Sirota's article is headlined "On Dave Obey, 'idiot liberals' and ending the war." It begins with a link to a video I posted and a link to an article I later wrote about it:

"The blogosphere is abuzz with talk of Wisconsin Rep. Dave Obey's (D) frustrated outburst about Iraq caught on YouTube. Antiwar activists are high-fiving each other, almost as if catching Obey's outburst about 'idiot liberals' is as big a YouTube feat as catching George Allen saying 'macaca.' This is deeply troubling on a number of levels, and an opportunity for a bit of constructive self-reflection about where we as a progressive movement are."

Obey's outburst provides the sort of "drama" that television producers favor, which creates the opportunity you mention for more useful thought. Obey's rant outlines a point of view that we should think very carefully about.

"I'm going to say a few things here that some of my readers aren't going to like - some things that I've been pondering as I am writing my new book. But it's important at times to look at ourselves and our movement critically if we are to continue advancing. Here's the deal folks: There are some 'idiot liberals' out there, and this episode actually highlights that reality."

You're off to a constructive start.

"Dave Obey represents a pretty conservative district that is not exactly easy for a Democrat to represent (this is why the NRSC can't wait for him to retire). He originally voted against the war, he has been one of the most outspoken critics of the war, and he has repeatedly used his position as Appropriations Chairman to try to get the situation in Iraq under control. These are the facts, and I witnessed it first hand, having worked for him a few years ago."

You can actually look at Obey's voting record and bill-sponsoring record on this war on the website of United for Peace and Justice. Obey has not joined the Progressive Caucus or even the Out of Iraq Caucus, a step that requires merely wanting the U.S. to get out of Iraq some day. He has not cosponsored any of the bills that would end the war, not the strongest, not the weakest, not any of those in between. He did not sign the petition last year that was aimed at forcing the Republican Congress to allow a vote on the weakest of the Democratic proposals aimed at possibly ending the war some day. He has not cosponsored bills opposing the ongoing construction of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. He has not cosponsored a bill aimed at allowing students to keep their personal information from being handed over by their schools to military recruiters. He has not cosponsored a bill to provide adequate VA health care. (He's adding that into a war funding bill as a means to garner votes and cover some of the odor, but he has not supported a clean bill to fund VA health care.) In 2003 Obey voted to fund the war. In 2004 he voted against funding. In 2005 he voted to fund it again. Obey, like most Democrats, voted in favor of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's amendment that would have asked the President to devise a plan to end the war some day. There are not many Democrats with a worse record than Obey's.

At the Democrats' March 8, 2007 press conference, Obey made clear that he did not want to end any war at all. He wanted to shift the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the U.S. could, he said, attack "the people who attacked us."

Sirota continues:

"Now, you can argue whether his tactics right now are smart. You can have a reasoned disagreement about whether he should be pushing a supplemental appropriations bill that includes new money for veterans medical care and binding language to end the war by March of 2008. There is a very legitimate case to be made that Democrats shouldn't support any money to continue the war and that the supplemental appropriations bill that Obey is carrying does also do that."

No, David. With all due respect, it does not ALSO do that. That is the overwhelmingly enormous and central and costly thing that it does. That is THE purpose of the bill. How dare you try to imply that I oppose veterans' medical care or binding language to end the war? How dare Obey use injured veterans' need for care to package his bill to put our grandchildren into debt funding more war and more deaths and injuries? And there is nothing binding about requiring George W. Bush to stop doing something, while giving him the money to keep doing it. If you want to be binding, you'll have to use the power of the purse, something this supplemental will not do unless Congresswoman Barbara Lee's amendment is voted on and passed.

"However, berating one of the antiwar movement's longtime leaders and then trying to mount his head on the virtual YouTube wall over a debate about the best WAY to end the war suggests that the antiwar movement fundamentally does not understand the very power structure it is trying to influence. It's the same fundamental misunderstanding we at the Progressive States Network experienced when a few antiwar activists attacked us for pushing resolutions in state legislatures that 'only' call for Congress to defund the Iraq escalation, as opposed to ending the war entirely (which, by the way, many of these resolutions do - Progressive States, unlike some other organizations on the left, is not in the top-down habit of dictating to state legislators what they exactly have to do - we provide models and templates and support so the effort is actually homegrown, and in that process our models and templates are customized)."

Sirota and I had an exchange of Emails on this topic. I have never seen either Sirota or Obey at any antiwar events, and this is the first I'd heard that Obey was a hero of the antiwar movement. But when Win Without War and Moveon.org and Sirota's group started pushing opposition to the Escalation rather than the war, many people all over the country were upset about it. All sorts of antiwar listserves carried outraged discussions. Local and national groups strategized over how to get these anti-escalation groups to shift to being anti-war. But when I Emailed Sirota about it, it took about three Email exchanges before he even understood what I was asking. It was clearly the first he'd heard that anyone made a distinction between being anti-escalation and anti-war. He then thanked me for what he called very constructive advice and said he would pass it along to the Progressive States Network. Whether he did or not, I have no idea. Whether he thought I was "attacking him" I couldn’t say, but he certainly didn't act like he thought that. And he certainly didn't claim PSN had no control over its rhetoric.

"Dave Obey is an ally of the progressive movement on almost every issue, and on the war in specific. Go ahead and try to claim I'm only saying that because I once worked for him, but then take some time and look at his voting record and his actions. By any standard - other than those of a tiny group of, yes, 'idiot liberals' - Obey is a progressive hero. Spending time and energy attacking him, as opposed to the true obstacles to ending the war, is both a waste, and potentially counterproductive, because someone like Obey, representing the district that he does, could easily just walk away (he won't, because he's Obey, but conceptually he certainly could)."

I don't think it's only because you once worked for him. I think you're cutting him too much slack, both in how you characterize his record and in what you demand of him now, because you think his district won't reelect him if he really ends the war. I think you're probably wrong, but I also think it's an indecent misordering of priorities. An election is not more important than the lives of all the people who will die while Obey helps delay ending the war.

 1  |  2