quote:

---

I'm more concerned here with foreign policy than domestic issues because it's in this area that the US government can do, and indeed does do, the most harm to the world, to put it mildly. And in this area what do we find? We find Obama threatening, several times, to attack Iran if they don't do what the United States wants them to do nuclear-wise; threatening more than once to attack Pakistan if their anti-terrorist policies are not tough enough or if there would be a regime change in the nuclear-armed country not to his liking; calling for a large increase in US troops and tougher policies for Afghanistan; wholly and unequivocally embracing Israel as if it were the 51st state; totally ignoring Hamas, an elected ruling party in the occupied territory; decrying the Berlin Wall in his recent talk in that city, about the safest thing a politician can do, but with no mention of the Israeli Wall while in Israel, nor the numerous American-built walls in Baghdad while in Iraq; referring to the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chávez as "authoritarian", but never referring similarly to the government of George W. Bush, certainly more deserving of the label; talking with the usual disinformation and hostility about Cuba, albeit with a token reform re visits and remittances. But would he dare mention the outrageous case of the imprisoned Cuban Five[1] in his frequent references to fighting terrorism?

---

1. Obama's actual policies probably wouldn't be a great deal better than McCain's, but his appointments (especially to things like the Supreme Court) most likely would.

2. Regardless of his actual intentions, Obama would probably raise the expectations of many people. Maybe people would start daring to demand things that it would seem pointless to demand under a Republican president. Maybe black Americans would see more reason to get engaged than in the past. This would be a good thing, since it might marginally increase the number of genuinely good people who run for office, for instance.

quote:

---

I see them as tools.

---

quote:

---

If I wanted to open a can, and had the choice between a sharpened stick and a pick axe, I'd still choose the latter rather than sitting around and brooding about the fact that I don't have an actual can opener.

---

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

The best one can hope to do might be to take the pick axe, and use it to cut handholds in the wall so as to make it possible to reach the can opener later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent 204:
In Canada, it's less bleak; a vote for the NDP (or the Greens, if you prefer them, though I don't) is always worthwhile at the federal level due to the funding formula, for instance.

---

ETA:

Energy compromise offers test for Obama, McCain

excerpt:

Obama has opposed new offshore drilling, but he now says he would consider it if it were part of a larger strategy to lower energy costs.

He supports repealing the tax break for oil companies and he's tried to paint McCain as a candidate who is "in the pocket" of big oil corporations.

Obama advocates a windfall profits tax on big oil corporations that would be used to provide a $1,000 rebate to people struggling with high energy costs.

The Democratic hopeful said he supports some of the proposals in the Gang of 10 compromise, but he said he remains skeptical of the drilling provisions.

"Like all compromises, this one has its drawbacks," Obama said Monday in Lansing, Michigan. "It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Obama has opposed new offshore drilling, but he now says he would consider it if it were part of a larger strategy to lower energy costs.

---

quote:

---

If McCain wins, it will be because Americans deserve him, just as we have deserved Bush Junior. If Obama wins, he will be a glorified janitor for the endless piles of shit the GOP left in its wake. Just as Bill Clinton was for Reagan and Bush Senior.

Our complacency will be our downfall, and I no longer care. Let Rush Limbaugh and ExxonMobil have America — it's becoming a crumbling shithole anyway.

And on that happy note, we end the blog.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

But that's not the dilemma. The dilemma is that there is a can opener readily available.

---

Where? I can't see it.

No can opener required.

.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Robespierre ]

quote:

---

At this week's meeting of the AFL-CIO executive council in Chicago, labor leaders are strategizing on how the 10 million-member federation can best use its muscle to elect Obama and labor-friendly politicians. The talks are considered precedent-setting because the union officials are figuring out how to confront racism and put a black man in the White House. They expect a quarter of a million volunteers to take part in 510 races on the federal and state level, the officials said.

One of the labor group's strategies is to deflate McCain's support among union members, said Karen Ackerman, the AFL-CIO's political director. This began a while ago with an effort to highlight what they describe as his unfriendly views toward labor, she said.

In February 57 percent of union voters had a positive view of McCain compared with 35 percent in the most recent polls, she explained.

Another strategy has been to win over union members who are undecided about Obama and who make up about one-fourth of the labor group's voters, Ackerman said. They are mostly older white men who doubt that McCain shares their economic interests but are hesitant to back Obama, she said. The goal is to "peel back" misinformation about Obama so workers feel more comfortable backing him, she explained.

Within the AFL-CIO, the Building and Construction Trades Department has produced its own videos to help alter the views of union workers, most of whom are white men, he said.

The group's latest polls show only 59 percent supporting Obama, McGarvey said. About 68 percent of building trade workers voted for Kerry in the last presidential election.

The group hopes to reach workers on a personal basis through videos. This week in Chicago they are filming construction workers talking about their support for Obama.

---

[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
If I could vote in the US election, it'd be for McKinley/the Greens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:

No can opener required.

.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Robespierre ]

---

It looks like the Barack McBush has more bacon. I'll have that.

[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Perhaps you are unaware that federal funding is available to third parties in the USA who get at least 5% of the vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Too late, Boom Boom. McKinley was assassinated in 1901.

---

Arrrrggh!!!

quote:

---

The leaders of the AFL-CIA

---

quote:

---

Willowdale Wizard: Between this, and calling people sluts in other threads, you're being really classy.

---

I won't support the remarks in other threads, but the International Department of the AFL/CIO, or whatever it is called, has distinguished itself many times over the years by its obsequious support of US foreign policy - whatever that means for the workers in the target country. Edited to add: and by this remark I also include the secret, or covert, policies of the US government through institutions such as the CIA. Robespierre is not wrong here, I think. I'm sure a quick Google would get you plenty of evidence of the harm the AFL/CIO has done to solidarity.

It would actually be a useful study to see if, and how much, our own central labour bodies have acted as transmission belts for Canadian foreign policy, whether overtly or covertly.

[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
Between this, and calling people sluts in other threads, you're being really classy.

---

Sorry, brother, I wrongly assumed that the AFL-CIO's long and sordid history of cooperation with intelligence agencies of the U.S. Government, was common knowledge. Thanks to N.Beltov for a very good suggestion about the use of Google.

They also supplied the "hardhats" who did photo ops with Nixon and willingly beat up antiwar demonstrators and they helped overthrow the Allende government in Chile by organizing the trucker's strikes that impeded delivery of food and consumer goods.

quote:

---

Seen by the AFL-CIO as a way to boost union rolls by hundreds of thousands of new members, the hotly-contested bill has become this year's No. 1 election issue for organized labor. Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has promised union bosses that the Employee Free Choice Act will become law in 2009 if he wins the presidency in November.

"We're ready to play offense for organized labor. It's time we had a president who didn't choke saying the word 'union.' A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers," Mr. Obama told the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia on April 2.

"I will make it the law of the land when I'm president of the United States," Mr. Obama told the labor federation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
So, since he's Barack McBush, and a labour organisation of 10 million members is the AFL-CIA, [URL=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/obama-supports-union-organizing/]I guess it's irrelevant that Obama supports the AFL-CIO's campaign for the card-check bill

---

quote:

---

against the anti-union giants like Walmart

---

I know about the Jason Furman Wal-Mart link.

But, I could point out that his election co-ordinator in Missouri (a key swing state he needs to win) is the former Political Director for "Wake-Up Wal-Mart".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
...Michelle Obama resigned from the board of Treehouse[/URL], a food supplier of pickles to Wal-Mart.

---

If a President Obama was pandering to the interests of white racist conservatives in his governance, then I'd certainly agree all this outrage was justified. But I'll employ the same fallacy that is often the refrain when someone suggests McCain's presidency would be worse for Obama's for the U.S. and the world: "that hasn't yet to come to pass so it's impossible to speculate on such a thing."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
I fail to find fault in someone for trying to win votes. That's how you win elections. I realize that winning elections is anathema to certain posters around here.

---

Surely the means and ends are interconnected, such that certain means will not achieve the ends that they are supposed to attain.

In addition, winning votes is not an end in itself; it must be a means to a further end.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
When did this "our treasure" term seep into the language? I first noticed it about six months ago, when GeeDubya used it.

---

That there is some pirate talk, man.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blairza:
Obama will be significantly better for working people and unions than John McCain. The key here is not a brazen attack on mallwart but rather having a functioning National Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB under Bush has stonewalled unions and workers for years by failing to hear complaints that it is sanctioned to adjudicate. This is just one of many public agencies that have either been infiltrated and corrupted(FEMA, DOJ) or marginalized and ignored (EPA,NASA,or any other agency that suggests the earth is imperiled.) In America we tend to forget that the government actually does stuff for us, and that the
President is charged to ensure that it does.
Under Bush our federal government has become an ideological weapon, and a resume factory for sycophants. just has our infrastructure is crumbling so are our bureaucracies.
Obama will certainly disappoint us, but the governance of the nation will improve in thousands of small ways that we may not even notice. McCain has sold himself for this nomination and will continue to waste our people and our treasure.

---

How the hell do you know all of this? That's some pretty picture you paint there, Blairza. However, it is odd that under a previous Democratic regime in Washingtoon (hey, I like that mallwart name, that's good!) the country did not improve in thousands of small ways. In fact, Bill Clinton set us up for a two-term run by GW Bush. If things had been going so well under Bill Clinton how in hell did 50% of the people who voted end up wanting the Republican instead of Bill Clinton's extension, Al Gore?

quote:

---

Under Bush our federal government has become an ideological weapon

---

It has been so since its formation, as is the nature of states; you give Dubya way to much credit.

ETA:

quote:

---

I am tired of this good cop/bad cop routine every four years, I hate cops.

---

I couldn't agree more.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blairza:
...i think I've made my point. I don't like cops either but we have and we pay them so I like to see them do thir jobs.

---

You didn't make your point, sorry. I could punch up a laundry list of horrible things that Clinton did during his reign. We could then compare severity of your list and mine, for the next 100 years, but I think we'd be wasting our time.

quote:

---

Obama will be significantly better for working people and unions than John McCain.

---

Three, war is never good for working people who are the ones to both die in them and pay for them (the much beloved investor class profits from them - handsomely. Aren't they funding much of Obama's campaign?).

Four:

quote:

---

I guess it's irrelevant that Obama supports the AFL-CIO's campaign for the card-check bill to allow workers to form a union simply by collecting a majority of cards signed by workers supporting the unionization of their employer's business.

---

Yes, and we was in favour of re-negotiating NAFTA, and he was opposed to FISA, and he was going to withdraw from Iraq within six months, and he was opposed to off-shore drilling.

So, when the chips are down, and the eggs have hatched, and the cows have made it home, just how much is Obama's promises worth?

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

They have Obama, McCain, Mckinney, and Barr.

I think it's fair to assume that in certain states (Nader had 10 states with 5% or better; Barr is from Georgia, and he'll do ok in states with independent/individualist streaks) that "minor" candidates will do well (5% to 10%, on the county level) here and there.

quote:

---

Robespierre: Every move he and his supporters make, is carefully calculated to present a "progressive" candidate that even white racist conservative could vote for.

---

Honestly, what's wrong with that?

US politics has been heckuva polarised since Gingrich's revolution in 1994. If Obama wins, what's wrong with pulling the two sides of US politics together, so it's easier to form compromises on issues like climate change?

I mean, you want a situation where the right wing of the US moves towards a situation of a minimum wage, multilateralism, racial equality, etc, is "common sense" ... not just Democratic orthodoxy?

Or, what, do you want a situation where the right wing moves right-ward, or stays where it is, so folks get even more radicalised?

If Obama ran only as a candidates for progressives, he wouldn't win. Full stop.

Especially if he doesn't choose Clinton as his VP (negating his anti-Iraq mesage), Obama needed to knit the Democratic party together again.

There's this fantasy that once he won the nomination that he should have stayed where he was, or moved left, and definitely not taken on Rubin or Furman as advisors. Or he shouldn't have all these Clinton administration foreign policy advisors (who is he supposed to turn to to find out how to work the machinery of government if he's elected ... people who have never served in office?).

I'm a bit worried that Obama's been able to raise $140 million from donations of $200 or less, and people say he's beholden to corporate donations.

quote:

---

As for Frustrated Mess the AFL_CIO Card campaign is not irrelevant, its how shops get organized. If people really want to see Wallmarts workersv get organized they'll get behind this bill.

---

quote:

---

I'm a bit worried that Obama's been able to raise $140 million from donations of $200 or less, and people say he's beholden to corporate donations.

---

quote:

---

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

---

Goldman Sachs $627,730
University of California $523,120
JPMorgan Chase & Co $398,021
Citigroup Inc $393,899
UBS AG $378,400
Google Inc $373,212
Harvard University $369,802
Lehman Brothers $353,922
National Amusements Inc $352,603
Moveon.org $347,463
Sidley Austin LLP $326,845
Skadden, Arps et al $304,050
Time Warner $298,972
Morgan Stanley $291,388
Microsoft Corp $276,925
Jones Day $266,705
Latham & Watkins $252,845
University of Chicago $250,685
Wilmerhale Llp $249,282
Exelon Corp $239,061

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

quote:

---

Originally posted:
...Or, what, do you want a situation where the right wing moves right-ward, or stays where it is, so folks get even more radicalised?...

---

The radical left hates the moderate left more than it does the right. It is in their interest that we do not stop the lunge backwards that has occurred in much of the world since the World Trade Center was attacked.

Fortunately they are a tiny minority, and as the history of the last century shows, we have been able to make some progress for working people.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Banjo ]

quote:

---

The radical left hates the moderate left more than it does the right.

---

How has the moderate left succeeded with welfare reform under Clinton? The "deregulation" of finance under Clinton resulting in thousands of working Americans now being homeless and a massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the wealthiest Americans? Support for Bush's wars with no-questions asked funding? Support for undermining the constitution and civil rights? In Britain the moderate left helped lead the British into an illegal, racist, and vicious war.

Any more help from the moderate left and we'll all be permanently fucked - if we're not already given the moderate left's great advances in battling climate change and environmental degradation.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
...Fortunately they are a tiny minority, and as the history of the last century shows, we have been able to make some progress for working people.

---

Progress? Go tell that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died since George Bush, Sr. invaded Iraq, and following him, Bill Clinton starved through sanctions, and carpet-bombed Iraq on a regular basis. And, let's not overlook restoration of the Death Penalty at home, that was a big, bloody plank in Bill Clinton's campaign platform.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
The radical left hates the moderate left more than it does the right. It is in their interest that we do not stop the lunge backwards that has occurred in much of the world since the World Trade Center was attacked.

Fortunately they are a tiny minority, and as the history of the last century shows, we have been able to make some progress for working people.

---

On behalf of the so-called "moderate left" you claim credit for "some progress" for working people in the past century?

It wasn't the "moderate left" that led the fight for the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week. It wasn't the "moderate left" that organized and led the major labour battles of the 20th century. It wasn't the "moderate left" that made revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba, etc. and scared the shit out of the capitalist class until they reluctantly agreed to make concessions to the workers on social welfare programs. It wasn't the "moderate left" that won legislated protection for the right to form unions and strike.

It was the "moderate left" that cowered meekly and said bugger all while the post-9/11 "lunge backwards" was taking place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
Your knowledge of history seems to extend about 16 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:

---

I just quoted that to preserve it. It shows the elitism which hides behind so much of the radical rhetoric.

To M Spector, as I see it, in Canada, the CCF/NDP has been responsible for most of the advances that we have made during the last century. I think of them as moderate. In the UK, Labour, even under the Poodle, still carried out social reforms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:
And, let's not overlook restoration of the Death Penalty at home, that was a big, bloody plank in Bill Clinton's campaign platform.

---

This is a gross distortion of the truth. The death penalty was reinstituted in the U.S in 1976 by the Supreme Court decision in Gregg v. Georgia. 37 states have their own death penalty laws on the books, and they are the ones who carry out the overwhelming majority of executions. Bill Clinton has next to nothing to do with any of that (he was Governor in Arkansas for 4 executions post-Gregg).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
[QB]This is a gross distortion of the truth. The death penalty was reinstituted in the U.S in 1976 by the Supreme Court decision.../QB]

---

Did Bill Clinton affirm support for the restoration of the Death Penalty in the U.S.? Yes, he did.

quote:

---

In the UK, Labour, even under the Poodle, still carried out social reforms.

---

quote:

---

Gazing around the world today, the 'old' social democracy appears to be dying, while some claim that a 'new' social democracy is struggling to be born. All over the developed world there seems to have arisen a new paradigm: one characterised by an unprecedented narrowing of the political field, whereby what little choice offered to voters boils down to either neo-liberalism, or otherwise 'neo-liberalism with a human face'. Amidst all this upheaval no individual has so come to epitomise the political moment as has British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Indeed, Blair and prominent British sociologist, Anthony Giddens have emerged as the Siamese twins of the 'New Labour' new order ...the kind of 'reciprocity in welfare' urged by Giddens has led, ultimately, to punitive welfare. Clinton's support of a two year limit on welfare payments stands in stark contrast to his failure to secure meaningful health care reform. Such issues are adroitly evaded by Giddens, presumably out of artifice, not ignorance. According to Giddens, "the issue isn't more government or less, but recognising that governance must adjust to the new circumstances of the global age." (Giddens, p72) This is 'code' for 'downsizing' government as part of the overall global process by which the capitalist economy has been radically restructured. The relation between 'social inclusiveness' and small government, where 'small government' can no longer afford the most basic of infrastructure, let alone the support of vibrant and equitable public education and health systems, is terrain that is also conveniently untraversed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
What I was referring to was that Blair greatly increased money for education. (I could find link, if you really need one, but that is well know.)

My sentence was awkward. The point I was making was that the Labour Party was more responsible for the improvements in the UK, during the last century, not just the last 16 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
you expect us to believe he will rule from the left? I think not.

---

Well, he'll rule from the left of McCain, anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
...as I see it, in Canada, the CCF/NDP has been responsible for most of the advances that we have made during the last century. I think of them as moderate....

Did the those "radicals" to whom you refer so positively accomplish more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
You clearly have no acquaintance with Canadian labour history and the social struggles of the 20th Century. Nor do you understand how the Russian revolution had a profound influence on working class militancy and politics in Canada and the USA. Finally, you don't know shit about the history of the CCF/NDP if you think they were "responsible" for most of the advances that we have made in the last century.

I'd love to help educate you, but frankly you're not worth the trouble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
...I'd love to help educate you, but frankly you're not worth the trouble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:

Once again, you show you cannot deal with any
difference of opinion from your own without resorting to personal insults. I wouldn't say to any other human being that he or she is 'not worth the trouble,' but I would say that by showing that you have to rely on insults, you reveal that your argument is a weak one, and not worth replying to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Goldman Sachs $627,730
University of California $523,120
JPMorgan Chase & Co $398,021
Citigroup Inc $393,899
UBS AG $378,400
Google Inc $373,212
Harvard University $369,802
Lehman Brothers $353,922
National Amusements Inc $352,603
Moveon.org $347,463
Sidley Austin LLP $326,845
Skadden, Arps et al $304,050
Time Warner $298,972
Morgan Stanley $291,388
Microsoft Corp $276,925
Jones Day $266,705
Latham & Watkins $252,845
University of Chicago $250,685
Wilmerhale Llp $249,282
Exelon Corp $239,061

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Lotta Wall Street money there, eh?

---

[ 08 August 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]