Bill Moyers Journal: Obama and His Base

http://yazdfarda.com/news/14936.html The full text of letter from an Iranian teacher to American president Obama about his letter to his children

Posted by: asd | February 1, 2009 12:16 AM

Why isn't anyone talking about THIS? A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee.

Posted by: kent | September 26, 2008 9:08 AM

First I do NOT beleive ANYTHING the media claims- they have not stepped out of their offices in decades, They don't even know what the Base Is anymore- going off antiquated suppositions. Additionally thy have proven to be nothing more then Political mouthpieces fro the Spinmeister. 'If their mouth is moving ,they are Lying' both 'Conservatives' and the so called 'liberals' (covert opertives throwing US crumbles of the Corp/Politico 'conventioanl wisedom'. I am a Blue color, 45 yr old college educated, Rural White female - and I do NOT trust Hillary as far as I could Throw her. I even voted for her Husband 2x's- was an avid supporter & DEFENDER of Both Throughout the '90's. bu tshe has Tipped her Neo CON hand (along with the rest of the DLC members and the other wannabe's in Congress).it has not been that a Dem has been unable to win th eWH- it ahs been that the real DEM Base has smelled a rat with all their candidates- (Gore/ Liebermann, Kerry/Edwards, and Hillary are all DLCers') Yet not one media Outlet will point this fact out. They are nothing more than the Blue arm of the Neo CONS.We know it not...

Posted by: Purple Girl | May 16, 2008 8:03 AM

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Cheney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Cheney was once an executive officer of Halliburton. The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten’s of billions. Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats. http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/ Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports. Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats. Two years ago, Iraq’s Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the...

Posted by: Janet Reno | May 15, 2008 10:46 PM

Obama has no supporters except the long lines of people angry about government in its current state. If anything, Obama voters are revolutionists against the Bush-Cheney policies in how Americans have been treated. It is change for change sake, not change for progress sake. Progress requires experience. Change requires only revolution. This is dangerous change promoted by poor performance of the current administration with a refusal of Congress to limit their powers, or impeach. It is a dangerous time in American politics for the enormous risk of change that has the same probability as the benefit of change for the wrong direction - a 50/50 proposition, a political lottery. No government should exist on a lottery basis, especially one that is rooted in a Constitution. The danger of getting it wrong is equal to the change of getting it right. But as neither black nor white, Obama represents no one of consequence by demographic grouping except those who are outraged at government. That anger turned rage has turned to him as Messiah of deliverance, a very dangerous mentality for Americans.

Posted by: Pat R. | January 7, 2008 11:51 AM

Bill Moyers -- thank you for a thought provoking conversation with a guest who can give substantial insight into the subject at hand -- like all your usual work. But I have a real complaint, that I would like to voice to most anyone who refers to the Democratic presidential candidates. This is not a race where a "woman" is running against a "black man," but a race where a white woman is running against a black man. It is typical of our white privilege to refer to Clinton as a normative woman rather than to specify her race as well. But both gender and race are at work here and both are equally important -- even as much as we would like to argue that they are not. (And I won't even get into the issue of class -- as both you and Dr. Walters repeatedly state in the interview, John Edwards is the only candidate who is highlighting that important issue.) Let's not forget that Shirley Chisholm was the first black woman to run for president in 1972.

Posted by: Nancy Garner | December 22, 2007 2:08 PM

Oprah destroyed any Obama appeal for me. Oprah is popular because of her shallowness and conformity, a flexible pitchwoman. She has a generally benign or even positive effect: she promotes reading and women's equality. Now that her head is in the race she should be subjected to questioning too. Crude pundits could ask about her cocaine addiction in Baltimore, but more importantly examine how she got so "lucky $$$", and at who's expense. Oprah has not demonstrated any special talent beyond acquisitiveness and bowing to power. Tragically, I think Obama has demonstrated empathy for people and a willingness to admit errors, but if he is serious about Hillary and Oprah as key advisors, I think I could suggest the names of better women.So Barack and Hillary are out for me and I am not sure where to turn. Meanwhile I have not forgotten our censored Kucinich, who could make a fine Vice President and add much depth.

Posted by: Grady Lee Howard | December 18, 2007 3:00 PM

Maurice Jones: Your comments are really insightful and give a very nuanced picture of the community. Thanks for writing in, you've given me a lot to think about.

Posted by: leap1 | December 17, 2007 4:58 PM

Dr. Walters was a breath of fresh air, calmly articulating an analysis not grounded in well intentioned hopes but in an awareness of history, political engagement and personal experience. His analysis portrayed Obama as neither devil nor angel but simply as a politician embodying a strategy designed to broaden and deepen his support among the white voters the campaign knows he needs in order to win. Whether Obama can win without substantial support from blacks if he continues to sidestep the issues that matter to them, depends on several factors: 1) A substantial number of middle-of-the-road black voters may give him the benefit of the doubt, hoping that he will insert their issues into the national agenda post-election; and/or 2) If they see an Obama groundswell building, more progressive blacks (who might prefer Kucinich or Edwards, and in that order) might choose to lend their support to that groundswell as a strategic move, in the hope of influencing policy and legislation. I thank Bill Moyers for giving Dr. Walters an opportunity to comment on the Oprah/Obama spectacle--almost as much as I appreciate Walters's sober, but certainly not cynical, view of the current situation in American presidential politics.

Posted by: bencharif | December 17, 2007 4:50 PM

I don’t know if I'd call Barack's strategy during this point in the election "alienating" to minorities as the forum’s question presupposes. Dr. Walters pointed out that Obama and his campaign staff are not focusing their campaign rhetoric on many of the most crucial issues facing the African-American community. This is true, but I don’t think that Obama is turning off black voters en masse as he concentrates on persuading the electorates of two overwhelmingly white states to vote for him. That’s what all of the candidates are doing right now. I am concerned with Obama’s lack of substantive policy discussion during his public appearances and during the debates, although I admittedly have missed several of them. Perhaps that’s just his speaking style, to focus on broader themes and therefore use more vague, inspirational rhetoric. That was certainly the case when I witnessed an early speech he gave to the Democratic faithful in Louisville during 2005. At any rate, Obama is simply adhering to basic political strategy at this point, and aiming to win over as many voters as possible. As Walters noted, Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement is best viewed in this sense – as a signal to the largely apolitical...

Posted by: Patrick Reed | December 17, 2007 12:21 PM

I wish Obama had the depth of character to justify the novelty of a "ethnic minority" President. He is no breakthrough, in that he communicates totally through platitudes and "what you wanna hear". Ron Walters is incomplete in his analysis that Barack can't be confrontational on racial issues: It's that he can't afford confrontation on any issue. He is weak and it shows, a man who needs Oprah's brand of "soap appeal" can't be any use. Let's take ENERGY for instance: His hidden agenda is nuclear power and token ethanol. That's 20, maybe fifty years behind reality. Ethanol uses as much energy to produce and transport as it provides (corrosive to pipelines and tanks) and we yet have no place to store or reprocess nuclear waste. (We are even stashing French nuclear waste at Savannah River.) I think the thing that disturbs me most is that all dozen candidates claim to have all the answers, and none including Senator Obama are in a frame of mind to do any learning. Maybe the Bush psychosis is contagious.

Posted by: Grady Lee Howard | December 16, 2007 10:09 PM

I wish Obama had the depth of character to justify the novelty of a "ethnic minority" President. He is no breakthrough, in that he communicates totally through platitudes and "what you wanna hear". Ron Walters is incomplete in his analysis that Barack can't be confrontational on racial issues: It's that he can't afford confrontation on any issue. He is weak and it shows, a man who needs Oprah's brand of "soap appeal" can't be any use. Let's take ENERGY for instance: His hidden agenda is nuclear power and token ethanol. That's 20, maybe fifty years behind reality. Ethanol uses as much energy to produce and transport as it provides (corrosive to pipelines and tanks) and we yet have no place to store or reprocess nuclear waste. (We are even stashing French nuclear waste at Savannah River.) I think the thing that disturbs me most is that all dozen candidates claim to have all the answers, and none including Senator Obama are in a frame of mind to do any learning. Maybe the Bush psychosis is contagious.

Posted by: Grady Lee Howard | December 16, 2007 10:08 PM

Interesting that JFK's former advisors are endorsing Obama: "But the former Kennedy aides are the ones drawing the most attention for their bold comparisons. Obama received an email from Harris Wofford, 81, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and adviser to President John F. Kennedy, soon after his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. The message: “Do not let this moment pass.” “He touches my soul, and I think he has touched the soul of America,” said Wofford in an interview after endorsing Obama this month. “For me, no one has done that since John, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. I waited a long time to have that feeling.” For George Stevens Jr., the longtime producer of the Kennedy Center Honors who worked in the Kennedy administration, Obama “captures the spirit” of Bobby Kennedy. Stevens, too, wrote Obama a letter to tell him so. And Stevens later signed on as an informal adviser to the campaign. Theodore Sorensen, 79, a former speechwriter to President Kennedy, traveled to Iowa in October to endorse Obama and challenge the criticism of him as not yet ready, citing JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis as evidence. “That young president who had been...

Posted by: Duck Soup | December 16, 2007 8:28 PM

Ron Walters is a nutjob. The one chance he and other blacks have to vote for a black person and they are throwing it away. Its not easy to be black in America, descendant of slave or not. People like Walter, Sharpton and Jackson are bitter that they didnt get a shot at power so that they can make white people feel guilty and so now they want to stop other black candidates from becoming president. what is Michelle Obama? I bet she is the descendant of a slave. Barack, with his background, could have married any woman, even white. Yet he chose Michelle. I am sure people like Sharpton will say he chose Michelle to woo the authentic "black" community...like there are guidelines as to what constitutes as authentic black...black men run around looking for white women and when they dont get one, they bray racism. when they get one, then other blacks call them Uncle Tom. and then Mr. Walter says Barack will never win because of racism. oh yeah and all this time he is bitching to Bill Moyers that Barack isnt black enough. Talk about self fulfilled prophecy.

Posted by: dsz | December 15, 2007 7:16 PM

I was intrigued by Ron Walters and what he had to say about Obama and Oprah. And I concluded how alike Hillary and Obama are, both appealing to the middle! Ten years ago I would have backed Hillary but not now. Nor do I back Obama. Both are tied to the corporate interests in this country and only John Edwards has consistently addressed the increased gap between the rich and the poor.And as was pointed out it's not matter of race or gender with Oprah. She is a business woman (in addition to her other qualities) and you can be sure that her backing of Obama is consistent with her self interest.

Posted by: Ethel Ruymaker | December 15, 2007 6:37 PM

Your black guest,Ronald Walters, and you kept highlighting skin color as the most important issue in selecting a President this time around. Dr.Walters is far too pessimistic and carries a chip on his shoulder for past political defeats by black politicians and why you agreed with him is beyond understanding. As for Hillary Clinton's bid in this presidential race her huge ego will culminate in overreaching eventually. I would recommend reading an article in the Vanity Fair November 2007 issue by Sally Smith entitled "White House Civil War" to get the flavor of cynicism that motivates the Clinton's political moves. Frank

Posted by: Frank | December 15, 2007 3:49 PM

i think all the racism is overexaggerated and that obama could easily win the election because all the republicans are terrible. im not really a big obama fan but hes waaay better than hillary!

Posted by: mike | December 15, 2007 12:08 PM

For years, I have learned from you, and extolled your virtues. I have been very angered and deeply saddened by your coverage of the Democratic candidates in the last two weeks. Last week you spent a lot of time discussing the bias against Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. I speak as a woman of Hillary’s age who is eager to elect a woman president. But I cannot and will not support Hillary, and it has nothing to do with her gender. I do not support Hillary for many reasons. Hillary Clinton is a calculating, pragmatic politician who is driven not by her convictions, but rather by the most prevalent and popular positions of the day. She is cold and calculating: one who would call into question her major opponent’s kindergarten essays and then, when that tactic does not play well in the press claim that it was a “joke.” Her experience, which she touts, is no more than a wife of a president, and one-term senator. Hillary Clinton is the antithesis of the woman I want to become the first woman president of the Untied States. Yes, I am sure there is misogyny connected with opposition to Hillary...

Posted by: Esther D'Agrosa | December 15, 2007 10:47 AM

skin color is NOT the enemy, ignorance is!

Posted by: lab | December 15, 2007 6:51 AM

Dr. Ronald Walters was somewhat evasive answering the question of Obama becoming president. However in this era of political correctness, frankness is not a virtue. It does not matter how well Obama does in Iowa or South Carolina primaries. Even if he win the democratic nomination, which is doubtful, to all but an idealist, he just can't win. America still has this preoccupation with skin color and gender. America is a patriarchal society where the Great White Father is still the Master. One need look no farther than the progressive southern state of Tennessee where former congressman Harold Ford (a well qualified, experienced, and highly intelligent African-American) was defeated by a white mayor of a mid-sized city. In that seriously contested 2006 senate race overtures of racial steroetypes were hurled against Ford that appealed to and aroused the passions of conservative whites. Ford lost by a narrow margin. As long as people have their eye-sight, race will be an issue. Regretfully, America is not enlightened enough at this point in time to elect a black person or a womam to the presidency.

Posted by: B. Strode | December 15, 2007 6:12 AM

I enjoyed the interview with Dr. Ronald Walters. But I think this program misses the point about who could or should be elected president. Yes, a woman, or a black man should be able to be president, but not because they are a woman or black. The question should not be about someones race or sex, but who they are as a person, who do they stand for, what do they believe. And I must say, from what I see, Clinton and Obama are more of the same, politics as usual. Just because they aren't white men doesn't mean their priorities are going to be any different. From what I see both of them are in the pockets of corporations. Both of them will use war as an instrument of policy. Neither has supported impeachment of Bush or Cheney. Neither has a solution to the war on drugs, to health care, to poverty, to education. There are 3 candidates that offer true change. And they just happen to be white men. They are Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. Clinton and Obama are more of the same, politics as usual.

Posted by: Paul Andersen | December 15, 2007 3:51 AM

The problems we currently have in this country is we have a president that does not speak for ALL the people and worse yet he acts out his dislike for black people in this country. We need someone that is going to be fair and just to ALL. I think most black people want equality in this country and fairness in the laws and justice system , equal excess to available opportunities and treated like we also have made some very important contributions to at least what we used to think was a great country. I really think we are ready for Senator Obama and when I attend his community events and visit his local offices, there is always an array of different people of all colors, that really like and trust this guy to lead this country into tomorrow and to be a positive voice as he works to clean up our immage and show the world that we are so much better then this

Posted by: Reda StCyr | December 15, 2007 3:38 AM

The problems we currently have in this country is we have a president that does not speak for ALL the people and worse yet he acts out his dislike for black people in this country. We need someone that is going to be fair and just to ALL. I think most black people want equality in this country and fairness in the laws and justice system , equal excess to available opportunities and treated like we also have made some very important contributions to at least what we used to think was a great country. I really think we are ready for Senator Obama and when I attend his community events and visit his local offices, there is always an array of different people of all colors, that really like and trust this guy to lead this country into tomorrow and to be a positive voice as he works to clean up our immage and show the world that we are so much better then this

Posted by: Reda StCyr | December 15, 2007 3:37 AM

Dr. Ronald Walters is very bright and articulate but seems overly pessimistic and cynical. Such a depth of knowledge of black history seems to prevent Dr. Walters from believing that a black man will ever be elected president. His viewpoint perhaps can be understood within the context of his years of teaching black political history and his active support of the two campaigns of Jesse Jackson in the 1980's. After writing several books about the black political experience, he must quickly be able to catalog a 40-year span of painful impediments since the civil rights movement. Many younger generation blacks,whites and browns know that so shall you think, so shall it be. They respond to high expectations, working and studying hard, and find a faith and a moral compass that helps replace anger with action. What we are seeing is a movement toward real possibilities and true opportunities. We who support Barack Obama are acting to bring that vision to life. In the 40 years since the civil rights movement, multicultural and global influences have helped broaden the conversation and the imperative. It is sad to think that after four decades, some are so suspect of true positive change that...

Posted by: Susan Garvan | December 15, 2007 2:53 AM

Dr. Ronald Walters was an impressive guest. He was intelligent, informed and balanced. He made a very important point. People like Obama because he is he only candidate you could trust to end the war in Iraq, not because he has nice brown skin.

Posted by: Roedy Green | December 15, 2007 12:54 AM

Why must we still define ourselves based on the color of our skin? Rather, why do people define people of color based on the darkness of the color of their skin? I read in an encyclopedia that there are 44 shades to the human skin. I like the fact that Obama wants to be an American president. I do hope that Dr. Ronald Walters will seen and heard again.

Posted by: Vincent G. Thomas | December 15, 2007 12:51 AM

Black issues are the same as white issues. We just have the obstacle of Racism that whites do not. I deal with it everyday in my business. I even sometimes send my white employee, because I know he will get the contract, (based on past experience), and I will not because of my race. This does not mean that we, (he and I), don't have the same wants and desiress, because we do. Blacks are as tired of the victim position as non whites. We want that extra protection when we are wronged, but not an advantage. I find that most blacks I know are very conservative. We are strong on crime prevention, because, in the inner city, we are the main victims. The difference is that we also know personally many who are wronged by the system, and want extra protection to prevent that. This is different from whites, because they don't have to face false conviction as much as we do. We experience the "welfare cheat", in the inner city who is dispised by the majority of blacks who are hard working. We know that the majority of people on welfare are white, (although the media will not...

Posted by: Maurice Jones | December 14, 2007 11:56 PM

Bill, please talk about the Iowa fiasco of prohibiting Kucinich (and Gravel) from the debate sponsored by a newspaper--hardly a democratic debate leaving out Kucinich who has been voted ahead of all others on many voting polls.

Posted by: Joan Sage | December 14, 2007 10:41 PM

Anything is possible. We're one step closer to having Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have A Dream" speech reach the White House in a most profound way. http://solshine7.blogspot.com

Posted by: SolShine7 | December 14, 2007 10:33 PM

One question that should be asked of every contender for the office is this. Why don't you work to pass a law right NOW that would ban health insurance companies from rejecting coverage for pre existing conditions? We are promised schemes and plans. Many include such language as this, yet there is no excuse for not doing it right now!

Posted by: Robert Goulart | December 14, 2007 10:31 PM

Barack Obama is a serious political contender. I praise Oprah's move to support the man. It is unfortunate that show business is replacing statesmanship. Yet in this age of short attention spans and noise every peaceful means should be used to effect positive change.

Posted by: Robert Goulart | December 14, 2007 10:26 PM

I hesitate to say this about one of my heroes in journalism but, Mr. Moyers, in your last two programs, there seems to be a bias against Barack Obama. Last week you talked about the scurilous attacks on Clinton but did not mention those on Obama. This week, Your guest just emphasized his appeal to white America and castigated him for not being black enough - mainly because he did not appear at the Jena 6 rallies. He does speak strongly to issues of poverty, educational opportunities, racial profiling, and economic opportunity. He also speaks strongly to a united America - not torn by divisiveness. He does speak for the black community and the white community who want an end to the corporate ownership of our government.

Posted by: Norma Bader | December 14, 2007 10:12 PM

Bill, What's happening? Are you losing your journalism skills? Are you just soft-handling a soft-spoken guest? You both gave lip service to candidates other than Obama (face and name-time is everything just ask the logo counters for televised sports events) and your guest gave a pregnant pause before saying that Obama was the 'only' one to commit to ending the war. What is his voting record on this? Senator Mike Gravel is the ONLY one who said in public that he would stop the ILLEGAL WAR IMMEDIATELY. Are you trying to create such a civil conversation to contrast the earlier piece on shouting commentary that you don't even bring up the fact that Sen. Obama admitted that he was related to Dick Cheney? What possible difference could color make if The Dynasty remains in power?

Posted by: S.B. | December 14, 2007 10:08 PM

we cannot give precedence to either gender or race. there are inequalities inherent in both areas. i really hope that black people won't vote for obama just because he's black, or that women won't vote for hillary just because she's a woman. who cares? america won't be a truly egalitarian society until such trivial matters like gender and race aren't an issue at all. pretending to be color- or gender-blind does not do the trick. lets just worry about which candidate is FOR THE PEOPLE and the PEOPLE ONLY (a tricky task) and go from there.

Posted by: andrew b. lee | December 14, 2007 7:35 AM

I think the greater injustice is against GENDER, rather than RACE! Over fifty percent of the voters are women. It is about time men accepted their competence on the political stage as well as the home-front! Why are you singling out race, as though it were an issue? Mr. Obama does make an attractive candidate; but, if you put it in racial terms; for me,-- experience trumps rashness, and gender trumps race. Actually I hope to vote for the candidate that offers the best chance at peace and justice, never mind the other classifications.

Posted by: EMB | December 14, 2007 12:08 AM

I think it is time to go color blind and realize that we are all in the same boat going in the same direction. The Democrats need to do what ever it takes to win the next election. Otherwise, they may never get another chance at election. The Republicans are establishing a system of government to assure their power base and permanently install a system that maintains industrialists as having complete control over our government. All of the working people will work for minimum wages and be at the mercy of company policies. Democracy depends on a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Without Equity and Justice there is only slavery.

Posted by: David Eddy | December 13, 2007 10:43 PM

Obama and His Base

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Our Posts

Your Comments

Moyers Beats

Subscribe

Podcasts

Frappr!

Archives