• Listen to the entire program

GUESTS: Norman Solomon, Founder and Executive Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, author of several books including “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death,” and his latest, “Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State;” Lamont Yeakey, Associate professor of History at Cal State LA and former member of the KPFK Local Station Board; Eun Sook Lee, Executive Director of National Korean American Service & Education Consortium

It’s the day before “Super Duper Tuesday,” and this week, we take Uprising on the road to college campuses around Southern California. Today we’re live at Cal State LA, broadcasting in front of a live audience of students and faculty, at the university’s Faculty Club. Our topic of discussion is of course tomorrow’s historic primary elections. Californians, along with Americans from 21 other states, will go to the polls to choose their party’s presidential nominees.

With Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards bowing out earlier than expected, the field has narrowed down to only two contenders among the Democrats. Hillary Clinton was busy sweeping up some last-minute supporters at this campus on Saturday. The New York Senator’s lead over her rival, Barack Obama, has narrowed considerably since last Thursday’s debate at the Kodak Theater.

Because the Democratic Party’s primary election system is based on winning proportional delegates – by congressional district rather than the winner-take-all system the Republicans use – a clear winner may not emerge even after Tuesday’s races. In other words, a candidate may walk away with a considerable number of delegates even if he or she lost the state. Among the Republicans, John McCain is emerging as a front runner, with new polls placing him well ahead of his nearest rival, Mitt Romney.

Rough Transcript:

Sonali Kolhatkar: Norman, I’d like to start with you. In your day-to-day work, you monitor the media and particularly around election time it’s interesting to see how the media spins the news. What has your assessment of the media spin been regarding the run-up to the primary elections? How are they looking at the candidates? Are they actually digging it deeper or is it mostly superficial?

Norman Solomon: Well, a lot of it has been on the surface horseracing and you know it’s been said that a lot of journalists vicariously wish they were campaign managers and perhaps vice-versa. So, we’ve got a lot of calibration of polls and tactical discussion. I think, though, that there have been enormous amounts of surprise in the t.v. studios and major newsrooms, as elsewhere in the country, about just how close the race is for the democratic nomination. And, underlying issues though at the same time have really gotten short shrift. They’ve mostly been talked about in terms of what kind of football they’re providing to which candidate to move in what direction. Couple things that really jump out at me in terms of underlying issues that aren’t getting attention that easily could: one is really the culpability of not only the media, but also the major candidates and that is military spending. We just had breaking news in the last couple of days that, adjusted for inflation, the new U.S. military budget in the next year will be the highest since World War 2, and when you add in the spending for wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, you come up with in the neighborhood of 2 billion dollars a day of U.S. taxpayer funds going into the military. An enormous amount, which should be, so to speak, on the table and yet you don’t have any of the major contenders for president even dealing with that which really dislocates and skews the budget and potential for spending for human needs rather than for destruction. The other element is in the area of taxes which does get a lot of attention from the candidates and on the democratic party side I would put the burden, the fault, almost entirely on the news media for not dealing with the underlying issues that affect everybody from L.A. to Bangor, Maine and beyond. One is the issue of raising taxes. We’ve heard the news media again and again say and often warn the democrats – hey, you have to be careful. Don’t call for “raising taxes” – which is to say letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 as the legislation allows, unless Congress is to renew those tax cuts. Well, Hillary Clinton as well as Barack Obama have been very clear that what they’re calling for, in effect, is a raise on taxes for the wealthy, the top 1%. In the case of Obama, those who earn over $200,000 a year, in the case of Hillary Clinton, those who earn over $250,000 a year. Well, the anchors questioning them like Charlie Gibson of ABC or Wolf Blitzer at CNN, they make in the seven figures so, to them, so that’s a tax increase. To most of us, that would be a way of lessening the imbalances and unfairness of the tax system.

Sonali: And those are some of the main issues that don’t come up. Of course, there’s the issue of the war, there’s the issue of immigration. I want to turn to Eun Sook Lee. You’re a local community organizer here, part of a very large and growing community in Los Angeles but with an eye toward what’s happening nationally. Eun Sook Lee, has your organization, National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, taken a position on this year’s election and what are your thoughts about this primary election and the change that this country faces in the upcoming months?

Eun Sook Lee: Well, we are a non-partisan organization. As a non-profit, we’re not supporting any candidate but we are concerned about the fact that, while we’re pleased that there’s so much more attention by media to this election and clearly not just those who typically vote but young voters and independent voters and so on are showing much more interest and we see that kind of coverage in ethnic and mainstream media, we see that the Asian-American and Pacific Islanders, for example, which represent 3.5 million registered voters are not hearing their issues taken into consideration. Recently we were in Nevada for what was considered to be the minority debate hosted with MSNBC and while there were Latinos, African-Americans and Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders there, we didn’t see the issues that impact Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders taken into consideration and I think there was a lot of concern about that. And I will say that we’re especially also feeling like enough is enough on the issue of immigration. Immigration cannot be a wedge issue and it continues to be so. We saw that, for example, with the issue of drivers’ licenses and the way that many of the candidates shifted positions. I would also point out, for example, Huckabee, who represented a state at one time that provided in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants and supported the passage of the Dream Act. Where do we see Huckabee now? Completely at the other end. That is extreme shifting catering to the extremist fringe in many ways and that case obviously is the politicization of the issue at the cost of immigrants. We’re very pleased about what Obama actually said at the debate most recently in Los Angeles when he brought up the fact that immigrants should not be scapegoated. So, I think we need to really monitor how immigrants and immigration are being used during this election.

Sonali: Eun Sook, there’s going to definitely be a major flashpoint in November. Of course, between Republicans and Democrats, immigration becomes a favorite political football and each candidate will try to outdo one another on how tough they can be on immigration but among the two Democrats going into tomorrow’s primary elections, you mentioned you liked what Obama said and Hillary Clinton, however, likes to paint herself also as a friend to immigrants but she, during the debate last week, of course, made some interesting comments and implications about immigrants and how they may take jobs away. How do those two Democratic candidates compare with one another on immigration?

Eun Sook: I think that it was a little unsettling what Senator Clinton did say because it did make references or suggestions that a lot of what’s happening in terms of the economy and the loss of jobs and the lowering of wages was because of immigration. That’s actually inaccurate compared to what we see about how immigration and immigrants have really increased jobs and also allowed for the stimulation of the economy itself. That’s something that we continue to see in terms of data and research. So, we’re concerned about the fact that there is a problem with this economy and it’s not because of immigration but, again, they’re just the convenient scapegoat. And again, as I said earlier, unfortunately Senator Clinton has shifted on her position on drivers’ licenses. [unintelligible] used to come out strong in terms of tough enforcement but doesn’t talk about some of the other elements. I do believe that on record both of them are pretty strong on immigration and supporting comprehensive immigration reform. I think that Obama is less tested which may be a good thing in some ways because he may be willing to stand stronger on some issues and see it less as a political gain and I thought that he said that at the L.A. Times debate where he said that this is a difficult issue but we do have to take positions on it. So, I think that’s a little bit more encouraging, but yes, we are concerned about that but also I will say even when it’s not about immigration, for example, on health care, they talk about universal health care except for immigrant children. That doesn’t sound like universal health care to me. That sounds like exceptions to what is supposed to be universal.

Sonali: I want to turn to our third guest, Lamont Yeakey. You’re a Professor of History here at Cal State L.A. In your view, looking at the way in which these historic elections are shaping up, generally we don’t have conversations about primary elections to this extent. This is going to be a very historic election. Regardless of who wins the nomination, we may be facing the first woman President or the first black President and if not, at least a major candidate. What are your thoughts on whether, you know, we have come, as a nation, far enough that we are sitting here today talking about a woman candidate and a Black African-American candidate?

Lamont Yeakey: Well, good morning, Sonali again and I’m glad to be on this program with Norman and Eun Sook here. As an academic, I’m trying to be objective but I may find myself giving more personal comment as well. But, on the objective academic side, I want to remind everyone that Martin Luther King stated in the 60s: “We must face the appalling fact that we have been betrayed by both the Democratic and Republican parties.” Now, he said this at a time when John F. Kennedy had been duplicitous with regard to many measures that he pushed for, Kennedy being more concerned about the interests of Southern Democrats. He said this at a time when Lyndon Johnson, as President, would move to pass the historic 1964, ’65 Civil Rights Act and he was courageous but he was also quite accurate. For King, among many issues, the two most important ones had to do with War and Poverty. He was concerned about raising the standards for all people, particularly, those who were the wretched of the earth, those that are forgotten. Now there are several things that seem to me are critical about this forthcoming primary. We all know that California is central. But, as Norman mentioned, we, in the name, that is, of many of us in this country, are engaged in mass murder. We’re killing people in Iraq, we’re killing our own people to kill other people in Iraq. And it’s appalling. With regard to the immigration policy, as my other colleague here has noted, I think that immigrants and their representatives ought to fashion a policy, they first and foremost. And then once they’ve hammered out a policy they feel is important, that is what should be presented to our government.

Sonali: I think there are, in fact, a lot of immigrant groups that have done just that. You know, in the context of the immigrant marches that took place in the last couple of years, a lot of policies have been presented but of course we don’t hear much about them in the mainstream media. There’s always that media filter, of course. But I wanted to re-state the question about whether you think, have we as a nation come far along, do you think, are you optimistic about the fact that we’re looking at a woman candidate and an African-American male candidate or are those things not as important, you think, as what they say?

Lamont: Well, yes and no. I mean, I don’t want to speculate about what may or may not be the case. I’d really like to look at the evidence and what the evidence suggests for us. Let me note, at least, I’m going to answer your question in a minute, Sonali. But, it seems to me that there was a primary in Connecticut to select the Democratic representative to the Senate in 2006. And, Ned Lamont had won the Democratic support in Connecticut overwhelmingly. The then-senator, Leiberman, decided then that since he didn’t have the Democratic support that he’d move on to run as an Independent. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton went to Connecticut and subverted the interests of the Democratic populace there and when the regular election occurred, a few, to be sure there were a few Democrats who supported Lieberman, but the overwhelming majority didn’t. But those few who supported Lieberman joined Republicans and put Lieberman back into the Senate. Now, Mrs. Clinton, for example, has come and asked for the Democrats’ support, the Democratic people of California’s support. And yet she betrayed in another state the Democratic people when they had supported a different candidate and I think we should be mindful of that and not forget that. More specific to your question, it seems to me that the Clintons don’t have a good record. They have a reasonable record on some matters but they don’t have a really solid, foolproof record insofar as their response to African-Americans. And this is the source of the dismay. Interesting. First of all, the Clintons generally have taken the Black vote for granted. They have just assumed that they’ve had it in the pocket. When it came to Lani Guanier for the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, they backed off, not so much because of Democratic pressure, but conservative Republican pressure.

Sonali: Right.

Lamont: Jocelyn Elder, he brought her from Arkansas. She had been Surgeon General. In a press conference, when she remarked that, of course, sex education ought to be taught in the schools, issues of masturbation, anything related to sex education, it was not so much the critique from the Democrats that were opposed to what she said – they welcomed it, or even, I would even say, some liberal Republicans. But the extreme right of the Republican Party, which didn’t support Clinton in any event, put pressure on him, he backed down and, essentially, he fired her.

Sonali: So, you’re saying that basically we really need to be paying attention to what the Clintons and Barack Obama, etc. are doing rather than who they are?

Lamont: That’s true. I have some comments about Barack Obama as well. I’ve got a long litany for the Clintons. One last thing to note, I think Barack Obama, in part, as ironic as it may sound, may owe a lot to Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell because what they’ve done is lay the foundation for a Black in high government office and so more Americans are really more sympathetic and easy to accept a Black as long as that Black does the bidding of the maintenance of the status quo.

Sonali: Well, continuing our discussion, Norman, I want to turn back to you a little bit from what Prof. Yeakey was saying. So, we may have a Black President but will he really be able to do the kinds of things he needs to do even if he has a Progressive background or is he going to have to do the bidding of the elites because that’s the only way one can be President in this country? What do you think?

Norman Solomon: Well, it’s bound to be a mixture of each if it comes to that. The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place. And those who, in 1993, had illusions about the capacity of one person, even if he wanted to, in the case of Bill Clinton, to change the structure of the political economy and foreign policy on his say-so or the interest of his voters, those illusions were largely dispelled over the course of the years. So, I think that we can say now, the Progressive verdict is in on the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Sonali: And Barack is the winner.

Norman: Well, I think that’s pretty evident at this point. And, you might say that Progressives have vetted these candidates over a period of many months. The Internet has helped that. So, when MoveOn a few days ago, had, essentially, an election, a validated poll involving hundreds of thousands of people who actively decided – do you want to support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Obama won 70% of the vote through the left liberal MoveOn constituency and, therefore, the active endorsement of MoveOn. Well, that’s not just a casual decision. I think that people have really weighed the evidence and the preponderance of evidence is that Barack Obama is a more Progressive candidate than Hillary Clinton. So, that said, if we’re going to look at the actual situation, Barack Obama is hardly an anti-corporate candidate. He is, on the contrary, a corporate candidate. It’s just a matter of degree. Is he in with both feet? Based on his record, are both feet in cement with corporate America the way it does appear to be, as the case with Hillary Clinton? And I think he has certainly several toes in with Wall Street. That’s based not only on his funding, which is, for instance, several million dollars, 4.5 at last report, from securities and investment firms. Also, his very bad record on sub-prime mortgages, which is laid out in the February 11 issue of the Nation Magazine in an article entitled Sub-Prime Obama. So, it’s just to say that illusions would be a mistake. But, if you, for instance, look at the evidence and here’s one bit of I think telling information: the chief strategist for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is a guy named Mark Penn. He is head of the p.r. firm Burton-Marsteller which, among other things, helped coach recent testimony on Capitol Hill about Blackwater for the Blackwater CEO. It’s a long list. It’s one of the most pernicious, vicious, pro-corporate, imperial, if I can get all that out, p.r. firms in the United States and the person who’s essentially strategizing and helping to run in a major way Hillary Clinton’s campaign is part of this corporate elite with some of the most vile records you can imagine. Contrast that with the campaign manager for Barack Obama who is David Bonyer, who, in Congress, was one of the major spokespeople for peace, against the Contra War in Central America. And I think that gives us not a full picture but a litmus indication anyway that Hillary Clinton is just so immersed in the imperial view of foreign policy and the corporate view of domestic policy whereas we’ve got Barack Obama at least with a mixture of positions and advisors that would indicate a strong base moving in a Progressive direction might carry his policies in the White House in that direction.

Sonali: Eun Sook, following up on what Norman just said, even, say, if Barack Obama does make it out of tomorrow’s elections with a clear majority of delegates and heads to the race in November, say he does even win the White House, do you have faith in the electoral system in the United States which relies on moneyed interests to get a candidate forward? Barack Obama today perhaps is doing better, even slightly so than Hillary Clinton, according to some of the latest polls because he has raised a huge amount of money. In fact, 90% of the funding in this primary election race has been from the Democrat side and among Obama and Clinton, it has been from Obama who got several million dollars worth of ads during the Super Bowl game. So, given this context, can this electoral system truly be beholden to the people?

Eun Sook: I think in the long term many of us do feel that this electoral system does need to be reassessed, particularly because, while it is somewhat historic that we have a woman and an African-American that is running, I would like to mention that in a lot of cases it’s a little disconcerting that for the last how many years, it’s been between Bush and Clinton – the choices. So, I don’t know if sometimes if we feel like we should be putting labels and saying, because it’s a woman, that’s historic. But, we also have to realize how they got to that place. And in a lot of cases, what you were saying, Sonali, I would agree with is that it would be very difficult to make it this far without that kind of support from corporations. But, I would also say that at this point, how they would do when they get to office depends on how they win. Certainly, it has to do with how much they raise but how much of that support also comes from small donors, individual donors, young people who are giving for the first time, whether they’re minorities or not. That, I think, has a big impact on what impact it would have in the White House, but also, in the long term, it does have to reassess as well.

Sonali: And, Eun Sook, let’s talk about the fact that we’re really only hearing from, of course, the two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Ralph Nader is currently exploring his viability as a presidential candidate with the Greens. The Green Party, in the last few years, has at least, you know, tried to enter the debate, haven’t often been allowed into the major debates, but their presence may have had an effect. What do you think about moving beyond this two party system? When do you think this country is going to be able to do that?

Eun Sook: I appreciate what Norman said earlier which is that let’s not have any illusions. The way it’s set up right now, it’s seems that it is only a two party system. But I also agree with you that if we believe that we do need a multi-party system, it’s not just the individuals. We have major Progressive organizations and sectors that have bought in to this two party system. I don’t have to name them – I think we know. So, it’s not just the corporations actually. I think that there is a significant Progressive voting bloc. I think there are significant Progressive voters and we’re represented by organizations and sectors, but we’re also working within that. So, we need to have, in order to do that, it has to be national, it has to be significant and deep, and it has to have the participation of many of the sectors that have been putting themselves into the Democratic Party in a lot of ways.

Sonali: Well, Lamont Yeakey, I want to turn back to you and ask you to weigh in on this conversation regarding the two party system, money and elections, etc. And also the fact that what Norman said, that Barack Obama is emerging as the candidate that a lot of Progressives are coalescing behind.

Lamont Yeakey: Well, I’d like to preface it again with a remark by Martin Luther King in part because this is Afro-American History Month. He would be commemorating his assassination later in April. I’d like to note what he said also: “The urgency of the hour calls for leaders of wise judgment and sound [unintelligible – sound problem]; leaders not in love with money, but in love with justice; leaders not in love with publicity, but in love with humanity; leaders who can subject their particular egos to the greatness of the cause.” Now having said that, I want to note that there is a tendency of people often to read into the few morsels or tidbits that come from the mouths of candidates, to read into it what you want, what you believe, what you think you heard, whether or not they’ve committed or not. And on the Obama side, what is happening here is he’s done an interesting catwalk dance where when he’s in a very open public forum such as those that are aired over national television, he tends to give very broad, vague, imprecise answers to questions on the main. On the other hand, when he speaks to a given audience that’s very narrow and focused, then he’ll be a little bit more forthright. But I think that, in his favor, what he tries to demonstrate is the possibility of getting more young people such as those at the university involved, enlightening people, and when he says “change”, we’re going to take it too cavalierly. There is a grave need for change. But I think it behooves all of us who are in some ways attracted to him – even Kucinich for example gave him his support as he bowed out of the campaign – is to push him in the direction we want him to be and not allow the corporate interests to dictate that.

Sonali: You mean how the right wing, for example, hold their candidates really accountable?

Lamont Yeakey: Well, even more specifically, when you’ve had people such as George Will and others praise Obama. That throws up a red flag. What happens when the extreme right neo-cons come out in support of Obama? Are they hoping to try to, I think it’s a multi-pronged strategy that they are evidencing in that, but I won’t go into it now. But the point is that those of us who have great hope for Obama, or for Clinton for that matter, have to put pressure on them to respond to the interests that we want. I’d like to make one other note too, that California is so critical and this is presumed or stated mainly from the press, but from other quarters too, divisiveness between the Latino and the Black vote, as well as the Asian vote. I think we should be wiser to look beyond because, for example, among the Latinos, there are as many Latino leaders who are opposed to Clinton and who are supportive of Obama. And it struck me as quite interesting that Nunez in this state and also Villaraigosa, the mayor of the city, didn’t even support their own Latino candidate who ran – the governor of New Mexico. And you would think that if the appeal is on ethnic lines and on what Progressives, or at least the positive statements issued from the candidate, you would think they would flock to one of their own first. It is also interesting how Jesse Jackson’s family is divided over this issue. I think a real interesting issue will be in Chicago where basically Hillary in the state of Illinois is making a pitch for that vote but now with Ted Kennedy coming out and the ties between him and Mayor Daley, how they’ll be able to sway toward Obama. And Obama really wasn’t the candidate the Democrats wanted anyway to be in the Senate, but I don’t want to go further into this. Just to note that it is indeed complex, but I think that what most people feel at the gut is a desire for someone who will serve their interests. Now if Obama is to do that it will require those same people to put pressure on him.

Sonali: Norman?

Norman Solomon: Yeah, you know, there is an acute and I think very well grounded critique and I think we just heard it that Progressives have, by and large, not been able to and need to be able to put enormous effective pressure on Democratic candidates and Democratic Party office holders, first and foremost, when there’s a Democrat in the White House. One of the responses over time has been, well, we’re being taken for granted and, therefore, we’re going to run a third party candidate for president. It was a rationale for the Nader campaigns of 2000, 2004 Green Party candidate David Cobb and 2004 and we’re seeing again that it’s going to happen whether Nader runs as a Green Party presidential candidate this year or as an independent. Green Party also preparing to nominate a presidential candidate. And, my own assessment is that that approach, that idea that because we are “taken for granted”, we run a third party candidate for president has been a failure. That approach has been proven empirically to do nothing but set back the Progressive cause. And I think that there’s a lot more promise than we’re seeing [sound problems – unintelligible] in the campaign this year. Groups in Southern California like Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles; nationally, Progressive Democrats of America; Democracy for America. These are many indications and grassroots activists affiliated with other groups as well or just functioning as individuals in their neighborhood saying, look, we’re going to fight for a Progressive future for the Democratic Party, not because we have illusions about it but because we don’t see any other way for the two prerequisites to be fulfilled to move this country in a Progressive direction. One is to boot the right wing Republicans out of the White House, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition, and then to transform the Democratic Party into an outlet not just for the rhetoric of Progressivism, but actually to realize it in program and policy.

Sonali: I want to get Eun Sook’s comments on this, too. Eun Sook Lee?

Eun Sook: Sonali, thank you. I actually wanted to make two specific comments. One is that, you know, we talk about creating a new system and one of it is that it is part of how we get those who generally think that they shouldn’t even bother engaging or voting in November is doing more than voting. We really need to create this culture sustained civic participation in our communities particularly with minority communities, immigrant communities and so on. But I will also say that the reason why we’re doing all this is that, in some ways, we are looking for policy change. We want to see changes to immigration policies. We want to see changes to health care and so on. And then we start to think that in order to achieve that, what we need is smart political strategy. We need money and voters. But in the long term that, in itself, will not make any difference. I really believe that, in the end, whether it’s a Democrat or Republican that makes it to the White House, to Congress, if we don’t change the way Americans think about immigration, about the economy, it really won’t matter. It will become a political issue once again, regardless [sound interruption] America’s divided and that really benefits political systems. But what we need to seek is to overcome that and what we need is to have immigrants that are really reaching out to non-immigrants, to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders reaching out to Latinos and African Americans and really find out once again what are not only the common values but a common agenda. I’ll give you an example of that: when we look at immigration policy, it’s not just immigrants who need to look at immigration policy. We need the non-immigrants to look at it and say that immigration has to benefit those who are undocumented in this country, the ability for others who are seeking to come to this country legally, but also about the U.S. workers in this country. What do we do to ensure that their wages are not lowered and depressed the economy itself? And then what do we do to preserve the family based system? So, I think that’s a new level for even organizers and community groups to consider because, in the end, the political strategy is only going to get us a different person in the White House but I’m not convinced that alone is actually going to change policy for what we’re seeking.

Sonali: This is Uprising broadcasting live from the campus of Cal State L.A. the day before Super Duper Tuesday.

Sonali: We have a special election program here on Uprising today. Tomorrow we’ll be at Cal State Northridge, the day after that Cal State Fullerton. We have some folks in the audience now that we’d like to hear from and take a couple of questions from. Good morning and please introduce yourself.

Professor in the audience: Good morning, and thank you for the panel. This is Professor Joseph [?], Philosophy Department, also involved with ICJP that hosts you sometimes. Two really clarification questions, I may have missed this earlier: one, on whether Obama has come out on the Supreme Court and how he sees the Supreme Court nominations, especially on abortion. And, the second question, given that we are in L.A., is what has he done in terms of addressing Asian interests? I mean, we have spoken of the Latino community, but in Los Angeles, as we know, the Asian population is quite significant and certainly need to be drawn into the political process more than they already are.

Sonali: Norman Solomon, do you know about the Supreme Court statements?

Norman Solomon: On that first point, I think that between the two parties for the presidential aspirants, it’s pretty much a generic lineup. While the Republicans, each of them basically swear, and we saw this in the debate a few days ago on CNN among the Republicans, to appoint justices in the [sound interruption] and so forth. The Democrats I think uniformly are fairly reliable, such as it is, to appoint someone similar to say Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and I think this goes to a key point – whatever the limitations are and they’re often severe on policy in terms of what difference it makes to have a president who is a Democrat or a Republican – the Supreme Court is one of those key concerns and issues where it clearly makes a big difference. And for those to say that, well, it’s a coin flip or does it matter much, they’d have to say that it doesn’t matter whether you have someone like Alito, the latest member of the Supreme Court, or you have someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Sonali: Eun Sook Lee, would you like to answer the question on what Obama has been saying regarding the Asian community?

Eun Sook Lee: I will have to say that actually once again as I was saying earlier in the show so I don’t want to repeat it that while there are more than 7 million eligible voters and close to 3.5 million registered voters who are Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and also outside of Hawaii, California is the second largest population of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, we haven’t heard many of the candidates speak about Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. However, because Obama was raised in Hawaii, he has some support in Hawaii and some support with some of the local Asian American, Pacific Islander groups that he had a history with or a relationship with in the past. But, that’s the personal relationship, but I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily even about the candidate. It’s about the fact that, again, for example, in Nevada, when they said they would have the minority debate with MSNBC with the African American, Latino and Asian American Pacific Islanders, they gave us the chance to not only bring Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders from around the country, they asked us to present questions to ask to the candidates and on-air we heard none of the questions posed and we were not even referred to by any of the candidates. So, we did a big showing for that event and in some ways all we did was get tickets to get inside. But, we didn’t hear any of our issues being listened to or there was no content incorporated into it.

Sonali: Let’s go to another question from the floor.

Student: Hi, I’m Frederick Smith. I’m a worker with the Student Union at Cal State L.A. I’m very excited you all are here on campus today. I’m wondering – I know in 2000 when Ralph Nader was part of the equation, many students and I had discussions about whether or not his candidacy might have cost the Democrats winning in 2000. Right now, we’re at the end of 8 years of right wing Republicanism. And so the question is, can you talk about the fine line between having the candidate that we want versus the candidate who can win? And, whether or not sometimes certain issues may or may not have to be compromised in looking at putting forth just a Democrat or a Progressive candidate who can win versus looking at all of the issues that we feel may or may not be part of the discussion?

Sonali: I think that’s a really good question and it comes up not only in the context of elections but even in the context of making any kind of progressive change in this country. Progressives often have a laundry list of issues but it, you know, doesn’t make it sound very coherent. So, on the question of elections, Professor Yeakey, I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on the question from the floor about this issue: putting forward someone who is viable versus somebody who really represents you?

Prof. Yeakey: Well, I think that’s really the horns of a dilemma for most Americans and since Clinton got elected in ’92 to the present, it’s always been the pragmatic approach: who can win versus who is the best candidate? And, I don’t have a good solid answer for that until we change the nature of our system to maybe develop a more parliamentary system so that a variety of positions can be represented in our government. But I think that whether it’s Clinton or Obama on the Democratic ticket, they’re going to face enormous hostility and difficulty getting elected. I think the Democrats have a great shot at winning this November election but both Clinton and Obama are going to face, Obama’s going to face racism that’s going to come out; Clinton is going to face the whole set of issues, the legacy, baggage from her husband which the Republicans have been after…

Sonali: …and sexism.

Prof. Yeakey: That’s right. And sexism. And if it’s the Republicans, McCain notwithstanding, he’s going to face problems not only domestically but globally because he’s already committed to helping the wealthy and not the people who need the help the most economically in his foreign policy and so forth. But, could I just make one quick note and I don’t want to belabor this but the previous question asked – I want to remind everyone that both Obama and Clinton supported Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court. Even though I think Norman’s point is well taken, that basically the Democrats will try to get someone that’s certainly to the left of the persons and someone in the fashion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the fact of the matter is that both those Senators did not have to. It was a shoe-in that they were going to get appointed to the Court. But they could have taken a stand and opposed them as Feingold did in Wisconsin, for example. On the issue of Asians, just quickly, I think we need to make a distinction. The old-line Chinese, the old-line Japanese, the people who have been here for a while, even Koreans, tend to be more Democratic because they understand. But the newcomers who’ve just come, they have no sense of the internment of the Japanese. They have no sense that the Chinese were barred for over 60 years from entering the United States until World War 2. The newcomers are kind of divided in some ways and that’s contested territory too. Then you’ve got the West Asians, the people who we think of as from the Middle East. That group is concerned about who is going to bring peace to that area. I think Obama has the upper hand on most of those counts, but whether he can hold it and then once, assuming that he gets the nomination, he can deliver to the people who desire assistance the most, still remains to be seen. But, I admit that pressure has to be kept on him.

Norman: I think that’s all really well taken and on your point on the Supreme Court and Democrats approving these last two very bad right wing appointees to the top bench, it goes to this underlying question of the way in which the Democratic Party has been dragged rightward through corporate and other pressure for decades. When you think back that Richard Nixon, when he appointed two very racist nominees for the Supreme Court, Haynesworth and Carswell, during the first Nixon term, the Democrat-dominated Senate turned back and decisively defeated both of those nominations. And that goes to what we might now call, among other things, the Feinstein problem, where you have Dianne Feinstein, a Senator out from this state, voting out of committee supportively a nominee, now the Attorney General of the United States, who can’t sit there and acknowledge that waterboarding is torture. So, we have a huge problem with a Senator from this state in that way.

Sonali: We want to squeeze in one final question from the floor before we end this program. Good morning and please introduce yourself.

Guest: Good morning. My name is Dar Diaz. I work for the [unintelligible] program on campus. First I want to say I really appreciate the comment by Eun Sook Lee, I hope I pronounce your name right. I want to expand on her idea of changing the way people think and I think the conversations around political analysis are important ones and I respect them but I think I’d like to give as much weight if not more to changing our culture and society and the way people think about politics and their participation. So, my question is, first, in my office, I was hearing two people speak about, you know, which candidate to support and one of them said, Hillary Clinton. And she said, why, and she said, because she’s a woman. And on the surface, I think it’s very simplistic but I think there’s a point there because I think there’s an argument that if we elect a woman, I personally don’t feel necessarily that her politics are any better or that she’s going to be any great person or make change more than anyone else. But my question is, do you think it would tend to open more doors to who can be a leader in this country in terms of gender, in terms of sexual orientation, in terms of race? Would it tend to create more participation for people and would it change the way people think more?

Sonali: Well, we literally have 30 seconds left. Eun Sook, would you like to address that?

Eun Sook: Certainly, your identity’s important. Who you are is who you start with. And it will open doors to know that what America’s represented is not just by a white man but by a woman or an African American and so on. But we also as voters should not be reduced to simply that. And we know that. It’s a first step, an important step, but also it’s about the content. And we want candidates to have bottom lines and guiding principles. We don’t want them to merge and become this ideal candidate that’s winnable but, in the end, doesn’t achieve anything that we’re seeking in the White House in the coming years because we know again that America needs is a lot of change.

Special Thanks to Julie Svendsen for transcribing this interview