http://www.counterpunch.org/fiyouzat02192008.html

The danger is that in Clinton’s terms he got away with it from liberals because they thought he was - in his heart of hearts - one of them and maybe some welfare reform wasn’t such a bad idea, and NAFTA who knows maybe it will work for everyone. Many of those liberals are die hard humanitarian imperialists. And the conservatives thought Bill’s policies were ok, but really hated the cut of the man’s jib - I mean just hated him.

Obama is much the same in terms of mix more than transcendent in his “vision” thing. True the right has real problems with attacking Obama but they’ll find a way and feel a similar love/hate with him if he becomes president that they had with Slick. When Obama talks like he’s been to the mountain top, you know he hasn’t, but the desperation just demands that you believe. Yes, he talks a bit liberal and a bit conservative, just like Billy did.

Hillary, poor thing, has turned into Bush senior to Obama’s Bill.

Call us even!
Max

I’m sorry, my bad. Didn’t mean to be abstrusely unintelligible. I was tired, then my sleep meds started to kick in & I got sloppy, reverted to my own vocabulary, started skipping the Translation step of my DV algorithm.
Well, guess I cd go through & translate it all into Standard English but I don’t feel any energy coming from that prospect. So I’ll have to be content with offering a suggestion which may help you decypher my screed?
First of all, make sure you understand what each word denotes. Like if you started to read a book about Hegel, be a good idea to be clued in re “aufheben”, i.e., “sublate”? Or if you just started in to read The Prison Notebooks, without first being tipped to what Gra — (”GrraMIshh”;) — what Gramsci meant by “the modern prince” or “subaltern”?

Like reading a new piece of music: if it’s not clear at first, break it down. Take it one note at a time. If you can’t make out a word, axe smbdy. If all else fails, ax me, I do know everthang about everthang:)

Bueno Suerte, Hasta la Procks,

Dan:)

In addition to Nader and McKinney, Democratic candidate and total badass Mike Gravel is still in the race and plans to be until November. Please believe.

Anyone game for a Gravel/Nader independent ticket?

http://www.petitiononline.com/granad08/petition.html

V. interesting comments here from several. Lemme start w/ E R Bills who I wd guess to be a Black man? (just testing my ESP:) If I’m right, you obviously haven’t been reading BAR much if at all. Yes BAR talks about Obama like a dog; what they’ve said about Mrs Clinton is close to unprintable. Go check their archives for Hillary mentions; you’ll see immediately that to accuse BAR of being in the Clinton corner is not only slanderous, it’s just plain wildly inaccurate. No biggie, been wrong a few times myself. The trick is to realize, accept, take your new smarts & move up one level.

DB: soon as Kim responds w/ your email I want to tell you some inside Oakland Panther stuff about Elaine Brown. Back in the 70’s she spoke to a Sonoma St. class I was in; I was v. impressed with her “street” image & vocabulary in which she articulated Marxist analysis. From reading the “Free Huey” period Panther paper I’d been impressed with activities BPP was into. So when it was announced she’d speak at Sac State, 2004 I think? — fwdd it to my list. Back came a “hold on thar buddy, lemme pull yr coat” from a former BPP insider: “don’t touch EB w/a ten ft pole. Er a Littauer neither”.

Lots more cd be said, but mebbe the key is this: last yr they held a monster 40th Anniv of the BPP Reunion in Oakland. EB was conspicuously absent. So my take: a likely reason EB gave up GP run, is to win CA GP nomination you need lots of Nor Cal support, & she can’t go to East Bay sans Secret Service protection.

Of course I was never a Panther myself, so have no direct knowledge of BPP infighting. But will stake rep that my sources are honest/reliable & have complete knowledge of the matter.

Max,

Well man, one the times I was wrong was my first impression of you. You’re much smarter than I originally assumed. (teach me to Assume Nothing;) You seem to have a streak of originality, thinking meta-boxistically? But from where I view things you come down as a possible ally but not really, or not yet, part of what some call “The Subjective Factor”, that is, “us” as opposed to “them”.
Of course you aren’t one of “them” either, so you seem to fall somewhere in the middle. IMHO:)

Take your points re African Americans supposedly supporting Clinton as President: fact is, most African Americans don’t vote period, tune out the Electoral Process as just more whitepeople bullshit. Some Black Democrat said the other day, on the teevy, said Black Usians now divisible socio-economically into three parts: one third doing much better than before MLKjr/LBJ; one third just barely hangen on, paycheck to paycheck, family crisis to family crisis; & the bottom third is just Catchen Hell worsen any time in memory.

The top third are the ones that love these Black Democrats, these Charley Rangels & Jesse Jacksons. Middle third dimly aware there’s an election, probly won’t waste time to vote, other things to do, but if they vote they’ll depend on their Baptist Pastor. Bottom third largely alienated from the whole bidness, if not legally disfranchised, lockt up or about to be.
I myself believe that partickler A-A Democrat’s arithmetic is shaky. Think he exaggerated magnitude of Doing Fine class & minimized those Catching Hell.
Who are the people with the least stake in the statutes of the Status Quo. Whose needs cannot be addressed in any comprehensive way by any Presidential candidate with a prayer of getting elected, or by any majority in the Congress that in our wildest imagination we can expect to see elected.
Basic fact: no significant “Change” is possible in the Power equation in this election cycle. Obama, Clinton, McCain: mox nix, the Ruling Class knows what the Consensus is among its members, among “Our Sort”, & it don’t matter a hill a beans which Stooge is most popular among the Chumps. Which defines what few options remain for folks like us, including yourself, Max, in this prtickler instance:) I’ll go into them later, but first I want to revisit sthg you said:

“I’ve said and maintain that the GP should look to build a coalition with libertarians and progressive independents, and others to form a grass roots movement and power base. This would be inclusive of minority coalitions.”

That, Max, is pure Nader-think. Actually I find it slightly “racistic”? Or maybe that’s the wrong word; maybe Petite-Bourgeois Class/Ethnic Chauvinism would be more precise & descriptive?

But my purpose is not to belabor you about your shortcomings. I do accept based on your written words that you are a person of good will, that any residual mental ethnocentrism is not consciously intentional. But it this mindset which makes the Green Party as presently constituted unable to move beyond its Ten Point yuppie catechism & address the real crisis, that of our collective helplessness under the boot of the crew presently in charge: Republicans/Democrats/Demogreens & all the little political cabooses tailing along behind, like the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarians: what a classic P-B party exhibiting exactly the behavior described by Marx in the Eighteenth Brumaire & elsewhere, as they vaccillate now upwards, now downwards depending on where they perceive the source of the most immediate threats to their comfortable privileged USian existence.

In this they resemble no political factor more than they do the aforementioned Black Democratic faithful.

Jump to chase: first thing we need do is unite a core of relatively informed activists, which is where Cynthia’s campaign comes in. For us poor & oppressed bottom strata folks, this is the Main Parade. Obama is just more shuck & jive, Run Tom Run. Artillery Hillery is more the same ol same ol.
If Nader runs, it’ll be a rerun of yr 2K at best, 2004 at worst: mass confusion in an increasingly irrelevant white yuppie Green Party. So the real Power to the People movement will have to start over again from Square One.

No, no, Max: first we need a bunch activists, color not the main consideration. Next we need to reach out to Lower Class Blacks not already trapped in the Black Democrat syndrome, people who ain’t lost their MotherWit, people w/ a lotta Sales Resistance? Cynical people. Skeptics. Suspicious types who assume up front any comen around in a Suit is tryen to steal sthg.

That was the Base of the Oakland Black Panther Party. It was because the BPP managed to mobilize them that The Man turned loose the dogs & Cointelled the BPP out of existence.

If you really want to threaten the Status Quo, those the folks you need in yr corner. Cuz the Libertarians will get confused witch side is witch.

Just like Nader 2004: Cobb undercut his GP base, so what did he do? Turned to the Ross Perot Reform Party. Big Mistake No 1.

I don’t think you’ll see Cynthia make that kind of blunders. You might see me step on my oui-oui nown then but not Cynthia.

Okay, enjoy chatting with you,

Dan:)

That’s the salient point. Not that you or I see through his triangulation but that we was supported to the nth degree by the Black community (certainly with important exceptions). Which is in large part the same thing with Obama. His words have nothing to do with minorities in any meaningful way. He is a supported of pretty much all things, B. Clinton. Where does he differ? Or with Hillary?

As far as Nader and McKinney, I think both are head and shoulders over the war party’s offering. I would hope that McKinney would have strong support from the African American Community - she really speaks for the poor and disenfranchised. Nader is white man who probably doesn’t have the “appeal” but he too has the policies and programs that would be just as powerfully supportive of a very different direction.

Cheers
Max

Max this is where your assumption breaks down. As a percentage of voter clearly a high PERCENTAGE of Blacks will be shown as voting for the Democrats. However should Clinton head the ticket Blacks will STAY HOME and boycott the election rather than vote for Clinton. Should the Democrats self destruct, it will be an opportunity for the Greens with Cynthia McKinney at the top of the ticket will be able to attract those voters. With Nader at the top those voters are much more likely to stay home.

As far as Obama’s campagin being similar to B. Clinton’s ‘92 run; I don’t recall a divisive campaign by Clinton. He kepts the base tied to him for 8 years including a huge minority favorability. Did he deserve it - no. Does Obama deserve it - to early to tell. There are obvious differences, but they’re pitching a mostly centrist - wink wink at the progressive base - outsider with a vision for the future (”bridge to the 21st century, hope”).

I guess you forgot about Ricky Ray Rector, the man who execution Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to execute to prove his bona fide among the “Reagan” Democrats. I guess you forgot about Bill performance at the Rainbow Coalition and all his alienating rhetoric regarding Blacks and union members.

Clinton did not maintain the base as you say. Clinton stymied the base that the left was unable to organize these alienated voters because of its own internal divisiveness and institutional weaknesses. Since the left missed that opportunity the disaffected had no alternative. Their choice was to either vote for the Clinton or boycott. Since the Clintons NEVER built a working majority and had no coattails clearly many voters boycotted rather than vote for the Clintons.

As I stated the 2000 election and the rise of the Greens was due to the dissatisfaction of the Clinton/Gore years. The election of GWB was blamed on Nader and divisions on the left in 2004 quashing building up the Greens.

Thus Max, forgetting and ignoring the divisive aspects about the Clintons and failing to make these distinctions are why there are deep holes in your analysis about Obama and how the Greens should properly position themselves against Obama.

In this respect, “black” has not been part of BAR’s agenda. They are a shabby arm of the Clinton political machine and they resent Obama’s meteoric rise. It casts a light on their collective social, political and philosophical flatline.

And the reason given for this shift to Obama by the press - frequently black columnists: the white folks gave their permission!!! That’s right African Americans watched carefully to see what the white folks in Iowa would do with their caucus and lo and behold they went for O over H!!

Say it aint so! Let’s create a rap song for Obama and pay no attention to the little fellows behind the curtain (the Clinton advisors, and the military interventionists Ms Powers and Brzezinski….we’ve come a looooooong way baby! Martin would be sooooooo proud. And brother Malcom would be applauding Right on!

Like hell!!!

To the mythologies points, I like to recall Bobby Kennedy. Bobby was the middle son of that rather large Kennedy clan. He was kind of the runt of the lot, very competitive, passionate, a real Irish fighter. He showed early on he could take that competitiveness and be vicious and ruthless. He showed that while working for Joe McCarthy, and then when going after Hoffa, and then the mob.

But in 1963, his world changed dramatically. And he went from the bull dog, to the introvert - in fact, it seemed almost a natural transformation. He took the passion and intellect and began to transform himself - or was somehow transformed. Few would ever think that this was a “trick” used for some political end. It was about as real a transformation as the eye could behold. For the last several years of his life, Bobby was the same person in temperment, but the temperment had been redirected in a way that had a ring of authenticity and yearning. Cynics may cling to the earlier version of Robert Kennedy, but the myth holds the latter as the real deal.

Where, I ask, is the Obama story in this. Where is the utter transformation, the compassion that reaches out to people in a way that connects eye ball to eye ball. Yes, the hoopla is there, but where it comes from is not. The same could be said of the other examples, all different but certainly unique, distinct.

Lastly, I must say that while people keep throwing around the Green Party I don’t think there’s a real understanding of this Party. It is not a left wing party nor is it a collection of disaffected Dems (though there are certainly some).

When people talk about Nader or McKinney and the Green Party candidate, it seems they’re looking at this as if it’s about who can capture the hearts and minds of minorities. While I agree that capturing the hearts and minds of as many Americans as possible is crucial, I don’t think the Green Party has been about the usual class/race game played by the major Parties. A game that is one of deceipt, bait and switch. That is because those old, legacy-laden parties have no real principled attactors. They have the power and from it they can send out messages that foil any others.

I’ve said and maintain that the GP should look to build a coalition with libertarians and progressive independents, and others to form a grass roots movement and power base. This would be inclusive of minority coalitions. From there the fundamentals of the system - such as it is - must be structurally transformed. Proportional representation and Instant Run-off Voting would be the bedrock of such changes. If you look at Green Party platforms across the country you’ll note consistency that reflects the values of the party. Every thing from land value tax, to local living democracy, to community building from the inside out, to sustainable economics and much more. These are themes that are not to be found in the Dems or Repubs. They are not leftist themes. They are 21st Century themes with real outcomes.

And size, by all means, matters - i.e., small is better. It matters to the Green Party because the GP has aligned itself with the life sciences, with biology which is about organized complexity, and about how organisms differentiate once they reach a critical mass. It is the natural order reflected in Green Party’s philosophy. So, making this about 20th century industrial, newtonian politics misses the point of what the GP is all about.

Disagree with it or not, but first understand it.

Now what a leftist minority is, is another issue. If being left of the so-called center is being a “leftist” than many celebs and liberal-types seem to be pulling for Obama. On the other hand, if we’re talking supporters of the Bolivarian revolution - I really don’t think they’re in the Obama camp. In fact, I think they might vote green (McKinney or Nader) or not at all.

As far as Obama’s campagin being similar to B. Clinton’s ‘92 run; I don’t recall a divisive campaign by Clinton. He kepts the base tied to him for 8 years including a huge miniority favorability. Did he deserve it - no. Does Obama deserve it - to early to tell. There are obvious differences, but they’re pitching a mostly centrist - wink wink at the progressive base - outsider with a vision for the future (”bridge to the 21st century, hope”).

The difference is Iraq (and going on 8 years of pure hell). With Iraq at his back and being one of two Dems, the other having been branded the hawk, that leaves the vague (”Iraq was a bad idea”) Obama as the saviour. Not of the left, or minorities, or anti-war, but of a large scale groupism. A man who needs to be defined by the myths of Bobby Kennedy and John Kennedy, and Martin Luther King,demonstrates a clear sign there is only an idea of who Obama is.

IMO, the effectiveness of a Nader run in 2008 will depend who is at the top of the Democratic ticket. A Nader run against Clinton will have much more sharpness than a run against Obama. Obama has been able to connect and excite the base. I don’t think Nader will be able to break through. Obama is “good enough” to attract those who would consider voting for Nader. Recall that many of Nader’s supporters in 2000 were people who became dissatisfied with the Clinton/Gore administration.

Also I disagree that Obama is similar Bill Clinton’s first run. Clinton ran a divisive campaign. His “credibility” was built on how he could dismiss the base (minorities and union workers). Also Ross Perot played a major role in both 1992 and 1996 that siphoned votes away from the Republicans.

Obama’s campaign has the “illusion of inclusion”. However his campaign and an unpopular war has opened some space for leftist to engage new and young voters who see Obama as an “agent of change”. Therefore we should be clear in our analysis of Obama and the effectiveness of Nader.

Should Obama win the nomination and with his ability to connect with and energize the base of the Democratic party the Greens will not stand much of a chance to attract new voters. Thus Nader should and IMO MUST support McKinney as the future of the Greens. Dan is right. McKinney possesses much greater credibility to attract minority voters and is in a much stronger position to challenge Obama from the left.

Nader doesn’t have much credibility in minority communities and will be seen as a “spoiler” even more so than he was in 2000. Should Obama lose in the General Election with Nader in the campaign you can bet that the Greens will be seen as obstructing minority aspirations. This has already been the message conveyed by Elaine Brown who quit the Greens earlier this year.

Uh, I’d like to send you some the stuff showing up here: interesting brouhaha involving N. Finkelstein, MAF vs Codepink video, Kovel’s CODZ.org, etc. If you say it’s OK, Kim can send me your e-dress?

Thanks again,

Dan:)

Obama’s campaign looks pretty much like Bill Clinton’s first run. In fact Obama is more like B. Clinton than Hillary is. But Obama strikes me more like a Manchurian candidate - wired with a replay script that keeps the crowds coming and applauding, but totally alien from any thing real.

Obama is clearly politics as usual - which is perhaps the most frustrating thing about his campaign. Of the three candidates still standing he is perhaps the most deeply deceitful because he “promises” are cotton candy. And so those who see through this veil of decipt are angered by the lack of any alternative to McCain and Hillary. People will vote for and may get, Obama only to end up with the policies of McCain/Hillary.

As for the Green Party, I really don’t care whether McKinney or Nader are at the top of the ticket. I agree with those who don’t think Nader would take the second spot. Nader, like it or not, is just not made that way. His is a mission that has been baked into his dna which is not about handing over the fight to someone else while he keeps to the side. It works for him as an advocate of human rights and consumer protection, but not as member of a Party - any party.

I like McKinney but I’d like to see her run with a strong candidate (either as top or 2nd) and not one of those overthehill folksy guys who seem to have just awoken from a nap mid-debate. Who if not Ralph? I don’t know.

But then yeah, I’d like to see Ralph endorse and campaign for Cynthia. Maybe take a VP nod to get them both out on the road trying to talk to the country. But I think its time for some younger blood. This is probably Ralph’s last run one way or the other. So unless it seems like he could really win this time, its time to start doing the building behind someone else.