When 75,000 people turn out to see the democratic party presidential candidate, you know something big is going on (http://peoplesweeklyworldblog.blogspot.com/2008...). But how does the Communist Party USA fit into all of this?
sdelgado80
· 1 year ago
Let us now play the game "find the communist" if you can pick out the communist out of the crowd of 75,000 I will give you a free signed Gus hall t-shirt.
Guest
· 1 year ago
Don't you watch Fox News? They're ALL communists!!!
Joel
· 1 year ago
It's the woman, 276th from the right in the second photo at the link listed above.
Joel
· 1 year ago
I think recent events have also shown that a level of unity in and around the Democratic Party and in independent circles behind Obama and to defeat McCain is far higher than many pundits, including myself, expected at this stage.
Jim Lane
· 1 year ago
The 2nd largest and most important state, Texas, also has a lot of very hopeful people. With over 14,000 delegates, the Texas Democratic Party Convention made history. Virtually every speaker called out for unity between Obama and Clinton supporters. One State Senator, Royce West of Dallas, actually had them going around the convention hall and shaking hands! Mrs Clinton's endorsement of Obama occurred during the convention, and they shut down to listen to the video feed. While divisions were very apparent on the first day, the second day was much more unified. The Black Caucus was so big that there was a major traffic jam because not everyone could get in. The Labor Caucus, which typically has a maximum 130 people, had 500! The Texas ALF-CIO President, Becky Moeller, made a strong plea for a united effort to defeat McCain. She also issued a strong press release. Texas, infamous for being Bush's spawning area and a perpetual "red" state, had a record 2.9 million people voting in the Democratic primary, more than twice as many as the Republican primary. "If we can get those same 2.9 million to vote in November," said re-elected State Chair Boyd Richie, "No Republican seat is safe in Texas!" --Jim Lane in Dallas
TR
· 1 year ago
This blog posting states that the "the right" had "a grip on government" even during the Clinton years. What about January of 1993 until January of 1995, when the Democrats controlled both houses Congress and the White House. Why should anyone believe that if Obama wins and the Democrats maintain control of Congress, that the next two or four years will be any different?
Guest
· 1 year ago
that's a good point.... what's the difference between 1992 and 2008? I can think of a few things.... Bill Clinton was a centrist democratic that slid in because the right wing vote split between ross perot and george bush sr.... there was no movement behind Clinton... the Democratic controlled house had been controlled by democrats, without interruption, for 5 decades, so you can imagine how many fat-cat congresspeople there were whose only interest was in maintaining there jobs....
contrast that with obama and the movement today... it's a world of difference.
I think you've made the mistake of form over content. Look deeper.
Leon
· 1 year ago
Read Obama's AIPAC speech and then tell me who is a "right wing zealot". His rhetoric is more right than Bush's on this issue. Obama is a corporate servant who has seduced the "left" despite his record of corporate loyalty.
Guest
· 1 year ago
More right than Bush? hehe I'm pretty sure Bush would never refer to the current "free" trade agreements as the "globalization of the empty stomach."
Leon
· 1 year ago
Obama's selection of Wal - Marts chief PR man and defender for his economic adviser shows that he has no real concern for empty stomachs as Wal - Mart is creating poverty quicker than the Peruvian free trade agreement which is part of the "globalization of the empty stomach" and which Obama supported.
MikeK
· 1 year ago
The selection of Furman is certainly troubling, but in my view it speaks more to the fact that it will be an ongoing struggle to push a President Obama in the most progressive direction possible than it does to anything else. Already the labor-backed Wal-Mart Watch is putting pressure on the Obama campaign over the move.
That said, I don't see the Furman appointment as indicative of the main thrust of what Obama has put out there as far as economic policy goes. I agree with Jonathan Tasini when he says, "It's hard to believe that during his community organizing work in the poorest neighborhoods of his own city he didn't have something sink into him about income inequality. There's no way to read anything he has put out there as anything but rejection for the Wal-Mart model."
Leon, you clearly are arguing against strategic support for Obama. What do you propose as an alternative strategy? Are you one of those who argues for ceding the electoral realm of struggle altogether? I definitely don't see how working people in the US and around the world would benefit from such a course.
Leon
· 1 year ago
I am simply stating what history has taught us. That is that the democratic party is the graveyard of progressive movements and as long as we put our efforts into them we will get right where we are. Labor elected and was betrayed by Truman, LBJ lied about ending the war, Carter was a closet hawk, Clinton betrayed the working class with NAFTA and welfare "reform".
Just look at Obama's recent statement about his loyalty to "Free Market Economics". On CNBC he said, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."
His assurance to the Miami cuban terrorists is a disturbing and clear indication of his views on Latin America. He also endorsed the so-called Merida Initiative, which Amnesty International and others have condemned as the US bringing the "Colombian solution" to Mexico. He did not stop there. "We must press further south as well," he said. Not even Bush has said that.
We should be building a real party of, by and for the majority, that is the working class.
As long as we play the game of support the democrat we are doomed in a rigged game where only those who both control and obey the system can win.
Communists supporting a candidate who is a committed capitalist seems to me to be the kind of political schizophrenia that will always lead to a dead end
MikeK
· 1 year ago
A party of, by and for the working class? Yup. Sounds great. Unfortunately, a mass party of that type does not currently exist and is certainly not a contender in the November election. The question, then, is what is a pragmatic strategy to pursue in the situation that we actually find ourselves in. It is important to not lose sight of the larger goal that you raise, but that does little to tell us how to get there from here.
Would a President Obama and a Democratic congressional majority pass the Employee Free Choice Act into law? Possibly. Will they pass some sort of progressive national health care plan? Possibly. Will they end the war in Iraq? Possibly. They say they will. It's certainly also possible that they'll break all of those promises. That's why it's so important to build the progressive grassroots movement that can not only bring these folks into office, but can push them further afterward. The one thing that we do know for sure is that there is no way in hell that a President McCain would do any of the above things. If anything, he would make things worse than they are now.
The question before us (or the one that I think should be before us) is what kind of strategy can win short term gains for the working class - easing the process of uniting with others in a union, ensuring that none of us are denied affordable healthcare, protecting and furthering basic democratic rights - while at the same time laying the groundwork for more qualitative change. I cannot imagine such a strategy that did not include fighting for a landslide Democratic victory in November. In short, I think the policy that the CPUSA has put out on the elections is correct.
On the many sins of Obama that you detail, I would refer you to the post about looking at "the whole message." That is not to say that Obama's message is a socialist one. Of course it isn't. But it is, on the whole, progressive especially when compared with the alternative. Making sure that that is the message that wins out is essential to both the immediate and long term interests of workers in this country and elsewhere.
All Comments
Mrs Clinton's endorsement of Obama occurred during the convention, and they shut down to listen to the video feed. While divisions were very apparent on the first day, the second day was much more unified.
The Black Caucus was so big that there was a major traffic jam because not everyone could get in. The Labor Caucus, which typically has a maximum 130 people, had 500! The Texas ALF-CIO President, Becky Moeller, made a strong plea for a united effort to defeat McCain. She also issued a strong press release.
Texas, infamous for being Bush's spawning area and a perpetual "red" state, had a record 2.9 million people voting in the Democratic primary, more than twice as many as the Republican primary. "If we can get those same 2.9 million to vote in November," said re-elected State Chair Boyd Richie, "No Republican seat is safe in Texas!"
--Jim Lane in Dallas
contrast that with obama and the movement today... it's a world of difference.
I think you've made the mistake of form over content. Look deeper.
That said, I don't see the Furman appointment as indicative of the main thrust of what Obama has put out there as far as economic policy goes. I agree with Jonathan Tasini when he says, "It's hard to believe that during his community organizing work in the poorest neighborhoods of his own city he didn't have something sink into him about income inequality. There's no way to read anything he has put out there as anything but rejection for the Wal-Mart model."
Leon, you clearly are arguing against strategic support for Obama. What do you propose as an alternative strategy? Are you one of those who argues for ceding the electoral realm of struggle altogether? I definitely don't see how working people in the US and around the world would benefit from such a course.
Just look at Obama's recent statement about his loyalty to "Free Market Economics". On CNBC he said, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."
His assurance to the Miami cuban terrorists is a disturbing and clear indication of his views on Latin America. He also endorsed the so-called Merida Initiative, which Amnesty International and others have condemned as the US bringing the "Colombian solution" to Mexico. He did not stop there. "We must press further south as well," he said. Not even Bush has said that.
We should be building a real party of, by and for the majority, that is the working class.
As long as we play the game of support the democrat we are doomed in a rigged game where only those who both control and obey the system can win.
Communists supporting a candidate who is a committed capitalist seems to me to be the kind of political schizophrenia that will always lead to a dead end
Would a President Obama and a Democratic congressional majority pass the Employee Free Choice Act into law? Possibly. Will they pass some sort of progressive national health care plan? Possibly. Will they end the war in Iraq? Possibly. They say they will. It's certainly also possible that they'll break all of those promises. That's why it's so important to build the progressive grassroots movement that can not only bring these folks into office, but can push them further afterward. The one thing that we do know for sure is that there is no way in hell that a President McCain would do any of the above things. If anything, he would make things worse than they are now.
The question before us (or the one that I think should be before us) is what kind of strategy can win short term gains for the working class - easing the process of uniting with others in a union, ensuring that none of us are denied affordable healthcare, protecting and furthering basic democratic rights - while at the same time laying the groundwork for more qualitative change. I cannot imagine such a strategy that did not include fighting for a landslide Democratic victory in November. In short, I think the policy that the CPUSA has put out on the elections is correct.
On the many sins of Obama that you detail, I would refer you to the post about looking at "the whole message." That is not to say that Obama's message is a socialist one. Of course it isn't. But it is, on the whole, progressive especially when compared with the alternative. Making sure that that is the message that wins out is essential to both the immediate and long term interests of workers in this country and elsewhere.