quote:

---

For the past two weeks, all eyes have focused on Barack Obama and race. A couple of weeks ago, it was Hillary Clinton's gender. A month before that, it was all about the Obama surge among young voters.

Pundits on all sides have framed this election - and especially the Democratic primary - as turning on the traditional fault lines of race, gender and generation.

The talk shows go on and on about how Mr. Obama is attracting black and young voters and how Ms. Clinton finds her voice among women and baby boomers.

But what is seldom discussed and yet most interesting about this election is not any young-vs.-old, black-vs.-white, or male-vs.-female dynamic.

At bottom, both the Democratic primary and the upcoming general election turn on an even deeper economic and social force: class.

In 2002, I defined a new creative class of inventors, entrepreneurs, engineers, artists, musicians, designers and professionals in idea-driven industries.

Today, nearly 40 million American workers fit into that group, 35 per cent of the total working population and a good deal more than the 23 per cent who make up the working class.

That the creative class drives economic success in cities and nations is undeniable; the "spiky" regions that drive our economic success today - from the Boston-Washington corridor to San Francisco and the Pacific Northwest - are doing so because they are magnets for the entrepreneurial and talented members of this class.

Up to this point, creative-class people have predominantly cast themselves as politically independent or "post-partisan," and their political sympathies have been up for grabs.

The traditional Republican platform of individualism, economic opportunity and fiscal responsibility appeals to them; but so, too, do the Democratic values of social liberalism, environmentalism and a progressive track record on gay and women's rights.

Democratic candidates such as Bill Bradley and Howard Dean attracted the creative class in the 2000 and 2004 elections. But no one has caught fire with this class like Barack Obama.

I knew it was time for a closer look when MTV called me to comment on the Obama-and-the-creative-class phenomenon.

---

Interesting notion that those who work and those who create are two different things.

Then there's this, which he finds surprising:

quote:

---

Mr. Obama even bests Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain substantially on the issue where he is allegedly weakest - "combatting terrorism" - registering 50 per cent of creative-class support compared with 24 per cent for Ms. Clinton and 18 per cent for Mr. McCain.

---

Yeah, how surprising. Mr. Nice-Guy Obama said he would attack Pakistan to get at the terrorists.

I have a long memory. John Kerry also talked tough:

quote:

---

As president, I pledge to you, America, I will finish the job in Iraq and I will refocus our energies on the real war on terror. I will wage this war relentlessly, with a single-minded determination to capture or kill the terrorists, crush their movements and free the world from fear.

---

Source.

There is no scientifically verifiable or measurable substantive difference in the foreign policies of Barracks, Rodham, or Cain. The illusion that one will be less of a warmonger than another continues to be perpetuated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Interesting notion that those who work and those who create are two different things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Interesting that you assume that those who "create" (innovation and new ideas) aren't also "working"...

---

Sven, pay attention. That's not MY assumption. It is Richard Florida who defines the "creative class" (35%) as separate and disjoint from the "working class" (23%).

Just to flesh it out: I believe Mr. Florida's separation of these two categories (working and creating) is a typically U.S. misconception aimed (consciously or not) at confusing anyone who isn't already as confused as they're ever going to get.

I kinda thought I had made that point painfully clear, but I'm always ready to inflict more pain in the interest of lucidity.

Now, of course, if Florida actually meant that the working class (23%) was PART AND PARCEL OF the creative class (35%), then I apologize profusely...

I don't think unionist was assuming that, I think he was commenting on the fact that Florida appears to assume that. That's definitely one of my points of contention with the Florida article.

Florida is using the term "working class" to narrowly describe, I think, a subset of the working class - traditional blue collar industrial. I would obviously include a lot more people in the working class. Like, most everybody who works for a living.

BUT, I would still acknowledge the existence of significant cleavages within the class, i.e. between urban and rural, service and industrial sector workers, and those who are able to exercise relatively greater control/direction over their immediate conditions of work versus less. Florida does appear to have hit on a particular substrata of the "working class" as I see it, who appear disproportionately drawn to Obama.

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Sven, pay attention. That's not MY assumption. It is Richard Florida who defines the "creative class" (35%) as separate and disjoint from the "working class" (23%).

Just to flesh it out: I believe Mr. Florida's separation of these two categories (working and creating) is a typically U.S. misconception aimed (consciously or not) at confusing anyone who isn't already as confused as they're ever going to get.

I kinda thought I had made that point painfully clear, but I'm always ready to inflict more pain in the interest of lucidity.

Now, of course, if Florida actually meant that the working class (23%) was PART AND PARCEL OF the creative class (35%), then I apologize profusely...

But tell me Sven - who in God's name would the other 65% of U.S. society be, then? CEOs?

---

Okay. I just read the following (without any rollie eyes or anything) and figured you agreed with it:

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Interesting notion that those who work and those who create are two different things.

---

That's all you said about the subject of "creative" versus "working".

But, my bad. I didn't immediately recognize that your statement was ambiguous and could have represented one of several meanings, such as:

1. "I think that's a valid distinction"

2. "That's an intriguing distinction and possibly worth exploring"

3. "Yeah, right. Whatever."

quote:

---

... “time for Democrats to stop fighting amongst themselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall.”

---

So, they've become Democrats. Pathetic.

That way, your support for authoritarianism is clear.

Now, we have the Communist Party USA actually recognizing that Obama is the most progressive candidate!

True, other, more reactionary, Stalin-based groups won't agree. For them, if Milosevic or Mugabe or Mao or Great Stalin aren't on the ballot, why then, they are far too pure to support a mere progressive democrat.

This is why these groups exist only on babble and in their little dreamworld.

In the election, one can:

1. vote for Obama (limited change, but generally positive)

2. Vote for Clinton (less change, but positive where it occurs, i.e. medical insurance)

3. vote for McCain (continuation of Bush policies in every important respect).

Of course, you could also sit out the election, either by remaining a purist or by writing in "Lenin" or "Jesus" on your ballot.

On babble, there is a group who need to disparage Obama, while never telling us who they actually support, or who they would vote for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I think it's easy to refute people's arguments without attacking them personally.

---

I'd probably vote for a left-wing protest candidate, most likely the Green Party (which is actually somewhat leftwing there, unlike here).

quote:

---

No, I won't vote for any bourgeois party. Imperialism is not a fiction invented by Stalinist bureaucracies to stay in power.

---

It sure aint a fiction in the USia. For decades, people and the media have both subconsciuosly accepted the fact that Yankeeland is imperialist in its essence
Its accepted as reality and isnt being challenged,
just look at discussions of the Iraq war before the invasion. Tha Prez said they have WMDs-then its perfectly legal to attack. And another rationale accepted by the ignorant, "we need their oil"

But the choices are:

1. Continued Rampant Imperialism

2. Less rampant imperialism plus health care plus better controls on Wall Street, etc.

Then, there is the third, waste-your-vote-out-of-purity option, in which one marks an X for Lenin, Trotsky, Jesus, Stalin, Mao, or Other.

But instead I think its fine that CPUSA supports Obama. He is literally the lesser of (3 in this case) evils.
And poor workhorse Nader has sadly discredited himself.

quote:

---

M. Spector: Speaking of "class" it's sad to see the remnants of the Communist Party of the USA have completely abandoned any sense of working class politics, and are now fawning over Barack Obama.

---

This is a disappointing remark. Obama deserves credit for taking on the issue of race in American politics, and for doing so in such a creative and courageous way. As the article points out, it wasn't only the American Communists who recognized this. "NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said he was moved to tears by the speech."

They also aren't averse to re-iterating criticisms of Obama:

quote:

---

Dee Myles: Some argue Obama is just empty words with no substance. Fundamentally, those words come directly out of the culture of struggle for freedom and equality of the African American people. Those words have a meaning some will never make the effort to deeply understand because of their own voluntary or involuntary embrace of the barriers and prejudices of status and station, not to mention race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Obama deserves credit for taking on the issue of race in American politics, and for doing so in such a creative and courageous way.

---

quote:

---

Obama’s central message for white consumption, here, is that everybody’s story is equally compelling, whether you are the grandchild of slaves or slaveholders. This is sometimes called “moral equivalence,” and is especially favored by whites of European immigrant descent who remember how hard their fathers worked at jobs that wouldn’t hire native-born, English-speaking Blacks. But hey! Everybody’s families have had problems, right? Forgetaboutit!

---

quote:

---

Quite understandably, white males appeared to love Obama’s “race” speech. No wonder. Every conceivable mode of eliminating racial disparities has been methodically taken off the table by the Illinois Senator. We are left only with an opportunity to conduct a “dialogue” about race, as long as we do so politely and without a hint of redistributive thought or intention.

---

quote:

---

[W]hat is it about pervasive racism in American life that honest people do not already understand? What does Barack Obama think is within acceptable bounds of dialogue, and what is not? Is he aware of some racial mysteries that have evaded the rest of us? To tell the truth, Obama couldn’t manage to keep his own hind parts from being singed when he tried to find some middle ground between the vicious, thieving, genocidal, slaveholding God revered by most white Americans, and the truthful Black narrative of four centuries in an American hell.

Barack Obama has literally nothing to contribute to such a conversation.

---

For me, I have never felt more empowered and relevant and realistic since I STOPPED voting and started getting involved in community grass roots organizing. This wasn't out of some "purist" political analysis, but out of a practical and well thought-out decision that voting was not worth the bus fare and, in my mind, does way more harm.

As for bashing Obama: people like myself have some profound concerns about his stated policy positions and we ought to voice them.

Yeah, I'm an Anarchist and I choose not to participate in the political sham we call democracy.

But an "abdication from effective political action"...?

quote:

---

Obama: The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made ...

---

And then we have:

quote:

---

Obama: But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope ...

---

It is not just the audacity of hope but Obama's practical dialectics here. That's about as radical as it gets, philosophically speaking, as far as I'm concerned.

Obama addresses the effect of systemic racism on both the white and on the black population. When he discusses the effects of it on the white population, he makes the following remark:

quote:

---

Obama: This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

---

Race and class. Two mints in one. This already puts the guy head and shoulders above the crowd as a quality candidate.

quote:

---

As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[quoting Obama:] This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
---------

Race and class. Two mints in one. This already puts the guy head and shoulders above the crowd as a quality candidate.

---

Who said this:

quote:

---

We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq – all at the expense of the poor and middle class here at home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
The only egregious weakness I read in his remarks was his pro-Israeli prejudices ... which is hardly a surprise given the reality of American political life.

---

You could say the same about his promise to invade Pakistan, his praise for all the good things America has done, and his urination on Rev. Wright. Hardly surprising, "given the reality of American political life". What is surprising is the praise you are lavishing on his empty rhetoric.

quote:

---

Barak Obama's candidacy may have already struck an audacious blow for hope and, therefore, if that is true, then he has already won. And that's quite an accomplishment.

---

quote:

---

What Obama is offering within the constraints of a campaign in a liberal capitalist republic is a foothold against capitalist excesses that's more reliable than anything offered by any scholar of the left I've ever read, listened to, or followed into activism.

---

quote:

---

Obama troubles these thinkers all the more because he, too, has read and listened to them and decided not follow them into politics, useful interlocutors though they may be. He needs to get himself elected, with others' energetic support, not try to become a prophet, political philosopher, or leader of the insurgency from outside electoral politics which his critics want but haven't the foggiest idea how to undertake

---

quote:

---

Obama's critics are making the ideologically driven accusations against him like those they would have made against Roosevelt. If they have a better alternative this time than the old left did in the 1930s -- if it's not only a capitalism=racism analysis but an actual political program that can win Americans' hearts -- I have a open heart and open ears..

---

Of course, the final point is the killer. What alternative program is there which is supported by more than 1000 people in the whole U.S.?

The whole article is quite sympathetic to the anti-capitalist left, while recognizing its utter irrelevance at present.

quote:

---

He needs to get himself elected...

---

I understand that you need to be dismissive of the article I linked, and need to be dismissive of elections, too, because your gang will never win one. Not even close.

But the article says more than that Obama wants to succeed electorally. It also CHALLENGES the far left naysayers: WHAT IS YOUR ACTUAL POLITICAL PROGRAMME WHICH CAN WIN AMERICANS' HEARTS?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
... a communist agenda.

---

Seriously? That's your conclusion from reading my posts? Oh well, better than "liberal shill" which used to greet me... Sure I'm not an Ultramontanist?

quote:

---

I understand that you need to be dismissive of the article I linked, and need to be dismissive of elections, too, because your gang will never win one. Not even close.

---

My gang won the last election I voted in, in October 2007. Read my tagline, if you can lower your sights that far. You're right, it wasn't even close. Who is your gang - Baader-Meinhof?

quote:

---

WHAT IS YOUR ACTUAL POLITICAL PROGRAMME WHICH CAN WIN AMERICANS' HEARTS?

---

See, I'm Canadian (forgot to mention that), so I'm less interested in capturing Americans' misplaced organs than in the capturing that Americans do around the world - of people's lands and lives and resources and liberty. I view Obama through that rather less intimate lens. And when that mealy-mouthed "change and hope" snake-oil salesman wriggles and skates on withdrawal from Iraq (let alone Afghanistan), and when he prevaricates on NAFTA, and when he supports the Israeli war criminals, and when he threatens to invade Pakistan, and when he denies (or consigns to a long-distant irrelevant past) all the crimes committed by the masters he aspires to serve as enumerated by his erstwhile Pastor - well, I guess you get the message, jeff, I comprehend the kind of foreign policy for the U.S. that you would find thrilling and progressive. Or did I misunderstand you?

quote:

---

When will you ever learn?

---

If only Obama and you were to ask that question the way Pete Seeger did:

quote:

---

Where have all the young men gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young men gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

---

quote:

---

Oh well, better than "liberal shill" which used to greet me.

---

No one who follows your posting history would have any doubt about your position well to the left of the New Democratic Party, in the left-o-sphere.

For those who don't know, Faulkner wrote about the descendants of slaves and also about poor southerners with sympathy for both. It's the perfect literary reference for Obama. Now if he could just quote Eduardo Galeano.

And wtf is "our gang?" Those of us who would like to see the end of imperialism and an institution of true equality for all? Yes that may be idealistic, and it may be something that will never happen, but I, and many others, choose to continue to hope.

I thought the idea of a single "vanguard" party was mostly out of fashion, including on the "left of the left"...

But the "communist" stuff verges on name-calling, no?

There are so many definitions of "communist" that it becomes fairly meaningless.

Working in trade-union international solidarity, I met Chilean trade-union exiles who were "communist" and Polish trade-unionist exiles who were "anti-communist" who had much more in common than not, as did the repressive governments that drove them to exile...

And sorry, babble rules do not allow me to designate those who support Castro, Mugabe and Ahmadinejad over people like Obama.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Before Barak Obama ran for office some guy named Jesse Jackson did the same. And Jackson still, to this day, speaks of the importance of putting forward a message of hope. Such messages are essential for the dispossessed to successfully turn the world upside down and make it serve them.

---

Hope?

You mean like this:

quote:

---

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

CHORUS:
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

---

Myself, I'll try to help the first black President get elected.

[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

I do NOT support Castro's repression against peaceful dissidents or restrictions on civil liberties in Cuba (such as internet access)

I do "support" Castro against the threat of US imperialist intervention.

None of the other people listed are even subjectively socialist or communist - perhaps Mugabe was decades ago but now he is nothing than a corrupt old dictator, who has impoverished his people, denying them education and health care, very unlike Cuba (and yes, I am very aware of the faults and democratic shortcomings of the latter). But the Gusanos would be worse - they are no liberal democrats, they are Mafioso thugs.

If history shows that the US has bombed the fuck out of someone every year for the last 50 years, and I'm not keen on another president who thinks he has the right to do the same, that makes me a Communist?

Everything is not so black and white Jeff. People can favour aspects of socialism and communism without being communists.

quote:

---

Castro or the President of the world's biggest superpower? So if I prefer Castro, who hasn't dropped a bomb on anyone, over the hordes of US president's who have, that makes me an "old guard"?

---

No, no We are talking about WHO should lead the world's biggest superpower.

Preferring Castro is not an answer to the question of who would be best to lead the US.

Because it won't be Castro. And it won't be Ralph Nader, either.

Perhaps you think that it doesn't matter who leads the US, and "they're all the same"?

But really, that is patently untrue when talking about the first black President, even if we don't descend to discuss specifics such as policy towards Wall Street, policy towards health, policy towards Iraq, etc.

Carping from the left while presenting no programme or candidate worthy of support is a road to political irrelevance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
unionist, why not have a read of Obama's speech about race (and class), if you haven't already, and tell the rest of us what you think is wrong with it? That would be a better use of your time than a pissing match with Jeff H. HTFG.

---

N.Beltov, perhaps you weren't around babble two weeks ago, but you appear to have missed two complete threads on this subject - initiated by yours truly on March 15 - in which I posted thirty times.

Please read them and then let me know if there's something in Obama's speech I missed that you'd like my view on:

Obama condemns his own Pastor for... speaking the truth

Preacher Wright and the truth

So one writing from Québec or Canada can certainly "prefer" Castro or a US presidential candidate, just as we can "prefer" other leaders in the Americas. I confess to a fondness for Morales' strong advocacy for Aboriginal causes. But few of us live in any of those countries.

One can certainly legitimately "prefer" the Cuban government in a negative sense, that is, while there are a lot of things to criticise in that country (and I have often done so; I'm no apologist for anyone) at least they aren't murdering hundreds and thousands of Iraqis to steal their oil...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
I'll agree that out of those who have an opportunity to win the presidential election, Obama is the least objectionale. However, that logic leads me to say Dion is the best choice for PM in Canada out of those who have a chance to become PM. That won't stop me from voting NDP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Jeff, I don't know why you think this kind of acrimony and red-baiting is productive. I have hoped you would mature. I now must give up on that hope. I am closer to your views than I am to just about anyone else on this board on most issues (this one included), but what you do here is just gross.

I don't know why you do what you do, but it really is too bad to watch someone so smart act so stupidly.

---

Secondly, the only candidate I would have endorsed dropped out and that was Denis Kucinich. If Bernie Saunders was running, then he'd be my pick.

The brainwashed citizens of the US have chosen NOT to be represented by a decent person, and are left with Clinton and Obama. I see that you are expecting me to jump up and down and give the US a big clap because they MAY elect a black president. That's not going to happen. To me, that has no bearing on what will happen when in office. I agree Obama is the best choice out of what there is. That's all I will give you.

No matter how much you speak down to me, it is not going to change my position. I will not ever see things the way you do. I want to see a truly progressive president of the world's biggest super power so people will stop being bombed for oil in my lifetime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
OK. But you're still ... Oh never mind.

---

quote:

---

unionist: Please read them and then let me know if there's something in Obama's speech I missed that you'd like my view on:

---

OK, I've had a look. There's a lot there that is repetitive. However ...

quote:

---

my disappointment is with some Canadian progressives that believe, and promote, that an Obama (or Rodham) administration would be less bellicose than a McCain one.

---

Foreign policy isn't the only issue of importance. Obama, particularly in his speech, addressed race which is perhaps the most fundamental domestic issue there is. This "disappointment" is simply changing the subject away from domestic concerns.

quote:

---

When you, jrootham, speak of the "lesser of evils", you are propagating the same mythology. I'm not looking for a socialist Saviour. I'm looking for a mere substantive difference - not one of empty rhetoric.

---

Same again.

quote:

---

The only thing that matters about Obama is what policy decisions he would make as President. In that regard, his offhand comment about invading Pakistan, his insistence on being Christian and never Muslim, his pledge of allegiance to Israel, and his cataloguing of all the white blood in his family, speak volumes about his character and his aims. The vapid dime-store feel-good bullshit that so impresses the desperate liberals is just cosmetic. Shame on those who can't see past the lipstick.

---

You didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday and neither did I. The substantive debate that is generated during the course of a campaign also has its influence ... even if those who raise the issues aren't elected. And, by his recent speech, notwithstanding the ugly pro-Israeli aspects of it, Obama raised the issue of race in a way that is completely different from any of the other serious candidates in either "major" party in the US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
He's turned a negative into a positive by this speech. By doing so, he sets an example or path for others to follow regardless of whether he wins in November or not.

---

Honestly, N.Beltov, I'm reading your posts and I understand where you're leaning, but I just don't get why. It's as if there's a page missing somewhere. I'm asking for substantive evidence that Obama is different, and forgive me for saying so, I get rhetorical statements in response.

quote:

---

I'll agree that out of those who have an opportunity to win the presidential election, Obama is the least objectionale. However, that logic leads me to say Dion is the best choice for PM in Canada out of those who have a chance to become PM. That won't stop me from voting NDP.

---

No, you cannot transfer the American electoral logic to Canada in that way. Enough NDP members will mean that they hold the balance of power, as has happened before.

As for chowderheads "savaging" Obama on behalf of some abstract thesis with no political reality whatsoever, I have heard this stuff all my life.

No one is good enough for these guys, they are always holier-than-thou.

Actually, there are many of the first who do exist(not all of them on the left) and there is always the possibility that the second can be made to exist.

We can always find it within ourselves to reshape the world. The world ceases to be worth living in if we all agree we should give up trying.

quote:

---

We can always find it within ourselves to reshape the world. The world ceases to be worth living in if we all agree we should give up trying.

Settling for the timid and the defeatists call "achievable" means settling for the useless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
In the real world, people need actual policies which can be put into place. I'd choose Tommy Douglas a thousand times over the run of the mill embittered "prophet of socialism" which will never exist.

---

By which I don't mean disagreements about how to vote, but insulting progressive people (who are by no means blowhards who haven't done anything concrete in our lives) who don't agree with his choice.

It is very strange, and sad.

quote:

---

Posted by M. Spector: More hypocrisy from the master of the one-note samba.

If Tommy Douglas were running for President of the USA today, you'd still be shilling for the capitalist candidate, while red-baiting Douglas as a "communist", just as your co-thinkers did in Saskatchewan in 1944.

---

Besides, I've never been called a "chowderhead" before...

I'm not certain, but I think the word "delusional" was mentioned as well...?

It's REALLY important to me because so many have staked their lives on trying to change the world into a socialist future or are sitting in jail, at this very instant, for standing up for social justice - I'm thinking about those native activists in jail for fighting uranium extraction on their lands.

I half joke with a close Comrade during my down periods asking her: "Am I crazy? You'd tell me, right? Comrades, oughta tell Comrades if they've lost a wheel, right? It's their responsibility, no?"

Then I'm reading about the rebellions of '37 or Gabrial Dumont or the Winnipeg General Strike, or the On To Ottawa Trek...stuff like that.

Failures. Disastrous failures, essentially.

Then again, how many rent strikes, welfare office sit-ins, housing tribunal victories, bad boss pickets or Hunger Clinics have we organized whose successes were absolutely astounding?

I've got a ton of free time because I'm sitting here in a small Ontario town with another year of probation to go trying to make ends meet delivering flyers for 5 cents each...

This is a far cry from my last job where I had a secretary and a nice office where we'd have retreats at posh resorts discussing poverty issues and law reform. I mostly miss the buffets.

A couple of us were fired for the logic of "delusional" left politics which demonstrated practically, to us anyways, that if you want to fight poverty then the best way to do so is to engage in OCAP like direct action. We were also animated by those Anarchist youth who knocked down the fences at Quebec City or shut down Seattle.

I think the difference was that we understood the truth in recognizing class into our politics and anti-poverty work.

Every single time George Bush comes to Canada I have the honour now of knowing people who go absolutely ballistic at his very proximity and either end up in jail, tear gassed or shot with rubber bullets - sometimes all of the above.

Today I was reading that radical left wing rag, Vanity Fair, which discussed the probability of George Bush being charged with war crimes and that the lawyers who wrote those "torture memos" oughta think twice about traveling abroad...

I think it is reasonable to go ballistic if a war criminal comes to town...

The other thing which tells me that the radical left is on the right track is that all our greatest fears are coming true; honestly, I never dreamed in my worse nightmares that capitalism would lead to where we are and that people could allow all of this to unfold without a fight.

My point is, far from being "irrelevant", the crazy far left seem spot on and then some.

When I make my yearly pilgrimage to the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair what I take in is not only smart and thoughtful political analysis but a spririt which is difficult to put into words.

Let me try:

Imagine sitting in a hall of at least two hundred anarchists from around north america, germany, france and spain listening transfixed to an elderly veteran of the Spanish Civil War.

Some of these kids actually rode on freight trains or hitch hiked to get to Montreal.

When the 80 year old Veteran was asked by someone in the audience what advice he would give to today's generation of activists he answered without a moments hesitation:

"Do exactly what you are doing now right now."

For many of us, the 30s are still alive and we see, we live, a historical continuity and tradition that inspires and gives us hope.

Obama does not inspire hope in me simply because his stated policies mean a more intensified war in Afghanistan. He said this. His pandering to Israel is profoundly disturbing and dangerous. He does not deal with the race issue and is essentially asking that America put a lid on it.

quote:

---

Obama raised the issue of race in a way that is completely different from any of the other serious candidates in either "major" party in the US.

---

unionist:

quote:

---

Honestly, N.Beltov, I'm reading your posts and I understand where you're leaning, but I just don't get why. It's as if there's a page missing somewhere. I'm asking for substantive evidence that Obama is different, and forgive me for saying so, I get rhetorical statements in response.

---

There we have it: unionist doesn't see substantive difference.

In those threads I gave quite a bit of detail why it is a substantive difference where Obama went in that speech.

Without ever saying what would be a substantive difference, you just say you don't see one. No specifics, no comparisons.

There is an indirect comparison: you did say that Tim Wise's commentary on Preacher Wright is what Obama should have said.

To which I made the point, and did before you made that comment, that Tim Wise knows he is talking to a different audience, and knows that he could not speak in the same manner to an audience that is not self-selecting liberals and progressives.

I went further than NBeltov. Not only is Obama's raising of race completely different from any other presidential candidate- it is difficult to execute effectively for ANY public figure on a national stage in the US speaking to all Americans.

You and others feel free to dismiss everything Obama said on race because it wouldn't impress an audience of progressives.

Big deal. That's not what it was about. Some of the things that Obama said are going to challenge white people, including people who vote for Democrats.

But it borders on disengenuous for people to wonder where that could come from.

On this board, and on these kind of issues, there is a litmus test of purity... and if you don't pass the test you will be treated to a mixture of being dismissed, treated to a gauntlet of ad hominem pseudo-critiques, and possibly roundly criticised as well.

Like I think Coyote is saying, I'm not going to criticise someone for going overboard in reaction to that.

That Douglas and the CCF were red-baited does not mean that Douglas was not subjected to exactly the same criticism from the left that jeff is talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Not only is Obama's raising of race completely different from any other presidential candidate- it is difficult to execute effectively for ANY public figure on a national stage in the US speaking to all Americans.

---

Don't know why you want to re-argue those threads. Here is what I said about "substantive differences", to which you never responded:

quote:

---

Change comes through deeds, not words - especially words which sound like excerpts from family therapy where the abuser and abused get to keep on living together with no substantive alteration in the relationship. Brown v. Board of Education represented change. Obama doesn't even promise it.

---

Obama said nothing substantive in that speech - nothing - except his very explicit condemnation of a man who spoke the plain truth. That part was substantive, all right.

quote:

---

You and others feel free to dismiss everything Obama said on race because it wouldn't impress an audience of progressives.

---

Nonsense. I dismiss it because it is false, because it does not look squarely at the problem of race in the U.S., because it goes so far as to say (which would be ugly and laughable if it came from the mouth of another candidate) that "white racism is not endemic" to his dream-land America, that to say so is to present a "distorted view".

When Reverend Wright told the truth about "America", he wasn't speaking to an audience of "progressives" - was he??.

quote:

---

When Reverend Wright told the truth about "America", he wasn't speaking to an audience of "progressives" - was he??.

---

quote:

---

Of course you will say that Obama can't speak that truth, because people will "shut down" - because you think people are much more backward than you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
The Rev wasn't speaking to white people at all. You can say anything like that you want to ANY black audience, and fear for nothing worse than disagreement with you.

---

I see. So you can tell all black people about the reality of their oppression and dehumanization, and about the immorality of the same kind of racism translated into foreign policy. But you can only tell a small "progressive" minority of white people about that.

I have to say, Ken, that I disagree with you. Have you ever heard of "speaking truth to power"?

quote:

---

... we're talking the bulk of white America here, across class lines. Although it tends to show more with the working class,

---

No kidding. Really? I see. Gotcha.

quote:

---

Do you NOT think the people we are talking about are more backward about race than you and I?

---

You wouldn't give him your blessing or see him as substantively different anyway.

That's fine. It's a politically consistent position.

But it has the potential to lead people to not take seriously any of the consituent positions in their own right.

In the previous discussion about whether Obama said anything substantive about race- I made fairly extensive reference to why it is such a touchy subject in the US. I made it abundantly clear that I was talking about 'touchy' in the sense of hard to get people to think about in real terms- NOT 'touchy' as in, too risky don't want to go there.

Despite the importance I attached to it, unionist never once made a comment- not even to say don't agree.

quote:

---

KenS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... we're talking the bulk of white America here, across class lines. Although it tends to show more with the working class,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

unionist:

No kidding. Really? I see. Gotcha.

---

I said "shows more". And if you weren't trying to just score points you would have put in the rest of the quote about why it shows more.

quote:

---

Give me some time to reflect on that one.

---

I cross posted twice, and testily, before I saw that.

I'm not going to apologize for the testiness, but I can still hope it won't blow away said reflection- and I'll shut up.

People like unionist exist to split up coalitions, so that what remains are tiny ultra-correct fragments who will "lead" ie. dictate to,
"the working class", ie. everyone not in the group.

These guys are always critical of EVERY successful politician. Since no consituency exists for the left-of-Nader grouplet, they have to sit around on babble, picking apart every positive movement as not enough.

Since I know what The Critical Quartet have posted over time on this board, I'm pretty sure Obama would have to come out for Castro, Mugabe, and Ahmadinejad before they'd cut him some slack.

And, he'd have to say Lenin was right in 1917.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Since I know what The Critical Quartet have posted over time on this board, I'm pretty sure Obama would have to come out for Castro, Mugabe, and Ahmadinejad before they'd cut him some slack.

And, he'd have to say Lenin was right in 1917.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
People like unionist exist ...

---

Aha! I'm doing better than God! thanks, jeff.

quote:

---

These guys are always critical of EVERY successful politician.

---

I voted for Mulcair, and he was successful. What pathetic loser did you vote for? Oh, don't tell me, it's a secret ballot. But I hope you didn't lose too much $$$ betting on a loser.

quote:

---

Since I know what The Critical Quartet have posted over time on this board, I'm pretty sure Obama would have to come out for Castro, Mugabe, and Ahmadinejad before they'd cut him some slack.

---

Actually, I'd be happy if Obama said, "between election and inauguration, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq."

Would that be enough? No. But it would a concrete sign of courage - of leadership - of putting a benchmark in front of himself and leaving no choice but to meet it.

But he will never say that. You know why? Because in all of the political class of the United States, there is quite simply no courage, no vision, no semblance of actually daring to hold oneself accountable. It is all glitz and marketing and brazen opportunism, with the ugly face of Money and Munitions in the background.

"Castro, Mugabe, and Ahmadinejad"

Rather a mixed bag, no?

I've already explained the way one can be both "against" Castro - as in repression of peaceful dissidents is wrong, Cubans deserve more political and social freedoms, and the death penalty is inadmissible and at the same time "for" Castro - or the positive legacy of the Cuban revolution - against imperialist designs that will NOT result in a Velvet Revolution but in rule by Mafioso thugs.

Who on earth supports Mugabe? Some people may well point out the utter hypocrisy of the West supporting rulers who have been even more murderous, but I don't know a single person, Black, White or Brown, who supports Mugabe.

And Ahmadinejad? How could a leftist possibly support a theocrat who jails and tortures not only striking bus drivers, but their families? And rants about the Jooz?