10 Key Values
This is a pretty illuminating piece
on Barack Obama, in case any Greens are thinking of going to the dark
side to vote in the Democratic Primary.
Dave McC
UNDERNEWS, FROM THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW 5 JANUARY 2008
Edited by
Sam Smith LATEST HEADLINES & INDEX: http://prorev.com
IDOLS AND PRESIDENTS THE COUNTRY badly needs a decent president but
Iowa voters went to their caucuses and selected instead two
preachers, one ordained, the other self-anointed and both successful
manipulators of cheap cliches purportedly leading us, in one case, to
Christ and, in the other, to hope and change.
How Huckabee, a cruel purveyor of Christian heresies about women
and gays, would bring us closer to the Lord is anyone's guess. As for
Obama, we noted some time back that "he's taken the easy way out
and applied the marketing principles of Tony Robbins and Marianne
Williamson to a political campaign. Having gone through eight years
of EST with Bill Clinton and almost that much of AA with George Bush,
we should be burned out on psycho-therapeutics as opposed to physical
reality but sadly many are taken in by Obama's covert message that if
you trust in hope you don't have to worry about the details like
pensions and healthcare."
Obama might turn out to be a decent president - he certainly would
be better than Huckabee - but at the moment the evidence provides
little support beyond factors that matter inordinately these days,
such as that he is young, good looking and half black. This is the
sort of thing music producers seek in boy bands. Choosing a president
is supposed to involve some deeper concerns.
Besides, there is nothing about Obama that gives him a copyright
on hope and, if you really want change, then logic would point you to
John Edwards. But our politics have been subsumed by the values of
television and so we continue to look for an American Idol instead of
an American President.
||||||||||||||||||||
OBAMA REALITY CHECK
FRANK JAMES, CHICAGO TRIBUNE - There's the new Harper's magazine
cover story [BY Ken Silverstein] whose essential point appears to be
that the junior senator from Illinois is really shaping up to be a
tool of the monied interest. . . Here's a taste of the article which
is captured in its last couple of sentences. "On condition of
anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point
out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if
they didn't see him as a 'player.' The lobbyist added: 'What's the
dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?' "
Very little, is the answer both the lobbyist and Silverstein
imply. Obama has raised a lot of money from such lobbyists so draw
your own conclusions, the article seems to say.
A lot of lobbyists have contributed to Obama's campaign and
political action committee for the same reason a lot of non-lobbyists
are energized by him--he's smart and charismatic, Silverstein
suggests. . .
Obama voted against the overall bill which was supported by the
financial-services industry. But he sided with the industry on
certain proposals. For instance, he opposed a proposal that would
have capped credit-card interest rates at 30 percent, a limit that
was sought by consumer groups. . .
Silverstein also noted the senator's push for the increased use of
alternative fuels like ethanol to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign
oil and help reduce carbon emissions. That seems a mighty
environmentally friendly and national-security conscious position to
take. But remember that Illinois is a big producer of corn, from
which ethanol is made, and is home to agribusiness giants Archer
Daniels Midland and Aventine Renewable Energy, Silverstein says, the
implication being that Obama is doing agribusiness's bidding in order
to keep raising big money. He has raised more than $21 million since
he announced his run for the U.S. Senate, Silverstein tells us. . .
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/10/is_the_obama_ho.html
KEN SILVERSTEIN, HARPER'S - Since announcing his candidacy for the
Illinois Senate seat, Obama has raised the astonishing sum of nearly
$21 million and has built close relationships with a number of
traditional fat-cat donors. For example, one of Obama's leading
career patrons is Skadden, Arps ($53,271, according to the most
recent disclosure filings), a leading corporate law firm and one of
the biggest donors to the Democratic Party.
Several of the firm's lawyers donated money to Obama and also
helped raise money for him as well. That includes Christina Tchen, a
corporate litigator at Skadden who has represented major financial
firms in consumer class-action suits. . .
In November of last year, three other Skadden attorneys helped
organize a fundraiser for Obama's Leadership PAC, the vehicle he uses
to support other Democratic candidates, and to boost his own
political profile and gain support within the party. . . Others who
have helped raise funds for Obama's Leadership PAC include John
Gorman of Texas-based Tejas Securities, a major funder of Senate
Democrats (and of the Bush presidential campaigns) and Winston &
Strawn, the Chicago-based law and lobbying firm. Individual
contributors to Obama include some of the best-connected lobbyists in
town, including Jeffrey Peck (whose clients include MasterCard, the
Business Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and Rich
Tarplin (Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National
Association of Manufacturers).
In the magazine article, I asserted that Obama is not a mouthpiece
for his donors; neither does his voting record mirrors the wishes of
his contributor list. But, as I suggested, it's naive to think that
he's completely unaware of who's footing the bills. Exelon, a leading
nuclear-plant operator based in Illinois, is a big donor to Obama,
and its executive and employees have given him more than $70,000
since 2004. The Obama staffer pointed out that the senator pushed for
legislation that would require nuclear companies to "inform
state and local officials if there is an accidental or unintentional
leak of a radioactive substance," according to an office press
release. Obama took a stand on that issue following reports that a
plant operated by Exelon had leaked tritium several times over the
past decade.
But Exelon is probably not entirely unhappy with Obama. At a 2005
hearing at the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, of
which Obama is a member, the senator-echoing the nuclear industry's
current campaign to promotes nuclear energy as "green" -
said that since Congress was debating "policies to address air
quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global
ecosystem, it is reasonable - and realistic - for nuclear power to
remain on the table for consideration." He was immediately
lauded by the industry publication Nuclear Notes, which said, "Back
during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, [Obama] said that he
rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of 'common
sense solutions.' And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like
the Senator is keeping an open mind."
To anyone who thinks Obama is blissfully oblivious to the
fundraising imperative, consider the following: in one of his
earliest votes as a senator, Obama helped pass a class-action
"reform" bill that was a long-standing and cherished goal
of business groups. (The bill was the focus of a significant lobbying
effort by financial firms, who constitute Obama's second-biggest
single bloc of donors.). . .
http://www.harpers.org/sb-a-little-bit-more-on-obama-1161881683.html
DERRICK Z. JACKSON, BOSTON GLOBE, AUG 2007 - It is unclear if
Barack Obama's caution precedes consensus or cave-in. Asked if he
would eliminate discriminatory laws that punish crack cocaine
possession so heavily that it would take 100 times more in powder
cocaine for the same sentence, Obama started off by saying the law
was a mistake. He talked about his record in the Illinois Senate.
"I want to point out that I fought provisions like this and
in many cases voted against provisions like this, knowing the way
they could be exploited politically," Obama told the Trotter
Group of African-American newspaper columnists last week after
addressing the National Association of Black Journalists. "I
thought it was the right thing to do. Even though the politics of it
was tough back in the '90s, as a state legislator I took some tough
votes to make sure we didn't see the perpetration of these kinds of
unjust laws.". . .
Vacillation became evident as he kept talking about
crack-vs.-powder sentencing, which has come to symbolize racial
injustice in criminal justice. He said that if he were to become
president, he would support a commission to issue a report "that
allows me to say that based on the expert evidence, this is not
working and it's unfair and unjust. Then I would move legislation
forward."
That was a puzzling statement because the US Sentencing
Commission, created by Congress in 1984, has long said the system is
not working and reaffirmed in April that the 100-to-1 ratio
"significantly undermines" sentencing reform.
[Just four months later, the extremely conservative Supreme Court
moved where Obama waffled, as reported by Reuters]
REUTERS - U.S. judges can impose lighter prison sentences than
federal guidelines specify, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in
cases involving crack cocaine and ecstacy that could add pressure to
overhaul sentencing practices. In a racially sensitive issue, the
justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that judges cannot
hand down a lighter punishment simply because they disagree with wide
disparities for crack and powder cocaine sentences. Blacks account
for about 80 percent of the federal crack cocaine convictions. The
guidelines call for lighter prison terms for the sale of powder
cocaine, a drug more popular with whites and Hispanics.
NEDRA PICKLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS - Democratic presidential
candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send
troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show
strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills
as naive. The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez
Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in
his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or
Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of
millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech
prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who
murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a
terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an
al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable
intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President
Musharraf won't act, we will."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_7
[Apparently Obama doesn't think George Bush's illegalities are all
that bad]
AP JUNE 2007 - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid
out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration
but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush
or Vice President Dick Cheney. . . "I think you reserve
impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of
the president's authority," he said.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/28/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-No-Impeachment.php
[We have suggested that Obama's foreign policy was nowhere near as
liberal as many liberals believed. This view was confirmed by the
Washington Post's conservative editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt]
FRED HIATT, WASHINGTON POST - [Barack Obama and Mitt Romney] have
laid out their foreign policy visions in parallel articles, released
prior to publication in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. And
after you cut through some of their campaign rhetoric, here's what
you find:
(1) The two candidates' programs are strikingly similar to each
other.
(2) Both are strikingly similar to Bush administration policy.
(3) And both, far from retreating to isolationism in the face of
Iraq and other challenges, set forth their own wildly ambitious calls
for American leadership and the promotion of American values.
"Boldness" is an operative word for both of them.
Obama begins: "After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward.
That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must
be seized anew."
Romney writes: "In the aftermath of World War II and with the
coming of the Cold War, members of the 'greatest generation' united
America and the free world around shared values and actions that
changed history. . . . Our times call for equally bold leadership."
The two differ in some respects, of course. Romney puts more
emphasis on combating radical Islam and less on promoting freedom.
Obama dwells more on Bush's failures and the value of diplomacy and
endorses a "phased withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq.
But even there, the differences are not as stark as the candidates
would like them to appear. Obama would maintain in Iraq enough troops
"to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training
Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda."
And the similarities dwarf the differences. Both want bigger, not
smaller, armed forces: Obama calls for an additional 92,000 ground
troops, Romney for 100,000.
Obama calls for a doubling of foreign aid; Romney wants a Marshall
Plan-like "Partnership for Prosperity and Progress" that
would support schools, microcredit, the rule of law, human rights,
health care and the free market in Islamic states.
Romney says that "the jihadist threat is the defining
challenge of our generation," as real as the threat that was
posed by Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, and he promises an
appropriately sized response. Obama, albeit using slightly different
terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a
twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships
as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay
on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.". . .
In both cases, the criticism is not that Bush took on too much but
that he accomplished too little. "We are a unique nation, and
there is no substitute for our leadership," says Romney. Agrees
Obama: "We can be this America again. . . . [A]n America that
battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the
world once more."
If Iraq-weary voters are looking for someone who will call on
America to "come home," they won't find that candidate
here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060300951.html
CHICAGO TRIBUNE - One evening in February 2005, in a four-hour
meeting stoked by pepperoni pizza and grand ambition, Sen. Barack
Obama and his senior advisers crafted a strategy to fit the Obama
"brand.". . . Some called it the "2010-2012-2016"
plan: a potential bid for governor or re-election to the Senate in
2010, followed by a bid for the White House as soon as 2012 or, if
not, 2016. The way to get there, they decided, was by carefully
building a record that matched the brand identity: Obama as unifier
and consensus-builder, an almost post-political leader.
The staffers in that after-hours session, convened by Obama's
Senate staff and including Chicago political adviser David Axelrod,
planned a low-profile strategy that would emphasize workhorse results
over headlines. Obama would invest in his long-term profile by not
seeming too eager for the bright lights. . .
Throughout his time in the Senate, Obama has followed a cautious
path, avoiding any severe political bruises. Even before the national
mood was turning on Iraq, Obama was a critic of the war, but for most
of his time in the Senate he was not a strong voice in opposition.
Similarly, the former civil rights attorney and University of Chicago
law lecturer did not take to the bully pulpit to speak out publicly
on judicial appointments. His strategy called for him to turn away
from the cameras when he might otherwise have been a resonant voice.
. .
The plan they hatched focused on concrete, achievable goals that
included delivering for Illinois, fitting in at the Senate and
developing cross-party alliances while avoiding the limelight. . .
To some liberals, [one] proposal was a no-brainer: a ceiling of 30
percent on interest rates for credit cards and other consumer debt.
And as he left his office to vote on it, Obama planned to support the
measure, which was being considered as an amendment to a major
overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws.
But when the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next
to Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the banking
committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which
would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt.
"You know, this is probably not a smart amendment for us to
vote for," Obama recalled Sarbanes telling him. "Thirty
percent is sort of a random number."
Obama joined Sarbanes in voting against the amendment, but they
lost the larger battle when the new bankruptcy law passed by a
lopsided 74-25. There remains no federal ceiling on credit card
interest rates.
Obama's deferral to Sarbanes was just one example of the freshman
senator learning to navigate a chamber famous for its egos. . .
Obama the candidate for U.S. Senate spoke out forcefully against
the Iraq war. For most of his tenure in Washington, though, Obama the
U.S. senator has not been a moving force on Iraq.
He left it to others to lead public opinion. Sen. Russ Feingold
(D-Wis.) and Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) emerged as the strongest voices
against the war. Those critics all spoke out before Obama gave his
first major policy speech on the war -- 11 months after he took
office.
Several advisers said that during that time Obama wrestled with
how to proceed, concerned about the worsening news from Iraq and
convinced the public's mood was turning against the war more rapidly
than most members of Congress appreciated. . .
Ultimately Obama delivered a more modest speech in November 2005,
five days after Murtha's call for a troop withdrawal. In that
address, he called for reductions in U.S. troop strength but not a
timetable for withdrawal.
In a Senate debate the following June, Obama voted against an
amendment proposed by Feingold and former presidential candidate Sen.
John Kerry (D-Mass.) to set such a timetable.
Only after Obama announced his presidential exploratory committee
did he introduce legislation this January that sets a date for
withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. By then the high-profile,
bipartisan Iraq Study Group also had endorsed a deadline for troops
to leave.
In May he voted against continued funding of the war, after Bush
vetoed a funding package that included a timetable for withdrawal by
March 31, 2008. . .
BILL FLETCHER, The
Black Commentator, MAY 2007 ,
- Senator Barack Obama has become a major celebrity, a truth that
is now almost a cliche. . . Yet before I jump into his campaign, I
have a few questions that I first want to share with you and which I
hope he will address in the not-too-distant future.
There is a way in which I cannot tell who is the real Senator
Obama. For one, he has not carved out - at least as of this writing -
any cutting edge issues where he is taking the lead and defining the
terrain. Second, and to some extent more troubling, he permits people
to see and assume in him what they want to see and assume. I have
said to many of my friends that this situation reminds me of an
episode from the original Star Trek series where there was a creature
that appears to the viewer the way the viewer would like to see it.
I am, to add to this, very uneasy about some of the Senator's
foreign policy pronouncements, particularly with regard to the Middle
East. To his credit, he opposed the Iraq invasion and had the courage
to say so. Yet over the last year, he has displayed a peculiarly
uncritical stance when it comes to Israel and has all-but-ignored the
plight of the Palestinians. This past summer, when Israel launched
its massive and deadly assault on Lebanon, the Senator was quite
vocal in his support. He seemed to miss the Israeli use of illegal
cluster bombs and the lies the Israelis offered for their
unapologetic destruction of entire Lebanese civilian communities.
Further, the Senator seems to ignore the atrocious conditions
being faced by the Palestinians who, after all, are occupied by the
Israelis in violation of United Nations' resolutions. . . Compounding
this odd situation, the Senator seems to want to be a "hawk"
when it comes to Iran, describing that country as a threat to Israel
and the USA. . .
I am not ready to write off the inspiring Senator from the great
State of Illinois, but no matter how hard I try, I keep thinking
about that creature from Star Trek.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/229/229_cover_questions_for_obama_fletcher_ed_bd.html
THE HILL, APRIL 2007 -
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has pledged to create a new brand of
politics in the Democratic presidential primary by rejecting
contributions from lobbyists and political action committees (PAC),
but his fundraising records show that he relies on donors with
special interests.
Three of Obama's top fundraisers, who each have raised more than
$50,000 for his campaign since January, were registered as lobbyists
last year, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of
Public Records. In 2006, Alan Solomont of Solomont Bailis Ventures
earned $90,000 in lobbying income; Tom Reed, of Kirkland & Ellis,
lobbied for the Seismological Society of America, the Nanobusiness
Alliance, and the Airport Minority Advisory Council; and Scott
Harris, of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, represented Cisco
Systems, Microsoft, Dell and Sprint-Nextel.
All three Obama fundraisers have said they are no longer
lobbyists, although the public records office has not posted contract
termination reports for any of them.
Several other major Obama fundraisers also have histories of
lobbying government officials for a living. Thomas Perrelli was a
lobbyist for Jenner & Block as recently as 2005. Until 2003, when
Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate, Peter Bynoe was a
registered state lobbyist representing Boeing and other corporate
interests, according to the Illinois secretary of state. They have
both raised at least $50,000 for Obama's presidential bid, according
to his campaign.
Frank Clark, chairman of Commonwealth Edison, helped lead a $2.2
million congressional lobbying effort on nuclear research and waste
disposal in 2000, according to a report under his name filed with the
Senate. He also raised more than $50,000 for Obama this year. He
played an important part trying to persuade state lawmakers to
deregulate the energy industry in Illinois.
All this may surprise Obama's supporters. In a fundraising e-mail
sent to supporters at the beginning of March, the candidate wrote
that Washington's special-interest industry is trying "to own
our political process and dictate our policies in Washington. We're
not going to play that game. We're not taking any contributions from
Washington lobbyists or political action committees. We're going to
transform the political process by bringing together hundreds of
thousands of ordinary Americans to build a campaign."
ABC -
Barack Obama has often said he'd consider putting Republicans in
his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and
Chuck Hagel. He's a added a new name to the list of possible
Republicans cabinet members - Arnold Schwarzenegger. Obama regularly
says he would look to Republicans to fill out his cabinet if he was
elected, but at a town hall event in Manchester, N.H., he was pushed
to name names. . .
Sen. Dick Lugar: "He's a Republicans who I worked with on
issues of arms control, wonderful guy. He is somebody I think
embodies the tradition of a bipartisan foreign policy that is
sensible, that is not ideological, that is based on the idea that we
have to have some humility and restraint in terms of our ability to
project power around the world," Obama said about his Senate
colleague.
Sen. Chuck Hagel: "A Vietnam vet, similar approach and
somebody I respect in a similar fashion," Obama added.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "What (he's) doing on climate
change in California is very important and significant. There are
things I don't agree with him on, but he's taken leadership on a very
difficult issue and we haven't seen that kind of leadership in
Washington," Obama said of the California governor.
JOHN MCCORMICK, CHICAGO TRIBUNE - A soon-to-be-released biography
about Sen. Barack Obama portrays the Democratic presidential
candidate as a far more calculating politician than his most ardent
supporters might imagine. One such calculation was his much-heralded
2002 speech in Chicago about the impending Iraq war, according to
"Obama: From Promise to Power," a nearly 400-page book by
Tribune reporter David Mendell to be released in August.
Obama gave the speech not just because of a desire to speak out
about the impending invasion, Mendell asserts, but also to curry
favor with a potential political patron, Bettylu Saltzman, a stalwart
among Chicago's liberal elite, and to also try to win over his future
top political adviser, David Axelrod, who was close to Saltzman.
"Obama, still an unannounced candidate for the U.S. Senate,
did not immediately agree [to speak at the rally],"according to
an advance copy obtained by the Tribune. "But he told Saltzman
that he would think it over."
After consulting with a political aide, the future candidate, who
was indeed personally opposed to the invasion, agreed to make the
speech.
"Obama was trying to draw Axelrod onto his Senate campaign
team," the book says. "It would not be wise to disappoint
Saltzman if he wanted her to continue lobbying Axelrod on his behalf.
So Obama agreed to speak."
Axelrod, now Obama's top adviser, denied that the Illinois
Democrat made the speech to win over political friends and mentors.
"That's not true," said Axelrod, who added that he was
advising Obama "in an informal way" at the time. . . .
The book also suggests Obama and his advisers initially were
incensed that top Democrats had relegated him to a speaking slot at
the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston that was not
carried live over the three major TV networks. The keynote address
ultimately was what helped propel him to the national stage.
"As it has all turned out, we all look like geniuses,"
Obama's senate campaign manager Jim Cauley says in the book. "But
back then, we were totally pissed."
The book opens with a scene from Boston on the afternoon before
Obama's big speech. "The swagger in his step appeared even
cockier than usual on the afternoon of July 27, 2004," the book
says. Once past a security checkpoint, Obama told Mendell that he
felt like LeBron James, the National Basketball Association star.
"I'm LeBron, baby," Obama is quoted as saying. "I can
play on this level. I got some game."
JOHN KASS, CHICAGO TRIBUNE - Often missing from the Obama puffery
is any acknowledgment that despite the rhetoric, Obama is all but a
front man for Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago Democratic political
machine. He has backed Daley for re-election, with City Hall awash in
federal investigations, and he's got the mayor's media strategist
David Axelrod massaging his message. Obama has supported other
machine creatures. . . I don't know what Washington political writers
call it. But back home, this is what we call transcending politics
the Chicago Way.
||||||||||||||||||||
WHY OBAMA ATTRACTS THE RIGHT
SAM SMITH - Harry Truman remarked that whenever anyone said they
were bipartisan he knew they were going to vote against him. Barrack
Obama is the latest major politician to use this ploy, promising
mushy abstractions instead of actual policies, making nice to
everyone in the room while ducking the issues they raise and, in a
time of historic confrontation over whether America can recover its
constitutional democracy, pretending that the answer is somewhere in
the middle.
But what is the middle ground between democracy and fascism?
Between having a job or a house or being unemployed or homeless?
Between having health care or dying?
As William Lloyd Garrison put it, "Tell a man whose house is
on fire to give moderate alarm; tel1 him to moderately rescue his
wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually
extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen."
The myth of the happy center is a major illusion dominating public
life in Washington. . . Even the KKK, so often cited as an example of
the sort of threat the non-center poses, was powerful primarily
because it was at the center, holding political and judicial and law
enforcement office as well as hiding beneath its robes. In some
towns, lynching parties were even announced in the local paper. And
in the 1920s, both the Colorado governor and mayor of Denver were
members of the Klan, the latter well enough regarded to have had
Stapleton airport named after him.
The centrist myth most dramatically fails when those acting upon
it dramatically fail. What is the center on Iraq? On climate change?
On the creeping coup taking over America? On the monopolization of
the marketplace?
A 10,000 word piece in the New Yorker - purveyor of the
appropriate to the liberal elite - features Obama as the
"conciliator" with hardly a solid program or policy
mentioned. The message of the article - like Obama's - is that we
don't need a president, just a therapist.
Take healthcare for example:
"'We've got to put more money in prevention,' he said. 'It
makes no sense for children to be going to the emergency room for
treatable ailments like asthma. Twenty per cent of our patients who
have chronic illnesses account for eighty per cent of the costs, so
it's absolutely critical that we invest in managing those with
chronic illnesses like diabetes. If we hire a case manager to work
with them to insure that they're taking the proper treatments, then
potentially we're not going to have to spend thirty thousand dollars
on a leg amputation.' A young man asked about health care for
minorities. 'Obesity and diabetes in minority communities are more
severe,' Obama said, "so I think we need targeted programs,
particularly to children in those communities, to make sure that
they've got sound nutrition, that they have access to fruits and
vegetables and not just Popeyes, and that they have decent spaces to
play in instead of being cooped up in the house all day.'"
So just eat your vegetables and stay away from Popeyes and all
will be fine.
Pressed on the matter, Obama does go a little deeper:
"'If you're starting from scratch," he says, 'then a
single-payer system' -a government-managed system like Canada's,
which disconnects health insurance from employment- 'would probably
make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and
managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a
different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a
system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what
they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.'"
Since ordinary people could adapt to the expansion of the Medicare
system in a matter of days, who are these people of whom Obama speaks
who might "feel like suddenly what they've known for most of
their lives is thrown by the wayside?" Well, the insurance
companies would be the ones most affected, and Obama has just sent a
clear if covert signal that he won't be messing with them.
The right understands the centrist myth far better than liberals.
They know that the center is homeland security for inaction in
public, lots of action behind the scenes, and power staying where it
should: with the powerful. It's not surprising that some of them see
Obama as their man, the "black Reagan" as he has been
called.
Yet he is also the liberals' Pat Robertson, and while the right
can see where they can cut deals with him, the liberal evangelicals
are all misty eyed by his talk of hope and faith. But Harry Truman
was right: that guy serving you the happy meals of centrism in the
campaign is likely going to be on the other side after election day.
||||||||||||||||||||
A FEW THINGS TO FORGET ABOUT WHEN SUPPORTING OBAMA
PAUL STREET, Z MAG - So what sorts of policies and values could
one expect from an imagined Obama presidency? There is quite a bit
already in Obama's short national career that has to be placed in the
"never mind" category if one is to seriously to believe his
claim (cautiously advanced in The Audacity of Hope) to be a
"progressive" concerned with "social and economic
justice" and global peace.
Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a
"Hamiltonian" believer in "limited government"
and "free trade" by Republican New York Times columnist
David Brooks, who praises Obama for having "a mentality formed
by globalization, not the SDS." Or that he had to be shamed off
the "New Democrat Directory" of the corporate-right
Democratic Leadership Council by the popular left black Internet
magazine Black Commentator . . .
Never mind that Obama has lent his support to the aptly named
Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neo-liberal Citigroup chair
Robert Rubin and "other Wall Street Democrats" to counter
populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the
Democratic Party. . . Or that he lent his politically influential and
financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator
Joe Lieberman's ("D"-CT) struggle against the Democratic
antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other
"mainstream Democrats" fighting antiwar progressives in
primary races . . . Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster
proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
Never mind that Obama "dismissively" referred - in a
"tone laced with contempt" - to the late progressive and
populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as "something of a gadfly."
. . . Or that "he posted a long article on the liberal blog
Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for
right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts." Or that he
opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped
credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time
magazine's Joe Klein last year that he'd never given any thought to
Al Gore's widely discussed proposal to link a "carbon tax"
on fossil fuels to targeted tax relief for the nation's millions of
working poor . . .
Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly "tort
reform" bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain
reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations. .
.
Or that Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer
national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported
social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for
workers in the private insurance . . .
Never mind that Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT
Act. Or that he voted for the appointment of the war criminal
Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State. Or that he
opposed Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) move to censure the Bush
administration after the president was found to have illegally
wiretapped U.S. citizens. Or that he shamefully distanced himself
from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's forthright
criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo. Or that he refuses
to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran. .
.
Never mind that Obama's famous 2004 Democratic Convention Keynote
Address - widely credited for catapulting him to national prominence
- expressed numerous reactionary and incorrect notions that make the
praise it received from the far right National Review (who called
Obama's oration "simple and powerful") less than mysterious
on close examination. . .
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html
||||||||||||||||||||
OBAMA: IMPERIALIST IN DOVE'S CLOTHING
ROBERT KAGAN, WASHINGTON POST - Obama's speech at the Chicago
Council on Global Affairs last week was pure John Kennedy, without a
trace of John Mearsheimer. . . No one speaks of the "free world"
these days, and Obama's insistence that we not "cede our claim
of leadership in world affairs" will sound like an anachronistic
conceit to many Europeans, who even in the 1990s complained about the
bullying "hyperpower." In Moscow and Beijing it will
confirm suspicions about America's inherent hegemonism. But Obama
believes the world yearns to follow us, if only we restore our
worthiness to lead. . .
His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we
haven't meddled enough. There is more to building democracy than
"deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must
build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent
judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press,
and an honest police force." We must build up "the capacity
of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they
need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities,
develop markets, . . . generate wealth . . . fight terrorism . . .
halt the proliferation of deadly weapons" and fight disease.
Obama proposes to double annual expenditures on these efforts, to $50
billion, by 2012. . .
"We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs
danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to
build and not to destroy. . .
Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace
Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he
intends to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500
billion a year. Surely he understands there is no military answer to
terrorism. Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He
wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more
Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.
He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from
Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to
put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy
terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we
continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the
world."
Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a
last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever
hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only
"to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also
to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently
threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It
won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an
American president decide what a "vital interest" is and
when it is "imminently threatened."
Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in
situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to
garner the clear support and participation of others." Make
every effort?
Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force
are four words: United Nations Security Council.
Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile
dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a
strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize"
the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew."
. . .
||||||||||||||||||||
THE TIMIDITY OF HOPE
SAM SMITH - Here's one reason Barack Obama talks so much about the
audacity of hope: his policies are so meek.
For example, he is clearly afraid to get anywhere near single
payer healthcare so he comes up with a plan where the federal
government would subsidize the auto companies' healthcare in return
for more fuel efficient cars.
Aside from the fact that this is in opposition to far wiser
efforts to disassociate healthcare from the work place, aside from
the fact it is a corporatist policy that makes government even more a
hostage of industry, aside from the subsidy to General Motors and its
ilk, Obama not only is afraid of challenging the health insurance
industry, he wants government to help further fill its trough.
Although less bizarre than Hillary Clinton's 1990s health plan, there
is no justification for it other than pure political convenience.
If this is the best he can come up with, there's good reason he's
taken the easy way out and applied the marketing principles of Tony
Robbins and Marianne Williamson to a political campaign. Having gone
through eight years of EST with Bill Clinton and almost that much of
AA with George Bush, we should be burned out on psycho-therapeutics
as opposed to physical reality but sadly many are taken in by Obama's
covert message that if you trust in hope you don't have to worry
about the details like pensions and healthcare.
There are several problems with this.
One is that no one has presented the slightest evidence of why
Obama's hope and faith is better than that of any of the other
candidates.
The second problem is that hope is not audacious at all. Audacious
would be doing something now, audacious would be taking a personal
political risk because the country needs it, audacious would be
saying something unconventional because the conventional is killing
us. Audacity is not turning one's back on present needs and praying
that the future will straighten it all out.
One of the best kept secrets in America today is the extent to
which hope and faith are being used as seedy substitutes for action
and reason. Too often, hope is a form of postponement and faith a
substitute for action or facing the truth.
As they say in the 'hood, hope don't pay the cable.
And as Tijn Touber has noted, "If you hang on to hope, you'll
always have to wait" and "waiting makes you passive."
Thus, someone like Obama functions as a political sedative. His
message is that we don't have to worry so much about what's happening
because we can let the future handle it.
END
The list of potential candidates seeking the nomination for
president on the Green Party ticket has settled at six.
I have heard every one of these people speak.
They are all eloquent and all represent our values well.
I hope GPDE has the opportunity to have any or all of them speak
to us.
In the meantime, please check their websites and their positions
on issues.
Consider contributing money to as many as you can.
Campaigning is difficult and expensive and most of the candidates
do not have the independent means to do it on their own.
This Sunday, January 13, all six will be participating in a debate
in the San Francisco Bay area.
The debate will be posted on YouTube, probably twice with an
initial one-camera version and an edited three camera version.
You can start searching for it on Monday or wait it the exact link
is fgiven in the next Green Diamond.
David McCorquodale National Delegate and Treasurer Green Party of
Delaware
Jared Ball, independent journalist; radio host (WPFW 89.3 FM
Pacifica Radio in Washington, DC), hip-hop scholar, assistant
professor of communications studies at Morgan State University in
Baltimore, Maryland http://www.jaredball.com
Jesse Johnson, 2006 US Senate candidate and 2004 gubernatorial
candidate for the Mountain Party in West Virginia (now an affiliate
state party of the Green Party of the United States); filmmaker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMxgYnmdHfg
Cynthia McKinney, former member of the US House of Representatives
(Georgia), 1993 to 2003, 2005 to 2007; former member of the Georgia
House of Representatives, 1988-1992 http://www.runcynthiarun.org
http://www.americanblackout.org/
Kent Mesplay, 2004 candidate for the Green presidential
nomination; former president of Turtle Island Institute;
environmental engineer, alternative energy activist; California Green
organizer http://www.mesplay.org
Ralph Nader, 1996 and 2000 Green candidate for President; 2004
independent candidate for President; consumer advocate (Howie Hawkins
of the Green Party of New York State has consented to serve as a
'placeholder' candidate until Mr. Nader announces his intentions for
the 2008 election) http://www.draftnader.org
Kat Swift, Texas Green organizer; former Campus Greens leader;
activist with Clean Money San Antonio and San Antonio Democracy Now
http://www.bexargreens.org/katforprez
END
Folks,
A presidential candidates debate was held in the San Francisco Bay
area on Sunday, January 13.
About 800 people attended.
Five Green presidential candidates and Ralph Nader were present.
Below is a link to a series of YouTube links to individual
questions.
Eventually a link will be put up for the entire debate.
Most of the other candidates seem pretty supportive of Cynthia
McKinney.
For some reason Nader did not participate in the "debate"
and spoke on his own for about ten minutes at the end.
He has not yet decided what he is doing.
Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=mfeinsteintube&p=r
Dave McC
END
Attention Delaware Greens:
This event in washington, D.C. is close enough if you are
interested in seeing all the presidential candidates from the Green
Party.
Green Campaign 2008 Presidential Candidate Forum
Saturday, February 2, 2008 10:00 am
Busboys & Poets 14th and V Streets, NW Washington, DC
(202-387-POET)
Invited Candidates: Jared Ball Jesse Johnson Cynthia McKinney Kent
Mesplay Ralph Nader * Kat Swift
Metro (Green Line): U Street/African American Civil War Memorial
Stop 14th Street bus lines (52, 53, 54)
Two blocks from 16th Street bus lines (S2, S4) Street Parking
Sponsored by the DC Statehood Green Party, Maryland Green Party,
and Virginia Green Party
Information: Tom or Tamar Yager, 703-524-2187 Jane Zara,
202-483-9303 http://www.gp.org
* Not a declared candidate as of this date.
END
Letter to the Editor of Wired Magazine:
Last year I cashed in some airline miles for several guest
subscriptions to magazines, among which I chose Wired.
I knew of its reputation as a magazine focused on the latest uses
of high tech and assumed it
had a
somewhat enlightened political outlook.
Disappointed is an understatement of my view of the magazine,
which basically
uses a small set of articles as an excuse to present numerous ads
which
have an overall enthrallment with acquiring all the latest
gadgets, not to mention cars, clothing and perfume.
The final issue of 2007 brought the last straw, with an article
entitled
"How Technology Almost Lost the War: In Iraq, the Critical
Networks Are Social — Not Electronic
(http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/15-12/ff_futurewar).
This article basically argues that the war in Iraq would be "won"
if only the planners had taken into account the social networks.
I wrote to Wired to present another viewpoint.
Having just received word that the magazine will publish the
letter, either in print or electronically,
I reprint it here for you:
Author Noah Schachtman approaches "What Went Wrong"(issue
15.12) in Iraq as if the goals were noble, only the network-centric
approach was wrong.
What gave the U.S. the right to determine the make-up of another
government?
Even if one accepts that former CIA asset Saddam Hussein had to be
removed, when a power outside of the country determines the form of
government, that's IMPOSING, not creating.
The truth is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been about
imperial designs- controlling the Middle East and controlling the
access to oil.
Yes, the geeks forget about the social network, that is, the
entire society, which is overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. military
presence.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Iraqs have perished, four
million are displaced, the most advanced society in the Middle East
is now in ruins, and thousands of dead and tens of thousands of
wounded Americans have been sacrificed for an unjust purpose.
David A. McCorquodale
END
GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES http://www.gp.org
For Immediate Release: Thursday, January 24, 2008
Contacts: Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell
202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org
Greens: Tactical retreat by pro-Democrat fake antiwar lobbies is
setting back the peace movement
• Substituting goal of electing Democrats for goal of immediate
US troop withdrawal will lead to more war, say Greens
WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders called on Americans who
oppose the Iraq War to rebuff an agreement among pro-Democratic
'antiwar' lobbies to scale back pressure to end the war.
"MoveOn.org, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and other
groups have decided that passing legislation in Congress that does
nothing to end the war makes their favorite Democratic candidates
look better than demanding action to end the war quickly," said
Jason Wallace, Green candidate for the US House in Illinois' 11th
District <http://www.electwallace.us>
and active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War
<http://www.ivaw.org>.
"The big myth of the 2008 election is that Democrats are the
antiwar candidates.
In reality, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a longer
occupation in Iraq and possibly a war with Iran."
According to Politico
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7949.html>,
several mainstream antiwar groups in a recent K Street meeting have
decided on a tactical retreat in the face of Congress's failure to
reverse the Bush war agenda.
Greens have sharply criticized Democrats in Congress and leading
Democratic presidential candidates for offering vague and deferred
timetables for withdrawing US troops from Iraq; refusing to cut off
funding for the war; criticizing President Bush solely on the basis
of strategic mistakes in Iraq; for signing on to Mr. Bush's military
threats against Iran; having voted to surrender Congress's
constitutional war powers to Mr. Bush in 2002; and refusing to
rescind the war authorization after the 2006 election.
Greens also noted that the Democratic Party leadership, including
most presidential candidates, have rejected calls for impeachment
despite evidence that the Bush Administration's fraudulent
justifications for invading Iraq, war crimes, authorization of
torture and warrantless surveillance of US citizens, broken treaties,
and other abuses of power and violations of the US Constitution.
"Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said they'd
maintain a permanent US military presence in Iraq with only a limited
draw-down of combat troops that could then be redeployed 'just over
the horizon.'
This military misadventure is not in the best interests of
Americans or Iraqis and only benefits the oil and weapons industries.
Groups like MoveOn that divert the energies of peace activists
towards Democrat candidates who fail to push for a prompt and total
withdrawal only undermine the peace movement and advance the war
agenda.
Voters need genuine peace candidates like those from the Green
Party," said Titus North, Green Congressional candidate from
Pennsylvania's 14th District <http://www.votenorth.org>.
MoveOn has called on the Democratic presidential candidates to "be
unequivocal in their commitments to remove all US troops within
eighteen months of taking office"
<http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/moveon_anitwar_movement_still.html>,
which could delay withdrawal until mid 2010.
Greens contend that Democrats in Congress could have brought a
rapid end to the war merely by stalling on White House requests for
continued war funding.
"The position of Green candidates is that we are not willing
to accept any more dying by violence -- American or otherwise.
It has been the willingness of US military policy to accept
collateral damage in the hundreds of thousands and forcing people to
live under governments of our choosing, which drives hostility
towards us and decreases our own security.
The recent statement by NATO leaders urging maintenance of a first
strike nuclear policy is one more example of a dangerous position
that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats," said
Bob Kinsey, Colorado Green candidate for the US Senate
<http://www.KinseyforSenate.org>.
The Green Party recently opened a new web page featuring videos of
Green presidential candidates and debates
<http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/presidential-videos.php>.
The party will choose its presidential and vice presidential
nominees at the 2008 Green National Nominating Convention in Chicago,
July 10-13.
"The election of a couple of Greens to Congress and a strong
showing for the Green presidential nominee on Election Day 2008 would
end the war quickly by showing Democratic and Republican politicians
that they can no longer take votes for granted, especially votes from
Americans who want peace," said Deanna Taylor, Desert Greens
Green Party of Utah and participant in the Green Party Peace Network
<http://gpuspeace.wordpress.com>.
MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN Fax 202-319-7193 • Video of Green
presidential candidates
http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/presidential-videos.php
• Green candidate database for 2007 and other campaign information:
http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml
• Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml
• Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers
• Media credentialing http://www.gp.org/committees/media/kit.shtml
Green Party Peace Action Committee
http://www.gp.org/committees/peace/
~ END ~
GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES http://www.gp.org
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Contacts: Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell
202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org
Greens back Indian Trust lawsuit against Interior Department over
billions in broken obligations, mismanaged funds, and appropriated
natural resources
WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders and candidates expressed
support for an ongoing class-action lawsuit to force the US Interior
Department to account for billions of dollars owed to Native
Americans since the late 19th century.
"Since the 1880s, the US government has failed to make good
on its promise to provide Native Americans payment for mining, oil
and gas extraction, timber, and grazing on their homelands.
It's time for the US to reverse hundreds of years of broken
treaties and stolen resources, account for the breach of Indian Trust
obligations, and restore honesty," said Rodger Jennings, Green
candidate for Congress in Illinois (12th District)
<http://www.rodgerjennings.org>.
Filed in 1996, Cobell v. Norton (later renamed Cobell v.
Kempthorne) addresses funds belonging to about a half million Native
Americans and their heirs.
In 1999, Judge Royce Lamberth held Clinton Administration
officials (especially Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin) in contempt of court for
stonewalling, destruction of documents, and misrepresentations before
the court.
More recently, the US Court of Appeals sided with the federal
government and removed Judge Lamberth from the case, rejecting the
judge's findings of evasion and malfeasance and his charges of
racism.
The Bush Administration is now taking steps to limit the
government's liability and to ensure that only 1.3% of the trust
accounts are reconciled, which means only a tiny fraction of those
covered under the trust plan might see some form of restitution.
Greens, calling on the Bush Administration to honor the financial
debt of the US government to Native Americans, also expressed
frustration with the White House's recent violations of treaties and
agreements.
"Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is taking action to limit
drastically the scope of payments owed to Native Americans.
He's trying to get his department off the hook on its obligation
to account for the historical theft of billions of dollars when
white-owned firms were allowed to profit from natural resources on
Indian land.
His actions are consistent with the Bush Administration's refusal
to honor numerous treaties signed by the US, from the Kyoto Accords
to the Geneva prohibitions against torture," said Rebecca
Rotzler, an Alaskan Native, a former co-chair of the Green Party of
the United States, and an elected Green.
For further details, background information, and recent news on
Cobell v. Kempthorne, see:
• Indian Trust: Cobell v. Kempthorne http://www.indiantrust.com/
• "Interior again shifts duty to account for Indian trust,"
Indianz.com, December 5, 2007
http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/006198.asp
• Justice Department documents
http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/
• Findlaw page
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=DC&navby=case&no=025374A
MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN Fax 202-319-7193 • Green Party News
Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml
• Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers
• Green candidate database for 2007 and other campaign information:
http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml
• Media credentialing http://www.gp.org/committees/media/kit.shtml
~ END ~
Second Global Greens Congress 1—4 May 2008, São Paulo,
Brazil Think and act globally and locally
http://www.globalgreens.org/brazil2008
http://www.globalgreens.org.br
________________________________________
Please forward to all Greens
1 January 2008
Global letter to Green parties and political movements
Dear Friends
As we count down to the Second Global Greens Congress in São
Paulo Brazil, we are writing to provide you with some important
planning information and to ask for your help in preparing for the
meeting. Specifically, we are asking Green parties and political
movements to help by publicising the congress, by contributing funds
and by facilitating a direct fundraising appeal to individual Greens
supporters.
Our aim for the Second Global Greens Congress is to take another
big step towards building the Greens into a global political force.
In Canberra in 2001 we agreed on the Global Greens Charter.
In Brazil 2008, the main outcome will be 21 Points for the 21st
Century: Global Greens Climate Action Plan, the basis for coordinated
action by Greens globally in the coming five years.
We will shortly be calling for ideas to feed into the plan
covering all the ways in which we can meet the climate crisis:
political, social, environmental, cultural, economic and more. The
ideas should be action-oriented, they may be local or global, and
they must be consistent with the Principles of the Global Greens
Charter. We will be setting up a computer register so that everyone
can see the ideas as they are proposed and use them to develop their
own plans.
In a very short time, we will start drafting the 21 Points –
short, sharp and effective!
There will also be texts on the Greens’ post-Kyoto proposals, a
Green charter for sustainable cities, biodiversity and forests, and
the next steps for the Global Greens. Delegates also have the
opportunity to present resolutions for consideration.
To make Global Greens 2008 as inclusive as possible, we will be
raising funds to enable participants from low income countries to
attend. We will also be encouraging delegations to be gender balanced
and where possible to give preference to young people and Indigenous
people.
To make it as environmentally responsible as possible, we
encourage all those who attend in person to offset the climate impact
of their travel.
We will also be doing our best to provide access to the conference
over the internet and, of course, everyone will be able to help
develop the 21 Points electronically.
We are planning a fantastic congress that sets high standards for
inclusiveness and environmental responsibility and gives Greens from
all over the world the chance to consolidate friendships and working
relationships.
For all this to happen, we need your help. We would be very
grateful if you could
* Help us send a letter to all Greens members and supporters
around the world asking them to donate to Global Green 2008. Please
email a member of the Steering Group below to indicate your
participation. * Make a financial contribution to Global Greens 2008.
Donation details are attached, or go directly to
http://brazil2008.globalgreens.org/supporters.cgi.
* Publicise Global Greens 2008 to your members and supporters * Send
delegates from your national party to participate in the Global
Greens Congress.
We rarely meet as a Global Greens family and we appreciate
everyone’s cooperation in making Global Greens 2008 a big success
and a milestone in expanding our political strength. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact one of us. We look
forward to meeting you in São Paulo.
With best Green wishes
Global Greens Steering Group
* Leonardo Alvarez, México, Greens of the Americas,
lalvarezromo@yahoo.com *
Juan Behrend, Belgium, European Greens,
Juan.behrend@europeangreens.org
* Margaret Blakers, Australia, Asia Pacific Greens,
margaret.blakers@bigpond.com
* Sérgio Dialetechi, Brazil, Brazilian Greens,
sergiodialetachi@ig.com.br
* Thomas Fatheuer, Brazil, Heinrich Boell Foundation,
thomas.fatheuer@boell.org.br
* Mike Feinstein, United States, Global Greens Webmaster,
mfeinstein@feinstein.org
* Solomone Fifita, Samoa, Asia Pacific Greens,
solomonefifita@yahoo.com
* Ralf Fücks, Germany, Heinrich Boell Foundation,
fuecks@boell.de * Eva Goës,
Sweden, Green Forum, eva.goes@mp.se
* Catherine Grèze, France, European Greens, cgreze@lesverts.fr
* Johan Hamels, Belgium, European Greens, johanhamels@yahoo.com
* Gaby Küppers, Gabriele.Kueppers@europarl.europa.eu
* Lena Lindström, Sweden, Green Forum, lena.lindstrom@mp.se
* Marco Antonio Mroz, Brazil, Brazilian Greens, mrozverde@uol.com.br
* Janna Schönfeld, Germany, Global Young Greens,
frithjof.schmidt-assistant@europarl.europa.eu
* Satoko Watanabe, Japan, Asia Pacific Greens,
satoko.watanabe@nifty.com
* Julia Willebrand, United States, Greens of the Americas,
julia.willebrand@verizon.net
Documents with this letter (in .pdf. .doc and .html format)
Fundraising letter for Green members and supporters around the
world http://www.globalgreens.org/brazil2008/please_donate
On-Line Donations
http://brazil2008.globalgreens.org/supporters.cgi
Donation form for postal mail
http://www.globalgreens.org/brazil2008/donationform
Working draft program, Second Global Greens Congress
http://www.globalgreens.org/working_draft_program
Important information, Second Global Greens Congress
http://www.globalgreens.org/brazil2008/important_information
END
