deeply care about: Obama and the US-Latin America Time Bomb (May 26, 2008, Narco News).

My duty to the causes I care about is not to cry that we've been victimized, or that "the sky is falling," or to play armchair quarterback shouting from the bleachers at the captain on the field that he must make his next play a run or a pass. Nor is it to yell, "I'm taking my money and support and game board and going home." It is, rather, to inform and organize greater public opinion to grow to see the issue as I see it, so that whenever he may take office, he will have to deal with the reality that we have created with or without him.

People that care deeply and legitimately about misunderstood or unpopular issues like abolition of the death penalty for anyone (even for child rapists), or that Israel has to end its terrible treatment of Palestinians, or that there should be no immunity for telecommunications companies that spy on behalf of the government on Americans that communicate abroad, or fill-in-your-pet-issue-here, have to first educate and organize the citizenry to demonstrably agree with them before they can realistically insist that any political candidate stick his neck onto their pet chopping block.

Of much greater priority for me is to organize a network - as we are doing here - that, when the next president takes office on January 20, 2009, will be able to spread the word and frame the public debate in a way that he will have to do the right thing.

I do think it will be much easier and safer to do than it has been in a long, long time if that president is someone that instinctually understands that dissent is patriotism's highest calling: someone that will not attempt to demonize us nor pander to us, but who will at least be open to the conversation. And I opine that anybody that thinks we're seeing just "more of the same" is suffering from a kind of post-presidential-campaign-stress-syndrome and the traumas of campaigns past to a degree that he and she are unable to see what really is different at this moment in history.

Actually, I have to correct myself already: the highest calling of patriotism is not dissent. It is smart dissent, that based not on self-indulgence or the blurting of one's frustration's out in ways that seek to share the panic or the misery, but based on - even sometimes against great odds - building the objective conditions by which we will win the important battles worth fighting. We don't need any candidate's permission or endorsement of our issue or position to do that, and we sure don't have to wait for any politician to begin organizing the people to set him straight once in power. Ironically, we, the people have more leverage - if we organize - after a candidate becomes an official, than we do during the heat of an electoral campaign when he or she is so singularly focused on the goal of getting elected. And if we can use his own campaign as the basis through which to become organized, that much stronger will be our ability to move mountains when and if that campaign is victorious.

Comments

Thank you, Al.

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 4:33 pm by Amie H (not verified)

Absolutely beautiful work. Looking at Obama thru these past months, the fact that he has a philosophy of government and governing that is distinct from anyone we've seen at this level is obvious to me. (It's sometimes amazes me that Chicken Littles can't see this--quite an infestation of CL's at Dkos). I have no doubt that a fundamental shift in our self-concept of ourselves as Americans is occuring, combining the best of the past with the best strands of the global culture.

solid statement

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 4:35 pm by Jeff Larson

I don't know what more I can say in agreeing with your perspective other than: $200 bucks on the way....

bravo

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 4:37 pm by seabrook (not verified)

this piece is a breath of fresh air. i'm especially appreciative of your observation that pushing candidates "to the left" during campaigns is a fools errand.

i'd be interested in hearing what your take is on Obama's FISA stance, articulation of his support for the death penalty, proposal for faith based initiatives, and marginalization of MoveOn. What is the strategy? Is he trying to neutralize these issues so that he can focus the campaign around his strengths? Is he trying to win certain consitituencies? etc.

Superior Post

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 4:37 pm by Alexa (not verified)

Excellent. And reasoned.

Dissent doesn't come much smarter...

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 4:40 pm by Ryan S. (not verified)

...than this, Al. I've been reading you for months now (though only lurking) and this may just be the most insightful and lucid post of yours yet (IMHO).

I think it's very easy to get caught up in the politicking of election season and to take your eyes off the prize. It's easy for people to swoon and faint and get the vapors with every utterance a candidate makes, attempting to read the tea leaves and prognosticate about what Candidate X's aside to a staffer in earshot of a reporter means about his policy on Y during a lunar eclipse in a leap year. You hit the nail on the head here about what it will really take to shift public opinion and actually have the leverage to bring about the kinds of change we all care about--smart dissent and a pragmatic approach to getting the American people involved.

Thanks for a cogent and very persuasive expression of an argument I've been having with some of my more ideological-purity-obsessed friends lately. Now back to trying to talk them down off their ledges...

Great take on recent events.

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 4:41 pm by Paul Stoller (not verified)

After reading so many diaries over at dailykos I find this sort of calm pragmatic assesment refreshing. I only wish more posters on that site would come around to your line of thinking.

I strongly agree that this

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 4:48 pm by JoAnn Jones

I strongly agree that this candidate is "open to the conversation." That and his belief in openness and transparency in government make him very different from any politician I have ever seen in my more than forty years of voting. The fact that he is brilliant is the icing on the cake. Thank you for such an honest and thoughtful post.

JoAnn

Great Essay

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 4:51 pm by Brendan Corcoran

One of your best, Al. Obrigado. And the homework assignment is vital. O's speech elevates his own game. And, to concur with Amie H, to have a candidate with "a philosophy of government" is revolutionary. To Seabrook, on each of the specific issues du jour, look specifically at Obama's language in addressing each of those issues. He is careful, nuanced, and consistent with his own past statements. Revisit nepat's good comment on the previous thread.

Again, many thanks, Al, for such a salubrious essay.

Wow.

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 4:59 pm by Jason Young

This is easily the best and most important post you've made on The Field. This should be a doctrine not only for every Field Hand, but for every liberal and every Obama supporter.

In the spirit of spreading level-headedness, I'm going to force as many people as possible to read this post.

Between this post and Barry Crimmin's superb post on the death penalty, you're both showing how to properly go about expressing dissent.

I'd like to find the time to write an entry over at the Field Hands site on the importance of keeping drama out of this process. It's a crucial thing we need to do, and in a society that makes anything and everything dramatic, it's a point that needs constant reiterating.

If I was Mccain...

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:05 pm by longroad (not verified)

If I was McCain I'd welcome a fight on Patriotism. McCain can't lose worst he can do is tie. Obama can always slip up.

I look forward to the debates: "senator McCain do you think Obama is patriotic?" McCain:"well it's not for me to say ..." Obama:".....".- he better be ready with one hell of a sound bite or he will have just made this race a whole lot closer.

Obama Hagel 08!

Thank you

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:07 pm by Suzy Shure

Al, The Field, your writing, the comments, get better and more important to me every day. It's a privilege to read your work. 'nuff said. Time to forward this one to all my friends and again invite them to become co publishers & Fieldhands.

We must have you on the floor(wearing your milk bottle credentials!) in Denver.

Thank you again,and again.

Bravo, Al!

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:08 pm by DK (not verified)

This is another great, clarifying post that, like so many that you have written, is worth careful study. Thank you.

The best of America

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:11 pm by Allan Brauer

There is a quality that unites the greatest Americans. Thomas Jefferson had it. So did Abraham Lincoln. Several more come to mind. Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). Franklin Delano Roosevelt. John Steinbeck. John F. Kennedy. Martin Luther King, Jr. Barack Hussein Obama. And Al Giordano.

That quality is the ability to express in words the essence of what it means to be American. To use the most powerful weapon in the world - ideas - to inspire each of us to re-dedicate ourselves to the American ideal. The profoundly radical idea that we can be better than we are. That what unites us is greater than what divides us. This is the essence of the America I love.

thank you...

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:12 pm by Carthage (not verified)

for these wise comments.... How meek and week this sounds. Again, having listened to almost all of Obama's speeches, this one, again, managed to floor me in it's coherent and convincing message, it's tone as well as delivery. I really appreciate your analysis, Al, (& will put my $ where my heart is), and cannot help but to contrast that to Kos' churlish stance yesterday, refusing to send in $ support until Obama "gave him reason" for it, all because he "threw Clarke under the bus". I blogged that Sen. Obama has given us many reasons already, and, if he needed a reminder, he should listen to this speech. My statement that no one is perfect, but sen. Obama makes me aspire to be "better" got bad reactions, too. When did we last hear a speech from any other politician (besides Cuomo sr. so long ago - Dukakis?) that make us think, show us the underlying thinking in his reasoning and weave it together to show a path for growth? Thanks, Al et all.

I think what perfectly captures what you say is the FIFSA group

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:14 pm by Rhoda (not verified)

This group has 6000 members and is the largest growing group on the site: it stands against FIFSA. The NYT Caucus blog has a story on them: http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/06/jeffrey-tambor.html?xid=rss-hollywoodinsider-20080630

I just want to quote the guy who started this at MyBO, a law student at the University of VA.

The group was conceived on a listserv for progressive, politically active people, said Mike Stark, an activist who is a law student at the University of Virginia. He wrote an initial e-mail to the group arguing: “Obama is getting mad props for social networking, why don’t we use social networking to let him know that he can’t keep elbowing his progressive base — the people who got him the nomination — away from the policy table?”

One of the recipients, who was already a member of mybarackobama.com, created the group. There were bumps in membership when various blogs wrote sympathetically, Mr. Stark said, but, “the biggest bump was from the members themselves.” He called it “the networking effect.”

The idea that the site would reject the sub-group never occurred to him, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s commitment to using the Internet to bring more transparency to government. “One of his key things is a five-day comment period before he signs noncritical legislation, and not all of that comment will be favorable,” he said. “It’s a test run to see what his presidency might look like.”

Mr. Stark said he was thinking beyond the FISA vote, which he concedes is all but lost. He said he planned to change the group’s name to Barack’s Better Angels, and linger at the site until the election as a meeting place for “progressives who won’t accept being pushed away from the table.”

One of the things I love about this campaign is the way this candidate has brought so many new activists (me included!) to the table. I don't do anything but send 25 a month and I've done a registration drive twice (during the primary and after for the kickoff) and calling people using their site. But it's made me feel a part of something bigger, which is why I joined this group. These people support Sen. Obama but want their voices heard on policy issues; and envision that they will be able to comment when he is in office too. That is HUGE. A grassroots campaign that is devoted to the candiates platform; but will also push him progressivly. There have been so many blogs surprised that this dissent continues; but it illustrates what you capture in your post Al. And it is part of the reason I am so supportive of this candidate; despite ceartin disappointments. At the base: ending the war, health care, tax reform, education reform he stands where I want. And he is opening to hearing my voice and the voice of other progressives.

That is why I truly feel this is a chance for a transformational presidency; like FDR and his fireside chats. Only the chats are two way and online now. Those fireside chats enabled FDR to grow a base and create mutual trust to have the most progressive presidency in history. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington are the only three that were as revolutionary. I'm excited to be watching history.

Tonight is the deadline for June numbers, please donate if you are able. And voluenteer. We need to be the change we believe in.

Well Said

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:14 pm by John in Illinois (not verified)

Reading the comments on the previous thread, particularly concerning the Clark kerfuffle and supposed movement to the center by Obama caused me to both smile and grimace and I will talk about my response to those thoughts in a little bit.

But first, let me add a little to some of the things you mentioned above. First about patriotism. Obama quoted Mark twain, appropriate for where he was speaking. But he also could have quoted Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, who said that one of the first duties of a patriotic citizen was to dissent when justified.

You hit many of the sections of the speech that hit me, but he also talked about something which I think is what sets him apart from most Democratic candidates in the past. He talked about how patriotism is measured, to a degree, by sacrifice. He talked about McCain's sacrifice and others. He meant that it includes far maor than just military sacrifices. And then he lambasted Bush for telling people to go shopping after 9/11.

This keys in to his rather regular talking about individuals accepting responsibility for their actions, for parents to accept responsibility for the raising of their children, for all of us to accept responisibility for each other. It keys in with the fact of requiring public service in order to get the college assistance. He is not a get something for nothing type of person.

This speech may have been as significant, and maybe more so, than his race speech and it is unfortunate that what comes out of it is his needing to reference McCain and subtly push Clark aside.

Yet, I think he did the right thing. One of the purposes of a surrogate is to say things the candidate can't and which the candidate can distance himself from. Most Obama supporters are not really going to vote for McCain because he "disowned" what Clark said. But some undecideds will listen to what Clark said and realize he was quoted out of context and that what he said does have some meaning.

Regarding all the other things, as was mentioned numerous times, much of what Obama has said the last couple weeks is not inconsistent with his general view of things, except the FISA thing, which has also ticked me off. But then he came out very strongly against the proposed California amendment against gay marriage, which is a pretty strong thing for a candidate wooing some of the evangelical votes to do.

Finally, I just want to say that I only know one person who meets the constitutional requirements for President with whom I agree on every issue, and I am not running. So I go to the next closest. And that is Obama hands down.

Spot on!

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:15 pm by Allie Mann (not verified)

Al,

This post ranks right up there with your best posts. Lefty bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, Arianna Huffington, etc. have gone ballistic because Obama is moving to the right of The Nation magazine-type thinking on some of his policies. They've done some excellent posting in the past... but like so many liberals, they're more adept at whining, than at winning elections.

Maybe they'll read this post and open their minds to more than their own 'wisdom' and narcissism.

Damn. Al is one of the

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:15 pm by bonkers (not verified)

Damn. Al is one of the most important voices in the media landscape today. All the more reason to find that "Make a Donation" button up top.

Required reading for the entire Netroots, which really needs this chill pill right about now, funk soul brother.

Recommend far and wide Fieldhands!

Always level-headed, Al

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:16 pm by Tara Van Niman

I bet you've had women in your life who try to pick a fight with you and get mad when you are calm, cool and collected, yah?

I don't post at Kos but someone needs to get this up over there. I had to laugh at PsiFighter's post today where the entire diary was preaching pragmatism and then at the very end he dropped in, parenthetically mind you, that he had requested refunds for his donations to the campaign over FISA. Do these people want to win, or not? Because this is our ONE shot at it.

I loved that Mark Twain line - hadn't heard that one before.

What the counter at, AL? The number is blocked from view on my screen.

Al, I can only say ...

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:16 pm by Kathleen Hargan

Al, I can only say ... where have you been all my life? Having "come of age" in the late 60's, I have seen much effective and more ineffective dissent, but have never seen anyone address it so succinctly... (or any other way!) Thank you.

This article up at digg

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:17 pm by BR (not verified)

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Smart_Dissent

Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:18 pm by Robert (not verified)

I don't even know why we define terms in "left vs. right" anymore. The right once stood for freedom and liberty, but now it seems to stand for imperialism and adherence to specific religious values.

Anyway, I was intrigued by this article, "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal" by Murray Rothbard:

http://www.mises.org/story/1842

Although it was published in Ramparts in 1968 (known as a "new Left" journal of its day), much of what Rothbard wrote about seems to ring true today.

Fair warning: The Mises Institute is well, kind of weird, probably a very popular site for those the Ron Paul set.

@ John in Illinois

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:24 pm by Allan Brauer

The final paragraph of your comment was so awesome that I want to repeat it just to make sure everyone reads it:

"Finally, I just want to say that I only know one person who meets the constitutional requirements for President with whom I agree on every issue, and I am not running. So I go to the next closest. And that is Obama hands down."

The blogosphere has gone nuts

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:37 pm by BR (not verified)

Thanks to Al for this island of tranquility.

I'm at the point that one by one I'm asking blog operators to delete my accounts to their sites. I've had enough of their Chicken Littling...

Obama's playing chess, but you might check out this picture:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/67/165466629_197bdc7e04.jpg?v=0

Excellent, reasoned argument

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:47 pm by Carol Gonzales (not verified)

Before Obama, I was beginning to think Americans had completely dumbed down and there could be no reasoned arguments. This is refreshing. I sense in this a call to responsibility and accountability on the part of the American people. Let us do the hard work--not merely rely on the leader--the candidate, no less-- to do it for us. And thank you for clarifying how and when in this whole process this hard work is to be done. This is grass roots at its best. Thanks.

hot Damn nice work

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:47 pm by kurt (not verified)

Again, you hit the nail on the head and what an antidote. Thanks also for suggesting the speech -- it's just the kind of reminder of why this is an extraordinary campaign, even if some of the specific issues aren't playing out as I'd like at the moment. The passage about the Declaration of Independence really hit home how different it will be having someone who has experienced things like racism firsthand (as described in his books and so on).

You're right on on the dissent; I'm sure it's been linked here but there is already a growing group on Obama's site preparing to express dissent. But there's so much more we can do!

Here's to the work ahead, Fieldhands.

Nice article

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:51 pm by downunderfan (not verified)

It has been odd reading DKos these last few weeks. One of the things that has been missed over there is that Obama didn’t cultivate the existing ‘Netroots’ he built his own, and even though it was in plain sight they either missed it or ignored it.

Now, reading some of the dairies I get the feeling that they feel they own him, he is their creation. So when he doesn’t play by their rules they throw a hissy fit and in the case of Markos, hold back a donation.

But look at the GOP. Sections of them literally hate McCain, but they have (largely) shut up and not made the waves we are seeing on the left side of the blogosphere.

As a foreigner I watch in horror as Bush was re-elected last time, winning an election he had no right to win. It would be even harder to watch a repeat.

Will you cross-post?

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:52 pm by Kathleen Hargan

At HuffPo perhaps? I would love to see a wider exposure for this, which as noted above, may be one of the most important you've written this election season.

Clark as VP

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:57 pm by Steven Hunt

Al, I read your remarks about Clark and the ill-timed rightwing 'buzz' these comments evoked, and, yes, I very much agree.

The chicken-little in me leaps to ideas like taking Clark or Webb as VP when these types of situtations arise.

However, though I don't have tv, I was at a friend's home last night and caught Clark defending the comments on an MSNBC show. The man is adroit and sharp, however, these comments played right into the McCain's hands.

I have to remember that my interpretation of McCain and others in the imperialist agressor forces during Vietnam as adjuncts to international war criminality is well outside the US mainstream.

The military and 'security' work for the right in ways that relate to the deep psychic coding that is part of US nationalism.

Any way, this was an excellent speech by Obama--and it is too bad that Clark had to spout off in a way that detracted from the force of this message.

Indeed, I am hoping that Colin Powell will come out shortly with an endorsement of Obama. We need it.

When I have confirmed that Deb has refunded money back onto my card, I will kick you another fifty for beer in Denver. LOL

Over the top.

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 5:58 pm by bonkers (not verified)

This post will certainly put Al over the $7,400 goal. If you're willing and able, you know what to do.

Imagine this sort of commentary coming out of the Convention.

Spot on! Part Two

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:08 pm by Allie Mann (not verified)

Just posted the link to Al's post in the comments section of Glenn Greenwald's column at Salon.com. Maybe others on this site can do the same. I don't expect total sanity from Greenwald or other netroot purists, but they might at least pause after reading Al's post and cut Obama some slack.

H.L. Mencken said, "You can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people." As a corollary, you can also never go wrong overestimating the intelligence of the pundits who blog & comment about American politiics.

All I Can Say Is...

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:09 pm by Pamela Hilliard Owens

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!

and...Dugg!

(wiping eyes in total awe of Al...)

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Sign the Petition!

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:14 pm by Pamela Hilliard Owens

If THIS post doesn't convince you to sign the Petition...nothing will!

We're @ 516...just 224 to go!

<a href="http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html">Online petition - A Petition to the Democratic National Convention to Credential Al Giordano</a>

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I am so very thankful

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:17 pm by Christi Demuth

I found Al and The Field! What an awesome post!!!

Put my money where my mouth is today and kicked more $$.

Fieldhands please work on getting that credential back this week.

Thanks, Al.

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:18 pm by Heather Hansen-Munro

Thank you so much for this post. I hope it serves to remind us all of the importance of keeping our minds on the big picture of this election--continuing to work and organize at the most grassroots levels while simultaneously doing all we can to ensure an executive branch that will favorably consider agitation and activist movement. Your perspective is greatly appreciated. Well done!

Smart Dissent and Smart Politics

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:30 pm by Catherine Cain

Just two quick things while I should be working:

1. Fantastic, brilliant writing - love it and thank you.

2. Can you put a stamp on your post and send it to Markos? Not just for his emotional response to Obama's FISA position and other concerns, but perhaps to illustrate to him there is a better way to show dissent as you suggest.

I think it is important that Markos takes a more strategic leadership role than what he has done in the past. Not that he isn't brilliant in everything he has done to advance netroot activism to this point. But I think DKos is at the point that unless he takes it to the next level, his blog will continue to decline in reader value (something different than # of hits IMO) and will ultimately function to the lowest common denominator.

One suggestion for improvement might be what you have done here. For example, I didn't really know what to think about posting my real name here a few weeks ago but decided to take the plunge. I now recognize it's significance in forcing me to say things that I can stand behind each and every time I post something. For Daily Kos, having that as an option for diarists and commenters would only help to elevate the conversation. And to take it a step further, it is the logical move for those of us who want to organize beyond the keyboard.

Is there any doubt

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:35 pm by J-PA (not verified)

that Al's pen is mandatory in Denver? As many others have mentioned, excellent post. Also, Al, someday share the secret as to how you manage to keep the comments so consistently good on this site.

As for the post itself, I found the most pertinent part (to me anyway) to be "or fill-in-your-pet-issue-here, have to first educate and organize the citizenry to demonstrably agree with them before they can realistically insist that any political candidate stick his neck onto their pet chopping block."

Basically, most of the folks that I associate with are not as "into" politics as those of us reading and commenting here. These folks are a little left of center or a bit right of center, but for the most part, are concerned with their kids, their jobs, the pet that needs to get to the vet, etc. They have a general sense of what is going on, hell there is a reason the Decider polls at 20-some percent approval. The challenge for us is to understand that we are unlikely to turn these folks into political fanatics, but to continue to explain and enlighten them to the fact that there is one candidate that will try to change the way politics are done in this country. And that candidate is Mr. Obama.

This is Exactly Why I Had to Find the Field...

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:51 pm by Jon, CA (not verified)

This is an amazing piece of work and so thoughtful. This type of anaylsis keeps me coming here day after day...

correction

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:56 pm by Allie Mann (not verified)

I meant to paraphrase H.L. Mencken by saying you can always go wrong overestimating the intelligence of the pundits who blog & comment about American politiics.

Indeed, I know that Deb

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 6:58 pm by Steven Hunt

Indeed, I know that Deb reads here, and that she is kicking herself in the ass for her extreme chicken-littleism....errrr....I should say 'chicken-elitism'

(Up-date--yes we are getting chickens on the farm soon! Real eggs--not chemicals or factory-farm exploitation. No way.)

Great post Al...and a question..

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:02 pm by PalGirl2008 (not verified)

This speech is truly great...but.. how can it reach the general public??...people who will pay attention to it are political junkies.....how can it have a greater effect?

Great post, Al! Please

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:03 pm by drillbit (not verified)

Great post, Al! Please cross-post to Huffington Post and DKos if possible. People need to read this.

Thank you, Al!

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:04 pm by Carpediva Hussein (not verified)

you are unparallelled on the internets, period.

i wish i could take this post, bottle it, fill a syringe, and inject it straight into the ass of the vast majority of the 'progressive' blogosphere, starting over at DailyKos.

i cannot imagine my sanity in this election without your perspective.

Hey Allie Mann: I like this

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:09 pm by Anonymous (not verified)

Hey Allie Mann:

I like this post from Giordano AND I also like what Greenwald's doing on the FISA issue. Take that.

Nothing wrong with getting a little publicity for the left side of the debate, and it has the added benefit of giving the candidate something to distance himself from, enabling a more progressive stand from the moderate candidate than might otherwise be possible.

It is possible to believe - with Al Giordano - that the sky isn't falling down, Obama is not turning to total crap right before our eyes, and that we need to keep some perspective - and to believe - with Glenn Greenwald that Obama's position on FISA is unfortunate, wrong-headed, and needlessly centrist.

Please note that all of this is not leading Greenwald to abandon the candidacy of Barack Obama.

In truth, there are two ways the sky isn't falling down. Obama isn't "selling us all out" and criticism from the left, even sharp criticism from the left is not destroying him.

It's a political campaign. That's all it is.

Favorite Twain quote.

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:10 pm by Dan Carr

I went looking for this speech today and found the text on the Obama HQ blog, videos take too long to load where I am. With a little imagination I listen for Barack's cadences. The first thing that came to mind was that this is the real news for the week.

This commentary by Al uncovers some extraordinary facts. I never realized why when the debate over idealistic purity came up Nader always came to mind or to the point of the conversation, and look at that perpetual failure in electoral politics. That demand for ideological purity and precise policy prescriptions fits into a multi-party government that Nader longs for but which if it existed would have to govern based on bringing together differing or even conflicting policy groups.

Obama seems to be aiming at government within the two party system that will allow the debate of multiple policy groups. I say this taking Al's suggestion of the role of community organizing in governance in an Obama administration as an intention that grows out of the desire to govern both Red States and Blue States as a United States. It will not be a unification conducted by a partisan point of view but created out of multiple conflicting interests finding common ground. I can have hope that my own even more radical ideas than those of the netroots crew might actually become part of the conversation.

I think you're right, Dan

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:22 pm by Tara Van Niman

It's a good observation. In fact the purists are going to find themselves upset a fair amount I might think because Obama really is about acknowledging the other side of the argument and finding that common ground. Many of the purists afflicted with beautiful loser syndrome are not ready to cede that ground. However, I believe the majority of Americans are ready as the alternative has either been the shove it down your throat variety of politics or total stalemate.

I didn't care for the AP article on this speech this morning. They simply referenced how Obama was "defending" his patriotism. It was clearly so much more than that.

one his best

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:29 pm by henry dribble (not verified)

I thought Obama's speech on patriotism was one his best. perhaps not as stirring or emotional as others but so rational in its breakdown. and such an important topic to dissect. what goes through my mind is how can a leader like this not win the election. what would it mean for a country not to elect him? for McCain. I am confident that he will win but it goes through my mind. Obama is the greatest unifying force I have ever seen in politics in my brief experience.

P.S. This was one of Obama's better speeches, IMHO

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:34 pm by Alexa (not verified)

I loved the substance of this speech. I predict that should he become president, this will be one of the seminal ones defining his presidency or pre-presidency. Take your pick.

Spot on

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:37 pm by We won't get fooled again (not verified)

Well said Al.

It's not about Me it's about We.

People are so busy projecting what they want, they have been missing what he is.

Thanks Al

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:41 pm by Nate (not verified)

I must say your Chicken Little vaccinations (administered twice as I recall) worked on me. When I first heard General Clark's statement I laughed, said good for him, and hoped he was in the running for VP. When the outrage on the news began to churn up, and the inevitable hand-wringing at DKos and elsewhere, I just tuned out the noise and focused my attention elsewhere.

This site has provided such a thoughtful, instructive haven from the noise and worry dominating other blogs.

Thanks again, Al.

Thanks Al

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:57 pm by KD (not verified)

Great post - I'd have to say one of your best - so I've finally ponied up and donated to your new site (and hopefully will get my copublisher account soon). Hope you reach your goal tonight.

I skipped over to kos and read his hissy fit and really couldn't believe the childishness of it. It's like he really hasn't been paying any attention at all to who Obama is, and what the potential of this movement is. I just found it quite silly and won't be going there again in a while.

On the speech, I hope Obama finds a way to weave sections of it into other speeches such as his stump speech or his convention speech (or even snippets into a GE ad). I just hope it can reach more and more people. I think most Americans are really yearning to feel proud in their country again and he could really uplift them if they can open up and truly listen to him.

Donation to Al

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 7:57 pm by Nancy (not verified)

For the record, Rural Votes refunded the $25 that I donated to "Send Al to Denver", so I just passed it on to Al (via the Fund for Authentic Journalism). Since I donated, a while ago, through GroundSpring, Deb had to send me a check; I received it the other day and I am assuming it will clear. Deb did not refund the $50 I donated to "Keep Al Writing" because she said it had already been disbursed.

@anonymous

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 8:00 pm by Allie Mann (not verified)

"Take that"?! Please...

I've previously posted here that I disagree with Obama's most recent position on FISA. But Greenwald, despite his good work reporting about FISA & Obama's change of policy, has been cutting Obama a new one for moving to the center on various issues. Greenwald's expertise is on legal matters... but on political matters, his expertise is on legal matters.

Too much to digest

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 8:04 pm by John in Illinois (not verified)

Sometimes, Al, you pack so much in a post that while readinbg it, I have all sorts of comments, and then when I start to write, half of it is gone. Of course, that may be my brain's problem and not your posting's.

Anyway, I wanted to say something in terms of your comment about Dukakis. If you recall, George the Elder almost never used the word "liberal." Instead, he kept referring to "the L word."

I kept beating my head against the wall that Dukakis never came back at him about this, but then again, it is something that Democrats have been afraid to do since I don't know when. Reagan basically represented the culmination of the right's efforts to turn "liberal" into a dirty word.

What I wanted Dukakis to do, and if necessary I hope Obama does it, is to say something like "I keep hearing people say I am too liberal, whatever that means. Well, let me say this about that. If being a liberal means caring about your fellow human beings, then I am proud to be a liberal. If being a liberal means caring about those who put themselves in harm's way in service to this country, then I am proud to be a liberal. If being a liberal means working to make sure every American has access to basic healthcare, then I am proud to be a liberal..."

You get the idea.

thank you

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 8:11 pm by nezua (not verified)

i think this is a great post. i definitely do appreciate your experience on these things, as i've always respected your work, or as long as i've known of it.

i also think i just need a break from politics. for me some of my current feelings of disappointment are just being overwhelmed after chasing this junk for months.

when i hear him speak, i still think obama means to change things. and i sure know he thinks differently than any candidate. and that still excites me. i'm just not sure what all those things he means to change are yet, aside from how people are elected or how they run or from whom they receive money (not altogether unimportant things). okay, new mechanics of politics. but a brilliant powermonger could be equally studious on such an issue. see, some of the positions i've heard him indicate lately frustrate me. i can only say "he's being strategic" so long before i say "damn, son. i do NOT agree with that or even saying it." not so much talking about clark, although i like him for his big mouth.

so presidents always approach from the right and then govern more progressively...but another point is that i don't get how i should take comfort in the fact that presidential candidates "always" do this and it "never" means That but at the same time see Obama as doing something entirely different. is it the same as always or different? i know, probably nuanced.

but i guess that's a good point to stress: i do'nt know anymore what he is saying as a matter of strategy and what he really means to do. i don't have that experience and time you do, that allows you to implement a disconnect there. so for someone who doesnt have that, it is safer to back off a bit.

i'm also very angry with the democrats and all their secret funding and capitulation on ideals i find important. and i'm tired of excuses and adult rationalization on shit that is killing so many people and is so utterly needless in so many ways. that's just not how my mind and heart work. some of us are long, cool arc rationalizerstrategizers and some of us fling paint and chisel wood and smash guitars because we don't work that way.

anyway, nobody needs to get on me about it cuz i'm not into panicking. and i would not get in Obama's way because i know without a doubt that there is no comparison between him and mccain. but i, myself, appreciate the countercultural heat of the 60s and 70s, hell, that shit formed a lot of who i am. and everytime he says that stuff, i just feel like we're in a different class, he and i. we just see the world very differently in at least one way. so what, right? so what. i still think there's not much comparison between him and mccain. and i don't want to have a beer OR a molotov with barack, so it hardly matters.

but energy and time-wise? i'm returning to issues that are more immediate to me, and more immediately understood by myself. we'll see what happens along the way. i stay open.

either way, thanks for your writing on these things. you definitely provide a valuable viewpoint. and no matter what, it's clear to me that you surely deserve that credential. that you were already given.

brilliant

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 8:44 pm by Kate_in_StPete (not verified)

Al - at the risk of sounding repetitive, Thank you. Your writing so often eloquently echoes the jumbled thoughts in my head.

Quite frankly, I think what we're seeing now in the netroots/progressive movement is just growing pains - it's easy to position yourself against a federal government as toxic as the Bush Administration. It's a lot more difficult to keep the same coalitions together when the original organizing force is no longer there. To turn what began as an organization in *opposition to* into an organization in *support of* or *in league with* or just into an organization for its own merits, because being organized is good for ya.

I have to do some more thinking - because I see a whole lot of parallels between the investment that evangelicals made in the Religious Right and the Republican party, and the investment that liberals have made in the Netroots and the Democratic party. Evangelicals have been reconsidering their alignment with Republicans for a lot of reasons (there was an article in last week's New Yorker about this) - and I think the netroots are about the come up on some difficult issues - they'll have a big re-evaluation to do when Obama is elected. I think it'll be an interesting series of conversations.

manufactured dissent

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 8:53 pm by siddhartha (not verified)

Al, what you describe plagues academia. It is as if ideological purity substitutes for action (always messy and risky) when it is really the easy way out: ideological purity is not possible because one would have to be god and NOT a mere insignificant mortal. In other words, ideological purity means not having to actually do anything except getting your daily, multiple fix of self-righteousness . Or, people do not participate because they assume themselves to be "above" the vulgarity of public participation where people are certainly not as smart as they are. (Do I sound bitter? I am getting flashbacks of graduate school and of people I had hoped would have left the recesses of my psyche by now!)

But, I also truly believe that what allows Obama to be able to frame issues and to reach people is precisely the fact that he taught constitutional law. When I saw his speech on race, one of my first thoughts (in addition to being terribly moved) was that it sounded like a prepared lecture for a class. Sure enough, one of his students posted a diary on kos about how some of his speech had formed a part of his lectures. Having to explain or make an argument in a class filled with strangers from all walks of life and with diverse political beliefs is also part of the experience that has helped Obama I think.

Finally, I like the fact that Al (like Obama) always asks us to actually read the text and look at the evidence before manufacturing an emotion. It’s almost academic! J

Nancy, I donated through

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 9:01 pm by Steven Hunt

Nancy, I donated through GroundSpring as well--so I guess I will be receiveing a check shortly too, via snail mail. As soon as I get the check I am sending an equal amount (minus five bucks) back to Al to fund his efforts.

Anyway, I think that as a left-populist-progressive Al really summed up a lot of my thinking about Obama's signalling to the center. Kos and others don't have the political insights and well honed instincts that Al does. Al's experience in myriad countries over the past decade really gives his insights and analysis more cogency.

I know what Obama has to do to get elected in this country--I just hope that he is more authentically progressive than was Clinton.

The country is going through a malaise--so if Obama wins he will have his job cut out for him, just to keep everything stitched together after the debacles and the damage that has been done.

Dissent is the soul of democracy

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 9:03 pm by Erik (not verified)

Your view on dissent is spot on.

My personal level of dissent is substantially reduced these days. I've spent the past decade very sick, too sick for any sort of activism ... have only had a brain working above 50% capacity for the past 2 years.

There are more than financial risks to publishing the stories that you do. My friend Steve Kangas died under suspicious circumstances 9 years ago; I'm one of the 5 people mentioned by name for helping out on his (now archived) website.

More $ in the hat

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 9:07 pm by Mixed Metaphor (not verified)

I finally received my refund from DK and have doubled it toward a new contribution here.

Keep those cards and letters coming, Al!

Quality of Comments

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 9:08 pm by Erik (not verified)

"Also, Al, someday share the secret as to how you manage to keep the comments so consistently good on this site."

Quality can serve as its own filter; people who want to traffic in fluff don't hang around here.

I think there's also a lesson in human nature here ... when you expect more of people, they tend to deliver.

Please cross-post this essay

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 9:10 pm by RandyH (not verified)

Al-

I just want to echo what I've seen above in the comments several times. PLEASE cross-post this piece at Huffington Post and Daily Kos. This is one of the most important posts I've read of yours yet and I'd hate for it to pass without being read by a larger audience than just us Fieldhands.

And everyone should Digg It, too.

al and the duke

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 9:46 pm by jeff blanchard (not verified)

before too much more is written on the 1988 election, please consider the possibility that Bush the Elder's Men in Black had more to do with the Duke's going into the tank than any of us will ever know. 11 prostitutes were killed in new bedford that summer, and they were friends of a Dukakoid who also happened to be the DA in New Bedford -- in charge of the still unsolved Highway Killings.

@Steven Hunt

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 11:42 pm by Mary in Seattle (not verified)

I never believed Clinton was authentic or progressive, just a talented politician who told whatever group he was talking to exactly what it wanted to hear. Blech. There is, in my mind, no comparison between Bill Clinton and Obama. Or Hillary and Obama, for that matter.

As far as Kos and others - this is why the Left doesn't have more support, and basically talks to itself - preaches to the choir, or the angry singers, at any rate.

Really great post, Al. Wonder if that's why it took me over 45 minutes to access The Field. (And it's nice to see a politician - or a journalist - who doesn't equate wearing a flag pin with selling out.)

Operation Trollop

Submitted July 1, 2008 - 11:53 pm by bonkers (not verified)

The McKeating fluff fest (code name: Operation Trollop) by Conglomerate Media is in full effect. Not being much of a user of BigMedia anymore, I haven't seen one single mention of this amazing speech anywhere. Just the usual smoke and mirrors dominating the headlines.

Ever since the great "race" speech by Obama, he's given a few others of equal import and eloquence, only to be ignored by Those Who Know Better in the cocktail weenie circuit.

It's going to be up to us to inform as many relatives, friends, and co-workers that this stuff is out there and easily viewed on the Internet, and for those without Toobz access, we must tell them how much more intelligent, wise, and mature Obama is than McKeating, who is 25 years older...go figure.

Onward and Upward!

(for those who don't know the "trollop" reference, some good background here:

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/straight-talk-e.html

Note McCain't doesn't deny saying this...he simply offers excuses as to why he said it. Might want to make sure acquaintances know aboot (Happy Canada Day!) this as well...)

i love how you think!

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 12:12 am by caligirl (not verified)

thank you for this post--i feel the same way. but for the fact that i'm black, i'd swear we were separated at birth! ;-)

I have nothing to say to this

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 12:23 am by Agoram Muthukumaran

except to plug Pam's petition

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

and this

http://www.authenticjournalism.org/

@ John in Illinois

Exactly. It is high time the net-root pundits stopped snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

amk

Excellent

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 12:20 am by Michael Chapman

Excellent

BondiBeachViews

Thank you, Al

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 12:23 am by RieRie (not verified)

Al,

I'm new to the blogosphere. I read you, Huffington, Sullivan, and the Kos loyally. I'm 57 and a product of Kent State et al. Door to door for Carter, but disillusioned ever since -- until Obama. I teach third grade in what passes for the ghetto in Sacramento. We've got issues up to our noses. I've been treading water with these kids and their families for thirty years. This is our absolute last hope for America and for our children. I've been sending and will keep sending as much money as I can to this campaign. When I read what some of the posters are saying now about him - including Kos himself - I can't describe the despair I feel. Your post of his remarks and your reaction is music to my ears. This is rationale - not knee-jerk, similar to what I would expect from a narrow-minded Republican who is angry because their bought-and-paid-for candidate is not towing their ideological line. Once again, Al --- thanks for the insight.

Bless You Al!

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 12:32 am by gratitude aka Heather (not verified)

I love this posting, for so many reasons. Thank you!

PS just got my credit card statement and will get on with getting refund--and over to you. Also, signed the petition for your credential. We NEED you. Unfortunately I did it anonymously and when I went back, using my name and adding a comment, it was not possible to amend. Live and learn.

when our laws, leaders or our government are out of alignment

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 12:46 am by Nancy M. (not verified)

As many have said, great speech from Barack yesterday, great writing from Al today.

I loved the quote from Mark Twain, and what had been matter-of-fact clapping from the audience until then took on a joyous tone that completely matched how I felt after hearing the quote. The same thing happened with his next line, when Barack said basically the same thing, but in his own words.

As I saw messages on Sunday from people who were/are upset with Barack on FISA, I would write and suggest that they watch the patriotism speech. I wasn't able to articulate it in the wonderful way that Al has here, but I felt that in his patriotism speech Barack was showing us more about who he is and how he views the world. My belief in Barack was reaffirmed and I was able to focus less on his FISA position and more on how amazing it is that our next president not only holds those views but is willing to articulate them.

This diary from Barack also tells us a lot about how he views the world. I don't recall whether it was posted here over the weekend, but it's worth posting again in case anyone missed it.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102745/165

By the way, I watched the full speech live yesterday on MSNBC, so even if it hasn't been talked about much by Big Media, I have to give them credit for showing the speech.

Brilliant post

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 1:04 am by Anonymous (not verified)

In a way, a politician on the national stage is like a ship. You want that ship to be seaworthy, shipshape, clean and neat as a pin, with a good crew, and good sails pointed in the right direction. But it's the people that are the wind in the sails. It's the wind that determines how far and fast that ship can go ... and although you can tack, no ship can sail directly into the wind. It's our responsibility to make sure that wind is blowing, strongly, and in the right direction.

Am I alone among your readers in wanting more autobiographical references in your posts?

Also (and I hope I am not derailing conversation) reading the Field has inspired me to read up on Saul Alinsky. I loved this Playboy (!) interview with him:

http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky2.htm

A quote: "The establishment can accept being screwed, but not being laughed at. What bugs them most about me is that unlike humorless radicals, I have a hell of a good time doing what I'm doing."

can't see it all

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 1:10 am by Carrie (not verified)

I have tried several times to watch the video above and it keeps stopping at the same spot. Any techies out there with some pointers please let me know.

Anyway, I have been out of the political loop for a while and when I came back I found the netroots up in arms. I totally understand the dissapointment and frustration coming from the left on these issues. Let's face it, it is really effing annoying that Obama is caving on some of these things.

But after taking a little time to reflect, I remembered that he started this race as someone who said that it wouldn't be politics as usual and that he would neutralize the red/blue divide. So what did we expect? Somehow he was just going to win over red America with his personality? Come on!

Al is totally right on this. Obama "gets it" like no other candidate for President has in my lifetime. We will not always agree with him and he will make decisions that piss us off. But if we can elect a Community Organizer as President of the United States....I have no words for how important that is.

Cross Post this!

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 1:36 am by olivia (not verified)

Hey Al

I hope you've had the chance to cross post this. Then again, I hope you wait till tomorrow AM since the heavy morning traffic will see it elsewhere before people start their work day.

Shout out to Andrew Sullivan who already linked to this. This may go down as one of my favorite Field posts.

@Carrie

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 1:40 am by Brendan Corcoran

I had the same problem... 12:28 was my magic number; it kept stopping there all day. I emptied caches, histories, etc. I then went ustream.tv and found the speech posted there. I viewed it with no problem.

And, yes, as others have said, I believe that this is one of his most important speeches. Apparently, he began writing it two months ago. I can only imagine what an Inauguration Speech might sound like! (But, we have a lot of work to do between now and then!!!) Fired Up...

another 12:28 moment for me too.

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 1:51 am by Agoram Muthukumaran

And this happened in BO site and jedreport site as well yesterday.

And just, when he was getting to be interesting too...

Brendan, could you post the link to ustream tv ? Thanks.

amk

Spreading the word

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 2:03 am by Allan Brauer

I see Andrew Sullivan is now linking to Al's terrific piece.

I am posting comments at DKos and HuffPo that link to it as well.

I want this in front of as many eyeballs as possible.

Talk about your community organizing!

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 2:08 am by Mixed Metaphor (not verified)

Here's a diary with a behind-the-scenes peek at how the second-largest social network on Obama's website was created in just days:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/2/02123/25613/990/545157

I say kudos to Mike Stark for kicking this off, and double kudos to the Obama campaign for not stifling this smart dissent. I love the idea that this group could continue to make their case on other issues and potentially survive into an Obama presidency.

I've been reading Al

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 2:35 am by Jesus Reyes (not verified)

I've been reading Al Giordiano for many years and holding my nose while reading Andrew Sullivan nonsense ever since he was Marty Peretz golden boy and Christopher Hitchens best pal. I dont understand how Al and Andy come to be on the same team but I got to say that I'm keeping a sharp eye on Al.

Amen

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 2:36 am by Autolycus (not verified)

Well, I mean that in a totally non-religious way, but you know what I mean. Thanks for framing the discourse so accurately and thoughtfully!

Video does not work

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 2:45 am by Peter (not verified)

Would be nice to be able to watch it, but it doesn't work. I was able to watch it until minute 15 and then it cuts off...

Campaign v. the Elected Candidate

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 3:14 am by Merced Ken (not verified)

Al:

Excellent post, as usual, but I think this is your best ever and the reason is that you did get personal with your experiences over the last three decades, in politics and otherwise. While I do not consider myself a chicken little I was a little disconcerted to see Kos's remarks and the backlash over the past two weeks over the various issues (FISA, throwing people under a bus (and man am I tired of that phrase) etc.) so when J-Pa told me to go here tonight to read one of the all time classic Al blogs I did so (after a glass of wine) and I was not disappointed. I have been telling a lot of my friends who are on the fence that we need to get this man in office and he will do the right thing - not all of time - but , I belive almost all of the time - and I could not put it into words like you did. So I have sent your blog to said people and I thank you for saying it like it is. I truly think Obama will be one of the greatest Presidents of all time and I think the sky is the limit with him - once we get him into office. So let's just please get him into office! The entire world will have respect for this country again, just for electing this leader. When he travels to Europe, the Middle East or Africa the crowds will love him! Let's not bring down our best candidate since RFK simply because he doesn't comply with our every demand for what he should say during this damn election cycle. I will continue donating to you, to Obama, and even to the Orange to Blue and whatever else it takes to make this damn country better.

Ustream Link

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 3:16 am by RandyH (not verified)

I was having the same trouble viewing the video at YouTube and found the speech over at Ustream. That copy played just fine for me.

Here's the link.

Great Stuff

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 3:21 am by DesertPeach (not verified)

I am so disappointed in the netroots other big players, but this piece was so on point Al that I'm not not as mad as I was. I want to find a way to unite them (chicken littles and those who were never really on board) with this more effective way of thinking displayed beautifully by you and Obama.

The speech and your reflections on the last couple weeks makes so much sense, is inspiring and requires us to work. Sounds like 3 good building blocks for an Obama lead government in which we all participate like we may have never imagined before.

Keep up the great, thoughtful work!

Excellent. Well said.

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 7:29 am by Jstipich (not verified)

This needed to be said.

Over $7000!!!

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 8:43 am by Joel Wiens

Just plunked another 25er in the bucket to push us over the 7K hump - only a few hundred to go, kids!

Such thoughtful analysis!

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 9:11 am by JulieUnplugged (not verified)

I just love everything about what you say. This stood out:

Interestingly, I've been pro-life and a Republican until this campaign. It was Obama's ability to make the case for his point of view without villifying mine that enabled me to see my way to supporting him as a candidate. It is his consensus building through persuasion that helps someone like me tack to the left.

Ideological purity and slogans move no one. We are deaf to each other.

Thanks for sharing

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 9:24 am by kariseal (not verified)

Thanks for sharing your gift of writing Al. You have a unique way of filtering through the muck, digging until you weave together profound insight. Smart dissent, very powerful words when used together that bring clarity. I really hope Obama's speech on Patriotism doesn't get lost among the non-news and distractions going on right now. This little nugget you have posted should be seen by as many eyes as possible.

207 Signatures to Go!

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 10:08 am by Pamela Hilliard Owens

Good Morning Field Hands! Comcast went out (AGAIN!) last night...but we are now at 533 Signatures!

Congrats to Al (and us!) for getting the $$$ to just under $7,000!

That means we REALLY have to step up the signatures to keep pace!

Remember, our signature goal is *740* to match Al's $$ goal of $7400!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

Yes We Can!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Broke & Feeling Guilty

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 10:16 am by Michael Chapman

Having to move home at the moment, but I'm having a garage sale on the weekend .... should be able to throw something in the pot for Denver early next week.

BondiBeachViews

@JulieUnplugged

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 10:49 am by Allan Brauer

That was a beautiful and thoughtful comment, Julie.

Frank Schaeffer posted a great piece at HuffPo a while back titled

Why This Fifty-Five Year Old White Lifelong Republican Wants Obama To Win

that I have forwarded to my friends and family (which includes a significant number of Republicans). If you haven't read it, I hope you enjoy it. And pass it along to your circle as well.

A question

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 11:07 am by jhaygood (not verified)

Love this post - very much. But I have a question. Al says, "I don't think that anything that Obama or McCain say during the campaign is going to determine how each of them will govern." Then what is the campaign all about? Where does pandering begin and end? My sense has been that I just have a fendamental sense of Obama's intelligence and decency, so I look at his statements on issues (like FISA) and just wonder how it will play out in his administration. I understand he needs to win, and it will be a small miracle if he does (historically, not based on his current position) so I know he must appeal to a wide cross-section, the common ground he has made a central part of his campaign.

But which words mean something and which ones don't?

Bravo!

Submitted July 2, 2008 - 11:13 am by Chris Thorpe (not verified)

After a nice 3 week break from the internet (visiting relatives who don't have it), I checked back in this week to find some sites (Kos) unreadable due to unchecked Chicken Littlism. That's a reason I love Al's writing (and that of the commentators here)-there is a maturity here and a refreshing lack of "OMG did you see what Scarborough said this morning!!11!!" followed by 400 posts of hand-wringing. They're really turning into what they mock able cable news for-obsessive overreaction to every mosquito's wing that falls on the rails.

Thanks for the grown up site, Al.