Re-Jigging?

R/Man, do you know the meaning of the first word in your monicker?

Or did you mean to say "re-jigging" MORE in the USA's favor? Have you noticed that our thriving forest industry is subject to an "export tax" under the current Softwood Agreement. I know it goes to Harper instead of Bush, but it's pretty much the same on the ground here in BC. Perhaps you could convince some un-employed manufacturing workers in Ontario about the benefits of NAFTA.

Well, at least they buy Oil from Alberty. Too bad the people of Alberta don't enjoy the proceeds from their own oil like say, the sheiks in Saudi Arabia or dictators in Africa or Myanmar. Don't worry though, the people of Alberta will get to enjoy the mess left behind.

Ingenuous R-Male

R/man, don't you feel a bit sheepish about combining US imports from Mexico AND Canada, as if that was germane to our discussion. Of course Mexico is where the jobs are going, thanks to the Mexican willingness to accept a day wage equivalent to a Canadian hourly wage - check out the "free trade" low wage ghettos along the border. BTW, R/man, in case you hadn't noticed there has also been a fair amount of population growth in all three countries since 1993. More people, all other things being equal, tend to buy more stuff.

I would also imagine that energy imports would account for a lot of the growth in US imports from both countries as well. In case you also hadn't noticed this, Mexico and Canada both have greater energy supplies to export than the pumped out USA, even including the small reserves in the ANWAR.

You apparently are convinced that Brian Mulroney and NAFTA are resposible for everything good in the world, perhaps including Santa Claus. However, I would credit the high world price/value of energy and minerals with having more to do with the strength of Canada economically as compared to other not so blessed G8 countries. If you pay attention you might notice that everytime the price of a barrel of crude spikes, so does the TSX index.

Ottawa's budget surplus that you are so proud of isn't that impressive either if you give just a moment's thought to how it was created. While Ottawa has a policy of extracting every dollar it can from the provinces, but just keeping it (except for what they share with their banker buddies), instead of returning it to the provinces for infrastructure, education, health care and social programs, it should not be surprising if Ottawa has a surplus.

I don't think ANY province has a surplus, except for Alberta and BC, and in spite of BC's blessing in terms of commodities, I suspect that BC's surplus is smoke and mirrors.

Hey realisticdude, I've got an idea that may help you understand. Just start sending me half of all your income for a couple years, but don't expect me to spend any of it on you, and I'll be running a real healthy surplus too!

NAFTA ET AL, Part 1...

First, a very appropriate comment koot koot re the outsourcing of the US economy-, to which one might add with the same consequences we have in this country, of diminishing returns to all save the upper orders of the ruling class, with a dramatic rise in the relative and absolute levels of impoverishment, home losses, and declining education and economic opportunity for the lower class orders. Besides, you will get no counter argument here regarding the level of our economic and political dependence on the US Empire. It is well known across the world-, along with its bootlick consequence for our role in the world and the actuality of whether we are even a truly "independent" nation state or not.

The argument is, be this a desirable state of affairs, or does it in fact undermine our own independent economic and political development, along with the security of our lands and nation, and suck us rather into a black hole vortex destined to obliterate even what little now can seriously be claimed to pass for an independent Canada.

We know well where you and your, what might be described as US Wannabe kind stand in this argument, rm-, which is about where the British Empire Loyalists stood in relation to the US War of Independence. Only in this case, history having completely turned, and the US Empire now reaching for the gold ring of world domination previously held by their old enemy, the now rag doll exhausted and failed British Empire, ye as well can now in this new historical moment, with appropriate justification, I think, be considered the US Empire Loyalist faction. My view.

History does its wonders to perform, in strange and mysterious ways, does it not?

We have had this argument, of the US-Canada relationship in the age of continental integration, many, many times in the past my Neocon enemies, and it is unlikely that now we are going to change each others minds here.

Continued next post...

NAFTA ET AL, Part 2

Continued from previous post...

Suffice it to say, from my perspective, that the future history of relations between Canada and the US will be better served, by way of creating a more egalitarian relationship that will neither prematurely exhaust the natural resources of this county, or jeopardize its sustainability, respecting the territorial rights of each of us, if we, Canada, seize this moment of opportunity to prepare and assert our national development interest. Which means, as the new US Empire (attempt) bogs itself down in a war driven policy seeking world domination everywhere, at which it will eventually and inevitably, as sure as the earlier British Empire, exhaust its blood and treasure, we move increasingly and as quickly as possible to an arms length relationship with it. (And prepare for the defence of ourselves, should they decide in the desperation of their decline, to turn upon us.)

Better this country finally get about the difficult business of its own independent a economic and egalitarian social development, and the husbanding of our natural resources, instead of laying it all at the feet of, and encouraging the worst of this US Empire.

If that means some class elements, particularly amongst the ruling class, have to scale back their "returns" expectations somewhat, then so be it. For the rest of us, the rug is already being pulled out from under us in any case.

US Only? Well, noooooo........

RealisticDude, you seem to miss the point. That rapidly failing rogue state called the USA IS NOT the only conceivable export market - GET IT? It would behoove Canada to start putting its eggs in a few more baskets, perhaps that way we can avoid accompanying the United States on its rapidly approaching replay of the Dirty Thirties V 2.0 - the Big One.

At the very least it might soon be sensible to demand payment (for our commodities that possess "real" value) in some currency, Canadian Dollars, Euros or other, that has some value other than that supplied by the intimidation of the gun. Once one country successfully starts selling major amounts of oil in something other than US Dollars without being invaded by the US Military, throwing US currency out your car window will be essentially, littering.

Good Stuff, Lynnn, 1...

Extremely informative figures which, if we are listening and can read as much between the lines, tell us more about the real character and state of what passes for so-called capitalist democracy than all the sanctimonious twaddle of MSM and the so-called "parliamentarians" and "vanguard parties" of the system.It is money that runs and manipulates it, overwhelmingly ruling class cash and influence.

It's why even would be "reformers", whatever their best intentions going into the "parliamentary process", invariably wind up serving the same sets of ruling class interests.

And I would only observe re rm's claim that,

Which Canadian made products and services, and the profits thereto accruing, are actually made and accrued to, in very many if not most cases, giant US corporations, as well as some other large foreign owned corps, operating within and commanding the heights of the Canadian economy.

Of note is that Canada's largest companies by value, and largest employers, tend to be foreign owned in a way that is more typical of a developing nation than a G-8 member. The best example is the automotive sector, one of Canada's most important industries. It is dominated by American, German, and Japanese giants. Although this situation is not unique to Canada in the global context, it is unique among G-8 nations, and many other relatively small nations also have national automotive companies such as Sweden's Saab or South Korea's Kia and Hyundai.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_ownership_of_companies_of_Canada

There really is a crying and obvious need for thee of the US Empire Wannabe persuasion here, to concede some more open and honest admissions, around this discussion. Then you might at least garner something approaching real respect here. And your loyalty not be viewed at least quite so much as a kind of Fifth Column.

Continued next post...

Good Stuff, Lynn 2

Continuing from previous post...

Amerika's corps are not here, handy to our resources and educated workforce etc, in order to profit this country, but through repatriation of profits and what is called the transfer pricing policies of their foreign operating corporations, themselves.

Again, US Empire Wannabes in this country need to face up to the severe hyperbole of their own analyses of economic realities and face up to the greater complexities of those realities as they effect this country, restricting rather than enhancing our potential development and role in the world.

Time to get up off our knees and walk upright on our own two feet, like real sovereign men and women in a more truly sovereign country. Grovelling face down in the dirt, doing its bidding, as we do too much with the US Empire, distorts one's view of the world, and the potential of one's self.

Gold complicates things too.

During the 2 1/2 years that Britain, France, and the Commonwealth fought WW2 alone, in order to fight that war, Britain sold off her Empire and her Gold to finance the materiel necessary to wage war.

The biggest buyer - at fire-sale prices - was the US, which also supplied equipment under a Lend-Lease agreement.

Following the War, Britain, financially impoverished and bereft of her Empire, reduced to "austerity" to recover her balance, was now an obvious inferior to the fast-rising American Empire, the new owner of Britain's wealth.

Because the world (primarily Britain) now owed the US more money than there was existing gold to cover it, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, both under US control, was created at War's end in 1945 as part of the Bretton Woods Agreement. By virtue of this agreement, the US Dollar now supplanted Gold as the world's medium of exchange, and became the world’s reserve currency.

Through the stratagem of printing more money than it has had resources to back it up with, the US has succeeded in downloading its debt upon the rest of the world in the form of constantly devalued Dollars.

The cracks in this system began to show when first Iraq under S Hussein, and more recently, Iran, announced their intention to require payment for oil in Euros, not Dollars. If successful, this would be a death blow to the Dollar, since oil is the world's largest and most important trade item.

All the while, as the US Dollar devalues, the price of Gold has been steadily rising, as more investors look to Gold as a hedge against the Dollar. Relegated to a commodity in '45, Gold is again looking more like a currency.

But big trouble looms re Gold, trouble which portends to well overshadow the already serious problems with sub-primes, derivatives, and the monolines.

Barrick Resources is the largest Gold mining company in the world. It has grown by buying every Gold mining property available, large and small, producing or not, through a complicated system of selling short, and using the funds to buy up other companies. Although this has resulted in debt which far exceeds the Gold they can reasonably produce, it has been ignored by greedy investors who've accepted that the unmined Gold will cover the deficit.

Barrick’s debt is now so huge that if it goes down it will take major banks and investment houses, and probably the US Federal Reserve, with it. It is an object lesson in what happens when you let monopolies become as powerful as the State, allowing too many eggs in one basket, It also validates Ed Deak’s points re Fiat Money.

The following excellent account brings together events which have been reported singly over the last several years. And our buddy lyin Brian’s there too. Scroll down “comments”

http://www.contraryinvestorscafe.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=2393&forum_id=15

GWest

Ain't seen nuthin' yet in this regard!

Not Rumours from the Outback R-man

This is not an isolated rumour from some Australian dude. There is more documented evidence that Saddam was trying to start an oil "bourse" dealing in non-US currency, than for WMD in Iraq OR that Saddam ever had anything other than contempt for Osama bin Forgotten. Iran has been also trying to set up a new oil trading "bourse" recently. My information indicates that they have actually begun operations, though not on a large scale as yet. Do you think this might have anything to do with Iran's current status as Darth Cheney and Charlie McCarthy's next target for "pre-emptive" attack?

While I am not an expert on forestry economics, I have worked in mills, in production logging and engineering. I'm not surprised that you want to blame the forestry ill's on the current US Mortgage crisis and building slump. Perhaps you were too busy rehearsing your cheerleading routines ("Rah, Rah, Gord, the rich get their reward") to have noticed my mention of this above, so now I will just quote from Hansard - St. Valentine's Day, 2008.

MLA Routley - from Throne Speech Debate

.....We were made vulnerable by B.C. Liberal policies to the dollar now and to the slowdown in the U.S. Now we'll see the result looking at the futures in terms of lumber prices. Hundreds and hundreds more operations won't be able to survive over the next two years.

Fiscally Conservative/Fascist Capitalism

Neither can Canada. Time to clean house, guys. Quote from Gkam.

Interesting set of observations, gkam. This above quote though is one that needs to be especially noted and taken to heart.

Whenever relatively more "liberal" governments do manage to secure more formal than real political power, especially in the US but as well in about every capitalist country known to me, and move to at least try to ameliorate and modestly improve the lives of ordinary citizens-. or even just stabilize them, the hue and cry goes up from the so-called fiscal conservatives about "liberals" spending like drunken sailors. Then when the so-called free market economy invariably turns down, given their cyclical ever crisis prone character, especially in periods of deregulation such as now, and these same fiscal conservatives finally resecure formal power, they go about a different kind of drunken spending spree on the ruling class; tax cuts, grants, bail-outs, cost plus profit guarantees etc. (In other words, they further sweeten the corporate welfare pot that is always there anyway, never dared even to be touched by the good times liberal ruling class strata.

I have seen this cycle repeat itself within capitalism, more than a few times, though on the (Kondratiev) "long wave" cycle, from my limited recall of the Dirty Thirties through to the present day, we are back in the time of the true fascist "fiscal conservatives", who will/are taking us into the New Great Depression completion of the cycle again. (This final leg of the cycle began with Margaret Thatcher and Reagan globally; Bill Bennet and Mike Harris in the provinces of this country.)

For an explanation of this Kondratiev Wave Theory, see:

http://www.investorglossary.com/kondratiev-wave.htm

Though Wikipedia also has some more thorough information on this long wave cycle within capitalism.

Which brings me back to your concluding remark:

And the only way to seriously disrupt this destructive pattern buried deep within capitalist "free market" behaviours is, to finally find/evolve a more egalitarian and democratic social and economic model that is sustainable and leads away from continued fascistic, cyclically crises prone capitalism altogether.

In case it ain't clear...:-)

In case it ain't clear, though he typically waffles about some :-), I, surprising even to myself, agree with the nightbloomer.

The most important significance of Obama winning is more likely to be of greater significance to the Amerikan people themselves. Being, of course, that at least they themselves have risen sufficiently above their own historical racism enough, to elect a half black man. Outside that, it's significance to us is more likely to be considerably less-, though "perhaps" making our dealings with US imperialism somewhat more palatable. (We may be able to get by without performing quite so much fellatio on The Beast.)

On the other hand, Clinton getting elected would have about equal significance. That would signal that their society is now finally ready to let a rich liberal white woman into the highest "formal" office of what has been a to here exclusive rich white man's club.

Outside of that, I suggest, don't expect much more, certainly significant to ourselves in this country. The dies is cast of the war driven policy of the US Empire's latest "expansion" drive, though they may decide that Iraq was a bad business decision, and simply transfer their war effort to controlling Afghanistan in order to eventually build that oil pipeline, going after the oil rich northern 'stan countries instead of Iraq's.

As for ourselves, we will continue to toady up to them, and provide the odd bit of fellatio, as befits our historical role/relationship with The Empire.

No real qualitative change.

Glad you are seeing the light finally, nightbloom. B-D lol.

koot

Did that strike last year hurt? What was the point and what was gained? I read a couple of days ago that BC lumber companies were recruiting in Ontario.

STAT CAN DATA?

But we used to have a viable manufacturing industry in this country - most of those jobs are now gone and we're becoming nothing more than drawers of water and hewers of wood (whoops, sorry, that bit about the wood is pretty much over now too, remember) again.

G West, can you bring out any Stat Can data that would support this assertion?

UnRealistic Cheerleader!

R-Man,

I can see crediting you with a bit of intelligence and class was totally unwarranted. Now that you really seem to realize you can't blame the forestry sector's woes on the building bust, you will blame the union (and the strike). I'm surprised it took you so long! To right wing-nut troglidytes there is no problem in the universe that can't been blamed on Organized Labor.

I am still dumbstruck every time some one like yourself reminds me that UNIONS ARE BAD - They are special interest groups. Yet, to you worshippers at the altar of Friedman and the University of Chicago's economics department dogma, corporate fat cats dictating government policy to our elected officials behind closed doors has nothing to do with their "special interests." They dispense bags of cash, wire deposits to off shore numbered accounts and fill the campaign coffers of those politicians that will implement their agenda of greed, oops, I meant, serve the common interest.

BTW, what strike? Most loggers hereabouts didn't even know about it. Locally a union logger or millworker is pretty much an extinct species. I hear the last surviving example was sighted sometime in the 80's, hell it might have even been ME! In case you are as clueless as you appear, maybe I should point out that before you can go on strike you have to have an employer to take action against.

If you are an outfit like Pope and Talbot or Western Forest Products and really would rather do recreational real estate development, it is a waste of time to operate sawmills. Of course no sawmills need no logs (and no loggers need apply to harvest no logs). Shipping raw logs isn't the answer either cause God put our trees too goddamn far from the saltchuck.

Even shipping raw logs to Washington state by truck isn't viable, since down there foreclosed houses sitting empty are threatening to outnumber even the homeless.
Apparently some places in the "rust belt"
like Cleveland, already have more houses sitting empty than homeless people on the street. I shudder to even imagine how bad things would be if our current crop of fically conservative whiz-kids weren't running the show!

Budd...

A couple sources I gathered on a very quick online survey are below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_ownership_of_companies_of_Canada#Partial_list_of_foreign-owned_companies_of_Canada

Do a scroll down this page to Quick Facts which quotes Stats Can sources, which can be checked if you wish. (It saves hunting for all these sources individually on your own.)

Foreign-controlled corporations tend to be larger than their Canadian-controlled counterparts.

In 2005, the largest foreign-controlled corporations (those with revenues of $75 million or more) generated on average $655.7 million in operating revenues. This was 27% higher than the average $516.7 million in operating revenues generated by large Canadian-controlled corporations.

Foreign control is concentrated in the non-financial sector of the Canadian economy, especially when measured by operating revenue. This is due, in part, to stricter regulations on foreign control in the finance and insurance industries, especially in banking.

In 2005, 64.7% of foreign-controlled assets, 93.2% of foreign-controlled operating revenue, and 78.7% of foreign controlled operating profits originated from the non-financial sector.

Stats Can Daily for June 14th, 2007

Check this above Stats Can site for a rather good overview perspective, though it is a tad dated. Apparently the latest figures available are for 2005.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070614/d070614b.htm

The important thing to keep in mind when discussing foreign ownership of the Canadian economy is, it is focused on the most important non-financial sectors (Restrictions on foreign ownership do exist in the financial sector, such as banking.), that are key to the real, non-paper economy, such as resources. (In 2005, foreign ownership of the non-financial sectors as a whole was around 30%, unique in the G8 industrialized world. And that while there are certainly numerically more Canadian companies, they are typically smaller, and hence more vulnerable to foreign influence and predation. For the actual relatively small number of foreign operating corps in Canada, their market share is hugely disproportional, as a consequence of its efficiencies of scale, generally better access to the latest technologies, and market connections.

A much more important issue, for us, than who wins the US presidency. Which is not to say that it is totally irrelevant.

Knockout punch...

Indeed, rm is on the mat with a glazed over, far away look in his eyes, Koot. That's a wicked left hook, man.

And what Lynn says about Obama. She has still said it best on this Obama versus Clinton issue. This woman is a definite contendah. :-)

Nightbloom. Very good follow-up piece to your last comment brother. You, as we all, continue to evolve. :-)

koot

Good job that jobs are plentiful:

http://working.canada.com/workbc/index.html

Yep! Just off the top of my head...

http://canadianlabour.ca/updir/01-11LbrForceSurveyEng.pdf

Oooooh

Don't you know Umslopogaas, That a pun is the lowest form of humour?

Even so, that's one I'll likely remember. :-)

And this

http://www.ofl.ca/uploads/library/jobs-strategies/Opening_Presentation_Notes_-_Wayne_Samuelson,_OFL.pdf

And this

http://www.durhamlabour.ca/manufacturingcrisis.pdf

Good for BC - Good for Canada

Admittedly, some of those lite references are a bit dated. Yeah, like 2 years.

Nevertheless, the evolution is natural as opportunities decline in the Canadian rust belt they rise in the West. What else is new? Just more reason for the clarion call to Easterners to, "Go west young man". 'Twas always thus but happened in the US before Canada.

The universe is in order.

From someone who's an immigrant himself

That's hardly a comforting thought.

Besides, the material was posted for Budd Campbell's information - he'd asked for some data to support the loss of manufacturing jobs.

And of course, there's no need to post anything about the decimation of the forest sector - EVERYONE (except that fool Emerson and his puppet master pee wee) knows exactly what NAFTA has done to timber, pulp and paper and mill workers.

Once upon a time R/Man, Canada ever produced one of the most comprehensive lines of farm equipment - used the world over.

Of course, that preceded the elevation of Lord Conrad (as he would become) to the throne of the late Bud McDougall. Through sharp practice and deception of a nature, which, in the fullness of time, have led the good lord to the very door of the gaol.

Sadly, he's one of the few who've gotten their just desserts in that respect.

Perhaps that too was before your time.

The universe is most definitely NOT unfolding as it should and only the purblind would say it is.

Whatever else one can say about Barack Obama (and my impression is that he did not come from a life of leisure and abundance) he does seem to appreciate the fact that, as Hamlet says in Act I scene V :

Let us go in together; And still your fingers on your lips, I pray.

The time is out of joint; O cursed spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!

GWest

Perhaps you're right. Obama will get capitalism back on track, and we can get on again with tree cutting in earnest too.

Keep Ignoring the Obvious R-Man

Jeez, I don't recall claiming that there were no jobs anywhere. However, in my neck of the "Woods" there are few logging and/or milling jobs. That isn't because there are no trees, it is a direct result of government policy and trade agreements.

East coasters find work these days also, but just not much as fishers. Of course the responsibilty for that lies squarely on the DOF and other, mostly federal government policy - or dare I say the words, POOR MANAGEMENT at the policy level.

To get through to some folks it is necessary to repeat the obvious and chase them down the spiraling circles of their own lack of reason or purposeful obfuscation.

interesting piece about the Obama phenomenon here

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21063

Privilege

bobb999

The confusion is to be expected. Part of the ReThug meme is to convince every American who doesn't live in rusty, leaky trailer or on the street, that they too are privileged and lucky to live in the Greatest Nation ever known.

This goes along with belief that with hard work and just a "little" luck, they too can buy the house next door to Bill Gates, someday soon. The truth is there is less upward mobility in today's USA than almost any developed country,
including "Old" "class ridden" Europe.

Malcolm X's Life of Privilege

Malcolm left Boston to live for a short time in Detroit and Inkster, Michigan. He moved to New York City in 1943. There he worked again briefly for the New Haven Railroad. Malcolm found work as a shoeshiner at a Lindy Hop nightclub. In The Autobiography of Malcolm X, he said that he once shined the shoes of Duke Ellington and other notable African-American musicians. After some time in Harlem, he became involved in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery and steering prostitutes. During this time, his friends and acquaintances called him "Detroit Red".[12] Between 1943 and 1946, when he was arrested and jailed in Massachusetts, Malcolm drifted between Boston and New York City three more times.[7]

When Malcolm was examined for the draft, military physicians classified him to be "mentally disqualified for military service." He explained in his autobiography that he put on a display to avoid the draft by telling the examining officer that he could not wait to "kill some crackers." His approach worked. His classification ensured he would not be drafted.[13]

In early 1946, Malcolm returned to Boston. On January 12, he was arrested for burglary trying to steal a stolen watch he had left for repairs at a jewelry shop. Two days later, Malcolm was indicted for carrying firearms. On January 16, he was charged with Grand Larceny and Breaking and Entering. Malcolm was sentenced to eight to ten years in Massachusetts State Prison.[7]

On February 27, Malcolm began serving his sentence at the Massachusetts State Prison in Charlestown. While in prison, Malcolm earned the nickname of "Satan" for his vitriolic hatred towards the Bible, God and religion in general.[14] Malcolm began reading books from the prison library. Soon he developed a voracious appetite for reading, then astigmatism[clarify]. His brother Reginald wrote letters describing his experience with the Nation of Islam, and Malcolm decided to convert.

For the remainder of his incarceration, Malcolm maintained regular contact with Elijah Muhammad, the group's leader. Malcolm started to gain fame among the prisoners but also remained under the eye of the authorities. He was denied a possible early release after five years.

In February 1948, mostly through his sister's efforts, Malcolm was transferred to an experimental prison in Norfolk, Massachusetts, a facility that had a much larger library. Malcolm later reflected on his time in prison: "Months passed without my even thinking about being imprisoned. In fact, up to then, I had never been so truly free in my life."[14] On August 7, 1952, Malcolm received parole and was released from prison.[7]

The US can invade us with our permission now

The secrecy says everything about the deal.

The anti-Canadians here though will nod and say its a great idea.

Following the leader

Disagree completely. Not when the candidate involved has created his own mythology of overcoming. To be correct, he didn't attend a private school in Hawaii "at one point in his life " it was for most of his school life until graduation. So the itinerant Obama was not even that itinerant but it plays well.

.

..well, glad to know he's "behaving well" while leading with the same policies as Hilary...

.... "leadership" like Obama demonstrated over Excelon... when he weakened environmental legislation that involved his big donor Excelon's contamination of a community's soil and drinking water - taking all the meat out of the safeguards, along with taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Excelon. But hey, I know...so what? He must have just had a bad day. How trivial of me to even ask the question.

War on the US Left (cont.)

...One example, this site:
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/
used to be an excellent
progressive site, covering any number of topics and news items, and happened to have feminist leanings. But the last few months it's turned into a full-time rabid "smear-'misogynist'Obama, boost-Hillary" campaign, with a hundred variations on one message: "Obama bad, Clinton good".

All criticism, fair or not, goes to Obama's campaign, while Clinton's campaign is now above criticism or reproach.

Imagine a progressive Democratic site dedicated to trying to rip to bits the Dem front runnner! Sheesh.

The site also paints a picture of pro-Obama Dem blogs such as "Daily Kos", as being
"male dominated", which presumably "explains" their "anti-Hillary bias".
-But the real venom I've seen comes out of some of the Clintonite camp against Obama, NOT from the Obamaites against Clinton!

-But I discovered a development the Clintonite feminists prefer not to mention a single word about:

There is a solid movement of FEMINISTS for OBAMA, at odds with the feminists for Clinton. These are largely feminist peace activists who view Obama as the Pres. least likely to be a war-monger. They are not happy with intolerant "our way or the highway" attitudes expressed by some feminists in the Clinton camp.
-A news article, Anti-Hillary Sentiment On The Rise Among Leading Feminists
http://tinyurl.com/3yr4ea
Feminists for Peace speak for themselves here:
-Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama!Petition
http://tinyurl.com/3957ql

-Feminist Ultimatums: Not In Our
Name
http://tinyurl.com/2xhtcf

Btw, I happen to agree with the Feminists for Peace on Obama.

Obama and Cuba

Now that the Tyee Cuba thread is closed I just wanted to add a note about Obama and Cuba.

Today Raul became the Cuban president. No real surprise except among some Cuban-Americans who seem intent on over analyzing everything Cuba to a bizarrely tin foil hat degree. I was able to get through to some friends in Cuba (earlier on Tuesday the phone lines were jammed with everyone calling home to find out the reaction to Fidel resigning). In talking with my friends, I was actually surprised at how hopeful they sound.

When I was last in Cuba, my friends were cautiously optimistic about Raul. He's seen as far more pragmatic than Fidel. Where Fidel is generally seen as a short-tempered micro managing idealist; Raul is seen as a far better manager, who is willing to delegate, and who is far more open to relaxing restrictions on small business. It was an effort led by Raul that helped save Cuba economically after the Soviet Union collapsed, and Cuba lost its largest trading partner. However, I think it is important to emphasize, that I believe a lot of the credit is due not so much to Raul as it is to all the incredibly resourceful Cubans who work under him. I suspect he's simply more willing to let them do their jobs.

As for the Cuban view on the upcoming US presidential election, the general consensus seems to be that Obama would be best for Cuba, but they don't believe Obama has a chance because he's black, and Americans won't vote for a black man for president. I think they are right on the former and wrong on the latter, although clearly a lot in the Democratic camp won't give up on Clinton just yet.

Given Obama's behavior in government, I do believe, out of the remaining candidates, that he would have the most progressive foreign policy. I would be surprised if he moved in a dramatically positive direction on Cuba, but I suspect he'd start with positive tit for tat change, where if the Cuban government makes a positive change here, the Obama presidency will make a positive change in return. He has stated that he would unequivocally eliminate travel and remittance restrictions on Cuban-Americans with family in Cuba. The relaxing of the banking restrictions in order to make that possible will be a huge boon to Cuba's economy.

For me personally, it would simply be nice to be able to call Cuba at normal international rates, and for all my friends to have internet access. Even better to have the onerous licensing costs on small business drastically reduced. But I suspect that is likely years away.

Wellll....

I strongly disagree. Hillary has an innsy and Obama, presumably, has an outsy. Unless they are falsely representing themselves, of course, which would just be "system politics", as we all know it. Eh? :-)

Ohhh, I see. You did say "politcally".

:-)

That "lobbyist" McCain has been shagging pour favour, might even have corrupted me too. Though I would certainly deny it too, before the MSM, with the wife standing beside me.

To me too. In drag, I couldn't tell them apart either. Reminiscences of the Canadian political "democratic" system.

Gorgeous day today. I spent the entire day with my horse. Even trimmed her hooves. The wife claims that we are in love.

Short-changed

No, my point is Obama's message is Change. Big Time. You see no hypocrisy in that? All the while he is handily playing along with the ol' corporate donations song and dance. You are the one defending him here.....but yes, we know at the same time you are really a 100% percent Kucinich supporter...so progressive.... so you got one foot in with defending corporations when it comes to Obama.... and one foot out when it comes to Kucinich. The mushy middle...and why corporations find it so easy to whittle democracy down to nothing...because people keep supporting politicians influenced by corporate power and big money.

The strong wording in that bill reflected the concerns of the citizens of Illinois who were experiencing radioactivity in their drinking water. Obama switched his allegiance from the people who voted him into office to the nuclear corporation ( that he supposedly was fighting against) and who were also heavily funding his campaign. If you see that as change, keep on defending him.

And Bobb999, the reason the Clintonites haven't spoken up on this one is because they too, are heavily indebted to nuclear power corporations. That's why I say equal praise to both. I see neither of them as outstanding candidates...but the same old, same old.

misrepresent

Well lynn you're going to have to point out where I defend corporations and the corruption of American money politics if you're going to step out and make that accusation of me. But that kind of inaccurate hyperbole appears part and parcel of your arguments. You've done it with your characterization of Obama and Excelon, and now you're doing it to me by suggesting I'm defending corporate money politics. It suggests to me you're comfortable dealing in falsehoods and intentional mischaracterizations when arguing with people who disagree with you, and it makes me call into question your judgment, and all your arguments. If you're willing to deal in misinformation so readily, when and where else are you willing to do it?

As for Obama and change, having a black president will certainly be a huge change for the US, as would having a woman. Having a president who spoke out against a war started by the US at a time when the political winds were blowing completely the opposite direction will be a huge change. Having a president who is willing to negotiate with foreign powers without preconditions will be a huge change. Certainly, from the point of view of a progressive, that change is far too small considering the truly massive problems we face in the world, but they're a step in the right direction, which is far more than I can say about a Clinton or McCain presidency.

I'm with James

As I read James Burns he feels that Obama is the best of a bad lot, and I'm with him there. I don't really dislike or hate Hillary, but I do have a problem with the dysnasty thing.

Like James I think Dennis Kucinich has the best policy positions, but I have as much of a chance to be elected Preznt - Head Decider. Even Ron Paul would be attractive, though I have a hard time understanding how one educated in the biological sciences enough to practice medicine could conceive of Adam and his pet dinosaur.

This has been an interesting thread/discussion and unfortunately it is entirely too relevant to we Candians who are in the same bed worrying about the elephant rolling over on us.

rollover

Ya mean the elephant hasn`t rolled over yet?
Well he`s rollin` now ain`t he?
IMO: We been annexed for awhile now.

Out goes Baby with the bathwater

Lynn said: "my point is Obama's message is Change. Big Time. You see no hypocrisy in that? All the while he is handily playing along with the ol' corporate donations song and dance."

-America enthusiastically electing an African American Pres. represents big time positive changein American social attitudes. I expect this will be an inspiration not only to African Americans, but to Americans of all backgrounds.

-Obama jettisoning Bush's belligerent
foreign policies, and replacing Bush's penchant for law breaking, abusing human rights and politicizing and corrupting the justice system will be big time change.

-Since Obama's offering quite specific policies in his speeches and in online statements, one can see exactly what his plans are. I can't see how wool is being pulled over voters' eyes, with any supposed feel-good, substance-less change message.

-Part of Obama's change message is simply a change in attitude he says he brings to the table.Inclusiveness, for instance. This isn't an empty promise. The fact that there really is a growing # of Republicans who dig Obama (see a recent Frank Rich column), while divisive Clintons are still widely despised, demonstrates Obama really can be a Pres. that can heal some partisan divisions.

-Here's Obama's claimed record on gov't ethics reform:
http://tinyurl.com/hm7jn
Not totally shabby.
He can legitimately claim some progress in this area.

So what if he's received some corporate donations? I mean it's not the ideal system at all, but that's the system as it exists now in the US, a system Obama didn't create but must work within if he is to have a chance at becoming Pres. At the same time, he's able to make incremental reforms. This isn't hypocrisy so much as realism.

It doesn't make his presidential run illegitimate just because he, like every other candidate, has received some corporate $. It's a fault of the system
he's working to improve, it's not Obama's fault. And anyway, comparing his funding to others', it appears he has %-wise less funding from corporations than others, none whatsoever from K Street lobbyists (unlike others), plus some new $ from unions. But likely the bulk of his funding still comes from online donations from individual Americans (unlike most other candidates), as those funding stats Lynn posted earlier would suggest.

-An Obama Presidency WILL represent big time change in some respects.

By focusing on just one issue in particular: corporate money in politics. And saying Obama offers only small time change on this issue, and he's therefore not deserving of support or praise (at least none I've seen expressed on this thread by Lynn),
I fear is throwing a worthy baby out with the bathwater.

Nader's Raiders to haunt '08

I see Ralph Nader's running again. His stance is, in part, not entirely dissimilar to Lynn's, that there can be no real change 'cause both parties are really just two branches of one party, the Corporate Party.

Thankfully, Ralph's Pied Piper act which helped inflict the Bush disaster on the world, has no chance of working this time around. Rueful voters are all too knowledgeable now just how dangerously different a Republican admin. can be from a Dem. one.

If it wasn't for Nader's thinking catching on big time in '00, we would have had 8 vastly preferable years of Al Gore instead of Bush. Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis would not have been killed.

I don't think electing a McCain neo-Bushist regime (the nightmare of a 3RD Bush term!?)would be a very intelligent move. Just as Gore would have been the sanest choice in '00, Obama is, by far, the sanest(if imperfect)choice in '08, imo.

--kootcoot mentioned Ron Paul is an evangelical, something I didn't know, which I find surprising. It appears to be true. He's even on record as opposing the separation of church and state!

And here I thought Paul was the most rational, level headed conservative in the race, with his dove-ish foreign policy stance, and his rebuke of Bush over wasting lives and $Billions on ill-conceived foreign wars. He has a realistic take on Al Qaida too: They attacked because the US
has an imposing, largely unwanted miltary presence in Muslim countries, and insists on meddling in the region.

Bill Maher's audience even gave him lots of applause! But then, Bill didn't ask him his religious views.

Still, I gotta like Paul for many of his
sane views, even if his religious ones seem less than reasonable to me.
Don't want to throw out baby and bathwater!

-Hey, some more long time Tyee-ers
are still around, I see: bob the (black) cat and his human!
If we are annexed already, bob, I say it's better to have the Donkey in charge than the (great shrinking)Elephant!

Frank, the issue only seems

Frank, the issue only seems to be a left-right thing. It actually has to do with the different way by which the two sides have gone about constructing and consolidating voting constituencies in the post-war era. The New Left placed extraordinary emphasis on the politics of identity based on race, class, and gender. This sprang directly from its roots in academic Marxism. It basically re-invented itself along these lines. Entire university departments sprung up over night to sell these narratives. It doesn't mean that they don't contain elements of reasoned and legitimate criticism of the status quo - it's just that (like all ideological narratives) they're 2-dimensional constructions which seldom accurately reflect the whole picture or the living reality. Yet they were adopted, promoted, and 'policed' with all the absolutist zeal of religious doctrine. We're only starting to break out of that conceptual box, but we're being forced to relive its inherent contradictions during the current presidential race. It's all a consequence of how you build constituencies. Neither side can transcend their foundational falsehoods.

If it’s any comfort, the left isn't the only one grappling with its internal contradictions. The right is having a hell of a time reconciling its war-policy interests, its money interests, and its religious interests, all while trying to uphold some sort of continuity with its founding philosophy while remaining “sellable” to a new generation of voters. The system is in the throws of growing pains. The old alignments, the old consensi, are breaking apart like melting Antarctic ice shelves. We don’t yet know what the terrain is going to look like when it’s over.

definitely the donkey is better

from one Bobb to another
But I gotta agree with Frank on another thread Bobb I don`t think Ralphs candicacy put Bush in. Like he says people who vote for Ralph probably wouldn`t vote at all if he wasn`t running.
Pauls a Libertarian no? Don`t know his religious views...don`t know that I want to.
Well Bobb the suns out..I`m gonna take my human for a walk. Good to see you around.

What a pile of hypocrisy!

What a pile of hypocrisy!

Negativity because I criticize Obama for watering down legislation and accepting a nuclear power corporations big donation to his campaign while supposedly fighting against the corporation on behalf of the people being injured by the Excelon, the US's biggest corporation?

That's not negativity where I come from.

Sorry, I didn't realize only praise to Obama was to be offered here. Next time I'll bring the frankincense and myrrh.

And for the record, on other threads I'v praised Obama's college loan /work program as a good and original idea. But I don't like his foreign or military policy...and what he has said on Iran.

There is much insinution that I am smearing Obama because I don't feel he is beyond question or scrutiny. Sorry, but he's not...no one in a democracy should be.

Then I'm asked why am I "focusing" on Obama? Woo...oooo. We all know what that is trying to insinuate. This article is about Obama for one, that's why. I've only commented on Obama when the article is about him. I could have gone on and on about Lord Kitchener but somehow that doesn't seem appropriate. And for the record, I also included Hilary Clinton in my criticism, because I feel they stand for virtually the same political policies.

And James Burns, allow me to use the same flawed accustory logic on this very thread that you've used against me....try it on for size. Let's substitute Hilary for Obama for a moment.:

James, I've noticed you focused on Hilary Clinton here and on other threads. And on this thread you offer two links that are quite unfavourable to Clinton? Why is that? Why do you focus on Clinton? And usually in a critical way. Why is that?

And then Bobb999,if he believes in real equality would ask:

James, why are you being so negative?

Why don't you praise Clinton?

Why are you always griping?

And then using the ol' what's good for the goose theory...and using using the same flawed accusatory logic used against me because I dare to criticize Obama who happens to be Black, I ask:

James Burns,

I notice you focus on criticizing Hilary and Hilary is a woman, so then it must follow using the subtle insinuations of logic you make against me, that you don't like women.

Bobb999, glad to hear there is going to be BIG change when Obama focuses on corporate money (like Excelon?) in politics. I'm not even going to bother noting the hypocrisy in that.

And James, corporations thrive through a process of co-option and by those who continue to support politicians who allow themselves to be co-opted. Throughout this thread you have never once said that after Obama watered down the environmental legislation using Excelon's standards and then accepted the large campaign donation from Excelon...you have never once said that it was wrong. And sorry to upset the pristine mythology, folks, but it was.

Ben Tripp

Of course not. I need to start a political party called "The Independent American Party", with a platform consisting of human rights, revocation of corporate citizenship, the end of fossil and mineral fuels, and right on red in Manhattan.

Ben Tripp: full:
http://www.counterpunch.com/tripp02122008.html

conscensi?

Are we talking English here nightbloom, or Italian?

And 'foundational falsehoods'; jeez, you have to be kidding!

Ms. Anthropy

I've explained why I focus on Clinton in a negative way. I think she is a poorer choice than Obama. She supported the Iraq War, and she wants to be judged by her time as first lady during her husband's presidency. Well I consider the record of the Bill Clinton administration to be abominable, and that it only looks good bracketed by the two Bush presidencies. But of course I've already said that repeatedly; something you well know, because you've been commenting on all the same threads.

As I've pointed out, and as you again demonstrate, you aren't interested in reasoned debate, you would rather engage in exaggerated hyperbole in order to defame those who disagree with you. You claim I'm upset that you criticized Obama, because he's black. No, what I didn't like was your assertion Obama watered down the bill he introduced as payback to Excelon when you have not only no proof, but that you also fail to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the bill and how it got watered down and eventually killed due to a Republican dominated senate. You are dishonest. You repeated that tactic of dishonesty by claiming I support corporate corruption in US politics, you compound it by claiming my criticism of Hillary Clinton is due to a dislike of women.

I consider all corporate and personal donations used to help fund political campaigns wrong. All candidates should be equally publicly financed provided they can demonstrate certain minimum levels of support. News media should be required to provide a set amount of free advertising time for political messages, with equal time for all candidates. It's not simply a matter of Obama being wrong. The whole system of electoral finance is seriously corrupt in the US. To single out Obama for playing the game that ALL the candidates play, is in my opinion an intentional ploy to throw dirt on him for ulterior motives, while ignoring the guilt of all the others. All the candidates for the US presidency are tainted by the flaw of money in politics in the US system. They have to be to participate in it.

Your problem is that you rely on false accusation and distortion to make your arguments. You don't need to. The system in the US is bad enough, you don't have to make stuff up.

Obama & Nader

Obama on Nader in the NYT:

Well, actually, most people knew that at the time. Nader and his supporters gave us the Bush presidency. Thanks for that.

This time round Nader will be irrelevant, but it is kind of sad to see him become, in the Guardian's words, the "Norma Desmond" of American politics.

Someday, perhaps, he will realize that his country does not have a proportional or parliamentary electoral system.

This is what you said

This is what you said oh-so-coyly James Burns:

And besides that being false because I have scrutinized many candidates on Tyee, I knew exactly what you were trying to imply.

And you know damn well I was showing you how the use of accusatory logic felt when it was used against one simply because you were criticizing a candidate.

So cut the crap.

The latest Counterpunch

The latest Counterpunch article, courtesy of G West: "Obama's Money Cartel":

(...and to be clear, I would say Hilary's record is no better.)

Obama’s Money Cartel
How he’s fronted for the most vicious firms on Wall Street
February 23, 2008 By Pam Martens
Source: CounterPunch

Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diver­sity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it’s marshal­ling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn’t the press curious about this?

Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you’ll see a self-portrait of upper management rac­ism and sexism: women sitting at secre­tarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers - and this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty prom­ises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.

The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared this month on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top con­tributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those compre­hension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don’t. Of the 20 top contributors, I elimi­nated six that didn’t compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less fright­ening to democracy than a Diebold vot­ing machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, ! and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.

Why is the “yes, we can” candidate in bed with this cartel? How can we, the people, make change if Obama’s money backers block our ability to be heard?

contd.

Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consist of officers and em­ployees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originat­ing and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumula­tive total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we’re still in the primary season.

But hasn’t Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn’t taking money from reg­istered lobbyists? Hasn’t the press given him a free pass on this statement?

contd

Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina, on January 22, 2008:

“Washington lobbyists haven’t funded my campaign, they won’t run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president”.

Barack Obama, in an email to support­ers on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe:

“Candidates typically spend a week like this – right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline – on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-in­fluence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and po­litical action committees”.

The Center for Responsive Politics’ website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employ­ees of these firms, he’s not really taking money directly from registered lobby­ists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits gen­erated from lobbying.

Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his cam­paign seems to be brainstorming with them.

The political publication,

The political publication, The Hill, re­ported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations. (The Obama campaign said they had stopped lobbying since joining the campaign.) Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie. That law firm is also a reg­istered lobbyist.

What might account for this persistent (but non-reality based) theme of distanc­ing the Obama campaign from lobbyists? Odds are it traces back to one of the largest corporate lobbyist spending sprees in the history of Washington whose details would cast an unwholesome pall on the Obama campaign, unless our cognitive abilities are regularly bombarded with abstract vacuities of hope and change and sentimental homages to Dr. King and President Kennedy .

On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005.

Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the pas­sage of this legislation:

“Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safe­guard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights..”.

Three days before Senator Obama ex­pressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and House, pleading to stop the passage of this cor­porate giveaway. The AGs wrote: “State attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens... In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the con­sumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such ac­tions...”

The Senate also received a desper­ate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Alliance for Justice. They wrote as fol­lows:

contd

“Under the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005], citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are al­ready overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law”.

This legislation, which dramatically im­paired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pres­sure from 100 corporations, 475 lobby­ists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign. “The Civil Justice Reform Group, a busi­ness alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumen­tal in drafting the class-action bill”, says Public Citizen.

One of the hardest-working registered lobbyists to push this corporate giveaway was the law firm Mayer-Brown, hired by the leading business lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce spent $16 million in just 2003, lobbying the government on various business issues, including class action reform.

According to a 2003 report from Public Citizen, Mayer-Brown’s class-action lobbyists included “Mark Gitenstein, for­mer chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leading architect of the Senate strategy in support of class-action legislation; John Schmitz, who was deputy counsel to President George H.W. Bush; David McIntosh, former Republican congressman from Indiana; and Jeffrey Lewis, who was on the staffs of both Sen. John Breaux (D-La) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La).”

While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown’s partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.)

contd

Senator Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials, one assumes that he understood the ramifica­tions to the poor and middle class in this country as he helped to gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms. The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured that might not otherwise have a voice.

Those rights should have been strengthened, not restricted, at this dangerous time in our nation’s history. According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion, for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in mod­ern history:

“According to federal data, people of color are three times more likely to have subprime loans: high-cost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites”.

If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower. “This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism.”

Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further.

contd.

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called “Rocopoly Money” (like a sick board game), after “blitz” nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle?

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solu­tions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation’s poor and middle class, effec­tively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these pro­grams (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.

Senator Obama has become the in­spiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this coun­try. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer.

Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at

Jumping

Lol lynn, that you read into my question over why you focus on Obama as being some sort of racial accusation is amusing. I'm not shy about being direct if I see people using racist innuendo, never have been. But jumping to conclusions seems to be a habit of yours.

As for the counterpunch article it's certainly interesting, and it demonstrates the corruption of money in US politics. But there's nothing there to suggest to me that Obama is thus drastically worse than the remaining candidates. He's bought into the game. I've never felt any US president is particularly deserving of praise or adulation. But you seem to forget I've been evaluating the possible with the possible. And as I've said before, while Obama will be largely an agent of the status quo, small differences in the practice of governance can make a huge impact. As I've mentioned before, the difference between a Gore vs. Bush presidency would have been vastly different for the world. Especially for Iraqis. Those differences matter.

not that funny

And I've never said he was drastically worse than any of the other candidates. I have repeatedly said policy-wise he is much like Clinton. But the tendency on this thread has been to smear me for criticizing him in any way and to try to convey that I had somehow "made up" that New York Times article of last year about his money ties to the nuclear power giant corp, Excelon.

No candidate should be beyond criticism or scrutiny.

Lynn said: "And then

Lynn said:
"And then Bobb999,if he believes in real equality would ask:
James, why are you being so negative?
Why don't you praise Clinton?
Why are you always griping?"

Yes, but I'm afraid I never read the other Tyee threads on the US election where James reportedly did a lot of Hillary bashing. On this thread he seems to be focused not on Clinton, but on Obama.
Since I didn't see those prior threads, I never saw your pro-Obama comments either that praised some of his policies.
I can only go by what I've seen on this thread.

I can't say I'm shocked to learn that
the largest US bank Citigroup or the big
Wall St. brokers like Goldman Sachs shell out $$$ to Pres. candidates including Obama.

There's lots of disreputable activity perpetrated by Wall Street institutions, but unfortunately,the US economy is
dependent on such institutions, as is the
US political system apparently.
Whether this relationship between financial institutions and the US system is symbiotic or parasitic, or some combination thereof,
it's entrenched. It's hard to escape these
Wall Street guys.

But the US Federal Reserve and Bush admin. bear more blame for the mortgage/credit crisis than even Wall Street does. Ex-Fed Chief Alan Greenspan was probably the single biggest co-creator of the housing bubble and related fallout,just as he also helped inflate the '90s tech bubble with his "bubble" policies.

If I hear Greenspan is contributing big to Obama's campaign, or worse, has signed on as economic advisor , now that will be even more worrisome than Citibank greasing palms!

I don't like the pervasive presence of corporate money and influence on politicians either, but the system as it is the one Obama has to work within. I can't blame him for the system being the way it is.
I still say Obama's Senatorial record shows
he's in the vanguard of making reforms, if incrementally. He deserves some credit, imo.

I see some drawbacks to Obama. I believe his health plan is inferior to Clinton's.
I have a few doubts about his short experience as a DC Senator.It could end up being either an asset or a liability.

--Lynn, I'm still in the dark about your bottom line view of Obama, and I am curious.
If you were American, would you vote for him if he was Dem. nominee, as a lesser evil? Would you vote for Ralph Nader? Or write in a candidate of your own choosing, not otherwise on the ballot? Or would you refuse to vote at all?
-Would you hold your nose and vote for him, or is he, to your mind, too reprehensible for that?

Nader

Well, bob the cat, I just know Nader is widely blamed to this day for Gore's loss by folks on the left.

I'm sure some Nov/2000 Nader voters were the "Ralph-or-nobody" folks you mention, but even if just a few Florida Nader voters were swing voters torn between the Green and Dem parties. (and I suspect it was more than a few), those few were quite possibly enough to give Bush enough of an edge so that the Supremes could get away with installing him in office.
-Ben Tripp's article reminds me of that '80s slogan, popularized by D.O.A. and their fans, and often seen painted on Vancouver walls:
Talk - Action = Zero
******************************

--I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who finds Nightbloom's current theories, uh, out-of-touch-sounding. I don't know if I'm misunderstanding the implications of Nightbloom's post or not, but...

Let's see if I get this: America is poised to elect its first African American Pres., not because Main Street social attitudes have simply evolved. And not because grassroots voters' attitudes have evolved.

No, it's the "identity politics" of marginalized groups who have banded together to make Obama their man. Aided by Marxist academics. That's what's responsible for Obamamania!

Some things just happen, y'know, when a society is ready for them, irrespective of
"identity politics" and arcane theories espoused by certain arts faculty coteries that 99.5% of average voting folks about to elect Obama have never heard of, nor would care about if they had.

Bobb999

I think you've got nightblook squarely in your sights.

It remains to be seen whether Obama will be something new and different - or just more of the same....

One thing's for sure at this point, from now on he's going to be taking a lot more heavy hits in the media.

Pls see Bill Kristol in today's New York Times...he's not even satisfied to attack Obama - he's extended the range to include the man's wife.

that's nightbloom,

sorry

Obama's 46

One factual correction to the article - Obama is 46 and not 47 as stated.

Ralph Nader

Sorry, but I have to defend Nader and those who vote for him.

I realize there are people in the US to this day that blame Nader for electing Bush. However, there is a complex political term for these people, its "idiots". Apparently the definition of it is blaming someone else for what was lacking in you.

The reason the Dems lost is not the tiny minority that voted for Ralph, its because they failed to appeal to the huge percentage of the public that didn't vote at all.

As we are all aware of when there is only two electable parties, it is only the swing voters between those parties that the election is about. Everyone else on both sides is taken for granted. Well, people that vote for Nader don't wish to be taken for granted, they want to vote "for" something instead of "against" something. And more power to them.

The lesson for Canada is obvious. We often hear that the NDP should disband at the federal level, after all they don't win anyway and that if they didn't exist and voted Liberal all the time instead we would never have Conservative governments. And my point has always been that the Libs shouldn't blame their lack of appeal on the NDP, that the NDP existence means that the Libs have to worry about their left flank.

If the NDP didn't exist I wouldn't vote Liberal. Nader people are clearly the same way, they refuse to jettison their principles to vote for the lesser of two evils. They want the Dems to worry about their left flank instead of concentrating instead on the narrow band of voters that might vote Repub or Democrat. That the Dems ignore them means the Dems have failed and yet refuse to accept the reason why.

Astute analysis, as always Frank

Thank god, there is someone in US politics who isn't run by a party, who does have principles that aren't for sale and who's not afraid to get up in front of large crowds of people (despite the lack of corporate funding) and provide a voice of reason, conscience and truth.

Run Ralph, and may you long continue to do so - America needs a conscience very badly.
The fact that a man of his stature and experience isn’t the nominee of a major party in the US political landscape is about as big an indictment as one can level against the Yankee way of doing things.

All that hollow rhetoric seems to have hypnotized the electorate….

Nader answers...

MR. NADER: Not, not George Bush? Not the Democrats in Congress? Not the voters who voted for George Bush? But there were Democrats in Florida, 250,000 of them. You know, I wish we'd have Al Gore on this program someday Tim and ask him, "Why did you not become president in 2000?" And I think what he's going to tell you is he thought he did win Florida, but it was taken from him before, during and after the election from Tallahassee. Katherine Bush--you know the secretary of the state ...

MR. RUSSERT: Katherine Harris.

full: http://www.counterpunch.com/nader02252008.html

999

Good analogy with D.O.A....Joe Keithley a.k.a. Joey Shithead is a very talented artist IMO...Tripp has some of the same punky swagger
huh...The Smirking Chimp website is Tripps .(I think)

Bob999, no one's "poised" to

Bob999, no one's "poised" to get elected to anything just yet. The contest is still within the two ideological camps. My point was that both contests are bringing out fault-lines within each camp in a way that hasn't happened before. The contrast is starkest in the 'identity politics' meltdown happening in the Democratic party right now. This is hurting them.

Obama still has to win his party's ticket, then pick his running mate. Then they have to run against whichever Republican candidates wins the party's ticket. If it turns out to be an Obama-McCain contest, I suspect you're going to get considerable cross-over voting happening on either side.

It's not out of touch at all - I've always held the viewpoint that electoral politics in North America is breaking out of the 'traditional' constituencies which have defined it in the post-war era, and that this necessitates new ways of appealing to and consolidating voting constituencies.

BTW - I noticed that women

BTW - I noticed that women who aren't Hillary supporters are now being tarred with a vengeance as "self-loathing women" by the feminist establishment. This is a common and deeply poisonous trope which the left routinely deploys against minorities who don't vote according their prescribed roles. It's routinely tossed at dissenting gay people, blacks, jews, you name it. Anyone within the prescribed "identity politics" constituencies who fails to fall into line and do as they're told is "self-loathing".

Check it out: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080226.wltimson26/BNStory/lifeMain/home

So men are sexists and women are self-loathing for not supporting Hillary...It has nothing to do with the baggage on her record, her policy positions and her dirty-tricks campaign...Absolutely nothing.

The funny thing is nightbloom

That I distinctly recall you were a very strong Hillary supporter yourself...her baggage didn't seem to matter much then, did it?

This is 'Clinton' politics - not feminist politics and it's business as usual - nothing the slightest new about it.

American political operatives, on both sides of the fence, will use whatever works.

Even someone as normally lucid as Bob Herbert is going off the deep end about Nader's candidacy this morning.

Quelle etrange!

Stunning denials

Frank wrote:

I didn't realize simple arithmetic was so hard. Without Ralph Nader's candidacy, Bush would not have won. I don't understand what's so difficult about this concept. Nader and his supporters split the progressive vote allowing the Right to win the election. I was in the U.S. at the time and had many discussions with Nader's supporters -- they were all normally Democratic Party supporters. They always used the argument that they wanted to vote for someone they truly believed in rather than someone they felt luke-warm about. I sympathized, but my argument was (and it was bleedin' correct) that the far right could take over the damn country you idiots! (I didn't usually phrase it that way). I agreed with the ideals of the Nader camp, but they had the strategic sense of small child. It was war in the U.S. in 2000, and one general pulled his division out of the fight, then claimed to have had no effect on the outcome of the closely fought battle.

You can stay in your denial, but as Bob Herbert pointed out, Nader's great work was forever tarnished by his political hubris. Most progressives in the U.S. are still furious at Nader -- they've had to live with the Bush nightmare for 7 years.

Nightbloom: the conservatives in the U.S. have made great use of "identity politics". Their "southern strategy" of appealing to whites of the southern U.S. was developed by Nixon, honed by Reagan, and perfected by Rove/Bush. It's what American conservatism has been all about for 30 years. Don't make "identity politics" out to be the sole preserve of liberals, feminists, and a couple of academic Marxists.

Nader/lesson for Canada

No it's not. The U.S. electoral system is totally different, and anyway, the Democratic Party is already a coalition of leftists and moderates. Kucinich is a Democrat and has, to his credit, run in the primaries. Nader could have, and should have, done the same thing.

But enough said, he's history. The far right is finally in retreat, though they had a good run in the last 7 years...

Bobb999

Bobb999, you asked me:

If you were American, would you vote for him if he was Dem. nominee, as a lesser evil? Would you vote for Ralph Nader?

No,, I would not vote for Obama for the reasons I have expressed above.

I would vote for Ralph Nader or not vote at all. Nader and Edwards would make a very good ticket for real change.

misc.

bobthecat: You're right about Tripp's "punky swagger" in his writing. Thanks for reacquainting me with Counterpunch, and reminding me about The Smirking Chimp, 'cause I'd kind of lost track of those sites.

G West said:
"One thing's for sure at this point, from now on he's going to be taking a lot more heavy hits in the media.
Pls see Bill Kristol in today's New York Times...he's not even satisfied to attack Obama - he's extended the range to include the man's wife."
-I think you're right, Obama will likely start to receive a rougher ride from the media. Even CNN is making a big issue of
Obama's wife's poor choice of words in her recent speeches.

'Fraid I've been "boycotting" Bill Kristol's NYT columns so far, and I can't believe NYT hired him. Not 'cause he's a right winger mind you, but because he's been more of a loyal mouthpiece for the Bush/Cheney propaganda machine than he's been a pundit. What's next at NYT, a Dick Cheney column twice a week?

nightbloom said:
"My point was that both contests are bringing out fault-lines within each camp in a way that hasn't happened before. The contrast is starkest in the 'identity politics' meltdown happening in the Democratic party right now. This is hurting them."
-There's something to what you say. Because there are internal "wars" raging in both parties now, and fault lines are appearing within the feminist movement too over Clinton vs. Obama, for example.
Parts of your earlier posts I found off-putting enough that I confess didn't actually try to take in all your arguments.
-So, I might better have stayed quiet than
critique something I hadn't yet absorbed.
Stupid me.

Nader

A great piece in the Baltimore Sun about Nader, called "It's Not Always About Winning" echoeing some of Frank's insightful thoughts above.

Here's an excerpt:

The leading candidates are “not talking about the bloated wasteful military budget…which takes money away from repairing the public services in the country – the schools, the clinics, the highways, bridges, drinking water systems, sewage treatment systems that would create a lot of good jobs that could not be exported to places like China,’’ Nader said Monday on Silver’s show on Sirius.

“Obama, Hillary Clinton and McCain have not come out against nuclear power,’’ Nader said. “Congress just recently put in $19 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power plants. This is an industry that can not finance its nuclear power plants privately without having a guarantee from Uncle Sam, which indicates its lack of economic viability.’’

Silver, saying he for one is “not afraid of more ideas,’’ said “it’s very curious that this country, which likes to pat itself on the back for being such a free marketplace of ideas, is trying to shut people down like Ralph Nader and other people making ballot access very difficult etc.’’

“I couldn’t have put it better,’’ Nader said. “It’s real political bigotry by the two major parties who have locked up the system with these ballot access obstructions against more voices and choices and giving voters a chance to have their free choice of candidates.

Nader contd.

“The best ideas in American history have come from small parties: anti-slavery parties, women’s right to vote, the labor farmer progressive parties in the 19th Century,’’ he said. “They never won a national election, but aren’t we glad they were there? And aren’t we glad that some voters didn’t go for the least worst between the Whigs and the Democrats?’’

His vision of the challenge ahead: “It’s basically to free the free market from the corporate destruction of capitalism. These giant corporations violate the rules of capitalism, which is: if you own it, you should control it. And millions of investors own these corporations, they’re shut out, they can’t do anything about management no matter how crooked or incompetent or bungling they are.

“The second rule of capitalism is: If you’re about to fail, you have the freedom to fail. That’s what small businesses do… go bankrupt, but big business goes to Washington, like Citibank and all these other companies that go in a variety of ways to be bailed out by the U.S. tax payer via Uncle Sam. So, that’s why I think we have to make a distinction between giant corporations and small business….giant corporations use political power to disadvantage smaller competitors…’’

Nader, who ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000 and an independent in 2004, said he probably will align with no party, but run as an independent.

He was asked his stance on foreign policy.

“Well obviously when we’re attacked…and when there’s an imminent attack…say like a missile or something, we have to defend ourselves,’’ he said. “But militarizing foreign policy from the get go, brute force diplomacy… which is a contradiction in terms that Bush has engaged in, just creates more enemies, more people intent on sabotage...it’s endangering our national security.

“I really agreed with Bill Richardson on the need for muscular diplomacy, the need to foresee and forestall, the need to become a humanitarian superpower which we can be so good at…dealing with infectious diseases and environmental clean-up.’’

Lynn

Yes, Lynn. I agree with Nader's ideology too. The point is that to defeat a foe you often have to make alliances. Gore was not perfect but he was not anywhere close to being as bad as Bush. He did, after all, go on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. America in 2000 was faced with a huge threat -- that the far right would take the presidency. It was imperative that they be defeated. Instead of working for that defeat, Nader and his supporters ran against Gore, the only person that, in that political climate, could stave off a catastrophic win by the extremists. Just as Ross Perot helped Clinton win in '92, Nader helped seal the victory for the crypto-fascists in 2000. He now claims that diverting a million votes away from Gore did not have an effect in an election that that Gore lost by 500 votes. Nader and his supporters will never be able to admit to themselves that they really, really, screwed up. But screw up they did. That's all I have to say.

Nader

Lynn said:
"I would vote for Ralph Nader or not vote at all. Nader and Edwards would make a very good ticket for real change."

-Interesting. But I wonder if Edwards isn't guilty of some of the same things you fault Obama for. For instance, I'd be very surprised if Edwards too hadn't accepted some corporate donations, probably including some with questionable histories. If he has done so, how come he gets a free pass from you?
****************************
I think I agree entirely with Booker's analysis of Nader's 2000 candidacy.

I agree that just because there were other major factors besides Nader also responsible for Bush,
that doesn't let Nader off the hook.

Nader too was a major factor. No wonder the GOP viewed him at the time as an "ally" of sorts. He was a godsend to them, and they knew it. The GOP reportedly even funneled money to Nader's campaign. Nader in effect became for the GOP, the perfect stealth weapon against the Dems.: use the left as a weapon to undermine the left.

Why couldn't Nader have done what many
people on his campaign, such as Michael Moore, urged him to do late in 2000?
i.e. That he avoid campaigning in the few states such as FLA, that were so close they could have been decisive to the outcome, based on what Nader did or didn't do.

Progressive Green voters in Florida were duped into thinking they were "sticking to their principles" and "making a statement" by voting Nader, while the practical
outcome of their vote was to elect a right wing president, who may go down in history as the worst ever.

Several thousand US soldiers, and
tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are needlessly dead because George Bush
was elected.

Since Nader was one of the important factors that put Bush in the White House, he, along with many others, has at least some blood on his hands too, imo.

Nader would have done far more good, and far less harm, as a Dem. candidate for
pres. nominee. He would have gotten to voice all his issues and get to embarrass and pressure other candidates in TV debates, potentially getting them to move in his direction on some issues, as Edwards did when he rolled out his health care plan, arguably causing Clinton and Obama to move in his direction.

When "sticking to principles" ends up resulting in, as a real and practical consequence, the trashing of those same principles (in this case with Bush installed as Trasher-in-Chief)), haven't you in practical terms abandoned your principles?

The fact Nader refuses to acknowledge his having any role in this, voices no regrets, offers no apologies, but lays all blame on others, none on himself, suggests there's more than a touch of narcissistic fanatic to Nader.

I wonder if Nader had happened be born in southern Afghanistan instead of the US, he might have ended up a jihadist leader holding grimly to his "principles", indifferent to the practical consequences of his "principled" actions.