Dave Silver

Louis Farrakhan, despite some anti semetic comments in his history, does not pose the same sort of dangers to U.S. democracy as does the ideology of empire, which Barrack Hussein Obama endorses chapter and verse. He does not have the blood on his hands that the supporters of Obama embrace in their support for the “democratic” party and its pursuit of empire. If Farrakhan is guilty of anything at this moment, it is that he does not publicly repudiate the politics of Barack Obama.

Deadbeat you seem to harbor an anger against what you refer to as the “left”. Maybe some day you’ll explain. As of now it all sounds like you are the opiner.

Max I didn’t know you are a psychologist. What’s wrong with “anger” Max? I think it is a normal reaction to betrayal. The Left seem to harbor a lot of “anger” towards Obama for filling the void it created.

The system and the vast majority of people who shuffle off to the polls on voting day to vote for the blue /red doors, are locked into a dance that has nothing to do with issues or needs. The system and the people who vote are in lock step. That’s why the two bobos are neck and neck.

Max I can’t keep up with your shifting position about polling. First you accept the polls in order to make an argument about Obama’s weaknesses. Then you question the polls now you refer back to the polls to make an argument.

But Max if you now accept the what the polls indicate then how come you don’t raise any questions about the polls methodology or even the news coverage. You are the one Max who would rather dismiss the obvious because it is easier for you to frame the narrative that it’s all Obama’s fault rather than examine the FORCES that are in play. And that is the main fallacy of your position and why it shows that you are promoting an agenda rather than analysis.

Speak for yourself when you talk about “some folks have turned to the Democrats because they do not just the Left and see no real alternative coming from the Left in 2008.”

Sorry Max but I am not speaking for myself. Several colleagues and comrades who supported Nader in 2004 support Obama this year. Max just some friendly advice: Never make a rhetorical argument.

That’s some freakin answer to the problem – like the addict who says they don’t love me so I’m going to put this needle in my arm for spite! Bull shit!

The problem is you Max and the kind of mindset that you represent. The Left is at best in a state of denial or at worst part of the brinkmanship we see in the body politics. What the Left does is feign innocent when in fact they are actors in this game. What this debate exposes is how the Left is PART OF THE GAME.

Thanks for playing,
Deadbeat.

The system and the vast majority of people who shuffle off to the polls on voting day to vote for the blue /red doors, are locked into a dance that has nothing to do with issues or needs. The system and the people who vote are in lock step. That’s why the two bobos are neck and neck.

Speak for yourself when you talk about “some folks have turned to the Democrats because they do not just the Left and see no real alternative coming from the Left in 2008.” That’s some freakin answer to the problem – like the addict who says they don’t love me so I’m going to put this needle in my arm for spite! Bull shit!

The point isn’t that Obama win the election (if he is or isn’t “anti-war”). The issue is that we end our warring ways. The system cannot and will not do that or let any POTUS do that.

Unless you take POWER you will never end “our warring ways”. The Left has failed to EXERT power and is not in a position of power and has even went as far as to diffuse the the possibility of achieving power. The point that Kevin Zeese is making is that the typical left position Obama may have made a mistake in taking the peace vote for granted. Why would Zeese care about Obama’s relationship to the anti-war movement unless he was talking about winning the Presidency.

My argument is to ask the question that would Obama be winning if he fully embraced the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement in the U.S. is extremely weak despite the unpopularity of the war.

Polls don’t tell you a whole lot and it’s crazy to speculate on what an election really tells anyone. Lessons “learned” are almost always wrong.

I’m glad you now agree. That is not what you were arguing yesterday.

McGovern is neither a case for or against having strong positions. Obama has no strong positions. Kerry had no strong positions; neither did Clinton nor Gore. Like his predecessors, Obama is of and for the system and must toe the system line – he’s the candidate behind the blue door, McCain is the one behind the red door.

McGovern had a STRONG anti-war position and LOST. That’s the point. What is remarkable is how the Left complains how these politicians “tow the line” when the Left provides NO challenge or reasonable alternative. Nader unfortunately and McKinney are not alternatives for 2008.

Politics doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Politics is a contest of POWER. Once again I point to how the Left abandoned a great opportunity to build a power base by abandoning both the anti-war movement and Nader a mere 4 years ago.

The third candidate is the Corporate Media who infiltrates the spin and determines the importance or non-importance of say, Rev. Wright; while keeping any and all protest rallies, marches etc. completely out of sight – THEY NEVER HAPPENED!!

I disagree. Rev. Wright proved to be EXTREMELY important with what the whole Wright affair revealed. In fact now that McCain is playing the RACE card is even more revealing. But what I find REVEALING is how the LEFT seeks to IGNORE these openings. Blum analysis for example ignores both racism and Zionism. That is what I find truly revealing about the Left.

Hope for this system is mis-placed. It is sad to see people who are otherwise clear thinkers march out to vote for Dems as if they can’t see the obvious. It’s like watching Sunday afternoon football. Little to think about but it makes you feel good, particularly if “your” team won.

You know Max, I think you are right. It is sad to see people who marched during the anti-war movement of 2003 and 2004 and spoke out about the real issues facing the United Stated only to be betrayed by the Left who should have embraced them. Now those same folks have turned to the Democrats because they do not trust the Left and see no real alternative coming from the Left in 2008.

I disagree with Deadbeat, I saw the ‘break’ interview with Michelle and Barack and the insult they perceived was Wright saying Barack was a typical politician. (Another one Jeremiah Wright called correctly.)

That’s a good point Eddie but I have to disagree with you. Wright made three major appearances (in chronological order):

[1] Bill Moyers
[2] NAACP covered by CNN
[3] National Press Club

He first made his reference about Obama being “politician” and all the innuendo surrounding that reference on Bill Moyers. I think most in the press saw Wright a victim of smears and during his interview with Moyers came off as thoughtful and rational.

His speech at NAACP covered by CNN was also celebrated as Wright spoke of historical differences between the races and gave an excellent historical account of the role of the Black Church in the struggles against slavery and Jim Crow and other struggles against oppression in the U.S.

It was during his confrontational Q&A with the National Press that whatever goodwill he achieved collapsed especially when Wright’s defense of Louis Farrakhan and mentioned Zionism. That is what forced Obama hand. Obama broke the day after Wright’s National Press Club meeting.

You can go back and read the transcript of Obama’s reasons for distancing himself. Obama clearly mentions Wright’s defense of Farrakhan as one of the reasons.

Eddie, unless you can show otherwise I don’t recall Obama ever mentioning Wright alleged affair. Also for Obama to distance himself from Wright because he labeled Obama a “politician” is dubious as well since Obama has been called worse. Those weren’t the PRIMARY reasons Eddie. The “politician” label was just a cover to weave around the Farrakhan issue.

Zionism is a issue Obama must to pander to in order to win. Here a link to an excellent article on Huffington Post that would seem to confirm my point.

And finally go to Bill Moyer’s website. He wrote and excellent critique of the media’s role in the whole Wright/Obama collapse.

Polls don’t tell you a whole lot and it’s crazy to speculate on what an election really tells anyone. Lessons “learned” are almost always wrong.

McGovern is neither a case for or against having strong positions. Obama has no strong positions. Kerry had no strong positions; neither did Clinton nor Gore. Like his predecessors, Obama is of and for the system and must toe the system line – he’s the candidate behind the blue door, McCain is the one behind the red door.

The third candidate is the Corporate Media who infiltrates the spin and determines the importance or non-importance of say, Rev. Wright; while keeping any and all protest rallies, marches etc. completely out of sight – THEY NEVER HAPPENED!!

Hope for this system is mis-placed. It is sad to see people who are otherwise clear thinkers march out to vote for Dems as if they can’t see the obvious. It’s like watching Sunday afternoon football. Little to think about but it makes you feel good, particularly if “your” team won.

Ms. Jackowski asserts that Obama made a strategic mistake distancing himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Unfortunately Ms. Jackowski provides no evidence to support her assertion. The main reason why Obama distanced himself from Wright was due to Wright defense of Louis Farrakhan during his press conference. It is more likely that Obama would have lost to Clinton and would be way behind in the polls has Obama supported Wright defense of Mr. Farrakhan.

Once again Ms. Jackowski’s assertion is emblematic of the blind spot that on the Left of Zionism influence upon the U.S. body politics and why the Left’s failure to confront Zionism is a major reason why Obama has to pander to Zionism.

In a lot of ways I have to say kudos to Obama’s courage to run for President. He has inadvertently revealed the underlying contradictions in American politics especially Zionism.