Brian - the the Obamanists are cult members.  In my experience, with a few exceptions, you can\'t talk to them in any meaningful.  It\'s quite chilling, actually.  

I assume you saw Barack\'s recent statement of thanks to - and respect for - Ronald freaking Reagan....fopr saving us from (Obama\'s words)  "the excesses of the excesses of the 1960s and the 1970s" (from feminism, and Civil Rights, peace activism, and environmentalism). Reagan rode into office partly on the basis of an ugly white backlash against the black struggle for equality..  

I lived through Ronald freaking Reagan.

I don\'t trust Democrats who speak with respect about Ronald freaking Reagan. 

Obama can take his respect for Ronald Reagan and stick it where the sun don\'t shine.  

Paul,

Great analysis as our all of your pieces.   You, Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon are the Obama demystifiers.

I would love to see you take on some of the liberals who support the Obama mirage in a debate format.

Whenever I use your quotes on dailykos to debate Obamamaniacs there all I get is this:

I\'m a troll, or,

Yeah, but Obama\'s just bad in that one area, or

No, we really do need nuclear power, or military spending, etc.

 

Well, I had to put certain core moral and ideological concerns aside (and get ready to win skeptical stares from the Kucinich kids) to agree to work for Edwards, who also can\'t acknowledge the criminal and petro-imperialist nature of the Iraq "war" (even as he sent out flyers saying "Tell the Truth" on Iraq) but who ran to the not irrelevant  left of Obama, especially on domestic policy (ask Jesse Jackson Sr. and Ralph Nader and Danny Glover etc.). If people are offended by my "stone-hearted" truth-telling on Barack (or by that of Left black writers like Glen Ford, Bruce Dixon, Margarget Kimberly, Kevin Alexander Gray,and Gary Younge [don\'t actually know that Younge is black] or  by white progressive writers like David Sirota or Ken Silverstein), then I say, "I am sorry you feel that way but I honestly hope your hurt feeelings are not more important to you than working to stop the war and to contest the broader empire of which that war is part.   I apologize if I have offended you. Excuse my harsh language but if your personal attachment to your candidate is greater than your commitment to the cause of peace and justice, then this does not bode well for your service to the cause."

The reason I cited Gompers was that he argued that labor should be wary of electoral politics insofar as party coflicts could divide workers (well his version of the relevant working class) from their common interests in building and sustaining a labor movement.  If someone is actually against the war, i don\'t care how confused they are about electoral poltiics or 19th century British literature or Evolution. I\'ll work with  them on the immediate purpose of ending the war.  They should extend the same courtesy to me: disregard my acerbic jottings on the BaRockstar (somewhat deflated last night) and realize there\'s something bigger than who one\'s favorite and least favorite presidential candidates (if any) are..... 

The reason i cited Chomsky is he says that what to do during quadrennial elections is a secondary concern compared to the bigger left goal of expanding and building alternative power centers and a more responsive political culture across and between election cycles.

That was meant to at least suggest some agreeement.

 

Once again, Paul, the point is not to \'push the left wing of the Obama wave,\' whatever that means.

The point is that a large number of young people, who oppose the war for the most part, are entering the world of political activism through the form of working for Obama. And most of them did it without consulting me, you or anyone else. And not only Obama. Some do it through Edwards, Richardson and Kucinich, too, as I\'m sure you know well.

Rather than \'pushing,\' I\'m suggesting that we need to make common cause with all of it, not just the left wing, but not by jumping on the Obama bandwagon.

How? Peace and Justice groups can go door to door, register voters, identify the antiwar voters, and get them to the polls, to vote on a local resolution to cut off funds, and keep all the lists to ourselves, not giving anything to the Dems, and not endorsing anyone. But since none of us can do everything, there a dozen ways to work out an alliance with youth for Obama, Kucinich people, and so on, to do the work, alliances that will last longer than the election, whatever its outcome, if they\'re done well.

My point is that a large portion of the antiwar majority in the country goes to the polls and votes, for whomever. For instance, in Chicago, we put \'Out Now\' on the ballot in 2006, and won 81-to-19, with 800,000 votes. On the other hand, we never had more than 25,000 on the streets, all actions combined. The antiwar majority, including the new and dynamic Obama youth, is comprised on many more than those who hit the streets, by a factor of 5 or 10.

We have to find ways to work with these people, to unite with them as best as we can, and to find common forms of action. These are the masses of ordinary people. We can\'t end the war without them, no matter who they vote for or what candidates they like. The election will be over in November, but I doubt if the war will be over. In brief, to stop this war, we have to form alliance with people, not necessarily candidates, to the right of us politically. If you disagree, and think we can do it without them, I\'d like to see you make your case.

I\'m not suggesting that you don\'t tell the truth about Obama. I do, and I think you\'re one-sided at times, but that\'s another matter. But your writing reveals disdain and contempt, not only for Obama, but for his supporters as well. We are not served well by it in the larger task of ending this terrible war.

\"Candidates aside, the main tasks have to do with -re-building alternative centers of power and a more reponsive political culture across and between corporate-crafted \"quadrennial election extravaganzas\" (Chomsky) and beyond the narrow parameters of the winner-take-all dollar democracy. That\'s an admittedly long-haul reality. \" So, assuming Obama wins the nomination, and then the general election (clearly a parlour game at this early stage, I know), what realistically can we hope he achieves in an 8 year run, assuming a Democratic Congress for the entire run? I\'m worried that the entire two terms will be needed merely to undo all the damage inflicted by the Bush Administration. (though, as I type this, Hillary Clinton maintains a lead in the NH voting, which is very strange considering the exit polls, which greatly favored Obama--and Edwards is doing much worse than I hoped--why can\'t the American public take the time to educate themselves????)

Thomas, I know what you mean about Brooks.  I guess it\'s like I still read and listen to Bush speeches: I am fascinated by it all. But yes, he\'s hard to take. It\'s getting so the only reason to buy the New York Times anymore is to read Paul Krugman  (kind of like Seymour Hersch and The New Yorker).

Edwards would probably be a good  VP choice for Obama. I have a hard time seeing him being #2 for the second time in a row and Obama may be too Republican to do it, but who knows?  They sure looked friendly during the NH ABC debate. and Barack\'s advisor Axlerod worked for Edwards in 2004 (though there may be some bad blood there).

When Edwards got in his ABC Debate line about how Obama represented "change"  and Clinton was the "establishment" responding against "change," the big media reporters got the following text message on their Blackberrys from Edwards people: "The Clinton Era, R.I.P."

As for Carl D. , I know where he\'s coming from and that\'s fine.  I think I said somewhere that people might want to push the left wing of the Obama wave.  It ain\'t me, but folks who want to do that can be my guest --- good luck.  I understand. I do not pretend to think I can or should exile such people from the progressive coalition over such things.

Candidates aside, the main tasks have to do with -re-building alternative centers of power and a more reponsive political culture across and between corporate-crafted "quadrennial election extravaganzas" (Chomsky)  and beyond the narrow parameters of the winner-take-all dollar democracy.  That\'s an admittedly long-haul reality. 

One thing that needs building/rebiuilding is the antiwar movement.  If people want to actually work for the antiwar cause while being Obama fans (or Ron Paul fans or....) then too bad but so be it.  If they can\'t take some incisive radical commentary on their media-created BaRockstar, however, then they\'ve got some serious issues.  I mean don\'t put that on me.  If they\'re gonna let candidate (product) identification trump principled activism around specific policy causes, then they need to read some Noam Chomsky...or maybe just some Samuel Gompers!  They should reconsider.  I\'m not going to ignore basic realities about the Obama phenomenon (or for that matter about Edwards or Kucinich or whoever)  - my job is to tell the truth as I see it. 

The imperial Democratic Party tail should not wag the antiwar dog.  As Jemerny Brecher noted some time ago last year, the Democrats can\'t meanignfully oppose the war because they can\'t and won\'t admit that the occupation is a terrible CRIME, not simply a MISTAKE (as Obama called it: "dumb" but not criminal)...a crime driven by unmentionable imperial considerations including oil along with domestic political considerations that Obama did partly acknowledge in his 2002 speech. Alas, American Exceptionalism is a powerful tonic and the notion of our government actiing like the Mafia on the global stage elicits mass cognitive dissonance in heavily propagandized U.S..  

This critique applies to Edwards of course.  None of the Dems except goofball Dennis could "tell the truth"  (to use one of Edwards\' favorite phrases) of the U.S. "war in"  (errr...  one-sided imperial violence on) Iraq.  

 

Paul, thanks for this and all of your other work de-mystifing Obama.

I agree with you cirtique of Edward\'s weaknesses except  this: "Also a problem was the mansion,". He worked hard earning a professional salary and I don\'t begrudge him for the ability to choose any house he wants. We should all have the opportunity to live in a nice house - or any house at all. I think he is working to make this possibilty (a good standard of living)  a reality for the majority of the people.

Howdy Folks, Anyone else see the possibility in an Obama/Edwards ticket? I know they teamed up in the last debate to bury Hillary once and for all, but I also saw a real possibility of Obama the peacemaker teaming up with a bulldog VP, who can get certain things done that might be easier for the \"bad cop\" (the Progressive alter-ego to Mr. Cheney, if you will). As a Kucinich supporter, I have fallen to the Edwards for President option, but now, after seeing the writing on the wall, am finding myself intrigued by the Obama/Edwards possibilities. In the worst case, Edwards would be that voice of conscience on Obama\'s shoulder, which could be very effective, especially if the Democratic party gain even more seats in the House and Senate, making progressive policy-making a bit easier to achieve. Any thoughts? By the way, Paul, how can you even read David Brooks\' column? I get through a line or two, then have to look away.

Yep... the links didn\'t work out, here\'s another try:

On the issues:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

www.barackobama.com/issues/

On advisers:

www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1698025,00.html

 

I hope those work,

J.D.

Hi Paul—glad to see you on the *new* Z-net

      I saw Dennis Kucinich on Billy Moyer’s show too—and while Bill was clearly in John Edward’s corner,  Kucinich was careful to point out that his Barack Obama endorsement was strictly for Iowa, and might shift in the future.

      Yes, Obama is a little vague at times, but he does have some stances on issues:

 <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama”>Wiki Obama Political Positions</a>

 <a href=”http://www.barackobama.com/issues”/>Issues from the Obama Website</a>

       He’s not as aggressive on healthcare as I might like, and wants to expand the military (why?), but seems to holds various sensible positions imo.  I don’t think his appeal is purely image making via corporate funded advertising— and Edwards isn’t going to establish Parecon in the US either.  My hopes would be for politicians to think in innovative ways to shift the orientation of corporate-government relations without taking big business on directly as an enemy, but rather as a friend that needs some strong re-direction.

       I was turned off a little by John Edwards in a Vice Presidential debate with Dick Cheney who seemed more sincere (even if completely “wrong”)—Edwards’ “rehearsed”  smile made him seem a bit like a slick lawyer—but he’s definitely matured.  I think “Americans” by and large want a “genuine,” “authentic,” president— deciding to choose an “authentic” “numbskull” (at least according to the press) last time over the seemingly less authentic (somewhat staged – what was up with that salute?) John Kerry.

       Obama may go all the way, so I think it would behoove us to look not only at his policies, but at the people he is surrounding himself with, as we US citizens will not only be electing a president, but an executive branch.  With Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, and Obama various advisers, the Bill Clinton team is very much involved with this election.  Maybe Edwards should have sought Bill’s endorsement and not that of Kucinich.

<a href=” http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1698025,00.html”>Obama: Clinton Advisers Prefer Me</a>

(Sorry if my links show up funny, I\'m still trying to figure this new system out)

 

Obama (and other candidates, too) is taking tons of corporate money to win the presidency? I\'m shocked, just shocked!!!

Good grief, how else can it be done in 2008? A grassroots democracy movement, in the periods between elections, has yet to win key election law reforms. Until then, you take corporate money or you don\'t bother in any significant way. Of course one can always do it simply for outreach and education, but then you might as well run as a communist and be done with it. Which is fine, but that\'s another game in a completely different ball park.

But the article and the people replying are missing the most interesting and important point in all this. A huge upsurge of radicalizing youth in taking place in and around the Obama campaign, as even the SDS post acknowledges. As Amy Goodman revealed with a recent interview with one of them, they are taking a step from relative inactivity to political activism, drawn in around the war and other global issues.

I would wholeheartedly welcome this, not despair over the political incorrectness of it.

And I know Obama fairly well, having arranged his speaking spots back in the days when he came out against the war, and helped in in statehouse elections even before that. Once in the US Senate, he took a trip to Iraq, and \'triangulated\' himself considerably rightward, and pissed off a considerable number of his early fans on the left. I was arguing for either Kucinich or Richardson in Iowa. I am fully aware of the upside and downside of the man.

But Obama\'s vacillations on the war, or the source of his money, while important in some repects, are not the most critical issue in my view. More important is how we build alliances with what is now the Obama wing of the youth antiwar movement to deploy the full range of activities in every arena to bring this horrible war to an end, sooner rather than later. Hint: You don\'t do it by trashing their guy as a closet hawk, same as Bush, and telling them they\'re stupid or starstuck. You do it by starting by speaking the truth to stake out common ground. You don\'t have to tell them who to vote for or not, unless you have something better on the ballot.

This would be a much more interesting discussion, at least to me...

Carl Davidson

Racccoon Township, PA

(formerly from Chicago)

 

 

 

First to Paul Donahue: oh, yes, the Fortress Group thing was a real problem.  Total credibility to that. Also a problem was the mansion, and of course the pro war vote in 2002  and the les then sterling Senate record.... And much more. He talked too much about lobbyists and PACs: it entirely possible to be beholden to corporate power without taking money from lbbyists and PACs.  You can take it direct in the form of bundled contributions and you can simply recognize that corporate power will destory you if you don\'t follow its dictates. Edwards has all kinds of problems from a Left pespective - especially on foreign policy.  But for whatever reasons he decided to run a remarkably pro-labor campaign that focused on the need to fight corporate power/elites and economic inequality (and yes the irony of the fact that is he is super wealthy and sat on a hedge fund board is unavboidable) to "take back our democracy."  He hit again and again on poverty and related it to corporate rule. 

This was enough for Nader and it was enough (especially in regard to labor and labor rights) for me to say, "I\'ll endorse"...without illusion.

It is possible that he was being opportunistic, going to the left since the center ground had been sucked up by Hillary and Obama, but my sense was that he actually believed his rhetoric. Whatever his progressively problematic background, he ran to the left of Obama and Hillary, consistent with his shift to the "Two Americas" theme near the end of his 2003-04 Iowa campaign. He gave corporate America and corporate media good reasons to marginalize him.

To Matthew: an Obama White House will have to be pushed much harder to do decent and progressive things than an Edwards presidency would have to be pushed. It\'s a matter of degrees of comitment to (a) corporate neoliberalism versus (b) populist democracy. Edwards has more of (b) and less of (a) than Obama.

There is some space to work with on the left side of the Obama wave, perhaps. Edwards and Kucinich people grasp that and Edwards seemed to be doing exactly that in the New Hampshire debates. 

Part of the starry-eyed reaction you are seeing with fellow progressives is frankly about race.  In the Sunday Times some writer said that "race didn\'t matter" in the Iowa Caucus.  Actually, it did matter.   In my experience during the Iowa campaign (going back to the summer), skin color made many liberal and moderate whites excessively reluctant to take a hard and honest look at Obama’s corporate connections, imperial pronouncements, and general conservatism.  It encouraged them to exaggerate how progressive he was and to identify any criticism of the BaRockstar phenomenon as racism. Two days before the great Caucasian Caucus, one unusually forthcoming Obama and self-critical supporter (the Obamanists were by far and away the least open to conversation and reflection) did tell me something I already knew: that Barack Lehman Bros ($229,090) Obama is a way for liberal and moderate whites to “pat themselves on the back for not being too prejudiced.” Obama’s race encouraged a lot of “progressives” not to do their homework on him or on the U.S. political culture he reflects.Of course, it’s all premised on Barack JP Morgan Chase ($216,759) Obama being a "good [bourgeois and right-acting] black" – one who promises not to actually confront white supremacy in any meaningful way.  Like the white-friendly media mogul and mass Obama marketer and ally Oprah Winfrey, Obama expresses and capitalizes on whites’ partial transcendence of “level-one” state-of-mind racism.  At the same time, he reassures them he will honor their refusal acknowledge and confront the continuing power of deeper, “level two” state-of-being” - societal and institutional – racism in American life (I am pasting in from my big article on the top ZNet page today: "Heart of Stone").

To Chris: all Nader ever wanted was for Democrats to talk and act like Edwards spoke and said he would act: fighting for democracy against corporate power.  I think RN probably didn\'t endorse DK because (a) Kucinich didn\'t run a campaign in Iowa this time (unlike 2004); (b) Edwards said just enough to convince Nader of his progressivity and (c) Obama\'s power-conciliatory rhetoric alarmed  Nader enough to make him want to support the one half-progressive candidate who seemed to have a chance to slow down the BaRoackstar corporate media juggernaut. 

If this was Nader\'s reasoning, it was very similar to mine - pretty much where I was coming from.  That said, I\'ve seen the B.O. juggernaut as unstoppable for some time.  I think Obama is going all the way and its been both interesting and disturbing to have such a front-ro seat to the phenomenon.

 

 

 

 

 

Paul,

This is sheer rumor, bur here\'s what I heard from a commentor to a news story on the "Common Dreams" site:

recieved from the DK campaign:

In answer to your questions about why I didn’t support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty. end.

Any credibility to this?

Paul D.

Pittsburgh

 

Thanks for pointing out Kucinich\'s decision about Obama.  My first response when I heard about it was: why not Edwards. Edwards at least brings up some of the issues that Kucinich\'s constituents in Southern Ohio care about as opposed to Obama\'s vapid "inspiration." I kind of felt the same way when I heard Nader was endorsing Edwards. My response to that was: why not Kucinich? I mean Kucinich seems like a new age philosopher rather than a progressive politician sometimes but he has a much more substantive record than Edwards. Maybe Nader was thinking that Edwards is alot more electable than Kucinich but one wouldn\'t think with his presedential runs that Nader wouldn\'t be thinking about electability. Probably some backroom deals going  on, certainly with Kucinich.

This Obama thing is rather frustrating. Four people in my very small campus SDS group have at one time or another expressed enthusiasm for Obama and at least three of those people are folks who know alot more about the world than the average college student. I\'ve been talking to this one 62 year old longshoreman union guy and at one point he said "I like Obama because he says we need hope and he\'s right we really need hope. And these young black guys need someone to look up to other than the rappers." Its a sign of the non-functioning of our democratic system when a union guy can use such trivial factors to support a presidential canidate.