Obama

Obama Needs to Take a Stand on Race and Other Issues

By JUAN WILLIAMS

Wall Street Jouranl
August 28, 2008; Page A15

There is a powerful, often painful, thread of memory in the American mind with regard to race. It is a flowing narrative from the time of slavery to the Civil War and on to the nation's struggle for racial equality. That story includes Martin Luther King's life and death as a martyr. Today the story continues in a nation where one-third of the population is made up of racial minorities. There is also an unprecedented number of immigrants and record levels of prosperity among the black and Hispanic middle-class.

Now we have Barack Obama's astonishing political rise, advancing the story to the point where a majority white nation might possibly select him as its first president of color.

For Sen. Obama's supporters and much of the American media, the message of this neatly packaged story is that the Illinois senator is the man who fulfills King's dream. "Had it not been for that speech," Mr. Obama told the Rocky Mountain News last week, "I very likely wouldn't be standing in Invesco [field] to accept the nomination from my party." He told USA Today he plans to pay tribute to King tonight, and use the speech to express "pride in how much this country has transformed itself in my lifetime . . . I don't think we can shy away from the significance of that."

More than 90% of black Americans are now on board with that story line, and according to polls, more than a third of black voters say his race is either the most important factor or one key factor in explaining their support for Mr. Obama. His race is at least a key issue for about a quarter of white voters as well, and that percentage is going up. Many white voters -- especially young people -- appreciate Mr. Obama as the biracial candidate capable of moving America to a new day, and past its legacy of endless racial tensions.

Yet given this central racial dynamic, it is incredible that on any issue of racial consequence Mr. Obama has become a stealth candidate. It is arguably smart politics not to focus on potentially controversial racial issues when you are a black man running in an election with an electorate that is more than 75% white. But how is it possible that Mr. Obama, as he rises to claim the mantle of Dr. King before 75,000 people and a national TV audience of millions here tonight, remains a mystery on the most important civil rights issues of our day?

Mr. Obama is nowhere man when it comes time to speak out on reforming big city public schools, with their criminally high dropout rates for minority children. He apparently refuses to do it for fear that supporting vouchers or doing anything to strengthen charter schools will alienate vote-rich unions. His rare references to the critical argument over affirmative action -- an issue that is on several state ballots this fall -- give both opponents and supporters reason to think he might be on their side. He has had little if anything to say about the persistent 25% poverty rate in black America.

The only speech Mr. Obama has given on race came after his minister's racist rants became public. In that celebrated talk he defended Rev. Jeremiah Wright, while at the same time distancing himself from the rants. That quick escape did not work, because Rev. Wright continued to spew vitriol -- threatening the campaign with questions about whether Mr. Obama subscribed to the same angry, anti-American views. It was only rational for voters to ask how he could have kept silent in the face of the minister's sermons over 20 years.

Time and again, the man who draws so openly on King's legacy refuses to sacrifice an iota of possible political support by taking a principled stand on matters of racial justice that King said are matters of right and wrong. Instead, Obama makes cryptic or general comments that leave his position on important racial issues ambiguous or unknown.

All of this can be written off as a politician in search of votes moving to the ideological middle, to accommodate public opinion as he focuses on winning. It might be said he is not a captive of any set ideology. John McCain has had his own flaws and changes of heart on a few issues in this election season.

But this is not a game in which all the players and issues are the same and everyone has dirty hands. Racial justice is beyond bargaining. And a special responsibility falls on Mr. Obama, because he has come to represent not just another presidential candidate, but a reflection of the nation's desire to heal its racial wounds.

The uneasy truth may be that Mr. Obama is not worried about alienating white voters with his stands on race. It is more likely that he fears having to speak the truth about the poor -- who are disproportionately black and Latino -- needing to take more responsibility for family breakdown, bad schools, thug-life culture and high poverty rates.

A 2007 Pew poll found that nearly 40% of blacks said the poor have become so divorced from middle-class values that they are a separate race. Mr. Obama has to know this tension exists. When he spoke in a black church about the need for black men to be good fathers it may have angered the Jesse Jacksons of the world. But it was a rare moment when he was willing to reveal himself and speak on an important racial issue. It did him no political harm; it may have helped him.

In the bad old days of legal segregation many white politicians would not take a stand, either. Men like Orval Faubus and Strom Thurmond used to make a political show of opposing what they called "race mixing" and equal rights for all. Later in life they said they had not been racists, but didn't want to risk losing elections to segregationist candidates who made outright racial appeals. Faubus and Thurmond did win elections. But sadly for them, there is no bargaining with history about accommodating injustice and particularly racism.

Whatever good they did in their political careers is a footnote compared to the corruption they advanced with their public accommodation of racism. Their failure to stand on principle prolonged segregation, damaging people and the nation.

If Mr. Obama is really to remind the nation of Martin Luther King, he might follow King's example of taking a moral stand. King did not vacillate on his call for civil rights laws, voting rights laws or fair housing laws. He took a stand even with his own supporters. In his historic speech on Aug. 28, 1963, King declared "there is something that I must say to my people," and then spoke against bitterness, hatred and violence even in the name of "gaining our rightful place" and freedom.

Now it is Mr. Obama's turn to speak as a moral conscience on race -- if only because it is the only truly effective way he can put the race issue behind him. Then he can begin filling in the specifics of his plans for the economy, dealing with terrorists and the war in Iraq. That will give voters a chance to realize the nation's dream of judging people on the content of their character and leadership, not their race.

Mr. Williams, a political analyst for National Public Radio and Fox News, is author of several books, including "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965" (Penguin, 1988).

Barack Obama: Leap of Faith

WONDER LAND

By DANIEL HENNINGER

Barack Obama: Leap of Faith
Wall Street Journal
August 28, 2008; Page A13

"Every four years the Democrats send us another Governor we have to get to know."

So said The Wall Street Journal editorial page in 1992 as the electorate began its discovery of Arkansas's then-obscure governor, Bill Clinton. In 1988 it was Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, and before that Georgia's Jimmy Carter. "The real question," the Journal's editorialist wondered, "is why the party that dominates Congress has to keep putting up unknowns to contest the world's most powerful political office." Once again, the author mused, the system must "come to grips at the presidential level with more Democratic mystery."

Now comes the most mysterious Democratic presidential candidate in the memory of any living voter -- Barack Obama. After a 19-month run for the presidency, we still don't know him.

Jimmy Carter, the previous holder of the most mysterious candidate title, served four years as a reform governor in Georgia. Bill Clinton, though little known beyond Arkansas, was a governor for 12 years.

The U.S. presidency is a political office, and nearly all nominees for it had a record in politics to offer a basis for shaping a view of how they might conduct the nation's highest office.

By this most traditional of measures, the Obama candidacy is a leap of faith.

A New York Times article on his years at Harvard Law, where he was editor of the law review, said, "In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice." A similar piece on his years teaching at the University of Chicago Law School said he notably did not participate in its intellectual debates.

Barack Obama raises the prospect of a candidate for the first time being elected into the presidency almost wholly on the basis of a compelling persona. It is no surprise this could happen in an age tugged by the siren song of celebrity.

The 2008 election is almost certainly going to be decided by white, lower-middle-class voters -- the people who voted for Hillary Clinton this year and before that for Ronald Reagan. If these voters don't swing behind the Obama candidacy in Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Missouri, he will lose.

Yet amid a universally described lack of clarity about Sen. Obama's experience and core political beliefs, it is now being said that if the people in blue-collar counties don't vote for him, they, and their nation, remain racist.

This is false. If they don't vote for Barack Obama, it won't be over his personal roots, but because they're confused about the roots of his politics.

The assertion that workaday white people in Ohio's Mahoning Valley, Altoona, Pa., or Macomb County, Mich., won't vote for a black man reveals more about the race-based obsessions of the intellectual elites making these claims than the reality of this campaign.

Bear in mind that these voters didn't become an explicit concern of the Obama campaign until after Super Tuesday. Before the primaries arrived in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama's biggest wins were Iowa, South Carolina, Minnesota, Kansas, home-state Illinois, Georgia, Delaware, Connecticut, Colorado, Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin. Amid the Obama jubilation, Hillary was winning California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York.

Sen. Obama accumulated his victorious lead early with a liberal coalition willing to vote for him mainly for reasons of faith – upper-middle-class whites, black voters and young idealists -- all attempting to complete the civil-rights promise, answer the post-partisan appeal, or vote against the war and George Bush.

Hillary's wins in the big states above were portents. His coalition's limitations hit the wall in Ohio. Here Sen. Clinton discovered her Rosie-the-Riveter persona, and it worked. I watched her sell bread-and-butter policy before blue-collar crowds in Youngstown, Akron and Cleveland. She was tremendously good at it. He just wasn't. The Sunday before the Ohio vote, Sen. Obama abandoned Ohio. The way Hillary won in these crucial November swing states may have fatally damaged his candidacy.

Does a candidate for the U.S. presidency have to be able to connect somehow with white working-class voters who didn't attend college to win? The answer, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is no longer about race. It's about the most fundamental question a plain-thinking voter asks: Does this guy get me?

Sen. Obama's biography is as compelling as his supporters claim. His problem is that there is nothing in it to suggest he has spent any significant time thinking about these people other than as a political abstraction. It's made more difficult by the fact that it is so hard for them to get a sure grip on him. When a politician leaves no political trail, some voters get lost. For Sen. Obama, after this long campaign, too many still look lost.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

Obama in Chicago

Obama Played by Chicago Rules

By DAVID FREDDOSO
August 20, 2008; Page A19

Democrats don't like it when you say that Barack Obama won his first election in 1996 by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities.

By clearing out the incumbent and the others in his first Democratic primary for state Senate, Mr. Obama did something that was neither illegal nor even uncommon. But Mr. Obama claims to represent something different from old-style politics -- especially old-style Chicago politics. And the senator is embarrassed enough by what he did that he misrepresents it in the prologue of his political memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."

In that book, Mr. Obama paints a portrait of himself as a genuine reformer and change agent, just as he has in this presidential campaign. He attributes his 1996 victory to his message of hope, and his exhortations that Chicagoans drop their justifiable cynicism about politics.

...

In real life, it did not matter what Mr. Obama said on the stump or whether South Side voters were impressed. What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama's petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents' signatures on various technical grounds -- all legitimate from the perspective of law. One local newspaper, Chicago Weekend, reported that "[s]ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don't live in the 13th district."

One of the candidates would speculate that his signature-gatherers, working at a per-signature pay rate, may have cheated him by signing many of the petitions themselves, making them easy to disqualify.

In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents -- including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.

The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

But Mr. Obama's offenses against the idea of a "new politics" are many, and go well beyond hardball election tactics. It is telling that, when asked at the Saddleback Forum last weekend to name an instance in which he had worked against his own party or his own political interests, he didn't have a good answer. He claimed to have worked with his current opponent, John McCain, on ethics reform. In fact, no such thing happened. The two men had agreed to work together, for all of one day, in February 2006, and then promptly had a well-documented falling-out. They even exchanged angry letters over this incident.

The most dramatic examples of Mr. Obama's commitment to old-style politics are his repeated endorsements of Chicago's machine politicians, which came in opposition to what people of all ideological stripes viewed as the common good.

In the 2006 election, reformers from both parties attempted to end the corruption in Chicago's Cook County government. They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side. Liberals and conservatives came together and nearly ousted Cook County Board President John Stroger, the machine boss whom court papers credibly accuse of illegally using the county payroll to maintain his own standing army of political cronies, contributors and campaigners.

The since-deceased Stroger's self-serving mismanagement of county government is still the subject of federal investigations and arbitration claims. Stroger was known for trying repeatedly to raise taxes to fund his political machine, even as basic government services were neglected in favor of high-paying county jobs for his political soldiers.

When liberals and conservatives worked together to clean up Cook County's government, they were displaying precisely the postpartisan interest in the common good that Mr. Obama extols today. And Mr. Obama, by working against them, helped keep Chicago politics dirty. He refused to endorse the progressive reformer, Forrest Claypool, who came within seven points of defeating Stroger in the primary.

After the primary, when Stroger's son Todd replaced him on the ballot under controversial circumstances, a good-government Republican named Tony Peraica attracted the same kind of bipartisan support from reformers in the November election. But Mr. Obama endorsed the young heir to the machine, calling him -- to the absolute horror of Chicago liberals -- a "good, progressive Democrat."

Mayor Richard M. Daley -- who would receive Mr. Obama's endorsement in 2007 shortly after several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago's city government -- was invested in the Stroger machine's survival. So was every alderman and county commissioner who uses the county payroll to support political hangers-on. So was Mr. Obama's friend and donor, Tony Rezko, who is now in federal prison awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges. Rezko had served as John Stroger's finance chairman and raised $150,000 for him (Stroger put Rezko's wife on the county payroll).

Mr. Obama has never stood up against Chicago's corruption problem because his donors and allies are Chicago's corruption problem.

Mr. Obama is not the reformer he now claims to be. The real man is the one they know in Chicago -- the one who won his first election by depriving voters of a choice.

Thomas Friedman has it right

August 13, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Eight Strikes and You’re Out

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.

Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.

It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.

Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.

Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.

“McCain did not show up on any votes,” said Scott Sklar, president of The Stella Group, which tracks clean-technology legislation. Despite that, McCain’s campaign commercial running during the Olympics shows a bunch of spinning wind turbines — the very wind turbines that he would not cast a vote to subsidize, even though he supports big subsidies for nuclear power.

Barack Obama did not vote on July 30 either — which is equally inexcusable in my book — but he did vote on three previous occasions in favor of the solar and wind credits.

The fact that Congress has failed eight times to renew them is largely because of a hard core of Republican senators who either don’t want to give Democrats such a victory in an election year or simply don’t believe in renewable energy.

What impact does this have? In the solar industry today there is a rush to finish any project that would be up and running by Dec. 31 — when the credits expire — and most everything beyond that is now on hold. Consider the Solana concentrated solar power plant, 70 miles southwest of Phoenix in McCain’s home state. It is the biggest proposed concentrating solar energy project ever. The farsighted local utility is ready to buy its power.

But because of the Senate’s refusal to extend the solar tax credits, “we cannot get our bank financing,” said Fred Morse, a senior adviser for the American operations of Abengoa Solar, which is building the project. “Without the credits, the numbers don’t work.” Some 2,000 construction jobs are on hold.

Roger Efird is president of Suntech America — a major Chinese-owned solar panel maker that actually wants to build a new factory in America. They’ve been scouting the country for sites, and several governors have been courting them. But Efird told me that when the solar credits failed to pass the Senate, his boss told him: “Don’t set up any more meetings with governors. It makes absolutely no sense to do this if we don’t have stability in the incentive programs.”

One of the biggest canards peddled by Big Oil is that, “Sure, we’ll need wind and solar energy, but it’s just not cost effective yet.” They’ve been saying that for 30 years. What these tax credits are designed to do is to stimulate investments by many players in solar and wind so these technologies can quickly move down the learning curve and become competitive with coal and oil — which is why some people are trying to block them.

As Richard K. Lester, an energy-innovation expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, notes, “The best chance we have — perhaps the only chance” of addressing the combined challenges of energy supply and demand, climate change and energy security “is to accelerate the introduction of new technologies for energy supply and use and deploy them on a very large scale.”

This, he argues, will take more than a Manhattan Project. It will require a fundamental reshaping by government of the prices and regulations and research-and-development budgets that shape the energy market. Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive — and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency — we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.

That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power — when you didn’t.

George McGovern got it right

My Party
Should Respect
Secret Union Ballots

By GEORGE MCGOVERN
August 8, 2008; Page A13

As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.

Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.

There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.

To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.

Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.

While it is never pleasant to stand against one's party or one's friends, there are times when such actions are necessary -- as with my early and lonely opposition to the Vietnam War. I hope some of my friends in Congress will re-evaluate their support for this legislation. Because as Americans, we should strive to ensure that all of us enjoy the freedom of expression and freedom from fear that is our ideal and our right.

Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.