Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Naomi Wolf on MSNBC

avatar

Naomi Wolf was on MSNBC this morning talking about the presidential campaign. She is an Obama supporter and this makes me wonder if maybe I have missed something in the Obama campaign I deeply respect Naomi Wolfe and I’m wondering what she sees in Obama’s vision of change. Is she supporting a viable candidate that is the “lesser of two evils” or is she genuinely attracted to the ideals of the candidate. This is the question I have in my mind.

 

She actually took on the MSM on MSNBC by calling them out on the issue of using disingenuous information to heighten the campaign rhetoric. She also called attention to the fact that the mainstream media is not asking the “hard” questions on global warming, the war in Iraq and the shredding of the Constitution (which is my main focus). Ms. Wolf was not shy about mentioning the fact that many of our civil liberties have been gutted. I thoroughly enjoyed her repartee with the newsperson interviewing her.

 

Naomi Wolf has been a tireless advocate of our democracy and the checks and balances that were built into the Constitution. I myself have not seen any candidate talking about this very important issue. I was utterly astonished to see Wolf supporting Obama and now I’m asking myself if maybe she knows something that I don’t? Does she see something in or about Obama that will actually make a difference in this country, or has she been drawn to Obama because of the excitement of his campaign? I seriously doubt that personality over principle would attract Wolf, and I sincerely hope that I’m right.

 

So now I’m left in a dilemma, should I support the Obama campaign because Naomi Wolf supports him? I have never had someone I respect and admire as much as Wolf supports someone that I had written off. One rarely finds an individual that has the same thoughts about the world and the state of our nation as I have found in Naomi Wolf. I don’t understand her support of Move-On as I have found that organization to be overly supportive of corporate candidates. The actual mettle of Move-On has never been proven to this observer. The election for Move-On’s endorsement was between Clinton and Obama which disturbed me because Mike Gravel was still on the ballot, and still is to this day. It matters not what his chances are, putting him on that ballot for endorsement should have been done as a matter of principle. Still, watching her on the MSM has given this individual food for thought.

 

That’s the way I see it.

 


Comments (19)

I had a similar experience with Samantha Power early in the campaign. When I found out that she was one of his foreign policy advisors, I started to think that maybe a.) he wasn't such a neophyte about foreign affairs to know that Sam Power is one brilliant chick and b.) it meant that he would not only be getting progressive foreign policy advice but that it would take into account American responsibilities toward global human rights. (So you can imagine how upset I am that she is no longer part of the campaign.)

Then, when I found out that Anthony Lake was also on the foreign policy team, I was sold. Not because I'm the biggest fan of Lake but because I know that Power takes him to task for his handling of the Rwanda mess. That they were working together seemed to me to be both a testament to Lake and Power's pragmatism towards foreign policy and Obama's management style, which seemed to value debate and conflicting voices to figure out the best position.

These kinds of things are very important, and I think you will find just as many people, if not more, were inspired by those whose opinions they trust and know to be intelligent as were those inspired by Obama's populist message and soaring rhetoric.

Thank you for sharing!

I was in the moment I heard Ted Sorensen tell an overflow crowd that Barack Obama's opposition to the Iraq invasion showed "Judgement."

Ted Sorensen knows about Judgement. He was in the room as one of the "Best and Brightest" when America needed Judgement the most.

avatar

Mike Gravel? Seriously??

avatar

So now I’m left in a dilemma, should I support the Obama campaign because Naomi Wolf supports him?

While I don't think you should just "because she supports him," it says something about you and your open-mindedness to question your prior thinking.

If you're a "Constitutional Democrat," as I would characterize myself as being, I'll only give you a major reason Hillary Clinton lost my support a long time ago: Flag burning and video games.

In my opinion, Clinton's come down on the wrong side of those two 1st amendment issues.

Yeah as a gamer myself i was quite appalled by both of those.

Here is an article that Ms. Wolf wrote over at HuffPost that may help:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/why-barack-obama-got-my-v_b_88956.html

In her own words "Anyway, the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision. And while it would be a thrill to see the first woman elected president, in the last analysis, a real feminist need not define people or support on the basis of gender. Certainly not when our house -- with the precious Constitution held without representation within it -- is burning down."

The New Yorker has done in-depth Profiles on both Barack and Michelle Obama. These are not trivial people, but clear-headed, brilliant, highly educated, very experienced at on-the-ground politics and social activity, and the exact opposite of empty suits.

Should you support Obama because Naomi Wolf does? In a word, no.

However, since she clearly is an influential figure for you, I would recommend that you take her view into consideration when deciding for yourself. The best kind of influence someone may have on another is the kind that allows the other to seriously consider propositions they might have otherwise rejected out of hand.

So now, simply see what she likes about him, see what some other people you trust like about him. Then see if you can find any legitimate grievances you would have. My recommendation, if you are unable to read one of his books, would be to read his essay on foreign policy (which is where my focus originally was, similar to Dramatist above.) His web page has the PDFs of the full domestic policy outline as well, although I feel the books give a better insight.

Weigh, decide.

I agree his foreign policy insights are wonderful. But there is another insight that I believe is essential.

Corruption, mismanagement, cronyism, fear-mongering is rampant in our governement.

Obama has been a tireless advocate of ethics reform and allowing "we the people" to be part of the law making and oversight process.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant and our government is septic.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

From passing ethics reform, to limiting lobbyist influence, to opening up government via the internet - committee meetings, bills awaiting signatures, searchable budget databases - allowing the public to actually comment, he has talked the talk AND walked the walk.

Obama is not just talking about empowering the people, he wants us to be part of that sunshine to clean the vermin out.

avatar

Mr. Gatto: You write, "...the shredding of the Constitution (which is my main focus)." And you seriously haven't come to a conclusion about you would vote for? Can you seriously be considering Hillary Clinton, given your main focus is the constitution? Would you vote for Gravel if it meant Hillary Clinton could ascend to President and subvert the Constitution? If that is true, you are tremendously committed to principle, but a poor, impractical defender of the Constitution.

Seek out comments who know of Barack Obama's classes on the US Constitution at Chicago School of Law.

I have seen many examples of Senator Obama speaking directly to my concerns over the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

In the widely-covered victory speech after Wisconsin he specifically stated that he would "restore Habeus Corpus."

In Wyoming the Senator spoke directly to cleaning up the Executive branch:

In his speech, Obama praised the libertarian spirit of Westerners, Republicans and Democrats alike, and condemned the Bush administration's use of warrantless wiretaps and willingness to hold prisoners without charges.

"There's nothing Republican about that. Everyone should be outraged by that," he said.

As president, he said, he would ask his attorney general "to review every executive order" of the Bush administration. "We are going to overturn those that were unconstitutional. We are going to overturn those that are unnecessary."

I have not heard the same from Senator Clinton, though I could have my head in the sand.

I second your statement about the Rule of Law and Constitution. For that alone, Barack would be my choice! Without that, where are we??? Right back at bushco.

Thanks for underscoring the importance of that!

avatar

You're not missing anything that I'm aware of. Only Dodd spoke more about the Constitution on the stump than Obama. Every stump speech he has made, makes reference to the offense the Constitution has endured over (I would argue) the last 15-20 years, not just the past 7 - those have just been the most egregious.

avatar

"So now I’m left in a dilemma, should I support the Obama campaign because Naomi Wolf supports him?"

You should never support a candidate because somebody else does, no matter how much respect you have for that person. Ultimately the choice should come down to who YOU feel has both the qualities and the plan that reflects where YOU think the country should be headed. Now I know that sounds awesome in theory but the realities may be difficult. But I for one at least try to approach it that way. Otherwise, we always end up with the candidates CHOSEN FOR US by the pundits, the famous, the rich, the opininators and other talking heads in our public space.

avatar

There is a wonderful article written by a University of Chicago colleague that reveals not only an excellent Constitutional mind in Barack Obama, but a great process for testing out his ideas in thoughtful debate.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story

That is my most passionate focus too and it has become clearer and clearer that Obama is solid in this area. He actually showed up for the telecom immunity vote in the Senate and he is clear on net neutrality and the unitary executive. I have come to trust his thinking and his groundedness in the Constitution.

avatar

I'm still with Mike Gravel as long as he continues to run. He said he would run as an Independent and if he does, I'll be there. Gravel has sounded out the issues better than any other candidate IMHO. His National Initiative makes sense. I was throwing out a rhetorical question and I received many lucid reply's. Thank You all.

avatar

Perhaps the reason Naomi Wolf supports Obama is because he is a Constitutional Scholar - he taught the Constitution in law school. Restoring Habeus Corpus and the rule of law is part of his standard stump speech.

For me, this is critically important. I thank the poster above who pointed out that Obama is now going further and planning to recheck the Bush admins executive orders and rescind those that are unconstitutional.

Having a President who will uphold his oath of office, and work to restore our Constitutional rights, will do a great deal to restore America's greatness in the eyes of the world.

avatar

Obama has spoken repeatedly about the restoration of the Constitution, habeas corpus. He gets little press about it, but it's in speeches and writings and interviews. He is the only candidate -- ARE YOU LISTENING, AMERICA? -- who has said anything about restoring those rights that Bush has trashed. He's a constitutional scholar with the deep respect for the Constitution. Hillary has been frighteningly silent. And McCain doesn't care.

We truly have to be aware that if we don't fight for Obama now (and this fight has become gargantuan over the last two days), we will entrench the unitary executive mindset in either McCain or Hillary.

And our history will systemically change. This is more of what's at stake than mandates for healthcare or to Pastor Wright.

I'm not hopeful, however. But I'm glad you asked the question.

And frankly, if I didn't know what I knew independently about Obama on this issue, I would vote for him on Naomi Wolf's recommendation. She fights for what I believe.

avatar

Hillary would be perfectly happy being the unitary executive. It's obvious.

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


October 6-10

Book Cover

October 13-17

Book Cover

October 20-24

Book Cover

November 17-21>

Book Cover

December 1-5

Book Cover





Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address