Welcome Secretary Clinton: Obama's Promises to Be Kept
By Al Giordano
Although the steps between President-elect Obama's November 13 meeting with Senator Clinton in Chicago and the December 1 nomination of the latter for Secretary of State did not exactly embody the "no drama" brand of the former (and, behind the scenes, today's result almost didn't happen in ways that neither can ever now admit), all that is now officially water over the dam.
And so I take this opportunity to welcome Secretary Clinton and offer my full support for her work to implement President-elect Obama's campaign promises.
Senator Clinton crossed a threshold today from leading her own organization to being in a chain of command led by President-elect Obama. And - I speak as a critic of her historic approach to foreign policy and vocal opponent prior to her nomination (and yes, if it makes some happy to hear it, I was wrong in my earlier conclusion that it wouldn't happen, but as Obama, when faced with similar hectoring from the press corps likes to say, "that's all you're getting") - I welcome her, wish her well and will give her the benefit of the doubt that she will be a trustworthy team player unless and until she proves otherwise.
Now, let's take a look at some of the actions in this American Hemisphere that Secretary Clinton, once installed, will have to undertake to comply with the campaign promises made by candidate Obama, some of which run counter to her own campaign stances, others that she evolved to adopt during the campaign, and some big ones that are time bound, in which Obama and sometimes Clinton pledged to do them within "six months" or within "one year" from assuming office on January 20...
Typical of the national political press corps, Susan Page wrote in this morning's USA Today of a State Department mission that mystifyingly excludes the hemisphere to which the United States belongs:
...the incoming secretary of State will deal with the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, efforts to turn around the war in Afghanistan, nuclear programs in such rogue nations as North Korea and Iran, the challenge from a resurgent Russia and growing concerns about global climate change.
But there is indeed a Western Hemisphere, and it is where US foreign policy over the past 16 years has caused the most blowback and harm to the most people inside the United States, more than its policies toward any other part of the world, more than even the war in Iraq. Think about that.
During the 2007 and 2008 presidential campaign, President-elect Obama made some very specific promises regarding changes to US foreign policy in our own neighborhood that Secretary Clinton will now be responsible to implement.
Nate Silver's inventory of Obama's campaign promises includes a number of them.
And as Markos Moulitsas commented on Nate's list last Wednesday, "Yeah, Obama's agenda is quite progressive. Whether he delivers on that agenda remains to be seen, of course, but I can't be all that worked up over his cabinet appointments if those appointee's jobs are to deliver on the agenda."
In this hemisphere, the compliance with Obama's campaign promises live where the rubber will meet the road, and that will determine Secretary Clinton's legacy, and to a much greater extent that of President-elect Obama...
Promise #1: Renegotiate NAFTA within six months
The passage in 1993 and enactment on January 1, 1994 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has squeezed American workers, and their counterparts in Mexico, in a vise grip.
On one side of the border, hundreds of thousands of American workers have - because NAFTA sent their jobs south to be filled by badly paid and abused workers with even less rights to organize for better pay and working conditions - found themselves out of a job (with the corresponding harm to their family members who correspondingly have lost health care, opportunities toward higher education, found some of their sons and daughters conscripted economically into the Armed Forces, among so many other damages large and small).
On the other side of the US-Mexico border, NAFTA pushed millions of Mexican farmers off their lands, displaced by international agribusiness, tourism and other industries, many of whom migrated to the United States to be able to feed their families.
This pincer effect has caused additional harm on both sides of the Rio Bravo. As more millions of undocumented workers crossed into the US, the policies that label them "illegal" have stripped them of the rights to organize that US citizens have. This has had the secondary effect, by putting them into competition with US citizen workers, of driving down the wages and making for less safe working conditions for the latter group, too.
I remember, after the victorious 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton, going to visit some old friends that had run his field organization and had served in other top campaign posts, congratulating them, touching base, and asking, "So, what are you up to now?"
"Oh, we've got new jobs in the private sector, pressuring Democratic members of Congress to support a free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada!" Some registered as lobbyists for the industries that wanted to move their factories south. Others worked in "public relations" to plant astro-turf organizations in key Congressional districts and bring enough Democrats along to pass the initiative that Reagan and Bush 41 had proposed but failed to convince Congress to approve.
And was it ever payday! These colleagues made a lot of money off it, bought new cars, new homes, the works. If you ever want to know what happened to Bill Clinton's 1992 field organization, well, its top guns went to work for the NAFTA lobby within weeks of election day. They were not only encouraged by the then president-elect's organization to do so: it was through that organization that these gigs were handed out as rewarding plums. They were good at what they did. And they got NAFTA passed.
Fast-forward 16 years, to the weeks leading up to the Ohio primary last March 4, and the NAFTA chickens (now cultivated in filthy cages near Querétaro and other Mexican centers) had come home to roost. Key parts of Democratic primary voters had seen the devastation to their own lives and that of their communities, and NAFTA was now a four-letter word.
Senator Clinton, by then a presidential candidate, insisted: "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning"
But as Jed Lewison of the Jed Report captured on viral video at the time, Clinton's NAFTA story wasn't exactly as she now claimed.
The February 26 Obama-Clinton debate in Cleveland, Ohio - moderated by the late Tim Russert - put both Clinton and Obama on the record regarding NAFTA in at least one way they had not been before: both had made varying claims to intent to renegotiate it, but it was Russert that insisted they commit to a specific timeline - "in six months" - to either renegotiate NAFTA with Mexico and Canada or deploy it's "opt out" provision, which would get rid of the whole white elephant:
Here's the key part of the transcript from the above debate footage:
Clinton: "It is not enough just to criticize Nafta, which I have, and for some years now. I have put forth a very specific plan about what I would do. And it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out, unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards. Not side agreements, but core agreements. That we will enhance the enforcement mechanism... and we're going to take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us because of what we do to protect our workers."
Russert: "Let me button this up. Absent the change that you are suggesting, you are willing opt out of NAFTA in six months?"
Clinton: "I'm confident that as president when I say that we will opt out unless we renegotiate, we will be able to renegotiate."
Russert: "Senator Obama... simple question: Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico this has not worked for us, we are out?"
Obama: "I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about."
Alright, then: How wonderful that both the President-elect and his nominee for Secretary of State are so clearly on the record not only to force a renegotiation of NAFTA, but, thanks to the persistence of the late Russert, to use the "opt out" option as a hammer to force it to happen within "six months" of taking office.
That's the earliest of the time-bound pledges, and thus we will know by July 20, 2009, whether the President-elect and his Secretary (who is ultimately responsible for negotiations with other countries) were telling us the truth or not.
There's no wiggle room in a fixed timeline such as "in six months." It will either be done by then, renewing the faith that we have put into the new administration, or it will be the date when one can objectively conclude that the faith was misplaced.
Again, I give the President-elect and his team the benefit of the doubt that he and they are men and women of their word. It will be a great day - and great relief to workers and farmers on both sides of the border, if they do it right - when and if they comply with that "in six months" promise.
Promise #2: Block the US Colombia Trade Deal
Opposition to the US-Colombia trade deal - for the same reasons why NAFTA has proved so damaging and unpopular - was also a position taken by both presidential candidates, Obama and Clinton. The latter had some rough waters to navigate during the campaign, when her chief strategist Mark Penn was revealed to be lobbying for it on behalf of the Colombian government during the presidential campaign! To her credit, she accepted his resignation over that conflict of interest (although Penn never really left the campaign, and her spokesman Howard Wolfson, who had also been part of a lobbying crew through his Glover Park Group for that country's disgraced authoritarian government, remained on the payroll as campaign spokesman).
During the same weeks when those actions and inactions called Senator Clinton's sincerity on opposing the US-Colombia trade deal into obvious question, President-elect Obama was speaking vociferously against it:
Sen. Barack Obama promised to stand firm in his opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement on Wednesday-days after President Bush asked Congress to quickly pass the trade deal-in a speech to rally the union vote at the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO's annual convention.
The Illinois senator said he would oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement "because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements."
Later, in October, during the third and final Obama-McCain debate in Hofstra, New York, their opposing positions on the Colombia trade deal couldn't have been stated more clearly:
McCain: Now, on the subject of free trade agreements. I am a free trader. And I need -- we need to have education and training programs for displaced workers that work, going to our community colleges.
But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Sen. Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, is -- there's a billion dollars that we -- our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there.
Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Sen. Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans.
And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars -- the billion dollars and more that we've already paid.
Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.
Obama: Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions.
And what I have said, because the free trade -- the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights, which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement.
But I think that the important point is we've got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also is going to enforce unfair trade agreements and is going to stand up to other countries.
Since Obama's November 4 election, various media corporations - including the New York Times on November 28 - have editorialized to nonetheless approve the US-Colombia trade deal (the Times opined: "Congress must pass the trade agreement with Colombia," as if the 2008 campaign and its promises had never occurred at all).
Well, this will be another early test for the President-elect and his team, including his Secretary of State: We'll learn definitively whether they were sincere in their campaign promises. Again, as long as that trade deal remains unsigned, they have our benefit of doubt, but also our vigilant and watchful eye.
Promise #3: Meet with US-Shunned World Leaders in First Year
During the July 23, 2007 YouTube/CNN debate among Democratic presidential aspirants, the first big foreign policy dust-up ensued - and went on for days and days afterward - between the two that are now President-elect and his nominee for Secretary of state.
Citizen Stephen Sixta of Diamond Bar, California, asked the candidates - like Russert on NAFTA, with a fixed timeline attached - whether as the next US president they would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration... with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries."
Obama answered "yes." Clinton answered "no," and the next day criticized Obama as "naïve and frankly irresponsible" (also sending out surrogates like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to bash Obama for said willingness).
Well, the candidate that said "yes" won. And the candidate that said "no" now must - if that promise is to be kept - initiate the process of scheduling those direct talks with those governments that are willing. Given, there may be some confusion in discerning who really are "the leaders" of Iran or even Cuba (where Fidel Castro has stepped down since that debate) at this point in their histories, but the easy one of the five is right here in this hemisphere and certainly would be willing to sustain such a meeting: President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.
That's a very clear campaign pledge (one that clearly distinguished Obama from the then-frontrunner-now-nominee to head the State Department). And on January 20, 2010 - based on whether such a meeting has occurred or not - we will know whether it really was the case that the President-elect's Secretary of State carried out his policies, complied with his promises, or did not.
Some Related Promises to be Kept
Obama has made some related pledges during his campaign regarding US-Latin America policies. He told Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer in August 2007 that, also in his first year of office, he would tour South America - visiting four countries by name: Argentina, Brazil, Chile and... Bolivia. Which member of his team will soon be responsible for organizing that trip? The Secretary of State will.
US-Bolivia policy has had a particularly difficult road, what with the US-imposed "war on drugs" and trade policies governing all other relations with so much of Latin America over the past 28 years, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Just recently, Bolivia withdrew from cooperation with US drug policy, and is in the process of evicting the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from its lands (in response, President George Bush has suspended Bolivia's preferential trade status).
An early sign of whether the new administration is serious about changing policy in this hemisphere will come just five days after the President-elect is inaugurated. On January 25, 2009, Bolivians will go to the polls to vote on a new Constitution - democratically authored through a Constitutional Convention, and which will almost certainly pass over the opposition of some regions and the wealthy class that until recently had become so accustomed to ruling the nation. How the US Department of State responds - will it back that free and fair democratic process in Bolivia? Or, as the Bush administration has done, will it seek to undermine the democratic decisions of a neighboring country? The next Secretary of State will have to be ready... at least on Day Five. We'll be watching.
In a similar vein, another policy difference regarding this hemisphere that divided Obama and Clinton during the campaign was whether to ease the US embargo of Cuba to allow Cuban-Americans to visit the island and send money to relatives there. Obama proposed it in great detail. Clinton, through a campaign spokesman, said there would be no changes to the embargo. (Interestingly, Obama did better among Cuban-American voters than any Democratic presidential candidate of the last three decades, and winning Florida in part because of that stance, fracturing the conventional wisdom that it couldn't be done without losing the Sunshine State.)
Of course, not all of Obama's promises regarding US-Latin American policy will go through the State Department. Immigration reform - putting twelve million undocumented Americans on the same path to citizenship that virtually all our ancestors had the opportunity to gain - will more be the domain of other cabinet members and the White House staff setting priorities in Congress. But it's another "red zone" to watch that will give indications "in the first year" of the Obama presidency, because that's the timeline - one year - that Obama himself put on it.
Obama has yet to break a single campaign promise. Hooray.
Of course, he's not president yet.
But in this hemisphere, these are the flash points through which we will know, during his first year in office, whether he told us the truth.
I'm not alone in looking forward to the day, one year into Obama's presidential term, when we can congratulate him - and his Secretary of State, who would make even her historic critics proud and whose redemption will not come through a mere cabinet appointment but by whether she complies with the goals promised for it.
Good luck, Mr. President and Madame Secretary.
Those are big and important promises to keep.
And please do never forget, they are promises.
Email this page
Digg
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Comments
Crossposted to DKos
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 9:04 pm by Al GiordanoHere.
Al
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 9:16 pm by Josselyn BorowiecYou rock.
That's all for now. Oh, and hope you had a nice, well-deserved break.
@ Fai
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 9:25 pm by Al GiordanoFai - Thanks.
We went for four nights to Isla Mujeres, off Mexico's Caribbean coast, and it still being low season it didn't cost too many pesos to lie around on the beach, rattle around the island in a golf cart, eat and drink well, crash a wedding, attend the Red Cross Casino Night, and catch a bunch of amazing Cuban musicians visiting the isle.
Now it's back to work of course, with some plans to soon be announced. Stay tuned!
Good post Al, I agrew with
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 9:25 pm by lamh31 (not verified)Good post Al,
I agrew with you Al.
I was taught to wait until something actually comes to pass before saying "I Told You So".the dye has been cast with the nomination, now I"m in "wait and see" mode when it comes to the Clinton nom. Let's "wait and see" if promises will be kept.
Also...
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 9:26 pm by lamh31 (not verified)If Obama kept his campaign promises
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 9:32 pm by Roy MartinHe'd be the first president to do so. But I think you're right to do your best to make a stink of it if he does not. Those were important promises. Promises that won him the nomination and, later, the election. How wonderful it would be to have a president who speaks not only thoughtfully but truthfully.
Praise
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 9:38 pm by Alexa (not verified)What a great read.
@ Al
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 9:57 pm by Josselyn BorowiecHa, ha, ha! Even you are confusing my sister, Fai, & I now! [And the vaca sounds jealousy-inducing.]
[edit - see, we even posted at the same time! scary!]
@Al 9:25 @Fai
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 9:46 pm by Fai BorowiecAl,
I too hope you had a great vacation, but you gave me credit for the well wish, when it's my sister (Josselyn) who deserved the props.
No worries....she and I are confused all the time by everyone. Which works out just fine because we pretty much share a brain most days in our similarity of belief system.
Too funny.
Oops!
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 10:20 pm by Al Giordano@ Josselyn - Sorry about the identity confusion. Won't happen again!
Team of Rivals overused
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 10:25 pm by bonkers (not verified)Damn, this Clinton pill is tough to swallow. Was hoping that name would slowly melt away for good.
Hopefully Obama realizes there's much more recent history than Lincoln as far as a "team of rivals" approach goes. Turns out JFK really liked this approach as well, and it had disasterous results for Kennedy:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/120108a.html
Sure, "the buck stops" at the top, but many of these positions Obama's rivals are filling have a lot of autonomy and power as well. A bad apple in the bunch can derail many of Obama's plans, and make him break some of these campaign promises. I sure hope he knows what he's doing. It's a whole new ballgame now and gameplans that have worked for him in past jobs might not work in his new job.
Plus, does Obama realize he has plenty of "rivals" on his left side also?
Oh Well
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 11:29 pm by Faith (not verified)You're being magnanimous, Al. He doesn't look too happy in that photo. I've got other things to worry about right now other than all the ways the Clintons will screw Obama so they can retain the false aura of power. I'd love to be wrong but I don't see a scorpion changing its stinging ways. We shall truly see how this unfolds. As far as campaign promises go Clinton made a lot to New Yorkers to get elected and didn't get a lot of them done, particularly related to jobs in Western New York. I do know I'll be watching the theatrical antics of the confirmation hearing with bated breath - it's gonna be a doosy. One other thing: I want those donor lists asap!
Obama's better angels
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 11:30 pm by Anonymous (not verified)Since Obama seems to be a fan of Lincoln, and in light of his recent Secretary of State choice, among others, I guess he might find these words echoing in his mind, from some Lincoln prose he read somewhere along the way to the White House:
"If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference." — Abraham Lincoln
So he better be right on this one, or as Lincoln warns, even his better angels won't bail him out — or us.
Hear, Hear! (and a question)
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 11:36 pm by Brendan CorcoranPerhaps the great irony in this excellent list of Obama's promises is that there may be no better person to go back on her own, now pointless, campaign positions than Clinton. Redemption? Maybe. But she may be able to make the pivots better than most because few of her positions seemed to have been based on profound conviction or deep knowledge of the issues. They were "Clintonian" positions, probably focus-grouped into many of the losing propositions they were. Where Obama and Clinton agreed (albeit with complications--NAFTA), timetables are everything. For this reason, it would be great to not only have a list of Obama's campaign promises but a calendar of when all of them need to be acted on. And, honestly, after Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush, to have a President who actually promised me something I value AND fulfilled that campaign promise is so profoundly uncomfortable that I am not sure I would even really be able apprehend a dream--or promise--NOT deferred! And, remember, that 13 million email database is NOT, as the traditional media would have it, solely meant to pressure Congress; it is MEANT to pressure the President. That's what we were all trained for this primary and general election season, no?
Question: What role would a Secretary of Commerce have in NAFTA re-negotiations and working with those who share the American hemisphere with us? To what degree would a Spanish-speaker in that role have some advantages at promoting fair and sustainable hemispheric commerce?
Excellent Question
Submitted December 1, 2008 - 11:52 pm by Al GiordanoBrendan - Bill Clinton, when negotiating Nafta, took it out of the hands of his Secretary of State (Warren Christopher) and designated Mickey Kantor as his lead negotiator.
It would be a delicious irony if history repeated itself on that track. What I'm not sure about is too what extent Bill Richardson would be able to keep from being played by the dishonest Mexican regime. It's just not an area of diplomacy where he's had much experience other than as Governor negotiating on behalf of New Mexico. But if he had his priorities straight, he'd have added clout with the Mexican people to undercut the crazy free market fundamentalism of its president.
Glad to see response here
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 1:00 am by Anne CrumptonI posed a thought on DKos re Obama doing an end run with a Richardson appointment.
One thing Al has convinced me of is attention must be paid to this hemisphere.
pic of obama
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 1:21 am by Anonymous (not verified)Old Adages
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 2:43 am by Michael ChapmanThat old one about it being better to have 'x' in the tent pissing out than having 'x' out of the tent pissing in, seems to be applicable here.
BondiBeachViews
Bob Herbert asks the right questions about the O team.
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 8:58 am by Agoram Muthukumaranhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/opinion/02herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
I sure hope Obama changes the usual sabre-rattling strategies, all in the name of protecting US interests.
BTW, McCain is here in India "to show solidarity in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks". I wonder what that was all about.
amk
sigh
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 7:52 am by mo (not verified)there is something about these appointments that make me think of an abusing relationship.
the wife (the american people) decides to give the husband (the next incarnation president) another chance after his long pleas: "I've changed - I'm sober now, trust me I'm not the same, please believe me"
now, the first thing the husband does when he moves back in is to call his old drinking buddies for a few beers..
Drinking Buddies
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 9:23 am by C.B. TODD (not verified)Mo - You assume the drinking buddies are still drinking. Perhaps, they are ready to get sober too. We have ALL been arrested for DWI, having wrecked that car etc. - have we hit bottom and are sober enough to admit that we are powerless, turn ourselves over to a "higher power," make amends (confess our faults and errors) and take our new found sobriety one day at a time? If not, Obama will fail - regardless.
Speaking of NAFTA,
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 10:17 am by Mary in Seattle (not verified)this is a good piece and I think worth reading:
Seattle WTO Shutdown 9 Year Anniversary: 5 Lessons for Today
by David Solnit
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/30-6
~~~~
That was a thrilling time in Seattle, most of the participants as mainstream as it gets - teachers, doctors, students, regular workers. Then President Clinton (who was here) was none too happy about it. It was also Clinton's Secret Service people who put the fear of God into our local cops, telling them that with this kind of crowd, they could expect five police fatalities (per our local newspaper). Whether that caused or just contributed to the police brutality, I don't know. It didn't help.
As far as Obama's promises re NAFTA, I personally never believed him. I would so love to be wrong.
This is very helpful -- to
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 10:33 am by kaleidescope (not verified)This is very helpful -- to lay out in one place the specifics of Obama's promises and his agenda, at least as to one specific area of policy. Much more helpful, IMHO, than constantly wringing one's hands and attempting to read the tea leaves in who is being appointed to which Cabinet positions.
We're in no position to judge Obama at this point, but we can prepare to evaluate him once he begins to govern. Developing that framework for evaluating him, and organizing to respond when he displeases us, should be our focus at this point.
As an environmental attorney focused on pollution and forestry in Northern California, I haven't focused my attention on Obama's positions as they apply to the Western Hemisphere, so I found your post to be particularly enlightening.
I'm confident that the environmental community will provide similar yardsticks for judging, and judging early on, whether Obama is living up to his campaign promises on the environment.
Obviously he won't live up to all of them and the trick for us will be to take action and exert pressure when he doesn't. We need to make him pay a price on those occasions -- and there will be plenty -- when he sells us out.
@Mary in Seattle Thanks for
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 10:48 am by Jesus Reyes (not verified)@Mary in Seattle
Thanks for posting this article. It is a blue print. I never believed Obama's NAFTA promise, either, but he opened the door and now there is an opportunity to organize and make another Seattle. It is a global problem and with Al's experience with the Zapatistas in Chiapas and with all the organizing potential, we have one hell of a running start.
Promises, Promises
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 11:13 am by Christi DemuthI don't remember one President who has kept most of his promises. It would be the change we seek if he keeps his. I guess it is wait and see time. I must say, I am not very confident that HRC will be the Secretary of State that brings empathy along with diplomacy to her job. Hillary cares about no one but Hillary, imo. I sincerely hope she proves me wrong.
I'm deeply disappointed but hoping
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 12:35 pm by Jeff Larsonand still trusting Obama until we see the fruits of the foreign policy work. Al, you nailed the press/Clinton drama machine so well and I'm grateful for your work in pointing that out. I just hope the press can leave the Clinton drama story alone so we can focus on the policy and not the personnel.
Here is a good article taking apart Stanley of the NYT for continuing to write the next episode.
drug war
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 1:52 pm by justjoe (not verified)I for one would like to see a rational change in the"War on{some}Drugs".
Harm Reduction the goal.
Treatment instead of jail.
peace, joe
well said
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 2:07 pm by Anonymous (not verified)Thanks Al,keep this Prez accountable.
peace
Vain Hope, hope not
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 2:27 pm by Corldey CoitOne can hope that Clinton will visit the villages in the country side and talk to the the elders and the students. Learn from them the cycle of life; talk with the people who work and live on the land or survive in the city. Last time I was in the District. I got off the plane with a long layover, got a cab and mentioned I was a union steward in Denver. The driver and I got on well and spent the day meeting the people. Amazing stories of wonder, survival and spirit. The University of the street, I saw no Clintons or even Judith Miller's there. More folk like you and B. Travern.
What does Obama mean when he uses the term "vision?"
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 2:58 pm by CarolinHouston (not verified)As a pastor, I use the term "cast the vision" every year to set the tone for that year's efforts. To give direction to our efforts because I don't like "doing church" for the heck of it. I work with men who, for the most part, are unaccustomed to women in this role, but who are willing to work with me. Granted, they struggle with them ideas and attitudes learned in another time and place, but this being a new day and my being the boss and all, I "cast the vision" and lead the way. I have every expectation that they will implement the decisions arrived at after "vigorous discussion." It has worked, for the most part. One guy left. I fired one. The others are cooperating.
Is governing a lot different than this? Is this what Obama means by statements like, "the vision is mine; I'm the boss; the buck stops here?" Irrespective of his teams' past ideas, positions, thoughts, etc., etc.? I ask because I'd really like to know.
¡Gracias!
Those are big and important
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 3:15 pm by Michelle (not verified)Those are big and important promises to keep.
And please do never forget, they are promises.
From a community organizing type of perspective, I'm thinking that it might be useful for someone to do a power analysis, or something along those lines.
Because the question that comes up for me reading those last lines is: Promises to who ... and what leverage does that group(s) have that would lead to any sort of accountability from the president-elect?
I think it is naive to assume (if anyone is) that President-elect Obama is going to be accountable to "the people" who worked for his election and elected him, and/or to "the people" of this country more generally just because he promised to be different from other politicians who act to build their own power.
I'm thinking that those of us who have praised Pres-elect Obama's strategic genius would be wise to understand that we are not exempt from his chess game.
I know President-elect Obama is a strategist and a pragmatist. I am coming to understand that this means he does what he has to do, says what he has to say, marshalls the resources he needs however he can marshall them, in order to get to the goal he is seeking at any given time.
My current perspective, that I wrote about yesterday in a comment at JJP:
My take right now is that PE Obama needed all that energy and time and money from people in order to get elected in 2008. So, talking about grassroots and change from the bottom served that goal at that time because it activated what was needed for him to reach the goal of being elected.
Now, elected, he is in a new arena and will likely not need that kind of effort "from below" the next time around. Strategically, then, that intense energy and ass-busting is now relatively expendable -- and the really important thing is orientation toward and discussion with other powerful political people.
By sheer comparison, Barack Obama's election campaign revealed the relative dead-ness and ineffectiveness of social movements in this country. It is an important demonstration we have just witnessed IMO. When the most effective and huge organizing effort we have seen in this time served to get someone elected to this position of huge structural power, it is probably safe to assume that that person, once elected, will not face mass organized resistance from the center leftward, simply because without whatever he was doing to organize so effectively, such things do not happen in this country at this time. To me, this situation further demonstrates the strategic expendability of the supportive mass of people now that we have served our purpose.
Many people have lauded president-elect Obama for being a skilled chess player. I think that is an apt metaphor and description. So. Who are the pawns on the board?
------
So reading this thing about promises, I have to ask: What actual real leverage(s) do "we" have if he doesn't keep his promises? Maybe an online forum is not the place to discuss it, but I really hope someone is having those discussions somewhere in a real (not romanticized) way.
Or, is this just a call to him to be ethical and keep his word? If it is that kind of call, then really we are depending on his current and future goals to converge with those promises, seems to me -- that is, if it serves his goals to keep those promises, he will, if it doesn't, he won't, and we don't have much to say about it in terms of actual power and leverage.
Renegotiate NAFTA promise
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 3:44 pm by Okke OrnsteinOf course this promise will not be kept. In six months? No way. For various reasons: The economic crisis - and we don't know how much worse it will get - shifts issues on the US side. Then, take a look at Mexico. Drug fueled gang wars, law enforcement is a joke, impunity, corruption, and that adds a security component to such issues as labor protection etc. that complicates the issue. Or, in other words, you can not renegotiate NAFTA in any meaningful way if you don't revise drug war policy, and that is something I can almost promise you this administration will not do. So they'll start renegotiating and it will just drag on.
NAFTA changes
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 4:41 pm by Futbol Jo (not verified)Hi Al: Great commentary! Can you direct me to a list or discussion of specific changes to NAFTA that seem appropriate? When we hold the administration to renegotiation, what specifically do we want to result? Thanks
Loose Coupling
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 6:31 pm by John N. (not verified)Al, I don't mean to parse, but I don't see how what you're saying ties up with what Obama promised. Coming straight from the campaign website, I believe here are the relevant promises:
If you're going to be keeping track of promises kept and not kept, I think it's only fair to make sure you're not rewriting the promises.
@ John N
Submitted December 2, 2008 - 6:51 pm by Al GiordanoJohn N - Where did you ever get the idea that the only place campaign promises were made were in the (dryly written) position papers? Obama made speech after speech - to the National Council of La Raza, to LULAC and other immigrants rights groups, specifically calling for a "path to citizenship" for undocumented Americans (those that others call "illegal aliens"). You can find all that out through a simple Google search. He said it again and again and again, and on the link I provided above you can see that he pledged to do it in the first year of office.
It just seems absurd to me to think that the only promises that were made are those that appear on the Obama campaign website. The real meaty ones were made orally in public forums. And he is on the record that he will introduce immigration reform legislation in his first year in the White House.
Where's the contradiction?
Submitted December 3, 2008 - 12:05 pm by John N. (not verified)Al, I had read the link you provided before I had posted. The reason I grabbed information from the campaign website is that I thought it's possible and the probability unknown that a particular speech might present only a facet of the position of the candidate.
That said, there were two things that I didn't see in either the article or the campaign literature. I didn't see any discrepancies between the article and the campaign literature. The notion is that comprehensive immigration reform involves making the illegally operating employers play fair and the illegally operating workers play nice. This was shown in both places.
The second thing I didn't see was an incentive for either party to participate. It's not that there needs to be an incentive for both parties; really, only either the illegally operating workers or the illegally operating employers need to comply and the other party will be compelled at that point to play along.
I do have several guesses as to how this plays out. Every instance of Obama's healthcare plans will provide an incentive for illegally operating workers to get proper so they can have medical coverage. Tax credits for bringing jobs back to the U.S. from overseas will encourage illegally operating employers to get proper so they can get the tax benefit. Of the two, I could see the workers being more motivated than the employers. However, I still can't see a family in dire straits coming forward in order to pay a fine and to be told to wait for something they didn't seek in the first place due to exigent personal problems. Without this motivating factor, I don't see how this new legislation as defined by your referenced article or the campaign literature will be anything but a feel-good piece of do-nothing law.
Of course, there's the option of getting the Mexican government with the new U.S. administration to tackle the problems that underlie the cause for the truly historic migration north - but I'm of the opinion that solutions to the problems for the twelve million folks living here that are explicitly and directly affected by this situation should not be held hostage or in contingency to other issues. Also, I think that the situation with illegally operating workers needs to be reframed before any legislation can be put forth.
For example, I think it's entirely appropriate to point out that sans the twelve million immigrants and their future progeny, the U.S. would have a population replacement rate less than 2.10 - the mark at which we start running into the issues that are crippling many European countries, Russia, and Japan due to depopulation. Not to put to fine a point on it, but we are about twenty years away from having a massive depopulation of a generation of U.S. citizens totalling somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty five million people. Depopulation and a rapidly aging population greatly reduce the viability of any and all social programs. I don't think it's so bad that Grandma better support amnesty or she won't be getting her medicine, but I don't think that's too far off.
Far more creative people than me can come up with other ways to sell the situation to the voting population. If legislation is put forth without this public argument, we run the risk of being vulnerable as a society to the kind of surrepticiously motivated in-fighting among the plebes that could turn back any progress on the issue.
Character
Submitted December 3, 2008 - 2:09 pm by ann (not verified)That statement about Clinton was so gracious. Made my day.
Random thought: they're calling Obama's security cabinet a war cabinet. I'm thinking Obama has no experience or natural interest in war or even anger, (just in constiutional law, history, people, politics, policy), and he's kind of overwhelmed to be the comander in chief of two wars. So he wants people who understand war as warriors. I fantasize him saying to Gates or Jones, how do we do (x) without killing anybody?
SoS
Submitted December 5, 2008 - 3:17 pm by TNDem (not verified)My problem with Hillary is not her foreign policy judgment but her absolute lack of leadership ability. Newsweek did an issue called 44. in which they detailed the campaigns of Obama, Clinton and McCain. The piece was quite revealing. In short, failure of leadership from Hillary destroyed her campaign.
Infighting, mismanagement of funds and chaos ruled the day. Now she wants to hire many of those same people at Foggy Bottom. The possibility of disaster is quite high.
Post new comment