Barack Obama v Hillary Clinton

[RedFlagComrade]

Im all for Obama but id like to hear what other people think.
Im aware that US politics are very capitalist(the supposedly left wing democratic party are right of centre and the republican party is hard right fascist) but who to you think is better for revolutionary leftists
If you wouldnt vote for either dont vote in the poll!

[Keyser]

Im all for Obama


Why?



but id like to hear what other people think.


Obama is just like Clinton and McCain, a bourgeois politician. He is campaigning to be elected as the next chief representative of the bourgeois state.


but who to you think is better for revolutionary leftists

None of them.

I pity those supposed socialists and communists who have gotten excited about all of this Obama nonsense and who waste their time talking about Obama, instead of doing what communists and socialists should be doing, working with the working class and other people in struggle against the class enemy.

[chegitz guevara]

Clinton will being American imperialism to its knees faster. Obama is more dangerous to us.

[Unicorn]

Hillary. Barack Obama probably can't win because he is black. 30% of Hillary supporters say that they won't vote for Obama if he is nominated.

There are minimal differences between Hillary and Obama on the issues. Because this election is too important to lose the Dems should nominate Hillary who is more electable.

[Faux Real]

Jeez, why does this kind of thread pop up all the time? Anyway, none of them acknowledge the US as an empire, and none are anti-militarists, anti-imperialists, or anti-capitalists. All would invade other countries; all will expand the military. None will implement any kind of social-democratic reform, and none are taking a clear stand on economic inequality. Obama is full of empty "change" rhetoric, and Hillary is a transparently brutal liar.

Even if a "social-democrat" managed to be elected, that doesn't change the fact they would be surrounded by capitalist cronies, making it impossible to carry out any significant reforms.

They both suck.

[RHIZOMES]

Hillary is a power-hungry asshole who would do anything to be President.

Obama is also a power-hungry asshole who would do anything to be President, he's just less obvious about it since he's winning.

None of them will make any change. They will continue capitalism, US imperialism and the bourgeoisie state structure.

No vote.

[Unicorn]

Refusing to participate in elections is nothing more than dangerous left-opportunism.

[RHIZOMES]

Refusing to participate in elections is nothing more than dangerous left-opportunism.

In my country, the Workers Party participates in bourgeoisie elections. I vote for them.

In America, fuck I don't know what I'd do.

[Colonello Buendia]

here's a thought, how about just not voting? All the front runners are neo-liberal or right wing fucktards. all this rhetoric of change is just to pull in the masses, whoever wins the workers get a raw deal, so any leftist with a half decent understanding would not bother voting.

[RedFlagComrade]

I should have left another option in the poll-No Vote-sorry!

[Colonello Buendia]

Refusing to participate in elections is nothing more than dangerous left-opportunism.
Please, Elaborate.
I believe that the state is crap and by voting for the leader of state I buy into the crap. when a true revolutionary workers party comes into existence then I'll consider voting but until then I'll keep well away from the bourgeois elections thank you very much

[Unicorn]

Please, Elaborate.
I believe that the state is crap and by voting for the leader of state I buy into the crap. when a true revolutionary workers party comes into existence then I'll consider voting but until then I'll keep well away from the bourgeois elections thank you very much
Boycotting elections can be a weapon if the masses can be led by communists and low turnout is the result of communist activism. Otherwise not.

If revolutionary communists don't have the support of the masses (that is the situation in Western countries currently) elections and parliamentarism offer crucial possibilities for propaganda and agitation.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i recently came across this and i dont know what to make of it, what do you guys think of this statement by hillary clinton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YPUo7Cj084&feature=related

im confused. an american politician promoting collectivism? what do you think she means?

[Faux Real]

i recently came across this and i dont know what to make of it, what do you guys think of this statement by hillary clinton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YPUo7Cj084&feature=related

im confused. an american politician promoting collectivism? what do you think she means?
Nothing special, she's calling for an impossible return to pre neoliberal economics that existed before the 70's (whites had plentiful jobs, whites as a constituency were economically better off than minorities, corporations were still domestically operated, etc.).

[mykittyhasaboner]

Nothing special, she's calling for an impossible return to pre neoliberal economics that existed before the 70's (whites had plentiful jobs, whites as a constituency were economically better off than minorities, corporations were still domestically operated, etc.).ah i see, it makes sense now, thanks. quite frankly im fucking sick of brainwashed americans calling hillary a "socialist", it makes me sick.

[Jeraldi]

ah i see, it makes sense now, thanks. quite frankly im fucking sick of brainwashed americans calling hillary a "socialist", it makes me sick.

Well yeah, most americans are brainwashed, it is a social epidemic that exists through the educational system. Unfortunately I don't see an immediate way to change this as I have a hard enough time convincing those around me that the system doesn't work.

However in response to the election it will not matter who the next president is because none of them will get us out of Iraq or "fix" the economy. (since those actions are needed to stop the downward spiral)

[redSHARP]

i looked at each and saw how they voted on issues (just go to the congress website and shows voting records). and it is true that hillary and obama are the same on many key issues, but to not vote?! why not hand our fragile welfare state to the republicans? mccain is a crony of the neo-cons. so that means good bye to following:
1. local farmers
2. any union who tries to fight back
3. the ability of reforming the tax system to be more equal-ish
4. Social Security
5. any chance education reform
6. medicaid
7. medicare...
thats about it....not voting is dangerous since it hands the election to anyone. remember 2000? how many votes did gore lose by non-voters (also stealing the election)? it cost us before and it will again. i'll take my chance with the democracts, they might be capitilist scum bags, and might not change that much, but at least the republicans will be cleaned out and a less corrupt group moves in.

[Ultra-Violence]

^^^
The 2000 election was stolen didnt you get the memo!?

and i mean How can u think voting is goana change anything i mean look at what cheney said when they asked about how the people are turining against the war he said "SO" SO MOTHERFUCKING WHAT! thats whats he saying the ruling class of this counrty are say THEY DONT GIVE A FUCK AND THIER GOANA KEEP DOIN WHAT THIER DOIN! wether we vote or not things are just goana keep goin down hill till the people rise up and say no more

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm not even against bourgeois elections necessarily, but any American who votes for Democratic or Republican politicians is directly responsible for the thousands of people they systematically murder every year in their countless imperialist wars.

[Keyser]

I'm not even against bourgeois elections necessarily, but any American who votes for Democratic or Republican politicians is directly responsible for the thousands of people they systematically murder every year in their countless imperialist wars.

I totally agree.

Voting Democrat or Republican makes not even the smallest of difference.

[Module]

I hardly think they're any different in any genuinely meaningful way, although I find myself spitefully resentful of the elaborate rhetoric he uses constantly that has won over his supporters. I just find him really untrustworthy.

[BIG BROTHER]

I totally agree.

Voting Democrat or Republican makes not even the smallest of difference.

Now I agree with you guys on not voting for Democrats or Republicans, they're both burgoise/imperialists parties, but I do think there's some difference between the two of them at least a slight one on the way they run things in this country.

[redSHARP]

sound points but i am not ready to totally give up on the elections. but i do sense that i am voting for the lesser evil by voting democrat.

[Ultra-Violence]

^^^
Just Remeber NOTHING! I MEAN NOTHING! will be able to wash away the blood of innocent iraqis from you hands

[Keyser]

Refusing to participate in elections is nothing more than dangerous left-opportunism.


There is a big difference between a communist party standing in elections for the purpose of propaganda and bringing communist politics to the widest audience possible, and simply voting for bourgeois parties (like the Democrats).

The former is a tactic that Lenin himself used, with much success.

The latter is different. By voting for a bourgeois party, even if you claim that it is the 'lesser evil' or to 'keep out the Republicans', you are voting for and supporting all of the reactionary policies that the party you are voting for has, even if you claim that your support is critical, that you don't support all of their policies or whatever other attempt at justifying your vote for such a bourgeois party.

Now from your quote, I don't know whether your claim of "dangerous left-opportunism" is directed at people who refuse to vote on principle or for people (like myself) who refuse to support and vote for bourgeois candidates and parties such as the Democrats?

[KC]

Clinton will being American imperialism to its knees faster. Obama is more dangerous to us.

This argument is incredibly flawed on the basis that the president (regardless of who it is) is subservient to the interests of capital. Also, I don't see how Obama is more dangerous at all; all his popular rhetoric is doing more to nail the coffin shut than to actually give him lasting support.


Refusing to participate in elections is nothing more than dangerous left-opportunism.

This is incorrect. Refusing to partcipate in elections as a matter of principle is "left-opportunism". However, there are times when it is counterproductive to participate in elections and thus more tactically sound to abstain. Lenin went over this in Left-Wing Communism.


If revolutionary communists don't have the support of the masses (that is the situation in Western countries currently) elections and parliamentarism offer crucial possibilities for propaganda and agitation.

This is only possible in a time when a national workers' party has enough relevance to actually participate. In the US at this time there is no such party.


i looked at each and saw how they voted on issues (just go to the congress website and shows voting records). and it is true that hillary and obama are the same on many key issues, but to not vote?! why not hand our fragile welfare state to the republicans? mccain is a crony of the neo-cons. so that means good bye to following:
1. local farmers
2. any union who tries to fight back
3. the ability of reforming the tax system to be more equal-ish
4. Social Security
5. any chance education reform
6. medicaid
7. medicare...
thats about it....not voting is dangerous since it hands the election to anyone. remember 2000? how many votes did gore lose by non-voters (also stealing the election)? it cost us before and it will again. i'll take my chance with the democracts, they might be capitilist scum bags, and might not change that much, but at least the republicans will be cleaned out and a less corrupt group moves in.

Like I said above, regardless of who the president is, they will be subservient to the interests of capital. The repeal and privatization of such social programs are due to the development of capitalism, not a conservative administration. You are not looking at this from a Marxist analysis.


sound points but i am not ready to totally give up on the elections. but i do sense that i am voting for the lesser evil by voting democrat.

But how is it a lesser evil? How are the democrats in any way better than the republicans?

[Keyser]

For all those US based RevLeft users, if you wish to vote and get involved in the 2008 elections, then give your vote and support to the communist and revolutionary parties and candidates.

Below is a list of all the parties that are standing for the 2008 elections:

The Party for Socialism and Liberation:

www.pslweb.org (http://www.pslweb.org)

The Socialist Workers Party (USA):

www.themilitant.com (http://www.themilitant.com)

Don't waste your vote on reactionary and bourgeois parties like the Democrats, the Green Party or the likes of Ralph Nader.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not even against bourgeois elections necessarily, but any American who votes for Democratic or Republican politicians is directly responsible for the thousands of people they systematically murder every year in their countless imperialist wars.

If voting Democrat or Republican makes no difference, then how can you say that one voting for either is directly responsible for their imperialist actions, as not voting would have the same effect?

This quite apart from the fact that politicians are entities capable of making decisions independantly of the voters and thus the voters cannot possibly be blamed for the actions of the politicians they vote for, especially as the politicians are not bound in any way to the policies they propose and are voted in on for.

Basically, you can't blame the voters for being lied to. And even "class conscious" voters cannot be held accountable if voting makes no real difference as is claimed.

[Unicorn]

If communists in Florida had voted for Gore in 2000 he would be the President now, not George W. Bush.

[Keyser]

If communists in Florida had voted for Gore in 2000 he would be the President now, not George W. Bush.


And it would have made not one bit of difference.

The working class of the US are no better or worse whether Bush or Gore occupy the White House.

The most reactionary and regressive attack of America's very limited welfare state was carried out in 1996 by the Clinton administration, guess who was the vice-president back then.

No communist worthy of the name would ever consider voting for a bourgeois party.

[Unicorn]

And it would have made not one bit of difference.

The working class of the US are no better or worse whether Bush or Gore occupy the White House.

The most reactionary and regressive attack of America's very limited welfare state was carried out in 1996 by the Clinton administration, guess who was the vice-president back then.

No communist worthy of the name would ever consider voting for a bourgeois party.
There are important differences between Bush and Gore. Bush's imperialism and lies have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

Although Gore is no friend of the working class these people would still be alive if he was the President. Bush has also stacked the Supreme Court with ultra-right reactionaries who have an anti-worker agenda.

[Unicorn]

Now from your quote, I don't know whether your claim of "dangerous left-opportunism" is directed at people who refuse to vote on principle or for people (like myself) who refuse to support and vote for bourgeois candidates and parties such as the Democrats?
People who refuse to vote "on principle". I always vote for communists.

[There is No God!]

Let's face it, the US is nowhere near a revolution. Therefore in the meantime I believe that concessions should be made. Even if that means voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Don't expect USA will have any socialist/communist representative within few decades, the system is fucking rigged and it just another feudal-era voting where the riches only get to be candidates.

[redSHARP]

to make a blanket statements about american democracy are inaccurate. look at the voting logs for obama, look at the voting logs for other democrats around the country. then you can see that they are progressives and they need our support. a liberal is better than a republican any day. most communist leaders and groups have made concessions in the past in order to hold back the right; this tactic was used in order to buy time in order to get stronger. so you can pull some pious marxism, but that wont help anytime soon. action is needed but buying time is also important.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If voting Democrat or Republican makes no difference, then how can you say that one voting for either is directly responsible for their imperialist actions, as not voting would have the same effect?

Voting does make a difference. It's what puts those people in office democratically.


This quite apart from the fact that politicians are entities capable of making decisions independantly of the voters and thus the voters cannot possibly be blamed for the actions of the politicians they vote for, especially as the politicians are not bound in any way to the policies they propose and are voted in on for.

All living Americans know what the Republican and Democratic Parties stand for. It's not like it changes very much.


Basically, you can't blame the voters for being lied to. And even "class conscious" voters cannot be held accountable if voting makes no real difference as is claimed.

I didn't claim that voting is no different to not voting. And like I said, nobody was lied to. They all knew what they were supporting and they're all guilty of supporting fascist thugs.

[redSHARP]

why put it into black and white terms?
look lets make a gentlemans bet...
if change is brought by the democrats due to elections, then...well i dont know
if change is not made by the democrats then you won me over and i give up on american demcracy (at this rate it can be any day now!).:D

i like the idea of voting socialist and communist, that can be especially effective at a local level. any one know the rules for running as an independent party in New York? or any state for that matter?

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

A government that comes to power in an election that only a relatively small percentage of eligible voters actually participated in will have to face those few in journalism who still retain some kind of integrity. The American media might stay quiet, but the foreign press might comment on the rather undemocratic nature of the election.

If, say, 50 percent of those able to vote decided not to turn out, any claims by the victorious new administration of actually acting in the name of the people would ring really hollow. This would affect their ability to make far-reaching policies.

[RedFlagComrade]

I always vote for communists.
There are no communist candidates in the US.But as unicorn said your vote could be the difference between peace in our time or another imperialist war in north korea or iran.A single vote in this election goes a much longer way towards humanitys emancipation than any protests or riots however much more fun they are.We cant placidly/idealistically sit on our hands this time.

[Luís Henrique]

Let's face it, the US is nowhere near a revolution. Therefore in the meantime I believe that concessions should be made. Even if that means voting for the lesser of two evils.

There are far more than two evils in the United States, and I am quite certain there will be more than two evils in your voting ballot.

So what you are talking is about voting for the lesser among the two greatest (and bigger) evils.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

why put it into black and white terms?
look lets make a gentlemans bet...
if change is brought by the democrats due to elections, then...well i dont know
if change is not made by the democrats then you won me over and i give up on american demcracy (at this rate it can be any day now!).:D

i like the idea of voting socialist and communist, that can be especially effective at a local level. any one know the rules for running as an independent party in New York? or any state for that matter?


What change? JFK is cited as one of the most progressive presidents in recent American history and he was one of the biggest international terrorists of the century.

[There is No God!]

There are far more than two evils in the United States, and I am quite certain there will be more than two evils in your voting ballot.

So what you are talking is about voting for the lesser among the two greatest (and bigger) evils.

Luís Henrique

What I'm saying is that there is absolutly zero chance of anyone other than a republican or a democrat getting into office (in this election). So I think it would be understandable if a leftist were to vote democrat (the lesser of two evils).

[professorchaos]

politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

According to this, Obama is slightly better than Clinton, who is slightly better than McCain.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I vote none of the above.

[Cossack]

In my opinion those are the best two candidates for a better United States


The problem, I don't want to see a better United States

[Ultra-Violence]

Just to make it simple "IF" Voting changed anything theyd take our right to vote away just think about that its all a psychological warfare. BUT i do vote in local elections Thats were we can have the most impact in our respective communitys i mean look at all the anti-patriot act stuff local municipaltys passed thats were it counts but on a national level Zilch!

[Lisa]

See some good articles about Barack Obama and Hillary in the English version of Pravda.

There is absolutely NO difference whatsoever between Hillary Clinton and George Bush.

I think Obama will be great, my fantasy is that he will be the US's Putin, Chavez, Evo Morales.

Change!!!!! The man has sound ideas, honesty, courage, charisma and vitality!

[Lisa]

For all those US based RevLeft users, if you wish to vote and get involved in the 2008 elections, then give your vote and support to the communist and revolutionary parties and candidates.

Below is a list of all the parties that are standing for the 2008 elections:

The Party for Socialism and Liberation:



The Socialist Workers Party (USA):



Don't waste your vote on reactionary and bourgeois parties like the Democrats, the Green Party or the likes of Ralph Nader.


I can't even get the guy to give an interview for the press for the Socialist Workers Party.

As CPUSA says, vote Democrat. Although NO ONE should vote for Hillary, better to vote for a Green if there is no better choice.

[RedFlagComrade]

In my opinion those are the best two candidates for a better United States


The problem, I don't want to see a better United States

Eh Why?

The bloodshed has to end sometime and Obama would be a step in the right direction-the lesser of two evils as pretty much everybody already said.

Every vote counts-People who dont vote are directly at fault when McCain wins and declares another unwinnable hate-mongering imperialist war.The blood will be on your hands for being to lazy/idealistic to vote!

[Faux Real]

Eh Why?

The bloodshed has to end sometime and Obama would be a step in the right direction.

Every vote counts-People who dont vote are directly at fault when McCain wins and declares another unwinnable hate-mongering imperialist war.Obama will invade Pakistan and possibly Iran along with expanding the armed forces, hardly a peace candidate.

[Luís Henrique]

What I'm saying is that there is absolutly zero chance of anyone other than a republican or a democrat getting into office (in this election). So I think it would be understandable if a leftist were to vote democrat (the lesser of two evils).

And what I am saying is that if you don't want to risk loosing an election, you will never win one.

Luís Henrique

[Demant]

If you don't agree with any of the candidates, vote against the one you disagree the most with. In this case McCain. If you don't vote for the democrats and McCain gets president and stays in Iraq for 100 years and attacks everybody who's in his way, you're responsible for a lot of innocent lives. At least vote for us Europeans who can't vote but are affected by the American presidents.

[quevivafidel]

Oh my God. Barack, of course. Hillary (and the Clintons in general) is as bad as McCain and McCain is a war-mongering idiot. He's said stuff like "I hate those gooks" (the Vietnamese) and "Bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" (trying to be funny imitating the Beach Boys song) and that he hopes Fidel dies soon. Really sweet guy, I tell ya; it's dreadful how here in the States he's considered a "hero." Hillary isn't much better, what with NAFTA, supporting the war in the beginning, the health care fiasco, and a list of other things. It's awkward when I hear people refer to her as the "far left." I think, then what the hell am I? Also, the extent of her "experience" prior to the Senate is having a husband who sleeps around who was a president.

Barack...Barack isn't my dream candidate like Eugene V. Debbs or Angela Davis or even Kucinich, but you know, he's making the young people get excited about politics again, he's definitely better than those other two, and it's about time that we had a black president.

[KC]

If you don't agree with any of the candidates, vote against the one you disagree the most with. In this case McCain. If you don't vote for the democrats and McCain gets president and stays in Iraq for 100 years and attacks everybody who's in his way, you're responsible for a lot of innocent lives. At least vote for us Europeans who can't vote but are affected by the American presidents.

1. The president isn't a dictator. They cannot do whatever they want.
2. This is a gross caricature of McCain. He is no worse than any of the other candidates, democrats included. The only difference is that he openly says that he will stay in Iraq while the other candidates won't (but they still will).


Oh my God. Barack, of course. Hillary (and the Clintons in general) is as bad as McCain and McCain is a war-mongering idiot.

How, exactly are any of these better than any other? Be specific.

[Luís Henrique]

If you don't agree with any of the candidates, vote against the one you disagree the most with. In this case McCain. If you don't vote for the democrats and McCain gets president and stays in Iraq for 100 years and attacks everybody who's in his way, you're responsible for a lot of innocent lives. At least vote for us Europeans who can't vote but are affected by the American presidents.

As a Latin American, I could say that McCain is the lesser evil. He will keep American troops in the Iraqi quagmire, unable to do much harm to Venezuela or Bolívia. The Democrats might take the troops out of there and consider sending them down here.

Luís Henrique

[Lensky1917]

Although I dislike both the Democrats and the Republicans, I believe that it is the obligation as leftists to support the candidate who will do the least harm to the workers struggle. This candidate is Barack Obama.

[Faux Real]

Although I dislike both the Democrats and the Republicans, I believe that it is the obligation as leftists to support the candidate who will do the least harm to the workers struggle. This candidate is Barack Obama.
How does he 'least harm' workers and their struggle? By pandering to them on one hand, keeping them passively submissive, and betraying them in the other to the union bureaucrats and multinational capitalists?

[Lensky1917]

How does he 'least harm' workers and their struggle? By pandering to them on one hand, keeping them passively submissive, and betraying them in the other to the union bureaucrats and multinational capitalists?


He is certainly no worse than Hillary or McCain; and unlike third-party candidates, he actually stands a chance in winning. Interesting avatar by the way.

[BIG BROTHER]

To be honest this issue seems so complex to me. On one side I would hate to see Mccain or whatever his name is as a president. Hillary is just as imperialist, except she focuses more on using the economy(just like her husband) to streinghten the U.S's power. And Obama honestly I don't know much about him, but being a burgoise politician I know he's just going to be as bad.

So both the no voting and the lesser evil options seem faulty. Dammit WTF can we do?

[Faux Real]

He has a chance to win because he is a sellout on many of his -former- progressive stances on certain positions.

He does not support a single payer health care system and will not revoke free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA.

Domestically he is providing the average white voter a chance to clear their conscience of the 'white guilt' mentality providing them with a chance to tell themselves racism doesn't exist anymore--not to mention isn't a source of why African Americans on average live 6 years less than other ethnic groups.

He is sly in his wording on foreign policy and will keep troops, both state employed and mercenaries, stationed in Iraq. He will launch an occupation of Pakistan, and possibly even Iran if his popularity/political capital is high enough.

Did you expect W. Bush to be as aggressive as he is now when he was voted into office? I believe he would prove to be another disappointment of a president.

[quevivafidel]

1. The president isn't a dictator. They cannot do whatever they want.
2. This is a gross caricature of McCain. He is no worse than any of the other candidates, democrats included. The only difference is that he openly says that he will stay in Iraq while the other candidates won't (but they still will).



How, exactly are any of these better than any other? Be specific.

I'm afraid I don't exactly understand your question. Why is Barack better than McCain & Hillary? He has been against the Iraq War since the beginning, has promised to talk with leaders "we don't like," (I'm assuming that also includes Chavez, Raul Castro, etc along with Middle Eastern countries and North Korea) and is on whole more left-winged than Clinton and definitely McCain who's trying to appeal to conservatives. I know now Barack is trying to appear more moderate to appeal to more Americans, but he is the most left-winged of the three. Most left-winged leaders i.e. Fidel (well, I guess he's no longer the leader--ex-leader) are supporting him. Also, like I said, young people are excited about Barack and it would be good for this country to finally have a black president after all of the struggles with race in the U.S.

Luis, I'm half-Latin American and you're very wrong that McCain would be better for Latin America than Obama or even Hillary. I can't understand your logic. McCain says he wants to follow in the footsteps of the dreaded Ronald Reagan. He seems to like war, also. (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.) Frankly, I am scared of McCain and Hillary.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I gonna vote for McCain, so the progressive and hopefully the revolution in Latin American will rise rapidly and it will inspire to Europe, Middle East and Africa. WE NEED TO GIVE AMERICA MORE BAD IMAGE AROUND THE WORLD THAN MAKING AMERICA A GOOD IMAGE THAT WILL CRUSH THE REVOLUTION IDEAS.

[Zurdito]

here is what someone called Adolf Reed wrote about Obama in 1996. Propehtic?

Class Notes: Posing as Politics and Other Thoughts on the American Scene (http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title&metaproductid=1035):

“In Chicago, for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices; one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program — the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance. I suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics, as in Haiti and wherever else the International Monetary Fund has sway.”

http://negativepotential.blogsport.de/

[WorkingClassHero]

It's a shameful thing to admit, but this election is pretty relieving, considering that it means that Bush will be out of office. Honestly, my priority is to just KEEP McCAIN OUT OF OFFICE, even if it means voting for Hillary. I would consider not voting, but considering the current situation, I think it would be a bad decision not to put my 2 cents in. (Not that the popular vote matters or anything...)

I shocked myself by showing an interest to vote for Ron Paul (Never thought I'd ever find myself wanting to vote for a Republican) but he's no longer running.

[KC]

Is Obama Really A Candidate of Change?


With the elections around the corner, and with the various crises that this country is going through, many progressive-minded people are leaning towards Barack Obama as a candidate that will bring change and help us out of a hole that seems to just get deeper and deeper. However, where does Obama really stand on the issues? Do his positions actually match his rhetoric of hope and change?


One point which the Obama campaign prides itself in is its lack of “corporate ties” due to the majority of its funding coming from individual contributions and not through PACs or corporate lobbyists. However, this is deceiving. Yes, it is true that the majority of Obama's campaign funding comes through individual contributions, but the majority of those contributions are done through “bundling” - elite individuals with a lot of influence get many senior and junior level executives to donate maximum amounts. As of March 20, Obama received 90% of his campaign funding from rich donors giving $1000 or more (OpenSecrets.org). Obama has even been supported by Democratic Leadership Council, the most right-wing, pro-corporate section of the Democratic Party.


Obama is also considered a defender of the “little guy” and listening to poor and working people and helping them out. This couldn't be any further from the truth. As a senator he voted for a “tort reform” bill that rolls back workers’ ability to seek redress and compensation if they are wronged by their employer. Also, his (as well as Clinton's) healthcare plan is a means of "reshuffling the deck chairs" in the favor of the health insurance corporations. Also, one of Obama's largest campaign contributors is Exxelon, one of the largest nuclear companies in the world and a parent company of ComEd, an energy company price gouging Illinois consumers.


This is just covering his domestic policies. His plans for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are equally reactionary. His claim that he "opposed the war from the start" is complete fabrication; he has consistently voted to approve hundreds of billions of dollars to continue funding the war and refuses to commit to pulling all the troops out by the end of his first term, in 2013! His position hasn't been that the war should not have happened, but that it should have been better managed. He is in support of building the largest embassy in the world in Iraq, as well. In a 2007 Democratic debate at Dartmouth he is on record as saying that troops in Iraq would remain to "protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq" (which is curious, as he has vehemently claimed that he wouldn't build US bases in Iraq).


Further, Obama is a full supporter of the War on Terrorism as an expansionist ideology. He supports a troop increase in Afghanistan. Obama supports an expansion of the military by 92,000 troops and increasing the bloated Pentagon budget. He also voted to re-authorize the PATRIOT Act, opposed attempts to censure the president for illegal wiretapping and voted to approve Condaleeza Rice as Secretary of State. He is also fiercely anti-immigrant; he cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act introduced by John McCain, supported the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act introduced by Arlen Specter and supported the $7 billion Secure Fence Act (the bill responsible for the construction of the border fence).


It is quite clear that Obama isn't a “candidate of change”. Rather, he is just as tied to corporate interests as the other candidates (if not more so, as he has raised more money than the others); he has supported actions against working and poor due to these corporate influences; he supports the occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan, saying only that he is against the way it was managed; he will offer no commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq; and he is in full support of the War on Terror, from his voting to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, his support of Condaleeza Rice as secretary of state, his opposition to censuring Bush over illegal wiretapping procedures, and his desire to pour more money into the black hole that is the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The only thing progressive about Obama is his rhetoric, and it is important that we see through that.


Poor and working people, as well as those that desire real change, will never have a candidate that actually represents their interests. As long as our electoral system is run by corporate funding, there will only be candidates that represent corporate interests. The only way we can combat this is through independent organizing and eventually organizing a party that does represent our interests – one that isn't just a “third party” but is a mass party that represents the interests of all working, poor and oppressed people of this country. It is time to stop depending on corporate candidates for anti-corporate and pro-worker policies. It is time for real change.

[wallflower]

Yes, Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, on the ground that Hillary has got some serious entitlement issues. Yet I find their purported dissimilarities illusory, and that's why I will vote for neither. There is NO harm in voting outside the two-party bloc, so long as it's not a vote for Ralph Nader - that man gives Republicans unspeakable jollies. Vote your conscience, not the lesser of two evils. Voting Democrat is not a revolutionary tactic when the Democratic Party is a bourgeois party dominated by powerful families/corporations.

[Module]

Is Obama Really A Candidate of Change?
Did you write this?
This very much is how I feel about Obama - as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the amount of rhetoric he uses seems to imply that he has the ability to be dangerously manipulative.
I watched a documentary a week or so ago, an episode of "How Art Made the World", which dealt with the use of techniques in political propaganda, and I feel it's very relevant to Barack Obama's campaign, with the use of his emotive rhetoric he becomes almost a religious figure to the people of the United States.
I certainly have a bad feeling about what would happen if Obama became president, but of course McCain and Clinton I could never see as "lesser evils"
I feel like Obama plays down his politics, which is why he seems like the "lesser evil", in favour of his progressive rhetoric.
Clinton seems to take a much more cynical and straight forward approach in comparison, and in that way I feel like I respect her more than Obama, but specifically of course I could make no comment of respect.
I don't know very much about either candidate, besides a few articles I've read and what's on the news, but because of what I just mentioned, I feel like I know far less about Obama other than that he supports racial equality.
I think we'll just have to brace ourselves for whatever form of tyranny and deception meets the American people when it comes.

[KC]

Did you write this?

Yes.

[Demant]

1. The president isn't a dictator. They cannot do whatever they want.
2. This is a gross caricature of McCain. He is no worse than any of the other candidates, democrats included. The only difference is that he openly says that he will stay in Iraq while the other candidates won't (but they still will).

How can you say that after we've all seen what Bush did alone to the world? And did you read Political-Affairs portrait of McCain? This guy could turn out to be even worse than Bush, and of course the democrats.

[Luís Henrique]

Luis, I'm half-Latin American

I am Latin-American, not "half-Latin American" (and, frankly, I don't believe that people can be "half" this or "half" that).


and you're very wrong that McCain would be better for Latin America than Obama or even Hillary. I can't understand your logic. McCain says he wants to follow in the footsteps of the dreaded Ronald Reagan. He seems to like war, also. (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.) Frankly, I am scared of McCain and Hillary.

I didn't say that McCain would be "better", I said the Democrats would be probably worse.

Who says Democrats are less warlike?

John Kennedy, who would have Cuba invaded and Batista restored, was a Democrat. Lyndon Johnson, who escalated Vietnam into full war, was a Democrat. Bill Clinton, who bombed Khartoum and Belgrade, is a Democrat. The only difference I see is that Republicans prefer to bomb the Middle East, while Democrats prefer to bomb Latin America.

One of John Kerry's main criticisms to George Bush was that Bush was putting too much effort in Middle East. He called for a closer relationship with Latin America (which, of course, gave me the creeps).

I don't think McCain likes war; this is a personalist take on the issue. The interests behind McCain's campaign - just like those behind Clinton's, or Obama's - need (not "like") war.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

How can you say that after we've all seen what Bush did alone to the world?

He did what he did with approval of Congress, press, and public opinion. He's not a personal dictator, and he is subject to the full-functioning of a modern democracy, where opposition is allowed, press is "free", the judicial branch is formally independent, and an elected Parliament controls government.

It boils down to say, "democracy is not enough" or "democracies can be every bit imperialist, aggressive, and expansionist as any dictatorship".


And did you read Political-Affairs portrait of McCain? This guy could turn out to be even worse than Bush, and of course the democrats.

This is a scare tactic; McCain is construed into a monster, so that, by comparison, his "Democratic" adversaries shine as incarnations of peace, democracy, and good-will. It is completely false. The United States is not choosing between dictatorship or democracy, or between imperialism and international fraternity.

Vote someone who you think is better, not just a little less bad. Vote for someone who you think may help the country get rid of the duopoly of the State-parties, not in the most charismatic of the State-parties candidates.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

This thread, and especially this poll, is absolutely horrible and reactionary. It gives people even less freedom of choice than the bourgeois State does.

Where are the third-party options? Where is the non-vote option?:cursing:

Luís Henrique

[F9]

they are the fu***** same thing beside sex ,color and height.
Vote to noone.Really where is the no vote option?

Fuserg9:star:

[non-vio-resist]

I don't really see the harm in voting and i'm an anarchist (which I really don't find contradictory-i can explain myself if asked)! I don't think it makes you a pseudo-leftist or counterrevolutionary. The reason I vote for the (slightly, grant it) lesser of two evils will, perhaps, make a difference in working people's lives. For example, Democrats at least include health care and education in their rhetoric. I wonder, do people on this forum think it would be foolish to vote if a Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders were the nominee, or for that matter, a Chomsky or Parenti?
I am not suggesting that revolutions start from the top down and I think the left should focus on unity and people's movements first and foremost, but if you can contribute to pulling U.S. politics slightly left, grant it the difference is almost non existent, I don't see why people wouldn't take 20 minutes out of their day to vote.
Grant it corporations probably ultimately decide who ends up in the oval office via voting fraud (see Greg Palast's research), but at least I can say I tried. I also think for the moment voting Nader or quasi-leftist du jour is essentially not voting. It is tempting to vote Socialist party or Green party, but the facts are the facts. American politics have gone so utterly far-right that a centre-right party, ie the Democrats is called "left-wing."

[wallflower]

This thread, and especially this poll, is absolutely horrible and reactionary. It gives people even less freedom of choice than the bourgeois State does.

Indeed. Perhaps we need a new thread to discuss third-party options...? I must confess ignorance on the existence of potential alternatives to the two-party bloc; the government in the States prefers to keep us unaware of their existence. The only third parties I know of are the Greens, the SPUSA, and the PSL. All seem like better choices than *either* Obama or Clinton, yet I must also confess that I haven't done enough research on them to determine whose policies, if any, will do best to serve a revolutionary agenda.

And I'm also open to no-vote options, and I must admit some of the opinions in this thread concerning abstention are convincing. But right now, I'm still voting come November; it's just a matter of deciding for whom. Any advice would be most welcome.

[BIG BROTHER]

I say vote if you want, vote for Democrats if you're using the "lesser evil" strategy, but remember that what matters the most is that whatever party comes to power, will be the goverment that will have to be, sooner or later overthrown.

[Coggeh]

Nader for the white house :)

[wallflower]

I say vote if you want, vote for Democrats if you're using the "lesser evil" strategy, but remember that what matters the most is that whatever party comes to power, will be the goverment that will have to be, sooner or later overthrown.

Good point. So, by that logic, do you suggest a vote for McCain, for example, because a Republican administration would - nominally, at least - stir up a greater revolutionary sentiment among the American populace? If I read my history correctly, the Narodnaya Volya tried that strategy with Alexander II: mixed results, again, if I remember correctly. Yet I know of a lot of Marxists who consistently vote Republican for this very reason.

[WorkingClassHero]

And I'm also open to no-vote options, and I must admit some of the opinions in this thread concerning abstention are convincing. But right now, I'm still voting come November; it's just a matter of deciding for whom. Any advice would be most welcome.

I'm in the same predicament. Like I said earlier, always promised myself I'd vote, but not voting is beginning to look pretty rational right now.

Y'know, after reading all of these responses, it all reminds me of how my father first summed up American politicians to me: "The same guys in different suits. They're all puppets for same corporate agenda and lie to obtain power."

[Demant]

He did what he did with approval of Congress, press, and public opinion. He's not a personal dictator, and he is subject to the full-functioning of a modern democracy, where opposition is allowed, press is "free", the judicial branch is formally independent, and an elected Parliament controls government.

It boils down to say, "democracy is not enough" or "democracies can be every bit imperialist, aggressive, and expansionist as any dictatorship".



This is a scare tactic; McCain is construed into a monster, so that, by comparison, his "Democratic" adversaries shine as incarnations of peace, democracy, and good-will. It is completely false. The United States is not choosing between dictatorship or democracy, or between imperialism and international fraternity.

Vote someone who you think is better, not just a little less bad. Vote for someone who you think may help the country get rid of the duopoly of the State-parties, not in the most charismatic of the State-parties candidates.

Luís Henrique

Come on .. there is no opposition in American politics. The president can on his own demand send 20 thousand nuclear bombs out to any given place in less than 15 minutes without breaking the law. That's ultimate power, and it's factual.

Who would you suggest Americans should vote for? And be realistic, don't just vote for the a guy who won't catch more than a thousand votes, you've got to vote to change things and talk about how you dream of changing things. Else, nothing will ever change.

And Political-Affairs using scare tactics? I really doubt that. Most of it is facts known by the mass-media. That it has been impossible even for the republicans and the very dirty FOX station to find anything against Obama, proves that this guy is for real. He might not agree with me on any matter, but he won't be a problem for USA, which McCain and Hillary certainly would.

[Dystisis]

Who would you suggest Americans should vote for? And be realistic, don't just vote for the a guy who won't catch more than a thousand votes, you've got to vote to change things and talk about how you dream of changing things. Else, nothing will ever change.
That is where the problem lies. Your way of thinking.

You see, the point of a democracy is that everyones opinion shall be recognized, and people can vote according to their opinion. If you vote for someone who assuredly will get many votes but stands for different things than yourself, you have effectively given yourself a kick in the ass. You have given up your own ability to vote for who represents you. It is then things will never change. And unfortunately, that is the way it is today for most people in the US.

[The Red Scare]

I totally agree.

Voting Democrat or Republican makes not even the smallest of difference.

Oh please.

Tell that to a minimum wage worker who is desperate to join a union but won't be able to under a McCain administration because of his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.

Tell that to your average Iranian family who might very well get blown to bits if the neo Cons stay in power.

Tell that to a a 6-year-old kid with leukemia who won't have access to decent care because McCain is against all forms of universal healthcare or subsidized medicine.

No one is saying that Obama is an ideal candidate, that he's left-wing or even a progressive. But you are incredibly naive if all you do is spout revolutionary platitudes and ignore the real substantive differences between the candidates. An Obama White House would give us a lot more room to maneuver, to get on the offensive, and to push for real reforms. A McCain regime would be a disaster for the working class.

[Demant]

That is where the problem lies. Your way of thinking.

You see, the point of a democracy is that everyones opinion shall be recognized, and people can vote according to their opinion. If you vote for someone who assuredly will get many votes but stands for different things than yourself, you have effectively given yourself a kick in the ass. You have given up your own ability to vote for who represents you. It is then things will never change. And unfortunately, that is the way it is today for most people in the US.

That's because that's how it is in USA. It's not like that where I come from, which is why I always vote for those who have the same opinion as me. But in a republic like USA, you've got to vote tactical. Or else the consequences will be as The Red Scare wrote. That's just the way it is in USA.

[S.O.I]

obama POWER

hes like kennedy. he's just waiting fot he right moment

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Oh please.

Tell that to a minimum wage worker who is desperate to join a union but won't be able to under a McCain administration because of his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.

Tell that to your average Iranian family who might very well get blown to bits if the neo Cons stay in power.

Tell that to a a 6-year-old kid with leukemia who won't have access to decent care because McCain is against all forms of universal healthcare or subsidized medicine.

No one is saying that Obama is an ideal candidate, that he's left-wing or even a progressive. But you are incredibly naive if all you do is spout revolutionary platitudes and ignore the real substantive differences between the candidates. An Obama White House would give us a lot more room to maneuver, to get on the offensive, and to push for real reforms. A McCain regime would be a disaster for the working class.

Under Hitler, German unemployment decreased dramatically. Does that justify voting for the nazis?

[Luís Henrique]

obama POWER

hes like kennedy. he's just waiting fot he right moment

He's going to order an invasion on Cuba?!?!:scared:

Luís Henrique

[nanovapor]

True, we cannot be sectarian, and disconnected from reality. We as leftists must support Obama

nanovapor


Im all for Obama but id like to hear what other people think.
Im aware that US politics are very capitalist(the supposedly left wing democratic party are right of centre and the republican party is hard right fascist) but who to you think is better for revolutionary leftists
If you wouldnt vote for either dont vote in the poll!

[KC]

True, we cannot be sectarian, and disconnected from reality. We as leftists must support Obama

:laugh:

How much more disconnected from reality can you get?

[Luís Henrique]

But in a republic like USA, you've got to vote tactical.

The question then is, what tactics?

I would say that the only tactical vote that may be of interest to us in the US is voting for the candidate most likely to break the two-party system.

Voting tactical is not the same as voting Democrat.

Luís Henrique

[KC]

I would say that the only tactical vote that may be of interest to us in the US is voting for the candidate most likely to break the two-party system.

Why? Would you support campaigning for Nader, then?

[Luís Henrique]

Why? Would you support campaigning for Nader, then?

Not necessarily, but I think this could be a discussion within the revolutionary left - as long as he were running on a party ticket that could effectively break the duopoly (not as an a-partidary candidate, or as the candidate of a loose coalision that would not survive the election).

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=160,1574,0,0,1,0

The Meaning of the Obama Phenomenon

Workers Power 324: April 2008

Barack Obama's revival of old-style populist Democratic rhetoric may win him some working class voters. But – Andy Yorke argues – his policies cannot change their lives for the better, and need to be exposed

Barack Obama's campaign to become the Democratic Party's candidate for the US presidential elections has upset the experts' calculations. In three short months since his surprise victory in the 3 January Iowa primary, Obama has become the front runner in the campaign, with a slight edge over Hillary Clinton in delegates for the August Democratic convention which will decide the candidate. More than this, he has emerged as a political "phenomenon" with a youthful movement behind him on a scale not seen since the 1960s.

Both Democratic candidates are increasingly making populist appeals to working class voters, in order to tap the deep vein of anger and frustration in the US over the Iraq quagmire, stagnating wages and now the collapsing economy. A New York Times poll (April 3) found that 81% of Americans believe the US is "seriously" on the wrong course, skyrocketing from 35% in 2003 and the highest since the poll began in 1993.

But they have run very different campaigns. Hillary Clinton has emphasised her experience as a reliable, establishment politician with eight years of experience in the White House during Bill Clinton's presidency. The continuity is underlined by her double-act campaign, where the ex-president is campaigning as actively for her as Hillary herself. She seeks to win voters who have strayed to the Republicans by portraying herself as competent and "hard" on national security issues.

In contrast Obama, a US Senator since only 2004 and relative newcomer, has looked left beyond this demographic to win potentially millions of new, young voters. He presents himself as a candidate who began as a grass roots community campaigner in his early days in Chicago, who is against climate change and the war in Iraq, and for economic and social justice.

In mass rallies he has captivated audiences with calls for wholesale "change" and the urgency of the present moment, underlining the sense of crisis felt by many Americans. He makes appeals to "heal the nation" and "change how business is done in Washington", for unity to end division between conservative, Republican- supporting "Red States" and Democrat-supporting Blue States, and building "a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old".

This is aimed at a deep disgust with establishment politics, where elections see the Republicans and Democrats slug it out with weeks or months of non-stop nasty advertising campaigns only to produce the same big-business policies once in office. The Democrats in particular have alienated millions with their cynical "triangulation" strategy pioneered by Bill Clinton, aimed at regaining power after twelve years of Reagan and Bush Senior.

Triangulation meant bending the knee to the Republicans and taking for granted the vote of workers, women and ethnic minorities, who would be unlikely to vote Republican and had no other alternative. Meanwhile the Democrats made themselves "more Republican than the Republicans" on issues like welfare reform and balancing the budget at the expense of social programmes, in order to win back the support of big business. Hillary Clinton, "Mrs Triangulation" as one pundit dubbed her, has made a career of this unprincipled strategy in the Senate. But it met with disaster in the Democrats' bid for the White House in 2004, where John Kerry triangulated himself into defeat, supporting the Iraq war with the claim he would run it better than Bush had.

In contrast, Obama's campaign rhetoric, his "message", along with the historic possibility of a black president, has created skyrocketing illusions among youth, black voters and anti-war activists. Thousands of volunteers give his campaign the trappings of a grass roots movement and seriously helped him mobilise enough forces to beat Hillary Clinton, who throughout 2007 was seen as the "inevitable" Democratic nominee.

Instead, after his shock landslide in Iowa, Obama has gone on to win a majority of Democratic primary contests, giving him 1,418 delegates to Clinton's 1,250. Now more and more heavyweights of the Democrat Party establishment are signing up to his campaign. This includes Senator Ted Kennedy, who has compared him to the mythical JFK as a once-in-a-lifetime, historic figure.

On 4 March, Clinton's campaign was thrown a lifeline as she won primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island all in one day, breaking a string of Obama victories throughout February. Now the campaigns are gearing up for the Pennsylvania primary on 22April, a big state worth 188 delegates and a vital contest for both candidates to win.

Clinton needs to reverse Obama's momentum and show she remains a viable candidate; Obama, who has eaten into Clinton's base among women and Latino workers, needs to prove he can win white workers in key states like Pennsylvania which will prove crucial to winning the presidency on November. White male graduates favour Obama, but white males without degrees favour Clinton, giving her an edge in the old industrial rustbelt states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

But polls now show Clinton's 15 point lead over Obama in early March have shrunk to 5% as Obama brings his massive war-chest to bear. He has raised $40 million in March (twice as much as Clinton), partly through small Internet donations but also because in reality he, even more than Clinton, receives millions from big business and Wall Street financiers. Behind the army of volunteers lies a sophisticated, well-oiled campaign machine, able to fund a non-stop barrage of radio and TV ads. It is this machine just as much as his message and movement that has allowed him to take the lead.

The real Obama
So underneath the message of change and skilful rhetoric, what does the real Obama stand for and will he fulfil the mass illusions that his youthful activists place in him?

For the last year the main debate has focused on Iraq, as a touchstone for supposedly different approaches to foreign policy. In 2002 Obama, then a member in the Illinois state senate, spoke out against the Iraq war while Clinton famously voted in favour of it, giving Bush a "blank cheque for war" in his words. But Obama has since stated in interviews that if he had seen US intelligence reports he might have thought differently concerning the invasion - hardly showing consistent opposition to the War on Terror!

Obama has been just as quick to sign the cheques for Bush's requests to fund Iraq's occupation, with a voting record identical to Clinton on national security issues. He is upping his rhetoric to compete with Clinton, stating his support for Israel against "the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam," and is committed to leaving thousands of US troops in Iraq while ramping up the war in Afghanistan.

Obama has even held a press conference stuffed with flags and retired generals and admirals to rebut Clinton's assertions that he is not "commander in chief" material, to prove to the wider US capitalist class that he is a safe pair of hands for US imperial interests abroad, and to allay any fears about his populist rhetoric and support by much of the anti-war movement such as MoveOn.org. For all his rhetoric, Obama's presidency clearly will not entail any significant withdrawal from the US occupations in the Middle East.

It's the economy again, stupid
Since the Wall Street crisis in mid-March and with the contest looming in Pennsylvania, both Clinton and Obama have swung to tap into voters' concerns about the coming recession. The latest figures show 80,000 jobs lost in March alone and unemployment rising to a three-year highpoint of 5.1%, while home repossessions and arrears in mortgage payments are skyrocketing.

While Obama and Clinton have bashed "Bushonomics", they have so far done little more than support the timid measures of the government. The US government has bailed out Wall Street investors with nearly a trillion dollars in cheap loans or more direct support, such as the $29 billion extended to guarantee Bear Stearns' dodgy investments so that JP Morgan could take over the bankrupt firm.

Clinton and Obama have made populist speeches demanding that the government help the millions of ordinary Americans losing their jobs and homes, not just the rich and big business. In Obama's words, "If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling through no fault of their own."

But neither has put forward a viable solution to the crisis. Clinton proposes a freeze on foreclosures and a government fund to buy up the mortgages and bail out the bankers along with the homeowners. Obama's policies are even more moderate, favouring government support for a private sector solution and proposing greater regulation of the financial sector - but without clamping too tight a hand on economic innovation. These policies amount to peanuts compared to the largesse handed over to Wall Street in recent months, and will neither dampen the crisis nor ease the pain of workers facing a meltdown in the economy.

The mealy-mouthed plans for immediate relief are, like Obama's ticket as a whole, dwarfed by promises of things to come, if only he is elected president. He promises tax cuts for "working families" and retired workers, along with affordable healthcare, rebuilt infrastructure, and schools and colleges. Where the money for this would come from, when he has also promised to balance the budget, remains unanswered.

Obama's presidency would be caught between the recession and the $9.4 trillion debt racked up by the Bush presidency, so that any redistribution to the working class would mean hitting profits of the capitalists hard. After 35 years of stagnating profit rates in which US capitalism has continuously fought to offshore jobs, slash pensions and healthcare, hold down wages and push through tax cuts for the rich, the capitalists will not stand aside and see these policies reversed without a fight. But this is a fight that the populist Obama is neither willing nor able to lead.

US capitalism cannot be reformed to benefit the majority of Americans, while also keeping the ruling class happy and their profit rates up. Obama's promises to transform politics and usher in a new era are based on this kind of illusion, and they do not add up. And his calls for tolerance and unity sound quite empty when, for example, he refuses interview with the gay press to avoid touching a dangerous subject.

Phenomenon or Con?
Obama is no less a triangulating Democrat than Clinton. Neither one can bite the hand that feeds them - the majority of big business funding has shifted from the Republicans to the two Democratic frontrunners. Both lead the way in contributions from banks, hedge funds, private equity firms, and other finance houses responsible for the mess in the first place. For US capitalism a Democratic government is the best way to reverse out of the impasse created by Bush and Iraq.

Obama is winning the favour of ever increasing sections of the Democratic establishment, who need the mobilising power of his message to win. They also need it to confuse, misdirect and stall the working class - to sow the illusion that their lives are about to change for the better while they are made to pay for the painful process of recession that the US is about to undergo.

Socialists must struggle throughout 2008 to expose the Obama con to the tens of thousands of progressive activists and supporters of the Obama campaign - black, Hispanic, youth, labour. We must explain clearly why Obama does not deserve our support, and prepare to lead all those inevitably disillusioned in the coming years to renewed struggle and the building of a new, mass workers party that can lead a socialist revolution in the USA.

[BIG BROTHER]

Good article, I learned quite a lot about Obama's promises and policies. Now I'll be able to argue better with people who see him as a savior.

[Pacifistic Liberty]

Sadly voting in America has become rather points less ever the the electoral college was founded by the Reagan administration. Which he only created so that he wouldn't lose to hart in the election.
Besides the two part system seems rather, futile.
I find it highly unlikely that and entire population can fit perfectly into two parties, that 50% of a populous totally agree with everything, and the other half disagrees with them completely, party systems like that just promote people making decisions simply because everyone else is, it takes the thinking out of voting.

[Ultra-Violence]

1. The president isn't a dictator. They cannot do whatever they want.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


WHAT!? WERE YOU ASLEEP FOR THE LAST 8t YEARS!


the president can do what ever they hell they want and they dont even need a reason sure i under stand ur statement it wasnt suppose to be that way but thats what the capitalist have been doing for the past hundred years making the president KING! i mean just the bush election alone is shiting and buring what was left of the constitution! (dont care much for teh constitution)

[Faux Real]

1. The president isn't a dictator. They cannot do whatever they want.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


WHAT!? WERE YOU ASLEEP FOR THE LAST 8t YEARS!


the president can do what ever they hell they want and they dont even need a reason sure i under stand ur statement it wasnt suppose to be that way but thats what the capitalist have been doing for the past hundred years making the president KING! i mean just the bush election alone is shiting and buring what was left of the constitution! (dont care much for teh constitution)If he wanted he couldn't implement socialism esque reforms without the consent of the judicial, legislative, and capitalist branches of government. He's not a dictator, he's a puppet figurehead of the entire capitalist system.

[Zurdito]

If he wanted he couldn't implement socialism esque reforms without the consent of the judicial, legislative, and capitalist branches of government. He's not a dictator, he's a puppet figurehead of the entire capitalist system.

this is true of many dictators. ditatorship is the form of political rule over the proletariat, it hardly means dictatorship over the bourgeoisie.

I don't think that Bush's poltiical form of rule=dictatorship exactly though.

[Luís Henrique]

the president can do what ever they hell they want

No. He can do whatever he wants and the Congress allows him to do.

His war on Iraq was aproved by Congress; it was even aproved by a great majority of Democrat Senators and Representatives.

Evidently it is in the interest of the Democrats to portrait Bush as a tyrant who did it all alone. But it is very far from true.

Luís Henrique

[Red Equation]

I should probably not vote.
If you think about it, although it is a bad way to go about, it might be better to elect McCain as president, as he will continue some of Bush's horrible policies, eventually destroying the American economy, which will cause socialism and communism to rise in America and become a more acceptable thing in the media. Similar to the Great Depression. However there would be many difficulties acheiving this, firstly, the war in Iraq has to continue, our debt has to increase until it's beyond the return point, oil prices must keep rising in correspondence to the rapid inflation that the American economy is experiencing, which will be made hard by the recession of the housing market.

That is an abstract way of looking at it....

[RedFlagComrade]

....And hundreds of thousands of innocents would have to die...