Democrats divided not by the issues but by a feeling and a theory
By E.J. Dionne
Truthdig.com

This helps explain why the preferences of voters in the Democratic presidential primaries so far have gyrated so wildly. In the absence of deep divisions on policy, Democrats have been cut loose from their ideological moorings. Philosophical unity has bred new forms of conflict.

Barack Obama has surged to rough parity with Hillary Clinton in the national polls not because Democrats reject her carefully thought-out solutions to the central public problems but because he has created in the party’s rank and file a feeling of liberation-from intimidation by Republicans, from old divisions, from history itself.

At a packed rally in a downtown square here on Sunday, emblematic of those Obama has staged across the country, the candidate drew the usual applause for the usual Democratic applause lines on the infamy of the Bush administration, the urgency of universal health care and the unfairness of Republican economic policies.

But he connected most when he spoke of his willingness to oppose the Iraq War when many, including Clinton, didn’t. This marked his liberation from Republican bullying on national security. He spoke of the surge of young people into politics and the extraordinary levels of participation in the Democratic primaries. This spoke to his party’s desire to be liberated from the old math of the Reagan era.

And on it went: He noted the multitude he drew to a rally in Boise, Idaho, of all places (liberation from the old electoral map); the support he has won from Republicans (liberation from divisiveness); and his determination to govern “not by the polls but by principle” (liberation from calculation and, to some, from Clintonism).

All this strikes Hillary Clinton’s supporters as terribly unfair. Some liberals who support Obama acknowledge privately that many of her positions on domestic issues are more carefully crafted and, in some respects, more liberal than his.

Continue reading →

Though few are paying attention now, the vote could impact November’s General Election.
by Jonathan Nack
San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center

Ignored by the corporate media, and derided by even many of their progressive and left-wing friends, registrants of California’s two leftist ballot eligible parties will also be voting in tomorrow’s Presidential primary in California. The decision these voters make will have implications on the General Election in November.

While blacked out of establishment mass media coverage, the California Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party primaries are stories of note and import. Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and perennial candidate Ralph Nader headline fields of candidates on the ballots for both parties. In addition to these two nationally known leaders, lesser-known candidates include Bay Area socialist leader Gloria La Riva, who is competing for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. Interested readers can check out all the candidate statements on line.

Cynthia McKinney is a rare example of a long-time Democratic Party politician, who served six terms in Congress, and who jumped from the Democrats to the Greens late last year. In abandoning hope in the Democrats, she’s embraced the Green Party as building an alternative. She’s since campaigned in 21 states, frequently appearing with Green Party candidates for local office.

McKinney is a seasoned and skilled politician, well versed on the issues, articulate, and courageously outspoken. An African American, who spent twelve years in Congress representing one of the poorest districts in the country, McKinney has the potential to get a hearing beyond the mainly White audiences whom generally receive the Green Party message.

Ralph Nader announced last week that he was forming an exploratory committee, so he’s not even committed to running yet. While it’s quite late in the primary season to begin exploring a candidacy, Nader’s name recognition, his unwavering anti-corporate message, his considerable network of supporters, and his past ability to run campaigns in all fifty states, make him an instant player.

Nader has said that if he runs, it will be as an independent, but he will seek the nomination of the Green Party, and other small left parties which have ballot lines in some states. In most states, he’d petition to make the November ballot as an independent.

The story of how both McKinney and Nader each came to be on both the Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party ballots has yet to be told. It’s part of the story of how the U. S. left continues to search for relevance in elections. Each had enough support in each party to be nominated. Nader wasn’t even officially exploring a candidacy at the time he was nominated. McKinney was nominated as a Peace and Freedom candidate, even though she has publicly registered as a Green.

Continue reading →

By  Robin Morgan

“Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, click here.)

During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .”. But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities–the joint conscience-keepers of this country–been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .

* Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

* She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.”

* When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

* Young political Kennedys–Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.–all endorsed Hillary. Sen. Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

Carl Bernstein’s disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?” with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Continue reading →

Group has more than 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states

Today MoveOn voted to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. The vote favored Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton by 70.4 percent to 29.6 percent.

Sen. Obama accepted the endorsement stating: “In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war – a war I also opposed from the start – to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead.”

Eli Pariser, MoveOn’s Executive Director, issued the following statement: “Our members’ endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history. Seven years of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration have left the country desperate for change. We need a President who will bring to bear the strong leadership and vision required to end the war in Iraq, provide health care to every American, deal with our climate crisis, and restore America’s standing in the world. The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington. Senator Barack Obama has proved he can and will be that President.

Continue reading →

By Rabbi Michael Lerner
Network of Spiritual Progressives

In the days leading up to the Super Tuesday presidential primary sweepstakes, the Obama campaign has been making a special effort to reach out to Jewish voters. Representatives of the campaign have been visiting Jewish retirement homes, synagogues, and wherever else they can find a willing audience. Faced with Clinton campaigners making charges that he is not sufficiently pro-Israel, Obama himself wrote a letter to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Khalizad last week urging that the U.S. reject any resolution critiquing Israel’s cut off of fuel and food to a million residents of Gaza “that does not fully condemn the rocket assaults Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel.”

It’s a problem that won’t go away. Jewish voters are only 2 percent of the U.S. population, but they are mostly concentrated in the states with the highest number of delegate and electoral votes (New York, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois), they contribute financially to politicians disproportionately to their percentage of the voters, and they are often in key roles as opinion shapers in the communities in which they work or live.

Democratic Party appeals to the Jewish vote are not much different than the appeals that happens to other constituencies like the labor movement, the women’s movement, Latino voters, African Americans, farmers, seniors or children, or Republican pandering to the anti-immigrants, Southern whites, or Catholic and Evangelical anti-abortion voters. They are as American as apple pie, even at the times when “appealing” slides into “pandering.”

Continue reading →

by Sheldon Richman

Not understanding basic economics is dangerous because you’re vulnerable to political con games foisted by unscrupulous politicians. Economics properly conceived is just common sense about human activity. An examination of the proposed economic stimulus will make this clear.

Nearly all politicians claim that the economy needs a stimulus that only they can provide. That is odd right off the bat. Politicians produce nothing; they spend other people’s money and, in the process, interfere with people’s productive activities. Why would anybody think they could stimulate an economy?

A Republican president and Democratic congressional leaders are converging on a $150 billion package of tax rebates and business incentives. This is said to be the needed boost to keep “the economy” from falling into a recession. Democrats insist it’s teetering on the edge of recession. Republicans prefer to say the economy may be entering a “slowdown.”

Continue reading →