Joel Meyers said: "I say, give Obama the benefit of the doubt, (given the context of the Democratic Party) rather than voting for change you can't believe in. Obama is at least firing up the better side of our imaginations, and restoring real hope, which may force him as president to go further than he otherwise would... <snip>" While I would frame some things a little differently in certain respects, the important thing is that on your basic point (quoted above) we are thoroughly in agreement. The crucial issue is that a wide array of progressive forces are coalescing around Barack Obama as their/our standard-bearer in the struggle over the future of the country. In my judgement, based on a close look at his personal history (including his work as a community organizer and as a civil rights attorney), he is an *authentic* progressive, who has mastered the ability to communicate in terms that resonate with a broad spectrum of the populace. Obviously he's not a radical or a revolutionary, but he does represent a departure from both the Republican hard-right agenda and the center-right politics of the Clinton-DLC Democrats. Three weeks ago, my wife and I both made a point of changing our registration from Green to Democrat, so we could vote in the Democratic primary here in California. At the time, our first choice was probably Dennis Kucinich, but we were giving serious thought to voting for John Edwards -- basically, because we felt they were a little stronger on some of the issues than Obama. We thought it would come down to either a "protest vote" for Kucinich, or a "real" vote for Edwards if it looked like he had a serious shot at winning. Needless to say, those plans went out the window when they both dropped out as Obama surged in popularity. In light of the numbers of mostly younger voters mobilizing around his candidacy, we could not help but feel excited by the prospect of electing a fundamentally progressive person who represents generational change -- and, yes -- the first African American President. That in itself will be a watershed event in our history. Any self-proclaimed radical or progressive who insists on minimizing the importance of that hugely consequential fact is sadly missing the mark. (It's not as though we're talking about Colin Powell or Condy Rice.) Let's be clear: we do still have concerns about some of his policy positions -- but they're relatively minor in terms of the overall picture. As always, the *real work* begins AFTER the person is elected. That's when the progressive alliances that have been formed and mobilized during the election will face their really crucial tests.If we're up to the challenge, we might even achieve results on a par with what was accomplished during the New Deal period in the 1930s. But first things first. (And I dearly hope you're wrong about those crosshairs.) Craig Gingold From: Joel Meyers <meyersjoel@xxxxxxxxx> Date sent: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 04:43:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NewPacifica] Obama vote only way to register progressive mandate of Dems Send reply to: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Democrats are visibly split between the progressive and establishment wings within the imperialist capitalist system, not likely to be overthrown by November. The main issue in the split is the war. There may be some exceptions in terms of individual politicians, but the Kennedys and Lieberman-Clintons represent the polarity, and they are grouped around Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, respectively. As individuals, neither is an ideal representative of either current. But as political phenomena, they have been shaped into their current roles. Because of HRC's staunch support for the war all along, even the ultra- reactionary Ann Coulter says she will not only support but campaign for Hillary Clinton against John McCain, if those are the nominees. She feels that HRC in her core is a stronger warmonger than the militarist Mad John McCain, who envisions staying in Iraq for 100 years. Ann Counter thinks his rabid rhetoric covers up a side that is soft compared to Hillary. Sure, now Hillary said she will "start" withdrawing troops from Iraq in 60 days of her inauguration. But guess what? Bush now promises the same thing, even before his term ends, based on the results of the so-called "surge". Hillary has added, however, that the troops must not be withdrawn at an irresponsible pace. "We" must help train Iraqis to enforce U.S. imperialist rule on their own country better than they do now, and "we" must cobble together a stable Iranian government that includes Shi'a and Sunni Arabs and Kurds that work together, she insists, noting how progress has been being made. Very complicated, you know. She also does not call for the removal of the permanent military bases, as Obama does explicitly promise. After this, a vote for HRC does not represent a difference with Bush on the paramount question of war. HRC voted not only for the resolution authorizing the Bush regime to invade Iraq, but also against the Levin Amendment, which called for some UN certification that the UN had given up on the inspection regimen as an alternative to war, when Hans Blix could have verified the absence of weapons of mass destruction, the main lie in instigating the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Thus she not only voted to authorize the war, but helped Congress legitimize the Bush regime's war drive and protected the false incitement for the U.S. attack. And all this was after the low-intensity war of bombing Iraq almost every day during the Clinton administration, the bridge between the two Bush Iraq attacks. Not to mention the sanctions that killed more Iraqis than the bombings. Even under pressure from Obama representing the progressive wing of their shared imperialist plebian party, Hillary tried to defend her vote by distorting the Levin resolution into meaning that the U.N. would have control over U.S. sovereign functions of foreign policy. That defense is even worse than merely voting against the resolution, because it means that by voting against Levin, she was really voting defiance against international law and the U.N. Charter, an international treaty to which the U.S. is a signator. The U.N. Charter bans aggressive warfare by member states, although it allows national self-defense to countries that are under armed attack (Iraq never attacked the U.S.). Levin's resolution fell short of respecting that principle. So what Hillary is still insisting on is a policy of aggressive warfare in defiance of international law and even the U.N., something that even Bush does not say as openly, although deeds speak louder than words. But Hillary's predictable war crime deeds will speak louder still, if they are pre-approved by an electorate within her own "opposition" party and given a mandate. Now, it's true that we do not know what Obama will actually do if he is allowed to become President. But since in the debates he refers to his prior opposition to authorizing Bush to make war, in counterdistinction to Hillary's Senate vote for such authorization, and since he supports the Levin Amendment, then a vote for Obama will embody an antiwar mandate, and a vote for Clinton would mandate an update and reinforcement of the original authorization to Bush for the iraq war, and then, maybe it's onto Iran or who knows where else. Let's not get carried away, though. Democratic debates turned into war rallies as Obama and HRC both competed in belligerent threats to invade Pakistan, and both insist that all options including all-out war are "on the table" with regard to Iran. Neither calls for impeachment of Bush, even though the last Democratic President and HRC's husband was actually impeached, though not removed, over allegations that certainly lower the strandards for the measure. Obama, perhaps emptily and cynically promises a "change you can believe in." But with the Clintons, their record destroys any credibility for the prospect for change. Even Hillary's prettiest vision is of a change to a disgraced past, not to a future. Now, the other major issue of the campaign, which in my opinion is far secondary to that of war against the world, is health care payment arrangements. Here Hillary's payment program of mandatory purchasing mostly private insurance company policies may seem better than Obama's voluntary membership payments, in that Obama's plan would not have reliable finance and therefore is inherently unworkable under the current system and thereby signaled as fictitious. But the first question you have to ask is, would you vote for fascism if the fascists promised to provide health care, which, for example, in Germany, they did, for the Aryans. If that is an exaggeration in this country, rephrase the question in more humanistic or universalistic terms: would you support imposing fascist occupation on other countries on the promise of health care payment promises here for American citizens, as a benefit of imperialism? Actually, many would. And that is the basis of imperialist liberalism, in a governance tradition inherited from at least as far back as Julius Caesar. Then there is another question: How much healthcare will be created with warfare expanding into the trillions? And how many more mental and physical health care problems will be created by the war? Right now, one grievance is that even the veterans' medical benefits are being cut! The liberal demand is that we have to reward our war criminals better. Finally, a little mentioned aspect of the last attempt at "HillaryCare", was that it contained a clause banning any and all alternative treatments or preventive practices. Since these were adjudged ineffective or dangerous by the pharmaceutical monopolies, it would be considered improper allow the state or state-mandated private insurance companies to fund them. In fact, it would supposedly protect patients from being defrauded by unapproved treatments, and would be unconcionable to fund alternative treatments. While alternative medicine is harrassed almost illegal in many aspects, it is still available and has not been entirely shut down. This would be part of the payment for the proposed health care plans. You have to think about further regimenting the country under an insurance company dictatorship, however liberal may be the rationale. Ironically, the only candidates that have called attention to a need to reform what passes for health care itself, rather than the means of paying for it (where they oppose any governmental assistance), are Ron Paul, the most clearly antiwar of all standing candidates with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, and who is a doctor, and Michael Huckaby, who does not believe in evolution but otherwise is all over the place politically. The liberals are once again promising benefits by worship of monopoly capitalist perversions of science. They were the same circles that sold and imposed fluoridation of water, when only elements on the right made a peep of opposition. To this day, establishment conventional "wisdom" has buried fluoridation as an issue, and derides antifluoridationists as kooks. But all this pales before war and peace. I say, give Obama the benefit of the doubt, (given the context of the Democratic Party) rather than voting for change you can't believe in. Obama is at least firing up the better side of our imaginations, and restoring real hope, which may force him as president to go further than he otherwise would, or, when he inevitably disappoints, will be the basis for energizing a new real opposition not seen since the coup d'etat of Dallas. It must also be said that however limited it may seem, Obama is placing himself in the crosshairs by his undertaking. Perhaps it is media hyperbole that Obama is compared with JFK, RFK and MLK. What do they have in common? ======================================================== *** [==> If you're not part of the solution... you're part of the problem <==] ***