An Open Letter to Barack Obama: Change We Can Believe In

[Better Believe It]

An Open Letter to Barack Obama
July 30, 2008

We write to congratulate you on the tremendous achievements of your campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades. In your speeches, you have sketched out a vision of a better future--in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe and focuses on diplomacy abroad and greater equality and freedom for its citizens at home--that has thrilled voters across the political spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind you, and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged.

You stand today at the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign. The millions who attend your rallies, donate to your campaign and visit your website are a powerful testament to this new movement's energy and passion.

This movement is vital for two reasons: First, it will help assure your victory against John McCain in November. The long night of greed and military adventurism under the Bush Administration, which a McCain administration would continue, cannot be brought to an end a day too soon. An enthusiastic corps of volunteers and organizers will ensure that voters turn out to close the book on the Bush era on election day. Second, having helped bring you the White House, the support of this movement will make possible the changes that have been the platform of your campaign. Only a grassroots base as broad and as energized as the one that is behind you can counteract the forces of money and established power that are a dead weight on those seeking real change in American politics.

We urge you, then, to listen to the voices of the people who can lift you to the presidency and beyond.

Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance--including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation granting telecom companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping, which angered and dismayed so many of your supporters.

We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.

Here are key positions you have embraced that we believe are essential to sustaining this movement:

§ Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.

§ A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country's collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.

§ Universal healthcare.

§ An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.

§ An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.

§ A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.

§ A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.

§ An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.

§ Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.

§ Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people.

These are the changes we can believe in. In other areas--such as the use of residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the death penalty--your stated positions have consistently varied from the positions held by many of us, the "friends on the left" you addressed in recent remarks. If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don't. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President.

Stand firm on the principles you have so compellingly articulated, and you may succeed in bringing this country the change you've encouraged us to believe is possible.

Here is a list of early signatories to this open letter:

Rocky Anderson

Moustafa Bayoumi

Norman Birnbaum Professor Emeritus
Georgetown University Law Center

Tim Carpenter
Progressive Democrats of America

John Cavanaugh, director
Institute for Policy Studies

Juan Cole

Chuck Collins

Phil Donahue

Barbara Ehrenreich

Tom Engelhardt
Tomdispatch.com

Jodie Evans, co-f0under
CODEPINK: Women for Peace

Thomas Ferguson

Bill Fletcher Jr., executive editor,
BlackCommentator.com

Eric Foner

Milton Glaser

Robert Greenwald

William Greider

Jane Hamsher

Tom Hayden

Christopher Hayes

Richard Kim

Stuart Klawans

Bill McKibben

Walter Mosley

Richard Parker, president
Americans for Democratic Action

Gary Phillips
Writer and activist

Jon Pincus
achangeiscoming.net and member of Get FISA Right

Chip Pitts

Frances Piven

Elizabeth Pochoda

Katha Pollitt

Marcus Raskin

Betsy Reed

Bob Scheer

Herman Schwartz

Jonathan Schell

Gene Seymour

David Sirota

Norman Solomon
Author and Obama delegate to Democratic National Convention

Mike Stark

Jean Stein

Matt Stoller

Jonathan Tasini

Zephyr Teachout

Studs Terkel

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Gore Vidal

David Weir

Howard Zinn

Affiliations have been added when requested by the signatory.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/open_letter

[ellacott]

1. I've never seen you make a post that wasn't critical of Obama

What's up with that?

[Better Believe It]

2. Did You Even Bother To Read The Open Letter?

Well .... did you read it or not?

And if you did read it please indicate what if anything you disagree with in the open letter.

And if you can't even offer an opinion on this matter why are you posting here?

And why are you stalking people on DU?

[ellacott]

3. I'm posting here mainly because I want to

And I asked the question first.

No one is stalking you. Reading a board is stalking? How paranoid.

[Occam Bandage]

5. If you call out a concern troll, they'll claim you're stalking them every time.

Not saying BBI is a concern troll, mind you. Just saying that concern trolls do that.

[ellacott]

6. True, that normally is their M.O.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Occam, as I recall, you attacked every FISA thread incessantly. You should know how concern works.

It is not concern trolling to criticize your candidate from the LEFT.

It is called being an agent provocateur. Totally different tactic and M.O.

And THAT is ONLY if you feel the authors of the letter he posted
are criticizing Obama from the FAR, UNACCEPTABLE LEFT in an effort
to drag him over the abyss. That is provocateurism.

As someone who seems to know all about and support our nation's security services
that send people out to disrupt leftists all the time, like in Russia, you should
know that. After all, you defended FISA incessantly.

The far, unacceptable left... you know, liberals who continue to
"coddle dictators" and "coddle the undeserving inner city poor"
and more importantly, "refuse to accept Reagan's legacy" and
bring the Reagan Democrats, fleeing the Republican Party, into
the core of the Democratic Party. Bobby Jindal racists, who
are seeking a figurehead candidate who is "acceptable to them"
who they can hide behind and advance their insidious policies
WITHIN the party, as they did under Clinton. and
traitors to the constitution.

[Occam Bandage]

14. You seem to not understand what a concern troll is.

A concern troll is someone who falsely claims to be concerned about the actions or behaviors of a person, organization, party, ideology, or government; this is simply a guise to state inflammatory opinions without appearing to be an Other.

I claimed, in FISA threads, that I believed the FISA compromise bill to be an acceptable evil that was not tantamount to "destroying the Constitution." That is neither concern nor trolling.

I'm not sure what this business about coddling dictators and Bobby Jindal has to do with anything. I can only assume that your brain had reached a boiling point, and your fingers were spastically pounding out phrases residing in the electrical storm of your overheated subconscious.

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. You are using authoritarian lingo, talking about a nefarious"Other" "falsely" "inflammatory opinion"

And asserting that spying on Americans is an "acceptable evil."
By your own overly broad statement, that would make you a concern
troll, which you clearly aren't, and neither is the OP, to my mind.

Attacking people on the left by saying that "anyone to the left of Reagan
must be a concern troll because nobody REALLY believes Obama is not,
in fact, on the left end of acceptable political discourse"
is really accusing all leftists of agent provocateurism, a much more
serious crime than concern trolling, on behalf of the nefarious
right wing, which has been eclipsed and partially discredited
by its own political success across the board in this country.

The RW is a victim of its own success and now "so-called liberals"
who are really center right Rockefeller Republicans here on DU
(literally -- a Rockefeller advanced the FISA bill) attack those
on the left because nobody in this day and age could really deny
the Clinton-Reagan consensus you are trying to create in the name
of exploiting a rejection of Bush's policies to advance a
majoritarianism of what you claim is the center-left and what I'd
call the Reagan right, putting Obama at the head of a permanent
center-right majority to no apparent purpose except to vindicate
Clinton and Reagan for their far-right policies.

After all, support for FISA is inflammatory and you claimed to
be concerned that we were opposed to Obama's stance on it, and
pretended that anyone who attacks Obama FROM THE LEFT must be
a secret Republican.

I reference Bobby Jindal and DLC mayors like Fenty because they
are part of the center right mainstream you guys seem to be
comfortable with.

Just today Kojo Nnamdi declared that "nobody in the DC area
seriously questions the need to close some public schools,
but which ones are the question."

Just as "nobody in New Orleans questions the need to close
public housing and restrict public movement and limit
the reconstruction of affected areas."

These are neoliberal catchphrases. Unfortunately, I now realize
too late that Obama and some of his supporters, like Clinton,
are neoliberals who seek to vindicate Reagan in the name of
crafting a permanent -- and hollow -- majority.

Like Wilson did when he appropriated the pro-business Progressive wing
of the Republican party in the name of successfully turning Democrats
into the party of the educated upper middle class.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Authoritarian? No, I speak like someone who once took a college

philosophy class. It's not an "authoritarian" word. A concern troll is by definition not actually concerned; hence the "authoritarian" term "falsely." A troll is by definition inflammatory. That is what a troll is: someone who is trying only to inflame.

Claiming I find a single bill acceptable is not "overly broad," nor is it "concern trolling." Honest to God, I have no idea how to even begin replying to you; your posts are a mess of assumptions about me blended with a mess of false equivalences wrapped in uncertain and vague diction and coated with sloppy grammar, sprinkled with caps lock and half-remembered ghosts of flamewars past. I'll just say good luck with your future discussions.

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. I happen to have been a college philosophy major as well. Good luck with your own stance.

Spying on Americans is unacceptable and means you are an authoritarian by definition.

A paranoid authoritarian who believes in labelling others as Republican plants if they
disagree with your and your fellow upper-middle class efforts to drag the party down
into an immoral and rightward stance on FISA and similar issues.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So, I label you as someone who
has done nothing other than what you accuse the OP of doing.

Criticizing your noble leaders, whom you show team loyalty to, is not trolling.

[dflprincess]

20. "Acceptable evil"?

That sounds like something Bush or Cheney would try to sell us.

[Occam Bandage]

22. Quite the opposite. Bush and Cheney absolutely refuse compromise,

and refuse to do anything that is not completely and totally ideologically pure. They would never talk about acceptable evils or mixed morality.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. And that is why your centrist philosophy will consistently fail.

Relativism and a misunderstanding of how to negotiate.

You don't negotiate by asking someone for 50% of what
you pretend to want (MY inalienable right not to be
spied upon, which you pretend to have the power to
negotiate away) and then agreeing to meet them halfway.

Bush and Cheney have consistently succeeded against
those of your strategic approach where Reagan failed.
As did your beloved Clinton, who was to the right
of Reagan on every issue that counts.

[Better Believe It]

7. Once Again: Did You Even Bother To Read The Open Letter To Obama

You're refusing to answer that simple question?

[ellacott]

13. Because I asked you first

[Occam Bandage]

4. How shocking. Hey, Google, what do I get when I put in "Better Believe It" and Obama?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6519835
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6458150
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6516950&mesg_id=6516950
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6511433#6511839
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6510561&mesg_id=6510561
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3038010
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6488333&mesg_id=6488333
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3594897
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6498820#6498955
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6459375
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6543315#6543546
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6445286
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3703576
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6458282&mesg_id=6460060

[Better Believe It]

8. Have You Read The Open Letter To Obama?

If you have, will you also be claiming that all the open letter signers are anti-Obama and pro-McCain?

[Occam Bandage]

9. Yes.

I've not called you pro-McCain. I don't know why that would be on your mind. I've simply posted each of the first fourteen hits of that site search (of course discounting other people's uses of the phrase "better believe it," and threads in the Lounge, and such.)

[Better Believe It]

10. Do You Have An Opinion On The Open Letter To Obama?

If so, I'd like to know what it is.

This string is a discussion on the open letter.

So let's discuss it and hear from you.

OK?

[Occam Bandage]

12. Yes. However,

discussing it with you does not seem as if it would be productive. Your mind is pretty clearly made up about Obama.

[Better Believe It]

16. And What Is Your Opinion On The Open Letter?

This is your opportunity to express your opinion on this subject.

That is the subject in this string. Posts dealing with other subject matters in this string are inappropriate and irrelevant.

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. He believes it is "inflammatory" to post any criticism of Our Dear Leader. Trotsky would be proud.

[asdjrocky]

15. It's a good letter.

I'm with just about anything Howard Zinn signs in on. That being said, I know that Obama has to move to the center to get elected, this being America. What I hoping for, and what I've posted here a few times, is that once we get him elected, we must be ever vigilant to make sure our liberal hopes, and our liberal causes go on and are heard. We have a much better chance of making the difference if we have a Dem in the white house.

[LWolf]

17. It's a good letter. I'd change one thing, and add another.

the change:

universal single-payer, not-for-profit health care

the addition:

a commitment to ending war as an instrument of international policy, beginning with the "war on terror."

[Better Believe It]

18. I Think It's A Pretty Good Letter And I Like

your proposed change regarding single payer health coverage.

[Better Believe It]

23. For The Weekend DU Crew

[Danger Mouse]

24. Once elected, I think Obama will do what he wants...

he has to play the center a little to win. That's just the nature of America.

[LostinVA]

25. No mention of equal rights for gays -- figures

[Better Believe It]

26. Not Sure I Understand Your Point

The letter doesn't list this issue "as a key positions you have embraced that we believe are essential to sustaining this movement"

So does your comment mean that Obama hasn't raised gay rights as a key position or that the letter signers have not recognized Obama's embrace of that issue?

[LostinVA]

27. He hasn't made them a key issue

[emilyg]

28. Glad you posted the letter.

I was going to do it but didn't feel like taking the usual DU insults.

[Better Believe It]

29. I Understand Your Feelings

Same thing happens to me all the time.

Do they really think that everyone who signed that letter is pro-McCain?

[JTFrog]

30. No but like Skinner warned, criticism coming from posters with a history of slamming the candidate

won't be received well.

[Better Believe It]

31. So You Think The Letter & Posting It Is "slamming" Obama??!!

And why is that?

How do you perceive the letter as an attack on Obama?

Are the signers also McCain supporters in your opinion?

Now you have an opportunity to express your views on why you disagree with the content of the open letter without attacking DU'ers.

Do you care to do that?

Now try to stay on topic without personal attacks.

OK?

I imagine, in your imagination, that you also consider the following post a "slam" against Obama.

"McCain Is A Scumbag: It's Time For Barack To Take Him Down"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6575893

You should present your view regarding the alleged "anti-Obama attack" on that link.

[JTFrog]

32. I said history. Do you have a history of posting anything positive about Obama?

Then don't expect your "criticisms" to be well received.

[Better Believe It]

33. Yes: Now Do You Care To State Why You Think This Letter "Slams" Obama?

Probably not.

Because it doesn't not matter how much you whine that it does!

Now can you stay on subject or would you just rather continue your personal attacks on posters?

[JTFrog]

34. No I do not care why you chose to tell me what I think.

The projection is not subtle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6443683

Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides.

To be clear: I'm not speaking as a DU Administrator here. My purpose is merely to offer some helpful insight to those of you who don't seem to understand why you are not showered with rose petals when you offer your special brand of constructive criticism here on DU. Allow me to explain.

If you have spent the last six-to-twelve months trashing Senator Obama here on DU, and since the primaries ended you have not given any credible indication that you are now a supporter of his campaign, then if you post a thread about how you are incredibly disappointed in him because {insert reason here}, people are likely to wonder about your motivations and conclude that you are still trying to derail his campaign.

...

So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.

*edit fix link

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. The criticism doesn't come from the OP, it is an open letter from core Obama supporters.

Of course, by the standards of the "go TEAM!" crowd of center-right Democrats, who only care about one or two line-in-the-sand issues that affect them personally, these liberals are not "core supporters" -- they are marginal voices that need to be mollified somehow.

[Better Believe It]

39. Exactly!

You understand.

[Better Believe It]

40. If You'd Also Like To Sign The Letter Go To This Link

Over 13,000 progressives have now signed the letter!

http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1555/t/510/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=420

[Political Heretic]

41. An Open Letter to Open Letter Writers:

Dear Open Letter Writers,

No one cares.

Love,
PH

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. No one cares about the Constitution (re: FISA?)

I can put you down as an opponent of the ACLU and other "commie/terrorist symps" then.

[Egnever]

42. They lose any credibility they have with their first demand

But they are welcome to their opinion.

[Better Believe It]

43. What Demand? They Made No Demands On Obama

Read the letter before you attack it.

Who knows, if you actually read the letter you might agree with most of it and sign it!