Zero Obama Supporters in the UFT

UPDATE: Fred Klonsky slaps Leo Casey.

One of the most remarkable, almost a miracle one might say, undercurrents in this Hillary-Barack battle where the entire Democratic Party has split down the middle, has taken place in the United Federation of Teachers where 200,000 members support Hillary Clinton – unanimously.

Even more remarkable has been the reversal of what is happening nationally: 90% of black voters support Obama, yet not one single black Obama supporter has emerged in the UFT.
Nationally, Clinton gets the older, blue collar and less educated vote while Obama gets the younger, white collar, college educated vote.

Not in the UFT, which everyone would agree is not only white collar and college educated, but has had a massive influx of young teachers. Again, not one Obama supporter amongst these demographics has been spotted.

Likened to the way Hasidim vote en masse in elections, the membership has followed the lead of Randi Weingarten in one of the most remarkable operations in political history.

Hillary in 2012 Commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUyce6224Mk

What Will the Tough Liberals in the UFT Do?

With a UFT Delegate Assembly coming up this week, it will be interesting to watch how Randi plays the Obama/Clinton issue, if she does so at all - we don't see how she can ignore it.

In his post (reprinted below) to ICE-mail, Sean Ahern challenges the Tough Liberals in the UFT's controlling Unity Caucus and makes the important connection between the "Tough Liberal" world of 68/72 and 08/12.

First let me try to put some of the stuff in historical context. Though I lived through all of it, Richard Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" bio of Al Shanker has allowed me to make many connections between the current Obama/Clinton battle with the past.

One of the striking aspects is Kahlenberg's attack on McGovernites, Jimmy Carter, the new left, the old left, and just about any progressive forces – the New Democrats. As I read the book it seemed in some ways like a campaign statement for the Clintons. I won't get into the education stuff here, but the Clintons are the epitome of the candidate TL's are looking for. No wonder the book is funded by the likes of Eli Broad and the New Century Foundation, among other backers of BloomKlein.

A book praising Al Shanker backed by the very attackers of teachers and unions? No surprise in these quarters where we have been howling about collaboration for years. It provides some philosophical underpinning of the utter betrayal so many teachers in NYC feel over the actions of their union. But you'll have to wait for our review of the book for more details when it appears in the New Politics summer edition.

Kahlenberg raises issues surrounding race time and again in terms of critiques of affirmative action. Of course, Shanker was not a racist (and I believe that) as his credentials as an activist in the Civil Rights movement are trotted out time and again, as is his relationship to Martin Luther King. But the net effect of Tough Liberal actions were and are often severe racial divisions. The parallels between '08 and '68 are astounding. Perhaps they see Obama as a recipient of some kind of affirmative action while Hillary has worked her way up the ranks. You know. The good ole' merit system, which in their world Obama appears to have skipped. (Does a wife of a president count as affirmative action?)

What irony in the replay of 40 years ago when the '68 convention, which followed the first lesser known UFT strike in Ocean-Hill Brownsville that spring and then was followed by the famous strike later that fall, an event that caused so many rifts in the Black/Jewish relationship, though Gerald Podair points out in his "The Strike That Changed New York" there were many already existing fault lines.

Similar fault lines also existed between the white– "hard working" as Hillary recently put it– working class which Tough Liberals are courting so assiduously and the pointy headed intellectual (Obama supporters today?) over the Vietnam War. Remember the attacks by NYC construction workers on peace marchers? Or the police assault on Columbia students in '68? The white working class vs. college students replayed today. Jeez. My choice to be a history major is reaffirmed every day in the fascination replay of events.

A major focus of Kahlenberg is on foreign policy. Tough Liberals preferred Nixon over any Democrat not aligned with them. Shanker was perfectly aligned with Ronald Reagan in that area despite his attacks on labor. The number of Shankerites that became neo cons is worth noting (Linda Chavez is a prime example.)

Thus, what we are seeing today in Tough Liberal Clinton's battle against what they perceive as New Democrat Obama. Again it often comes down to foreign policy. Enough damage has been done that the undercurrent I get from much of the Jewish community is that they will never vote Obama. Hillary will bomb Iran to smithereens while Obama might engage in a dialogue.
Who do they want? A Lyndon Johnson type candidate who will do non-threatening civil rights stuff while bombing the gooks/Arabs into oblivion.

Education? That takes 2nd place to wars and bailouts in the TL world. After all, their main focus is to keep any hint of socialism out. Tough Liberals will do with whatever piece of pie they are given to work with. Thus, ed reform means improving teacher quality by eliminating seniority and union rules and investing in peace corps, missionary teachers and staff development. But never in class size reduction.

So watch Unity Caucus and their supporters in New Action continue to sit and squirm - there must be some people, especially African-Americans who are not comfortable with what's going on. What Randi says at the Delegate Assembly this Weds. should be interesting. Since she reads the blogs, she will tread very carefully knowing full well her words and nuances will be out there.

This is something Weingarten is very good at and how she says it will be an indication of the way the Clinton campaign will begin attempts at reconciliation – with the 2012 conept in mind if Obama shoud have a McGovern-like disaster. (I know the paid pundits are discounting this, but I am not as anything can happen in politics.)

I'm betting on a strong statement from Randi about how all the union's resources will be out there for the Democratic nominee no matter who he - oops - is. After all, an AFT Pres. must play the proper political role. But if Obama loses in November, Hill in '12 begins.


Will the "Tough" Liberals sit out an Obama candidacy in 2008 like they did McGovern in 1972?
by Sean Ahern

Don't let the Unity Caucus slink quietly back into the woodwork until 2012. I think some of them will have to be brought into the campaign against McBush kicking and screaming. The Shankerites sat out the McGovern campaign in '72 and ended up with Gerald Ford as President in '75. Ford told the city "Drop Dead" during the fiscal crisis and 20,000 teachers were laid off. Ford was followed by Carter who sounds alot better now than he did in the 70's.

A McCain victory gives Clinton and the 'Tough" liberals another shot in 2012 or so they think. Sitting out the Obama candidacy, at least unofficially, makes sense from their view. I think the 'tough' liberals at 52 B'way will need some 'tough' love, like a proverbial slap for their own good, to awaken them to the greater danger. As for those who prefer Nader or McKinney, or some other party, I say more power to you and the people you bring out, as long as you are bringing people into the fight against McBush in one way or another. The Obama camp is the main contingent as far as I see and that where I will be, but there is plenty of room in a movement for different candidates and different platforms provided the focus is positive and not fratricidal . The polls make it pretty clear, if the people's vote is counted , the Republican control of the executive branch will end.

It's a very dangerous gamble to bet that the Republic will survive four more years of McBush and the neo cons. It is a very dangerous thing to 'triangulate' with or embrace facists, white supremacists, right wing evangelicals, Likud fanatics thinking that you can control them for your own ends. The German ruling class thought they could use the Nazis against the Communists. The Republican oligarchs have made a similar pact to hold onto to power and prolong the Empire by embracing a very hard core right wing which they continue to believe they can control. It is dangerous for any citizen in a democratic republic to dawdle and fret over the unsatisfactory programs of both Clinton and Obama while our basic rights and the rule of law are being eliminated by the Executive Branch under Republican control.

The race baiting used by the Clinton campaign was a 'coming attractions' for the Republican campaign (assuming Obama is the Democratic candidate) but Hillary and Bill haven't told the Republicans anything new here. All Hillary accomplished was to disqualify herself. The Republicans will go further into attack mode because they have far more to loose than Hillary and Bill.The Clintons just took a page from an old playbook of the Republicans, who took it from the Dixicrats before them. (And this from the candidate endorsed by the AFT leadership, whose members are charged with educating children of color in many of the country's largest urban school systems?)

What may we expect from the Republican executive during the campaign season? An attack on Iran following some new phony Tonkin incident? A domestic terror attack just prior to election day? Hackable voting machines (no question mark here, they are already in place!), on top of the racial disenfranchisement that has already gone on, and who knows what additional schemes are in the pipeline to keep the Republicans in office. There are too many skeletons, too many crimes. The neo cons will do anything to escape the prison cells they so richly deserve and politicians only care about winning. It's a deadly mix.

The threat to freedom is real. We all have to come together, sound the alarms and stop McBush from setting the world on fire. Whether you are for the Democrat Obama, the Independent Nader, the Green McKinney, or any other candidate who opposes the current regime, get out there and agitate, organize, picket, vote. If you are a Unity Caucus member or a supporter of Clinton you can't afford to sit this one out. The world as you know it won't be there after four more years of Republican control of the executive branch.

Peace,
Sean Ahern
Sean, a former NYC transit worker, teaches high school in Manhattan.

Hillary in '12

The campaign has begun.
The surprise is that so many pundits don't see it.
They ask"What is the rationale?" for Clinton to continue.
It's all about getting elected president – in 2012, stupid.

Education Notes has been speculating on this for months.
March 26 Education Notes: Is Clinton Strategy Designed to Undermine Obama Chances to Win? We focus on the role the UFT/AFT has played and will continue to play in the goal of making Hillary president.

The Feb. 12 The Randi Weingarten Succession Obsession in where we claim Hill in '12 campaign begins the day Obama gets the nomination.

Randi, Hillary and Oback on April 12 inspired a comment asking what Weingarten has to gain with a Republican administration. A lot to gain in terms of having an enemy to blame all the things Unity can't win for teachers. Dictatorships require enemies. McCain would be perfect.

And if Obama were to win, having him in the White House is not user friendly to the UFT. Better to wait for the big enchilada Clintons, which can inspire so many sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom. Pajama parties, anyone?

Richard Gizbert's Hillary's $6.4 Million is a Wise Investment, for 2012 in the Huffington Post (May 7) makes many of the same points. "Clinton's only chance, for 2012, is to continue to damage Obama so badly that McCain wins in November. That would allow Clinton to take a run at McCain or some other Republican, four years from now."
I posted the entire piece at Norms Notes.

Scenario: Obama loses to McCain - the bigger the loss the better for Clinton (the longer the Clinton campaign, the better the chance to bloody Obama and the more votes lost).
McCain is a disaster as president.

Voila: Victory in '12 for the old war horse who will have another 4 years to build up resources and power. That is why I think the very idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket is so unlikely – unless they think someone will try to bump Obama off – something in the year 2008, 40 years after MLK, is on so many people's minds. (Imagine the crazy charge to come from the right wing Clinton-haters.)

I still think that no matter what the voting patterns in the primaries, Obama still has the better chance considering the enormous magnet for hatred the Clintons have become for too many people.

While there is truth to the point that Obama is winning the black vote overwhelmingly while losing some of the white vote, the sooner the campaign ends, the better Obama's chances of winning over the Clinton votes, though my feeling is that racism is so endemic that any little excuse – and the Clintons are providing plenty of excuses– and a sizable chunk of people will refuse to vote for Obama under any circumstances. This doesn't necessarily mean he can't beat McCain because of the overwhelming factors of the Republican failures.

So, the Clintons are going to do everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen using the "let everyone have their say" argument. They will then make a big show of supporting Obama -wink, wink - after the convention, knowing it is too late. Remember to do what we always tell you about Randi Weingarten - watch what they really do, not what they say.

At the April Delegate Assembly Weingarten was asked - will you be giving Obama the same level of support you are giving to Hillary, she smiled (sort of) and said, "We don't want McCain to win, do we?" The tone with which she answered gave something away. Then this was followed by a slap at Obama. We've also heard about chapter leader training has been used to slam Obama - a great way to get the word out to members without being on the public record.

After the election, the Clintons - and Weingarten - will spend the next few years mending fences.

And they will be aided by the entire AFT/UFT apparatus. Behind the scenes of course. That will be Weingarten's focus as AFT president.

Important to UFT members is how this plays out in the amount of real support Obama will get considering the UFT/AFT has such a big stake in Hillary.

The fact is that the entire union was manipulated into supporting Hillary with not one debate taking place in bodies like the Delegate Assembly or Executive Board. More intriguing, with Obama winning 90% of black votes, where have the black members of Unity Caucus and their supporters in New Action been hiding? Are we being led to believe that not one black member is for Obama? Not one even is willing to stand up and call for a debate at any level?

Where have the Obama supporters in the UFT been all this time? And will they continue to sit by in silence? Will someone get up at an upcoming DA or Exec Bd meeting and call for the UFT to end the sham and support Obama?

There's a Delegate Assembly on May 14. Will we continue to hear the sounds of silence?

Obama, Clinton, the UFT, Shanker, Kahlenberg

Boy, that's a mouthful.

With today's primaries promising to be somewhat important (my belief is that Obama has been damaged to such an extent, he will be hurting badly by tonight) I wanted to comment on a bunch of stuff related to the Democratic party and the splits going back 40 years to 1968.

Remember that year? Assassinations, the crazy Demo convention in Chicago, the UFT 3 month strike in Ocean-Hill Brownsville - all events that have major impact on today's events. Richard Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" spends a lot of time justifying Shanker's actions and blaming the New left, the New Democrats, the limousine liberals, etc for the problems the party has had.

As I read it I kept saying- this book came out at this time as justification for Hillary Clinton to be president. Do many of the attacks on Obama point back to 40 years of splits? Do the wounds of the '68 strike still play a role in the Obama-Clinton split? These are issues worth exploring and we'll take a shot at it at some point this week - if I can force myself to open up Kalhlenberg's book once again.

By the way, a review of Kahlenberg's book (funded by Eli Broad and other foundations that just love the ed reform teacher attack movment) written by Vera Pavone and myself will be published in New Politics summer edition. Interestingly, Michael Hirsh, a writer for the NY Teacher and a member of NP's board, will write a response in the following edition. Hmmm. Will Shanker/Kahlenberg come up smelling like roses? A funny thing, but the NY Teacher edition following our submission of the review had an article by Kahlenberg "explaining" Shanker's real position on charter schools.

Al had a lot of splaining to do that goes way beyond charter schools.

Uppity.... With Malice Toward None

I was talking to some supposedly liberal teachers not long ago and was surprised at their animosity to Obama. "Distant. Arrogant. Slick. Thinks he's better than regular people." For a second I thought the next word to be uttered would be the dreaded "Uppity." Well, we haven't gone that far. (Well, maybe we have - look upper left.)

Now these are people active in the UFT. Has the Clinton machine been aided in the onslaught on Obama in more subtle ways by UFT underground propaganda? (ie. Randi Weingarten's hint at the April DA that they tried to reach out to him but have been ignored. It was more the way she said it than the actual words that made me take notice.)

I headed home with the intention to write about this but it seemed best to stay away from such a volatile topic. But I now feel free to put my toe in the water after Maureen Dowd used the word today in her column in the NY Times. Quoting Bill Clinton, she wrote:

“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules,” the former president said. “In West Virginia and Arkansas, we know that when we see it.”

Oh, well, at least Bill didn’t use the word uppity. And don’t you love this paean to rules coming from a man so tethered and humbled by rules that he invented an entirely new sexual etiquette to suit his needs in the Oval Office?

Why does Obama, the one with the bumpy background and mixed racial heritage, the one raised by a single mother who was on food stamps, seem so forced when he mingles with the common folk?

Karl Rove and other Republicans say he comes across as the snooty product of a Hawaiian prep school, Cambridge, Columbia and Hyde Park, and that is what led to the damaging anthropological “bitter” disquisition. Yet George H. W. Bush’s attempts to paint over his patrician style with a cowboy veneer was a silly sort of masquerade, obviously engineered by Lee Atwater, who brought the props of pork rinds and country music.

Voters also don’t seem to mind Hillary, with her $109 million bank account, selling herself as the champion of the little people. The blue-collar queen shared her thoughts about the “outrageous” Rev. Wright with the blue-collar king, Bill O’Reilly, last week. In reality, as first lady, Hillary was renowned for her upstairs-downstairs tussles in the White House, and her high-handed treatment of the little people in the travel office, on the switchboard and on the residence staff. The reports were legend about the Clintons’ problems with the Secret Service, and I once saw Bill dress down an agent in a humiliating way over a couple of autograph seekers who got past a rope line in Orange County, Calif.

Obama, on the other hand, may seem esoteric, and sometimes looks haughty or put-upon when he should merely offer that ensorcelling smile. But he is very well liked by his Secret Service agents, and shoots hoops with them. And I watched him take the time one night after a long day of campaigning to stand and take individual pictures with a squadron of Dallas motorcycle police officers on the tarmac.

It must be hard for Obama, having applied all his energy over the years to rising above the rough spots in his background, making whites comfortable with him, striving to become the sophisticated, silky political star who looks supremely comfortable in a tux. Now he must go into reverse and stoop to conquer with cornball photo ops.

“I do think that one of the ironies of the last two or three weeks was this idea that somehow Michelle and I are elitist, pointy-headed intellectual types,” he said, adding sincerely, “I filled up my own gas tanks.”

It’s hard not to be who you are, but it’s doubly hard to be who you’ve strived not to be. Obama not only has to figure out how to unwind with a Bud. He has to rewind his life.

If people think the love of the white male working class for Hillary, so many of whom despised her not too long ago, has nothing to do with racism, they are ignoring something endemic to American society. That the Clintons have chosen to exacerbate it all will cost them dearly in the short and long run.

Dowd touches on points of personal relationships in comparing Obama and Clinton. I remember a friend almost not marrying a guy because, though he treated her very well, he demeaned waiters and other help on a regular basis. There are lessons about character in the way people treat others at all levels. Abraham Lincoln was the master (Dorris Kearns Goodwin is a MUST read.) When some people compare Obama to Lincoln, that is part of what they are talking about. (Check out George Schmidt's personal reflections of Obama that we posted on norms notes.)

But there are other areas of comparison. Obama is painted as weak when he doesn't hammer Hillary in a negative manner and he has been forced to respond because he is branded as a wimp if he doesn't.

If Lincoln were out there today, he would be attacked for being weak and indecisive. No matter how badly he was attacked he never struck back. It used to drive his advisors crazy. (But Lincoln had the strength to put every single opponent in his cabinet.) Obama has tried to take a similar tack and has been pushed to show how "tough" he is.

Some more quotes from Maureen Dowd's column illustrate this point:

Paul Gipson, president of a steelworkers local in Portage, Ind., hailed her “testicular fortitude,” before ripping into “Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centered, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle.”

James Carville helpfully told Eleanor Clift of Newsweek that if Hillary gave Obama one of her vehicles of testicular fortitude, “they’d both have two.”

"With malice toward none, with charity for all" were not just words Lincoln used in a speech, but words he lived.

Can't you just imagine the workup Bill Clinton and James Carville would be doing on him?

Lincoln is proof that toughness can take many forms. I have a sneaky suspicion there's a whole lotta more Lincoln in Obama than he is given credit for.

And did Thomas Friedman in essence endorse Obama in his column today (Who Will Tell the People) when he touched on a similar theme:

Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.

I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”

While you're perusing the Week in Review section, check out Frank Rich's "The All-White Elephant in the Room" which compared how McCain's preacher supporters get a free pass even when they attack the Catholic church.

Randi, Hillary and Barack

UPDATE2: George Schmidt on Obama and the Chicago Teachers Union
A remarkable piece by George (who disagrees with so much of Obama's program) but talks about him as a man.
"I remember the numerous times he'd come by the union offices (before he was an intergalactic star) and thank us or just talk. He was also at just about every union event. After he was elected to the Senate, he came by the CTU to thank everyone on the staff."

And read why Michael Moore has just endorsed Obama.
_______________________________________________________________
UPDATE1: Clinton and Labor
from Counterpunch, Vol 15, no 7: April 1-15
"U.S. labor unions bitterly point out that Clinton (along with two of her own top staffers, Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson) has been lobbying for Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe, while the latter has consolidated his regime’s record as the most dangerous in the world for labor organizers. In the six years since Uribe took office, over 400 labor activists have been killed. In 2008, almost one unionist a week has been assassinated."

Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 by Columbia based Gold Star Int'l to promote the US-Columbia trade deal that Hillary is supposedly denouncing. Did she tell Bill to give the money back?
________________________________________________________________

We all know where the UFT/AFT stands - four square for Hillary.

Ed Notes has been speculating what Randi et al. will do when Obama gets the official nomination.

So, when she was asked exactly this question at the Delegate Assembly on April 16 - will you be giving Obama the same level of support you are giving to Hillary, she smiled (sort of) and said, "We don't want McCain to win, do we?"

Well, do we?

How do Hillary and Randi benefit if Obama wins? Four and probably eight years in the wilderness. Basically, for Hillary, it's over.

But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, the bigger the better for the Clintons, then it's "I told you so" time and the "Hillary in '12" campaign begins.

Some pundits have speculated as to why with so little chance, the Clintons continue to cut up Obama. Her fighting spirit is what they attribute it to. Nah! It's all part of the cut-your-losses-today-plan-for tomorrow strategy. Sort of like what happened with their "support" for Gore and Kerry.

So Randi's follow up to the question was insightful. "We have reached out to Obama, but they don't respond," was what she said. Hmmm. You know, code for -- arrogant.

I've heard from chapter leaders about the not so subtle anti-Obama stuff at chapter leader training sessions. Videos of Obama coming out in favor of individual merit pay. Terrible. After all, Hillary and Randi are for their own versions of merit pay, so that's all right. And they were fed all the stuff about how Hillary wants to rid us of NCLB while Obama is ho-hum. Hmmm. Naturally the history of AFT/UFT/Randi/Clinton support for NCLB from day one is somehow left out.

Using chapter leader training to spread the anti-Obama message is a sign of the undercurrent of what things are all about.

There's a story in Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" Albert Shanker book about Bill and Hillary Clinton favoring testing of veteran teachers when he was governor of Arkansas in the 80's. Shanker was toying with the idea as part of his reform movement, saying in 1984, "there is ample evidence that states – through past hiring practices– have hired people who are illiterate."

Admittedly, these tests for vet teachers were supposedly for literacy. But if you were for testing vets, why not in subject areas and beyond? Were Shanker and the Clintons in favor of a literacy tests for, say, politicians? And how about having lawyers retake the Bar exam every 5 years? And doctors retake med boards? Oh, boy!

Shanker invited Hillary the 1985 AFT convention to debate Rand researcher Linda Darling-Hammond, who was apparently opposed to testing veteran teachers. Kahlenberg writes, "Politically, [Hillary] Clinton said, the weeding out of incompetent teachers helped create the political environment in which the public would support new taxes and further investments in education."[p. 290]

Linda Darling-Hammond is now one of Obama's chief education advisers, and a noted critic of Teach for America.

Ahhh! Hillary arguing the case for testing veteran teachers opposed by one of Obama's chief education advisers. Wish I had a video of that debate to show chapter leaders.

I’m going to Obama with a banjo on my knee

The Wave's Howie Schwach editorialized on how Obama’s refusal to wear a lapel pin that would demonstrate his patriotism will cost him votes. My guess is that Obama can wear a jacket made of lapel pins and he will not get those votes. No matter what polls show, when it comes time to pull the lever, a lot of people will not vote for a black man for president. I think it’s called “racism.”

Some comedian said that the only time you see a black man as president in movies and on TV is when some cataclysm is about to hit. What’s more likely? Obama as president or the earth getting hit by an asteroid? He has my vote anyway, but I’m writing this from under my dining room table.

Coming soon: What Randi said about supporting Obama at the Delegate Assembly on Apr. 16 and how she said it - I wish I had a picture of that crocodile smile when she said, "We don't want McCain to win, do we?"

Starting Now: Hillary in '12

Is Clinton Strategy Designed to Undermine Obama Chances to Win?

What role will the UFT/AFT play if Obama is the nominee?

On Feb. 12, in part 2 of our post on Randi's Succession, we wrote:

[Randi's] plan being to use a national forum [as AFT President] to help Hillary get elected. Ooops! Actually, if Obama is the candidate and loses to McCain, Hillary becomes very viable in 2012, so think long-term. Who do you think the Weingarten/Clinton forces will really be rooting for?) An Obama loss and AFT HQ becomes Hillary Central.

If Obama gets the nomination and loses to McCain, Hillary gets to say "I told you so" and becomes the instant candidate for 2012. At the time, I read the piece to my wife, upon which she, basically a Hillary supporter at the time, said "WHY? HOW COULD THEY WANT McCAIN?" I responded because for the Clintons and their supporters it is about them, not the party. I told her we would be watching the true level of enthusiasm Randi Weingarten and the AFT/UFT have for Obama – oh, there will be lots of surface stuff, but with Randi's star so hitched to Hillary, an Obama win, leaving Hillary in Siberia, would not be part of the plan.

Today, Maureen Dowd ("Hillary or Nobody") raises this same point (has she been reading my blog?):

Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill — which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight — is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain.

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.

Why else would Hillary suggest that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, and why else would Bill imply that Obama was less patriotic — and attended by more static — than McCain?

Why else would Phil Singer, a Hillary spokesman, say in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday that Obama was trying to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. “When it comes to voting, Senator Obama has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of nope,” he said, adding, “There’s a basic reality here, which is we could have avoided the entire George W. Bush presidency if we had counted votes in Florida.” So is Singer making the case that Obama is as anti-democratic as W. was when he snatched Florida from Al Gore?

Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons’ divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat.

(Or, as one Democrat described it to ABC’s Jake Tapper: Hillary is going for “the Tonya Harding option” — if she can’t get the gold, kneecap her rival.)

A few days ago, David Brooks ("The Long Defeat") estimated Hillary's chances of getting the nomination as at best 5% and he wondered why she would be risking the party's chances by undermining Obama to such an extent he can't win.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

We've speculated (here and here) on the lack of democracy in the way Randi Weingarten went about steamrollering the UFT into supporting Hillary Clinton (Are there NO Obama supporters in the UFT, in particular amongst Black UFT'ers and in particular Unity Caucus?) by not allowing the Delegate Assembly to even discuss the endorsement, denying Obama supporters at least the sense of fairness.

Unity Caucus discipline will take care of their Black members. It is hard to believe that not even one Unity Caucus Black member would not be for Obama, with polling numbers around the nation showing a massive drift of Black voters moving from Hillary to Obama.... But in the "democracy" in Unity Caucus, democratic centralism will suppress any sense of support for Obama.

It's all about how to manage the membership. The UFT payed [Hillary advisor] Howard Wolfson to advise them on how to use massive UFT resources in Hillary's campaign without having to go through an endorsement by the members or even hold a discussion where Obama supporters might get to raise a stink.

With the end-game approaching, let's see if members of Unity Caucus are freed to express their enthusiasm for Obama. Randi, hedging her bets as usual, did do some gentle trashing of Obama's positions on education at a recent DA. The UFT (it will take Randi a bit of time to turn over the top level of the AFT in her image) will make it look like they support Obama, while undermining him. This is where Weingarten is at her most brilliant. Feinting left while going right. Or is it feinting right and going left? Actually, it's both at the same time.

There is sure to be some resentment of Black members within Unity Caucus if the UFT slacks off. Mike Mulgrew, Michelle Bodden and other supposed Weingarten successors will have their work cut out for them avoiding cracks in the machine.

I will miss the daily obfuscation show in the UFT when she starts racing around the county this July after her election as AFT president campaigning for Hillary – in '12.

Grover Park Group, $2,617,982 - a UFT Slush Fund for Clinton?

The most recent LM2 annual expense report posted on the US Department of Labor web site by the UFT covers 2006. It includes a payment of - gulp - $2,617,982 to Grover Park consultants, led by Howard Wolfson, a major Hillary Clinton advisor. (How's that working out, Howard?) It's probably due to his advice that improvement in teachers' working conditions going so well.

What's intriguing about this astronomical number just for giving advice - hey, I'll give advice for half the amount: buy high, sell low – is that there is no accounting for the work Grover Park did for the UFT.

The Grover Park Group web site says this about Wolfson:
At Glover Park, Howard focuses on crisis management, complex intergrated campaigns, and political advertising and communications. The firm's New York clients have included Cablevision, Verizon, the New School, Newscorp, and the United Federation of Teachers.
Howard has helped direct the campaigns of Senator Hillary Clinton, New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson and newly elected U.S. Representatives Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Arcuri.

Ahhh! It's all about how to manage the membership. The UFT payed Wolfson to advise them on how to use massive UFT resources in Hillary's campaign without having to go through an endorsement by the members or even hold a discussion where Obama supporters might get to raise a stink.

And follow the bouncing ball in the next year or two as Wolfson gets paid enormous sums to guides the UFT on how to sell mayoral candidate Bill Thompson to the membership while using dirty tricks to degrade serious challengers like Anthony Weiner.

Or is this a simple matter of the UFT leadership finding a sneaky way to funnel money to the Clinton campaign by "hiring" Wolfson?


And UFT High School VP Leo Casey is listed as a vendor for over $16000. I didn't know the UFT had an ice cream truck. Or maybe the money was for selling half-baked ideas.

The LM-2 for 2006 (there's always a year or more lag and the UFT is always late in sending it in - this one was signed by Randi in December '07 when it was due in May '07) will be posted on the ICE website soon. If you can't wait to see how those special reps make 140 grand shoot me an email and I'll send you the pdf.

Politics Are Us: Follow the Money

A recent comment by a reader on the NYC Education News listserve after I posted a link to George Schmidt's comments on Obama's education record in Chicago:

From what we've seen being played out in NYC public education, I've wondered if Barack's primary votes and money have been coming just from Democrats. After all, Republicans skewed the 2006 senate race in CT by crossing party lines so they could vote for Lieberman, and thus block his Democratic opponent. They were able to cross lines in Fro, independents could vote on either side in several of the early states, plus anyone can e-mail money to a candidate.

My suspicions are sadly confirmed by the ednotes article you sent. We already know that the GOP is incredibly active in privatizing the public school system, and, from Schmidt's perspective, Barack evidently supports that movement, along with its chief instrument, No Child Left Behind. Perhaps Ted Kennedy is supporting Barack as a way to preserve NCLB, which he co-sponsored. However, does that mean Kennedy is also inside the privatization loop, or is he too oblivious to see the uses for which NCLB has been co-opted?

That prompted this response:

Sorry, but this is absurd. Anyone who thinks that Obama's support is "Republicans crossing over" hasn't been paying attention, to what he says, to who is supporting him, to what is happening in our country.

I heard him speak a few weeks ago and he said, "we have to support our teachers, and pay them more. They should not have to only teach to the test. Children should have art, and music, and gym, and languages...,

Obama is running against the right, against Bush's policies, all down the line. Because he has excited and activated so many people, including young people, independents and those who are turned off by politics as usual, he actually could beat the Republican, in a landslide. And a landslide is what we'll need to turn the country around, including away from the attack on public education.

Which prompted this response from me:


I am pretty cynical about most politicians and subscribe to the belief expressed by that great political theorist Pete Townshend of The Who: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss/ I'll get on my knees and pray we don't get fooled again.

It is oh so easy for Obama to say teachers should get paid more.
Bloomberg said that too - as long as they put more time in and gave up chuncks of their contract.

And he thinks teachers shouldn't teach to the test?

Where did he ever take such a stand in Chicago his home base where that's what they do?
Chicago, where the BloomKlein style of reform began in 1995.

Has he played any role at all in diverting the attack on public education in Chicago?

The writer says to pay attention to who is supporting him. I say: "Follow the money."

George Schmidt, who clearly liked Obama as a man, squarley put him in the same camp as Daley/Bloomberg/Joel Klein camp. If you didn't get to his piece yet you can read it here.

Pray we don't get fooled again.

And if you admire Clinton, do not forget where Joel Klein came from. It is so easy to use rhetoric but always examine what politicians have done.

Trying to compare anyone to Bush makes them look good.

My wife works in the health field and she read Paul Krugman today and said she likes Clinton's universal health care plan better than Obama's and will vote for her on that basis.
I disagree. So what if Clinton says all the right things. I will bet a chunk of her money comes from the pharmecuticals and health care industry which will have to make a big buck out of any plan. Will Clinton/Obama be more loyal to the voters or to the people funding their campaigns? Any plan will be what the people who can profit from it says it will be. Follow the money.

But there are some differences if you believe the rhetoric. Take Cuba for instance, a place I got to visit legally in the late 70's when Jimmy Carter opened a brief window of liberalization.

John McAuliff, Executive Director. Fund for Reconciliation and Development writes:
Barack Obama has pledged unrestricted family travel and remittances, not just "easing" Bush restrictions of one visit every three years. He also has called for negotiations with Raul Castro without preconditions.
Hillary Clinton is Bush light on Cuba, seeming to take her cue from Sen. Bob Menendez and her Miami based Cuban American sister in law.Both candidates would do well to listen to the 2/3 of Americans who support normalization of relations and the right to travel to Cuba.

McAuliff's entire piece is here.


Two articles in the NY Times this past week on Bill Clinton and Obama were illuminating.

One delves into the actions of Obama when it came to a nuclear leak.

An excerpt:

"The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money. Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns.

The complete article is here.

The other one is about Bill Clinton and a uranium deal in Kazakhstan that led to praise for a dictator, a big deal for a Canadian who contrubuted millions to Clinton's foundation in exchange for lending his prestige to the arrangement. I think Borat may have been at the same meeeting.

The article is here:

While the Obama piece is not as bad as the Clinton article, rereading both of them side by side makes me want to take a shower. Despite all this, there's a good chance I'll vote for Obama because no matter what he said or Clinton said, as someone who was 15 when Kennedy was elected and turned my generation onto politics, there is something in what Elena said about activating and inspiring young people. It probably won't last, but I'll get on my knees and pray they won't get fooled again.

Triangulation - Clintonism as a Model for UFT Policy

Updated sun, Dec.. 23, 11pm, post Ranger hockey game (a loss).

I was struck in reading this article in today's NY Times mag (I'm not finished yet) by the connections (not surprising) we can extrapolate between Clintonism and the policies of the UFT. Check the definition of triangulation and apply it to how Weingarten takes a policy advocated by the opposition that might have "traction" and modifies it to "centralize" it. Also note that Hillary's chief spokesman Howard Wolfson also works as a consultant to the UFT. I think there's been a merger between the Clintons and the UFT. (What position does Uncle Joel and his wife Nancy Seligman occupy in this arrangement?)

Note how Clinton took the Democratic party in a centrist direction and compare it to how the UFT moved from a classical union to a broker between the business interests and the union members - selling the business roundtable line to the members rather than being a strong advocate for the membership. Kahlenberg spends oozes of time talking about the affinity between Clinton and Shanker. We hope to get into some of these ideas at the forum on Thursday (see post below this.)

Definitions in the Times article: "old liberals" are now defined as "progressives."
"Progressives" call Clintonists "Neo-liberals" and look at the practitioners as being not far from neo-cons, with which many share the same roots (loads of examples cited by Kahlenberg.)

Kahlenberg calls "old liberals" "neo-liberals" and uses "tough liberal" to define Shankerism which in many respects is really Clintonism which is really neo-liberal which is in many of its doctrines (other than union rights) a form of neo-con.

Capiche?

Though I see the Times article and the promotion of the Kahlenberg book as part and parcel of an attack on the left, including left-wing Democrats, there's a lot more thinking through of these issues to do.

But Giant football is coming up and we've got lots of chips and dip to attack and then heading off to MSG for Rangers hockey tonight, preceded by hot dogs at Nathan's. Urp!

More later.

NY Times article is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print

An Ugly Thread on the UFT and Class Size

“To its [the UFT's] credit, the city is already taking some smart steps. Its small "lead teacher" program and its new performance pay initiative, both developed with the United Federation of Teachers, will provide bigger paychecks and new career paths to successful teachers in poor schools. That will give those teachers new reasons to stay in the Bronx and Brooklyn rather than move out to Westchester or Long Island.”

Robert Gordon in the Daily News praising the UFT after trashing parents who support class size reduction.

Of course to me it all falls into place. It is no accident Gordon lauded the UFT/company union which will be supporting his wife's boss for president.

Gordon is married to Hillary Clinton's domestic advisor.

Robert Gordon attacks class size and praises the UFT - he full well knows they have much higher priorities than class size.

I've always said the UFT was playing a game on class size.

The AFT and NYSUT already endorsed Clinton and the UFT will follow. Randi will become pres of the AFT and use that platform to try to elect Clinton if she's still in the game.

Klein could become Sect of Ed in a Clinton admin.

Oh, the ties that bind!

Follow the thread below between Leonie and Patrick Sullivan from the NYC Education News listserve.

Leonie Haimson posts:

Hilary Clinton’s domestic policy director, Catherine Brown, is married to Robert Gordon, yes, Robert Gordon, the infamous designer of FSF and current attack dog of the DOE against the “obsession” with class size reduction, as he put it in his oped in the Daily News yesterday.

(For more on the education staff and advisers of the various candidates see: http://thisweekineducation.wikispaces.com/campaign08)

If you want to hear about how Brown and Gordon met and fell in love, here’s a revealing account of his quick-witted charm from the NY Observer:

http://www.nyobserver.com/node/39650

“Ms. Brown, a slender, blond outdoorsy type with a warm smile, mentioned that she’d just bought a ski condo in Park City, Utah. “That’s very grown-up of you,” Mr. Gordon said. “I didn’t realize you were that mature.”

“Is it that obvious?” Ms. Brown quipped.
“It’s a good thing,” he said. “Being immature at this stage of life.”

Patrick Sullivan comments:
I met with Gordon toward the end of his (full time) tenure at DOE.

When I voted against Fair Student Funding at the May PEP, Klein asked me to talk to Robert Gordon.

I told him I was coming in and wanted an explanation as to why two thirds of D4 ( East Harlem) schools were getting hold harmless and why 7 of 8 schools on the SURR/SINI list would get nothing as well.

Despite the fact that he had the question in advance, he said, "gee, looks like the schools in D4 are smaller and maybe that's why". Sticking the schools with a radically different budgeting methodology without understanding or concern for the impact on the ground is irresponsible, to say the least. For many of these people, our schools and our kids are one giant sandbox to try out the latest academic fad. And no need to test on one District, just go crazy and do it to 1.1 million kids. Gordon represents the worst of that bunch. Now he's safely in his think tank.

That day I kept asking what they would offer these schools, the only answer I ever got from Tweed was "accountability"

Leonie follows with:

But he’s not safely in his think tank; he’s still working as an adviser to DOE, writing attacks on class size in the Daily News (which I’m sure he was paid handsomely for), distorting the research by referring to those “giants” in the field of education like McKinsey and the Parthenon Group, and married to Hilary Clinton’s top policy adviser.

No doubt his inside the Beltway perspective will risk poisoning who ever becomes the next president.

And what is he? Just another arrogant lawyer.

Perhaps his being married to Clinton’s top policy adviser led him to express his animus on parents instead of the UFT.

Parent Josh Karan responded to Gordon with a letter to the Daily News:
Robert Gordon's pitting of improving the teaching corps against reduction of class size is like asking which eye you would rather have -- your right or your left. Like stereoscopic vision, they work together. Reducing class size will help even the best teachers reach their students more directly, and will help retain teachers, who find the workload impossible. In middle or high school --- where Mr. Gordon wrongfully claims there is no evidence for the efficacy of reduced class size -- how can a teacher review & critique even weekly writing assignments for a
hundred and fifty students, the number commonly taught by NYC teachers? Just giving a paltry 10 minutes to each would require 5 hours every day outside the classroom in addition to regular lesson planning. I am sure that Mr. Gordon does not put in those kind of hours, nor do the teachers in elite schools with classes of 15, where intensive development of students ability to write is indeed possible because teachers work with so many fewer students. He is right,
however, that providing equal education would cost a boatload, which is why the rich & powerful who don't pay their fair share of taxes reserve such education for their own. As a society, the consequence is well stated in the bumper sticker "If you think education is
expensive, try ignorance".

Josh Karan
District 6 Washington Heights
The district which initiated the Campaign For Fiscal Equity lawsuit

AFT Endorses Hillary - UFT Not Far Behind

Reality based educator has nailed another one at the NYC Educator blog regarding the AFT endorsement of Hillary Clinton. As all UFT members pay dues to that organization and the UFT is by far the largest block of votes in the AFT [add the NY State United Teachers, which the UFT controls], people opposed to the Clinton endorsement may be a wee bit vexed.

As noted in the article in the NY Times, UFT president Randi Weingarten is close to Hillary and is expected to become president of the AFT in July '08.

Does anyone think the UFT will endorse anyone else? All AFT/UFT forces are being marshaled to get Hillary elected.

In a democratic union there might be a referendum on this issue. In the Kahlenberg book on Shanker it talks about how Shanker used to brag how many referendums of the membership were held on endorsements and even the Vietnam War (he even lost a few before he figured out how to use the Unity machine to it's full effect.)

Watch how the entire process within the UFT is manipulated to give the impression this will be done democratically. First, the Executive Board will rubber stamp, followed by the Delegate Assembly with a 90% plus vote. Even expect a visit there from Hillary (she came to the DA when she was first elected Senator.)

What do you think the vote for a Hillary endorsement would be if there were a referendum of all UFT members?

60%" 50? Certainly not 90%. This disparity would indicate the disconnect between the Unity controlled DA and the membership.

Maybe it's time to raise a call for such a referendum in the UFT on the issue before UFT members get the response when calling for assistance:

Sorry, we are busy working in the Hillary campaign. Call back after Election Day, Nov. '08.