Recent Events: Notes

by Gary Tedman

In the coming UK election, the public don't want the cuts that are coming, so the politicians say almost nothing about them, which is saying nothing about the most important economic, political, and thus social crisis in modern times. So things are 'normal' at the top of the UK. And at the top of the EU, well, 'Germany' (meaning its ruling class) seems to regret having courted Greece to join the Eurozone, now that it is expected to act all sociable and bail it out. So things are 'normal' at the top of the EU too. What the journos say, to endarken us, is things like this -: "Germany doesn't want to bail out Greece like it had to bail out east Germany" (to paraphrase S. Erlanger). We thought Germany included its east, so could you say the eastern Germans don't want to bail out Greece like they bail out themselves? Strange. The UK election is now all about aesthetics: which party presents in the least offensive way (we know what they say is rubbish) to a people who are fed up with all of them for the various scandals (expenses) and rip-offs (bankers). If there was a choice to vote away capitalism I think it would do quite well now, but there isn't of course. But of the ordinary people who will vote in this election, they will be, whatever party wins, voting for their own suffering, one way or another, it is thus a kind of political sado-masochism, and it is floating around, welcomed and pointed up by the press everywhere -: "we need to take our medicine, it isn't nice, sir, but there's no choice is there?" they say. I was thinking at that moment of Kyrgyzstan, they seem to have made a new choice. The media didn't much like it and called it a 'bloody uprising', not denoting it by any fancy color names or a flowers anymore (Tulip Revolution, Orange Revolution), and neglecting to add on most occasions that the blood was on the hands of the state military and not the people.

Iran's Assembly of Experts

The Assembly of Experts
TEHRAN BUREAU

The Iranian Constitution is a roadmap in which all roads lead to the Supreme Leader. He exercises control over all branches of the government and every division of the armed forces. He is appointed to the position for life, and his power is tied to age-old traditions of leadership in Shiite Islam. And yet, a single constitutional body can theoretically exercise ultimate power over the position of the Leader. That body is the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member council trusted with the responsibility to elect, and even dismiss, the Supreme Leader.

The first Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, never needed the Assembly, having gained his position through his role in the 1979 Revolution. It was the Assembly of Experts, however, that elected Ayatollah Khamenei, the current Leader, nearly two decades ago. It was a controversial choice, as Khamenei was not yet an Ayatollah, and lacking a major qualification for the position. Since then, the Assembly has existed as a virtually inactive body, meeting twice a year and releasing statements expressing satisfaction with its one, extremely important decision. Today, however, the Assembly once again is the center of attention, as it is perhaps the last governmental body not controlled by the supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the powerful faction that has led his ‘election coup’ in Iran.

To better understand the current role of the Assembly of Experts, some background information is required.

In 2005, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani lost a lack-luster election to Ahmadinejad, a little-known provincial governor who had recently become the mayor of Tehran. Rafsanjani and Mehdi Karrubi, another candidate in those elections, strongly implied that they had lost due to widespread electoral fraud. Karrubi, who a few hours into the counting of the votes seemed to be heading for a run-off with Rafsanjani, famously remarked that he had closed his eyes for a siesta and woken up to discover that Ahmadinejad was now leading him in the polls. Nonetheless, the election results were certified and the defeated candidates accepted the outcome.

Read more...

Video: Recount in Moldova Confirms Communist Party Victory

Right-wing-led riots notwithstanding...

Why Chambliss Victory Was Both Expected and Doesn't Mean Much

by Norman Markowitz

Senator Saxby Chambliss, a right-wing Republican was re-elected in a runoff election in Georgia against his centrist opponent Jim Martin. The turnout was a little more than two million as against 3.7 million in the general election. Actually, Martin ran well ahead of Obama in the general election, since Obama brought out as I see it both African-American and other progressive voters for him and anti-African-American white voters (some of whom ended up voting for Martin to bring about the runoff) in the first election. With this kind of turnout in a right-wing dominated "right to work" Southern state with all of its historical baggage, this was to be expected.

David Gergen on CNN contended that this was a message to Obama to "govern from the Center rather than the Left" although I don't see how it should be taken in that light, since Obama lost the state the first time by a vote similar to Martin's defeat yesterday. It would make more political sense to say that if Obama pushed the Employee FreeChoice Act and a single payer national health program,(which would be changing the center by moving it to the left) many of those white voters who voted their prejudices today for a Senator who will fight to keep them poor and their employers as rich as possible would change politically.

But what may be more important is the entire media and the Democrats themselves running with the number 60 as a "filibuster proof" majority. This has been pushed hard since the election but, as a U.S. historian (and here I am not speaking as a Marxist historian which I am of course, as such) this has been nothing more than a symbolic issue. Filibusters were important in the 1950s and 1960s when Southern segregationist Democrats filibustered Civil Rights legislation whose strongest supporters were Northern Liberal-Labor Democrats. Lyndon Johnson's ability to get Republican support to break the Southern Segregationist filibuster in the Senate against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a major turning point in modern U.S. political history. But just because there are 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans doesn't mean. that the all of the Republicans would support a filibuster against progressive legislation(and it doesn't mean from the other side that all of the Democrats would oppose such a filibuster). Chambliss arrogantly and foolishly called himself the "41st" Senator, meaning to me that he saw himself as a replacement to Strom Thurmond, who as a segregationist Democrat was the filibuster champion of the Senate until Johnson broke the anti-Civil Rights Act filibuster and Thurmond joined the Republicans in 1964.

Let us say that the Obama administration has the votes to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Chambliss and the great majority of the Republicans would probably try to filibuster it. Would George Voinovich Republican of of Ohio support such a filibuster. Given the role of labor in his state, I doubt it. Would Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania support such a filibuster? Given the role of labor in his state, I doubt it. Would Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, centrist Republicans from Maine, support such a filibuster? Even Norm Coleman if he ends up winning in Minnesota? I would doubt it. Attempts by the Republican leadership to coerce all Republicans to support such filibusters would further weaken their party.

Also, filibusters can and have been waited out and beaten. Here mass forces really come into play. For example, if the Republicans would launch a filibuster to stop a single payer national health program, this could easily have disastrous consequences for them, since filibusters are usually unpopular with large sections of the electorate, even those who don't necessarily support the legislation that the filibuster is attempting to kill without a vote. Filibusters, we should remember, while they are completely legal and sometimes even merited as an attempt in certain circumstances by a substantial minority to block a majority from enacting destructive legislation, are always seen as a tactic to thwart a majority vote, which is always contradictory in its relationship to representative democratic government.

Rather than encouraging President Elect Obama to retreat to a conservative "center," Chambliss election should encourage him to advance a progressive program, since a progressive program that changes the lives of the people of states like Georgia for the better is the only way to insure the defeat of politicians like Chambliss in the future.

AFGE Leader: Don’t Let Racism Distract Us from Real Issues

American Federation of Government Employees President John Gage releases a radio ad encouraging working people to vote Obama on his record of supporting their issues, and not to be distracted by racism. President Gage follows AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Rich Trumka's lead raising the race issue in July before the USW, and sparking a national debate

hear the audio clip here...

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.

Barack Obama at the Site of the Berlin Wall

by Joel Wendland

In the build-up to Obama's Berlin speech on July 24, I wondered what would be the tag line that comes out of this moment. What would Obama say that would be comparable to and/or surpass Kennedy's self-identification with anti-Communist Berliners or Reagan's trite call to "tear down this wall?"

If there was one theme that did that, it was Obama's call to see the world and its people as one, that what harms one, harms all, that our collective effort is needed to tear down the walls built up between races, religions, and regions.

Of course let's not get swept up by form and rhetoric; let's remember that the devil is in the details and that is the site of political struggle.

Unfortunately, many of my friends are obsessed with Obama's apparent anti-Soviet comments. My response: why are you so shocked and surprised? What elese would a Democratic Party candidate for the presidency say? Why would a candidate of the center do anything else? (Recalling of course that so-called candidates of the left have made similar types of comments.) If he had not said those things, the media coverage wouldn't be about his substantive comments or his idealism and vision, but about how he didn't bash the Soviet Union. Believe you me.

The plain fact is that left-center unity is about policy and politics, strategy and tactics not about how nice someone is to the memory of the Soviet Union. Let me check the Communist Party's 2008 election platform... Hold on... Nope I don't see "pro-Soveitism" on it anywhere.

But I do see a call for universal health care, an end to the war, workers' rights, and so on. Let's not get distracted by these other non-issues.

How the West was Won: Unity and the Presidential Campaign

By Joe Sims
Much attention has been paid of late to Barack Obama's “move to the center” as the presidential campaign enters its general phase. On issue after issue, be it FISA, the death penalty, gun control, fatherhood, and most recently “refining” positions on Iraq, the Democratic nominee seems to be changing his mind. While it remains to be seen if apple pie makes the list, a chorus of wails has arisen accusing Mr. Obama of opportunism, flip flopping, “being a regular politician” and “selling out.”

In response, both detractors and defenders attach themselves to the concept of the political “center” the holy ground on which supposedly US polices are fought and lost or won. Some on the left have correctly pointed to the importance of “left-center” unity as foundation for the contest and the perils of offending those middle of the roaders who will cast the decisive ballots in November. Some blog space was taken up with Joel Wendland's excellent treatment of this subject a few days ago.

What is lost in most of the discussion, however, is that the millions of voters who make up the political center are not the only or even the most important constituency in this election. Left/Center unity alone will not prevail in November. Today there is another form of unity that is even more important: the unity of all the people, left, center, and yes, even right. Wendland made this point well when he said:

“Heck, winning on November 4th means Obama needs bitter gun-toters, radical leftists, evangelicals, tree-huggers, factory workers, IT specialists, janitors, professors, seniors, students, civil libertarians, law and order types, hermits, urbanites, farmers, cops, soldiers, peaceniks, war supporters, and even some Wall Street speculators and Republicans to vote for him and fund his campaign. Does he accomplish it by adopting The Nation's political agenda?”

One could and should however go even further. Winning in November will also require unity across class lines, including, middle, upper-middle, and even ruling class elements. This clearly is implicit in the concept of unity of all the people.

Why unity of the all the people? Because the Bush administration and the ilk that is coming together to support Mr. McCain, represent an extreme danger to all of us. On issue after issue that is abundantly clear. What seems not so clear is the coalition that will be required to defeat them.

Today's news points to the possibility of Obama's winning the far West and important states in the South, areas that for decades have been dominated by the Republican right. Has anyone thought about what it would mean for labor, indigenous, Latino environmental, LGBT and women's rights to break the right-wing hold on these states?

Even Obama's recent “clarifications” on the death penalty and gun control are indicative of what is as stake. Think for a moment about the recent spate of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions. If McCain is elected, just one more right-wing justice will swing the court even further to right, and give reaction the ability to do damage for decades into the future. A different stripe of appointment could make all the difference in the world. It would be small but hugely important measure.

This leads me to the next points. Isn't the Democrat being hopelessly compromised and related to it what is possible in a new administration? Again the first and most important issue is getting the fan clubs of the John Birch society, the White Citizens Council and the Ku Klux Klan out of the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. Make no mistake: that's what they are. That would be a huge achievement

Secondly, one should have no illusions about what is possible in a new Administration. Yes, single payer health care, an end to war, union organizing rights will be more more possible. However, none of these will be automatic or come without a protracted struggle. The fight will be long and hard. More advanced platforms and demands will be even harder. Will there be measures against big business and the rich? Some will move in that direction, but come on folks Give me a break!

Whether a candidate is personally compromised or objectively shut in or shutdown, depends partly on the individual but even more importantly on the strength of the class and democratic movements that are in play. At this moment this anti-right wing movement for hope, unity and change, is just at its beginning. It will be some time before it will gain the strength, maturity and wisdom necessary. Change is hard. Just look around the world: Brazil, South Africa, India, Italy, etc, all give an idea just how difficult make real change will be. In all of these countries, the working class and organized left forces are much larger and more experienced than here.

Right now let's take the first step and have the maturity to understand that unity of all the people is what's needed. Not happy? Hell, I don't blame you. You got legitimate concerns. Raise them. But don't take your frustrations out on Obama: go out and build a movement that will make what you want to see possible. Otherwise your gonna end up with McCain. Or take it out on me. Let me know what you think.

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.

Clinton, Obama: Who Wins, Who Loses?

By Joe Sims

This has been such an incredible election, a delightfully rich laboratory of the dialectics of real life. It has caused everyone, politicians, pundits, pollsters, political pros, (and not a few pompous prudes) to look again and again at everything in a new light. Once you think you figured it out, something goes boom! And it’s changed again causing consternation in some, palpitations in others, and among many much delight.

Well folks, it’s changed again. A few weeks ago, the spin on the Democratic campaign was that even if Senator Obama of Illinois wins, he loses. This, due to the mainstream press’s attempt to paint him as the "Black" candidate. Near universal African American support, it was argued (and hoped) would narrow his support, warding off the growing coalescence of a multi-class, multi-racial anti-right wing coalition. Obama’s winning of the South Carolina campaign in particular, would precipitate his losing elsewhere. Well, the opposite happened. Due to the ugly hard ball politics and the injection of hate into the campaign beginning in New Hampshire, voter disgust with such tactics turned everything on its head and groundswell of support buoyed the hopes of the Illinois freshman with 11 straight victories.

Now on the morning of the March 4th primaries, things have changed so much that the Obama campaign is able to argue that even if he loses, he still wins. A campaign memo issued yesterday, suggested that Senator Obama’s lead in delegates is so great that his New York rival, Senator Clinton unless she wins a landslide victory in Texas and Ohio, cannot possibly catch up. The Obama camp is now contending there is no credible path for the Clinton campaign to clinch the nomination.

The Clinton’s however, may not be interested in a "credible path" given the renewed negative tactics utilized by their camp in the last two weeks. Judging by the headlines in this morning’s papers, the ruling class mass media, may not be interested in credible path either. A week ago the conventional wisdom was that Mrs. Clinton needed big victories in Ohio and Texas to sustain her campaign. However, in the small hours, something shifted. Now, a number of papers are arguing that a victory, even a small one, in either Ohio or Texas will "lift " her campaign to new heights. Momentum, according to other headlines is now hers.

Can you imagine such a scenario occurring if Obama has lost 11 straight times by margins of 20 percent or more?

No matter. Today’s election is in the hands of the working class and people of Ohio, Texas, New Hampshire and Vermont. By the way, they are Black, Brown, Asian and white (All that "blue collar white voter" nonsense in the press is driving me crazy. In all of these states, high turnouts bode well for a continuation of the recent weeks trends.

ps

In Ohio, from where I stopped for a few days over the weekend, the election began last week with huge crowds voting early. In Youngstown, campaign committees from both the peace movement and Obama campaigns knocked twice on the door to insure that early voting occurred. Senator Clinton effort consisted in one robo-call that prevented one from hanging up until the message was finished. The Youngstown Vindicator’s (a conservative rag) Sunday front page headline rang: "Working C lass will Determine Victory." The Vindicator? Things sure are changing in America.

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

Knocking on a million doors in Ohio

By John Bachtell

CINCINNATI -- Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty fired up the crowd of hundreds of volunteers here ready to go door-knocking in southern Ohio for Senator Barack Obama. Fenty said the campaign will "knock on a million doors" in Ohio.

"It's 43 hours until the polls open," Fenty said. "We've been waiting a long time for this moment. Maybe some have never seen this kind of thing in their lifetime. And it's riding on the good people of Ohio."

Fenty said no matter what your race, religion or region of the country is "to solve the toughest problems people have to work together." And that's what the Obama campaign is about, he said.

Current polls have it as a dead heat in Ohio. Obama has whittled down a commanding lead by Sen. Hillary Clinton. Clinton, too has volunteers pouring into the state.

Fenty said many people are asking, "How will an Obama administration run the country?" So he answers that change is made by the people and the people will have a big impact on how country will be run, the people and their organizations.

Some 110 people filled two buses organized by Chicago's 46th Ward Democrats to be part of the volunteer effort. Hundreds of other volunteers from Chicago had gone by bus and car to other parts of Ohio to canvass as well.

The buses were filled by canvassers from the 46th Ward and from across the city. Groups came from the Black Nurses Association, high school students with the civics group Mikva Challenge and their teachers from the Westside neighborhood of North Lawndale and students from suburban Naperville North High School, to activists from the Evanston Democratic Party organization.

One African American activist said this was the first campaign she had been in since the election of Mayor Harold Washington. "This is the first time I have been inspired in the same way by a candidate," she said.

Leading the canvassing were State Senator Heather Steans and State Rep. Julie Hamos. They have been working closely with Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Alderman Joe Moore to organize canvassing for Obama in other states like Iowa and Wisconsin. Moore had led a group to Cleveland.

There are signs everywhere for Obama in this Cincinnati neighborhood that is predominantly African American. There are 11 or 12 staging areas for volunteers throughout the city. A few days ago there was a big rally of 13,000 people.

This neighborhood is made up of single-family homes with apartment buildings scattered throughout. Economically, the neighborhood seems like it's been pretty hard hit with a number of vacant homes. Our staging area was in a mall that seemed like it was mostly shutdown.

People want change. And the change they want seems to be in the message given by the Illinois senator, shared prosperity, opportunity, unity and hope.

Altogether canvassers knocked on 10,000 doors throughout the hilly neighborhoods and returned to Chicago feeling like they had helped to make history. As the bus made its way home from the staging area on Reading Road, it passed blocks of Obama sign wavers encouraging people to get out and vote. A chorus of honks from passing motorists responded enthusiastically to them.

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

Wojcik’s guide for Republican primary watchers

By John Wojcik, labor editor, People's Weekly World

Times listed are Central Time:

11:30 a.m. West Va. caucus ended. Romney was supposed to win this because he was the only one with an organization there and it was a crummy little caucus. A defeat was said to mean he was in big trouble, and he was indeed defeated. Huckabee won, so Romney is probably going to have a disastrous night.

6 p.m. Georgia. Very close 3-way race. If McCain wins it should be with 34 – 39 percent. If he wins, it will be because Huckabee split the so called right wing vote!

7 p.m. Conn., Ill., Del. And New Jersey all close. They should go to McCain. If any don't, then Romney might have a glimmer of hope. If any of Missouri, Oklahoma or Tennessee went to McCain, he has the lock for the night. Mass. A must for Romney, but not bad for McCain if he loses.

7:30 p.m. Arkansas closes, a Huckabee shoe in. If not, he should sell his soul, if he hasn't already.

8:00 p.m. Minnesota, Montana and N.D. close. They are caucus states, and Romney must win them if he is to have a chance. He's probably dead already, however. Arizona and New York close, and they will be big for McCain.

9:00 p.m. Utah closes, and if Romney doesn't win there he's likely to get trapped in the next paper bag someone puts over his head. Colorado closes, Romney must win.

At 10 p.m. comes Calif. where Romney needs a huge win to stay alive.

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

Another not so scientific poll and "scientific evidence" of media bias for the GOP

by Norman Markowitz

First I spoke with a retired professor who is 88 years old, needs a walker to get around, and has nursing care. But he voted, and he voted for Obama.

He is an old socialist who voted when he was a young man for Norman Thomas. His view is that both Clinton and Obama are acceptable, but he considers Obama the better, more hopeful candidate. He is someone by the way who taught briefly in a Southern historically Black college shortly after WWII.

Meanwhile, there was an interesting story in the New York Time which mentions that John McCain is getting more coverage than either Clinton or Obama over the last week, even though they are among the two most interesting candidates in presidential history, in terms of media values (the first women and the first African American candidate who have serious chances to win a major presidential nomination and the presidency).

McCain over the last week received 37% of all news coverage on the Republican side of the election as against 34% and 32% for Obama and Clinton respectively. This from a scientific study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which has used traditional content analysis survey research methodologies to study dominant news stories since the beginning of 2007.

The study also showed that Rudy Giuliani, running as a candidate with many powerful supporters and very few voters, campaigning on the myth of his "leadership" during the September 11th attacks, got much more coverage in his withdrawal than John Edwards, a former Vice President running on a progressive anti-corporate, anti-poverty and pro labor program.

This should tell all those who don't already know that the rightwing's attack on the "liberal" media is as phony as the media fantasy that John McCain's candidacy is opposed by "conservatives."

The press and TV, especially Cable TV, are owned by the corporations and are as separate from the corporations and the rich as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were from feudal Lords in the Middle Ages.

I guess they would say that they are being "objective" in giving McCain so much coverage, whereas they would also say that they were being "objective" in denying coverage to Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel, and others because of their low vote totals.

I would suggest that readers who are interested in looking at news analysis which comes from an honest and open pro labor and progressive perspective should read the People's Weekly World and Political Affairs, in print (important, because the publications need the subscriptions) and online. While this might sound and sort of is a commercial, it is a commercial for a press which is represents different class interests, not the press that Marc Blitzstein captured in his social realist opera, "The Cradle Will Rock," in the song that went "The Press, The Press, Freedom of the Press/for the One Who Pays the Best."

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

Will progressives respond?

By Terrie Albano, editor, www.pww.org

Barack Obama's run for the White House has captured the imagination of a wide swath of Americans. The question is, will progressives respond?

The answer is not clear, yet. There have been great signs from many who count themselves on the progressive side of life. Tom Hayden, for example, endorsed Obama. He emphasized the multiracial movement that has blossomed around him.

The Progressive Democrats of America have said many favorable things in the wake of Hayden's endorsement. Hayden is a PDA board member and many in the PDA are so excited to see the numbers of young people involved in Obama's campaign.

But looking on OpEd News front page, where no mention of the incredible turn of events in the Democratic primaries have taken place, I have to ask myself, are all who claim the progressive mantle responding to the moment? I don't think so.

What could be the reason? Why wouldn't there be a screaming headline: "U.S. on track to elect first woman, or first African American" ?

These giant steps would transform the country in and of itself. But what would take the country further in a progressive direction is the election of a candidate that has the most diverse electoral coalition this nation has seen in 50 years.

Is it that many who count themselves on the progressive side of life feel above the Democratic Party? Probably. I personally, and so many of my colleagues have had discussions ad naseum on why it is important to defeat the worst, most backwards administration – even if that means working for, being a part of a coalition that is led by (at this time) the Democratic Party.

"Oh heaven forbid I touch a Democrat" many sneer.

That is one possibility why there hasn't been a reaction to the events since Iowa.

Another is an obvious blindness to gender and racial equality and how crucial that is to ANY progressive movement. It's not just a feel good thing. It's not just about diversity. At our country's essence, at democracy's essence it's about guaranteeing EVERYONE has an equal say. And anything that prevents that, prevents the full flowering of democracy.

I think that many who consider themselves progressive take for granted the issue of unity and diversity. That it's a given in the progressive agenda.

And in many ways, the progressive agenda embraces equality values.

But it's not just about embracing it. It's about taking concrete action and initiative to realizing it.

That's the difference.

The movement that has exploded around Obama is so important. It's antiracist in essence. It's deep and broad and multiracial and multigenerational. It has insightful and sophisticated everyday people active in it. It's the cream rising to the top after the long horrendous period of the Bush administration and ultra right rule since Reagan.

But even if Obama doesn't win and Hillary Clinton does, getting rid of any ultra rightist will take this country forward. And the movement around Obama will influence Clinton.

This kind of upsurge comes around just once in a lifetime. I hope for all progressives – each of us – get involved. Don't stand on the sidelines. Be active. Don't let history pass you by.

On the Trail with Obama Supporters in South Carolina

By Tim Wheeler, national political correspondent, People's Weekly World

Columbia, S.C.- When we arrived at the Performing Arts Center here for a Barack Obama rally, a line stretching two blocks was waiting to go through security to get inside.

It was a perfect snapshot of the multiracial movement that has sprung up to elect Obama, African American, Latino, white, young and old, men and women. There were vast numbers of South Carolinians but also thousands who have come from across the nation to work as volunteers. Conspicuous was the large numbers of young people waiting in the chill darkness.

I interviewed many. Emily Aho, a student at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, was waiting with several of her classmates. She is from Marietta, Georgia, a freshman business major. "I'm going to listen to what he says," she told me. "I haven't made up my mind who I am going to vote for. I think it is a good thing that we have a Black person and a woman running for president," she said.

Marie Triche, a second year law student at the University of Florida drove up in a van from Gainesville with five other members of the Black Law Students Association. "This is the first time I have heard Barack Obama speak," she said."I think this night is just overwhelming, for us to be part of such a grand occasion. Obama is a young leader in contrast to all the other candidates. He is bringing out new ideas. He is getting strong youth support."

Curt Anderson, a member of the Maryland General Assembly was one of three Maryland legislators who chartered a bus, bringing 40 volunteers to work in the Obama campaign. (I was one of them). He too was waiting with other Maryland volunteers outside the hall. "Look at this line. It lasts forever and its cold out here," he quipped. "We spent the day campaigning for Obama and this is our reward. I think Maryland will go for Obama in our Feb. 12 primary. Our organization is getting stronger." He listed many elected officials who have endorsed Obama including Rep. Elijah Cummings, Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon, the Attorney General and Comptroller. "The grassroots is where his greatest strength is," Anderson added.

I asked why Obama's message resonates so strongly with people. Vic D'Amato, a former Maryland legislator standing nearby interjected, "People are starving for change," he said. "We have not had inspirational leadership in this country at the national level in our memory."

Brian Smith drove down from Cincinnati over a week ago to work as a volunteer. He was one of many young white people waiting in the line. "I think he is such an inspirational speaker," he told me. "He has the ability to unite a country that is pretty divided. I think Bill Clinton's comments have been disappointing. It has the potential to fracture the Democratic Party. I think the people don't want to see a negative campaign. There has been a record turnout so far in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. If this negativity continues, it has the potential of affecting that turnout."

The fact that an African American is running for president and winning, he said, "Shows that our country has come a long way. But the polling in South Carolina shows there is a continued racial divide that we must overcome. I do think that everyone here is part of that historic moment. This is a multiracial crowd."

We finally made it into the hall. It was packed with a crowd that greeted Obama with chants of "O-BA-MA!" and "Yes We Can!" and "Ready for change." Obama delivered a powerful stemwinder that drew thunderous cheers.

I'll report on his speech in the next blog...

Live Blogging from South Carolina

By Tim Wheeler, national political correspondent, People's Weekly World

Columbia, S.C.- Its primary election day here in South Carolina and the army of volunteers who have flooded into the state to campaign for Barack Obama have already left the YMCA and fanned out to polling places across this city.

It is chilly and threatening rain but the media is predicting a record voter turnout of people fired up by Obama's message of hope. I rode down from Baltimore on a bus with 40 other volunteers. It was chartered by three members of the Maryland General Assembly who have kept us working diligently since we arrived. Nights we sleep on the gymnasium floor of the Y, strewn with mostly youthful volunteers from as far away as California. Early this morning two more busloads arrived from Washington, D.C.

I have been canvassing with a friend, Rev. Pierre Williams, a United Methodist minister in Baltimore. We got a vivid feel for just how deeply Obama's message is resonating here going door-to-door in a working class neighborhood yesterday.

Sherman Stewart, employed as a maintenance worker at the Governor's Mansion here in the state capital told us, "I've been listening to all the candidates and I feel that Barack Obama is the one who can turn this country around.Everyone is feeling the insecurity from the way the economy is going. Veterans of the Iraq war are coming home and finding out their credit is all messed up, their health care is messed up. We're spending billions upon billions over there in Iraq, preaching democracy to the world, and we have millions of children here who are hungry and without health care.I'm getting ready to retire and there are so many people losing their pensions, or can't afford their medicine."

Richard Edwards came walking by. He is a student at Midlands Technical College and a U.S. Navy veteran. He deplored former President Bill Clinton's divisive statements here in South Carolina such as his dismissive statement that Obama's message of hope is a "fairy tale," implying that the Illinois Senator is too young and inexperienced to be president.

"I think Clinton's statement really affected Black voters," he told the World. "It put the Black community in a negative light. Obama is trying to unite people of all races and backgrounds, young and old, men and women. Clinton's statement has divided South Carolina. We don't need that here. I believe Barack is going to win but by a narrower margin. I hope Barack sticks to his message, positive change, hope, bringing us together, Black, white independent, even Republicans."

Clintons Play the Race Card

By Joe Sims

Why did Obama lose yesterday’s New Hampshire primary? In the opinion of the editor’s of none other than the New York Times, major consideration has to be given to the injection of racism into the campaign by none other than Hillary and Bill Clinton themselves. In its lead editorial, the Times wrote that Senator Clinton ran an “angry campaign" in New Hampshire and:

“polls showed that voters noticed. She won narrowly, but came perilously close to injecting racial tension into what should have been — and still should be — an uplifting contest between the first major woman candidate and the first major African-American candidate.”

For the centrist NYT to say “perilously close” in reality means that it actually occurred – so much so that it was cause for alarm. The editorial continues:

“In the days before the voting, Mrs. Clinton and her team were so intent on talking about how big a change a woman president would be — and it surely would — that some of her surrogates even suggested that it would be a more valuable change than an African-American president…In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. ”

Clinton has been all along not-so-subtly suggesting that Senator Obama is not up to the task of being president, not “experienced enough” in the New York senator’s words. In essence, Clinton is arguing that Obama is not “qualified.” Now where have we heard that before?

The Times editors saw it this way:

“It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. She pulled herself back from the brink by later talking about the mistreatment and danger Dr. King faced.”

If Mrs. Clinton “pulled back” her husband, in the opinion of the Times went way over the line. They wrote:

“Former President Bill Clinton, who seems to forget he is not the one running, hurled himself over the edge on Monday with a bizarre and rambling attack on Mr. Obama.”

A conclusion that the Clinton's engaged in racially charged campaigning in New Hampshire seems unavoidable. Whether it was deliberate or unconscious isn't important. What is important is that it helped turn the election in their favor. In this regard, any discussion of the “Bradley effect” in the New Hampshire primary must consider the added influence of the Clinton’s role. (The Bradley effect is named for the late Tom Bradley who ran for governor of California and lost narrowly after being well ahead in the polls). It wasn’t that voters just made up their minds at the last minute, they were pushed in a certain direction by the Clinton couple themselves.

One should not be surprised by the Clinton’s ploys. After all it was Bill Clinton himself who traveled to a Rainbow Coalition meeting in Washington during his first campaign and attacked a young rapper “Sista Souljah” to prove he wasn’t “pandering” to the Black vote. It was also Clinton who traveled back to Arkansas to preside over the execution of young mentally disabled African American man. It was the same Clinton who went to a Black church and chastised African Americans for behaving with “reckless abandonment” and loose morals.

In all likelihood several factors combined to produce the New Hampshire vote: the swing of undecided women voters; strong union support for Clinton and an effective get-out-the vote effort, and the playing of the race card by the Clinton’s themselves.

Is Obama Electable?

By Joe Sims

Hillary Clinton is on the defensive again today after the report that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program some years ago: Clinton voted for the Senate resolution castigating the Iranian Guards as a terrorist organization. Now the New York presidential hopeful is trying to explain the vote away. In the eyes of other Democratic candidates and much of the voting public, Clinton’s stance is in all likelihood seen as just another misstep in a increasingly tightening race with her lead halved in New Hampshire, trailing Obama in Iowa, and about 13 points up in South Carolina. However in this critical southern state, Clinton is running neck and neck with Obama among African Americans and women. And while Clinton leads the polls nationwide, as a Newsweek article this week points out, the lead disappears when the candidates are paired with Republican opponents. Richard Wolffe (with Eleanor Clift and Holly Bailey) writes that,

Polls paint a confusing picture. Among Democrats nationwide, Clinton holds a big lead over Obama and is still perceived as the candidate most likely to win in November. But that advantage evaporates when the two are matched up against leading Republicans. In surveys of voters from both parties, Clinton has a narrow, four-point lead over Rudy Giuliani in a recent NEWSWEEK POLL; Obama has a three-point lead. But against other Republicans, Obama comes out ahead, leading Mitt Romney by 16 and Fred Thompson by 13, compared with four points for Clinton in both scenarios.

Interestingly the above quoted article entitled "Putting on Their Game Face," which discusses the candidates electability neither race nor gender is mentioned once. Which raises the issue, are they really an issue and if so in what way? Kind of hard to imagine that either has gone away.

I keep thinking about that third of vote that Obama has in Iowa. On the surface it’s not a bad statistic. However, in previous elections at least since the 1980s, in many races approximately one-third of Democratic white voters, reliably would vote for Black candidates: when combined with a hefty African American vote, this anti or non-racist third provided the margin for many a victory. Is this the same third?

I got to thinking about it when reading an article in the November 19th edition of Time. Writer Joe Klein quotes an Iowa Democrat describing the undecided vote and where it might go:

He pointed out that four years ago in November, Howard Dean was inevitable and John Kerry was over. “But 40 percent were undecided going into the last week of the caucus. It’ll be the same this time. Hillary is 20 percent smarter than the guys, but a woman has to be just to pull equal … They love Obama. He’s very inspiring. But in the end Iowans vote electability. I hate to say it, but my guess is they will vote for the white guy – Edwards – this time, just like they voted for the war hero last time.”

Will all the good feeling disappear when all is said and done? I’m not sure. 2004 is instructive, but it’s not now. That Clinton and Obama are the frontrunners itself is indicative of that. Hello!? Still, I ponder the “hardness” or commitment of Obama’s third and wonder to what degree it will expand to produce a winning electoral combination.

One thing is bound to impact the outcome: voters are looking for answers to important issues and are reacting strongly to 25 years of right-wing reign and want an end to it. Again, Clinton and Obama are riding the wave of this discontent. The candidate who sticks to the central issues, (as opposed to vacillating in the center), just might come out on top.