Third-party debate in early October
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5032.html

Democrats and their corporate puppet masters lucked out big time. Obama is the perfect candidate to continue their imperialist/greed fest. Harvard educated, product of the Chicago School of Economics, Reagan lover (enhances cred among white voters), psuedo sob backstory – cue violins, please -single parent/grandparent reared, disciple to all things DLC, skillful orator/bullshit artist. And the cherry on top – he’s biracial but looks 100% black – oh snap!!!!- a slam dunk at the polls to reel in gullible black folks and whites from the liberal, youth, and progressive demographics.

Obama was in the right place at the right time after years of careful cultivation of the right connections to ascend within the Democratic party. Those that worship him are the same Democrats that fall for whatever DLC dishrag the party peddles every four years. The 18-24 year old demo may be excused for ignorance but older voters/activists/labor groups have been around long enough to tire of being hustled by the Democrats.

Since the primaries, no one has demanded a damn thing from Obama – not liberals/progressives, nor labor, nor anyone or group from black “misleadership,” be they politicians or activists. They have simply stood in awe, slurped the kool-aid, and refused to challenge or demand commitments from Obama on any issue of importance, AND, denigrated/dismissed anyone who dared to so as racist.

As for true progressives to engage Obama’s supporters in dialogue, good luck knocking your head against a brick wall. If he wins and fails to deliver on issues of importance, his fans will blame racism, corporatism, Republicans, and the right wing media. If he loses, the excuses will be the same. His supporters and the left in general will simply look forward to 2012 for the next DLC puppet to support. None of them – not blacks, not labor, not liberals, not progressives, not activists, not politicians, not leftist pundits/media – have the guts to get off the Democratic plantation and work to establish a third party alternative.

An Obama win will not signal any new “morning in America,” to quote his idol, great Satan Ronald Reagan. It will be business as usual, just headed by a different hued President.

By framing it with a set of clear priniciples we have a working document which can be embraced and moved on. The issue of Nader’s “independent” run leaving no organization can be answered.

If there is to be an alternative it must be a coalition around a set of governing principles. Ron Paul (and perhaps with Nader and others behind the scenes) made a truly important political move. He used his base and promaninent moment to captipult it into a unifiying theme.

Deadbeat, I’ really not concerned about “demoralizing” supporters of Obama. As I’ve said repeatedly, the system that produces these mainstream candidates ensures their alignment to the corprate driven pathology of imperialism.

What this article shows is that there can (and needs to be) a unity around shared values if the duopoly is to be threatened at all; and WE have an alternative.

Finally Nader and Paul are now the leaders of the political realignment – two wise men who disagree on much but who know that the hubris of war and empire threaten the human race. Nuclear winter makes global warming look like little more than a summer shower.
john walsh

Malik Miah makes a cogent argument without any pleas for anyone to vote or support Obama like you suggest. He clearly examines the meaning of the Obama campaign and suggests to Socialists how they can respond to it.

If you go onto Solidarity’s site you’ll see that not everyone agrees with him. Even Miah cannot bring himself to vote for Obama yet he does understand how it is possible for the Left to interact with Obama’s supporters.

In other words Max, unlike you, who condemn such people who support Obama, Miah suggests a strategy. Which, if you’ve forgotten Max, you’ve been demanding.

The problem Max and what it seem much of the Left would rather ridicule than examine is that Obama does represent CHANGE. However the Left has been stuck in their own prejudices and sect-like thinking that they’ve resorted to attacks, and heap ridicule and condescension on Obama supporters.

Even Ralph Nader who I admire and supported in 2004 has resorted to similar tactics. Nader speaking at the recent 3rd Party forum quotes Eugene Debbs regrets that workers fail to demand much. Unfortunately what Nader fails to recognize as he site Debbs is that Debbs had a PARTY and firm organizational support base from which to campaign. Debbs also provided coattails that lead to winning local races for Socialist Party members. This is something that Nader cannot do in 2008 primarily because the Left abandoned Nader in 2004.

Miah, unlink you Max, is not blinded by doctrine. He correctly assess the state of the Left which is why his argument is solid. Since you are in denial his telling of the truth elicits the kind of irrational reaction from you.

Actually after reading Miah, I think the Left is making a huge mistake hoping for an Obama defeat which essentially translate into a McCain victory.

An Obama victory, like Miah states, and having positively engaged Obama supporters will allow the Left to be in a position to persuade these supporter to the Left when Obama disappoints.

While a McCain victory will mean more turmoil for the Democrats, it could actually demoralizes the Obama supporters. There is no guarantee a McCain victory will bolster the Left. In fact more than likely bolster the “blue dog” Democrats and could take a reactionary trajectory.

So to get back to your main point about a “rat’s ass”, while I don’t think Miah would shear my analysis of the Left at least he does share my analysis of why the attacks on the Obama supporters are misguided. I’m in agreement with him that those attacks are counterproductive.

That’s why the campaigns of progressive third parties are important electorally. But for me the stance of attacking Obama as a Democrat, quoting Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech, and going all out for a small socialist group’s campaign on ideological grounds, or for the Green Party campaign of Cynthia McKinney or the “independent” candidacy of Ralph Nader, is not the most effective way to influence those who will become disillusioned.

Socialists and Barack Obama: Viewing An Historic Presidential Nomination

Reverend Wright and Black Liberation Theology

Here’s a flavor what the author, Malik Miah, says…

Some radicals dismiss the mass phenomenon, because Obama is a candidate of a ruling-class party. That simplistic rejection of Obama’s campaign and its mass support is sectarian: The issue isn’t whether to vote for a Democrat, but rather our response to a development that is having a wide-scale impact. How many times, in state after state, have we ever seen citizens of all races line up for hours to hear an African-American man talk about “hope,” on a platform that is fundamentally no different than his [Democratic] opponents?

And…

In response to my article in the May-June issue, which included a look at the history of Black Liberation Theology, some on the left felt my stance implied sympathy for lesser evilism – perhaps that saying independents and socialists should embrace and engage the supporters of Obama, especially his young backers, was a move toward supporting a candidate of one of the major Big Business parties which have a global policy of neocolonialism and neoliberalism.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, the Obama ascendancy reflects some fundamental changes in society that must be recognized by those of us seeking a working class government and state. The societal changes are based on the victory of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s.