Obama expands benefits for same-sex federal workers

From National Organization for Women:

NOW Applauds President's Expansion of Benefits to Same-Sex Partners of Federal Workers, Supports Efforts in Congress to Extend Full Range of Benefits

June 4, 2010

On June 2, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum compelling executive departments and agencies to take action immediately to extend a number of benefits to employees with same-sex partners. This memo expanded upon a similar one signed by the president last June that began the process of making available to LGBT federal employees and their families the same benefits offered to opposite-sex couples.

"NOW applauds the president's efforts to ensure that LGBT employees in the federal government are treated fairly when it comes to family benefits," said NOW President Terry O'Neill. "The list of rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples is a long one, and it exists because most same-sex couples cannot legally marry in the United States. The ultimate solution, obviously, is to change that. But this incremental step represents vital progress."

Among those benefits extended both last year and this week are child-care subsidies and other family assistance services, long-term care insurance and expanded sick leave for civil service employees and medical care abroad, eligibility for employment at posts, cost-of-living adjustments abroad and medical evacuation for domestic partners of foreign service members, hardship transfers and relocation expenses. The president also instructed agencies that any new benefits must be extended to employees with opposite-sex spouses and those with same-sex partners on an equal basis.

President Obama made clear that under existing federal law his administration is limited in the scope of benefits it can provide to same-sex partners. To close the gap, NOW joins the president in his call for passage of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which is pending in the House and Senate. Sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins and Representative Tammy Baldwin, this legislation would extend the full range of benefits to federal employees with same-sex domestic partners.

Building a New Peace Movement, an Interview with Judith Le Blanc

Originally from PoliticalAffairs.net

PA: Currently it seems as though the economic crisis and the health care debate have really pushed peace movement issues off the priority list? What do you think the peace movement can or should be done to re-center that effort?

Judith Le Blanc: The peace movement played a critical role in the results of the 2008 elections, and for anybody who has read Game Change and was active in the anti-Iraq War movement, you can really can see that it made a difference. Behind the scenes in the campaigns, both during the democratic primary and in the general elections, people were concerned about the positions the candidates were taking, because they knew the power of the grassroots sentiment opposing the war in Iraq.

The peace movement is now in a period of transition, transitioning from a kind of historical role of being one of the decisive movements working on one of the most critical issues facing the country. Now organizations that sprang up from the grassroots and formed national coalitions that were able to mobilize hundreds of thousands are in a transition from that historic moment to a moment where we have to build a new kind of peace movement from the grassroots up, a peace movement that links the issues and organizes on the basis of relating to other movements which are adjusting to the economic crisis.

Read the whole interview here...

Taxing the rich can pay for everything

In this post at Working-class Perspectives, the blog of of the Center for Working-class Studies at Youngstown state Universtiy, author Jack Metzgar demonstrates how taxing the rich can pay for everything.

Taxing Only the Rich CAN Pay for Everything

It’s time for everybody who wants to say anything about “Obamacare” and taxes to tell the rest of us their income class. I live in one of the 13.5 million households with a six-figure income between $100,000 and $200,000. I could afford to give back the annual $2,500 tax cut George Bush gave me in 2001 and 2003, but our current president has pledged that he won’t allow my taxes to increase by a single dime.

I thought this was foolish and unfair when candidate Obama promised it, but now I understand why he put himself in this trick box. My income class serves as a sort of buffer zone to protect the working class from being attacked with taxes on their health insurance and soda pop. The only way to ever have a discussion about what to do about our rapidly growing income inequality is to leave us, the vast majority of middle-class professionals, harmless.

Read the whole post here...

Take action on Honduras

From JustForeignPolicy.org:

While President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have condemned the coup and called for the restoration of constitutional order, there is more that the U.S. can do to support international efforts to restore President Zelaya. Prominent Republicans, however, are pressuring the Administration not to fully support these efforts. [1]

Could you call the State Department and urge Secretary of State Clinton to fully support international efforts for the immediate and unconditional reinstatement of President Zelaya? The main switchboard for the State Department is 202-647-4000.

Making a call to the State Department is easy. When your call is answered at the main switchboard, tell the operator that you want to leave a message for Secretary of State Clinton. When leaving your message, you may use the following talking points:

1 ) Urge Hillary to publicly and repeatedly call for President Zelaya's immediate and unconditional restoration;

2) Urge Hillary to use all the tools at her disposal, including the suspension of U.S. aid to Honduras, as required under the Foreign Assistance Act.

When you have completed your call, please reply to this email and let us know how it went.

There is a broad international consensus against the coup and in support of President Zelaya's immediate and unconditional return as president. The United Nations General Assembly passed unanimously a resolution co-sponsored by the United States and Venezuela which condemned the coup and demanded President Zelaya's "immediate and unconditional restoration" as president. [2]

The United States has the ability to put significant pressure on the military coup government in Honduras. Under the Foreign Assistance Act, U.S. aid must be suspended to "any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by decree or military coup" until "the President determines … a democratically elected government has taken office." So far, the Obama Administration has not suspended U.S. aid.

Please join us in urging Secretary of State Clinton to use all the leverage at her disposal to ensure the immediate and unconditional return of President Zelaya to office by calling the State Department at 202-647-4000.

Black D-Day Vets Celebrate Pres. Obama's Trip to Normandy

African-American D-Day veterans celebrate Barack Obama's trip to Normandy
By Philip Sherwell in New York
Published: 9:00AM BST 06 Jun 2009
The Telegraph (UK)

John Noble Roberts received the Purple Heart, awarded to all injured servicemen, but felt there was little recognition for the role played by African-Americans in Normandy Photo: JEFF RAYNER

They have long been the forgotten heroes of D-Day, the African American military personnel who stormed ashore and risked their lives for a country that still treated them as second-class citizens.

Their faces were missing from the Hollywood films that heaped glory on US forces and and their stories were missing from the books, exhibitions and museums that commemorated the Normandy landings.

But with President Barack Obama, the country’s first African American commander-in-chief, in France for the 65th anniversary celebrations of D-Day on Saturday, black veterans of the segregated US army believe their role is finally being acknowledged.

“Where we were in The Longest Day or Saving Private Ryan?” asked Charles Sprowl, 87, referring to two of the best-known films about the events of June 6, 1944. “Where we were we in the history books?” The former corporal in the 490th Port Battalion, who dodged German bullets and rockets as he carried supplies ashore on Utah beach that day, believes that oversight is belatedly being put right.

“I think people are finally realising that there were African Americans there too and how important we were in the operation, but it’s been a long time, too long.”

For Mr Sprowl, who has lived his whole life in Dalston, Georgia, the biggest shock of his wartime service was not the carnage on the beaches of Normandy but his experience in the months before the invasion when he was stationed in Maghull, Merseyside.

“We would go in to Liverpool and we were treated like normal people,” he said. “There was no segregation and we could go where we wanted and do what we wanted. We went dancing in the Grafton Ballroom and shopping on Whitechapel like everyone else.

“My time in England was the first time I had really felt free in my life. And I wondered why another country was treating us better than our own country, better than the country we were fighting for.”

Read more...

White House: Employee Free Choice a Priority

From the AFL-CIO Blog:

In yesterday’s White House press briefing, a reporter raised the question of whether President Barack Obama and the administration continued to support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Here’s what White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had to say:

I think you heard the President talk about his support for it throughout the campaign, and it’s obviously one of many things that we will work on throughout our time here.

I believe it is, again, something the President campaigned on and we’d like to see happen.

This is no surprise—Barack Obama and his administration have reiterated several times over their continued support for Employee Free Choice and the need to restore workers’ freedom to bargain as a critical part of economic recovery.

Despite an ongoing, multimillion-dollar corporate disinformation campaign and the ferocious opposition by the enablers of CEOs in the Senate, the Employee Free Choice Act continues to have the strong support in the White House and in both houses of Congress, and that’s a testament to the determination and grassroots mobilization of millions of union members and a broad coalition of allies who know that it’s what our economy needs.

Is the USA a Progressive Country?

Thomas Riggins

The answer is "YES" according to the latest (May 2009) issue the AMERICAN PROSPECT. John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira in an article entitled "Progressivism Goes Mainstream" have analyzed surveys taken of people's answers to 40 questions about their beliefs concerning the role of government as well as their social attitudes--split 20/20 between left and right beliefs. They don't give much information on the protocol they used, and we know how easy it is to manipulate polls, but, for what it is worth here are some of the author's conclusions.

The scores possible on the poll run from 0 [you must be a neo-Nazi] to 400 [you are waiting for the second coming of Lenin]. The results show that most of the nature is center-left and tipping in the progressive direction. "The American electorate as a whole records a mean ideological score 209.5--- solidly progressive in orientation." The population is clustered between about 160.6 (Conservative Republicans) and 247.1 (Liberal Democrats). So, trolling around for a sample population didn't turn up any radical progressives evidently, nor KKK types either. Obama voters came in at 244 while McCain's voters averaged 169.

"Despite claims to the contrary," the authors write, " there really is no 'far right' or 'far left' among the electorate in the country. American ideological attitudes tend to converge in the middle." The old Reagan-Bush (1) ideological model of government has been replaced by progressive views as reflected by the Obama victory.

The authors report almost 80% agree with the view that we should have the government invest more in education, science, and infrastructure. So, with regard to government in these areas "conservatives are out of step with the rest of the country."

Over 66% think it's the government's job to help take care the elderly, the poor and sick people. Even a "slim majority of Republicans" agree. Now here is a big one! When asked if they believed "government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers" even over 60% of people calling themselves Republicans or conservatives said "yes''.

Sadly, one big reason for the change, the authors say, is "the decline of the white working class." I say sadly because the class position of white workers should have put them on the other side of the divide between the progressives and conservatives. The dividing mean was 209.5 and the workers are in with the "whites" and the "men"-- 203.7 and 204.3 respectively (women were at 214.3). However, there is some good news, the number of white workers who consider themselves conservative is 11 points lower that in Reagan-Bush(1) days. "[The] progressive agenda will continue to strengthen ... in the future as the decline of the white working class and the rise in more progressive populations continues."

Of course, the prevalence of conservative attitudes in white workers has something to do with the assault on organized labor and the attempt to weaken and destroy the union movement. There is no rating for a separate category such as "union members" on the authors' scale.

There are also some contradictory statements in their report that don't seem to jibe with their conclusions. They reported that most people supported government spending more on science, education, infrastructure, and supporting the poor, sick and elderly, etc., yet they also say almost 66% "agree with the conservative stance on free trade" and 60% think "government spending is almost always wasteful and inefficient."

They also think "progressives" could be "tripped up" because "there are clear undercurrents of anti-corporate, anti-bailout populism across many segments of the electorate." I don't know just how the authors define "progressivism" but being "anti-corporate" and "anti-bailout'-- i.e., handing over billions to bankers and letting them then go ahead and foreclose on people' homes) is hardly "anti-progressive".

There are no questions on people's attitudes towards Iraq and Af-Pak either. So this study is, to my way of thinking, not all that convincing that we have become a progressive nation. I'm not saying we don't, it is just that this study, while encouraging doesn't seem to seal the deal.

Obama admin. takes steps to stop private insurers from exploiting seniors

This is from the Alliance for Retired Americans, a labor affiliated group. Note: Obama has called for eliminating all subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans created by Bush's privatization scheme in 2005, saving as much as $175 billion over the next ten years:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently established stricter rules for private insurance companies, effectively cutting subsidies to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans by up to 5%. Currently, the government overpays MA plans an average 14% more per beneficiary than for traditional fee-for-service Medicare. However, according to The Wall Street Journal, under the new regulations, MA plans cannot charge low-income and sick patients more than traditional Medicare, must explain what is covered in the Part D “doughnut hole” coverage gap, and will face extra scrutiny if patients’ annual out-of-pocket costs are not capped at $3,400 or less. The changes are designed to allow consumers to more easily compare options and costs. Medicare officials said they would try to eliminate plans with fewer than ten enrollees that are similar to other plans and make it hard for seniors to compare. Also changing: charges for hospitalizations, outpatient services and other services often associated with chronic illnesses – services for which MA plans have been particularly likely to charge patients more than traditional Medicare would. However, many industry experts say beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans will likely face increased premiums or fewer benefits next year. “The Alliance welcomes the changes,” said Edward Coyle, Executive Director of the Alliance. “Insurance companies will no longer be able to use their government subsidies to unfairly treat sick and disadvantaged seniors.”

Media Tries to Undermine Obama Agenda

From BeyondChron:
By Randy Shaw
BeyondChron - March 10, 2009
(San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily)

Barack Obama has been President for eight weeks, and much of the traditional media remains incapable of making sense of his agenda. In one corner we have hosts like Hardball's Chris Matthews, who appears to be compensating for pro-Obama campaign comments by giving excessive voice to the president's critics. Or we have CNN's John King, who appears almost willfully ignorant in describing Obama's budget plans. The media appears hellbent on 'proving' two points: first, that Obama is breaking his campaign promise to chart a new direction, and second, that his economic recovery plan is suspect. The most common media shortcoming is intentional forgetfulness, as it downplays or entirely ignores the GOP's own nonsensical budget plans, as well as Republican's responsibility for the current economic crisis. Fortunately, polls continue to show the public tuning out the media chatter. The average person understands the causes and solutions of our crisis far better than the punditry, who remained trapped in an echo chamber of their own making.

Read the whole article here

Private insurers confess that gov't could provide better health care coverage

During the White House summit on health care reform today a couple of spokespersons for the private insurance industry more or less admitted that government could provide health care coverage than their industry does.

Both Scott Serota, who runs Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) described a "public option" for health care as "unfair competition" for the private market.

Hello. What happened to the idea that the private market is always better – both morally and practically? They seemed almost concerned that a public plan would be so attractive to people that private insurers would go out of business. And they're right.

I think President Obama's assertion that a public option would keep the private market honest is a good. It is the private market that is responsible for the inflation of premiums that have outpaced the rise in wages. Private insurance corporations have to explain why their bloated corporate bureaucracies and the drive to profit from illness and disease have driven up the cost of care. Private insurers have to explain why the US has a declining life expectancy rate and the most expensive and least effective system in the world.

Who won the stimulus battle?

February 15, 2009
From the NYTimes.com
They Sure Showed That Obama
By FRANK RICH

AM I crazy, or wasn’t the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days ago? Obama had “all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,” declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a stimulus package through Congress. “Obama Losing Stimulus Message War” was the headline at Politico a day later. At the mostly liberal MSNBC, the morning host, Joe Scarborough, started preparing the final rites. Obama couldn’t possibly eke out a victory because the stimulus package was “a steaming pile of garbage.”

Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner’s uninspiring and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he served as Hank Paulson’s first mate.

But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again.

Read more

Daschle's Withddrawal

by Norman Markowitz

Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Obama's choice for Health and Human Services Secretary is a setback, one that shows that the GOP and much of the media (including those sections of the media that can't decide whether they want Obama to follow Roosevelt or Clinton) are doing everything they can to push the new administration back, force it to retreat on both appointments and issues.

In a half hour I will go to listen to a scholarly talk on rightwing legal groups and foundations which sued the Department of the Interior during the Carter years in attempts to cripple its regulatory activities. A key figure in those groups was James Watt, whom Ronald Reagan appointed to head the Department of Interior with limited opposition in spite of his record. I mention this because it provides a bit of context for today's events. Reagan's deregulation and privatization policies also led to an exponential increase in both lobbying government and in private consulting contracts for government. Reagan and later Bush tax policies also made both legal and not so legal tax evasion a lot easier, along with, of course, sharply reducing taxes on the wealthy and glorifying the pursuit of wealth. There is more than a little hypocrisy to be very charitable in the Republican attacks on lobbies, private consultants, and of course, close scrutiny of individual's tax returns.

If I were President Obama I would immediately nominate a candidate clearly associated with the rapid establishment of a universal health care program. I might nominate, if he were willing to accept the position Representative John Conyers, the most important advocate of HR 676, the best of the universal health care proposals.

Now is the time for President Obama to make it clear to the Republicans and to his own party that he will not retreat on policy or on appointments---if they force out a cabinet member that they don't like on these kinds of issues, he will give them another candidate without these problems but one even less to their liking. Franklin Roosevelt often did that when he had the votes and it worked. Obama, while his majority is not as great or as clear as Roosevelt's was, does have the votes. And, the enactment of policies like Universal Health Care, the Employee Free Choice Act, a national economic rescue plan that provides jobs and protections the living standards of working people will get him, his policies, and the progressive members of his party many more votes while constructing a new politics in a more secure more humane and more advanced nation.

Obama Admin. and the Employee Free Choice Act

From Portfolio.com

With the inauguration of President Barack Obama, you might be forgiven for thinking that the campaign is over. But in Washington, a barrage of political ads still crowd the airwaves. One, sponsored by a conservative outfit named Americans for Job Security, features grainy and menacing footage of leading Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

See the whole article here

Joe the Laborer Speaks Up

Unlike "Joe the Plumber" who as it turns out isn't really a plumber, isn't really trying to buy anybody's business, and may not even be a voter, Joe the laborer is a laborer and plans to vote on Nov. 4th for Obama.

AFL-CIO's Trumka Sparks Nationwide Dialogue on Race

When AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka gave a heartfelt speech at the United Steelworkers (USW) convention last July about the need for all of us to overcome racial prejudice when voting for president and instead cast our ballots for our economic interests and in support of America’s future prosperity, we knew he hit it out of the ballpark

read the whole story here...

It's Time for Obama to Come Out fighting

by Norman Markowitz

There is a fine article by progressive critic Frank Rich in today's New York Times calling for Senator Obama to begin to go after John McCain.

That should be a no brainer. McCain represents an administration that even centrist analysts have put on the short list of the very worst in U.S. history. His militarism is unabashed. He hasn't a clue to the way a large majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck on the installment plan. He is still "Johnny McCain" trying to prove to everyone that he is right and they are wrong and he can beat them in any game of chicken whoever they are, the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Russians.

Obama must lead in bringing the fight to McCain and the Republican right, throwing them back on their heels by making it clear over and over again that this election is about a chasm of inequality obscured by a mountain of public and consumer debt, a government which has literally sold out the American people to transnational corporations, banks and insurance companies, and military contractors--a government that has fought wars for oil and profit and is now putting up as its presidential candidate a man who is likely to fight wars for the hell of it.

This is the best way that Obama can challenge the racism that remains the Republicans ace in the hole--by pledging to the people that he is much closer in his values and aspirations, in the struggles that he has experienced in his life, than Bush or McCain or Cheney.

The nomination of Joe Biden, a traditional liberal Democrat is a good start. But Obama cannot make the mistake that John Kerry made four years--that is, letting the convention become an infomercial, and then waiting while Bush and the Republican Right took the initiative. He should use the convention to showcase the campaign, to appeal to the "righteous anger" of the millions who supported him in the primaries, win over the Clinton supporters who share much of that anger against the Republican Right, and go on the offensive until election day, regardless of media criticisms. Rich cites a study that 72% of media coverage of Obama has been negative, only 28% of the coverage positive, continuing a very old tradition, going back to the late 19th century, where the great majority of the press at first and when it came into existence the electronic media supported Republican presidential candidates over Democratic ones (with Roosevelt it was over 80 percent) and usually the more conservative of the candidates in primaries.

This is Obama's election to win; labor's election to win; all progressive groups election to win. But militancy along with flexibility is the path to victory, not compromise and consensus with a right wing political machine that has no respect for either and which views politics as search and destroy military exercises.

Laborers Work to Elect Barack Obama

Daily blogs at the AFL-CIO's site that expose McCain's plan to continue George W. Bush's policies on outsourcing jobs, an unending occupation of Iraq, privatizing Social Security, taxing health care benefits, and more oil drilling combine with the McCain Revealed campaign and the Meet Barack Obama to help educate union members.

read the whole story here...

[It is exciting that the labor movement has increased its use of new information technologies to communicate and activate union members on political issues.]

The Truth About John McCain

The truth about John McCain is not very pretty. You can start with the Iraq War, when he made the flippant comment that “as far as I’m concerned, we could be in there for 100 years.”

read the whole article here...

[Additional thoughts by Joel Wendland]

I think Joelle does an excellent job of outlining the key differences between McCain and Obama on major issues that impact working families (here and abroad) at a very basic and substantive level. There is no doubt these differences are huge and require the maximum effort to defeat McCain on November 4th and to set the stage for winning real reforms that can strengthen the hand of working families for the future.

It's Over

by Norman Markowitz

John Edwards is about to endorse Barack Obama for President. Edwards will release his pledged delegates, who presently number 18. Although they don't have to vote for Obama, most are expected to. But Edwards endorsement should really end the contest.

It should convince Hillary Clinton that she cannot win the nomination whatever happens in the remaining primaries; whatever settlement is made over Michigan and Florida. Although the estimates vary, the well respected McClatchy News Service sees Obama needing around 150 delegates before the Edwards endorsement and Clinton 313 delegates after her West Virginia victory. Edwards endorsement will add delegates to Obama's column directly. The remaining primaries will not significantly enable Clinton to cut into Obama's delegate lead (his lead may even widen).

Edwards endorsement should (and probably will) encourage senior party Super Delegates to follow George McGovern and endorse Obama now. Obama may have the necessary majority weeks before the convention. He will inevitably have it at the convention.

As someone who has little sympathy for Clinton's campaign or her larger role in politics, all that I can say is that she should withdraw for herself, for her political future if she wants one. As of now, the more she hurts Obama, the more she hurts herself. It is in her interest to withdraw as graciously as possible and support the national ticket as fully as possible. Even a politician with no real interest in anything beyond self advancement would do that at this point. Richard Nixon might not, but I don't think that Hillary Clinton is the type to make a "You Won't have Clinton to Kick Around Anymore" farewell address to the
press.

Notes on the Main Political Report, Nat'l Cmte. CPUSA, Mar. 29-30

Sam Webb delivered the main political report, which is a collaborative speech produced and commented on by many party leaders. Here are some notes. The full speech will be available in a few days at cpusa.org.

American voters have confounded pundits and political predicters have set the stage for a political victory in November for the people's movement.

The election and empowerment of a people's government would remove barriers to social progress by checking the power of monopoly capital and militarism.

The people's movement is seeking a leader that will appeal to our better selves and unify our movement.

Democratic primaries signal a huge upsurge with record-breaking turnout and enthusiasm.

"The high octane of this upsurge is simply breathtaking," he said.

Webb rejected the notion that the primaries are sidelining issues for the sake of personalities.

"This is anything but an issueless campaign," he said. Contrasting it with 2004, Webb recalled that the war on terror took up all of the conversation in the past.

"It should be celebrated as a great democratic achievement, " he said in reference to the the nature of the campaign, that Clinton and Obama are the leading candidates.

Webb predicted the outcome would bring enormous change that puts people's need before warmaking, sleaze and policies that put profits before peoples need.

Such an outcome is possible regardless of whether or not Clinton or Obama wins.

The main dilemma of the left is to not be left behind in this upsurge, he said. If we are not engaged in this struggle to advance the people's movement, we will be left behind.

The Democratic campaigns and the possibility for change have eroded disillusionment and apathy.

Independent involvement is part of the upsurge, and people are inspired by the possibility that this election will result in real changes and improvements in their daily lives.

The US left generally rejects out of hand the electoral politics of the Democratic Party resulting in the failure to recognize the importance of daily events and the significance of the upsurge. We don't follow this path, Webb said.

In 2007 we, the CPUSA, said the presidential elections could set into motion a process of social progress, Webb added. But, we didn't anticipate the full impact of this upsurge, however.

Webb spoke to the role of youth voters in the upsurge. In comparing the youth presence today to the past, Webb said it is of a qualitative different magnitude.

Webb talked about the fact that the nature of the support for the both candidates shows that working class voters will vote for a woman and an African American candidate. Neither would have been swept to the place they are now with support from either women or Black voters alone.

To say that Clinton has garnered the vast majority of the working class vote is simply wrong, he said. Black voters are overwhelming working class. The working class has divided its vote between the two. Trade union voters have given a slight edge to Clinton, but Obama has polled well and has won important endorsements.

On the issue of demographics, "we should stay away form easy and static explanations," he said.

Whites vote for Obama because of his stance on the war, his ability to unify the country, his personal appeal, his youthfulness, his stance on issues and so forth.

Some men may be inclined to be so motivated by sexism that would never vote for Clinton, but most men haven't followed this pattern and have voted for Obama for many other reasons.

White voters who have backed Clinton have not simply done so out of racial motives. They have supported her for experience and her stance on issues.

The point is that there are many different reasons that workers have cast their support in one direction or the other and cannot be simply reduced to race, gender, or other simplistic demographic categories repeated in the mainstream media.

Obama's candidacy is unique in all of this. It is transformational and new. It has brought new forces into the process and built new organizational forms.

"What makes it different is that it has the feel of a movement," Webb said. Obama speaks to people's desires and inspires them.

"He is a fresh voice on the political scene. His courage and astuteness are obvious," Webb said.

His desire to over come racial and religious and national and other divisions "strikes a deeply responsive chord far and wide."

"His ability to articulate a vision, speak to people's hopes, and use his platform to educate millions is refreshing, Webb said.

While he shares many policy ideas with Clinton, his capacity to speak to people and to build unity is more impressive.

For her part, Clinton would likely govern to the left of her husband, and she would be a formidable opponent for McCain.

Rhetorically posing a common question on the left, Webb asked, what about Obama's backing from Wall Street and leading elements in the Democratic Party?

The answers to these questions, while crucial, don't tell us about what his presidency will look like.

While class and class struggle shouldn't be set aside, the character of an Obama presidency cannot be solely determined by questions about the nature of the capitalist backing of his candidacy.

Webb cited historical examples. Frederick Douglass would not have backed Lincoln's candidacy, if he had allowed narrow political questions about abolition to govern his decision to do so.

William Z. Foster would not have tacitly backed Roosevelt and the New Deal if he had allowed narrow questions about FDR's class background to determine his view on this matter.

We have a chance to sweep the Republicans from power in a landslide. "It is an altogether new page in American politics," Webb said.

Webb rejected the ongoing presence of racism in the campaign, but praised the general sense that millions of working class voters have also done so already.

"The struggle against racism and sexism in all of its ideological forms is in as much in the interest of white workers as it is in the interest of female workers and and workers of color," Webb said.

We should reject the notion of the racial or gender progress as a zero sum game. Advances in equality do not come at the expense of white or male or native-born workers.

Webb discussed the role of a racial subtext injected by Bill Clinton and others in the Clinton campaign. "Concerns about unity seem to have been cast aside," Webb noted, in her drive to an inevitable coronation in August. Webb referred to her campaign's fear about Obama's religious background, his patriotism and his racial identity.

Both campaigns should insist on ending this kind of campaigning or what appears to be a solid chance at victory could vanish, Webb said. Only a united movement can lead to a victory in November.

Likewise, Webb continued, Hillary-bashing in sexist terms also diminishes the unity of the movement.

Webb described Obama's speech on race as courageous and brilliant and lauded him for taking an opportunity to talk about a difficult subject that has rarely been addressed by a national figure.

Webb suggested that smearing Obama is done out of fear by sections of the ruling class and the right-wing and some right-wing Democrats that his candidacy represents a diminishment of their power in ruling circles.

They lose sleep over fear that a people's movement will inspire the emergence of a new New Deal.

Webb went on to discuss the deepening economic and financial crisis. He linked Republican policies of the last thirty years and the ongoing decline of US capitalism and imperialism.

What is needed is a broad and ambitious program off housing relief, urban investment ,environmental clean up and more.

A favorable outcome of this election will give working people power to prevent capitalists from shifting the burden of this recession onto the backs of workers.

Equally the war must end. Resources for the war would've have been better spent on needs at home.

"Too much blood and treasure has been lost. It's time to bring the troops home," Webb said.

All peace minded people should unify and defeat McCain.

Obama isn't a "left" candidate and isn't going to embrace "left" issues. The aim of this election is to defeat the right. As such the goal is to elect a Democratic president strengthen Democratic majorities in Congress. This won't constitute a victory only for the Democratic Party but one for the whole working class and for people around the world.

"The day after the election won't matter if we don't win the day of the election," Webb said.

Left and progressive forces are too small to drive the debate and pressure from the left. Thus we should join the conversation that is already taking place and participate in that manner. Our main task is to expose McCain and contrast his views on a host of issues with the Democratic nominee.

The left's goal should not be to influence candidates but to influence the ideas and thought patterns of the people.

Three ideological questions:

1) Labor-led people's movement: How not to diminish the role of the movements of other core forces (movement for equality of the nationally and racially oppressed, Women's movement, and so on)? How can we avoid a unnecessarily narrow views on these questions in order to avoid given the appearance that we see other core forces as "add-ons" or footnotes in the movement?

2) Class: How do we clarify a notion of the working class to that promote the unity of the class? Not simply reducibly to trade unionists or productive workers. Our view should be wide-angled but with the notion that there are strategic sectors, but that our aim is to unite the whole class.

3) What is the relationship between unity and struggle? Clarify the relationship between participating in struggle and deepening ideological and practical activity to advance the struggle.