But mostly I just find Hillary Clinton and Ralph Nader so bloody annoying. I don't think Nader constitutes any sort of progressive alternative either - very much like Elizabeth May's vanity candidacy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
... we're impressed with what he's been able to accomplish as a political outsider (relatively speaking).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
Hey i really can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
So then you're not impressed when you see political outsiders gaining support?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
When i see someone connect with and inspire voters by talking about change, i'm impressed.

---

I think history has shown that Bush becoming president turned out to be a total cataclysm for the US and for the world and that while Gore would not have led a socialist revolution, he would have been several orders of magnitude better than Bush has been.

Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots

quote:

---

[T]hose with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. ...

While the senator from Illinois has had unprecedented success generating small donations, many made online, the work of bundlers first signaled the seriousness of his candidacy a year ago and will be crucial as he heads into the final Democratic primaries with a lead against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite. One-third had never contributed to a presidential campaign, much less raised money.

The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies.

---

9/11 changed things. Up to that point the difference between what Gore and Bush would have succeeded in doing was minor. They would have been trying to do different things, but Congress would dampen the difference.

The example that springs to mind is that Bush tried to get oil drilling in Alaska, Congress spiked it. Gore would have the same problem in the other direction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
So Obama has raised $120 million from people who donated $200 or less.

Yes. That is very impressive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Those are the ones who will be asking for their money back if he's ever elected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:

Why do you think they will be asking for their money back?

---

quote:

---

9/11 changed things. Up to that point the difference between what Gore and Bush would have succeeded in doing was minor. They would have been trying to do different things, but Congress would dampen the difference.

---

You keep going on about all his empty talk, saying that he's not giving details or specifics of what he would do. That he hasn't promised to do anything progressive. That his stated position on Iraq is no different than McCain's.

Maybe i have it wrong but that's my impression of your criticisms of Obama. Not only has he not promised progressive legislation, but he's been beating war drums. And that he talks about God and church way too much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Isn't that kinda like saying that it really wouldn't make any difference whether Stephen Harper or Jack Layton was PM of Canada because either of them would be stymied by the Liberal-controlled Senate, the Supreme Court and layers of inert civil servants???

---

No, because the Canadian government system is different from the US. In Canada, Parliament is almost supreme. The US system was designed to deadlock from the get go.

Checks and balances, anyone?

OTOH I'm sure that a Layton government would be "Yes, Ministered" a lot.

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Who knows how Gore would has responded to 9/11? He may have a saintly image today, but the Al Gore of 2000 was a conservative, DLC Democrat.

---

9/11 broke the prevailing consensus, making it possible for whoever was in the White House to launch major changes.

We know how Bush turned out, we don't know what Gore would have done.

Well, we know some things, the DOJ would not have been stocked with Republican loyalists. Given the difference in authoritarianism that is displayed by members of the two parties, I think it's clear there would have been a different response.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wage zombie:

Why do you think they will be asking for their money back?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unionist:

Because he will disappoint them by serving the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

---

And what basis do you have for your opinion that they are looking for the same thing, or as much of it, as you?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wage zombie:
When i see someone connect with and inspire voters by talking about change, i'm impressed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

unionist:

I'm more impressed by content and deeds than by empty talk...

---

Yes. We on the left are so good about getting our message across. Why would be bother looking at how it's done by others?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
According to you he's pretty clearly a status quo politician. So why will his donors feel disappointed when he serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful? Do you think they expect him to keep promises that he's not making?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
It is entirely possible that Obama will satisfy a large chunk of the US population while completely dissatisfying unionist.

---

Obama reminds me a lot of kim campbel. all style no substance.

Obama is great for the sound bite but I am not sure about him as a leader yet.

I am not a Clinton fan at all. But have been impressed how she has dealt with adversity since day one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
I think Obama is a much better speaker than Kim Campbell.

---

Not sure since remember Kim spoke Yiddish

Obama is Black: Clarince thomas is Black.

The Clintons on the other had come from the centre-right wing of the Democratic Party.

quote:

---

but the fact that he has the most liberal voting record in the entire US senate and spent time as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago means something to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:

If Gore had been elected in 2000, I expect that the US would still have invaded Afghanistan, would have invested the necessary development aid (both infrastructure and political) to accomplish meaningful nation building, rather than divert resources to a idiotic adventure in Iraq.

---

The Iraqi Kurds are the more likely scenario they are now being subjected to NATO air strikes instead of the nation building they were promised when they fought against Saddam's regime. Then they were freedom fighters now they are terrorists because the Turkish government, a NATO ally, wants to continue the cultural genoicide and assimlulation. Those same goals drive the Iraqi and the Iranian governments both past and present in each case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Germany and Japan??

---

quote:

---

The fact that he's Black doesn't mean that he will save the US from any apocalypse - but the fact that he has the most liberal voting record in the entire US senate and spent time as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago means something to me.

---

Ok, but how liberal can a person who is governing a corporate controled super power afford to be? Bill Clinton had some pretty liberal ideas until he got chewed up and spit out by the White House's corporate money machine. Jimmy Carter gave support to the Shah. being a liberal politician does NOT garuntee you'll be a liberal president.

[ 27 April 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Long overdue when you have to go back 60 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Germany and Japan??

---

Socialism was for front line states only during the cold war including Israel.

quote:

---

Bill Clinton had some pretty liberal ideas until he got chewed up and spit out by the White House's corporate money machine. Jimmy Carter gave support to the Shah. being a liberal politician does NOT garuntee you'll be a liberal president.

---

Bill Clinton was never any "flaming liberal" at all. He was first elected with a reputation as a very centrist governor of Arkansas who was pro-death penalty - and within two years he got saddled with a Republican controlled congress making it virtually impossible for him to do anything progressive even if he wanted to.

Then there was a guy named Jesse Jackson who got totally blasted because he was one of the few Dems willing to talk about the Palestinians. The infuriated the Zionists in the party.

And Hillary took 62% in PA - and won Montgomery County.

http://tinyurl.com/58bgau

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]

quote:

---

You've never heard of the civil rights movement?

---

Are you implying that anyone who doesn't support Obama for President is against civil rights???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
Any idea why Al Sharpton is considered an "anti-Semite"?

---

In court papers filed the day before the fire, Fred A. Harari, the owner of Freddy's, and two employees described weeks of protests outside the clothing store in which demonstrators threatened employees, hurled obscenities at "bloodsucking Jews" and talked of burning down the store.

And yesterday, the Jewish Action Alliance, a New York-based civil-rights group, released audiotapes of several of Mr. Sharpton's weekly radio broadcasts in which Mr. Powell and Mr. Shange can be heard using racially laced language to encourage Harlem residents to boycott Freddy's.

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Apparently Obama used to be quite pro-Palestinian as a state legislator, but it's clear he's realized that if you want to go anywhere in American politics, you've got to very pro-Israel

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
Done. Ah, I'm falling in line with the pro-israel consensus.

Anyway what was I saying again - something about the NDP getting blasted much for the same reasons fringe leftwing Dems and people like Nader get blasted in the US. Apparently breaking from the consensus is unacceptable - the NDP was betraying the legacy of David Lewis and tarnishing its "historic relations with the Jewish community" (or something of that nature) -because it was slightly critical of Israel rather than very pro-Israel like the Conservatives and Liberals.

---

There's a lot of truth to that. Then again the "anti-Israel" perception doesn't seem to hurt them in Outremont or Trinity-Spadina.

As for the US election, it's possible a small number of Hillary's Jewish supporters may vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee but I think Obama will take at least 70% of the Jewish vote. Some "Reagan Democrats" could vote for McCain in that scenario as well.

OTOH there are other demographic factors that would help Obama (a higher Black turnout, appeal to independents, etc.)

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]

quote:

---

Bill Clinton was never any "flaming liberal" at all. He was first elected with a reputation as a very centrist governor of Arkansas who was pro-death penalty - and within two years he got saddled with a Republican controlled congress making it virtually impossible for him to do anything progressive even if he wanted to.

Jimmy Carter was also a very centre-right southern Democrat governor of Georgia who was nominated by the Dems in 1976. He only looked at all "liberal" compared to George Wallace. Carter's personal views seemed to swing quite far to the left AFTER he left office.

---

I think my point still stands. There are so many powerful groups who are determined to keep the US war machine running that a truly left wing president would not remain left wing for very long.

quote:

---

As for the US election, it's possible a small number of Hillary's Jewish supporters may vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee but I think Obama will take at least 70% of the Jewish vote. Some "Reagan Democrats" could vote for McCain in that scenario as well.

---

Any way you slice it, American Jews are second only to Blacks in terms of being the most loyally Democrat voting demographic in the US. In fact Jews support Democrats far more loyally than do Mexican-Americans or Puerto Ricans - and it doesn't matter how wealthy they are. In fact when Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic nomination last year in Connecticut to a much more progressive antiwar Democrat Ned Lamont - it was noted that Jews in Connecticut rejected Lieberman by a wide margin - something that irritated the hell out of that tiny minority of Jewish neo-cons.

quote:

---

Meanwhile Catholics in the US apparently prefer Clinton over Obama by a 2-1 margin. Why? Is Hillary pro-IRA or something???

---

quote:

---

Now, Clinton backers are trying to rebut the charge of racism in Clinton’s campaign and among those who voted for her, arguing that the 90 percent of Pennsylvania’s blacks who voted for Obama are equally racist. As one correspondent on the website Democrats.com put it, “I'm not sure how this works. I've seen splashed all over the media how we Clinton supporters are racists because a percentage of people said that race was important in their decision. And yet, 9 out of 10 blacks voted for Obama. I haven't seen numbers (if they were asked at all) indicating what percentage of blacks were influenced by race when voting for Obama. Who are the real racists? We are not allowed to say. And the media is afraid to ask.”

Another individual, commenting on one of my columns, wrote, “It is ridiculous to suggest that white people who don’t vote for Obama must be racist. It is not whites who are most heavily influenced by race in this election. On the contrary, it is the black electorate who have shown a tendency to cast a race-based vote. How else do you account for Obama receiving 90% of the black vote? If 90% of whites voted for Clinton, you’d scream racism. Why aren’t you similarly critical of blacks?”

Let’s examine this claim critically, though.

Yes it is true that 90 percent of blacks who voted in Pennsylvania cast their ballots for Obama, the black (half-black, actually) candidate. But remember, these are people who for all their adult lives have been voting for white candidates for president. It cannot be said that they do not or will not vote for whites; only that given the opportunity to vote for a black candidate, they did so.

In Clinton’s case, certainly most of those who voted for her did so not because she was white, but because of other reasons (not least because she is a woman—Clinton won 59 percent of the female vote). But clearly some of her support came from whites—men and women—who, as Clinton Pennsylvania mentor Gov. Ed Rendell said, “will not vote for a black candidate.”

And there in stark terms is the answer. There are white voters in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania—a lot of them, in fact—who are simply racists. They will not vote for a black candidate for president. Period.

That is a far different thing from a black voter who votes for a black candidate, or a Catholic voter who votes for a Catholic candidate. Identity politics is not racism. A black voter might rationally feel that a person of color in the presidency could better understand the issues confronting the voter in question, just as a woman voter might think a woman candidate could better understand her issues. That does not make the black voter a racist any more than it makes the woman voter a man hater.

But the white voter who will not vote for a black candidate is something different, just as a man who will not vote for a woman candidate is something different. These are bigots or sexists.

Now clearly no candidate can be blamed if bigots simply happen to vote for them, but Clinton, in this campaign, is guilty of deliberately seeking the votes of bigots. Her use of the Rev. Wright to smear Obama, her choice of lily-white extras for her campaign ads, all speak to this obscene strategy.

---

I don't think the majority of Jewish Clinton supporters are doing so out of racism or out of Zionist fanaticism but certainly there is probably a fair number who may bolt to McCain if Obama is the nominee. The same may be true of Catholic "Reagan Democrats" in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania (most of whom are not Irish or IRA supporters).

[ 28 April 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Carter wasn't war-like enough for Americans,

---

quote:

---

U.S. Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday that he is "outraged' that his former pastor said criticisms of his headline-grabbing sermons are an attack on the black church.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw [Monday]," Obama told reporters at a news conference.

He also said that Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church.

---

What a pathetic demagogue. Rev. Wright is a man of great tolerance and dignity for not calling Obama the names that he so richly deserves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:

I seem to recall that Reagan had been an honourary Army Captain as part of his war bonds schtick.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:

Ironic, considering that Carter was the highest ranking military officer to become president since Eisenhower. (Carter was a Naval Captain.

---

Nope, only made lieutenant before his dad died.

Wiki

ETA OTOH He probably served longer than any of those others. He was planning to make it his career.

[ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Obama outraged when someone tells the truth about America The Beautiful

What a pathetic demagogue. Rev. Wright is a man of great tolerance and dignity for not calling Obama the names that he so richly deserves.

"I love America! Make me President, please! I'll do anything! I'll say anything!"

---

So does this mean Obama plans on disowning his grandmother (as per his "I can no longer disown reverend Wright than I can disown my own grandmother")? Is that part of a new focus of the campaign on McCain's age.

As for Jimmy Carter, unlike Nixon, JFK, Johnson and Bush sr. he didn't see combat (he is a veteran of the Korean war, but the North Koreans didn't have much of a navy, nor did the Chinese), so that might have prevented him from thumping his chest. Nixon was a Lieutenant Commander, and thus outranked Lieutenant Carter.

Johnson was also a Lieutenant-Commander.

From the Wikipedia entry:

quote:

---

As a junior officer, he completed qualification for command of a diesel submarine.

---

Driving through not long after Carter was elected. Went into Billy's gas station.

There were several guys standing around talking. All white. I recognized one of them as Billy from his novelty appearances.

I should say they were talking... that uncomfotable feeling when you know folks were talking, until you got there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
He wasn't in the Navy long enough to make that rank.

From the Wikipedia entry:

That might be the source of the confusion.

---

That's probably it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
They think he has promised "change" and "hope". He has. And he will not deliver. So, they will feel disappointed in themselves, that they didn't look deeper, but rallied to him out of frustration.

---

I think it depends on the context of hope and change. Keep in mind that Bush is the worst USian president in history. It won't be very hard for Obama to be viewed as a substantial change from Bush. It's a very low standard.

I think Obama's domestic spending will be very different from Bush's, and people will see tangible results. Their economy is going right down the tubes though so i agree hope is a bit of a misnomer.

As far as the war goes, Obama may try to end it and fail. Or he may pretend to try to end it and fail. It will be a pretty bleak world indeed though if four years from now there's just as many foreign troops in Iraq and just as much money being spent on combat ops. I suspect that the American military will not be able to sustain their current presence that long. I can imagine all kinds of different scenarios playing out.

Psychologically i think Obama with a Democratic house and senate will be quite a change from Bush with a Repub house and senate. Bush has alienated many world leaders, and a lot of them will want to become friendly with Obama early. People are just so sick of Bush. Once he is gone it will be like a weight off of many shoulders.

Bush should be tried as a war criminal and won't be. The next president of the USian empire will focus on furthering the goals of USian empire. Nog big surprise there.

In no way do i see Obama as a revolutionary, and he will not bring the kind of change that is really needed. But i don't think that's the kind of change that many USians are looking for, and i think their standards are so low that Obama's changes will be enough for them.

Personally i'm rooting for Obama because he is the reform candidate in the Dem party right now, and that party is in serious need of reform. It wil be a long process for the people to take control, and there're a lot of corrupt politicians and insiders to get rid of. Obama's the best candidate that the current lame Democratic party can put forward, and i'm rooting for him because his campaign moves control of the party more to the people. They have a long ways to go before the people are fully in control, but Obama moves things in the right direction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:

As an NDP supporter i am rooting for him because i want to believe that people can be engaged politically.

---

This is also what I think-- (well put too).
The fact that he can light a fire and get people to hope is a good thing. I think we could ahve more of that here. A big part of the problem in Canada is not that we have run out of possibilities or substance, it is that people do not have hope and will not try some of these options for change. In the US they may be short on substance but here we are not. What he is delivering, as empty as some of you may think (And I haven't been able to decide completely), that is the thing missing here. On the left in Canada we have always had binderfuls of policies- we have lacked the communicator's to deliver them. We may like Obama not because he has a lot in common with us or out of a trust that he has our substance but because he has what we are missing - the ability to inspire and motivate. If ever we could get that re-connected to the many policy ideas we have in the NDP we could change this country. That is the spirit I think that is behind our appreciation of Obama. That and the fact that he is so much better than the alternatives including any who have had that job in generations.

NDPers support Obama out of what they view to be "practical" considerations. There is no real problem, apparently, with Obama's support of nuclear energy or the death penalty or unconditional support for Israel or expanding the war in Afghanistan...

I would say, however, that if you are truly and deeply against these things then don't support any party or leader that does. Ever.

Otherwise, you are just coming across as gutless and where's the "hope" in that?

Man, you want to see "hope" and inspiration?

Direct your eyes towards Tyendinaga, Caledonia, Sharbot Lake and the KI-6. How about OCAP, APC
(Vancouver) or other anti-poverty groups enduring years of police harassment, jail and destitution in the name of principled practical politics. Look at the Christian Peacemaker Teams who put their lives on the line against war.

There is a difference between supporting someone and rooting for them. To me, Obama is quite clearly the best (or least worst, if you prefer--it's the same evaluation) of the plausible options, so i'm rooting for him. If you know of a candidate who has any chance at all at the US presidency who has better policy positions than Obama, then please, PLEASE, enlighten us.

Believe it or not, the knock against Obama in the USA is not that he's hawkish, or pro nuclear power, or a corporate stooge. It's that he's elitist, UnAmerican, "socialist", and black. And if the USian electorate chooses McCain (or had chosen Clinton) over Obama, it will be for those reasons. I'm rooting for Obama because if he loses for those reasons then my cynicism will go up several notches--and my cynicism is higher than i'd like as it is.

I am not rooting for Obama because i think he will bring about real systemic change. Like many here i don't believe that real systemic change is possible by working in our political system. And since you brought it up, i also don't think those activist groups enduring jail and destitution in the name of principles have had much success bringing about systemic change either.

The only thing that i see introducing any kind of systemic change is the massive civil collapse that awaits us in the near future. It will be extremely uncomfortable with lots of us going hungry and/or dying. But our priorities will certainly shift, with conservation and sustainability becoming much more important.

And as far as i can see, this collapse is inevitable, so it's not like we even have to work towards anything. Systemic change will come when the system can no longer sustain itself, and no sooner. So until then i'll be trying to engage people to bring about as much incremental change as possible, so that we're as prepared as we can be for the coming collapse. And yeah, i'll be rooting for the empire to "elect" the least of the evils.

But my question is if things are so dire why don't you involve yourself in political groups who see things the way you see things.

We need to start dealing with this mess and start talking about what kind of world we want to create. I have two daughters and it is my responsibility to ensure that I help create a world with real hope.

No compromise.

I mention these groups (anti-poverty, peace and native) because, like you, they see things for what they are and are responding appropriately on the front lines.

With regard to anti-poverty groups "changing the system"; that is not what they are purporting to do; we are engaged in fighting class warfare as daunting as that may be and get frustrated with discussions of deadend "hope" or clinging to television inspired soap operas that have nothing to do with the facts on the ground.

Despite many assumptions about the radical movement I belong to, what I see is the realistic conclusion inherent in direct action forms of organization that we really don't have a master plan, but recognize that any solutions must be obtained by consensus and direct democracy as practised through struggle. I'm relieved by the humbleness in being able to admit that I do not hold all the answers and that any way forward must be determined not by individuals but by the community. The base for moving forward however must include notions of equality, mutual-aid, freedom and participatory democracy - that I have a meanningful say in the world I want to create.

These are not just concepts...

I can name so many eviction victories, social assistance or disability victories, bad boss triumphs all via direct action campaigns that demonstrates the practical potential of real people power - we've put so much money into poor people's pockets...

There is so much hope, energy and inspiration to be found if you dare to stray from the cynicism of mainstream politics.

The Democrats and the Liberals are natural fits, just as much as the New Conservatives and the Republicans are tight.

There is no NDP analogue in the US because of its two-party monopoly on power. And there is always the claim that a third party plays the role of the spoiler in tight elections, which is much less pronounced for the NDP which has earned its legitimacy.

I apologize.

It's just that things like Wright has brought up and the constituency he represents must be dealt with if there is any hope of moving forward.

There is so much hope and energy in that community.

However, it does mean a clash of some sort and this is inevitable, in my opinion. I think we need to emphasize, be prepared for and organize around this coming clash.

Attention given to the NDP or the Democrats is so divorced from reality...

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Sam ]

quote:

---

I assumed (wrongly in your case) that anyone even giving Obama the time of day has not considered more radical alternatives and views.

---

yes, that would be quite wrong. The problem with "radical alternatives" is that they are a pipe dream.

Either Obama will be nominated and President, or someone to the right of Obama will be nominated.

NDPers are PRACTICAL people. Just because we might like a more radical programme than Obama's, doesn't mean it is being offered anywhere.

People with far-left complaints about Obama (he should embrace Reverend Wright! He should support Hamas!) are just political gravediggers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Obama is involved with politics, that is practical, realizable change.

---

Name three (3) things Obama would change.

While you're at it, name three (3) things Stéphane Dion would change.

I'd be glad to name some things that Obama would change; I am surprised that it wouldn't be obvious.

I think Obama will bring in universal health care, and I think he will get the United States out of Iraq. I also think he will name progressive people to the Supreme Court, an act which will protect Roe v. Wade and a hundred other programmes under right-wing attack.

Admittedly, these changes will not make the United States into a paradise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I think Obama will bring in universal health care, and I think he will get the United States out of Iraq. I also think he will name progressive people to the Supreme Court...

---

Geeez...

I totally understand why NDPers support an Obama; they are playing within the bounds of prescribed politics as set by those who control corporate media, national and global markets, government and the courts.

They've lost their socialist nerve; for good reason too, we've been jailed, slaughtered and slandered by well armed thugs of capitalism.

Precisely because we posed a real threat.

Supporting Hamas? Phooey! All we are saying is that Hamas was recognized by a large part of the Palestinian population (in Gaza) and so we ought to deal with them.

The NDP poses no threat or ideas and this is exemplified by their sympathy to Obama. It may be why they do so crappy too.

Jeff House is asking the "so-called" left to specify exactly what we propose. Holy cow man, we have so many alternative ideas that it is hard sometimes to defend ourselves - isn't that what got us into this mess; not having enough ideas and discussion?

We don't own the media and cannot get our ideas out there very easily in media friendly sound bites. We don't have money and so we have few if any full time organizers.

Most of our time is spent engaged in keeping our dreams alive via struggles in solidarity with the weakest. Those who have laboured on Indy Media projects, anti-war protests and and anti-poverty actions, supporting natives against developers and mining corporations...building solidarity with the Palestinians...these things keep the "so called" left pretty busy and are the bread and butter of the "so-called" left.

But do you know what the real reason is why we don't propose specifics? I can't speak for others, but my clear understanding is that these specifics must come from below - from the people themselves. Any vision of the future will be built from below.

North American society has "prospered" from the get go on war, genocide and exploitation. Does anyone really challenge this? Is this not a truism? Why can't we talk about this?

Capitalism has been able to deliver - for the most part, on the backs of those we declare war on. We are at war for oil. Why can't we talk about this?

Only now is these truisms beginning to get through the corporate media lens - they can't hide it or spin it, no matter how hard they try.

Record level oil prices, food riots, devastating climate change, endless wars...blah, blah, blah...

quote:

---

Originally posted by blueflower:
With his background in community organizing, Obama is very much part of the progressive mindset. In Canada he might be part of the NDP. However he functions in a two party system.

---

See here.

Well, supporting Israel isn't so bad, but supporting the occupation of the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza and apartheid policies in Israel proper is.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

---

That's what I meant by support of Israel, CD - hitching the security of the U.S. to the policies of this rogue outlaw state.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Well, in Obama's favour, he didn't say he'd wipe Iran off the map, like Hillary Clinton did.

---

No, Obama is just a God-fearing pacifist pussycat sweetypie when it comes to Iran - a true isolationist:

quote:

---

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."

---