(Five Excerpts from Issue #2 of the newsletter, Al Giordano’s América, which goes out to subscribers tonight.)
By Al Giordano
In the coming weeks more than a dozen candidates will officially launch their campaigns for president of the United States.
And just like eight years ago, the big media purveyors of “conventional wisdom” have their heads way up where the sun don’t shine.
If you haven’t already gotten yourself a gift subscription to my newsletter that goes exclusively to supporters of The Fund for Authentic Journalism, today is a good day to do that (scroll down to the end of this post for the link), because you’ll then instantly receive all 5,700+ words of my analysis outlining what is about to come in the 2016 presidential campaign.
I share with subscribers a little bit on what is about to happen in the Republican primaries but think the bigger surprise is brewing among Democrats: that the “frontrunner” Hillary Clinton should not be considered as such, because there is a Democrat with a clear shot to surpass her in the presidential nomination caucuses and primaries. He is the former governor of Maryland, and his name is Martin O’Malley.
Here is excerpt #1 from the newsletter:
What Walker is doing to Bush – boxing him in as the establishment candidate of the past for an electorate looking to the future – O’Malley is very well positioned to do to Clinton. Of course, Martin O’Malley would be up against the formidable Clinton treasury and political machine. But it is precisely the candidates who come out of nowhere who, time and again, surprise in the American presidential nomination contests.
O’Malley’s weakness – that he is virtually unknown nationwide – is more likely to become a strength in the same way it was for Barack Obama eight years ago.
“Who the hell is Martin O’Malley and why is he in my headline?” is a question I answer by telling his story: from a young field organizer to Baltimore city councilor, to mayor, to governor, and his unique emphasis on field organization including in parts of Maryland often ignored by Democrats. It’s also revealing that O’Malley is so far the only Democrat to have extensively visited the first caucus and primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Here is excerpt #2:
Last year, O’Malley quietly installed a team of his own field organizers in Iowa – where the first presidential caucuses will be held in January 2016 – to help local Democrats win their races. He’s built relationships and loyalties in the process. He has not launched his candidacy, but the Des Moines Register notes that he has already held 30 events over nine days in the Hawkeye State. By comparison, Clinton has held just five events over two days in the state, and until last year she had not returned to Iowa since the 2008 caucuses.
In the other first primary state, New Hampshire, the Manchester Union-Leader reports that O’Malley is “the only potential Democratic candidate to make what had the feel of a campaign stop so far this season, visiting Concord earlier this month.”
Just showing up is of immense importance to Iowa and New Hampshire voters, who so often have winnowed the field and established the dynamics of presidential nomination battles…
The essay looks closely at how former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already begun the kinds of missteps that characterized her 2008 presidential campaign.
A big part of the gap that divides new generation Democrats from their elders is that they are data-driven. We’re more likely to read Nate Silver’s projections than to take the cable TV and newspaper columnist pundits seriously. That generation gap is reflected in how O’Malley and Clinton approach campaigning, too.
Here’s is excerpt #3 from the newsletter:
The 2008 Obama campaign’s precise development of demographic data on potential voters took Clinton – and later John McCain – by storm. They did not know what was happening to them or why voters they had written off were suddenly flooding the polls. Still, data without people power is nothing: a successful campaign needs an army of volunteers trained to deploy that data – and the tailored pitches to the diverse demographic groups that the data reveals, known as micro-targeting – to be able to benefit from it. There have been a lot of signals sent from the Clinton organization that people should think they learned their lesson from the 2008 defeat, and Clinton has hired any former Obama operative willing to bite (obviously not those who signed an open letter to Elizabeth Warren urging her to challenge Clinton last November). But Clinton’s volunteer base remains largely over 50 years old, with most of them over 60, and while its not impossible for old folks to learn new tricks, we’ve yet to see any investment at all in training volunteers in the new campaign methods the way that Camp Obama was already starting to do at this time eight years ago.
The big game-changer - here, in the fourth excerpt - that has already happened to the 2016 presidential campaign has come from someone who insists she won’t be a candidate:
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren – who so many hope to draft into the presidential campaign – has already won, in a big way, without becoming a candidate. Her anti-corporate populism both rides and drives the emerging political zeitgeist in America, where everyday people see the stock market doubling in value over the past six years but, still struggling, haven’t shared in its success…
Warren has been exemplary in giving voice to a populism that rejects dividing white against black against Latino and so on. In that sense she embodies new generation Democrats more so than Webb or Sanders. Clinton, to her credit, supported Kennedy’s immigration reform bill and enjoys strong support among Latino voters in particular. But Clinton will continue to stumble badly on anti-corporate power, where her own record is woefully out of step.
Enter Martin O’Malley: Like Clinton and Warren, he’s a mainstream Democrat and liberal when it comes to social issues from abortion rights to same-sex marriage. Like Warren, Sanders and Webb, he plants his flag on the economic platform that all Americans should share in the largesse bestowed upon Wall Street: Increase the minimum wage and target income inequality, break up the “too big to fail” banks, and restore real competition to financial institutions. As Warren and other progressive populists like Robert Reich have argued, bringing back the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act could accomplish much of this in one fell swoop.
The enthusiasm of an organized “Draft Warren” movement has moved the earth under the 2016 campaign seismically, to the point that progressive economist Robert Reich, who 22 months ago voiced his support for Clinton saying “we need her” has recently stated publicly that if no one else challenges her candidacy with a populist economic platform, he just might.
Here is the fifth and final excerpt for non-subscribers:
O’Malley’s call to restore Glass-Steagall and define the 2016 campaign along such populist economic concerns places Secretary Clinton on the sharpest possible horns of a dilemma. After all, it was President Bill Clinton who repealed Franklin Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall Act in 1995, opening the door to what became the 2007 financial crisis. For Clinton to say “me too” to Warren, Reich, Sanders, Webb, and O’Malley on that point, she’d have to do something she didn’t in 2008: put considerable distance between her and the first Clinton administration on that and on other defining economic issues.
O’Malley has deployed what we community organizers call a “Dilemma Action.” He has placed his major rival in a position in which she has no good options. If Secretary Clinton fails to break with Bill Clinton’s economic policies of the 1990s, she loses. If she does attempt to position herself as apart from that legacy, she also loses, in large part because her own entire political career has been as a corporate Democrat. Politicians can certainly evolve, but for people to believe it there has to be a compelling narrative – a personal story – that makes the shift credible.
The clock is ticking on Clinton’s ability to find that needle in the haystack, that “sweet spot” that would allow her emerge from the baggage of the last century into the zeitgeist of 2016…
Of course, I’ve saved the best parts for our supporters: You who generously support The Fund for Authentic Journalism, who keep the journalists at Narco News reporting, and who have so far made it possible for us to train more than 500 up-and-coming independent journalists, video makers and communicators so far at the School of Authentic Journalism. (Stay tuned very soon for news about the 2015 school.)
If you haven’t yet joined their ranks, today is an exciting day to do so, with a (tax-deductible) contribution of $70 or more, or by making a monthly pledge of $5 a month or more. That’s all you need to do receive the new issue of the newsletter immediately, and every issue for the next year. You can do so via this link:
It’s going to be fun election to cover, more fun than we’ve been told yet by the mass media, which too often acts as if the story is already decided. And that’s a big part of the fun: proving them wrong again and again.
Unlike them, we don’t sell ads to the same companies on the stock exchange that want to decide elections for us. That’s why we need your support. And that’s what makes us always free and independent from what they want us to say. This kind of journalism is only possible because you decide it to be so. A free press is the most essential building block of any society that wants to govern itself as a democracy. Vote with your wallet today: It will cost you a lot more money later on if you leave journalism in the hands of the advertisers. That’s their plan, after all. But we’ve wrecked their plans before. Ready, dear friends, to do it again?
* * *
Al Giordano is a veteran political reporter who only covers politics when he sees an opportunity to make it count. In 2008, Vanity Fair called him “the prophet of the Obama paradigm shift.” He is the founder of Narco News, which turns 15 next month, and of the School of Authentic Journalism.
By Al Giordano
Kind reader: You may have already heard - through social networks or elsewhere - that the authentic journalism renaissance has a new publication, exclusively for supporters of The Fund for Authentic Journalism.
Issue #1 of "Al Giordano's América" went out today to donors who gave, in 2015, either $70 dollars or a monthly pledge of $5 or more to the nonprofit Fund, which supports the work of the journalists at Narco News and the School of Authentic Journalism.
In this first issue I wrote thirteen pages about the life of - and my 28-year friendship with - the great Moises Morales, who passed away last week at the age of 89, along with other features (seen in the table of contents above) that amount to 25 pages and more than 8,300 words that have not been published on Narco News or any other public space.
The quickest way to subscribe is through the website of The Fund:
Donations there are made through PayPal. If you want the newsletter sent to a different address than that which appears on your PayPal account, simply email me the corrected address at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Now, if you don't currently have the money to make the donation that gets you a gift subscription, I want to let you that there are other ways to have this newsletter sent to your email box. Here they are:
If you are a journalist or blogger: I'll send you a free sample copy of Issue #1 if you agree to review the newsletter in your media. Simply email me at email@example.com with the name of your publication, roughly how many readers it enjoys (we won't discriminate against small publications; we're just curious about how many people you might reach), whether you are the owner of it (or if whomever is in charge has assigned or agreed to your reviewing the newsletter), and the email address to which we can send it.
If you know someone who has already subscribed: Today through February 14 - Valentine's Day - we have told our subscribers that each can send us the email address of someone to whom they'd like to send a one-year gift subscription. Tell that subscriber that you'd like to receive that gift! If you don't know a subscriber: Simply by convincing someone to donate $70 dollars or make a $5 monthly pledge you can convince them to make you the recipient of his or her second gift subscription. It's that easy.
Win a gift subscription on Facebook via the "Ask Al Anything" contest: The newsletter has a Facebook page and two people there won gift subscriptions already by asking me a question that I chose to answer. Prior to each issue, we'll hold the same contest again. Join that page and you'll receive alerts of other special gift subscription offers, too: http://www.facebook.com/AlGiordanosAmerica
Do a transcription for the No Nukes Oral History Project: Each of the volunteers who has completed at least one transcription from the audio file to text has won a one-year gift subscription. These transcriptions are the basis for an upcoming book about the anti-nuclear power movement in the United States (1973-1982) that succeeded in stopping a new generation of nukes. Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or project director Laura Garcia at email@example.com to join in that effort. Once you complete a transcription, you get a one-year gift subscription.
I'll continue publishing stories here on the Field and at Narco News, but not everything I write is a good fit for these spaces. The newsletter is a place to write for the more intimate audience of people who have invested time or resources into this project.
A key inspiration for this newest publication was the newsletter of muckraking journalist I.F. Stone, who from 1953 to 1971 published a subscribers-only bulletin that grew to have important impact on the journalism and social movements of his time.
Stone wrote: “I am, I suppose, an anachronism. In this age of corporate men, I am an independent capitalist, the owner of my own enterprise, subject to neither mortgage or broker, factor or patron. In an age when young men, setting out on a career of journalism, must find their niche in some huge newspaper or magazine combine, I am a wholly independent newspaperman, standing alone, without organizational or party backing, beholden to no one but my good readers. I am even one up on Benjamin Franklin – I do not accept advertising.”
It's a paragraph that decades later describes very well the work of authentic journalism today.
Narco News turns 15 this year. We don't want to burn out or fade away like has happened to so many other worthy publications in this era. To keep the project going strong, we've created yet another way - with the new newsletter - to reward those of you who have kept it alive and will continue to do so into the future.
I hope you enjoy my "América," a place where everybody has an opinion, where there is room for yours, too, and I would not wish it to be any other way.
By Al Giordano
Gary Webb reached out to me in 2001 at a time when lesser lights were ready and willing to see me thrown under a bus.
I had been sued for libel by a billionaire narco-banker in the New York Supreme Court, threatened by a New York Times bureau chief that he’d ruin me over the same story, and told by Manhattan attorneys that I had to come up with a $50,000 down payment to defend Narco News and me when I didn’t have the $100 I would need for my next rent payment in Mexico. This online newspaper was less than a year old. Its top donor had gotten spooked by the lawsuit and, like some other colleagues, slipped into the shadows. My world was suddenly dark and the walls seemed to close in all around me.
Gary’s email arrived quite by surprise. I knew about his Dark Alliance series, five years prior, documenting the CIA’s trafficking of cocaine to fund paramilitary squads in Central America. I also knew he had been pummeled by corporate media and had lost his job over it. “They’re trying to turn you into me,” he said, “but you can win because you don’t have a boss who can sell you out.” Gary mentioned that he was negotiating a movie deal for the Dark Alliance book – and a major motion picture titled Kill the Messenger is coming out, finally, next month, ten years after Gary’s death – and offered to donate to our defense once he inked the contract. He then penned a letter to our readers that brought an immediate $10,000 into that defense fund.
Gary gave me, on that day, something far more important than money.
Gary gave me hope. And hope kills fear.
The short version of this tale is that with Gary’s help we beat the narco-censors in court, humiliated the New York Times in its own front yard, and much to the chagrin of corporate media the case established press freedom for the Internet under US law. Gary and I and others then teamed up to found the School of Authentic Journalism, now in its eleventh year.
Kill the Messenger will hit the cinemas one month from today and tell the true story of Gary Webb’s saga that others tried so hard to make disappear. There is Oscar buzz over Jeremy Renner’s portrayal of Webb (Renner, 43, has twice been nominated by the Academy: best supporting actor for Our Town in 2010, and best actor for The Hurt Locker in 2008; and through the Avengers, Mission Impossible and Bourne franchises, Renner is one of the world’s biggest box office draws.) Kill the Messenger is based on the book by the same name by Nicholas Schou and on Webb’s own book, Dark Alliance. Michael Cuesta (Homeland, Dexter) is the director. Investigative journalist Peter Landesman is the screenwriter.
This is no boring documentary. It’s an action-packed full-scale Hollywood epic with a star-studded supporting cast: Michael Sheen, Paz Vega, Andy Garcia, Michael Kenneth Williams, Ray Liotta, Oliver Platt and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, among others, join Renner in the ensemble.
As the October 10 premier draws near, Narco News will tell more of these stories, and publish never-seen videos of Gary in his own words, but let’s talk about the movie and the story it retells because it’s a BFD (a big fucking deal) that is about to bring Gary the vindication he did not live to see, and that will deliver overdue justice to the big media bullies – yes, the movie mentions some of the worst offenders by name – who betrayed Gary, the First Amendment, and the tenets of basic human decency along with him.
* * *
When in the summer of 1996 the San Jose Mercury News published Gary’s investigative series on CIA cocaine trafficking, I had previous knowledge that it was all true but honestly thought that it was old news. Ten years prior, first-term US Senator John Kerry had held hearings and issued a 1,100-page report that had reached the same conclusion. The nation’s major news outlets gave the Kerry Committee Report scant attention, but the record had been established. It was an airtight case. The Central Intelligence Agency had broken US law by brokering planeloads of cocaine into the United States, and millions of dollars in those drug profits were used to fund the Contra army seeking the violent overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. The CIA did so to get around the US Congress, which had voted to ban US funds going to that terrorist organization. The Reagan administration, even as it ramped up the “Just Say No to Drugs” campaign at home, entered the cocaine business through private contractors coordinated by the CIA.
Webb came across the other end of that officially-sanctioned cocaine trail while reporting on a drug case in California, and followed the trail in reverse: from the crack-plagued neighborhoods of Los Angeles to the federal courtroom where lower level traffickers were prosecuted, to a Nicaraguan prison to interview the Contra army’s banker, to the real drug kingpins behind it all: decision makers in Washington DC. Webb documented what had happened to that cocaine when it entered California. Cocaine had previously been the hundred-dollars-a-gram drug of choice of yuppie bankers and lawyers. But when dealers figured out how to convert it to crack, teenagers, poor and working folks could afford it at five or ten bucks a pop. Then the problems compounded when they kept needing more of an addictive and prohibited substance.
The major narco-traffickers at the top of that food chain were given protection and immunity by US government agencies as reward for their participation in the scheme. Meanwhile prosecutors offered up small timers as scapegoats for the crack invasion in the inner cities of America. Pulling that thread, Webb’s reporting deepened the Kerry Committee conclusions with more evidence of CIA involvement. Yet the real marvel of his masterpiece of investigative journalism was that it exposed the street level end of the pipeline that harmed so many lives. It was authentic journalism: tough, gritty, scrupulously documented and sourced at a time when the news industry was running away from that practice.
Webb’s Dark Alliance series was also the first-of-a-kind in that the Mercury News posted it on the Internet, along with the supporting documents, interviews and the reporter's notes. Talk radio and alternative newsweeklies spread the word about the website, and suddenly the gatekeepers of the national media could not control the story in the same way they had the previous decade when ignoring the Kerry Committee Report. Everything that is great and powerful about Internet journalism today began with that series. For the first time, New Media had beaten Old Media.
And Old Media flew into a rage.
The gatekeepers of the national news media first tried to ignore and wish the story away. But the impact at the grassroots level grew and grew over the next three months to the point where if pretending the CIA-drugs nexus never happened wasn’t working, Plan B was to practice overkill to try and discredit it. What I didn’t realize at the time was the swift and effective reaction that would come from the African-American community on the West Coast, whose neighborhoods bore the brunt of the crack invasion. Or that such a powerful din would be created that would embarrass the national media for having not reported the story for the previous decade. Or that the three national “papers of record” – the New York Times, the Washington Post and especially the Los Angeles Times, having lost face in its own territory by Gary’s superior reporting in the smaller Mercury News – would instead of correcting their failures spend obscene manpower and resources looking for dirt on Gary Webb and seeking to discredit him and his story. A lone journalist’s investigative reports were sailing towards the Pulitzer Prize, so he had to be stopped by the big boys by any means necessary.
The big three American newspapers were, then as now, run by white folks, and imbued their response to the Dark Alliance series with an ugly racism that suggested that the story was only a big deal because black folks were somehow more susceptible to “conspiracy theories.” Yes, this was less than twenty years ago, but one need only look at this particularly nasty bit in the New York Times of October 21, 1996 to see just how extreme things got.
“Though Evidence Is Thin, Tale of C.I.A. and Drugs Has a Life of Its Own,” blazed the headline that day, in a long hatchet job signed by Timesman Tim Golden.
“While the (Dark Alliance) assertions might owe their widest dissemination to the World Wide Web,” wrote Golden, “they owe much of their power to the longstanding network of newspapers, radio stations and word of mouth that informs and connects blacks in the United States.”
“At Styles, a New York City hair salon catering to an African-American and Hispanic clientele,” gasped Golden on behalf of the NYT, “a printout of the series sits in the magazine rack, alongside copies of Ebony and Essence magazines.”
Imagine that! Black folks reading the news alongside Ebony and Essence! The smears against Webb – beyond the bigoted implication that doing reporting that African-Americans found important made him some kind of race traitor – included an attack on Gary’s (completely legitimate, and, indeed, clever) newsgathering tactic of feeding questions to a defense attorney who then asked them to a protected government witness during trial. In response, the witness – which federal prosecutors had prevented from giving interviews to the press – spilled the beans under oath about government participation in cocaine trafficking. Golden and the Times used that courtroom story – which is portrayed quite brilliantly in a script for Kill the Messenger – to imply that Webb was too close to a defense attorney that represented a defendant along the CIA cocaine trail. The smear is utter rubbish. That kind of creativity by a reporter deserves awards and promotions, not baseless innuendo hurled against him. There was nothing untoward about it at all. The big media attackers knew it, but they found little else to throw at Webb in their desperation to discredit him.
Alexander Cockburn would later write: “Few spectacles in journalism in the mid-1990s were more disgusting than the slagging of Gary Webb in the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. Squadrons of hacks, some of them with career-long ties to the CIA, sprayed thousands of words of vitriol over Webb and his paper.”
The attacks by the big three newspapers had a secondary effect on B-list journalists all over the country; those whose dream was to step their careers up the ladder to be able to work at one of those institutions. It sent a loud and clear message that they could curry favor with the Washington, New York and Los Angeles dailies by joining in the witch-hunt, and likewise risk their wrath if they dared to praise or defend Webb’s series.
The deepest cut perhaps was closest to home. The editor of Webb’s newspaper, Jerry Ceppos of the Mercury News, reacted to the October blitzkrieg by the bigger papers by publishing an editorial backpedaling from the Webb series. The Mercury News eventually removed the Dark Alliance series, and its supporting documentation, from its website, and Gary Webb was shipped off to a small town bureau which might as well have been in Siberia. The Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist was then relegated to reporting on the local police blotter and human-interest stories about pets and farm animals.
Gary soon after resigned from the newspaper and published the book Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras and the Crack Cocaine Explosion (1999, Seven Stories Press), which won some awards and kept the facts alive even after the Mercury News tried to sweep them back under the rug. The US government eventually issued its own report admitting that everything Gary reported was true.
Gary wanted so much to return to his work as an investigative reporter for a daily newspaper. His kids helped him address scores of envelopes and sent his resume to every major daily in the United States. Not a single US daily called him in for an interview. Gary paid the bills for a while by working as an investigator for the California state legislature, but that gig ran out, too.
When in December of 2004 his house was sold and he had nowhere to live at the age of 49 other than to move in with his mother, Gary wrote a suicide note and killed himself with a pistol. There are still many who don’t believe it, who prefer to think the same CIA assassinated him. But Gary had called friends in the days before his death telling them he had bought the gun and was going to do it. And then he was gone.
* * *
Had Gary not gone through that hell, I might very well have been next. He shared our victory in December of 2001 when the New York State Supreme Court dismissed the National Bank of Mexico’s lawsuit against us out of court and wrote case law establishing that Internet journalists now enjoy the same First Amendment protections as the New York Times.
When, then, my inbox filled with hundreds of emails from young journalists and journalism students asking if they could come work as unpaid interns for Narco News, expressing their dissatisfaction with what had happened to the news industry and what they were taught in its university mills, I contacted Gary with an idea: Let’s start a school for these young people. Gary signed on and came to Mexico in February 2003 to teach at the first School of Authentic Journalism. After Narco News won the lawsuit, some of our old funders returned and we were able to offer 25 scholarships that year.
Gary may be the most beloved professor to have ever taught at the school. The scholars nicknamed him “The Marlboro Man” for his rugged handsome cowboy look and his penchant for filtered cigarettes. When Gary spoke of his experiences, everyone gave their full attention. The Old Media may have declared him a pariah, but a new generation that no longer views the pinnacle of the profession as getting a job at a disgraced national daily saw Gary as a role model and leader.
The world can also plainly see what has happened to a daily newspaper industry that abandoned its muckraking roots as dailies have downsized and gone out of business. The New York Times and the others have lost their previous luster and now only attract B-list writers and editor-bureaucrats into their ranks. The same Internet that Gary Webb pioneered is now the preferred source for news everywhere on earth.
After Gary’s death, we got a copy of the CD-Rom of his series and with his family’s blessing we published Dark Alliance on Narco News, uncensored. It remains today among the most sought-after pages in our fourteen years of archives.
When word began to spread that Hollywood would take Gary’s story to the silver screen, a new panic began to ensue in the Old Media circles that had so maliciously destroyed his career.
Sensing the prick of the humungous needle from Hollywood about to stick him and the rest of the bullies who hounded Gary until his death, Mercury News editor Scott Herhold, who claims to have been Gary’s “first editor” at the paper, fired off a preemptive shot last year that sought to, in his own words, “salt the Renner version with skepticism.” Herhold labeled the late Gary Webb as “a man of passion, not of fairness. When facts didn’t fit his theory, he tended to shove them to the sidelines.” Herhold offers no facts himself to back up that claim, other than that Webb had written a memo about his shitty editing to their bosses and that Herhold is still butthurt about it: “If he could do that to me,” Herhold complained, “he could easily do that to his stories.” In other words, he offers a hypothetical extraction from an inter-office memo Webb wrote about Herhold to smear Webb’s published journalism.
We should never confuse “New Media” as that which is on the Internet and “Old Media” as that which is in print: These terms have to do with a mindset, not the medium upon which one types. Some of the stalest journalism now lurks the halls of the Internet and some of the sharpest New Media journalists have old school tendencies dating back to when American newspapers were relevant in all the ways they have ceased to be. Internet news aggregator James Romenesko – who years ago had become the house cheerleader for B-list American journalists (the kind that sees every story as an audition to get a job at the New York Times) at the website of the Poynter Institute – now has his own blog, and dutifully linked to Herhold’s column. (Romenesko may dress himself as “New Media” but when the New York Times asks him to censor a link to a story it does not like, he slavishly obeys; and, if he'd like to deny that he's that kind of obsequious industry suck-up, let's rumble anew.)
In the coming weeks we can expect more such panicked response to the Kill the Messenger movie from the same career apparatchiks that smeared Gary Webb to begin with, doubling down on their worn and rusted hatchets.
Like Wile E. Coyote, they’ll hoist the piano over their heads one last time, and predictably the piano will fall back down upon them. With the release of the movie, they’ll not only be reminding all journalists and readers of conscience of what industry tools they are, but will also be up against an entertainment media that has long been sensitized to McCarthyism in all its forms.
Kill the Messenger represents nothing less than Hollywood’s recognition that the new McCarthyism has more often than not come wrapped in a war on drugs. And those that attacked Gary Webb will be cast into the same dustbin of disgrace in which the blacklist proponents of the Red Scare are now buried.
Yet there is another possible response from the 1990s cowards who gambled that by smearing Gary they would promote – or at least protect – their own sinecures in the dying corporate news industry. It is that offered last year by former LA Times reporter Jesse Katz as Kill the Messenger was about to begin shooting. In a LA Weekly interview with Nick Schou, Katz recanted and apologized for his behavior as one of 17 Los Angeles Times reporters assigned by editors Shelby Coffey and Leo Wolinsky to try and discredit Webb’s Dark Alliance reports:
“As an LA Times reporter, we saw this series in the San Jose Mercury News and kind of wonder(ed) how legit it was and kind of put it under a microscope… And we did it in a way that most of us who were involved in it, I think, would look back on that and say it was overkill. We had this huge team of people at the LA Times and kind of piled on to one lone muckraker up in Northern California.”
What Katz has done is simply what journalism requires of each and every one of us who claim to be part of it: If you find you have made an error in your reporting, you issue a correction. Failure to do so is malpractice, plain and simple. That Katz is the only member of the media ranks who has expressed regret so far at his role in the knowingly false attacks on Webb speaks volumes about how far the rest of them have strayed from the practice of real journalism.
A paradox is that many of the generation of media pundits and editors who attacked Webb in the nineties got into journalism inspired by the Watergate era reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein at the Washington Post, and the 1976 motion picture about them, All the Presidents Men, portrayed by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, from a time when the major daily newspapers could at least sometimes be watchdogs instead of lapdogs. Thirty-eight years later, the movie that will define the current sad chapter of the news industry tells the story of how the same Washington Post participated in the US government cover-up of its agency’s cocaine trafficking and went so far as to besmirch the reporter out in the field who did the job that the newspaper’s reputation was built upon, that of investigative journalism.
Where is the apology and correction from Walter Pincus, the Washington Post CIA beat reporter who curried favor with the agency by attacking Webb? Where are his beltway colleagues Robert Suro and Jackson Diehl who joined in the malicious bullying of a man who was twice the journalist any of them will ever be? Where is the Mea Culpa from the NY Timesmen Tim Golden and James Risen, who did the dirty work for that newspaper in the witch hunt? What about you Shelby Coffey? No longer at the LA Times, Coffey is now a PR flack for APCO and graces the boards of the Newseum and the Council on Foreign Relations. Such are the rewards for being a spineless toady for those in power. And you, Leo Wolinsky? Where is the correction you owe your readers? How about your LA Times colleague Doyle McManus? And you, Ralph Frammolino? Are you enjoying the public relations industry now that you’re washed up in journalism? Where are the corrections, bitches? No Hollywood star is ever going to portray any of you in a movie (unless it is as villain, as Jerry Ceppos is about to see when he is portrayed by Oliver Platt). When, if ever, do you wash the stain off your hands from the atrocity of journalism that is one and only thing any of you ever did in this business that will cause you to be remembered by future generations?
You have become, each and every one of you, nothing but a dirty and shamed footnote to the story of an immortal hero, Gary Webb.
You see, gentlemen: You made the same mistake that despots and their lackeys have made throughout human history. You thought that by killing the messenger you could kill the message.
Even in a worst-case scenario for the movie, Kill the Messenger, if it were a box office bust, it will still appear, again and again, on cable movie channels for generations to come, correcting the record and naming names on the real offenders. Your children and grandchildren will see it. There is also the possibility that the movie might stall at the box office but then be given new life by this year’s Oscar nominations, and soar back into public view. And with a cast, subject and script as exciting as this one, there is also the chance that it comes out roaring to public attendance and acclaim. Tell us, please, gentlemen: Is there any one of these scenarios in which you come out on top? No, Sirs, there is not! Not unless and until you do the right thing and issue the same kind of correction that Jesse Katz has offered.
Beyond the culprits at the three national dailies, there is long line of second-string mynah bird repeaters of their “conventional wisdom” against Webb and his reporting, of varying degrees of embarrassment to those writers. Should any of them pop their heads up in the coming weeks to repeat their libels, they can expect the archives of their own shoddy work to be rolled up and swatted back upon their puppy dog noses. They are from an era of corporate journalism when the motivating force was no longer truth or justice or any kind of idealism, when the motor of career journalism became fear and only fear. Some were poseurs of alternative media, from David Corn at The Nation to Glenn Garvin at Reason magazine (who moved on to join another US daily wallowing in decay, the Miami Herald), whose noses were stuck so far up power’s ass in the 1990s that they still can’t get the brown off. They considered the CIA-cocaine connection to be their story, and were envious that an unknown gumshoe reporter out in the hinterlands had stepped onto "their" turf to cause a greater impact than they ever had.
Gary Webb’s reports were that powerful that they made careerist journalists tremble and lash out and dutifully show that era’s media bosses that they had done their bidding. And then there were others who tried to be fairer to Webb but still feared the big media lords so much that they colored their defenses of the essential truth of the Dark Alliance series with sprinkled disclaimers that he had made errors or wasn’t a saint. You know, the false dichotomy of "telling both sides" of a story that does not have two sides that is formula for corporate media. Eighteen years later, the record reflects that Webb's reporting was spot on and that those unnecessary disclaimers revealed more about the fear by other writers of offending the powerful than they did about Webb’s good works.
There were courageous, real journalists who stood up tall to critique Webb’s attackers and set the record straight on the stunning accuracy of his work. Most of them paid a price in their careers but kept their souls intact. Making a list of each and every one of them would surely risk leaving some out in error. But I do wish to mention three that are, like Gary, no longer with us: The aforementioned Alex Cockburn, the late WBAI New York broadcaster Robert Knight, and one very dear colleague who died this only month, Chuck Bowden, who in 1998 when Gary had already been cast out by the news industry, wrote the definitive story, titled The Pariah, for Esquire magazine, setting the record straight.
They’ve moved on, perhaps to join Gary in a better newsroom in the great beyond.
Meanwhile, here on earth, new generations are up and coming that understand perfectly well that the present and future of journalism is not entered by landing a byline at the New York Times, the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times, but in the trenches pioneered by Gary Webb.
What Readers Can Do
Now is the time - the October 10 release of Kill the Messenger creates new opportunity - for all good people to join forces to correct the terrible injustice that was done to the messenger.
We can start by reading the Dark Alliance series and its supporting documents, so that when Kill the Messenger generates discussion and questions more of us will be ready to answer them.
We can be supportive of Gary’s family who will have to relive these horrible events in the coming weeks but who have the inner fortitude and commitment to justice to be willing to do so. They’ve just opened a Facebook page in Gary Webb’s name. We can all join it at this link.
We can listen to Gary in his own words. Doing so is always a worthwhile experience. One can hear him on various videos and audio files posted around the Internet. Whether it was 5 a.m. in California as he did a phone interview with C-Span on the East Coast or his appearance on rough and tumble talk radio shows, Gary’s demeanor was always calm, confident and willing to let the facts speak for themselves. This was a journalist who trusted the readers to figure things out. There was no similarity at all between Gary and today’s shrieking carnival barkers on cable television.
Here are some excerpts of Gary speaking at the 2003 School of Authentic Journalism:
We have recently taken inventory of the Narco News and School of Authentic Journalism archives and found more video of Gary in his own words. In the coming weeks Narco News TV will release eight more videos that feature him, so that at his posthumous hour of global attention, Gary can still speak for himself.
Over the next month, we, the friends and colleagues of Gary Webb (1955-2004), will announce other steps to be taken to bring more attention to his message, including grassroots organizing and actions that can be taken at the most local level involving your local cinema and your local media organizations.
Gary Webb - the messenger - will not be with us to see this movie about him.
Gary’s message, however, is here to stay.
By Al Giordano
When was the last time in the United States that a Democrat who was not the incumbent US President, and who was older than the Republican nominee, won the White House?
The last time that happened was 158 years ago, in 1856, when Democrat James Buchanan, 65, defeated Republican John C. Fremont, 43, and former President Millard Fillmore, 56, of the Whig Party (the last president who was neither Democrat nor Republican).
And this perfectly explains why the Democratic Party of the present, if it really is hell-bent on nominating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as its candidate in 2016, will very likely end up handing the presidency over to one of the Republican presidential hopefuls, all of whom are younger – by 6 to 21 years – than the presumed Democratic nominee.
Elections of more than 150 years ago aren’t really that relevant to the prospects for 2016. But there are five more recent presidential elections that are prologue to the present moment, because they took place in the context of how the current Democratic and Republican coalitions have formed. The only five presidential contests of the past 82 years in which a Democrat who was not the incumbent defeated the Republican candidate happened during “generational change” elections in which a younger Democrat inspired higher voter turnout at the edges of the party base to win the election.
In 1932, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then 50, defeated Republican President Herbert Hoover, 58. In 1960, John F. Kennedy, 43, bested Richard M. Nixon, 51. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, 52, triumphed over Gerald Ford, 63. The story of the 1992 “generational change” election is one that Secretary Clinton knows well: that’s when a 50-year-old Bill Clinton unseated a 72-year-old George H.W. Bush. And we all remember how in 2008 Barack Obama, 49, turned both the Democratic primaries and the November election into a “generational change” tidal wave, when he won the day over 72-year-old John McCain.
The reason why Democrats who are not already president have only succeeded in taking the White House as younger generational candidates is not about age discrimination or the qualifications of the candidates. John Kerry was certainly competent to govern when he lost to George W. Bush, four years his junior in 2004. And, agree with her policy positions or not, Secretary Clinton is at least as qualified as those who have occupied the Oval Office to date. The feeling among many Democratic Party insiders that Clinton is “next up,” that it is “her turn,” that the Secretary has “earned it,” however is precisely the kind of bureaucratic and insular thinking that has brought political parties to crushing defeat time and time again.
The road to the White House is littered with the failed campaigns of institutional candidates whose turn it surely was on both sides of the partisan aisle: from Hubert Humphrey to Bob Dole to John McCain – and Secretary Clinton follows snugly in their footsteps – elder statespersons of political parties have not inspired young people and minority voters turn out to vote the way that FDR, JFK, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did to return the Democrats to power. The winners made elections “cool” and exciting for young Americans and marginalized groups to participate in ways they normally do not (a consequence of the more common dynamic, in which these core Democratic constituencies do not vote, will be felt this November in the US Senate and House elections, where the only question is how bad the results will be for Democrats).
The train wreck ahead on the Democratic track is even more visible when one takes measure of the relative youth of each of the leading Republican presidential hopefuls. While Secretary Clinton will be 69 on Election Day 2016, the oldest of the Republicans mentioned, Rick Perry, who will be 66, just got indicted, so he’s much less likely to be the nominee. Next in seniority is Jeb Bush, who will be 63. By generational math, he would be the most preferable rival for the Clinton camp, the one less likely to be seen as newer and fresher. But a Bush nomination would also make Clinton more stale to public opinion because of the obvious flashback to the last century. A rematch, 24 years after the first November showdown between the Bush-Clinton dynasties, is not going to be an attractive idea to millions of young Americans whose votes the Democrats need, but who usually don’t vote. What young person wants to relive his and her parent’s wars? There is no more perfect recipe for depressing young voter turnout than a Bush-Clinton re-run. It would suppress voting more than putting Mississippi town clerks in charge maintaining the national voter rolls. It is the lamest scenario possible, worthy of a parody story in The Onion, not of the nation that considers itself the world’s showcase democracy.
But let’s imagine that America successfully evades the bullet of a Bush-Clinton rematch to plunge everyone a quarter century backward. How old will the other possible GOP candidates be in 2016? Mike Huckabee will be 61, Scott Walker, 59, Chris Christie, 53 – and now we get closer to pols that might more likely win that nomination – Rand Paul, 54, Paul Ryan, 46, and both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz will be 45. Those last two have about the same generational distance between them and Secretary Clinton as young Bill Clinton had when he shut down the political careers of his eminence George H.W. Bush and, in the next round, Bob Dole.
Two years prior to the last three times that Democrats took the presidency anew – the point in the 2016 cycle where we are now – almost nobody thought Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama had a prayer to win their party nominations, much less to become president. “Generational elections” by definition must have a candidate that “comes out of nowhere” to add a fresh face and tone to the whole show. One can argue blue in the face that the “change” isn’t real, or take the other side that it is. But that evergreen debate is irrelevant to this lesson in history. The fact remains that young people and marginalized minorities only vote in large enough numbers for Democrats to succeed when they believe that a break from the old order is possible.
This math, by the way, should Secretary Clinton decide not to run for president, or for some who might dream about challenging her in primaries, is also a big wet blanket for enthusiasts of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean, Robert Reich or Jim Webb, each of whom is already over 65 years old and therefore older than any of the likely Republican nominees.
Perhaps it’s not fair to lump them all together. Senator Warren’s possibility to inspire with a message of economic populism delivered by a relatively new voice on the national scene – she may be chronologically an elder, but at least she’s not “old news” yet – is intriguing. Bob Reich has the communication skills and wonky policy smarts that could force other candidates to address issues they prefer to avoid (but as his gubernatorial run in Massachusetts showed, his distaste for making money calls is legend). Both know how to use the Internet in ways the others do not, now a prerequisite for a national political campaign. Warren’s recent “tweets” speaking out early on Ferguson – while Clinton and others maintained awkward silence at the hour of crisis – and also in opposition to an energy pipeline project in Massachusetts show that she’s someone aware in touch with those grassroots movements that do exist. And Reich’s mini-essays he posts to Facebook are often brilliant. The others have degrees of personality and experience, but when it comes to the 2016 election they might as well be Grandpa Simpson yelling at the kids to get off the voting lawn.
This is not to say that any one or more of them who wants to run for president shouldn’t do it. The Democratic Party desperately needs not just one primary rival to Clinton but, more ideally, multiple ones. Then let the voters sort out which would be the ideal alternative. Voters are pretty good at that.
Sometimes when I hear key sectors of the Obama coalition, particularly young people, African-Americans and community organizers, yearn for a Senator Warren candidacy I get the sense that the concept is situational. They’re thinking backwards about who could forge the path of least resistance to challenge Secretary Clinton, rather than first considering what kind of candidate is needed to light a generational spark. I’d like to reset that horse before the cart right now.
A great many Americans are worried that a Secretary Clinton nomination would bring the right wing back to executive power because of suppressed voter turnout, and a great many have a legitimate fear of her well-established hawkish foreign policy or pro-corporate tendencies. But instead of merely reacting to the “Clinton is inevitable” chatter we could first envision what kind of candidate could fill the vacuum and stir up a generational storm (or continue what Obama began), and then create the political and social context to seduce that mystery candidate into the fray. With that candidate on stage, the Clinton Inevitability Steamroller would start to self-combust quickly enough.
There are some prominent younger Democrats, none of whom are perfect vessels, but who nonetheless hold some of that potential and promise. Former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer will be 59 in 2016; Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, 58; Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, 56, and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley will be 53. That’s not a comprehensive list, but merely a few examples that there is younger talent out there that could thread the generational needle. The fact that almost nobody thinks any of them, or others like them, could possibly win the nomination or the presidency is exactly one of the qualities that such a surprise candidate has to have, like Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama before them. Thinking about possible candidates like that and creating the vortex to seduce one or another’s entrance into the presidential context has a much better chance of bearing fruit than endlessly waiting for a bigger foot to step in. Those old enough to remember the 1992 cycle will recall the teeth-gnashing over whether then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo would enter, and all that dreaming was for naught. A Comeback Kid had to come out of vapors instead.
Take O’Malley, for example, who has actively made many visits to early contest states like Iowa and New Hampshire and signaled that if he sees an opening he will declare his candidacy. Few of us know anything about this guy. That’s not all bad. The good part is that we neither know enough to hate him or discount him. He’s not “damaged goods.” A competition with a consummate pro like Clinton and her well-armed and financed machine would be a real test for someone like that. He – or she, in the case of Klobuchar and other potential candidates – would have to be really smart not to fall in the frequent traps that Secretary Clinton baits for her rivals so often.
A path must be struck that honors Secretary Clinton’s impressive experience and good intentions without providing an opening to throw down the victim flag that she tosses so skillfully. (Remember the fuss about whether Obama “snubbed” Clinton during President Bush’s 2008 State of the Union speech? And how it supposedly was to be taken as an affront to half the population? Even Clinton’s 2008 supporters laugh about it now. They knew it was just a game. That’s an example of how that machine can turn nothing into something if a rival gives the slightest opening.) A candidate is needed who can say – and convincingly – that, “Yeah, Secretary Clinton is great, but I’m bringing what America needs that’s different than what she brings and here’s why.” He or she would need to show us, and not just tell us. This mystery candidate needs some core principals and issues that separate him or her from the more troubling parts of the Clinton agenda. In shorthand, that means going more populist than the Secretary on the economy and going on the offensive vs. the Secretary’s bellicose tendencies in foreign policy. That’s a winning platform in the Iowa Caucuses and elsewhere.
Even if someone like O’Malley or the others mentioned enter the campaign and don’t prove to be ready for prime time – and only the rough and tumble of an actual campaign would show it or not – there is historic precedent that even a weak candidate can reveal the vulnerability of a frontrunner enough to cause a stronger candidate to jump in late.
A good example happened in 1968, when so many dreamed that Robert F. Kennedy would challenge President Lyndon B. Johnson but RFK was not going to budge. The second choice among opponents of the Vietnam War in the Democratic Party was Senator George McGovern, but he wouldn’t run either. Finally, Senator Eugene McCarthy – a flawed vessel with little real chance of wresting the nomination from LBJ, much less of winning a general election – went to New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary and although he lost to Johnson, the fact that he got 42 percent of the vote convinced many that LBJ was no longer invincible. Robert Kennedy felt the force of the vortex and announced his candidacy. Two weeks later, President Johnson surprised everybody when he withdrew his candidacy.
Had Robert Kennedy, then 43, not been assassinated, he very well might have been nominated and gone on to run against Republican Richard Nixon, then 55, in the general election. It would have been a perfect storm for another “generational election.” Instead, the Democratic Party nominated Johnson’s Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the institutional “next man up,” and quickly went down to defeat.
The point is that relatively unknown (on a national stage) people like O’Malley, Patrick, Klobuchar or Schweitzer don’t have to be perfect candidates to be able to reveal enough of the weakness in the Clinton armor that some of us see already but many haven’t yet noticed. Any one of them if she or he has the right stuff could turn out to be an Obama-type figure, or at least a Gene McCarthy-type figure who paves the way for someone or something formidable. And if one or more of these people – or someone like them – decide to run, it would be entirely worthwhile to get in on the ground floor of that campaign and see what can be made to happen.
Anybody with the guts and sense to go up against the Clinton organization is going to be tested, but you know what? He or she will end up testing Secretary Clinton, too. And the fall from that precipice is much longer and harder.
It’s not just the history of the last 82 or 158 years of presidential elections in the United States that suggest that Secretary Clinton, as much as she deserves all good things and success in life, is the wrong candidate at the wrong time to win a general election. Very recent history is also instructive. As we all saw during the 2008 Democratic primaries, Secretary Clinton has an uncanny talent causing blowback when she speaks, and that this is a regular, even frequent, occurrence. What are the last two statements anyone remembers out of the Secretary? Last month it was her attempt via Atlantic magazine to distance herself from Obama’s “first, do no harm” foreign policy by saying she would have armed the guys in Syria (who soon after became ISIS). That was not only mind-numbingly boneheaded, but also a frightening reminder that for whatever reasons the Secretary almost always has the most war-making worst first instinct when it comes to problems on the world stage. It’s that impulse that got the Iraq quagmire ignited to begin with. And that was only last month. The month before that, in June, while defending her $200,000 special-interest group lecture fees, the Secretary – reportedly worth tens of millions of dollars – pled that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001. Way to connect, Secretary, with the economic reality of the average American, eh?
Those are just the two major Clinton pre-campaign moments of the last two months. The road ahead, if she declares her candidacy, will provide many more such illuminating statements. It always has when she has traveled any public road. And yet the more recent gaffes seem almost subconsciously self-destructive. There is a kind of Political Tourette's lurking beneath the surface bravado of that potential candidate, almost as if the alter ego inside of Secretary Clinton that doesn't really want to run keeps sabotaging the super ego that lurches toward ambition. One should never, ever underestimate the capacity of Candidate Clinton to talk her way out of victory. We’ve seen this movie before.
The amazing thing about how the big media pundits and political reporters keep harping on the “Clinton is inevitable” virus is that time and time again the voters have shown that they “get” this dynamic in a fundamental way that Cable Television does not. In most Democratic presidential primary cycles, a new face appears that becomes a contender. Sometimes – like Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama – they go all the way. Others have come close but collapsed either on their own weaknesses or their lack of campaign funds. But the voters did make Walter Mondale sweat when they tagged Gary Hart as a serious rival. Social movements drove Mike Dukakis crazy when coalescing the Rainbow Coalition around Jesse Jackson. The same occurred with Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley and Howard Dean in subsequent years.
It is a completely noble and worthwhile goal that finally a US president could and should be a woman. People who belittle that goal only help Clinton’s aspirations. But it is another thing altogether to enter the delusion that the historic nature of a Clinton nomination would somehow spark a rise in voter turnout among women the way that Obama’s has done twice now with younger voters and African-Americans. The reason for that is that women already vote in numbers well above the average for the rest of the population. In the most recent presidential election 63.7 percent of voting-age women cast ballots compared to just 56.7 percent of men. Those numbers go even higher among older women. Therefore it is simple math that there is less room for participation among that demographic to grow enough to offset the assuredly lower turnout among young voters and African-Americans should Clinton win the 2016 nomination.
Somebody recently told me, “Clinton will get all the Obama voters and also some white racists that he didn’t.” That’s the sort of blind optimism that has been the downfall of many political campaigns. Young people and minority members do not automatically turn out to vote for Democrats or even against Republicans. Their record participation in the last two presidential elections was the result of very specific factors both of history – African-Americans have historically been discriminated against when trying to vote, and there are still obstacles placed in their way today – and also of agency: The Obama campaigns understood and deployed community organizing tactics in a way that Candidate Clinton and her partisans still fail to grasp. You can’t replicate something you fundamentally don’t understand. Hiring all the former Obama staff in the world can’t even make that happen for Clinton. The candidate has to move these voters for field organizers to get them to the polls. If these voters could be taken for granted in that way, then Al Gore and John Kerry would have already been presidents.
The Internet changed the game so that in 2008, when Obama became the voters’ vehicle to reject the last “Clinton in inevitable” story, it allowed Obama to raise enough millions in a short enough time that he couldn’t be out-hollered or out-dollared. The Obama campaign’s training of tens of thousands of mostly-young volunteers in the fine arts of community organizing, through Camp Obama, was as important a game-changer. The candidate himself was ready for prime time. The rest is history.
When a guy I know pretty well published in the Boston Phoenix in September 2007 the case for why Obama would best Clinton, win the nomination and the presidency, even many of his good friends thought he’d jumped the shark. It made him feel much better about the American voter when he and she happened to agree even as Cable Television and newspaper pundits told them they would never do so. The voters aren’t stupid. At least they are not 100 percent of the time! Things don’t just happen: Things are made to happen. That’s the story of history. That’s all it’s ever been. Real people organizing and doing big things that “important” people lectured they could not.
Perhaps a year from now someone will be able to write a similar story, about a candidate who suddenly appears to make history again. And maybe it will be a candidate who can spark a “generational election” and have a shot at enough voter turnout in November 2016 to not lose the baby steps of progress – not long or fast enough steps by far, but at least the motion has been forward – that have been made over the past six years in the United States. After all, for its many and grievous faults, the US does finally have health care for so many more of its people, did measurably ratchet down two wars, did change the tone so that people who organized for LGBT rights, nonviolent marijuana and drug users and patients, immigrants and dreamers, grassroots XL pipeline opponents, among others, have finally started making progress on the level of law and policy. These are among the only things governments can do that help, or stop harming, the lives of real people.
When, in 2007, Obama’s campaign began recruiting volunteers to attend three-day community organizer trainings (called “Camp Obama”) that were designed by United Farmworkers Union organizer Marshall Ganz, it didn’t just built an army with a huge advantage over its rivals. It also trained a new generation in the forgotten skills of how change is really made at the most grassroots level. Many of the aforementioned tens of thousands of new organizers then went on, after the campaign, to organize with non-electoral social movements: LBGT and immigrants rights, drug policy referenda, and stopping climate change mega-projects like the pipeline. (“Activist” complaints that “nothing has changed” under Obama only indicate that the complainer still doesn’t get the profound qualitative difference between organizing and protesting.) The new generation of organizers trained by Camp Obama should not drop these grassroots struggles in exchange for a presidential campaign. It is those non-electoral movements that create the only context for a campaign to exist. It will be up to new candidates to train newer generations, and fortunately the blueprint has already been charted on how to do that.
Clinton partisans gush over the “Ready for Hillary” SuperPac’s popularity in certain sectors as supposed evidence that the next Clinton campaign has learned the lessons of 2008 and will simply be some kind of “Obama 2.0” operation. The SuperPac smells more like Astroturf than anything resembling real grassroots. It’s a data-mining device, ready to part fools with their money. That it hasn’t started training its enthusiasts with an Obama style organizing boot camp offers the first clue that it has learned nothing from its own history. It’s a fan club that could just as easily be titled “Ready for Justin Beiber,” not anything resembling a real force in national politics. And when Clinton insiders sing its praises, that’s a pretty good indication that they still don’t understand what hit them six years ago.
The Obama presidency will be remembered a lot more fondly once it is over including by many people frustrated with it today but who will need the lessons of time to see it in its full context, presuming it doesn’t all go awry over the next two years. Incremental change is still far preferable than going back to the year 2000 or, worse, 1984, or 1968, when Democrats nominated the institutional “next pol up” and terrible things consequently happened to so many people at home and abroad.
There is a coalition waiting to be born. Its core demographics view Secretary Clinton and her possible campaign as ho-hum and not worth our investment: Young Americans, African-Americans and community organizers are three key hubs, but the nascent vortex is hardly limited to those. Believe in that vortex. Cultivate and feed it. The vortex abhors a vacuum and if made large and visible enough, a candidate or candidates will emerge to fill it.
All it needs is a generational candidate smart enough, organized, and better on policy than the latest “inevitable frontrunner” who bears a striking resemblance to the last inevitable candidate that imploded. If you’re out there, America has a message for you: Help Wanted.