O B A M A N O W

You know what I can’t stop thinking about?

Earlier today there was an organized hour-long group discussion with a bunch of intellectuals to discuss ‘what now.’

The community organizer (for Obama) presented the basic dilemma: a stunning level of support was marshaled, people of different strata learned how to work together, and far from it having the sense of a one-time thing, everyone wants to basically do what Obama told us to do in his victory speech — keep going. On the other hand, Obama’s policies are at best ‘solidly’ liberal: a first stab at a decent health care plan, progressive tax policy, pro-affirmative action, pro-choice, and at worst flat-out ‘centrist’: supported the bailout, supported FISA immunity, pro-death penalty, anti-marriage equality, and most important of all, pledges continued militarism, using the same logic as Bush. Nod to repeated co-optations of the left by the Democrats in history. Obviously there is more going on then just another run-of-the-mill smooth-talking Democratic senator touting reforms only inspiring for what they aim to replace. But what? Keep going: where to?

The theologian pointed out that Obama did not succeed by changing the minds of the conservative base: white evangelical support only increased for McCain, while his appeal among whites in general only applied to the under-30 set. His victory was based on new voters and volunteers, and secondarily on a generational shift (affecting religious conservatives as well).

The radical feminist theorist made a statement on Obama and race: his win was staged as the continuity of MLK’s dream, then interpreted as simultaneously a breakthrough for race-relations and the negation of race as an issue with continuing practical demands. ‘Change’ — the term for continuity in the sense of development — is deployed as a signifier to mark a forced break with the past.

The famous radical theorist served as moderator and didn’t say anything.

Questions were asked. People struggled to make sense of their emotional responses, what significance to give them. Someone of my generation said something about us. I asked something like, “How does a progressive group, practically autonomous but still somehow affiliated with Obama, avoid being limited in what it can do in the future by his actions as President, actions which we’ve all agreed won’t be to the left?”

The community organizer insisted that a politics of aspiration and not of cynicism is what gets people involved, and reiterated that his core group are all aware of Obama’s limitations and want to figure out how to turn the energy he catalyzed to positive ends. Which didn’t really answer my question.

The radical feminist theorist argued that the condition for Obama’s complex of signifiers to be as powerful as they have been is for them to be completely empty and open to projection.

I thought, wow, there really is something in this for everyone.

But the radical feminist theorist did say something really helpful, that we have to keep reminding ourselves that Obama’s election was not in itself a victory of the left, but a victory for the center in harnessing the left to achieve its goals.

Later on, I stumbled on an old post by voyou, with whom I usually disagree (and whose smugness generally makes me want to barf), which shamed me into realizing that I never pay attention to the man’s speeches. Really. Not once, until now. Voyou hits the main points: the transformation of MLK’s political  rhetoric into generic reactionary sentiment in the interest of ‘pragmatism,’ or as that translates in the U.S., ‘transcending ideology.’ The same notes were hit during the victory speech. Various flavors of symbolic reconciliation, offered up in montage form, to make up for the music video version of the ‘failure’ of the ’60s to be as post-ideological as we can be, right now. While blowing up the world, and promising to continue to do so. Even to deride this sort of thing as cynical manipulation by a master is to miscast it by failing to grasp how effectively professional American-style pragmatism renders moot anything other than ‘false’ consciousness. It is to impute something that probably isn’t there, and is rapidly becoming about as necessary to explain social reality as the soul.

My studied ignorance of the speeches (and this despite the fact that rhetoric is supposed to be my ‘field’) was, I suspect, out of an instinct of self-protection which has been developing for quite a while despite my relative youth. My support of Obama was always itself pragmatic, lesser-evil-ism, and any ‘hope’ for ‘change’ I may have felt (and still feel) is from the contagious enthusiasm of his supporters. So it never occurred to me except in theory that his speeches were more worth listening to than those of other politicians. By dismissing them in advance as empty, feel-good rhetoric with no consequence I gave myself the opportunity to take a benign, tolerant view of the whole thing, analogous to treating Christianity as if it were just local color, ‘functioning’ simply to ‘bring people together.’ When he’s on TV I’m aware of the rhythm and pitch of his voice, but I watch the faces of his audience, in the room and on the screen. It’s the only way to get it to make sense. How can I tell these people, and by extension myself, that what they feel isn’t real, and that it doesn’t mean anything, when it so clearly has led to a genuinely historic achievement?

If bullshit ‘works,’ then can it still be called bullshit? What’s your alternate frame of reference?

A woman at the talk today reinforced something else I tried to ignore that night: the fear that Obama was going to be assassinated. I tried to laugh it off at the time but I can’t when the anecdote repeats itself. Not that I really think he’ll get shot, but it is now impossible to ignore the implications of that fear. When during the celebration of the most powerful office of the most powerful and violent nation in the world, the audience is overcome by fears that their future president will be killed while surrounded by bulletproof glass and the world’s best-trained and best-equipped security staff while giving a speech about the nation’s resurgent global dominance, and the debt of every citizen toward fulfilling this promise — killed because he is black — there is something deeply, deeply wrong. I can understand, in the abstract, that the rational response to the non-relationship between American government and its people is to attack the extreme, suicidal childishness, historical illiteracy, servility, cowardice, insanity, fill in the blank. I expect this is the view of many who don’t live here. What they don’t understand about America is that from where I’m sitting, their logic can only appear as the privileged but ultimately frivolous consequence of this one.

Advertisements

23 Responses to “O B A M A N O W”

  1. really good posts

    “want to figure out how to turn the energy he catalyzed to positive ends”

    yeah, but without the funding! all that money, really extraordinary amount of money, almost like the fundings for a little paramilitary destabilisation campaign, more than is spent by the IRI and NED in branded colour-coded ‘revolution’ campaigns abroad, (wasn’t it most like the orange, rose, etc?) sustaining the organisation, a big payroll of professionals with defined tasks, phones and offices. Now the money is gone, this is a big factor.

  2. “the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.”

    no “equality”, no “justice”

  3. Well, maybe about the assassination, but I can’t see that as very important since known to be a fact long-established. I’m afraid of it, too, and there are some reports yesterday of a surge in death threats toward Obama after one particular Palin rally.

    Incidentally I didn’t pay any attention to what Obama was saying until the debates. His New Age Hope Speeches I just heard about, and had no interest in. Hillary drilled him, as it were, in what he would really face, and he’s become much more like her, but still not exactly, and what is amazing is that the Clintons did not turn on him after McCain made a fool of himself ‘solving the financial crisis’ after talking to Katie Couric instead of David Letterman (I mean, that morning, he did speak at Bill’s climate thing, and in his usual looseness, Clinton verged for the last time on campaigning for Hillary in 2012 by verging on campaigning for John McCain); and also that he managed to pull this off without Hillary as VP. He got his way with the dreamers of his base at the beginning, and then he subsumed all that and got the rest of us like me who wouldn’t pay attention until he stopped the religio-political magic tricks. Don’t agree, of course, that his military ambitions are in any way parallel to Bush’s. Also, is Arpege talking about the campaign money? If he can raise enough to air 4 times as many ads as McCain, he’s got a good chance of getting a lot of legislation through, even without a filibuster-proof majority. He’s tamping down the expectations now, because those are the people who expect instant gratification from him in reverse form from the Bush culture of instant gratification (Bush gave none, but a culture of instant gratification developed and flourished in a hideous way during his tenure). I imagine that it represents just too many people coming at you at once, so they too have to learn that the more seasoned Obama who you could really follow in his lawyer-wonk talk at the debates is now the one they have to accept. I’m interested that a sense of extreme dissatisfaction is already being voiced so strongly, because he still hasn’t done anything except be explicit about lowering expectation. Most elected presidents don’t make any such announcement, just start the betrayals right away without saying anything. He’ll be held to standards, but that doesn’t mean I’m saying it will work. But much probably will, with this Democratic majority. As for left co-optation, I don’t really know what you’re talking about, you can’t co-opt the Democrats into Marxism, so a kind of co-opting you don’t mean would seem to be what is desirable to your interests (and maybe even to mine.)

    Lots of people wanted to kill Bush, and some ineptly tried, although I’m sure there were thousands of threats coming in constantly. After the Reagan shooting, obviously security has been increasingly bolstered. But sure, lots of people voted against a black man, and they are freaking out. Or rather a ‘brown man’, as you call him, but that’s way too sophisticated for the average Joe Sixpack, and in fact, only visually technically accurate, because African-American is understood as ‘black’, even if he is in reality brown-colored. Hispanics are what most people understand as ‘brown people’. It’s all very primitive, but so are rednecks and they really got their day at the Palin rallies. She was rewarded for this (as well as the hilarious new revelation that she had spent even more at Neiman’s than previously reported and that some of the clothes were ‘missing’, given a ‘good home’, I’m sure) by a last-week trashing and refusing to let her speak at the concession speech. Now convicted Sen. Ted Stevens seems to be not only winning, but denying he was convicted just like Ms. Palin did after she was convicted until her own investigation exonerated her. God, what pig slop some of this was.

  4. traxus4420 Says:

    “I’m interested that a sense of extreme dissatisfaction is already being voiced so strongly”

    i hope you don’t mean me — i stand behind my earlier limited predictions and think he has a good shot at achieving many of his own limited predictions about himself. the inevitable betrayal it will be on the level of the irrational enthusiasm, which we know is what really got him elected, just like bush was elected by people who bought his image of folksy, fatherly piety. since most people are wise to it anyway — the magic — it’s hard to even call it a betrayal. i think the sense of a letdown underneath the euphoria is the result of people trying to adjust their expectations, trying to get a narrative straight in their heads to organize emotions (whether their own or those of others) that were compelled not by logic or knowledge at all but by image and affect, and of course the current crisis situation.

    assassination — sure it could happen, but it’s not likely — surely the fact that almost everyone i know was shaking in their seats when he walked out in front of all those people in grant park suggests something more than rational consideration of the odds.

  5. traxus4420 Says:

    chabert, thanks —

    no “equality”, no “justice”

    he has invoked these terms before, see here, though there he’s paraphrasing MLK.

    on funding, i seem to remember him telling me they were autonomously managed and funded, and that the only thing they were relying on obama for was his name and image. at the macro level he’s received an abnormally significant (though not i think at any point the majority) percentage of funding from small donors (>$200), but i don’t know enough about it to say much more than that. anyway definitely not enough to start any major revolutions.

  6. traxus4420 Says:

    here’s an older article, from the last time i checked:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obamainside_N.htm

    does anyone know if the breakdown stayed more or less the same?

  7. No, I didn’t mean you particularly, but if you’ll look back a few weeks when the financial panic was strongest, the debates almost seemed like a welcome entertainment, a relaxing diversion. It took the election day itself to really mobilize people to quit thinking only about the crisis, and even Wall Street somehow did an ‘Election Day Rally’ followed by losses x 2 of that day’s gains by today, it looks like. Right now, everybody probably is involved in some sense of urgency, so it’s mostly a kind of caution and a lot of people not thinking really there can be any celebrating at all (a good sign.) Also, one of two stimulus packages in the next few weeks may help a lot even though Bush said something about blocking them before Obama won. I think he will fade to ghost-pallor as the days go by, though.

    The analyses I was referring to specifically are not at all hard to find though (lol). It IS true, though, that euphorias of the kind many of the Obamaniacs are still going on with are to some degree useful, if only because temporary relief is still important in a sick situation, and since the Obama win, even some of the financial bad news is not as singularly terrifying as it was before. I didn’t know this would happen, but I can see now it is obviously because, however much or little Obama may be able to achieve soon, there was going to be nothing possible in a final death-grip by the Republicans. That attempt to freeze everything is not new, we’ve known it at least since 2003, when it was very palpable, but now there is literal freezing, and they’ll be able to do that, because it’s being demanded.

    There’s a curious YouTube at ‘lenin’, of Gore Vidal interviewed by the BBC. He’s obvously demented and Norma Desmond by now, because is merely rude, won’t answer questions. Looks amazingly less mortuary-worthy than John McCain, though. As a student of Los Angeles, his moving there to ‘spend his late-autumn years’ is something of a first. I have always heard people say they ‘didn’t want to die in Los Angeles.’

  8. “on obama for was his name and image”

    right, this is worth half a billion dollars.the new marketing works really well, cool hunting, viral marketing and whatnot, when it goes with a strong brand, you have to have advertising.

    i’m not saying what’s leftover when the funding is gone is nothing, but the idea that an organisation which is running with effectively an ad budget of hundreds of millions of dollars a month can keep running as it was with no funding is nonsensical. the transition necessary is related to your unanswered question.

    “he has invoked these terms before, see here, though there he’s paraphrasing MLK.”

    yes, and i think you can actually pick out Obama’s personality from the scripted image, and my feeling is he’s perhaps personally more progressive than the package. but those words were used when he was facing clinton right? – and trying to make people fall in love with him – with edwards substantially to his left. against mccain and palin he needed only to seem like a sane technocrat.the presidency is an institution and its not that vulnerable to personalities, more open to private agendas on the bad end than the good. look at this chief of staff pick. it’s really an insult to this movement, the first real blow in that deflating of expectations as if meaning to accomplish it, pop that bubble to nothing all at once.

    and the movement detaching itself from Obama now can’t buy half an hour in prime time to respond. not being in the states though i can’t really judge; but there is some good news…i think there needs to be more acknowledgement of how important all the activism, of the kind americans do pretty well (civil liberties through the courts), about the voting mattered, the court cases, the exposure of the ohio frauds, the related action exposing the firing of the US attorneys surely made the extremists back off a bit, and that happened because of unrelenting pressures by existing civil liberties orgs and new groups concerned about the frauds and disenfranchisement. for the civil liberties groups this change of admin is hugely important i think – for the gulag prisoners, to not have an admin as likely to be so radically obstructive and defiant of the courts and the law.

    i don’t want to be doom and gloomy; i don’t have an answer. i’m truly relieved he won, and while i think it says nothing hopeful about the establishment, the real power in the US, except that they have been forced, mainly by international rivals and the crisis of profit to back off the most extreme aggressive agenda, repudiate the bush gang (though grateful for all they’ve achieved) and retrench, and will have to compromise, it says a lot hopeful about people.

  9. maybe obama can go lay hands on ariel sharon, jolt him from his coma and appoint him Secretary of State.

  10. OMG I just looked it up–it’s almost the THREE YEAR ANNIVERSARY–Jan. 4, 2006. This is one of the HISTORY’S OLDEST COMAS!!! I always forget he’s still alive, but when I’m reminded I think it’s a little less than 2 years, not 2 years and 10 months.

    Maybe Ms. MacLaine can do a Goodwill Tour of Tel Aviv and call it ‘The Ariel Quinlan-Sharon of Cities.’

  11. “I hope you don’t mean me —”

    I didn’t at the time.

    “The analyses I was referring to specifically are not at all hard to find though (lol).”

    You found them, of course, if you hadn’t already, and bought them, I guess. That’s where the conflicts come in, but they’re your business, I’ve already said what I had to about them. But it’s also true I do mean you if you buy that post, which is one of the stupidest pieces of shit I’ve ever read.

  12. So, just for the record, this piece of the pertinent post:

    “The whole movement is real, real discontent and real desires but seized, given form, organised by a massively costly, centrally planned marketing operation by the oligarchy around a main character cast by Wall Street to be the protagonist and hero of all this, not chosen by people or rising through a movement, chosen by Wall Street and given the resources to organise dispersed grievances around him into an ersatz movement given value by real movement content, enclosing real public fury and willingness to be active that lacks any left organisation to organise it, enclosing that and arranging it around this appointed leader, laying claim then to all the appearance of legitimacy that expropriated reality of political activism, clustered around him and the democratic party wall street machine, grants. ”

    This is the crucial part–the filth–and what previous comments you objected to were about. You could say whether you agreed with things like Obama was the ‘main character cast by Wall Street’, which is only one of many things in common it has with explosives slipped into the Towers. So maybe you do or maybe you don’t, obviously it can’t mean anything to me except to try to understand somebody I’m talking to I keep talking to them. But it will probably keep coming in some form that will force you to say whether you believe there was a ‘central marketing committee’ which organized this, that he was ‘not chosen by people or rising through a movement.’ It is as though Obama has himself been seized and co-opted by the oligarchy and the twice-cited ‘Wall Street’, so there isn’t the slightest reason to even be grateful that he beat the Bush/Cheney Machine. Because if it is Wall Street’s choice, they knew that he was infinitely more corruptible than John McCain was. Therefore, the entire election was a fraud, and Obama won no election. It was all arranged by Wall Street. Nevermind that Wall Street was supposed to be pro-Republican. This is surely as low as anything that the 9/11 troofies have tried to purvey, with no success whatever, and is, in fact, indistinguisable from talking about 9/11 as being ‘made for television.’ Such writing is the sick imagining of sick minds. It is meaningless for such minds to be relieved about the ‘election’, we therefore see, because there was no election. I’d like to know why this isn’t filth, but I won’t hold my breath. It’s not my problem. This is just a for-the-record report on this pathology in its latest form.

  13. “it’s really an insult to this movement, the first real blow in that deflating of expectations as if meaning to accomplish it, pop that bubble to nothing all at once.”

    THAT is ridiculous. According to leftists like you, it’s certainly not the ‘first’ anyway, unless your own script is so sensitive that the ‘first’ means the first sense Wall Street ‘appointed’ him.

    And as if there weren’t always a strong element of performance and packaging in any state leader. It’s as though that utterly repulsive post at Qlipoth assumed that Obama would somehow appear dressed as, say, Ragged Trousered Pessimist.. Then Nader could REALLY call him an ‘Uncle Tom’ as he did on the YouTube posted at ‘lenin’ where this idiot sadrugestreane holds sway and I was banned, I guess, for calling her a ‘shrew’ or saying I wasn’t a Socialist. It actually is a blessing, since that sewer is very hypnotic in its lunacy, and once in a while seems to have its own Central Marketing Committee, although it has no funding before or after any campaigns or marches, so it doesn’t get to appoint anybody corruptly, but it is able to control its own script., although it makes no transition to anything really at all. It merely propagates and oversees a Sacred Fraternity of Sewer. This is the kind of thing that I have discovered in looking at Marxists deeply enough to know that they themselves do all the convincing to anybody half-bright not to become one. It’s all anti-everything and total super-smart cynicism. So somebody stayed up all night on the phone conjoined with MSNBC with their friend, and then suffered the inevitable abortion from the TeeVee-itis that had victimized all the Obama-lovers…except for them.

    The net effect a la Qlipoth is that this was an even subtly and more deeply heartbreaking betrayal, because so much faith invested, than those radical and forthright politicians the Bushies, who at least showed their contempt for all people and peoples openly. An Obama win means nothing, because in our infinite understanding of THE OLIGARCHY, we know that Obama has just been elected to the 501st chair of the ROOMFUL OF BILLIONAIRES, and that’s, in fact, why Warren Buffett keeps getting talked up, because he’s da one gonna get Obama da big money and he gonna be Big Black Billionaire. Condi Rice corrupt black politician co-opted by the White Wall Street Establishment? You ain’t seen nothing to what Obama is in all the vileness of his corruption. He’s meeting IN SECRET tomorrow with people like ROBERT RUBIN and ROBERT REICH and other TOP SECRET people. This will be a form of high-level MASONRY with an opening for one superior black man who has shown them he can’t control the black brothers in exchange for them letting him join. And we all know that since black people are always co-opted by white people such that when they are successful they are no longer distinguishable from white people which was supposedly the point–that they have just been corruptly co-opted and are now just as worthless as the white people. The only question remaining for the Sewer People is ‘Do we kill both the worthless black people ruined by the worthless white people or just the worthless white people because the worthless black people must not be quite as worthless because at least they’re not white’.

    Really some great thinking going on among the powerless, proving that if nothing else, they can become even more powerless than they already were, because those people in that park in Chicago don’t care a rat’s fart what some marginalized nobodies who can see all the Kapital in everything are displeased about. And the marginalized nobodies feel so sorry for the people in Grant Park because, ultimately, they’re too STUPID to know the things that Qlipothians know, isn’t that it? Yes, that’s it, because the people in Grant Park are not nearly as poor as most of these conspiracy theorists. and they do apply this ‘conspiracy atmosphere’ to literally everything they analyze. Ab. So. Lute. Ly impossible they were all excited and relieved that something good had gotten started. They were, by comparison to the Qlipoth Sages, STOOPID ASSHOLES, and they knew not what they thought, did or fucked.

    Okay, chess-wise, now that Obama HAS won the election, no matter the ‘media discussion’ at Qlipoth, I choose Nick Land, now unable to find Dick Cheney; he should therefore be a delightful dining companion.

  14. So that was an Arpege post at Qlipoth. Shouldn’t be a big surprise, but sad, traxus, sad. You did answer my questions after all. If you believe one of those theories, you believe them all, and you can no longer believe you don’t. I just went through this to make 100% sure where you stood, because we don’t need to try to pretend we really communicate, just because we sometimes think we do. You seem to want to find out the hard way, and you are going to get to. Apologies for those posts which wasted both our times, but I wasn’t really sure that vile and evilly stupid post was Arpege’s. I see that it is, and that’s all I needed to know. I couldn’t accuse her without slandering her (however legally), but she was perfectly happy to admit having written a post as bad or worse as any I’ve ever seen by warszawa. I love it that she cited sadrugestrane. Why don’t you start commenting at Lenin’s Tomb? I always wondered why you didn”t.

    Wow. This is something. The New Blogging of Arpege and Traxus.

  15. “a post as bad or worse as any I’ve ever seen by warszawa.”

    Since I’m mentioned: There are few compliments more welcome to me than the disapproval of Patrick J. Mullins, aka The Stream of Semi-Consciousness. (When he calls a post “vile and evilly stupid”, you can be sure that post is pretty much spot-on. He’s like a clock that’s always twelve hours slow.)

    Anyway, thanks for some excellent recent posts, traxus (and Chabert).

  16. In what must have been Gore Vidal’s last appearance on BBC he’s basically shouted down on everything he says by a cretinous interviewer reciting neocon talking points, as if he were Moses reciting his Commandments: their origin appearing to be quite providential and beyond this character’s powers of rational explanation. This whole thing may have soured Vidal on the BBC. here.

  17. traxus4420 Says:

    “You could say whether you agreed with things like Obama was the ‘main character cast by Wall Street’, which is only one of many things in common it has with explosives slipped into the Towers. So maybe you do or maybe you don’t, obviously it can’t mean anything to me except to try to understand somebody I’m talking to I keep talking to them.”

    my official statement is that obama was approved by many on wall street, a connection you can read about anywhere. this does not imply that he was selected from birth, secretly controlled, or genetically manufactured by a central planning committee located on wall street, or that he didn’t have support from a grassroots movement from the moment of his ‘big break’ at the ’04 DNC and even earlier. to succeed in the way he did, the support of both was absolutely necessary. the size and power of the obama movement that made him president did not pre-exist the wall street money and influence, however. i think many if not most obama supporters (like me) would agree with what i just wrote, and would say that they ultimately desire not obama himself but what they hope he can help catalyze. this hope is based partly in his personal qualities and stated beliefs/proposals, partly a product of marketing. it’s complicated. i should also repeat that none of this has to do with 9/11 in any way.

    i’m really happy that obama is president. the fact that i’m apparently unable to communicate that to you while also trying to understand the significance of his election is a testament to my weakness as a writer, namely my perhaps excessive worry of writing yet another advertisement for the man.

  18. Yes, that’s it, because the people in Grant Park are not nearly as poor as most of these conspiracy theorists. and they do apply this ‘conspiracy atmosphere’ to literally everything they analyze. Ab. So. Lute. Ly impossible they were all excited and relieved that something good had gotten started. They were, by comparison to the Qlipoth Sages, STOOPID ASSHOLES, and they knew not what they thought, did or fucked. And yes I said yes I will yes.

    It’s certainly better that Obama won despite the possibility of maybe slightly higher taxes that would be the only legitimate thing against his victory

  19. traxus4420 Says:

    if all one really wants from obama is an ‘overall feeling’ or ‘atmosphere’ of hope then that is a desire for ‘better’ or better targeted marketing. not sinful to want (i want it too), but it’s hard to call it political or progressive.

    thanks warszawa and luke — checking out the gore vidal interview now

  20. john steppling Says:

    well, Im relieved he won too. And i suspect he’s more of an intellectual than he lets on, and likely in his heart considerably more progressive. Which may result in over-reacting to those fears from the DNC etc. But he might pick a few interesting people………..chuck hagel isnt a dumb pick for defense or state……….and the less visible appointments……….health and human services etc………..I would not be surprised to see some quite progressive people chosen……….which will only mean he will balance it with colin powell or john kerry.

    In any event, I still look at this the way sharon smith did.
    We have not seen a rise in class struggle for more than three decades in the U.S. But the class anger on display in this election could well be a prelude to such a rise in coming years. Obama has promised “change,” but the scale of change that is needed requires mass struggle from below.”

    and here “But Obama’s victory also represents a surge in class consciousness and a decisive rejection of neoliberal policies that have lowered working-class living standards around the world for more than three decades”

  21. john steppling Says:

    And when i say hagel isnt a dumb choice………Im bending over backwards to be a realist right now.

    He wont pick cynthia mckinny or chabert or stan goff………….but we could hope

  22. john steppling Says:

    having said that.,………….so far those one sees around our pres elect are a pretty depressing lot. I dont want to get sickened quite yet…..cause i want to wait for january…………..BUT, paul volker? Rahmbo? Jesus.

  23. tried to post here but, like a months ago, nuttin doin … so went to therabbiteater instead

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: