Why the fuck are the "progessives" loving on Obama lately????

[bootleg42]

Seriously. Before in many progressives sites and media outlets, there were doubts and legit criticisms of Obama and Clinton which pointed out many good things like how labor gave almost no money to their campaign and how they would probably not end the wars and imperialism no matter how much they act like they're anti-Bush.

Now since Obama made that "race speech", progressives in the United States (and the black middle class may I add) have been loving him, acting like he's some sort of revolutionary and that he will make huge change and they're praising him as a hero.

I may be a communist but I'm not dogmatic and I'm realist but at the same time I don't fall for the bourgeoisie bull shit like Obama and his bull shit. Has anyone else noticed this lately from the so called "progressive" movement????

[Faux Real]

Progressives are better than liberals, but only slightly. They'd classify mainly as left-liberals,social democrats or 'soft' socialists. It's not a surprise really since they believe in reform. Obama has the look, the swagger, the spirit that fits into their ideals but they clearly haven't followed his track record and where his campaign support comes from.

[Ferryman 5]

Seriously. Before in many progressives sites and media outlets, there were doubts and legit criticisms of Obama and Clinton which pointed out many good things like how labor gave almost no money to their campaign and how they would probably not end the wars and imperialism no matter how much they act like they're anti-Bush.

Now since Obama made that "race speech", progressives in the United States (and the black middle class may I add) have been loving him, acting like he's some sort of revolutionary and that he will make huge change and they're praising him as a hero.

I may be a communist but I'm not dogmatic and I'm realist but at the same time I don't fall for the bourgeoisie bull shit like Obama and his bull shit. Has anyone else noticed this lately from the so called "progressive" movement????

You are right to bring this up. I think this could be a complex but necessary discussion. Yes it is bullshit and more, but it is real bullshit.
It is actually happening in front of our eyes and if we can grasp the changes as quickly as they are happening we are going to get some very useful incites for further use.

[Unicorn]

Dunno. Obama is unelectable anyway because of the Wright fiasco.

[bootleg42]

But many of them WERE making correct criticisms of him and his past BEFORE that race speech he made. Since after the speech, it seems like the majority of the "progressive" movement has feel in love with him.

[Ferryman 5]

But many of them WERE making correct criticisms of him and his past BEFORE that race speech he made. Since after the speech, it seems like the majority of the "progressive" movement has feel in love with him.

OK, anyone got the "race speech"?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's not a surprise really since they believe in reform. Obama has the look, the swagger, the spirit that fits into their ideals but they clearly haven't followed his track record and where his campaign support comes from.

What is his track record and where does his campaign support come from?


Dunno. Obama is unelectable anyway because of the Wright fiasco.

Uuh, bullshit. There was no "fiasco". I find it amusing that Wright's pronouncements make Obama "unelectable" when evangelical supporters of Republican candidates have said much worse things.

Look, Obama is no revolutionary, but he seems to be hell of a lot better than the competition. I'd advise American voters to go for Obama, considering the alternatives - Clinton? McCain? Ron fucking Paul?!

[Unicorn]

Uuh, bullshit. There was no "fiasco". I find it amusing that Wright's pronouncements make Obama "unelectable" when evangelical supporters of Republican candidates have said much worse things.
Life is not fair. I don't really agree with Wright's conspiracy theory that the American government invented AIDS to kill black people but such thinking is understandable and I think that Wright is a good man as far as preachers go. Evangelicals like John Hagee are much worse.

But that is just my perspective as a communist. I know that the American electorate does not see it that way. Obama will lose the votes of many white working-class Democrats who are still unfortunately prejudiced.



Look, Obama is no revolutionary, but he seems to be hell of a lot better than the competition. I'd advise American voters to go for Obama, considering the alternatives - Clinton? McCain? Ron fucking Paul?!
28% of Clinton's supporters would back McCain if Obama is the nominee. Only 19% of Obama's supporters would back McCain.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/NATION/818123037/1001

And yes, Hillary has high unfavorability ratings and does badly in polls currently. It's sad that Obama has done his best to destroy Hillary's electability. His surrogates have made baseless insinuations that the Clintons are racist and African-Americans are now very hostile towards the Clintons. However, Hillary's problem with African-Americans can be fixed if Obama is her VP or campaigns for Hillary. Obama's problem with racist white males can't be fixed. Unfortunately, racists vote too and Democrats need those votes to win.

John Edwards would have been the best nominee. (He was also most progressive) This election is too important to lose.

[jacobin1949]

I think quite a few Socialist, Maoist and possibly Trotskyist parties enthusiastically backed Jesse Jacksons' Rainbow Coalition campaign back in the 1980s, so there is precedent

[PRC-UTE]

it is shocking he's garnered the support of some progressives as he didn't emerge from the civil rights movement (or anything comparable). he's quite far on the right across the board. most his support comes from middle class "liberals" who like him because he's an "articulate" black man, not workers, and he hasn't been too popular with black voters at all.

[PRC-UTE]

I think quite a few Socialist, Maoist and possibly Trotskyist parties enthusiastically backed Jesse Jacksons' Rainbow Coalition campaign back in the 1980s, so there is precedent

That's not precedent: backing a civil rights candidate might make a kind of sense as they could open up room for the working class to organise through democratic and progressive reforms; Obama is not from the civil rights movement or even remotely progressive.

[Ferryman 5]

I think quite a few Socialist, Maoist and possibly Trotskyist parties enthusiastically backed Jesse Jacksons' Rainbow Coalition campaign back in the 1980s, so there is precedent

Of course ther is.

I have just listened to the "race speech" and I now understand why he is winning all the support. He is making a classical Shakespearean speech.

As a piece of demagogy it is classic, really brilliant. The sooner we get this twat out of the way the better. If you have no communist movement to support or genuine communist candidate who will use the elections to expose all the crap, then vote for this guy in order to expose him as quickly as possible as the lying opportunist fraud he is.

[Faux Real]

What is his track record and where does his campaign support come from?He's inconsistent on several foreign policy issues; here's his stance on Cuba in '04:

Our longstanding policies toward Cuba have been a miserable failure, evidenced by the fact that Fidel Castro is now the longest-serving head of state in the world. If our isolationist policies were meant to weaken him, they certainly haven’t worked. I believe that normalization of relations with Cuba would help the oppressed and poverty-stricken Cuban people while setting the stage for a more democratic government once Castro inevitably leaves the scene.His stance during a debate in December of last year:

MODERATOR: Normalize relations, whether or not Fidel Castro isn't...
OBAMA: No, but there are two things we can do right now to prepare for that and that is loosen travel restrictions for family members, Cuban-Americans who want to visit, and open up remittances so that they are able to support family members, many of them who are fighting for their liberty in right now. MODERATOR: But for now...
OBAMA: I would not normalize relations, but those two things, those two shifts in policy would send a signal that we can build on once Castro's out of power.Middle East relations:


Against this background, Bush has shifted the goal posts of the Palestine-Israel debate such that Likudist thinking is now viewed as centrist. This was demonstrated by Kerry’s campaign which warmly endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s policies. But the bankruptcy of the discourse was brought home in a most personally disappointing way.

Illinois swept Barack Obama, a rising star in the Democratic party, into the United States Senate with a stunning 70 percent of the vote - a rare Democratic gain. Obama, whom I’ve met many times, has served as my local state senator in the Illinois legislature. I found him to be an inspiring politician, not least because he appeared to understand Middle East issues and take progressive views supporting Palestinian rights and opposing militarism. He participated in many events in the Chicago-area Arab community including a 1998 fundraiser with Edward Said as the keynote speaker. I even made contributions to his campaigns.

But following Obama’s nationally-televised address at the Democratic National Convention everything seemed to change. In the campaign’s final weeks, Obama proclaimed his support for tough sanctions and military strikes against Iran if it refused U.S. demands to give up its nuclear programs. According to the Chicago Tribune, Obama now says that the onus of peace in the Middle East “is on the Palestinian leadership, which … must cease violence against Israelis and work ‘to end the incitement against Israel in the Arab world.” The unique fact about Obama’s campaign is that he did not need to parrot the pro-Israel lobby’s standard line to get elected. He ran effectively unopposed. Such a capable and ambitious man must have calculated that any hope of higher office requires that he not offend when it comes to Israel and its interests. This begs the question: If a man like Obama will not speak frankly when it comes to Israel, what hope is there for a change in U.S. policy coming from within the establishment?
His position NAFTA is deceitful:

Obama Deceived Debate Viewers on NAFTA Plans, Canada TV Says

Did Sen. Barack Obama say one thing privately to the Canadian government about NAFTA -- and something very different during Tuesday night's debate? The answer is yes, according to CTV, a Canadian television network.

The network reported Wednesday night that a "senior member" of the Obama campaign called Michael Wilson, the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., "within the last month," warning Wilson that Obama would "take some heavy swings" at the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as part of his campaign.

Obama insider reportedly told the ambassador, "Don't worry -- it's just campaign rhetoric, it's not serious," CTV reported.

CTV reported that the Obama campaign's message to Wilson was taken as "completely authentic" by the Canadian government.

At Tuesday's debate in Cleveland, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that as president she would opt out of the North American Free Trade Agreement in six months, if she couldn't renegotiate the agreement with Canada and Mexico to her satisfaction.

"I will make sure we renegotiate," Obama agreed. "I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."

Democrats count labor unions among their biggest supporters, and labor unions blame NAFTA for eliminating jobs.Pakistan, Afghanistan & Iraq:

Barack Obama: Warmonger by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

"Obama wants to invade Pakistan, the most dangerous place in the world."
Senator Barack Obama believes himself to be the reincarnation of President John F. Kennedy. For those of us who are schooled in history - real history - that's not a good thing. Kennedy tried on many occasions to assassinate Fidel Castro, and set in motion events that led to military dictatorships assuming power throughout Latin America. Kennedy, early in the month of November, 1963, gave the order to murder South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War). Kennedy met his own fate a few weeks later, in Dallas, but he had already set in motion a war that would claim 58 thousand American and three million Vietnamese lives.

Barack Obama is as stupid and dangerous as Kennedy. Obama wants to invade Pakistan, the most dangerous place in the world, where Osama bin Ladin is holed up. The Pakistani regime installed the Taliban in Afghanistan, which became the incubator of Al Quaeda. President Pervez Musharaff, a general who has never been freely elected, depends on the backing of rightwing Muslim fundamentalists and the military to stay in power. And, Oh yes, the United States, which provides many billions of dollars in "aid" per year to prop up the regime.


"Barack Obama will carry us into a suicidal conflict."

Osama bin Ladin, it is universally agreed, lives in Waziristan, in western Pakistan. Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Sen. Obama launched what he considers a bold new foreign policy initiative: invade Waziristan. Obama was clearly attempting to place himself on the hawkish side of opponent Hillary Clinton, mouthing war-mongering language designed to position him as a warrior-statesman. "When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," Obama told the foreign policy establishment. The sovereignty of Pakistan will not be respected, under an Obama presidency. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

But Pakistan has The Bomb. And there is no telling what kind of regime will replace Musharraf once he is overthrown by his own military or fundamentalist Muslim supporters when the Americans invade Waziristan, Pakistani territory. Musharraf has told them over and over again that an invasion of Waziristan would destablilize his government. However, Obama is not listening. He is more intent on out-warmongering Hillary Clinton, than making sense of the world.

"We must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair - our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan," said Obama, "it is a democratic ally." That is a call for regime change. Pakistan is a nation of 165 million people, created in 1947 out of the wreckage of British India, to become a Muslim State, with a Muslim atomic bomb. Obama has no idea how to impose a new regime, that would be more friendly to the United States. Instead, he proposes that western Pakistan be invaded in the search for bin Ladin - a move that would unite both the Right and the secular Left in opposition to the fragile military government.

Obama is a confused man, driven by consultants and no common sense. The United States has coddled and put cash in the accounts of the Pakistani military for two generations, as a bulwark against socialist India, also a nuclear power. The Americans' Saudi surrogates financially supported the religious schools in western Pakistan that gave birth to the Taliban, and took over Afghanistan. Obama now proposes that the U.S. fund an alternative school system in Pakistan - but under what regime? He has no idea, and not a clue about how to secure The Bomb.

Barack Obama reacts to the world's response to imperialism in precisely the same way as his white counterparts; he proposes more war. Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military, to alleviate the shortage of manpower that Iraq attrition has wrought. In his speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Obama gave away their destination: Waziristan. Obama wants a more aggressive approach to the so-called "war on terror," to take "the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."


"Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military."

So what we have in Barack Obama is an alternative War Party, planning an alternative War. He has told us so, and we should believe him. He is no peace candidate, and goes out of his way to prove it. The problem is, Osama bin Ladin does not have The Bomb, but the Pakistani military does. Senator Obama would destabilize a regime that is a nuclear power, and has nothing to say except that he would establish schools to replace tens of thousands of maddrassas. What a fool.

The Pakistani regime will not go down in any way that is to the Americans' advantage. Barack Obama is talking trash that will get us incinerated. He is so intent on defining himself as War President, he defeats peace in its bed. Obama has no intention to get out of Iraq, either - how could he, if he wants to attack Waziristan, and shift troops to Afghanistan? Obama is a tricky speaker; who plays word games. Listen to him: He has "a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008." Sounds like withdrawal from Iraq, right?" Wrong. There are 180,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, most of them not in "combat brigades," and about 100,000 mercenaries in the country. It is thoroughly occupied. Obama would do a cosmetic withdrawal, and then move the "combat" troops to a far more dangerous war, in Waziristan, that would quickly spread to all of Pakistan and threaten the survival of our great cities.

"My plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq," Obama told the fat cats at the Woodrow Wilson Center. In other words, he is not about to get out of Iraq. Barack Obama is a liar of the first order.

Obama masks himself as a peace candidate, but he is really a son of war. He carries the "White Man's Burden," proudly. He will carry us into a suicidal conflict, with relish.

We must reject him.
As for his campaign supporters it's without doubt that he has the bourgeoisie, militarist industries, and hawkish lobbies in his backpocket. That explains his shifting of positions above.

[bootleg42]

It's one thing is you're voting for him to keep a farther right person (like McCain or Paul) out of office but it's another thing when people start thinking he is THE solution and a revolutionary and the such. Many (since that "race speech") have started to think that in the progressive movement. They now see Obama as THE candidate they've been waiting for.

Here's an example:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17001

Here's one after "the speech":

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16976

And that's from Znet, a place where just before the speech, had articles BASHING the shit out of Obama. Now many of the progressives seem to love him (not all may I add but many are)

At least great thinkers like Amari Baraka and Noam Chomsky still know Obama is bull shit and on Znet, they've made that point well.

More comments on this please.

[Ferryman 5]

It's one thing is you're voting for him to keep a farther right person (like McCain or Paul) out of office but it's another thing when people start thinking he is THE solution and a revolutionary and the such. Many (since that "race speech") have started to think that in the progressive movement. They now see Obama as THE candidate they've been waiting for.

Here's an example:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17001

Here's one after "the speech":

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16976

So why not tell us exactly why you don't like the man and his ideas.
And that's from Znet, a place where just before the speech, had articles BASHING the shit out of Obama. Now many of the progressives seem to love him (not all may I add but many are)

At least great thinkers like Amari Baraka and Noam Chomsky still know Obama is bull shit and on Znet, they've made that point well.

More comments on this please.

So tell us why you don't like the man and his ideas.

[bootleg42]

So tell us why you don't like the man and his ideas.

Banned In Algeria states why in the post above mine.

[Ferryman 5]

Banned In Algeria states why in the post above mine.

I was asking you. You must be able to put up your own criticism.

[Left Turn]

Seriously. Before in many progressives sites and media outlets, there were doubts and legit criticisms of Obama and Clinton which pointed out many good things like how labor gave almost no money to their campaign and how they would probably not end the wars and imperialism no matter how much they act like they're anti-Bush.

Now since Obama made that "race speech", progressives in the United States (and the black middle class may I add) have been loving him, acting like he's some sort of revolutionary and that he will make huge change and they're praising him as a hero.

I may be a communist but I'm not dogmatic and I'm realist but at the same time I don't fall for the bourgeoisie bull shit like Obama and his bull shit. Has anyone else noticed this lately from the so called "progressive" movement????

I've noticed this here in Canada as well, where it's even more ridiculous, since we've had viable politics to the left of Obama for the past 50 years.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I've noticed this here in Canada as well, where it's even more ridiculous, since we've had viable politics to the left of Obama for the past 50 years.
Even the Conservatives here retain the national health system, which is more extensive than what Obama is proposing. And neither the USA nor Canada have health systems as comprehensive as Western Europe's fully socialised systems. Obama is basically squeaking in the most skimpy national health program he can.

[Guerrilla Manila]

... He's better than the other 2 options.

I loved what his pastor had to say ... + If we have to have a Christian President at least be someone who follows "Liberation Theology" as he does .... and last but not least ...

I love the fact that his campaign got heat for one of his chair persons having a Cuban flag with Che's face on it.


Hey ... in Fascist America ... Sadly this is as good as it is going to get in the short term.

[bootleg42]

It's sad that he's "the best option".

It's even sadder that a large portion of the progressive movement (who exposed him earlier for what he really was) now see's him as the hero of the United States and of he world. Pathetic bourgeoisie politics.

It looks like the bourgeoisie has evolved and now they'll use non-WASP (white anglo saxon proestant) candidates to fool people.

I always said, the bourgeoisie are VERY RE-VISIONIST......that's why they keep their power. Maybe a lesson to many of us here????