Now that’s watch as he slides over to the right. And he’s already done that, but out march the excuses: AIPAC made him do it, the nasty corporate elite made him do it, the military complex made him do it, US empire policy made him do it…one of these days maybe we’ll wake up and stop making excuses for him.

If anybody thinks this guys got the spine to buck the system then they’re in fantacy land.

And I could go on and on. There’s a whole list of strong African-American women — including Maya Angelou — who spoke out against sexism and up for Hillary.

Since you brought men into it even though I specifically noted “African-American women” I guess women on their own aren’t important. But along with Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon who are great writers, the many also include Ty:
http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/

and Cedric:
http://cedricsbigmix.blogspot.com/

The candidate I’m supporting now is Ralph Nader and, deadbeat and Ms. Smith, I believe Mr. Nader just called out your political-crush today.

Early in the primary season Clinton support among African Americans was greater than Obama’s until Clinton played the race card in New Hampshire and South Carolina. This aspect is missing in much of the critiques coming from Black Agenda Report and Glen Ford in particular. He has been unfairly hyper-critical of Obama’s African American supporters without articulating the divisive tactics of the Clintons.

The long primary season helped to finally and unambiguously expose the Clintons to the general public. They’ve played the race and deploy divisive rhetoric.

I do agree with Ms. Smith that Obama has been weak and defensive because he has deliberately avoiding confronting racism by believing that America has transcended race. I agree that this naive belief enabled the Clinton to dredge up the Southern Strategy. But once again had Obama brought up race then the media would have labeled Obama the “affirmative action” candidate feeding white resentment any how. Thus Obama IMO is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I agree with Shabnam’s assessment of Clinton’s hardline and pro-Zionist stance. Obama to some degree provide some “moderation” with his desire to negotiate. Had there been match between Clinton and McCain (or any Republican except Ron Paul) would offer the public no choice. Which is what Zionists especially in the media wanted to set up for the American people.

Again the awful situation this week where all of the major candidates and politicos have to genuflect before AIPAC really highlight the failure of the “left” to confront Zionism in the U.S. Had the “left” not demobilize the anti-war movement in 2004 it certainly would have greatly altered the discourse.

Nader apparently is now talking a more critical stance on Israel. Which is useful. Unfortunately it arrives four-years too late.

Obama, due to the vacuum caused by the “left’s” desire not to confront Zionism in the U.S and it’s subsequence demobilization, is “acceptable enough” a candidate to marginalize Nader this year. The “left” doesn’t have to do that for him like they did for John Kerry.

As you have pointed out in this excellent article it was Hillary who used the race card from the beginning to steal the nomination. Obama must deal with his opponents, the racists, with different techniques from the one using now because his treatment of Hillary has not been effective so far and she has done everything to defeat him in November against McCain so she can come back with her racist and pro Zionist message once again in 4 years from now. I am with you hundred percent when you suggest Obama should ignore Hillary Clinton and give her a middle finger if she or her racist and anti feminist supporters demand a position on the ticket including vice presidency. Nothing is worse than that. She has shown beyond reasonable doubt that she is capable of using anything including inciting assassination to force her opponents out.