Shabnam, you’re post seemed to be providing the usual cover for a pol who has chosen to run, play the DLC game, ditch who ever needs ditching, and well read teh article by Kosko:

“Is That All There Is?
McCain, Clinton, Obama and the Wages of Lesser-Evilism
By MATT KOSKO

Leftists both within and without the Democratic Party have been for years operating under the delusion that, in order to oppose Republican policies, they must work to help the cause of any candidate that has a “D” after his/her name, regardless of how personally distasteful the candidate is or how unappealing the rightward moving Democratic platform is. This “lesser of two evils” approach is dangerous, foolish, and damaging to leftist causes as it keeps many normally progressive people locked into a party that’s tenants and leadership have long ago stopped representing progressive ideals and instead have furthered the interests of Republicans and large corporations.

At first glance, “lesser of two evils” voting doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. We support the candidate who is the “least worst” until such a time that we can run a real candidate who truly represents us. However, no one seems to be able to say who that candidate is and when we will ever see him or her. In fact, no one has ever even attempted to explain why a party that already is ensured the progressive vote under this “Republicans are worse” mentality will every seek to change, especially since a more centrist approach has given Democratic candidates a hell of a lot more financial support from various corporate interests. ”
http://www.counterpunch.org/kosko05092008.html

I wonder, though, if I should do something more radical. If so, what might that be? And do I have the necessary courage to disrupt my life as is?

Thank you Mr.Dixon!

It’s up to concerned, engaged citizens to force a realization that necessity is already upon us and has been for a very long time. Millions have been “faced with a Depression” all of their lives. Of course, most are not engaged in the political process, partly due to a lack of time (working 2 low-paying jobs and raising kids will do that). Privileged progressives (not the DLC type) — and I should probably include myself in that group even though I’m far from wealthy — have a significant responsibility. We have to find a way to engage the less priviliged *and* convince legislators that corporatism/imperialism is, simply put, downright EVIL. Again, I do bear some responsibility. I must do more…but, to quote John Lennon, “I’m not the only one.” I hate to think that real change will require a 1929-style Great Depression.

We’re doomed no matter what tine of the fork we choose.

His background and his writing shows that he is Hillary supporter but he could not support Obama because of Obama’s position on Farrakhan and his relationship with Rev. Wright since Mr. Wright has sought a broader understanding of the Middle East than one who blames Islam and Arabs for all the region’s problems or endorses unconditional support for Israel. He also, contrary to Reed’s position, has relationship with Farrakhan and does not call him an Anti-Semite to please the Zionists.
Mr. Reed also, like David Horowitz and others, is against reparation for Blacks for slavery. Therefore, no one can blame Obama being anti reparation.
These group of black intellectuals, Reed and his associates, like Noam Chomsky do not enter “Zionism” in their analysis and they have different attitudes on Islam and Muslims compare to Reverend Wright. The reason he does not bring Zionism in his analysis, I think because he believes, as he wrote in “Sitting This one out” that:
“The defense of Israel becomes a defense of Jewish-American identity itself. Now, just as some black nationalists conflated Zionism with racist, Jewish-American conflated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.”

Therefore, he does not want to be called anti-Semite.
Obama had to denounce Farrakhan because he wants to be elected but Adolph Reed is not running in the election but he has already denounced Farrakhan as an Anti-Semite yet he has not done the same exposing racists in the Zionist circle.
One should ask a question: why must every black candidate to a major office go through the ritual of denouncing Farrakhan, a marginal figure in national politics? Rejection of Farrakhan and support for Israel is the price of admission to mainstream U.S. politics. But rejection of Zionism is not part of the game.
Dixton writes:
“ ..[H]e characterized his pastor as a crazy old uncle stuck in the fifties and sixties; the Black Church was compelled to speak for itself.”

I think it is not fair that Mr. Dixton uses Rev. Jeremiah Wright to get at Obama since Adolph Reed and people like Dixton do not agree with Mr. Wright’s views on Mr. Farrakhan and Zionism or Mr. Wright’s view on America as an empire. Mr. Dixon writes:

“When the NYC police officers who pumped 51 bullets into an unarmed man and a hail of bullets into adjacent homes and a transit station were exonerated, Barack Obama could not bring himself to suggest that black life ought to be respected, that police officers should obey the law…”
Does Mr. Dixton know that Mr. Reed believes Mumia Abu-Jamal is guilty as charged. This recognition is interesting to Christopher Hichens and he writes:
“On the available evidence, Reed concludes that Mumia Abu-Jamal may well be guilty as charged — he allows for the possible verdict ”guilty but framed” — and in any case, ”Being victimized by the state should not in itself confer political stature.”
Mr. Dixton must ask Adolph Reed why does he support Hillary Clinton, established Zionist, and not Obama who has to adopt “the rules of the game”, submission to Zionist political game, to run as a candidate. I think it is the fault of the “left” who was and still is under strong influence of the Zionist political pressure.
Obama implicitly admitted that Wright’s views were rooted in opposition to Israel’s deep ties to apartheid South Africa. Israel supplied South Africa with hundreds of millions of dollars of weaponry despite an international embargo.
In 1987, Jesse Jackson who said: “Whoever is doing business with South Africa is wrong, but Israel is … subsidized by America, which includes black Americans’ tax money, and then it subsidizes South Africa” For many African Americans, it was a hypocrisy that so many Jewish leaders who supported Civil Rights and the anti-apartheid movement would be tolerant of Israel’s complicity.
Today, we witness acceptance of an “anti apartheid” South African Jewish Nobel Laureate, Nadine Gordimer, to participate and celebrate Israel at 60 at the International Writer’s Festival in Jerusalem despite intense pressure to boycott the event.
Thus, Reverend Wright, who has sought a broader understanding of the Middle East than one that blames Islam and Arabs for all the region’s problems or endorses unconditional support for Israel can not be used by people like Adolph Reed who want to get at Obama.
Obama among the candidates still is lesser an evil to be considered since the “left” has done nothing to change the political scene for an environment less hostile to views other than support for Israel and there is no alternative who can be elected president therefore, Obama is the only choice.
Contrary to Reed’s view, Obama can be elected a president because neocons wanted McCain to run against Obama using race card to defeat Obama. Apparently, Dixton and Reed believe in the same reasoning. I think this is not correct especially when the race card and Rev. Wright “controversy”, golden assets, have already been used by Hillary fully to bring Obama down but she could not do it because she has been exposed totally as an established Zionist who is willing to obliterate millions of people to be elected. Therefore, using the race card again in November is not going to be effective, and Obama has a good chance of winning.

The double talk about if you wage a cogent argument concerning the DLC/Obama Repub-lite is “fascist leftist” is itself fascist DLC.

We can all call one another names. The point, the most direct point is posed by Rich. And I quote: “lack of evidence from Obama supporters as to WHY they would vote for this DLC/Corporate candidate – and call him progressive..”

The supporters are at least two fold: young who have yet to discern the rehashed DLC talking points and seem to be going at this as a one and done horse race; the other are so-called Dem progressives that while they are regularly marginalized by the Party, “hope” springs eternal that they can infiltrate and convert the Party. It’s a total delusion. They don’t understand centers of power and how that will never allow this “conversion” from within.

Let’s be frank, Obama is of the system, and a vetted DLC member. There is nothing substantial to differentiate him from Bill Clinton, Al Gore (2000), John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. Many of these are actually (voting record) to the left of Obama.

So, I sympathize with Rich’s point. It’s central to collapsing US economy and the ensuing hell it will reign on middle and lower income people throughout the country. This makes these candidates a waste of time regarding the fundamental changes which they are bound to ignore because of their benefactors and the centers of powers which will continue to pull the strings regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

Is it imaginable that Obama if faced with a Depression could reinvent the system. I don’t see evidence of that, but necessity can sometimes be the mother of invention, but hardly a natural change agent.

I’ts been the demonization of Hillary Clinton that has actually made me like her more because it’s been so absurd and insane. She does have good creative domestic policy ideas (and some really dumb ones, too). And her record really is better than Obama’s, and she could get things done, and he will be more like Gov. Deval Patrick, a do-nothing know nothing learning on the job disaster.

Obama does not support reparations for the African Americans. He only benefits from the sufferings of the peoples of color. Perfect match for the DLC!

The demented “mainstream” media are typically full of elephant dung vis a vis McCain’s chances in the general election. It’s simply a matter of numbers. People across the country are abandoning the republican party in droves, and the man himself is a mindless walking corpse, unlikely to galvanize the kind of support he needs to win the big one. It’s a fait accompli that the wretched crypto-nazi scum who commonly refer to themselves as “conservatives” will attempt to smear Obama with everything from being a “left-wing fascist” to molesting Miley Cyrus to starting the Chicago Fire. That too, is unlikely to have much of an impact as Hillary discovered to her transcendent chagrin.

Want a preview of Obama administration? Dig out that old comedy chestnut Blazing Saddles. That’s what it will be like, only not funny. At all.

This is really a splitting of hairs. Hillary and Obama have made ever so slight distinctions, mostly posturing with the Repubs (McCain/Bush). Hillary was trying to sharpen the point that she brought “experience” which means she was trying to one up Obama by saying that she would approach the talking to “enemies” with underlyings leading the way before jumping in as President. Obama actually looked like he’d been one upped when she came back with this.

This again is a splitting of hairs between clearly DLC corporatist candidates. Too much has been made of this and other meaningless differences between these two. In essence both are DLC corporate clones, fully vetted and hence the front runners who have been well bankrolled.

Whether any analysis of DLC performance will repeat itself remains to be seen. But it certainly rings true to date.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12800

With that “logic,” he should’ve backed Kerry in ’04.