Obama is a fraud....

[RadioRaheem84]

Claiming to be a progressive candidate, he is already stock piling his campaign with Clinton-era politicos. The Madeline Albrights, the Jimmy Carter hawks like Brezinski and neo-liberal apologists. He is already appealing to the center and he hasn't been elected yet. Atleast Clintoon waited to be elected to move the Democratic party to the right.

I hate to agree with the conservatives on this but it is kind of strange to see the zealous nature of Obama supporters. It is kind of scary to see the level of wave riding going on on his side of the fence.

How come candidates on both sides usually campaign as either leftist/liberal progressives or right wing conservatives but drop all that once they're nominated and once elected succomb to the Washington Consensus?

[dez]

Claiming to be a progressive candidate, he is already stock piling his campaign with Clinton-era politicos. The Madeline Albrights, the Jimmy Carter hawks like Brezinski and neo-liberal apologists. He is already appealing to the center and he hasn't been elected yet. Atleast Clintoon waited to be elected to move the Democratic party to the right.

I hate to agree with the conservatives on this but it is kind of strange to see the zealous nature of Obama supporters. It is kind of scary to see the level of wave riding going on on his side of the fence.

How come candidates on both sides usually campaign as either leftist/liberal progressives or right wing conservatives but drop all that once they're nominated and once elected succomb to the Washington Consensus?

As you yourself have stated obama cannot be doing that.
And for the sake of propaganda, please, do not agree with conservatives publically.

[Red October]

do not agree with conservatives publically.

He's not agreeing with conservatives, and neither are most leftists who legitimately criticize Obama. It is true that Obama is a fraud and certainly no progressive. He campaigns on a platform of hope and change, but his policies and actions are all more of the same garbage. Conservatives criticize him because they think he's a radical leftist, we criticize him because we know he's not.

[anonymous red]

his policies and actions are all more of the same garbage

anyone who expected otherwise is either deranged or completely ignorant. (not directed at you, per se)

[KurtFF8]

And for the sake of propaganda, please, do not agree with conservatives publically.

Don't be so dogmatic. Conservatives may be right on this point, that doesn't mean that we agree on anything about their ideology. It can be good to take from what your opponent says sometimes.

[Abluegreen7]

The people need to gain back power one way or another. Create a American Peoples Party. APP. Then we create a American Peoples Army.' Liberation from Conservative politics needs to happen.

[Chapaev]

This charade known as the American political system must be boycotted in order to avoid providing it with legitimacy. The working class and its vanguard need to establish their own revolutionary organizations and seize all state power by means of an armed uprising and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Bourgeois democracy is a form of dictatorship of the capitalists over the proletariat and nonproletarian toiling classes of the population. The functions of the institutions of bourgeois democracy consist in ensuring class dominance that guarantees the privileges of the exploiter class and disguising its dominion, consolidating the bourgeoisie, and solving its own internal class contradictions.

[Plagueround]

Barack Obama's popularity never had much to do with his politics in the first place. The reason he has faired so well is because the average American's vote is based on an emotional response. People are indeed "hoping for change", but they don't necessarily know what that means. Insert charismatic, young, hip politician who also happens to be a gifted orator and you've got a formula for success. The Republican answer to this was to put a "patriotic war hero" who's nationalist credentials cannot be challenged and can deal the most devastating blows to Obama's percieved weaknesses of patriotism and foreign policy.

Whether or not using McCain as a patriotism proxy will pay off has yet to be seen, because the other big part of American politics is appearance and visual appeal. Barack Obama has an almost rockstar presence and is often compared to Kennedy while McCain is probably the most physically unappealing person to run for president since Richard Milhouse Nixon (Not that I think this should matter, but to many people it does, consciously or subconsciously).

What all of this really means is that politicians from both sides can set their true policy goals for the people who they are truly running for: big business. Big business is backing Obama because they know he appeals physically and emotionally to Americans, so they can use him to sell their agendas. John McCain has big business backing him because they also don't underestimate the power of the other big emotions conservatives are good at appealing to: religious belief, fear of taxes, and the underlying fear of the middle east (which they've managed to convince many a person Barack is). When you have the same exact people backing your campaign, and the majority of Americans have already decided who they're voting for based on looks, emotional appeal, or a 30 second TV spot or Youtube video, you're free to leave any sort of early campaign promises in the dust for whatever you want. Most of your early backers will still begrudgingly vote for you because they still hate the other guy more. Its a win win game for everyone, if by everyone you mean the world's super rich.

Real hope and change doesn't happen at the ballot box.

[FreeFocus]

He's not agreeing with conservatives, and neither are most leftists who legitimately criticize Obama. It is true that Obama is a fraud and certainly no progressive. He campaigns on a platform of hope and change, but his policies and actions are all more of the same garbage. Conservatives criticize him because they think he's a radical leftist, we criticize him because we know he's not.

The sentence in bold is great. That basically sums it up.

I will also reiterate what the OP said about this cult of personality Obama has built. I mean, it's quite frightening. If you read what Adolf Reed has written on Obama, he frequently uses the terms "Obamistas" or "minions" to describe his staunchest supporters. Well, he's right. I think most people seek and desire real, concrete change. However, people generally fall into two categories: those who have bought into propaganda and are ardent hawks, and those who have been so turned off by this capitalist society that they simply completely abstain from politics, engaging in trivial activities (this is also reinforced by brainwashing). The left has to be very aggressive in terms of grassroots organizing. There's actually a lot of potential, I think.

But yes, Obama is indeed a fraud, as is the entire bourgeois system.

Also, great post Plague.

[GPDP]

This is what I've been saying for some time. "Obamabots", as I and others call them, really do desire change, but have been utterly duped by Obama's cult of personality. I bet most of them don't even know he doesn't plan to get out of Iraq, and wage more destruction on Afghanistan. His health care plan is a joke, too, but all they hear is "universal health care", and proclaim him a kind progressive.

[Comrade B]

You people by far overestimate the power of the US democrats. They can do nothing, especially not the president. My hope is that, with the "left" controlling the executive branch, and the right controlling the other two branches, nothing will get done at all, making things become no worse. If McCain were to win, we could expect things to become atrociously worse.

Boycotting the system is the stupidest thing you can do, because they don't give a shit about your opinion. They just think you are another fat, American Idol watching, steak eating, bud drinking hick who was too fucking lazy to get off their ass and go vote.

Find me the percent of communists in America that vote

Then tell me how much you think the country would care if that percent did not vote.

[which doctor]

He has to appeal to the center and to clinton supporters if he wants to get elected. It's simple...politics.

[turquino]

But yes, Obama is indeed a fraud, as is the entire bourgeois system.
How is the entire bourgeois system a fraud? It's not like there's ballot stuffing or people being attacked for voting the wrong way. Money has a lot to do with getting elected, but politicians like Obama have shown they can capture popular support and raise lots of $$$. On the other hand, socialists in the u.s. haven't been successful at either, and face practically zero repression. I don't think this election enthusiasm is a total delusion.

[FreeFocus]

How is the entire bourgeois system a fraud? It's not like there's ballot stuffing or people being attacked for voting the wrong way. Money has a lot to do with getting elected, but politicians like Obama have shown they can capture popular support and raise lots of $$$. On the other hand, socialists in the u.s. haven't been successful at either, and face practically zero repression. I don't think this election enthusiasm is a total delusion.

Well, first off, you're discounting the voting irregularities in 2000 and 2004 and the mass disenfranchisement of millions of people in total. There's evidence it was orchestrated and done purposely. Couple that with the fact that the electronic methods of voting, such as Diebold machines, are flawed (Diebold has recently admitted as much) and have and will continue to be pushed heavily, voting integrity has really been compromised.

Obama's capturing popular support, because he's appealing to a lot of bullshit sentiment, e.g. this patriotic "hope" founded on what the "Founding Fathers" envisioned, which really was a slaveholding, aristocratic "republic" that acquired land via ethnic cleansing. He's also capturing popular support because, as I and others in this thread have touched on, people are getting fed up, but they don't really know where to turn. Enter Obama, a fresh face of color, backed by corporate money who can convince people with his brainwashing and mind-numbing rhetoric that he represents "change."

I also disagree that socialists face "zero repression." There are numerous experiences that point to the contrary, that they are actively undermined and are under surveillance. Furthermore, past repression, from the Red Scare, to McCarthyism, to Reagan's sabotage of Central American peace movements in the 1980s, has really damaged the public image of socialism and other truly leftist approaches.

[Sendo]

How is the entire bourgeois system a fraud? It's not like there's ballot stuffing or people being attacked for voting the wrong way. Money has a lot to do with getting elected, but politicians like Obama have shown they can capture popular support and raise lots of $$$. On the other hand, socialists in the u.s. haven't been successful at either, and face practically zero repression. I don't think this election enthusiasm is a total delusion.

Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, the further use of Diebold (since renamed to ???), the possibility of National "real" id, the re-emergence of literacy tests. Also the fact that neither Gore nor Kerry seemed to care that they lost a fixed election, tells me they would have been NO different at all. I would have agreed with Chomsky when he said a rotten choice in the sort term is worth it since a powerhouse like the USA could use every sliver of change it can get. But now, I don't think it matters at all. Obama and McCain will go as far right as their supporters, the people, and the Iraqi guerrillas let them. Iraq, more war, corn ethanol, regressive taxes, everything will be the same. Their policies are 99% identical but those are not set in stone. All I know is that they're both corporatists going through the same charade we go through every four years.

Who knows, maybe Obama will do what Gore did. Put out some half-assed PowerPoint and try to create some self-revised history of himself being some sort of activist underdog. Well, Obama's already started with his fabricated activist history that the echo chambers keep bringing up. Maybe in 2016 we'll look back and make believe that if only his election wasn't fixed things would be far better, and still talk about revolution out the other side of the mouth. Anything beyond a state-level election is hopeless. The Federal State is a lost cause unless we pressure those in power and staff the agencies with competent and honest people again.

[bootleg42]

How is the entire bourgeois system a fraud? It's not like there's ballot stuffing or people being attacked for voting the wrong way. Money has a lot to do with getting elected, but politicians like Obama have shown they can capture popular support and raise lots of $$$. On the other hand, socialists in the u.s. haven't been successful at either, and face practically zero repression. I don't think this election enthusiasm is a total delusion.

I believe usually around 40-48% of people who could theorectically (I don't remember exactly but someone please give me the exact number) vote do, so way more than 50% of people WHO COULD VOTE don't. So the "enthusiasm" is really from the "voting class", not from the majority of working and poor people. On top of that take the people who are from the real left and vote on the basis of "the lesser of two evils".....so add more potential leftist votes that are not really part of the "enthusiasm". If those potential leftist voters organize, I think socialism will take a step forward.

But it is true that people in the U.S. don't face what others in other countries do. I'll put it this way......they were able to do well in Bolivia, the poorest country in Latin America. There's no excuse for people in the U.S. not to attempt something similar.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I believe usually around 40-48% of people who could theorectically (I don't remember exactly but someone please give me the exact number) vote do, so way more than 50% of people WHO COULD VOTE don't. . .
Voter turnout is usually listed in the 60%s, but that takes into account registered voters, not all persons who "could have" voted.

If you churn the numbers from my first link, there were 221,285,099 voting age residents (many remained unregistered through choice, apathy, or reasons beyond their choice, such as felons and non-citizen immigrants), and 123,535,883 voted, making 55.8% of voting aged persons from/living in the U.S. who voted (I'm still not sure if all the numbers are right, but it's the best I can do).

Regarding the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election:
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm
http://www.ou.edu/policom/1501_2005_winter/commentary.htm

[Guerrilla22]

He's exactly what he presents himself to be; a bourgeois politican running under one of the most cliche campaign slogans of all time: "Change, we can can believe it." or something like that. There is no such thing as a progressive liberal, because liberals seek to keep the capitalist system in tact, whcih is nothing but status quo. Obama's ideas are reformist in nature because like all liberals he offers nothing but policies to reduce the sting of the system rather than change the reason for the sting.

[dez]

He's not agreeing with conservatives, and neither are most leftists who legitimately criticize Obama. It is true that Obama is a fraud and certainly no progressive. He campaigns on a platform of hope and change, but his policies and actions are all more of the same garbage. Conservatives criticize him because they think he's a radical leftist, we criticize him because we know he's not.

I understand that and I agree with your critique, I just think its an established fact that Obama isn't really a change and MCcain is an imperialist fascist, and when you openly criticize Obama you are fueling the MCcain propaganda machine; considering this is election time.



Don't be so dogmatic. Conservatives may be right on this point, that doesn't mean that we agree on anything about their ideology. It can be good to take from what your opponent says sometimes.

Of course, as long as its not a public statement
;)



I believe usually around 40-48% of people who could theorectically (I don't remember exactly but someone please give me the exact number) vote do, so way more than 50% of people WHO COULD VOTE don't. So the "enthusiasm" is really from the "voting class", not from the majority of working and poor people. On top of that take the people who are from the real left and vote on the basis of "the lesser of two evils".....so add more potential leftist votes that are not really part of the "enthusiasm". If those potential leftist voters organize, I think socialism will take a step forward.

But it is true that people in the U.S. don't face what others in other countries do. I'll put it this way......they were able to do well in Bolivia, the poorest country in Latin America. There's no excuse for people in the U.S. not to attempt something similar.

Massive organization of the left and socialism for the ballot is always a problem due to the huge amount of oportunists and the staunch attack the system perpetrates against such an organization (most of the repression shows up when the left is getting organized, as an example the quasi-fascist marches against Allende in Chile, followed by a coup, "marches for family and tradition" in Brazil followed by a coup against the reforms that our then president was making and the neofascist youth organization accompanied by "civil comittees" and governors boycotting central government in Bolivia today), but I think grassroots organizations are a way to go.
Like it or not a revolutionary vanguard needs support from society and these organizations ultimatedly will provide it. And they are usually progressive and promote social changes per say.

[Reuben]

You could say there is a cult of personality around Obama. You could also say that he has - however absurdly - become a point of orientation for people who want progessive change in America. Of course he won;t bring about serious progressive change. However, however we as Marxists do not generally expect serioius progressive change to come about simply through presidential decree.

What is significant is the impact of the obama campaign and the potential obama victory at a societal level. How will it affect social consciousness? It is possible that an Obama victory will open up a space for people in mainstream society to start speaking about how society should be run, about what should be changed and can be changed. I guess an analogy here might be the election of Kennedy. Kennedy was a complete shit, but his social and political image, his self-proclaimed mandate, centred however disingenuously upon change and a new society. It is IMO no coincidence that a number of genuinely progressive movements built up steam in the wake of his presidential victory.

[Anarch_Mesa]

Obama..Obama..Obama. It is killing me to have to get used to the name, seeing as he is the most likely person to become president. He is absolute scum like every polotician who can get to his position. He has stated a want to enforce two years of community service to every person in american before they can attend college. Not that he could ever get away with it but it's the thought that counts.

[Red October]

I understand that and I agree with your critique, I just think its an established fact that Obama isn't really a change and MCcain is an imperialist fascist, and when you openly criticize Obama you are fueling the MCcain propaganda machine; considering this is election time.

The revolutionary left shouldn't be picking sides between two reactionary bourgeois politicians. Putting forward valid anti-capitalist critiques of Obama is exactly what we need to be doing to show an alternative to bourgeois politics. It's ridiculous to say we shouldn't publicly criticize scumbags just because they happen to be a little less shitty than McCain.

[The Intransigent Faction]

:ohmy: Fraud?! Quick! Somebody tell the CPUSA!

[dez]

The revolutionary left shouldn't be picking sides between two reactionary bourgeois politicians. Putting forward valid anti-capitalist critiques of Obama is exactly what we need to be doing to show an alternative to bourgeois politics. It's ridiculous to say we shouldn't publicly criticize scumbags just because they happen to be a little less shitty than McCain.

There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.

[Comrade_Scott]

Claiming to be a progressive candidate, he is already stock piling his campaign with Clinton-era politicos. The Madeline Albrights, the Jimmy Carter hawks like Brezinski and neo-liberal apologists. He is already appealing to the center and he hasn't been elected yet. Atleast Clintoon waited to be elected to move the Democratic party to the right.

I hate to agree with the conservatives on this but it is kind of strange to see the zealous nature of Obama supporters. It is kind of scary to see the level of wave riding going on on his side of the fence.

How come candidates on both sides usually campaign as either leftist/liberal progressives or right wing conservatives but drop all that once they're nominated and once elected succomb to the Washington Consensus?

obama is no fraud he is just a politician and th ejob of a politician is to lie to th epubllic inorder to line his own pockets. both he an mc'cain are ass holes and deserve to die a horid death but for diferent reasons.

anyway canidates who campaign one way and act another when elected do so because of the lure of MONEY and POWER and hey they are only (corupt) humans eh

[Abluegreen7]

American Politican = Fraud.

Didnt everyone get the message after Clinton. Even before that.
I thought everyone had the message after 7 years of the Bush.

Its just sick how someone can say Obama will bring change I think Daniel Ortega even gave him suppourt what is everyones problem. The only way the people will ever matter is if they take back control. These men are corrupted the second they enter that office. Infact the office itself stands above the people thats why they are corrupted. Somthing must be done soon. Can america take anymore of this? No. It is preparing itsself for its inevitable fall just like the Roman Empire. America is the modern day rome. We can only hope such ignorance disappears. Then only then will things change.

[KurtFF8]

The revolutionary left shouldn't be picking sides between two reactionary bourgeois politicians. Putting forward valid anti-capitalist critiques of Obama is exactly what we need to be doing to show an alternative to bourgeois politics. It's ridiculous to say we shouldn't publicly criticize scumbags just because they happen to be a little less shitty than McCain.

But there certainly are differences between the two parties. I wouldn't completley dismiss voting, as we get to choose what type of state we're going to have.

In other words we will choose the framework of our opposition. While obviously it may seem like I'm giving too much credit to the differences between the two parties, there certainly are true differences between them. For example on war, Obama's policy preference is to significantly reduce the troop presence while McCain doesn't want to. That is a big difference
I'm not trying to over-value voting, but it certainly does have some value and the actual amount of effort that it takes to do, it may be worthwhile for the left to participate. Obviously many disagree with this stance, but I believe what I'm saying is what CPUSA is trying to say. But they certainly are overvaluing voting.

[trivas7]

I wouldn't completley dismiss voting, as we get to choose what type of state we're going to have.

Nonsense; the kind of state I would choose to have no bourgeois party could possibly deliver, even if it tried. Red October is entirely right on to say that the revolutionary left shouldn't be picking sides between two reactionary bourgeois politicians.

[KurtFF8]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that voting is a replacement for any type of revolutionary action or even socialist reform. But instead that voting for one of the two parties (so in other words voting strategically in an election instead of PSL or SPUSA) may have some value as we at least have some say as to what bourgeois party is currently in power.

I'm in no way saying that voting is anywhere near sufficient for the type of changes we want, only that it may offer us some value.

[Goose]

Find me the percent of communists in America that vote
.

Find me the percentage of communists in the UK that vote. I know I don't. What amazes me is so many seemingly clued up people getting so nowty about another American business candidate. They're all bollocks, be they mild nazi or full on nazi.

Armed uprising anyone?

[KurtFF8]

Find me the percentage of communists in the UK that vote. I know I don't. What amazes me is so many seemingly clued up people getting so nowty about another American business candidate. They're all bollocks, be they mild nazi or full on nazi.

Armed uprising anyone?

Well obviously we're not quite at a situation where a revolution is about to happen any time soon. So we have to do things in the mean time. And one of them in my opinion could be to take 5 minutes of your day and vote however minimal the impact may be.

What if you organized an event that didn't go so well (lets say low turnout and low visibility). This type of action (lets say a protest) would require much more effort than voting and the results would be even less than voting.

I even think that voting for PSL or SPUSA has a a better consequence than just staying home. At least then you are showing that you cared enough to go out and voiced your opinion.

[chimx]

He is already appealing to the center and he hasn't been elected yet. Atleast Clintoon waited to be elected to move the Democratic party to the right.


Actually you'll find almost all politicians will appeal to the more liberal or conservative parts of their parties during the primaries, and will move towards the center following nominations. It is a fairly common pattern in politics.

[Goose]

Well obviously we're not quite at a situation where a revolution is about to happen any time soon. So we have to do things in the mean time. And one of them in my opinion could be to take 5 minutes of your day and vote however minimal the impact may be.

What if you organized an event that didn't go so well (lets say low turnout and low visibility). This type of action (lets say a protest) would require much more effort than voting and the results would be even less than voting.

I even think that voting for PSL or SPUSA has a a better consequence than just staying home. At least then you are showing that you cared enough to go out and voiced your opinion.

I absolutely appreciate your point. However, I think it's safe to say that the form of parliamentary democracy we are offered gives us nothing.

It would almost be better to have another Thatcher, or a McCain, so that the disenfranchised youth would have something to thing about that was of more relevance than growing their fringe and listening to emo while shouting at their parents.


One thing the current political magnanimity has given us is a generation of ambivolent, apathetic kids, who probably think Obama is like Lenin, but with a cool bird who bumps fists.

[KurtFF8]

I absolutely appreciate your point. However, I think it's safe to say that the form of parliamentary democracy we are offered gives us nothing.

It would almost be better to have another Thatcher, or a McCain, so that the disenfranchised youth would have something to thing about that was of more relevance than growing their fringe and listening to emo while shouting at their parents.


One thing the current political magnanimity has given us is a generation of ambivolent, apathetic kids, who probably think Obama is like Lenin, but with a cool bird who bumps fists.

But having a conservative, while more obvious that they are in the interests of the ruling class, is not better for the working class at all. At least while the center-left (which the dems are not, they are center-right) makes things a bit easier. I saw a member in a close thread (maybe even this one) mention giving the workers "breathing room".

The biggest social welfare state in the world, if still under a capitalist mode of production, can't hide class relations, and the dems could call themselves the communists and people would still struggle and realize (especially while there are still resistance groups) what the cause of their problems are.

Look at China, they are ruled by the "Communist Party" that claims that they are trying to build socialism still, but the workers are still organizing and opposed to the actions of the government. But the government is much better to the people than what a strictly nationalist or conservative government would be.

[Goose]

But having a conservative, while more obvious that they are in the interests of the ruling class, is not better for the working class at all. At least while the center-left (which the dems are not, they are center-right) makes things a bit easier. I saw a member in a close thread (maybe even this one) mention giving the workers "breathing room".

The biggest social welfare state in the world, if still under a capitalist mode of production, can't hide class relations, and the dems could call themselves the communists and people would still struggle and realize (especially while there are still resistance groups) what the cause of their problems are.

Look at China, they are ruled by the "Communist Party" that claims that they are trying to build socialism still, but the workers are still organizing and opposed to the actions of the government. But the government is much better to the people than what a strictly nationalist or conservative government would be.

Blimey - so much to respond to...

Briefly, I know the Democrats are right wing, albeit centre. "Giving the workers breathing room" strikes me as the most patronising sentence ever uttered. Shit I know we're all essentially borgeouis intellectuals, but there's no need to be so glaring, and China gave up any credentials first time round when it advocated anti-revisionism, and second time round when it opened up to the free market and became the sweatshop of the world. Which I guess at least gave Glasgow a break.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Blimey - so much to respond to...

Briefly, I know the Democrats are right wing, albeit centre. . .. . .well, more centre then Rebublicans, anyway.

[Goose]

. . .well, more centre then Rebublicans, anyway.

Yeah. I think I was responding to the quote above. I'm sensing this an American website too, so maybe I needed to spell that as 'patronizing' up there so you lot can understand it. I know you have trouble with words and remaining under about 300kg (whatever that is - i use stones!)

[KurtFF8]

Blimey - so much to respond to...

Briefly, I know the Democrats are right wing, albeit centre. "Giving the workers breathing room" strikes me as the most patronising sentence ever uttered. Shit I know we're all essentially borgeouis intellectuals, but there's no need to be so glaring, and China gave up any credentials first time round when it advocated anti-revisionism, and second time round when it opened up to the free market and became the sweatshop of the world. Which I guess at least gave Glasgow a break.

How is it patronizing?

[dez]

It would almost be better to have another Thatcher, or a McCain, so that the disenfranchised youth would have something to thing about that was of more relevance than growing their fringe and listening to emo while shouting at their parents.


This way of thought facilitated the development and spread of nazi/fascism.

[RadioRaheem84]

But there certainly are differences between the two parties. I wouldn't completley dismiss voting, as we get to choose what type of state we're going to have.There are NO differences between the two parties. There are differences in the people that make up the party but the politicians are all on the same page. On the local level, state and city, is where you see the major differences between the parties, but at the Federal level, they're all the same.

You know, I actually feel genuine sorrow for the right wing in this country. They always expect some actual right-wing guy who will balance the budget, get rid of welfare, introduce moral values, etc. But it never happens. (thank God)

When will they get the message and understand that the politics of both the left and right DO NOT EXIST! There are only moderate corporate minded politicians that follow the neo-liberal agenda to the core.

People on the left see this. Heck even mainstream liberals see this. But Conservatives and right wingers alike still believe in the right/left spectrum, and think that anyone promoting even the most simplest of changes to help out the people are socialists. How DENSE can these people be? I truly truly pity their ignorance.

[KurtFF8]

There are NO differences between the two parties. There are differences in the people that make up the party but the politicians are all on the same page. On the local level, state and city, is where you see the major differences between the parties, but at the Federal level, they're all the same.

You know, I actually feel genuine sorrow for the right wing in this country. They always expect some actual right-wing guy who will balance the budget, get rid of welfare, introduce moral values, etc. But it never happens. (thank God)

When will they get the message and understand that the politics of both the left and right DO NOT EXIST! There are only moderate corporate minded politicians that follow the neo-liberal agenda to the core.

People on the left see this. Heck even mainstream liberals see this. But Conservatives and right wingers alike still believe in the right/left spectrum, and think that anyone promoting even the most simplest of changes to help out the people are socialists. How DENSE can these people be? I truly truly pity their ignorance.

Well it's a little ridiculous to say that there are NO differences between the two parties. They certainly come down on the same side on most issues, but just because they are both corporate parties and represent the interests of the same class doesn't mean that there are NO differences.

That's like saying that there are no differences between the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Communist Party since they have the same goals and represent the same class.

[Comrade B]

Armed uprising anyone?
You get the guns, jets, anti air weaponry, foreign support, supporters, and hostages (because despite what other readers will say about the immorality of hostages, until we find another method to stop countries from just blowing us all up with missiles, it is the only way for militants to protect themselves) and I will join your little war.

My point was that the point people are trying to make by not voting is completely lost.

[( R )evolution]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that voting is a replacement for any type of revolutionary action or even socialist reform. But instead that voting for one of the two parties (so in other words voting strategically in an election instead of PSL or SPUSA) may have some value as we at least have some say as to what bourgeois party is currently in power.

I'm in no way saying that voting is anywhere near sufficient for the type of changes we want, only that it may offer us some value.

Voting means absolutely nothing. The message has been echoed throughout this thread and throughout the revolutionary left, voting validates a system in which we wish to destroy. No matter how one puts it, the little gains that you and others speak off do not truly do anything to help the plight of the workers and oppressed people. No change to the American bourgeoisie system will occur from the ballot box, real change occurs through direct action outside of the structured system. How does someone expect the US government and its bourgeoisie puppet masters to have a system in which even the lightest of socialist ideals could come in? The past has shown that any true leftist ideals are shot down and thrown in the garbage. Nothing is fair, nothing is free in this system. Stop trying to find good things in voting, sadly nothing is there. Its plain and simple, any real, leftist based change that occurs through a system proposed and ran by the bourgeoisie will simply not happen.

[Sendo]

personality cult is an understatement. He's gotten a star status that dwarves Che, Stalin, Mao, Caesar, Fidel, Zapata, Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and Hitler. In one year he's become this freaking god to people. While we may not be wearing state-mandated Obama lapel pins, the religious fervor some people have for his infallible word is troubling to me. The accomplishment is so amazing because he hasn't even come to power yet. All the people I mentioned had to come power or die fighting to get the name recognition they got.

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating. But many (not all) are so blindsided by his black skin and his marketing jingle we call "Change" that they can't see how hollow he is and what hacks his political team is. Even on issues where McCain and Obama are identical, Obama's expertise in bullshitting has gotten people to see gaps where there are none.

I'm reminded of that scene from 1984. "How many fingers do you see?" "Four" Then the guy shocks Winston. People are seeing that fifth finger even though nothing's there.

[Goose]

This way of thought facilitated the development and spread of nazi/fascism.

Yeah, but with the ability of the left to organise the youth inb a constructive and positive way, maybe we all need a Gramsciian 'universal we' to unify them in a negative way against. Revolution isn't cool anymore with kids who've had everything on a plate and frankly have no need to bother.

[CommunistBattlelord]

It is true that Obama is a fraud and certainly no progressive. He campaigns on a platform of hope and change, but his policies and actions are all more of the same garbage. Conservatives criticize him because they think he's a radical leftist, we criticize him because we know he's not.

Comrade, i truly could never have said it better myself.

Obama is a virus, a disease, infecting many potential would-be revolutionaries.

[GPDP]

Ha, I just heard a gold little nugget from Al Gore right now. He said something like "the forces of the status quo are terrified of the change Obama is going to bring".

Upon hearing that, I said "Bullshit" out loud, then left the room.

If the proponents of the status quo were actually terrified of Obama, they wouldn't be giving him any platform on which to speak. In fact, they would be setting loose the attack dogs of the media!

[RedHal]

Obama says everything white racists dare not say in public towards black people. Wouldn't an Obama presidency give fuel to the white establishment that blacks have reached equality and any black progressive movement would seem like whining. Remember Obama has said blacks have reached 90% equality, I remember hearing this on a Democracy Now! debate between two black progressives on Obama.

[biscuits]

Blimey - so much to respond to...

Briefly, I know the Democrats are right wing, albeit centre. "Giving the workers breathing room" strikes me as the most patronising sentence ever uttered. Shit I know we're all essentially borgeouis intellectuals, but there's no need to be so glaring, and China gave up any credentials first time round when it advocated anti-revisionism, and second time round when it opened up to the free market and became the sweatshop of the world. Which I guess at least gave Glasgow a break.

lol

[Horse99]

Don't believe a word of the Obama handlers. If Obama is elected he will discard all the centrist rhetoric and move the country sharply to the left.

I have a strong feeling McCain would be different. This is a guy who speaks for himself and his country. This is one strong individual. Paired with Palin -- who also looks like a real leader, and not a reader -- you will see Washington turned upside down.

[Horse99]

We, in Ireland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.

On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against alawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run!

Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with theappropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship !!

What in God's name are yalads thinkin over in the colonies!!!

[KurtFF8]

Voting means absolutely nothing. The message has been echoed throughout this thread and throughout the revolutionary left, voting validates a system in which we wish to destroy. No matter how one puts it, the little gains that you and others speak off do not truly do anything to help the plight of the workers and oppressed people. No change to the American bourgeoisie system will occur from the ballot box, real change occurs through direct action outside of the structured system. How does someone expect the US government and its bourgeoisie puppet masters to have a system in which even the lightest of socialist ideals could come in? The past has shown that any true leftist ideals are shot down and thrown in the garbage. Nothing is fair, nothing is free in this system. Stop trying to find good things in voting, sadly nothing is there. Its plain and simple, any real, leftist based change that occurs through a system proposed and ran by the bourgeoisie will simply not happen.

I was saying that there can be some "value" in voting, not that it is "good" to vote. To assume that all capitalitst want to do capitalism the same way is the same thing as saying all socialists want to do socialism the same way. So if we have an input into how they will run their system (regardless of what you say, there are differences between the parties in how they want to do capitalism) then that has some value.

It's certainly no replacement for any other kind of action that could help the socialist movement. But I'm not suggesting that if you have a choice between a major socialist rally and skipping it and doing to the polls that you pick voting, obviously there would be more value in the former. But if your alternative is to just sit at home in protest, then that protest goes just as unheard as a vote for any candidate and I would argue that you ought to at least go vote for a socialist if you don't want to vote at all.

[SamiBTX]

How come candidates on both sides usually campaign as either leftist/liberal progressives or right wing conservatives but drop all that once they're nominated and once elected succomb to the Washington Consensus?

No balls. :thumbdown:

[Cheung Mo]

I want Obama to win because I enjoy watching the lives of worthless hypocritical shitstains like Sarah Palin fall apart...I hope she ends up alone, helpless, and scared come November...

[Plagueround]

Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with theappropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship !!

Not to troll this thread but...Cindy McCain? Good looking? Seriously?