In case anyone has forgotten it, I have endorsed Tom Vilsack. If you want to see my reason why, read this diary. But that is NOT why I am writing this diary
And before anyone claim that I am violating the rules by the title of this diary, because the FAQ says
"Calling out" other users. This consists of referring to another user, by name, in the title of a diary with a negative connotation.
I am applying exactly the same standard used by Markos in today's frontpage story. I have asked a question, of two prominent users in this site. If that is inappropriate for me to do to users 4 and 4334, then it was equally wrong for Markos to do it to user#67999 - Tom Vilsack has posted here, most recently this diary. If I am violating the rules by my reference to Kos, then he violated the rules by his reference to Tom.
But that's NOT my point.
There are many people on this site who have changed their opinions on many key issues over time. Some outright opposed the war, others took longer to come to the conclusion that even though Saddam was a tyrant and brutal perhaps the war did not justify our invading. It would be wonderful if people were right all the time, but they're not, even if they are owners of prominent blogs or candidates for the presidency or simply people who like to express their own ideas publicly - yes, that last reference is to me.
I have no problem with people using whatever rationale they like in deciding whom to support or oppose political. Each of us has things that is important, that may be non-negotiable. And each of us is likely to try to convince others of the rightness of our position and the incorrectness (and here I am being gentle) of THOSE IDIOTS WHO DO NOT SEE THINGS EXACTLY AS WE DO IN OUR PERFECT WISDOM (sorry for the screaming - trying to illustrate the point).
Kevin Thurman, who DOES work for the Vilsack campaign (I do not, and have no official role), posted a comment on the front page story in which he stated that Tom Vilsack has for over a year offered to talk with Markos on any topic, including Tom's role at the DLC, but that Markos has chosen not avail himself of that opportunity. That surprises me a bit - if a prominent politician wanted to talk to me, I'd seize the opportunity, because it would also be an opportunity for me to talk to him or her. That's why when I was given a chance to talk with Tom Vilsack more than a year ago when he was in Arlington where I live, I jumped at the chance, and experienced a 2-way conversation with a man who listened, and responded to what I said, sometimes challenging sometimes acknowledging that I was challenging him.
I am a school teacher. I have a certain facility with words, and occasionally some of what I write online is valued by others. Thus some of my diaries at dailykos reach the recommended list, and two have been frontpaged over the now 3+ years I have been here, one by Armando and one on Yearlykos by Kos himself. Yet although I opposed the war strongly, I have rarely written directly about the war. I have not participated in large demonstrations. I have written on related issues, and when I have had had the opportunity to talk with politicians (and I usually grab any such opportunity), the war has been one of the topics about which I might choose to engage. Could one argue that I am not doing enough? Certainly. By that rationale probably every person here could be found wanting in some way in her or his opposition to this atrocity.
I have had former students serve. Fortunately the ones of which I know have returned whole. I have listened to them, and to others I have met at yearlykos, or online. I wrote a diary about Paul Reickhoff's book, and received a thankyou comment from Paul, but was that sufficient? I have explored as much as I could with my students the issues relating to the war, and encouraged them to explore further on their own. I have in writing and in speaking strongly opposed some of the collateral issues, whether it was the military commissions act, or the NSA spying, or provisions of the USA Patriot Act, or the stop-loss orders, or . . .
In other words, I have used what power of words I have to offer opposition. So that answers in part the question in the title of this diary, about me.
And Markos has provided a forum in which I could do this and have others read and respond to my words. He has provided this forum not only to me, but also to many others, a good number of whom are political figures.
It seems to me that one thing a political candidate does is to make more prominent an issue about which he cares. Whether or not you think him sincere, by advocating a position as a major part of his campaign he ties himself to that position. You might argue that the politician is doing so only for political benefit. Well, most politicians do want to get elected. But what if the position pushes the envelope? Is asking for defunding of the war a centrist position, even today? Is it not a position that can leave one open to the charge of being reckless, of not supporting the troops? Does not that politician deserve some credit for being willing to clearly stand on a position that is not in the comfortable center? And does not that visible witness earn him some respect, regardless of how or why he came to that position? Certainly Russ Feingold thought so
Markos asked what Tom has done. If you read his most recent dailykos diary he clearly stated a position, in fact repeating what he had previously said on CNN. During that visit, in which he dialogued with the community, the response to his position from this community was overwhelmingly positive.
Perhaps some were offended at how Tom began his presentation in Carson City. It might have seemed like a cheap trick. But let me offer another possible interpretation: it is not just up to the politicians, it is the responsibility of all of us. Thus it is a question we ask ourselves, a challenge to all of us collectively. And I would think that of all places that would be understood, the netroots, which prides itself on taking responsibility, at pushing politicians to do the right thing, would be a place which would understand the intent of that message.
If we believe this war is a moral wrong, then we DO need to ask ourselves if we are remaining complicitly silent, or if we are speaking out in whatever way makes sense for us.
Since before AUMF I have had a sign in my yard from Friends Committee on National Legislation, which says "War is not the Answer." It has been stolen three times, and replaced three times. Signs for other reasons, such as Jim Webb's campaign, have come and gone, but that sign remains, because the folly of the war continues.
Since before the AUMF Markos has provided a place where people could offer their ideas, use the space to organize - in support of antiwar candidates, to put together protests. Kos has personally endorsed and supported a number of candidates who strongly opposed the war, many like him military veterans (I may be a veteran, but did not serve in a combat theater). Without this site Jim Webb quite probably would not have been elected.
Tom Vilsack may not have come to open opposition to the war as quickly as others did. And it is true that he is a candidate for president. I would argue that the forcefulness of his position runs the risk of costing him more support than it could earn him. Knowing the man, and having talked with him about how his position has evolved, I know that the primary motivation has been in seeing the continuing devastation the war has caused, pushing him further and further against the war. Does it really matter that much from where he came, or is it not more important that where he is now and what he advocates forces others to consider possibilities they might not otherwise consider.
I am posting this shortly before midnight. I am not posting a tip jar. I will stay around for comments for a while, should there be any.
I am writing this as an individual, one who greatly appreciates what Markos has given the blogging community, who was appreciative of the effort Markos made on behalf of Jim Webb and other fighting Dems who opposed this war. I am not calling him out, and I am certainly not calling myself out, by using a title modeled on the one he used.
I am suggesting that the words and actions of Tom Vilsack to which he reacted so strongly can be understood in a fashion different than the portrayal he made of them.
And I strongly suggest that we Democrats do not want to start eating our own. I was not around much for the great Dean-Clark wars, and I'd really not want to see a repeat. I think it is appropriate for the netroots to challenge ALL of our candidates, to encourage them, to challenge them to be more forceful in addressing the issue that confront this nation.
I also think we need to reward courage and movement, regardless of what motivation we believe we can ascribe to the change.
And wouldn't it be nice if we could ask of all the candidates - I'm happy that you are now supporting a meaningful resolution to end the war, what took you so long? But then, if we could ask that question of ALL of them, then perhaps such a resolution would now be passing the Congress and the war would be winding down? And then instead of revisiting the past we could move on and address the other major issues facing this nation, issues we cannot address if we are spending 8-10 billion a month on Iraq.
Now I am done. Flame away. Offer your own reactions.
Peace.