Friday, September 19, 2008

Is Barack Obama an Alternative for US Workers?

I don't expect this post will change the minds of my left liberal friends, who read this blog, not to vote for Obama. The challenge to them is after Obama is office, and there is no fundamental "change," would you consider leaving the Democratic Party? I think the time is right, for the US to have its own labor party. I will post later about the possibilities of such a formation. From the first day Obama is inaugerated, to 100 days later, the 100th day is Mayday. It can be called the 100 day trial. I added a video of Cynthia McKinny's VP Rosa Clemente, taken at the RNC, by blog team member John Peterson. Her message is different than Obama and Ralph Nader's. Rosa is not afraid to directly attack capitalism. That differentiates her from Nader. RENEGADE EYE

By Shane Jones
Friday, 19 September 2008

After years of Bush’s open-ended war on working people at home and abroad, many on the “left” are desperate for an alternative. For many, that alternative is Barack Obama, a Democratic Senator from Illinois. Obama, who is very careful with his words and actions, has done a good job so far of portraying himself as a “sensible progressive”. However, far from being a “progressive” alternative, Obama is at his core a typical representative of the bosses’ political parties. Despite presenting himself as a candidate of “change”, Obama is a defender of capitalism and imperialism, and hence of exploitation and oppression. On all fundamentals, he is far closer to Bush than he is to being a genuine alternative for working people.

Far from seeking the end of class exploitation, Obama is a true believer in the capitalist system. Along with the likes of Joe Lieberman, a political and financial supporter of Obama whom Barack considers to be his “mentor”, he makes it clear that the Democratic Party is a party of the bosses: “The last I checked John Kerry believes in the superiority of the U.S. military, Hillary Clinton believes in the virtues of capitalism…”

Obama even criticizes the Democratic party from the right: “…Democrats are confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New-Deal and Great-Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense bereft of energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated inner city.”

Obama, who earned just under $1million last year, is a supporter of the Hamilton Project, a group founded by Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury and current chair of Citigroup (the world’s largest company, with total assets of $2.02 trillion). As a Senator, Obama opposed a bill that would place a 30 percent interest rate cap on credit cards, which would help relieve high interest payments for many U.S. working families. Yet he voted for a “tort reform” bill that rolls back workers’ ability to seek redress and compensation if they are wronged by their employer.

On the question of health care, Obama is opposed to national single-payer health care, on the grounds that it would leave workers in the private health care industry, such as Kaiser and BlueCross BlueShield, unemployed! This is a smoke screen of the worst kind. He is attempting to appear pro-worker, while he is really defending the interests of big business against working people. Instead, he is in favor of “voluntary solutions” as opposed to “government mandates”. Yet as every worker knows, the bosses never “volunteer” to give us raises or benefits. The super-profitable health care industry is not going to sacrifice its profits. Obama is merely evading the question. He might as well state the truth: he is not for any fundamental change.

Like all good big business politicians, when the capitalists come with money and gifts, Obama becomes their political guardian angel. For example, he is a loyal defender of the leading U.S. nuclear power company Exelon, which has given more than $74,000 to his campaign. Exelon is the parent company of ComEd, the energy company currently price gouging Illinois consumers. Agro-capitalists Archer Daniels Midland have reportedly lent him the use of private jets for his campaigns. A few months after entering the Senate, Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in AVI BioPharma, a pharmaceutical company that would have benefited from legislation that he backed. George Soros, the prominent billionaire and master of capital speculation, supports Obama, although he said he would support Hillary Clinton, if she won the Democratic nomination. In either case, he feels confident that his billions of dollars will be safe.

It is on his “opposition” to the war that Obama has garnered much support, and understandably so, as the war is every day seen by more and more U.S. workers as a complete disaster. Many are seeking a real political opposition against the war, but what exactly does Obama mean when he “speaks out against the war”? Far from opposing the war on the basis that it is a war on workers and the poor at home and abroad, he would have preferred that the war had been better presented and more carefully planned. He is in favor of U.S. imperialism winning, but adds a pinch of semi-populist rhetoric, as many Democratic politicians have been doing as of late. He was simply quicker to jump on the bandwagon.

Obama is in fact a vigorous supporter of the wider “war on terror”. As he stated in a so-called anti-war speech in October 2002: “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.” Obama voted to re-authorize the USA PATRIOT Act, which has been heavily criticized by civil rights layers as curtailing civil liberties. He opposed moves to censure Bush for illegal wiretapping, and voted to approve Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.

Obama has called for a “phased withdrawal” of U.S. troops and an opening of diplomatic dialogue with Iraq’s neighbors, Syria and Iran. In other words, he understands that the best U.S. imperialism can do is soften the blow of a defeat; outright victory is now an impossibility. Like other slightly more far-sighted leaders of the ruling class, he approaches this from the perspective of preserving the cohesion and readiness of the military – so it can be used in other imperialist adventures such as Afghanistan and beyond. Far from calling for an immediate withdrawal of occupying forces in Iraq, Obama has the perspective of further interventions in the region, with one possible scenario involving U.S. forces remaining in an occupied Iraq for an “extended period of time”, acting as a launching pad. This would call for “a reduced but active U.S. military presence” that “protects logistical supply points” and “American enclaves like the Green Zone,” which would send “a clear message to hostile countries Iran and Syria that we plan to remain a key player in the region.” U.S. troops “remaining in Iraq” will “act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and to go after terrorists.” Above all, Obama wants a “pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq,” and to “defeat the insurgency.” These, of course, are mutually exclusive aims. The insurgency is the popular uprising of an occupied people. The only solution is the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. and “coalition” troops from Iraq.

In March, Obama called Iran’s government “a threat to all of us ... [The U.S.] should take no option, including military action, off the table.” He added that the U.S.’ “primary means” of relating to Iran should be “sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions.”

In short, Obama is trying to be everything to everyone, both for the continuation of the war for one sector of the ruling class, and posturing against the war for another sector, all while demagogically trying to win votes from genuinely anti-war working people.

Obama, who could well be the first black U.S. president, has attempted to make benign the malignancy that is racism in the United States. American capitalism relies heavily on the oppression of minorities as a means of exploiting and dividing the working class. But Obama believes that “cultural issues” are at the core of black poverty – an argument also embraced by many right-wing racists. Even a cursory look at the history of oppression that black workers and communities have been faced with shows that this has little to do with “cultural issues”, but rather, has everything to do with the social structure of U.S. capitalism.

Are police brutality, the de-funding of inner city schools, and the gutting of public housing a “cultural issue”? Should the brutal repression and liquidation of an entire generation of black leadership, including MLK Jr. and Malcolm X, be considered a “cultural issue”? Is the fact that one in three black men in their twenties are in prison, out on bail, on probation, court supervision, community service, or parole a “cultural issue”? And yet Obama sees the discrepancy between blacks and whites in the U.S. as a question of personal drive or the lack thereof. He has claimed that blacks can’t progress, “If we don’t start instilling in our young children that there is nothing to be ashamed about in educational achievement. I don’t know who told them that reading and writing and conjugating your verbs was something ‘white.’ ”

Certainly, there are those who are critical of Obama due to the color of his skin. We soundly reject this racist point of view. Black workers in the U.S., along with their class sisters and brothers of all races and ethnicities, run the world’s most advanced economy every day. There is no reason why black men or women cannot not play a leading role in the political shaping of society. However, for Marxists, it is a question of which class interests someone defends. It must be made clear that anyone who wants to seriously tackle racism must be prepared to tackle capitalism. As a representative of the capitalist class, Obama is neither willing nor able to tackle either.

When it comes to immigration, Obama has sought to lump immigrant workers with terrorists in the drive to militarize the border. Obama took an active role in the Senate’s drive for further border security linked to new immigration laws. Beginning in 2005, he co-sponsored the “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” introduced by Sen. John McCain. He also supported the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act” sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, which did not pass the House. In 2006, Obama supported another related bill, the $7 billion dollar “Secure Fence Act”, which authorized the construction of 700 miles of fences, walls and other security measures to be built up along the U.S.-Mexico border. President Bush signed it into law in October 2006, calling it, “an important step toward immigration reform.” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whose appointment Obama approved, said the bill would “make substantial progress towards preventing terrorists and others from exploiting our borders,” directly implying immigrants and terrorists are one and the same.

He is also a strong supporter of “guest worker programs” and gave glowing praise to the May 18th proposal in the Senate that includes provisions to detain up to 27,500 immigrants per day, to hire 18,000 new border guards, and to construct an additional 370 miles of border walls.

Bush and his circle are certainly an extremely hawkish section of the ruling class, with plans for imperialist conquest based on their specific economic interests: oil and other energy holdings, armaments, construction, and other contract companies that benefit from military interventions, such as Halliburton. But the distinction between Bush and Obama is not principled. Obama, along with the more far-sighted strategists of the ruling class, seek only to curtail the excesses of the Bush clique, which are a threat to the stability of U.S. capitalism as a whole. In this sense, Barrack Obama actually more faithfully represents the interests of the capitalist class at this point in history than Bush. So is Obama really an alternative for working people? The facts speak for themselves.



? said...

We are entering the final strech of what will be seen as the
politics of race, ethnicity, privilege, economics, social class and gender. This seems positive!

Bob said...

Of course the problem with a labor party in the US is that it would be impossible to form without the involvement of the major unions, the same unions that have effectively sold out their rank and file to the corporations which defeats the purpose of a political party devoted to worker's issues.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but I know too much about the state of labor in the US to think that it would a party that I would be completely happy with.

It may be easier to reform the Democrats to the point where we could vote for someone that we almost liked instead of the current situation where we will be voting for the person we hate the least.

Joseph Dubonnet said...

the US definitely needs a labour party. Conservatives (Republicans) and Liberals (Democrats) are the two sides of the same capitalist coin. You can flip on either side and get practically the same thing. Heads or Tail? Same difference!

Gert said...

Ain't gonna happen though [the formation of an American Labor party], is it? It's the solid disadvantage of the US's (and the UK's) de facto two-party system that the winner takes all and that all elections end up in a stalemate disguised as a victory for whatever side. Only some kind of system of proportional representation resulting in cross-party coalitions could break the 'first past the post' gridlock.

It's ironic that the most expensive and most hotly contested election in the known universe is essentially a lottery and one were outside players (if they so wanted) could have more influence on the whole charade than the actual electorate. If Iran wanted Obama to be in office, essentially all they would have to do is to make a lot of noise about opening up a diplomatic front with the 'Great Satan'. If on the other hand they wanted McPalin to win, a few low level Hizbollah attacks, preferably on US soil, would definitely swing it for potato head.

Una said...

It's very interesting that analysis on the political Obama but I think that the alternative (John Mc Cain) is much worse for you and for the rest of the world, Ms. Palin already talk of war with Russia, Mr Mc Cain who does not know who or Spain is the Chairman of talk that will work against those who do not think like him. These people are afraid. All wars arrange it? Why they want to intervene into the affairs of other countries?

Una said...

Communism collapsed and the capitalist model has failed, too. It has been seeking a new model that respects the human rights of the world's population, the resources of the planet that is not based on the exploitation of people and natural resources.

Anonymous said...

On the question of health care, Obama is opposed to national single-payer health care, on the grounds that it would leave workers in the private health care industry, such as Kaiser and BlueCross BlueShield, unemployed! This is a smoke screen of the worst kind. He is attempting to appear pro-worker, while he is really defending the interests of big business against working people. Instead, he is in favor of “voluntary solutions” as opposed to “government mandates”.


The pretense that you and your comrades wish to flank Obama from the Left is laughable. Try as you might, you'll never be able to position Obama in the 'center'. He already OWNS the Left.

ps - Obama's sympathy for a single payer system is well know, The only reason he claims a different position is because if he states his heart and true intentions, he'll lose the general election.

Daniel said...

I agree with Tere. We need to combine the better aspects of both systems using strong regulation.

Crushing people using socialism or allowing greed to reign under capitalism is no answer.

DavidG. Dangerous Creation.

Frank Partisan said...

Red Eyes: Atleast at election time in the US, people talk about politics.

Bob: A labor party would be initiated from below. There are some locals, that have supported a labor party.

The Democratic Party can't be reformed, anymore than Republican. It has too many corporate interests it's dependent on.

It's not a matter of getting nice people into office. Wellstone received more respect from Republicans, than Dems.

The credit card law that Wellstone single handedly stopped, is law because of Biden.

Steeltown: I agree.

Gert: At this point, the hatred of Bush is so visceral, that McCain has no chance to win. I think a broomstick can beat the Republicans.

The only pattern to al-Qaeda, is that they strike, during a US president's first term.

I don't think Iran can influence the election. Obama can adapt.

Tere: The remark McCain about Spain, I see was noted at your part of the world. He's supposed to be a foreign policy expert.

Communism didn't fail. What failed was the counterevolution called Stalinism. Stalinism was based on a bureaucracy, that sucked the life out of countries.

Stalin murdered every revolutionary socialist leader in Russia, and installed conservative, nationalist governments. Socialism needs democracy to work.

FJ: Obama's economic team are hostile to single payer healthcare.

Daniel: You shouldn't mistake Stalinism for any authentic socialism.

Larry Gambone said...

Ren, what do you think of the idea that as the Empire comes apart, rather than a labor party, the US will move toward revolutionary class organizations? If the US would have had a labor party 20-30 years ago, that would have been a diffent matter. But the trouble with a labor party is as the contradictions deepen, this party will divide and misdirect workers away from revolution - ie the creation and ultimate rule of worker and neighborhood councils. Of course, I am talking about the future, not this moment, but things can change very rapidly, as you know.

Bob said...

The Democratic Party can't be reformed, anymore than Republican. It has too many corporate interests it's dependent on.

I disagree, both of the parties have shown in the past that they are willing to adopt new platforms when their power is threatened by third parties. The problem is finding a third party that can threaten the established power base in a manner that would force them to change their platform to something more agreeable.

Una said...

I do not have political culture to know what needs the world but something has to change, the real democracy has not come to any country, not even in that we have free elections, in all it is much that to improve and most of the world suffers for the excesses of the rich countries.

? said...

Well, this must be a very interesting time in the US although if one recalls the manner in which the current leader ascended then anything is possible. I'm gonna hold my breath.

Unknown said...


You already know that I'm convinced that the "boots on the ground" reality is that electoral politics is no longer a solution, but is become a major part of the problem.

You may recall that maybe three years or so ago, I did some work exploring and advocating the formal alliance of disenfranchised and marginalized leftists and their parties into one powerful party. I contacted something like 30 leftist/radical parties. I got responses from three - two rudely laughed at me. The third, Mitchell Cohen of the Brooklyn Greens, and I have become fast friends in our mutual frustration.

I can only point to the hilarious WTC-like collapse of the Libertarian Party, both internally and in its relationship with the Ron Paulists, to illustrate what would happen in an attempt to form a labor party.

Briefly: electoral politics, at least at the national level, is The Matrix. Behind the Big Screen, fascism is in place (rather than 'on the way'). The solution is in small localized movements, communities, and economies, initially sparked by Cindy Sheehan/Cynthia McKinney types, concentrating on sustainability and survival.

Nobama is not an alternative for bloody anything.

Be at peace.

Wally Banners said...

George Bush has hurt the United States of America more than Osama Bin Laden ever did. From his Failure to Avenge America from 9/11 to his incompetence in New Orleans. Now our Economy is back to the Great Depression Era. The GOP shoves some senile lifetime Senator in front of the Public and demands that we trust it. GOP can't win wars, GOP can't handle the Economy,GOP doesn't care about the People. GOP = American Al Qaeda.

CHRIS I. G. said...

Is Barack Obama an Alternative for US Workers?
Is methadone an alternative for heroin?

troutsky said...

Interesting analogy, Chris. Methadone is a less dangerous alternative.

I am thinking of the communists refusing to ally with socialists in 1933 and Germany ending up with Hitler. They wanted to stay "pure". I think we are headed towards fascism and any improvement should be looked at. As for a party, the consciousness raising, solidarity aspects would be valuable if it was outwardly anti-capitalist.

Frank Partisan said...

Really good discussion.

Bob: You are raising important questions.

Think about the midterm elections of 2006. Look what the Dems, did with their antiwar mandate. They gave the finger to it.

More progressive legislation occured under Nixon, than Clinton. Not because of his personal views, but the strength of people in the street.

Tere: I agree.

Larry: How is this for an answer? I don't know.

In my lifetime, if a strong party is built, based in the working class, with major unions abandoning the Dems, that would be my Russia 1917.

Troutsky: No way is your analogy correct.

Teaching people about the fundamental corruption of the two party system, doesn't compare to third period Stalinism and the Stalinist Communist Party of Germany, before WWII. In addition the American right is not fascist. If fascism was an issue, the strategy would have to be rethought.

P: Thank you for visiting. Its been awhile.

It's important that you read Trotsky's pamphlet on what is fascism. Many on the left and right don't use the word precisely.

The Green Party isn't a functional organization. Some are turned off that McKinny/Clemente bring up racism and other issues. Some support Nader, and others Obama. Whole chapters don't do electoral activity. Nader took the infrastructure, after he was ousted.

I think electoral activity has a place, as long as masses believe in it. You can't jump ahead.

CHRIS IOANNOU G.: The lesser evil argument has been used by Democrats for decades. Now is the time to really change.

Red Eyes: If you do that, you'll turn blue.

Wally: Thank you for visiting. I hope you return.

Apply the same tools of assessment to the Dems, as you do to the GOP. One hundred days after Obama is in office is Mayday. A good time for you to assess your views. That applies to everyone.

MC Fanon said...


Fascism isn't an issue yet. The Republicans categorically don't fit the fascist mold, as I brought up in my post on Trotsky's pamphlet.

However, I see the present day situation in an eerily similar light to 1933 Germany, with neo-conservatism as the new foe. I submit that while the Democrats offer no solution for the working class, an Obama Presidency will be far less destructive than a McCain Presidency. Trotsky called for a united front against fascism in Germany because he recognized that a greater foe had to be defeated before capitalism could be overthrown.

That said, I am completely tangled up inside over the Obama issue. If I were not voting in Florida, the issue would be set and I would undoubtedly vote Green. Every time the Obama people call me, I tear them limb from limb when they try to sell me Obama as a candidate of change. I don't want to vote Obama but the importance of Florida in November makes my impulse an irresponsible course of action.

Neither Obama nor McCain will be able to alleviate the coming economic storm. The left has an opportunity to draw out revolutionary class consciousness in the coming period of downturn.

Gert said...

"Gert: At this point, the hatred of Bush is so visceral, that McCain has no chance to win. I think a broomstick can beat the Republicans."

C'mon Ren, open your eyes to the polls: this is a closely run race by all accounts. Forget about landslides, a trickle of mud can swing it either way. Which explains (the now somewhat past) left Palinomania (their feverish attempts at digging dirt up on this rather virginal veep candidate) and GOP efforts at branding Obama as all sorts of things: when issues don't swing it, go for the legs.

That's why I believe outside influences from Iran or Al Quaida could provide those few thousand votes or this or that swing state needed for a narrow victory...

And game theory more or less predicts that when the major choice is between two options only, a massive, gridlocked stalemate is the only predictable outcome.

? said...

As if Obama will respond to pressure from the left, if I turn left the skies are blue

Larry Gambone said...

Ren, I posed my question because this would be the critique that the ultra-left would have of your group's position on a US labor party. In truth I don't know the answer either, but it is also important to have some answer for this criticism, which will undoubtedly be raised as your group becomes more influential in the US.

My own position is that a US labor party would not be such a bad idea, providing it took distinctly class positions, that is, if it were a contemporary version of old fashioned (pre-Bad Godsberg, and esp. Pre-"Third Way") social democracy. The political spectrum has moved so far to the right and the damage done to the crowning glories of the old social democracy (privatizations, destruction of the welfare state.) are so great that a serious attempt to introduce labor politics would have a radicalizing effect, and meet with extreme resistence, which would further the radicalization process. The best example of what I mean took place in Venezuela, where the Bolivarians started out as tepid social democrats but have been driven to radicalize ever further by forces from below and resistence from the oligarchy.

Larry Gambone said...

I would like to give you further examples of what I mean from the Canadian experience. Privatization has handed over vast areas of wealth to the corporations. Furthermore, many re-nationalizations, or even government control of resources are forbidden under NAFTA. To simply go back to where we were circa 1980 would pit reformist/nationalist groups like the Council of Canadians, the trade unions, environmentalists, who favor such things, against the entire North American ruling class and its media and state apparatus. Any attempt to restore social democracy in Canada would require a vast mobilization of the populace, which would then create its own radicalizing dynamic which would grow beyond the initial restorative demands.

Una said...

Dear friend, I feel that I did not say that those poems are in Catalan, in Spain are several languages from the Roman domination and are Castilian, Galician, Catalan and its variants that are the Valencian, Majorcan, Minorcan, native of ibiza. Much more old to the arrival of the Romans he is the Basoue. I have put a translator so that you can accede page with greater comfort in your language from the Castilian and from the Catalan that is those that I know better, the Basoue is very dificil.el Galician is understood better because it looks much like the Spanish since they are languages that were born from the Latin. A hug.

Una said...

I read kindly and I would want to ask. You like that the health, the education, the pensions of the incapacitated pensioners and are subject of totally private companies? I believe that the Government of each country cannot completely leave all the important subjects into the hands of private companies that they put as objective high-priority to generate wealth for them without considering the needs of the people. What you think on this? In Spain the education depends on the State and the Health and the pensions although always were private companies that also are used by many million people

Frank Partisan said...

Dave M: I brought up fascism, because someone incorrectly used that term. I made a point they read Trotsky's pamphlet.

I understand the pressure. Whole branches of the Green Party are supporting Obama. They were wacked over the head after Gore lost. Nader is real good talking about that incident. Gore lost because he had a history of being in bed with corporations. If Obama loses Florida, it's his own fault.

Larry G: That is the type f argument I get from Dave B, who comments here. That problem is being played out in Bolivia everyday.

There is a world of difference between the NDP, and the decrepid Democratic Party. In the US a labor party formation, would be radical to some extent, because it is not coming from above.

Gert: I can't prove this. I believe that the Dems definitely want to win, but not a landslide.

Obama is way ahead in the Electoral College, including leaners. I believe McCain has to win 8 out of 10 close races.

The way McCain handled the Georgia crisis, according to Stamford's criteria, was a gift to Putin. Putin set up the situation, the more belligerant the rhetoric, the weaker the US looks.

I've had discussions with people in the Venezuelan embassy. They rationalize wanting Obama to win. I suppose Iran does as well.

Red Eyes: Nixon responded to the left, because of people in the street.

Tere: It is nice how multilingual you are.

You must see the see the movie "SICKO." That is Michael Moore's best, most coherent movie. It deals with the subject you brought off.

Now that the government is bailing out the speculators in finance, it provides a basis to argue for more $$ for healthcare.

I think you would be shocked, if you knew decisions private insurance companies make toward the ill.

Obama is hostile Universal Health Insurance.

troutsky said...

I don't use the term fascism lightly but neither do I think it a fixed, 1930s historical model. It is as adaptable and shape shifting as capitalism. Take Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Stalin and find a common denomination in historical terms and this is the trend we need to be wary of as profits fall, we fight for the last of the oil and the globe heats up.The rural America I live in is zenophobic , nationalistic,scared and mean when cornered.Mc Cain /Palin panders to that.

Frank Partisan said...

Troutsky: Still you need to be pinpoint accurate with terminolgy, in order to move on the right path.

If fascism was an issue, a different strategy is needed. That just doesn't any sense define this period.

McCain is fighting for his life, in the western states.

Mad Zionist said...

An equal question could be posed for economic and social conservatives who feel a bit lost in this mess. Those of us who favor deregulation, eliminating the welfare state, eliminating social engineering, and having a supreme court that is limited to the text of the constitution rather than the whims of social liberals, makes for a frustrating campaign when you look at the options.

You may be bemoaning from the left, but those of us on the right are also experiencing tremendous frustration in our lack of representation. We will vote for McCain and hope for the best.

american left history said...

Ren- Interesting article on Obama but we have been onto that guy for a while. Jesus, I think I want to start to pray (sure, right) for the ghost of Bobby Kennedy in comparision. As for Saul Bellow he is one of that cadre of old literary Trotskyists and their hangers-on from the 1930's who turned neo-con. Not alll of them were in New York City. I believe in Bellow's case that he was influenced by James T. Farrell (Studs Lonigan trilogy)in the 1930's. But, hell Farrell at least did some good work around the Trotsky Defense case and later. What did the rest of these literary types do except run away from defense of the Soviet Union when it counted (and worst later). By the way reading the first half of Augie is enough. Markin

Frank Partisan said...

MZ: I doubt if 90% of the commenters on this blog, could possibly comprehend your dillema.

I think McCain/Palin have conservative credentials.

In this period I think for conservatives, the split is between realpolitik (realists) and Bush 43 conservatives.

I think the realists are powerful, since modern liberals are allied with them.

Markin: You should comment more often here. You have one of the best lefty blogs around.

Thank you for the info about Saul Bellow.

celticfire said...

Is Barack Obama an Alternative for US Workers?

No, but the Green Party is giant fucking joke.

Anonymous said...


dinoibo said...

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat