Skip to content

Browse by Topic

Poetry on Sunday

Latest Articles

• 9 December in Anarchist History: The First Intifada
  subMedia / 12/11/2024
• With “Friends” Like this Peace Movement Doesn’t Need Enemies
  Yves Engler / 12/11/2024
• Who Should Get a Presidential Pardon but Won’t!
  Charles Pierce / 12/11/2024
• World BEYOND War Reports to United Nations on Canadian Weapons Supplied to Israel
  David Swanson / 12/11/2024
• Warring in Syria: New Phases, Old Lies
  Binoy Kampmark / 12/03/2024
• U.S. Imperialism and Ukraine
  Gary Olson / 12/02/2024
• Racism and Palestine
  Michael Brenner / 12/02/2024
• The Morality Paradox
  Robert Malone / 12/02/2024
• American Voters: Ignorant, Insouciant, or Both?
  Kim Petersen / 12/01/2024
• Trump Heads for War Against Some Nations, Alienation Against Others
  Eric Zuesse / 12/01/2024

Recommended Reading

• 

  Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine Scott Horton

• 

  Nuclear War: A Scenario Annie Jacobsen

• 

  The Fall of Israel: The Degradation of Israel's Politics, Economy & Military Dan Steinbock

• 

  Visualizing Palestine: A Chronicle of Colonialism and the Struggle for Liberation Visualizing Palestine

• 

  NATO: What You Need To Know Medea Benjamin and David Swanson

• 

  The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order Glenn Diesen

• 

  Work of Human Hands: Volume 2 of An Intelligent Family Santang Wei

• 

  The Magickal Enchantment of Materialism: Why Marxists Need Neopaganism Paperback Bruce Lerro

• 

  Nicaragua: A History of US Intervention & Resistance Daniel Kovalik

• 

  The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power Noam Chomsky and Vijay Prashad

• More books »

94 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

1. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 7th, 2008 at 8:34am #

   near 600k voters who voted for selves r relevant. fox had been intentionally stupid. nader handled it well.
   nader is relevant. fox is just envious, angry, etc. thnx

2. ansel said on November 7th, 2008 at 9:19am #

   What Nader said both incredibly stupid on a tactical level and offensive on a moral one. There are innumerable ways to cut through Obama’s BS and identify the ways in which he is not progressive without calling him an “Uncle Tom.” The guy, for all his faults, did motivate millions more youth and African-Americans to go out and cast votes against the right-wing on Tuesday. Watch this video of folks celebrating at Ebenezer Baptist Church: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhaC2EFY9oA. Nader wouldn’t have dared utter that phrase to them – because when he says things like this, he is using Obama’s blackness as a bludgeon with which frame the discussion and batter away the hope the man inspires. All the crowing about the first black president notwithstanding, Obama succeeded because he did not let his campaign be defined by his race. Nader can’t stuff him into that box – where the privileged would judge Obama not solely on the merits of his policies but for “talking white” or being an “Uncle Tom,” no matter how he tries.

   He’s only further marginalizing himself with comments like these – and he certainly long since lost my support. Folks should stop apologizing for him and look to Cynthia McKinney, Rosa Clemente, and others for smarter leadership.

3. carlos said on November 7th, 2008 at 9:28am #

   I can’t agree with you on this one, Saw him on the tube and it sure looked like he f***** up on his choice of words THE DAY AFTER THE FIST BLACK MAN TOOK OFFICE! Geez, did the man not realize that he was being used to illustrate how irrational,crazy, and “out of touch” “The left” is…..

   granted, its Faux news and the viewers are probably already locked down on many positions, but it really was sad to see Nader look like a fool and feeling so self-righteous about it….

   I for one am done with Nader….. if he’ll jump in front of any camera and say shit that ain’t helpful, he’s on his own… or at least down one potential supporter. Growing up I remember constantly being taught that “there is a time and place for everything”, apparently Nader thought the best day to fling sh** @ Obama is the day after and ON FOX NEWS!?

4. David Kendall said on November 7th, 2008 at 10:45am #

   According to Wikipedia, the term “Uncle Tom” is “commonly used to describe black people whose political views or allegiances are considered by their critics as detrimental to blacks as a group”. [1] This is precisely what Ralph Nader said recently regarding Barack Obama, and this is exactly what he meant — hitting the nail squarely on the head — nothing more nothing less.

   In his last book, “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community”, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. strongly concurs with Nader’s recent evaluation:

   “By 1967 the resounding shout of the Negro’s protest had shattered the myth of his contentment. The courage with which he confronted enraged mobs dissolved the stereotype of the grinning, submissive Uncle Tom.” [2]

   So rather than committing any sort of racial slur, Ralph Nader has issued a direct challenge for Barack Obama to represent the common interests of people in this country who voted him into office rather than submitting to the exclusive interests of multi-national corporations.

   [1] Wikipedia (11/07/2008). “Uncle Tom”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_tom

   [2] King, Dr. Martin Luther (1968). Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community?. New York, NY: Beacon Press, pg 18. ISBN 0807005711.

5. Erroll said on November 7th, 2008 at 10:59am #

   David Kendall

   Intelligently and persuasively well stated.

6. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 7th, 2008 at 11:47am #

   am i mistaken that blacks have coined the term “uncle tom”. while i avoid using labels, nader can’t be condemned for using it.
   i conclude firmly that mns of blacks will in months to come agree w. nader.
   i understand why all or most blacks have voted for O. if i had been black i too may have yielded to my emotions.
   being a slave and now a serf in america is an intolerable burden, that’s why so many blacks cried from relief and false hope that they r finally equal.
   sorry, another disapointed for blacks. and now the world will hate them for voting in a puppet for rich whites and few uncle toms.
   a puppet that may be falsely accused of killing more people than BUsh
   lucky Bush; he’l look almost good in a few yrs. thnx

7. Dogwood said on November 7th, 2008 at 12:26pm #

   Thank you David Kendall,

   Nader bashers will do, say, or twist anything rather than seriously look at facts, or seriously inform themselves. Nader, more than any person alive at this times, tells it like it is, effectively and comprehensively with full documentation to back up everything he points out. It’s an impossible act to follow if you’re uninformed. So, the bullying, or cowardly, or uninformed – can only attempt to bash. And the unbelievably sad thing is – they do so against their own best interests. Too afraid – or too mislead – to actually seek for themselves individual, independent confirmation of Ralph’s points – they mindlessly or knee-jerkingly bash – remain uninformed – and thus stand impotently by as their lives, their children’s lives, their rights, their freedoms, their very country and all they care about – are increasingly and to a greater and greater degree – destroyed.

   Thank you again, David Kendall, for laying out the indisputable facts to put the bashers to bed on yet another one.

8. ansel said on November 7th, 2008 at 1:33pm #

   What the hell is with this hero worship of Nader? He is a great guy who has helped working people, saved lives, and done some amazing things for this country. But “more than any person alive at this times, [he] tells it like it is”…? Is that a joke? I interviewed Rosa Clemente on the night before the election (http://www.mediahacker.org/2008/11/podcast-rosa-clemente/) and there’s nothing about Nader that makes him more truthful or progressive than her – if anything, there’s less. She talked about the so-called “progressive media” in this country covered Nader’s campaign but time and time again ignored the historic run of two women of color on the Green Party ticket.

   “Uncle Tom” was a term used by African-Americans to describe other blacks who they felt were subservient to white interests during a time of much more severe racial oppression. For Nader, who though he’s Lebanese-American certainly benefits from white privilege, to whip this term out on election night was positively idiotic, not to mention racist. The left does not “need” Nader to keep speaking truth to power if this is how he does it.

9. Deadbeat said on November 7th, 2008 at 2:09pm #

   Ansel says…

   The left does not “need” Nader to keep speaking truth to power if this is how he does it.

   Ansel reaction to Nader remark is extremely appropriate and rational and why I’ve been trying to warn folks here why empathy and nuance are the best approach to confront and to critique Obama.

   Nader was off-base especially since Nader has been extremely tepid with the use of the term “Zionism”. He perfers “pro-Israel” which conveys a much different political reality than Zionism.

10. joed said on November 7th, 2008 at 2:13pm #

    “What the hell is with this hero worship of Nader?”, gosh Ansel, Nader aint no hero but he is the person i voted for because i wanted to see him, as opposed to all the otheres(except maybe Mckinney) be president. he is the best we got. Obama is an uncle tom and as you will see, obama is as much a murderous hatefilled racist as the bush/cheney gang. obama is just better looking but an uncle tom no less. nader is right morally to bring this up and the words he used are excellent choice. vote nader 2012

11. heike said on November 7th, 2008 at 2:21pm #

    The Urban Dictionary has no less than 18 explanations for the term “Uncle Tom.” While it is basically used by blacks to refer to their brothers who sell out to white interests, it’s also used as a term of opprobrium for blacks who are successful in the white man’s system — as if they can be successful only by “selling out” and not because of their own intellect and skills. If that’s what he was driving at, he has insulted the intelligence of millions of our fellow citizens. Curiously, the original Uncle Tom was a courageous figure who helped runaway slaves, not the caricature made of him in the last century. Nader’s use fo the term is a technique used to enhance his own political brand, but it backfired. As far as the substance of his remarks on Fox News, he shows a Palin-like ignorance of the facts. Outsourcing does not benefit “communist and fascist dictators,” but is done in such places as Mexico, India, the Philippines, and Ireland. A lot of the foreign-invested businesses in south China’s Guangdong Province are Taiwan invested, and the only people who benefit from them are Taiwanese entrepreneurs. If Nader were really interested in the welfare of Chinese workers, he would have called Nancy Pelosi to account for her dogged refusal to allow any U.S. programs that would benefit those workers in U.S. invested industries. Would he have called her “Aunt Jemima”?

    Obama has opposed outsourcing and pledged to use incentives to reduce or end it, although it’s unlikely, in a global economy, that he is going to get very far. Nader actually wiped the garbage pail with his own tongue, rather than wiping away his opponents with the force of his arguments.

12. Deadbeat said on November 7th, 2008 at 2:48pm #

    Thanks ansel for your perspective and posting the Rosa Clemente interview. She did an excellent job articulating the DISTINCTION between the McKinney/Clemente ticket and Nader. Many on the Left wrote in opposition to Obama conflating McKinney and Nader as “one” and avoided distinctions. However Nader and McKinney didn’t run as one they ran separately and IMO is was irresponsible for the Left to obscure they distinction by writing “Nader/McKinney” as alternatives to Obama without making a clear choice.

    Clemente was correct to site that in 87 mention of third parties Nader got 86 mentions and McKinney received only three. She is right to identify the racism on the Left and especially racism from white feminists. It was an excellent interview and she did a great job identifying the duplicity on the Left. If the Green Party can fix some of their internal structures so they don’t get infiltrated and disrupted by duplicitous, or Zionist, or Soros-funded “leftists” they will be in excellent position to grow from the disillusioned Obama supporters.

13. Max Shields said on November 7th, 2008 at 3:22pm #

    ansel

    Only in a truly racist society would one think the legitimate use of the term “Uncle Tom” have any offence.

    If you don’t understand what Nader was saying than, I’m afraid you’re on your own. If you do and chose to use it for the worst propagandistic purpose – the one Fox hopes you’ll use – well then it becomes difficult to dialog.

    Deadbeat just wants to complain about anything and everything. So, I’d caution against seeing his “approval” as anything but ANTI (fill in the blank). He does this under the auspicious of “tactics” and “strategies” of which he knows very little – at least so his on and on posts would indicate.

14. Max Shields said on November 7th, 2008 at 3:29pm #

    I don’t think Nader, with all that he has said about Obama’s intellect ever meant to conjure that Obama is not a man of significant intellect and political savvy. The “Uncle Tom” (god I can’t believe this needs explanation) was to say to Obama you can either face the deep issues of poverty, particularly in minority areas, or simple be part of a white elite system of power.

    Now is that clear to all the MILLIONS of people who voted for Obama?

    How about the fact that Obama’s minister who speaks truth to power has been dissed by the entire black community as they embraced the symbol of Obama and what he was willing to do to a truth teller in the African American neighborhood. I suppose that an indication of a guy who’ll stand up for the poor and disenfranchised!!!

15. Don Hawkins said on November 7th, 2008 at 3:34pm #

    The Australian position, but their subsequently stated goals of 450-550 ppm CO2
    does. That plan appears to have been written by the coal industry, and, if adopted globally,
    practically guarantees destruction of most life on the planet.

    I should be careful in getting precise quotes. However, I do not recall endorsing
    civil disobedience either (yet). James Hansen

    I got this from James Hansen’s web site his last post. This next year is going to get tuff in more way’s than one. In order to level off CO 2 by 2015 we need to start now and in a big way. It’s the destruction of most life on the planet that most people don’t get yet. The fight will be on by some to get the word out and tell people the time is now. In one year we will all know if we will try or we don’t. There of course could be spin and green wash going on or the illusion of competence but many will see that for what it is. Will Fox News see it for what it is, no they will be the ones who put out that illusion of competence you know ignorance is strength. The so called leaders all know this and we are about to see the good the bad and the ugly. We are about to find out who want’s to gave it a try and the fight will be on. It’s not a fair fight as the people with the money and power and who have decided in there infinite wisdom that it’s to hard and to go out in style if you can call it that will use that money and power to lie like hell. I call it weak minded and very ugly arrogance. The one part I don’t know yet is if we don’t do what is needed and then people do start to find out what then might that do with that whole hope thinking. 8 or 9 months after Obama get’s in and the fight has already started we will know more and I could be witting from Canada

16. cemmcs said on November 7th, 2008 at 6:11pm #

    … it’s also used as a term of opprobrium for blacks who are successful in the white man’s system — as if they can be successful only by “selling out” and not because of their own intellect and skills. If that’s what he was driving at, he has insulted the intelligence of millions of our fellow citizens.

    Obviously, he is not denigrating Obama’s intellect or skills.

17. Deadbeat said on November 7th, 2008 at 6:45pm #

    Max, it would be much better and honorable to analyze Nader’s mistake
    rather than to apologize for him by making up false premises . You are now accusing the black community for “dissing” Rev. Wright. That is blatantly untrue and now you too are venturing into the same error of judgment as Ralph with is remark. If you made your remake before an African American audience you too would be rebuked.

    The African American community did NOT “dis” Rev. Wright. It was the right-wing (FOX) and the mainstream media that “dissed” Wright in order to create a racist backlash against Obama. Once again you are falling into the trap of disdain and enmity which plays into Obama’s strength.

    If the Left wants to challenge Obama then it needs to use empathy and nuance and build a viable alternative otherwise it will remain marginalized especially with the African American community.

18. julian vigo said on November 7th, 2008 at 6:52pm #

    With everyone going on about Obama’s ethnicity as “black”, Nader has ever license to continue this language in focussing how this “first black president” could potentially be a “toad” or an “Uncle Tom”. Uncle Tom has a specific relevance in American history and political strategy and there it is only fitting with this vomitatious repetition of the very obvious fact that Obama is black (partially) and that he will be the first black president (that we know of). So why is it not valid to discuss the possibility that corporate-backed Obama might fit into that very historical trope, the Uncle Tom? If one does not like Nader’s discourse, then we need to steer entirely clear of all racialisations–to include the constant lauding of a man who has done little to advance civil or human rights compared to the other candidates for president form whom McCain and Obama never onced fought to demand they be included in the debates. Let’s be clear, here: our elections are bought and paid for by the many Wall St organizations and lawyers that mainly funded Obama. Nader, as do we all, has every right to ask which way Obama will march.

19. Max Shields said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:25pm #

    Deadbeat,

    It would be much more honest and pertinent to read the article that started this conversation.

    You have taken the Fox spin and used it as the basis for undermining the critical point that Nader has making. You’re buying the right-wing propaganda and calling it a Nader “mistake”.

    You seem less able to discern the distinctions between what is clearly presented in David Kendall’s article and your absorbtion with looking for a flaw with so-called “leftists”. It’s as if you can’t wait to see everything in that single prism. It could be about Obama or war or economics or anything. It matters not what the issue is, it is always, for you about the inadequacy of the left….and then you offer nothing, absolutely nothing.

    Audacity comes to mind as I read your words about “marginalizing” by the black community. Makes me wonder: who are you?

20. Deadbeat said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:28pm #

    Nader, as do we all, has every right to ask which way Obama will march.

    Nader can do it with empathy and nuance or he can do it with antipathy and disdain. They position he takes will either win him converts or marginalization and disdain from those he hopes to attract to his cause. Unfortunately the “Uncle Tom” remark coming from a “white” man will only build MORE support not less support for Obama.

    Apparently there is a lot for the Left to learn about the sensibilities of people of color. Why am I not surprised.

21. Deadbeat said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:31pm #

    No Max I’ve responded to your “spin”. Need I quote you…

    How about the fact that Obama’s minister who speaks truth to power has been dissed by the entire black community as they embraced the symbol of Obama and what he was willing to do to a truth teller in the African American neighborhood.

    Obama’s minister (Rev. Wright) was NOT dissed by the black community AS YOU WRITE. He was “dissed” by FOX and the right wing.

22. Max Shields said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:35pm #

    “Unfortunately the “Uncle Tom” remark coming from a “white” man will only build MORE support not less support for Obama.”

    As noted by Fox news.

23. Deadbeat said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:35pm #

    Audacity comes to mind as I read your words about “marginalizing” by the black community. Makes me wonder: who are you?

    The Left is marginalized. They at best represented only 1% of the total vote on Tuesday. The election speaks loudly as a referendum. 95% of the African American community voted for Obama only 1% voted for “other”. There were still about 50 million who didn’t vote and didn’t feel they had someone represent them despite Nader and McKinney being on the ballot.

    That is marginalization.

    I know who I am Max and I know that you’ve constantly on this board has been a big apologist. Nader make an error in judgment and it makes more sense honorably to see that his foolish remarks makes him even more marginal especially with the Black electorate.

24. Deadbeat said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:37pm #

    “Unfortunately the “Uncle Tom” remark coming from a “white” man will only build MORE support not less support for Obama.” As noted by Fox news.

    And Fox news is correct. So what’s your point? Guilt by association?

25. Max Shields said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:39pm #

    “Obama’s minister (Rev. Wright) was NOT dissed by the black community AS YOU WRITE. He was “dissed” by FOX and the right wing.”

    Must I spell everything out for you Deadbeat???

    Apparently so. There seems to be no attention paid to the means that got Obama to this end. That Wright who represents a deep spiritual and collective understanding of American imperialism vis a vis the legacy of slavery, was erased from the pages of Obama so that Obama could become a “black” president; shorthand: dissing.

26. Max Shields said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:51pm #

    Since Deadbeat you’ve pretty much stated over and over and over that the left, nader, chomsky, zinn, the green party on and on and on are all one big mistake.

    Since you’ve never proposed more than a critique of the left, it might be helpful for you to think through what you’re for. But that would take a little courage.

    What we know, Deadbeat is much of the free market and neoliberalism has been shown totally worthless. That is the sum and substance of what the Dems and Repubs have given us. You’d rather trash Chomsky. Makes you wonder.

27. Brian said on November 7th, 2008 at 11:44pm #

    The Obama clones over at mydd.com are going nuts over Ralph calling him every name in the book and denigrating his great legacy of progressive legislation in this country.

    James Petras was talking about crackpot realists who are now embracing new wars and imperialism with his recent ‘Twelve reasons to reject Obama’ article.

    Find a lot of them over at mydd.com and while you’re at it, dailykos.com

28. Eric Patton said on November 8th, 2008 at 5:11am #

    David Kendall writes:
    “You’re one of a kind, Ralph. Good job. Thank God somebody in this country still owns a pair.”

    Oh for fuck’s sake. Lots of people have balls; they just don’t get interviewed on television.

29. Ramsefall said on November 8th, 2008 at 10:41am #

    ansel,

    it seems to me that you and Deadbeat are conveniently twisting Nader’s use of Uncle Tom out of context. Knowing Nader’s background, it’s obvious that the use was political, and not derogatory to us non-racists…Fox and anti-Naders can then put all the spin on it that they want.

    By the way, let’s all hope that Obama doesn’t become an Uncle Tom, but instead serves the people which is why he was elected in the first place. My doubts, however, certainly abound, I trust very little that spews forth from the mouths of “true” politicians; i.e. Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin, Huckabee, Liberman, et al.

    Best to you.

30. DRL said on November 8th, 2008 at 3:12pm #

    It strikes me as curious that Nader was studiously ignored by the tee vee media throughout the entire campaign, but Fox brings him on to flay him, ‘live’, over a single, *post-election* statement. — ‘Takes a bit of gall, no?

31. Ramsefall said on November 8th, 2008 at 3:35pm #

    DRL,

    Faux news has lots more gall where that came from, O’Reilly is their epitome and height of aspiration.

    But this should be expected, completely ignore the grassroots candidates during the elections, then bring them on the show in order to BBQ, or at least try as they earnestly did. It’s understandable because they are journalists without ethical borders. Faux and the other Big 4 are like nice, round, little greasy turds that float on the top and congregate naturally. There should be no expectations put on them and it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

    Best to you.

32. rosemarie jackowski said on November 9th, 2008 at 5:46am #

    It is an error to judge the Nader campaign only by the number of votes he received. In my own unscientific study, it turns out that in every race I looked at – local, State, and national there was a direct correlation between the number of votes received and the amount of money the campaign spent.
    Also, the banning of Nader from the debates continues to undermine his campaigns.
    The USA voter is not sufficiently motivated to overcome the obstacles and seek out information; therefore, money will continue to rule.

33. Max Shields said on November 9th, 2008 at 7:54am #

    rosemarie you are right, of course. The obsticles and odds against Nader were about has great as could be mustered by a billion dollar marketing campaign that smothered all by the duopoly.

34. Deadbeat said on November 9th, 2008 at 4:08pm #

    Here’s a reaction to Nader by a prominent member of the Hip Hop community. Clearly Nader made a tactical mistake and his remark only marginalized him with African Americans.

    An Open Letter to Ralph Nader About His Dis to Obama

    By Davey D

    Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner November 7, 2008

    Oh, Mr. Nader, in your bittersweet resentment of Barack Obama you have allowed your envy to dictate your action and called our first Black President-elect an “Uncle Tom”, and allowed the enemy to call the kettle black.

    I can understand that as a revolutionary you may simply see just another Democrat taking the throne of an American presidency. You may think that he is an establishment leader and thus the change he brings is nothing more than temporary reform.

    You have chosen to focus on the tree instead of the forest so that you can continue to promote your own political agenda.

    When southern Blacks forced integration, they did not build black-only diners and then open them up to the whites. They walked into already established whites-only resturants and took a place at the table. The only way to revolutionize the establishment was to become a part of it and then redefine it with new institutions both tangible and abstract. And even when they played by the consitutional rules, they were still killed, beaten and broken down.

    You Mr. Nader may believe that your revolutionary stance and inclusive policy proposals allow you the right to critique this new Black president and his so-called “change” platform in the manner that you did. But you certainly never called any other president an “Uncle Tom.” And quite frankly you sounded like the white boy who got invited to the house party and thought he was cool enough now to use the “N” word.

    And like the white boy at the house party, you were sorely mistaken.

    Your points were relevant when you questioned Obama’s economic policies and voting record. However, when you decided to use a racial epithet to describe the type of man Obama might be should he not hold the corporate elite accountable, your ideas got lost in translation and you became a “racist. ”

    You gave fodder to FOXNews, a white supremacist news network, to use against our movement and highlight a division that may or may not truly exist. Honestly, you are from an older generation that sees race in terms quite differently then my own generation. My generation, my people, Hip Hop culture, gave rise to this Black president because we understand that you must free your mind first and the rest will follow.

    Mr. Nader, come join our revolution. Let your fear go. Your time has passed you need to embrace the future.

    Krsta Keating of Revolutionize yo’ Block

35. Max Shields said on November 9th, 2008 at 4:55pm #

    Why didn’t this super conscious Hip/Hop pol go for the real deal and vote for McKinney/Clamente. Sounds like “less evil” trumps conviction once again!

    But since Nader NEVER called Obama an Uncle Tom isn’t this just plain silly, Deadbeat. So, why are you pushing it?

36. Tree said on November 9th, 2008 at 5:48pm #

    I still support Nader.
    What’s unfortunate is he used a provocative term for an audience that overall refuses to engage in any form of critical thinking, has a weak grasp of history and culture, and wants to be spoon fed opinions. It seems to me that maybe Nader’s biggest mistake was giving Fox News too much credit. I’m not sure why he’d go on there in the first place.

37. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:18am #

    –

    Email letter (slightly edited for clarity and [added text]) to a highly respected friend of mine, Green party official, and a Nader political associate:

    WHEN ONE CAN SHOCK EVEN *FOX* NEWS WITH AN INAPPROPRIATE RACIAL INSULT…!!

    RALPH NADER ‘CALLS’ OBAMA AN UNCLE TOM!!

    From: Joseph Anderson
    To: [deleted for privacy]
    Subject: Nader: “or [whether Obama is going to be] Uncle Tom for the giant corporations” …?
    Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:15:18 -0800

    Hi [deleted for privacy],

    Nader: “or [whether Obama is going to be] Uncle Tom for the giant corporations” …?

    Ralph Nader calls Obama a Uncle Tom
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GirBGXVklzY&NR=1

    (From *all* the different YouTube videos of this, there have literally been 100’s of 1,000’s of views.)

    This interview of Nader on Fox News is a perfect example of what happens when an ARROGANT ‘white’ guy can’t admit when he’s *wrong* — even when repeatedly given the chance (as twice before with me [an African American], related to something else very important). So, I’m not at all surprised. It finally caught up with him — big time.

    [(Previously emailed:) Apparently, as in my particular case, when Nader thinks you’re a nobody (even from the left) who’s a nobody that nobody publicly &/or professionally important (even *very* important on the left) knows and cares a lot about, that’s exactly how he treats you. This so, even if you’re from the left and originally once supported him. But, that’s often so true with a lot of those even progressive icons, unless you’re constantly worshipping them. Or, as Michael Eric Dyson wrote, about many liberal/progressive icons, on p.54, par.2, of his book _Debating Race_: “…[T]hey go, ‘Oh, hell, who is *he*? I’m not going to get the glory anymore because now *that* person is there.’ Insecure, incapable of accepting intelligent, articulate (ordinary) people who just want to help.”]

    Nader’s whole sentence (racially insulting Obama) didn’t even make any real sense at that! — especially to most Black people: “…whether he’s (Obama’s) going to be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom”. What does even, “…whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam”, mean? — since neither figures, for most racial minorities, have a great reputation.

    Obviously, Nader must not have any authentic Black personal friends (if any Black personal friends at all) to advise/tell him that this kind of language from him is completely unacceptable. But, if he even had any Black friends, he’s probably so *arrogant* [in this case, a female friend of mine calls it having PMS, Progressive Male Syndrome] and “white” [“white”, to me, is more of an (historical) *attitude*, rather than simply a color] that he wouldn’t even consult or listen to them either — or even *ever* feel that he even needs to do so. Hell, what do we Black people know?

    Even *IF* the sentiment were politically right, his presumptuous wording was *grossly insensitive* to the national Black community — and grossly *wrong* to say it that way — at least not unless or until Obama might *clearly* demonstrate that. Rev. Wright didn’t even call Obama an “Uncle Tom”. Wright said that, “Obama was just being a politician.” And the reasons Nader itemizes for his epithet aren’t even logically or politically sufficient reasons for saying such a thing (unlike those one could give for someone directly like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or Ward Connerly, or John McWhorter, or even, effectively, Condoleeza Rice).

    Obama has arguably come questionably close. [Like, refusing to go to Memphis to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s death, when Hillary and even McCain did, but Obama went to commemorate Israel’s 60th anniversary of its colonization and take-over of historic Palestine. Obama saying “we must respect the judge’s verdict” completely exonerating the pigs (who were allowed to opt out of a jury trial) who legally murdered Sean Bell in yet another hail-of-bullets lynching of a Black man by rogue cops. Obama being a *”Black”* (although I don’t know what he calls himself) man from *Illinois* who supports the death penalty, in a state that once had to *release* more men, almost all Black, from death row than were *on* death row during the time (even, consequently, the white Republican governer opposed the death penalty). Obama alluding to — but refusing — to even say Martin Luther King by name in Obama’s nomination acceptance speech, a man Obama would have also had to condemn, if both were alive today, for King calling the U.S. “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”, let alone condemn conscious Black athletes like Mohammad Ali, or John Carlos and Tommie Smith, back in the day. Obama’s speeches about “Black male irresponsibilities”, Obama’s ‘Bill Clinton’, “Sister Souljah moment”. (Like you don’t hear, on television talk / court / other shows every day, about plenty of white guys, from rich to poor, not taking care of their kids, when not busy murdering their entire family.) Obama wouldn’t even put on a welcome lei, given to him in Hawai’i upon a campaign visit there, for fear he would look ‘too native Hawaiian’! But, these aren’t even the kind of arguements that Nader used.]

    But, Obama hasn’t yet, directly or effectively, *singled-out* and especially *targeted* Black people for adverse political or economic policies, which is what it would take for the “Uncle Tom” racial insult to be justified. *I* wouldn’t even say what Nader said and I’ve been sociopolitically quite opposed to either Obama and McCain as would-be, imperialist, ‘white-supremacist’, economic neoliberalist, military-industrial complex, pro-corporate, pro-Zionist presidents, promoted from political parties that represent just that.

    This is a demonstration that Nader is emotionally losing it. While there are some very young and fit 70-something year-olds (especially in California), perhaps he’s personally getting too old to stand up to the stresses of constant round-the-country barnstorming for either his book or his erstwhile running for president (that can take a toll on someone of any age), and the constant personal-political attacks even from other white so-called “progressive/leftist” icons. Apparently, not even his political or personal (if he’s got any left with good judgement) friends can help him anymore.

    *That’s* how Nader wants to go out? Now he’s *finished* in the national Black community. And, before that, he would have been finished in the San Francisco Bay Area with Black people, as far as my efforts would have been concerned. All that talk of his, before in his book lectures, about his emulating his father’s supposed great judgement, ethics and principles…; my brilliant lefty attorney housemate summed it all up in her usual succinct way when I told her what happened to me from Nader: “Goes to show it’s all just rhetoric.” But, to borrow from and paraphrase Ice Cube, let a ffoolll be a ffoolll!

    [But, check this out: since this email, another Green party official privately emailed me and called Nader’s remark, “an insensitive, but clearly calculated outburst”!]

    Peace,

    Joseph

    [Berkeley, CA]

    –

38. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 11th, 2008 at 7:22pm #

    RALPH NADER IS THE EPITOME OF “WHITE” PROGRESSIVE ARROGANCE

    — MORE ON RALPH NADER (AND JOSEPH ANDERSON)

    From: [Joseph Anderson]
    To: [two very high officials & candidates of the Green Party]
    Subject: FYI: Independent witness re how I was abrasively treated (the first time) by Ralph Nader
    Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:09:21 -0800

    FYI:

    Hi [two very high officials & candidates of the Green Party],

    I don’t know this guy, Robert B. Livingston (I hope to meet him one day since he apparently lives in the Bay Area), but, in a more general web search, I came across this, which I now recall when it was comment posted at DissidentVoice:

    https://new.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/forgetting-911/

    Robert B. Livingston said [to Joseph Anderson] on September 18th, 2007 at 3:32pm #:

    I happened to be at that [Ralph Nader] book [lecture &] signing [in San Francisco] Mr. Anderson mentioned.

    Ralph Nader shocked me when he responded to him [Joseph Anderson] in that disproportionate way.

    I have been a long admirer of Mr. Nader, but that moment seemed to me completely out of character – and has troubled me deeply ever since.

    I rationalized the situation, and Mr. Anderson’s words have now put that event into a better perspective for me.

    It is puzzling to me that Nader has said next to nothing about 9/11 [and *nothing* at all about the languishing, mostly Black, Hurricane Katrina victims].

    A friend of mine explained to me once that she does not really think he [Nader] “gets it.” I accepted that. Also, I have thought that Nader is hyper-testy with anyone who appears to be a potential heckler (and he has had many!) But I thought you had honest questions, and were not heckling Nader.

    I was disappointed with the crowd for not coming to your defense when some [white guys] ganged up on you, and I was disappointed with myself.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Take care,

    Joseph

    [Berkeley, CA]

    P.S. I also sent this letter to a good friend and supporter of mine, and a close political associate of Ralph Nader, in San Francisco.

    –

39. Max Shields said on November 11th, 2008 at 7:43pm #

    Joseph stop beating it.

    As ridiculous as it is, you made your “point”.

40. Deadbeat said on November 11th, 2008 at 8:24pm #

    Max says…

    But since Nader NEVER called Obama an Uncle Tom isn’t this just plain silly, Deadbeat. So, why are you pushing it?But since Nader NEVER called Obama an Uncle Tom isn’t this just plain silly, Deadbeat. So, why are you pushing it?

    You need to look at the Fox News clip on You Tube Max. And Max why are you expending energy DENYING it and defending Nader’s gaffe.

    My point and you are an excellent example of this Max , is to recognize how the Left stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it own errors. Until Obama really disillusion his supporters the Left must prepare the field in order to embrace them.

    Unfortunately, Nader gaffe WILL BE REMEMBERED by the African American community and he should apologize for his mistake. His stubbornness will only marginalize him and people like you who defend him for it.

    But them again Max you like to deny that Zionism is NOT an internal problem within the Left as well and your unwillingness is an example of why the Left is unable to build the solidarity it needs to really construct the grassroots movement you so demand.

    This won’t go away from the African American community until Nader apologizes. Jesse Jackson made a similar gaffe a few months ago and he apologized the next day.

    No one is saying that Obama is immune from criticism but the Left has to chose whether it prefers alienating African Americans or finding ways to build solidarity with them.

41. Deadbeat said on November 11th, 2008 at 8:27pm #

    Thanks Joseph for posting your letter to this open blog with my thanks to the DV editors here for allowing people to post their opinions and encouraging debate and discussion.

42. Deadbeat said on November 11th, 2008 at 8:29pm #

    Correction:

    But then again Max you like to deny that Zionism is an internal problem within the Left as well and your unwillingness is an example of why the Left is unable to build the solidarity it needs to really construct the grassroots movement you so demand.

43. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 11th, 2008 at 9:45pm #

    *ANOTHER* EXAMPLE OF OF “WHITE” ‘PROGRESSIVE’ ARROGANCE

    AND SOMEONE WHO JUST DOESN’T / *WON’T* GET IT

    and therefore will *NEVER* connect with the masses, especially people of color, that he would claim he wants to reach:

    MAX SHIELDS.

    ________________________________________________________

    Let me tell you more about what my female friend (alluded to above in my November 11th comment post, par.4) told/emailed me about male PMS:

    Stop PMS! Progressive Man Syndrome, meaning a white guy who is “always right”, is socially maladjusted, often actually has a *disdain* for most others and for actually influencing people and winning friends, commonly says things in the MOST ABRASIVE way possible because that’s how he *thinks* he ‘provokes thought’ and wins people over, and NEVER learns to apologize because, “***I *DON’T WANT TO* AND I’M RIGHT ANYWAY!!***”.

    Does not play well with others around them [unless you’re always kissing their asses (if they’re icons) &/or telling them that they’re the smartest person in the world!].

44. David Kendall said on November 12th, 2008 at 4:00pm #

    Here’s a new challenge for the discussion:

    Regardless of anything Ralph Nader said a week ago, what is Barack Obama doing today? Did anybody get the memo?

45. lichen said on November 12th, 2008 at 4:18pm #

    Ralph Nader was right when he commented that stupid shit like this is what gets people angry, while REALITY doesn’t. You elected Obama despite his promises to murder millions of people and leave even more sinking into poverty and dying from the effects of climate change. YOU made the gaffe, what Ralph said is relevant, and we need a type of REAL democracy.

46. lichen said on November 12th, 2008 at 4:25pm #

    Joseph Anderson, your sexist friend is the one with the syndrome, and in fact, you seem to be one of the many swamped with irrelevant personal tabloid politics that have no relation to the real issues of life; such as the environment, such as income equality, such as standards of living, and human rights. Barack Obama is the epitome of burgeous African American arrogance for riding the waves of these people’s votes despite intending to do nothing while they starve to death in the ghettoes.

47. Max Shields said on November 12th, 2008 at 5:01pm #

    lichen, (agree with your post) it reminds me of just how irrelevant African Americans were to much of the campaign of Barrack Obama.

    Until poverty, specific chronic and life threatening illnesses, huge levels of incarceration, incredible numbers of death penalty decisions, and gross poverty is not associated with people of color, NO president of color means a damn!!

48. David Kendall said on November 12th, 2008 at 5:15pm #

    Okay, I guess not. Good job. Carry on…

49. Deadbeat said on November 12th, 2008 at 5:41pm #

    Ralph Nader was right when he commented that stupid shit like this is what gets people angry, while REALITY doesn’t.

    The problem with lichen’s comment is that RESPECT is also part of REALITY. to say the following…

    lichen, (agree with your post) it reminds me of just how irrelevant African Americans were to much of the campaign of Barrack Obama.

    Let’s see 95% of the black vote went to Obama. That’s dismissed as “irrelevant”.

    There is also the REALITY that Nader got only 1% of the vote. The question is whether to “scold” voters and alienate them or to find a way to communicate to them. One will create animus and diffusion the other can create solidarity and a movement. That”s REALITY too.

50. Max Shields said on November 12th, 2008 at 6:02pm #

    Black Power 2008
    Remembering a Black Radical in a Barack Obama America
    By BOKAR TURE (son of Stokely Carmichael) and DEDRICK MUHAMMAD

    “…Thirty years later, in 1996 and in the same vein, Kwame Ture [aka Stokely Carmichael] questioned the qualitative effect the number of black mayors and congressman had on the conditions of “Africans” in this country. The contemporary Black/White social and economic divide, and the passivity surrounding this considerable inequality, speaks volume to the current validity of Ture’s words in ’66 and in ’96. As he would argue, the achievements of a single individual, president-elect Obama in this case, are not indicative of the living conditions of the masses of people of African descent – as those conditions are generally lagging far behind that of White America. We hope that the next four years will be a step forward, but the last forty years has shown how the masses of Blacks can be left behind even while there is increasingly a well publicized Black elite. Without a systematic address of the racial wealth divide we believe this disappointing trend will continue.

    The space for the legacy of Kwame Ture and Black radicalism as a whole is the same as it has always been. It is a space of struggle, of challenging popular convention, and it is the space for those who refuse to be silent in the face of injustice. 10 years after his death, we both try to stand in the space made by people like Kwame Ture and recognize that the legacy he represents is needed more than ever before.”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/ture11122008.html

51. lichen said on November 12th, 2008 at 7:07pm #

    “It doesn’t matter that he sides with destruction of the Palestinians, and sides with the embargo. It doesn’t matter that he turns his back on 100 million people and won’t even campaign in minority areas. It doesn’t matter than he wants a bigger military budget, and an imperial foreign policy supporting various adventures of the Bush administration. It doesn’t matter that he’s for the death penalty, which is targeted at minorities. But if you say one thing that isn’t PC, you get their attention. I tell college audiences, a gender, racial or ethnic slur gets you upset, reality doesn’t get you upset.”

    This apolitical form of identity politics is not a part of reality; it is just another facit of the thousands of articles posted to places like ‘common dreams’ and ‘huffington post’ from ‘feminists’ shouting about the latest thing said regarding hillary clinton during the primaries; an extremely wealthy member of the DLC and international elite who unapologetically screamed in public that she wants to obliterate Iran. There is nothing racist about Nader’s comment, and the willingness of so many people to chime in with fox news’s swiftboating says a lot about you.

    Those black voters were made irrelevant because Obama’s campaign did not include them, did not include their empowerment, their interests, their real, daily struggles. It was not Jesse Jackson’s rainbow coalition, in case you didn’t notice. Just like the unions who stupidly donated so much money to his and Clinton’s campaign, Obama did not make them a part of his platform.

    Deadbeat, you seem to be under the ridiculous illusion that the current way in which democracy and elections operate in this country could ever have brought about a Nader victory; it is IMPOSSIBLE without making concrete reforms that will give us a more democratic society, such as full public funding, shorter elections, bringing back the fairness doctrine and forcing the media to give all candidates equal time, proportional representation, runoff voting in presidential races, and most of all, a deeper more participatory form of democracy that has people voting on specific issues and not ‘for’ this or that person. Perhaps you prefer things this way because it will allow you to go on and on about the ‘failures of the left’ indefinitely, when surely it is inevitable that outsiders will ‘fail’ in such an elite, closed, rigged system. I wonder if you also think the poor black people whom the system has locked out are ‘failures’ and deserving of censure for not being able to succeed in the rigged social structure.

    But yes, indeed, let’s make a fox news appearance and the use of the phrase uncle tom eclipse 40 years of an illustrious political career and a form of vision that would bring such great things to this country, while voting for Obama even though he says so many more disgusting things about murdering Afghans, Iraqis, legitimizing Israel’s apartheid, supporting the bailout, praising Ronald Reagan, saying he believes in the free market, claiming that Iran is developing nuclear weapons…the list goes on and on.

52. Deadbeat said on November 12th, 2008 at 7:40pm #

    lichen says…
    But yes, indeed, let’s make a fox news appearance and the use of the phrase uncle tom eclipse 40 years of an illustrious political career

    The issue is NOT Ralph Nader’s political career. You are too caught up in protecting and defending Nader’s gaffe rather than understanding the reaction from the African American community for his intransigence and lack of respect. This postering won’t build solidarity with the African American community. The more you do that lichen the more questionable will be the seriousness of the Left to build solidarity with African Americans.

    This would have been a non issue had Nader acknowledged his gaffe and went forward with his critique of Obama. The primary issue that you miss is the response from the African American community (95% of which voted for Obama) and the Left’s relationship with that community. That to me that is much more important and necessary if the Left hopes to expand its ranks and move forward.

53. Deadbeat said on November 12th, 2008 at 7:49pm #

    lichen says…
    Those black voters were made irrelevant because Obama’s campaign did not include them, did not include their empowerment, their interests, their real, daily struggles. It was not Jesse Jackson’s rainbow coalition, in case you didn’t notice. Just like the unions who stupidly donated so much money to his and Clinton’s campaign, Obama did not make them a part of his platform.

    Yet 95% of the African American community voted for Obama. That is not irrelevance. Also lichen YOU said the following which I responded to …

    The time to make demands was a long time ago, and, indeed, Obama could have won by a larger margin if he was farther to the left, if he actually promised real solutions to climate change, to inequality, to the waste of war.

    There is no evidence that if Obama ran further to the Left that he would have won the election by a larger margin. Can you provide some evidence to back up your supposition. Jesse Jackson run 20 years ago and was MUCH FURTHER TO THE LEFT of Obama and he didn’t even win the nomination.

    Your response is characteristic of the aggressive tone that turns many people off from the Left. I pointed out your fallacy and then you want to lecture me on Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. Take a look in the mirror lichen, if you want to attract African Americans away from the Democrats then you really need to take a deep breath and figure out how to properly approach them and win them over to your side.

    Your aggressive tone and defense of Nader’s gaffe will only yield alienation.

    Hope this helps.

54. lichen said on November 12th, 2008 at 7:51pm #

    “The more you do that lichen the more questionable will be the seriousness of the Left to build solidarity with African Americans.”

    Oh yes, the more I insist that Nader’s comment was more harmless than fox news wants you to think and that the real issues that people should be offended about are ignored the more “the left” floats away from African Americans. What wonderful selective quoting of my post you achieve, completely ignoring my rebuttal to your continued references to ‘the left’ and the fantasy world where they could achieve a majority in this country without electoral/democratic reform. The type of reforms I mentioned have to potential for very broad-based popular support, and are entirely possible. Cynthia Mckinney, whom I voted for, has done a lot to make the greens a rainbow party, and once they realize they are betrayed by the democrats yet again, perhaps they could leave IF we implement the reforms I mentioned. If you really think that a movement for democratic reforms is less important than an issue of tabloid celebrity-politic scandals, then I don’t doubt that making a big issue of this serves an entirely unrelated purpose for you.

55. Deadbeat said on November 12th, 2008 at 7:56pm #

    From the CounterPunch article by BOKAR TURE (son of Stokely Carmichael) and DEDRICK MUHAMMAD (thanks Max for posting the link)

    As Kwame Ture wrote in 1966, “The reality is that this nation, from top to bottom, is racist, that racism is not primarily a problem of ‘human relations’ but of exploitation maintained – either actively or through silence – by the society as a whole.”

    So why has the Left been tepid on confronting Zionism’s influence within the American political economy. I’m sure that if Kwame Ture was alive today he would confronted Zionism head on and been ostracized by the Left.

56. lichen said on November 12th, 2008 at 7:58pm #

    Your tone, and the endless circles in your trains of thought are the reason why most people suspect right wing outsiders for their ridiculous criticisms of things they don’t know, and which are defined by catchwords like ‘the left’ or ‘blacks,’ or ‘gays,’ etc. Copy/pasting more of your ridiculous responses to me gets you nowhere. And yes, the large pool, nearly 50% of eligible voters would have been more motivated if Obama had expressed his favor of majoritarian issues, whether the media had taken that badly, or not.

    I am not the chair of any campaign, I do not belong to any political party, and I am not a missionary. There is no such thing as ‘the left,’ and it is people’s jobs to educate and orient themselves, neither of which are under my control, so do not try to have a conversation with me about ‘tactics,’ and go pursue your own political ideology since it isn’t reflected here by us ‘left’ people.

57. Deadbeat said on November 12th, 2008 at 8:07pm #

    lichen I’m glad you are so well educated but do you use your educated to beat people over the head or do you use your education to inspire people to convince them why the should move to the Left. There is a “Left” and it represents a set of principles: fairness, respect, equality, dignity, democracy, solidarity, etc. I don’t doubt those aspects represents your goals. The question I have raised is how will you win people over? Will you use abrasion and enmity or will you use empathy and nuance?

    Your tone, and the endless circles in your trains of thought are the reason why most people suspect right wing outsiders for their ridiculous criticisms of things they don’t know, and which are defined by catchwords like ‘the left’ or ‘blacks,’ or ‘gays,’ etc

    Please identify my “endless circles”. Because IMO I’ve been quite clear. Also I haven’t defined anyone. What you call “catchwords” are how these demographic groups defined themselves. In fact there is a great post in MarxMail that analyzed the demographic breakdown of the voters this election and what it means going forward.

58. Deadbeat said on November 12th, 2008 at 8:11pm #

    From MarxMail…

    Now that the euphoria over the election of a Black man as president has
    begun to subside, it is perhaps time to look at the actual demographics of the vote to see what has changed in this country.

    Contrary to what has been claimed, there was no overall record turnout throughout the country for the population as a whole. Obama won because of huge increase in turnout among Blacks and other people of color and because of a collapse in Republican support –such as it was– among these same groups.

    For the first time, the white vote fell below 3/4th of the electorate. Black (13%) Latino (9%) Asian (2%) and Other (3%) set or tied voter participation records.

    Just as significant, McCain was reduced to just 4% of the Black vote, with Obama getting 95%. Over the past five election cycles, the Democrat presidential candidate had averaged 86% of the Black vote, peaking (once, for Gore) at 90%.

    Among Latinos the story was similar although the numbers less one sided. Some 67% voted for Obama, 31% for McCain.

    Asian and “other” gave Obama the biggest margin recorded for a presidential candidate from these groups since they started to be tracked a few elections ago, 62% and 66% respectively.

    Some back-of-the-envelope math suggests that roughly 7 million of Obama’s 8 million vote lead in the popular vote came from the increased rate of participation of these voters or their increased percentage of the vote for Obama as compared to Kerry. The increased white vote for Obama (43%) compared to Kerry (41%) represents less than 3 million votes, which was Bush’s popular vote lead in 2004.

    The much-anticipated white youth tsunami for Obama did not materialize. Overall, under-30 turnout barely budged, from 16 percent in 2004 to 18% this year, but that was just one more than the 2000 and 1996 percentage. There was, yes, a tide that lifted Obama’s boat, but a modest one. In the youngest white demographic (18-24) he won barely 52% of the vote, and 54% among whites under 30. But Obama’s percentage of the white vote did not gradually decline with age, as in the primaries, but rather plunged to just over 40% and hit bottom with seniors at 40%.

    While I don’t have a breakdown of the vote by race and age in 2004, that year Kerry tied Bush among all seniors, and in previous years the Democrats had outpolled Republicans. This year Democrats got only 45% of the overall vote of those 65 and over, indicating Obama did much worse among white retirees than previous Democrat candidates.

    That is a striking finding when you consider Bush’s unsuccessful efforts to flush social security down the stock market toilet bowl, and the financial crisis that has trashed the savings of retirees.

    And when you look at the regional and state poll numbers, the lack of an Obama youth tsunami becomes even clearer.

    In the East and West, Obama got a small majority among whites, with just over 60% of the white youth vote. The South gave 30% of its white vote to Obama, but that is due to Virginia and North Carolina, which seem to be drifting into the mid-Atlantic states sociologically and politically, following Maryland’s lead.

    In South Carolina Obama got a hair over a quarter of the white vote — 26%. Georgia –generally viewed as *relatively* progressive– had 23% of its white voters for The One. Louisiana whites voted 14% for Obama. Alabama, 11%. And –Here’s to the State of Mississippi– 10%, which is less than Republicans usually get from the Black community.

    In every single one of these states, John Kerry, who ran much more weakly among whites nationwide, at least equaled or surpassed Obama’s white percentages, some cases quite significantly (he did 14% in Mississippi, 19% in Alabama and 24% in Louisiana).

    That Gore or Clinton did better might be accounted for by both of them being from the South. But Kerry?

    Well, that’s just the South, you might say. But the South is important. More than half of the Black population lives in the South. And among the states with the highest percentages of Blacks are:
    ‘
    Mississippi — 36%
    Louisiana — 32%
    Alabama — 29%
    South Carolina — 29%
    Georgia — 28%

    In those states, the young white vote for Obama was comparable to the
    overall white vote — a few percent more here, a few percent less there. If the election is viewed as a referendum on white supremacy, younger whites in the South overwhelmingly agree with their parents and grandparents.

    * * *

    One very significant change that is evident in this election is the shift in
    the Latino vote towards the Democrats. The exit poll registered a 13% swing compared to 2004, but there is more to say than this.

    Among younger Latinos there WAS a pro-Obama “tsunami,” with 18-24 years olds voting for him 78-16 and under 30 as a whole 76-19. And whereas among white the under-30 voters were 15% of all white voters, nearly a third of all Latinos fit this demographic. And, of course, this is a national *average.*

    What most hurt the Republicans is that, after Bush offered a (limited and temporary) legalization in 2004, and Latinos rewarded him with 44% going for him, more than double the 1996 Republican score, the Republicans then turned around and went on a jihad against Latino immigrants. But while all Latino communities tend to line up by a big majority on the legalization side of the immigration debate, it is felt more deeply among some communities than others.

    Puerto Ricans, as U.S. citizens, by and large have no immigration problems, and Cubans no serious ones usually, due to a cold war era law that says if you’re Cuban and come as an “illegal” to the United States, then you’re “legal.” Others, like Mexicans and Central Americans, bear the full brunt of la migra’s wrath.

    So looking, for example, at the hotly-contested western states, where the Latino population is mostly Chicano or of Mexican or central American origin, in Nevada Obama won in the Latino community 76-22, and among those under 30 by an 87 to 13 margin. And this wasn’t unique: in New Mexico, the under-30 Latino vote was 83-15; In California, 84-13.

    You don’t usually see these sorts of statewide numbers in a presidential
    race except in the Black community. This year we see them from whites voting against Obama in the deep South, and from younger Latinos voting for him out West, where there are very few Cubans and Puerto Ricans and large immigrant communities.

    * * *

    What does this portend for the future? Wish I knew. But there are some
    obvious conclusions:

    1) Racism may be weakened but it is far from vanquished.

    There may have been too much going against McCain for racism to save him, but consider: He was a twice-rejected Republican hopeful who was nominated as the “none of the above” choice in a field of Lilliputians running for the party of the most unpopular president since polling began, self admittedly clueless about economics at a time of financial turmoil unprecedented in living memory, presenting as his strong suit his military credentials and support for a war Americans reject by a 2-1 margin, and forced to pick a fruitcake right-winger to consolidate his base with his own party at the same time he was trying to broaden his appeal by tacking to the center.

    2) Even representing little more than a fourth of the electorate, people of color were able to impose THEIR overwhelming choice against the majority of the white majority, and this even though many millions of Black, Latino and Asian votes are for all intents and purposes trapped inside blue states like California and New York or red states like Texas and those of the deep South.

    3) Most striking was the Black-Brown alliance, with young Latinos leading the way in allying with the Black community in overwhelming support of the Black community’s candidate and making him their own. This is the same generation of Latinos, and in many cases many of the same individuals, that two and a half years ago led the huge wave of demonstrations and other protests in defense of immigrants rights.

    Whether this alliance will find expression outside the electoral arena, and outside the political control of traditional politicians, is, I think, the single most intriguing question coming out of this election.

    Joaquin

59. lichen said on November 12th, 2008 at 8:26pm #

    “There is a “Left” and it represents a set of principles: fairness, respect, equality, dignity, democracy, solidarity, etc. I don’t doubt those aspects represents your goals.”

    But since ‘the left’ is always something dissociated, something very far away from you when you mention it, I’m guessing these are not your goals? In any case, I’m not in the business of inspiration, and especailly not interested in the idea that people who already have their minds made up enough to passionately, vociferously argue in favor of ugliness online will be more ‘inspired’ if I change my tone. You think I and others here are in ‘the left’ but instead of trying to put us in inspirational moods, you constantly lambast ‘the left’ and Nader and find ways to defend yourself for voting for Obama. That is the circle in your train of thought here, where you clearly don’t reach out to ‘the left’ yourself, but you believe we should be salesman, trying to convince you when the thousands of articles here have not.

60. Deadbeat said on November 12th, 2008 at 11:01pm #

    lichen says…

    You think I and others here are in ‘the left’ but instead of trying to put us in inspirational moods, you constantly lambast ‘the left’ and Nader and find ways to defend yourself for voting for Obama. That is the circle in your train of thought here, where you clearly don’t reach out to ‘the left’ yourself, but you believe we should be salesman, trying to convince you when the thousands of articles here have not.

    I didn’t vote for Obama. I didn’t vote at all. Therefore lichen you’ve make a false assumption because rather than discuss you are intent on “winning” by spewing out bogus rhetoric.

    I criticize the Left for the following:

    [1] The Left blew its best opportunity in 2004 to build upon its success in 2000 (Nader 2.7% of the vote running as a Green).

    [2] The Left failed to coalesce the HUGE anti-war energy into a sustained movement.

    [3] The Left diffused this energy because of division between faction especially those who wanted to obfuscate Zionism’s influence in the lead to the War on Iraq

    [4] This failure by the Left created the void that was filled by the Obama campaign

    [5] The Left for failing to build solidarity with people of color. The result of which led to the Obama victory. Joaquin Bustelo analysis of the voting demographic clearly show that RACE, DISCRIMINATION, and WHITE SUPREMACY were a major factor in the voting patterns.

    [6] The Left is STUCK in a “circular” message of trying to weaken the Democrats by wanting people not to vote for the Democrats but offers no viable alternative at least for 2008 primarily because of their failure in 2004. Their was no way for the Left this year to engage the masses that Obama was able to corral. That is a fact and a reality and the vote totals indicate such. Therefore the best strategy for the Left is reflection. The analysis by Bustelo allow for understanding where they masses are and where they stand.

    [7] Bustelo concludes…
    Whether this [Black-Brown] alliance will find expression outside the electoral arena, and outside the political control of traditional politicians, is, I think, the single most intriguing question coming out of this election.

    Clearly from Bustelo’s analysis defending Nader’s gaffe is NOT the best way to build solidarity with people of color. And that has been my point which is far from “circular.”

    you clearly don’t reach out to ‘the left’ yourself,

    Another fallacy. I was a member of the Green Party supported Nader’s 2004 campaign. I also worked with Solidarity who clearly the NUANCES of the Obama campaign especially to people of color and while they did not vote nor “support” Obama they engaged Obama supporters. When the shit hit the fan I believe that Solidarity will be able to peel off some disillusioned African Americans.

    Again lichen go right ahead and spew your disdain and enmity toward the people of color who voted for Obama while failing to examine the mistakes and failuers of the Left.

    Good Luck to you.

61. Deadbeat said on November 12th, 2008 at 11:12pm #

    Corrections:

    I meant to say that Solidarity did not vote for nor did they “support” Obama. Solidarity clearly understood the nuances of his campaign to people of color.

62. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 13th, 2008 at 2:29pm #

    From: Joseph Anderson [email address deleted for privacy]
    To: [deleted for privacy]
    Subject: two particularly thoughtful comments (at DaveyD.com) about Ralph Nader
    Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:11:24 -0800

    Hi [deleted for privacy: Nader close political associate],

    I hope you’re doing well.

    I don’t know if this comment post below is completely valid, in the comments section under a front page story link, that I saw at Davey D’s website (DaveyD.com) in Davey’s article commentary about Ralph Nader, but, especially if it’s true, it seems to be an intellectually thoughtful comment:

    http://hiphopnews.yuku.com/topic/917?page=2

    nateshea
    11/13/08 07:38:09

    Those of us who have been in the Green Party since 2000 or so have learned that Ralph Nader’s best interest is Ralph Nader. He may have had an immense groundswell of support in 2000 because nobody else was talking about the issues he was. But he also owes a lot of his popularity to those who worked for him under the green banner, under a platform that exists today that he still uses as his own. In 2004 he decided to run as an independent because the greens wanted him to help build and maintain the party and actually register Green. Since he couldn’t bring himself to do that, he ran anyway and tried to get our endorsement by attending the convention via phone and using the late Peter Camejo (GP candidate from CA who also was running as the GP nominee for president) as his running mate. This year he tapped Matt Gonsalez as his VP choice, another fine green from San Fran who came a few percentage points shy of winning the office of Supervisor of the Board of Directors.

    I can’t understand why Nader doesn’t see through his own follies except that people still love and adore him and will vote for him until he is in the grave (and maybe even after!). This Nader following only furthers his quest to run for President every four years and nothing else. He also gets young people involved, which is a notable thing to do but give these folks something to do after the election Ralph, geez. Start a Ralph Nader party for all I care, just don’t leave these young folks who have never been involved in politics before out to dry. Also, he has stopped doing consumer advocacy unless editorials count.

    The Green Party would have been much stronger and Nader would have been too if he had decided to be a green. In the U.S., we still need electoral reforms such as ballot access laws revised, instant runoff voting/ranked choice, and proportional representation. These reforms would make it possibly for Greens and other third party candidates to run and actually win if the people support them. There is a Green Party beyond the presedential election every four years but it relies on people more than contributions – get involved at http://www.gp.org.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    And I liked this paragraph from:

    http://hiphopnews.yuku.com/topic/917?page=1

    ezwriter
    11/07/08 10:36:06

    nader referring to him [Obama] as an uncle tom shows you why ralph is a little off. first of all, to quote steel pulse, “uncle sam and uncle tom / yes they are the same one.” so it’s unclear how being an uncle sam would be different in any way shape or form than being an uncle tom. second of all, it’s way to early to make this call, and it’s not nader’s call to make. as a white liberal who is not in the loop as far as the racial politik of america, he has no right to determine who is and isnt an uncle tom, and furthermore, why would he even care? it’s not like he ever did anything for black people.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Take care,

    Joseph

63. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 13th, 2008 at 4:17pm #

    YO LICHEN AND MAX:

    Yo lichen (November 12th, 2008 at 4:25pm), when you and you’re little buddy Max are actually *DOING* anything about that, someplace, re “the environment, income equality, standards of living, human rights, starvation to death in the ghettoes, poverty, specific chronic and life threatening illnesses, huge levels of incarceration, incredible numbers of death penalty decisions, and gross poverty”, you let us know, …huh? Because, in the San Francisco Bay Area, I *never* see people like you two ever actually rolling up your sleeves and ACTUALLY *DOING* ANYTHING.

    Until then, I’ll do what I’ve always done any other time I see your name: *skip* your post. I don’t know why anyone would give you any of their time actually trying to intellectually rebut you, because I’ve never bothered to waste my time doing so. I’d have *better* things to do. Your posts pretty much sum you two up on their own. And certainly no Black person, among many other people (maybe *especially* women), would ever pay you much attention, if any, at all. So, you two mean less than a gnat on a fat rat’s ass. I don’t know why “Deadbeat’s” wasting his time with you two.

    *You two* didn’t seem to do much for Nader.

    Buh-*byyye*…!

64. Brandy Baker said on November 13th, 2008 at 11:03pm #

    Okay: I am sure that all on here are smart enough to realize that Fox News is not exactly a bastion of anti-racism or that Shepherd Smith is not exactly a purveyor of social justice. Fox News, this is the network where one of the correspondents called Michelle Obama, Barack Obama’s “baby’s mama”. This is the network that keep questioning whether Barack Obama is a “socialist” (Barack Obama is not cool enough to be a socialist). This is the network that helped to hype up the McCain/Palin racist creepshow (as Socialist Worker correctly called it) against Barack Obama. I don’t think that Sarah Palin can solely be blamed for the spike in death threats against Obama, Fox News shares some of the blame. Me thinks this is why they brought Nader on and ambushed him in this fashion; to cover their own asses with their faux outrage so the heat would not be on them.

    The above trangressions far outshadow Nader’s statements about “Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom”. I did not vote for Nader; I voted for McKinney, though I did vote for Nader in 2000 and 2004. If I were Nader, I would have said it differently. But there are bigger points, MUCH bigger and more relevant points to be discussed here.

    Like: why does Nader keep running? Why doesn’t he groom the next generation of activists that drive 20 hours to get to the conventions that works countless hours for very little money? Why doesn’t he pass the mantle on to them?

    When I was in the Green Party, I was constantly astonished at the fact that I was always the youngest one (most of the time) in the Party locally; that the people in the Party were 50 and over and no one saw this as a problem; these boomers always, rightfully, saw the need to diversify racially, but they did not see the need to get younger people in or have more women.

    The same old hippies ran for office every two years and will probably run again; when it was pointed out to them that they needed to step aside and let younger people and women run, that diversifying did not mean just race, you would think that they would step aside in agreement, no, they were offended and were more determined to run, though they went to the debates and embarrassed the shit out of us constantly, in the case of one individual, he rambled on incoherently and another went on about issues that had nothing to do with the State Senate seat that he was running for. There were not enough people with the courage to vote them down.

    Off of the war stories and back to Nader: as someone who supported him in 2000 and 2004 and has backed him in print and in person whenever he was publicly attacked, I have to ask: why does anyone think that it is appropriate or even sane for him to continue running???!!! Did you see the spot with him and Conan O’Brien’s “Triumph, the Insult Dog?” That he would allow himself to be humiliated like this? It was embarrassing. (And by the way, Robert Smigel’s “Triumph” schtick is old and tired). This is not what the 2.7 million of us who voted for him and the thousands of us who worked his campaign signed up for when we worked to GOTV for him. So back to the original question? Why isn’t he grooming the next generation(s)?? Or why did he not step aside and GOTV for McKinney/Clemente. As Dave Lindorff said about the fact that we had two campaigns (Nader and McKinney): “How stupid is that?!”

    I know that Nader has issues with the GP; legitimate ones. But one does not have to be a Green to support their candidates. Many of us are registered Independents.

    Nader needs to think about the future; if he continues to neglect the long term by not passing the mantle, he does his supporters an injustice. Fact is, he shouldn’t have even been on Fox because he shouldn’t have even been in the race because no one should keep running over and over. He needs to support the next generation.

65. Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2008 at 12:33am #

    Ms. Baker asks…

    why does anyone think that it is appropriate or even sane for [Nader] to continue running???

    IMO, Nader has every right to run for the presidency but beyond that Nader is not running as part of a political party or organization whereby he is ELECTED to represent the group. Nader, rather than compete for the Green Party nomination, has chosen to run quixotic and charismatic campaigns. My question is why is he running this way rather with within an institutional foundation (read: political party)? For example Ross Perot had left behind for a while the Reform Party whereby his supporters was able to operate between elections cycles. Nader in fact got on the ballot in Texas in 2004 on the Reform Party slate.

    In addition, Nader’s “more choices more voices” mantra essentially divides the Left and thereby yields a divided and disunited front. This essentially presents a confused alternative rather than a viable alternative. This is particularly counterproductive for people of color who votes pragmatically.

    Ms. Baker rhetorically suggest that Nader should pass the mantle to a more youthful candidate. In some way I think Nader was doing that by tapping Matt Gonzalez but I think the more pertinent question is whether Nader is providing a good example to the youthful Gonzales of how to ENGAGE the electorate?

    Running as a lone wolf “independent” may not be the best example of engaging the masses. Disrespecting people of color regardless of whether or not he was on FOX News and being stubborn about it is not setting the best example of engagement. Not taking the time to reflect upon strategic and tactical errors means continuing to make the same mistakes and alienating those people you must attract in order to build a movement. I think those are very and IMO more important questions than the passing of the torch.

66. Brandy Baker said on November 14th, 2008 at 9:27am #

    Of course Nader has the RIGHT to run, that is not the point. He has no business running for the reasons I cited above.

    And there is nothing “rhetorical” about his needing to groom the next generation (though I think that the next generation of electoral visionaries is not going to come from Nader, and probably not the Green Party).

    Times are changing, Nader and his die hard supporters are not changing and are getting left behind as is so much of the radical Left, which should be visionary and forward thinking.

67. Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2008 at 10:58am #

    Times are changing, Nader and his die hard supporters are not changing and are getting left behind as is so much of the radical Left, which should be visionary and forward thinking.

    I agree with Ms. Baker’s general sentiments and with her observation that the Left is getting left behind. But is that really because the Left lack vision or is not forward thinking or is the Left too intransigent in its tactics, too arrogant to reflect upon their mistakes and too duplicitous on certain critical issues of justice and fairness that they have essentially alienated themselves from the masses.

    IMO there are plenty of ideas coming from the Left but what we see in Nader (as example) and what I think this thread reveals is why the Left is getting “left behind”.

68. Vin Borges said on November 14th, 2008 at 12:14pm #

    What are you talking about? What’s this “left” that you keep referring to? Are you slandering “liberals” because they “on a whole” can’t get their act together? Way to make general statements. Go take your stereotypes and promptly place them where they belong.

69. David W. Deitch said on November 14th, 2008 at 3:19pm #

    For me, the critical question is why the left is so fragmented and what it would take to bring some solidarity to a political campaign. Despite complaints about Ralph Nader’s failure to leave a party structure in place following his campaigns, it’s still hard to swallow why more of the left refused to get behind this man, the most highly qualified candidate with a program any populist-oriented party could be proud of. Where does the fault lie?

70. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 14th, 2008 at 4:00pm #

    Excellent points and dialogue Brandy and Deadbeat.

    (What a *REFRESHING* change of pace from “lichen” and Max! — or debating them.

    And, Deadbeat, you’d spend your obvious intelligence and time much more productively in dialogue with someone also obviously intelligent like Brandy.)

    I think that the left keeps being left (no pun intended) behind because most of America’s leftist icons keep steering its followers/listeners right back to the Democrat party (“The ‘Good’ Cops” of the “Good Cop, Bad Cop” RepubliCrat neoliberal imperialist military-industrial-Zionist complex duopoly) — over and over again. As used to be on my email sign-off (I forget how many presidential election seasons ago): It’s the liberals and weak-kneed, vacillating, always scared ‘progressives/leftists’ (closet liberals by another name) who over the decades have steadily “lesser evilled” us into the very situation they say is so unprecedentedly dire today.

    The icons of the left keep condescendingly wondering why, especially, White-Middle America keeps “voting against their [WMA] interest[!!]”, but then *EVERY FOUR YEARS*, that’s *EXACTLY* what most of those leftist icons tell their followers/listeners to do. And *MOST SHEERLY PATHETICALLY*, the left is the *ONLY* “political lobby” that doesn’t even make *ANY* DEMANDS on its candidates in exchange for the left’s support!! — unlike every other political lobby in the U.S. — unlike, especially, the *Israel* lobby (before whom any RepubliCrat must always go before, genuflect, and kiss the ring), whatever corporate lobby (especially the military-industrial complex), the gun lobby, the anti-abortion lobby, the anti-Castro Cuban lobby, even various manifestations of the right-wing Christians (who will actually *tell* their candidates, “You don’t accede to our demand, in exchange for our support, and we’ll *stay* home on electon day!”).

    At the very least, if the left won’t unequivocally support a 3rd party candidate (while activily protesting the Demo-Repub media, especially TV, and legal duopoly stranglehold on the election and national TV debates rules in American politics), the left should have an *ORGANIZED* national voter boycott against voting for president, in order to delegitimize this rigged corporate handpicked merely ratification system of duopolistic parties (essentially a *one-party*, with two wings, state) we have. Even if merely a *significant* % (not necessarily a majority) of people could be represented in an *ORGANIZED* voter boycott (in lieu of actually picking a *single* 3rd party candidate to support, or the otherwise nonviability of such a candidate in this corporate and media rigged system: _BECAUSE FIRST WE HAVE TO *ORGANIZE* AND *DEMAND* A CHANGE IN THE POLIITCAL AND MEDIA RULES, BECAUSE IF WE DON’T CHANGE THE RULES, WE’LL ALWAYS LOSE — WE’LL NEVER GET NATIONALLY MORE THAN A PERCENT OR TWO_), it would send out both a national and international message *CHALLENGING THE LEGITIMACY* of the presidential election system that the political ruling class along with their corporate sponsors monopolize in this supposed “world’s greatest democracy”.

    See “Don’t Let the Bastards Have Your Vote!: Boycott the Elections”, by Reza Fayouzat (counterpunch.com/fiyouzat10302008.html).

71. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2008 at 4:05pm #

    David,

    What kind of solidarity do you expect? You may have fallen down the rabbit’s hole on this so-called “left” issue.

    Did you expect Nader to win? Or McKinney? May be Chomsky should have led the march behind Nader? Or Zinn?

    Vin Borges (Jorge Luis is great), now he makes some sense, David. He’s asking the right questions.

    Since I’m assuming, David, you’re a sane person, you really didn’t expect a progressive to win the presidency of the American Empire…right?

    Brandy, maybe you’re thinking you should have voted for Obama…shit at least HE WON. But the old farts with the pony tails just don’t talk and look like…well…a professional politician. True. Some are real strange characters who lose their place in mid-sentence. And they’ve become awfully cranky in their old age. But 50 years of weed will do that to ya.

    Deadbeat, he just likes to pick at scabs. Harmless enough. When he’s shouting to nobody, he just changes his “name” and comes on and uses another to multiple his posts, blah blah blah. The left should, the left didn’t, the left the left the left the left. It’s like baby talk. Time for a nap DB?

    Lately when Jack (whatever he called himself) to catch on he created this little superego character he called Joseph Anderson. I call him Baby Hooey.

72. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 14th, 2008 at 4:11pm #

    David W. Deitch said on November 14th, 2008 at 3:19pm:

    “Ralph Nader … the most highly qualified candidate with a program any populist-oriented party could be proud of.”

    AND WHAT IS THE MUCH YOUNGER *CYNTHIA MCKINNEY*, A PERSON WHO ACTUALLY *SERVED* IN VARIOUS POLITICAL OFFICES — _INCLUDING THE CONGRESS_ FOR *ELEVEN* YEARS

    (this before white “liberals/progressives/lefts” [including white gays/lesbians that she had always supported] and their icons/pundits let the Israel lobby oust her)?

    A POTTED PLANT?

    HMMM…

73. Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2008 at 6:42pm #

    The major difference between Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader is that McKinney was ELECTED to be the representative of the Green Party. Nader was not elected to represented anyone other than Nader. Clearly Nader represents a set of ideals but why should anyone rally behind Nader. Nader should like McKinney as well as Bob Barr be vetted by their respected activist community through their elective institutions.

    What I find ironic is that when Nader bring up Eugene Debbs he forgets to mention that Debbs operated out of a party apparatus — the Socialist Party. Nader clearly doesn’t have the kind of resource of a Ross Perot to run a quixotic and charismatic campaign. Thus Nader has to operate with the efficiency of a Party.

    The problem in 2008 wasn’t that the Left should have lined up behind Nader. That should have occurred in 2004. But in order to groom the next generation as Ms. Baker suggest is through threw a political party. Look at the extremely wise and impressive choice of Green Party VP candidate — Rosa Clemente by McKinney. Clemente certainly is the face of the future of the Greens as well as the politics and community that she represents.

    This is why I was critical of writers who used “Nader/McKinney” as if they were running as “one” as alternative to Obama. It was Nader/Gonzales or McKinney/Clemente. Writing “Nader/McKinney” obscured any distinction between Nader and McKinney and clearly when listening to Rosa Clemente she was able to clearly articulate those distinctions.

    This once again is why I think the Left, while having the ideas and vision seems incapable to put forward a set of tactics and engagements that will move the masses in its direction and into its ranks. Reflection of why this is the case IMO is necessary to learn how to make adjustments.

74. Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2008 at 7:26pm #

    I agree with John Anderson’s analysis about the Left icons. They have been duplicitous (especially about Zionism) and I think deliberately so in order to maintain disorder and disunity on the Left.

    IMO Nader’s run has reached its peak and I think his “independent” run has become counterproductive. If Nader continue his lone wolf campaign his presence weakens the only electoral arm representing the Left — the Green Party.

    I disagree with Mr. Anderson regarding a boycott of the elections. The big reason is that Obama received 95% of the Black vote and close to 80% of the Brown vote. This is an alliance that cannot be ignored by the Left. This alliance is symbolically embodied by Green Party Veep Rosa Clemente. IMO calling for an election boycott will alienate you from the voters who will end up choosing Democrats anyway. Therefore having an electoral arms is necessary in order to present yourself as serious to a large body of pragmatic voters.

    I think Joaquin Bustelo ask a main question …
    Whether this [Black-Brown] alliance will find expression outside the electoral arena, and outside the political control of traditional politicians, is, I think, the single most intriguing question coming out of this election.

    What I think is necessary then is for the Left to build SOLIDARITY with African American and Latinos (especially the ones identified Bustelo who are most affected by the xenophobic backlash).

    The tendency of the Left to primarily focus on “capitalism” and “imperialism” was not borne out by Bustelo analysis of the voting patterns. RACE and WHITE SUPREMACY still played a very big role in the election.

    Going back to Mr. Anderson point about Left icons, since most of these Left icons has been extremely reluctant and reticent to confront Zionism which today is the main reason for maintaining the huge military budget (“war on terror”) and the elevation of “imperialism”, “empire”, and “war for oil” to obscure this problem.

    Capitalism is always a problem and people of color understand that but confronting racism is the major appeal to people of color if the Left wants to get serious about build solidarity with them.

    However as Bustelo asks the possibility of a Black/Brown leftist alliance IMO WILL be able to tackle Zionism since Black and Brown people face the same issues of racism, discrimination, white supremacy and Zionism.

    Therefore I think this fear as Public Enemy says “Fear Of A Black Planet” may be why the Left has sabotaged lo’ itself these past eight years.

    The Green Party took the first steps recognizing this change and it will take time for the Green Party to build upon this recognition. But the real challenge is whether this electoral expression by Black/Brown people coalesce outside of the electoral arena.

75. Brandy Baker said on November 14th, 2008 at 8:19pm #

    Hi Max,
    It’s not about personal appearance, or “looking like a politician”. It’s about so much more than that. If I was appearing ageist or seeking to stereotype, I apologize.

    But fact is, if you run for office, you DO have to be articulate and not further negative stereotypes about third parties and the Left in general (it was Saul Alinsky who said, if cutting your hair will make people in the community listen to you, then DO IT), that rule is not a fair one, but that is the way it is, we either want to win people over or we don’t , but actually that was not my point.

    My point is: that it is time, after the older people (Nader et all) have run two, three, four times, to step aside and allow the Clementes, the Mirimarkis, the Gonzaleses to take the lead. This is NOT happening. In my neck of the woods, the over 50 activist crowd is grossly overrepresented and the under 50 activist crowd is, well, non-existent with a few exceptions. Don;t take my word for it, ask the Granny Peace Brigade, a few of them lamented to me about the lack of young people.

    Also, it has been beaten into us to know our history. True, we need to, but we also need to come into the 21st Century. Obama ran a tremendous grassroots campaign, we will never have his money, but we can have impact if we get our act together and become a bit more visionary with the new free and low-cost technologies.

76. Brandy Baker said on November 14th, 2008 at 8:23pm #

    the left is the *ONLY* “political lobby” that doesn’t even make *ANY* DEMANDS on its candidates in exchange for the left’s support!!

    True, as Nader (regardless of what one thinks of him) said: The Left makes no demands, but looks at the demands that Limbaugh put on McCain!

77. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2008 at 9:18pm #

    Brandy,

    It’s not about age or Alinksy, it’s about a rotten to the core system which makes the notion of playing the game a pathetic joke.

    Obama not only got rid of the Afro, he got rid of his Reverend, and just about everything one can consider “black” in the name of being your president.

    He handed it all over and he became what he is. Nader didn’t and that’s why he’s not your president. Nader is the unpolitician, no party, no makeup person just a pocket filled with a tattered Constitution and a mind that won’t quit even if he’s worn and somewhat beaten down.

    (If all there was to it was to dress for success, then it would be easy, Brandy. You can look like a young Robert Redford, but the danger is what you believe, think, say, and how you say it. Otherwise, you can either be ignored or you can become president of the American Empire.)

    If we could reinvent the “rules” we might have a shot a being free from the master.

78. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 14th, 2008 at 11:28pm #

    TO BOYCOTT OR NOT TO BOYCOTT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

    Thanks for your continued input Deadbeat to a more *valuable* dialogue (rather than the long back-&-forth debates you carry on with a couple of obvious morons like “lichen” and Max), but I must respectfully counterdisagree with you on a point where you respectfully disagreed with me:

    Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2008 at 7:26pm: “I disagree with Mr. [Joseph] Anderson regarding a boycott of the elections. The big reason is that Obama received 95% of the Black vote and close to 80% of the Brown vote. This is an alliance that cannot be ignored by the Left. This alliance is symbolically embodied by Green Party Veep Rosa Clemente. IMO calling for an election boycott will alienate you from the voters who will end up choosing Democrats anyway.”

    1) We’ll see what happens when all those people who voted for Obama see him continue the same ole DLC cum GOP RepubliCrat neoliberalist and imperialist policies that will continue to suck TRILLION*S* of dollars away from domestic social, economic relief, and safety net programs, let alone any new social programs (like true, single-payer, national heathcare), to, instead, the corporate elite and U.S. imperialist wars, occupations, bases, covert anti-democratic operations, and oppressive foreign regimes (like Israel, Egypt, Columbia, more or less Pakistan, whatever central Asian republics, and even now Georgia). Less than 24 hours after even the polls just closed, who does Obama pick as his chief-of-staff?: some old Chicago political machine arch-arch-Zionist and political ‘thug’. Where’s the “Change”?

    2) What’s the point of voting for the Dems when they just continue to take their voters for granted, as having no other place to go.

    3) What’s the point of voting for the Dems with, so that all they care about is getting elected, but their voters don’t have anything to threaten them with.

    4) “This is an alliance that cannot be ignored by the Left.” What does that even really substantively mean? First of all, I don’t know if you can call more than at *least* a 15% *difference* an “alliance”. Both groups always vote majority Democrat, yet the Dems substantively ignore that vote ever four years. Besides, there was no grassroots/organizational “alliance” per se among Browns and Blacks. I’m Black and I wasn’t aware of any grassroots/organizational alliance per se, but the McKinney-Clemente alliance represents the kinds of progressive cross-cultural alliances that *should* be. However, both ethnic/”racial” groups had their own respective interests for voting Democrat: the huge Repub attacks on Latin American immigrants was the reason Browns voted Dem in such a high % — for Browns, it became an economic, even a very survival necessity, to eliminate or aleviate those attacks against them; whereas Blacks voted Dem because what, are they going to vote Republican, for McCain? — and because they wanted to see any reasonable and viable Black person in the White House ).

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    Deadbeat: ” Therefore having an electoral arm is necessary in order to present yourself as serious to a large body of pragmatic voters.”

    So, Deadbeat, your argument logically (whether you mean it or not, whether you’re pro-Dem or not) boils down to: the left has to support Dems because most everyone is going to vote Dem anyway, and therefore you won’t look stupid supporting a 3rd party, or participating in a nationally *organized* voter boycott for the reasons I mentioned above (November 14th, 4:00pm) where I gave *conditions*. Your argument here seems to me to be a rather poor argument. What kind of genuinely serious activist makes decisions based on whether people “take you seriously” at the time? Leftists are supposed to be motivated by moral beliefs, *principles* and, indeed *changing* the political consciousness of the nation/people — not by whether it’s popular at the moment/time (like being Abolitionist, pro-women’s suffrage, pro-Civil Rights (including things like interracial marriage rights), pro-ethnic & -gender institutional diversity, anti-war, pro-gay rights, or even being socialist). If the left doesn’t have the moral and intellectual fiber and fortitude to criticize and reject the Dems when the Dems give them *nothing*, then they *really* don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

    _______________________________________________________________
    [Well, I’ll catch you (and maybe Brandy) tomorrow: I’m headed out on the town over in San Francisco this Friday night!]

79. armean said on November 15th, 2008 at 4:23am #

    Joseph Anderson of Berkeley
    I’m in line with Lichen and Max Shields for most parts. I like Max Shields better when he gets pissy. He becomes more interesting and hits the nail right on the head. Max’s job is to put some people in their rightful place. Me? I don’t have the patience for it.

    So Shields you go bro!

    In the past fifteen years or so, northern california has been the scene of ruthless gentrification, basicly the wealthy would suck the Oxygen out of the air if they knew how. They also have successfully managed to drive all the ethnics into the bay and have them swim all the way to east bay. This should be the ground zero of class struggle. So where is it? Logically a strong Socialist party should rise from this area. So where the hell is it? And what have you guys up in Berkeley been doing? I’m sorry what was that? OH! You’ve been passing the bong around!

    Northern California is quite intolerant under the guise of tolerance, unaccepting behind the mask of acceptance. The landscape is littered with five man parties, three and half of whom have fried their brains on drugs. And they all call themselves Left.

    I’m repeating myself here but I will keep repeating myself until somebody gets it. I’m foreign born. I grew up around working class socialists, most of whom had never read Marx. They were in that camp (or parties) because they recognized socialism to be the best way to reach that holy trinity of Humanity: Freedom, Justice and Equality. Many of those guys ended up in mass graves. They gave me my color. Not some Professor who considers doing sex, drugs and rockn’roll in the sixties to be activism or “Left”.

    Naturally I consider ninty percent of the Left in this country to be an absolute joke. Most of you guys are a product of the System. You think like the system. You have the uncanny ability to suck the soul out of any process and reduce it to a “system”. One you can file in a drawer. You do that with everything. Your organizations are inorganic, your leadership is inorganic and that’s one of the reasons they fail every time. You function like a corporation. Yet you claim you stand against the corporations? Hate to sound like a slogan but you need to think outside the system.

    The Left is not outdated. Your thought process is outdated. It is not that the Left has failed. It’s that people have failed to understand what Socialism was meant to serve. (note the holly trinity above)

    Oh and Anderson, don’t white me this or white me that. Where I come from there always has been and still is equal opportunity slavery. My people have been slaves too. So basicly there’s zero white guilt here. Don’t try to push me around with that one. The only color I really see is pink.

    So you gone out to San Francisco, partying? (as in the non-political version) Good! Have a drink for me. I had to go to my FREAKIN’ SECOND JOB to make rent.

80. Brandy Baker said on November 15th, 2008 at 8:51am #

    Max,
    I never said it was about age.

81. Brandy Baker said on November 15th, 2008 at 8:56am #

    …it’s about the fact that in 20 years, there isn’t going to be anyone around to carry the mantle if it is not passed. And it’s not about Obama having an “afro” or getting rid of teh Reverend (which was WRONG). We can be both principled and savvy.

    And it’s about the fact that the ways of doings things are dated, and much of the radical Left is out of touch.

82. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 15th, 2008 at 8:58am #

    armean,
    once again i dare w. some trepidation remind people that amers r not exceptional nor exceptionalistic.
    yes, it is shouted from rooftops for ca 3 cent’s that amers r exalted/exceptional/just/prudent.
    but haven’t we noticed that egyptians, chaldeans, assyrians, persians, chinese, romans, greeks, and most eurolands have also taught explicitly and tacitly the same ‘dogma’ ?
    the difference btwn past and now is the fact that the imperias don’t fight one another any longer.
    haven’t we noticed that there is no longer nationalism/imperialism/laws? except changing plutocratic laws?
    haven’t we noticed that we are getting into the rule by planetary plutocracy?
    and US plutos are its head for now.
    surely my friends nato is not there to baby sit us or to protect us. it’s there for world plutos.

83. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 15th, 2008 at 12:39pm #

    *Easy* everyone…

    Just quietly tiptoe back away from “armean”…

    He’s a little muddled…, and he’s not thinking clearly…

    If he starts to approach, slowly remove your tie-dyed shirt and lightly toss it off to his side to distract him…

    Don’t make any direct eye contact, don’t run, and don’t make any sudden movement or noises until he’s well out of sight…

    (Ever since this country was founded, white guys *really* got the shit end of the stick and the rawest deal in America, so he’s understandably upset…)

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Whew…!! That was close…! I could use a toke…!

    Come here, baby… Let’s do the nasty to In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida …!!

84. Deadbeat said on November 15th, 2008 at 12:40pm #

    Joseph Anderson writes…

    So, Deadbeat, your argument logically (whether you mean it or not, whether you’re pro-Dem or not) boils down to: the left has to support Dems because most everyone is going to vote Dem anyway, and therefore you won’t look stupid supporting a 3rd party, or participating in a nationally *organized* voter boycott for the reasons I mentioned above

    Joseph, I interpret your definition of a boycott means to “withdraw” from electoral political. It my interpretation is correct then what I am saying is that the resulting “vacuum” will leave pragmatic voters not other options other than to vote for the Democrats.

    What I am saying is that the Left must have a presence in the electoral arena for this reason. I think you misinterpret my message. I am not “pro-Democratic Party”. I am just trying to analyze the behavior of the electorate and to think of ways that the Left can attract those voters to the Left.

    I agree with you that Obama will disillusion his supporters. We see that taking shape with his inner circle selections. However the question I am asking is what will the Left have in place to corral that discontent.

    Another possible reactions could be that the disillusioned will just stay home opening up the opportunity for the Republicans and a right wing backlash due to lack of participation and demoralization. That IMO would be a worst outcome than folks staying with the Democrats.

    I don’t have the answer but I do appreciate this discussing difference without acrimony. Your answer help me understand your position better and I don’t disagree with some sort of direct action which is what a boycott is. I also agree to adherence to principles as well. However if the main strategy is to dissuade people from supporting the Democrats the key to that strategy is attracting people of color from the Democrats. IMO the Left this year was ill-prepared because of their inability to build solidarity especially with people-of-color.

    Therefore Joseph, my position is not about giving the Democrats anything. It is about being prepared to take advantage of the opportunities that the Democrats will give to the Left.

85. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 15th, 2008 at 1:05pm #

    Brandy Baker: “We can be both principled and savvy.”

    Worrrd…

    (I lllike the way you think, Brandy.)

86. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 15th, 2008 at 2:26pm #

    Deadbeat (Deadbeat said on November 15th, 2008 at 12:40pm)…

    You are just *repeating* yourself (Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2008 at 7:26pm) …

    And I have *already responded* to your arguments (Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 14th, 2008 at 11:28pm).

    But, while you’re at it, still just *repeating* yourself, what do you *mean* by:

    “I am just trying to analyze the behavior of the electorate and to think of ways that the Left can attract those voters to the Left.”

    *What* ways…?

    Offer up some concrete, specific, *practical* ideas.

    —————————————————————————————–

    And when you said, “Joseph, I interpret your definition of a boycott means to “withdraw” from electoral politic[s]”.

    Again (if this mere *restatement* in different words helps your understanding) — aside from the fact that uniting behind one truly progressive 3rd party candidate is hardly “withdrawing” — I’m not talking about withdrawing *completely*, by an organized national election boycott. I’m talking about boycotting, as a form of direct action/pressure, under certain existing *conditions*, for certain *purposes*, and as a way to make certain *demands* (like when Civil Rights activists of all colors used to boycott stores that didn’t hire minorities) — other than what you seem to offer: _just *caving into* the Democrats_, which means you see the solution (with some alliance that doesn’t exist) as just being a *Democrat* and more or less continuing the lesser of two evils neoliberal imperialist *status quo*.

    In fact, one reason that the Greens imploded on a national level four years ago was because they didn’t realize that they’d be infiltrated and subverted by the *Democrats* (as with David Cobb). That’s why such an organization needs to have “a mission statement of governing principles”, so that infiltrators can’t come in and subvert the organization’s stated purpose for being, practical mission, operating/governing principles and goal. Like Brandy, I’ve observed that leftists aren’t very savvy/streetwise.

    “Insanity”: when you keep doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results!

    [Like, certain Jewish friends of mine have a “We are an anti-Zionist organizaton dedicated to the reunification of historic Palestine under absolutely equal rights regardless of religion, ethnicity and gender, for all its inhabitants” statement. Because, otherwise you have all these liberal closet Zionists (like, Chomsky, Bennis, Avnery, Halper, Zunes, Greg Palast, now even Finkelstein, etc., and their lesser or rank-&-file cohorts) speaking for, or leading, infiltrating, subverting and causing discord (like, for just one example, demanding that every liberal Zionist rabbi in the area must speak at a *global justice* event, but, they demand, *no* anti-Zionist Palestinians/Jews can speak), especially at thee most critical moments in time, in what generally passes for the Western “pro-Palestinian human rights movement” and even in the anti-war movement (like, exactly when Israeli IDF is mass rampaging through or re-invading Gaza, or some West Bank Palestinian towns, or Lebanon: and *that’s* exactly when these liberal closet Zionist icons suddenly “discover” and start publicly talking/writing about “rampant anti-Semitism” on the *left* — like Naomi Klein did too, as with an old commentary at her website exactly the month, 2002/2003?, when Israel was mass invading Jenin, etc.!) It’s a *fact*: most of the Jewish so-called “Peace Now” movement in Israel is *Zionist*.]

87. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 15th, 2008 at 2:29pm #

    Hey, Deadbeat, I’ll be away for a few hours taking a bong and a jaccuzi in my backyard garden hot tub…

    [wink, wink…]

    Right “armean”…?

88. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 15th, 2008 at 4:42pm #

    joseph anderson,
    there may be at least 3 kinds of zionists: mini, medi, and maxi.
    it seems to me- and judging not from what was said but by what wasn’t- some or most or all ‘Jews’ who condemn israeli crimes may be mini zionistic.
    these people may be for a twostate ‘sol’n’. it appears to me the second state is no longer available; ie, only shreds remain and constant strife to follow even after the enorm weaklings get back 10% of their former homelend.
    such a shreds wld also be surrounded by a hostile kingdom and the enemies in lebanon.
    in short, another concetration camp but then legal. legally or illegally, concetration means the same thing.

89. Deadbeat said on November 15th, 2008 at 6:56pm #

    Joe Anderson says …
    But, while you’re at it, still just *repeating* yourself, what do you *mean* by:“I am just trying to analyze the behavior of the electorate and to think of ways that the Left can attract those voters to the Left.”

    What I mean by that the Left has not been successful drawing who I think are the most loyal of the Democratic Party base away from the Democrats. The result of the election, IMO, indicates that people of color were central to Obama’s victory and the Left needs to build solidarity with people-of-color. The Left seem to not have done a good job on that front.

    Thanks for your clarification of “boycott”. I misinterpreted your meaning. I agree that a direct action serving to apply pressure is a needed approach. And you are right about the Greens being naive to being infiltrated by people like David Cobb and Medea Benjamin and other so-called “Demo-Greens”.

    That’s why such an organization needs to have “a mission statement of governing principles”, so that infiltrators can’t come in and subvert the organization’s stated purpose for being, practical mission, operating/governing principles and goal. Like Brandy, I’ve observed that leftists aren’t very savvy/streetwise.

    The Green Party has their “10 points” but they have internal and structural deficiencies that enabled them to be infiltrated by Cobb. I don’t think those deficiencies were addressed this year which means the Greens could face another “coup”. In order to have an effective boycott a strong organizational structure is necessary. Unless there’s going to be new political structures on the Left or there be some renewed solidarity, the Green Party is the only working structure at this time particular time to compete against the Democrats. And their ineffectiveness doesn’t present much hope.

    “Insanity”: when you keep doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results!

    That is why I’m asking questions and engaging in this discussion and testing my own assumptions.

    Hey, Deadbeat, I’ll be away for a few hours taking a bong and a jaccuzi in my backyard garden hot tub…

    The best ideas come from a relaxed mind. Have a good time.

90. Brandy Baker said on November 16th, 2008 at 9:28am #

    “Hey, Deadbeat, I’ll be away for a few hours taking a bong and a jaccuzi in my backyard garden hot tub…”

    “The best ideas come from a relaxed mind. Have a good time”

    Lol!! You guys are funny.

91. Max Shields said on November 16th, 2008 at 10:38am #

    “infiltration” what a meaningless term in regards to the Green Party, and to boot the DB prescription is to do something (?) about the Party’s “structural deficiencies”. Now what may I ask is a structural deficiency that would keep a Cobb out of the Party?

    What stops PDA from infiltrating the Dem Party?

    This construct DB weaves has now connection to reality. Sounds kinda interesting, but there is nothing actionable about it.

    As far as African Americans voting for Dem candidates (Obama just be one of thousands of examples), no particular mystery there. The interesting thing is that the total % of eligible voters who turned out to vote in ’08 was the same as ’04. Now that’s telling.

    Parties are not going to solve the deep problems that exist in the American body politics (and yes these are structural, not Party-oriented, rather than politically systemic). Perhaps that is the lesson of the US Green Party and those other parties that have tried and tried to edge there way in. At the Presidential level you’ve got the electorial college which requires a constitutional amendment to change before there can even be a meaningful alternative to the duopoly.

    Keep the energy at the local level where there is home rule of one sort of another. With the collapse of the global economic system, a local economy that moves outwardly to regions is a viable alternative. Let the PDA and the Cobb’s fantasize about transforming DC.

    What DB seems to be bickering about is that some old notion of a “left” needs to strategize around upending the body-politics. Top-down will never do it. The nation will stay at war, keep it’s occupied territories and empire until what it takes to do that costs more than letting go. They’ve found a money generating and deregulatory pyramid scheme to keep it going way past its real world collapse; but that cannot go on for much longer. The only non-negotiable is energy and most of that is fossil. We cannot shift to alternatives – 1) fast enough 2) sufficiently to keep the material Western and large parts of the Eastern world going.

    This human based material world is based on the characteristics of oil, coal and natural gas. Altneratives can over time reduce some dependency but not all. Only a major cultural and economic transformation will allow the continuation of the species.

92. David Kendall said on November 16th, 2008 at 4:48pm #

    “Obamas victory is a victory over racism, but it is not a victory of the left. And progressives will have to challenge the Obama administration on all of these issues.”
    — Manny Marable, “Democracy Now”, 11/08/2008

93. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 23rd, 2008 at 3:27pm #

    [ Joe Anderson says …
    But, while you’re at it, still just *repeating* yourself, what do you *mean* by: “I am just trying to analyze the behavior of the electorate and to think of ways that the Left can attract those voters to the Left.”

    [“Deadbeat”:] What I mean by that the Left has not been successful drawing who I think are the most loyal of the Democratic Party base away from the Democrats. The result of the election, IMO, indicates that people of color were central to Obama’s victory and the Left needs to build solidarity with people-of-color. The Left seem to not have done a good job on that front. ]

    Sorry guys (“armean”). I passed out on the bong in my Berkeley hot tub, Saturday a week ago, and I just came to! I hope it’s not too late for you and Brandy to see this post.

    (Actually, since my last post, Nov 15, a political or literatry event-a-night in the Bay Area which I attended, and a recent huge scandal, at UC Berkeley, all last week, about a group of arch-Zionist Jewish students assaulting two Palestinian female students and one Palestinian male student for holding a Palestinian flag — affirming their existence — on a student organization university building balcony overlooking an anti-Palestinian Zionist concert performance, took almost all my free time last week.

    See the BerkeleyDailyPlanet online: UCPD Investigates Israeli-Palestinian Altercation On Campus )

    “Deadbeat”, you said what the left *should* do, but you still haven’t given any specific, concrete, *practical* (i.e., *operational*) ideas about how to do that. You’re just repeating yourself on your variations of your same *abstract*, *generalized* ideas. You still haven’t offered any explication of *specifically* _HOW_ you proposed to do that. I gave an actual concrete, *specific activity* to achieve my goal. You’re just talking about A *goal* — which few (at least real) leftists would disagree with.

    A specific, concrete, practical, operational idea is like my national, *organized* presidential election boycott — and other specific, concrete *direct action* ideas I have or could offer.

    When African Americans wanted to desegregate the buses in 1960’s Montgomery, Alabama, they didn’t just say, “We needed to desegregate seating on the buses and stop the bus service from making us sit in the back.” They had a specific plan: the Montgomery Bus Boycott and how they were going to execute that plan. An idea without *a practical plan* is just an _opinion_.

    It’s like when Sarah Palin said about her and McCain, “We’re going to decrease unempoyment [or whatever]”, and Katie Couric (the news interviewer) asked Palin *how* — and Palin repeated, “By decreasing unemployment” — and Couric said, “Yes…, but specifically *how*?”

    (I don’t mean at all to directly compare you to Sarah Palin, altho I’m going to miss her *very much* in the news. Hahaha!)

    You’re saying that you (&/or the Left) should bring Blacks and Latinos/Browns & all people-of-color together, or draw Blacks from the Dems, or whatever — but you haven’t said, specifically, *HOW*.

94. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on November 23rd, 2008 at 3:34pm #

    –

    An abstract idea without *a practical plan* is just an _opinion_.

    –

All content © 2007-2024 Dissident Voice and respective authors | Subscribe to the DV RSS feed | Top