The instantly celebrated Keynote Address of 2004 is when for me. first time I really focused in a big way on Obama. I broke that speech down savagely from the left two days after the shot ac ross the sky. See Paul Street,
“Keynote Reflections,” (Featured Article), ZNet Magazine (July 29th, 2004), available online at http://www.zmag.org/content/sh…..emID=5951.

You gotta read this critic, penned on the fly. Day after it went up I got 152 thank you messages from left progressives, some of whom are now big time Obamaists. “Thanks for showing the conservative reality beneath liberal illusions.” Biggest response ever for a ZNet article of mine.

I thought I was clairvoyant, but turns out Adolph Reed Jr. was talking about Obama as conservative neoliberal in 1996 (in Village Voice), when Obama weas just starting out!

Also I saw his antiwar speech in Daley Plaza in the fall of 2002 and was struck by how conservative it sounded. He was against the planned invasion of Iraq because it would be a “strategic mistake” — a “dumb war.” I and others on the acual left (such as it is) were already writing and speaking against the planned it as a CRIME rooted in brazenly imperial/petro-colonial designs for deepening U.S. control of Middle Eastern oil. Obama has said that the oil motive (obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of U.S. foreign policy) is a “cynical” thing to bring up and that Iraq was invaded with the “best of intentions” —- to promote democracy and freedom (he just disagrees with the strategic wisdom of acting on the wonderful intention of exporting Jeffersonian liberty).

I think its cynical for him to say that its cynical to talk about the role of oil. Just saw Gore speak in Des Moines (two nights ago) and he talked about oil as a big motive in the invasion – not the way I would talk about it, but he talked about it.

“Citizen Paul Street:

Citizen Ford introduces you as a former “research director for the ‘corporate-dominated’ Chicago Urban League”, how would you identify yourself politically in relationship to this group today? And do you have any hisory with Nadar or the Nadarite pseudo-greens?

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, NOT ALL FASCISTS CALL THEMSELVES REPUBLICANS!!!”

Oh I was always too left for that job. Race creates some space for a leftist to hide out and I had a dual existence there to say the least. As it was push came to shove over the issue of the Chicago Wal Mart wage ordinance (the Daley-captive CUL CEO was pro-Wal Mart and I was of course anti-Wal Mart and pro-labor) and also over the agency’s refusal to promptly release a comprehensive study of institutional racism in Chicago….a study funded by the very foundation where Obama in trouble with the neo-McCarthytie right for sitting on a board with onetime Weatherman Bill Ayers (Woods Fund of Chicago). Between the Wal Mart nastiness and the truly sickening delay of the study — I don;t think it passeed muster with the corporate board —- my days were done and I had to get out of Dodge. I like Ralph, who knows the book (got a mss. early)

No, no no – a thousand times no, I don’t do that – not in the book. You are responding to some quick speed-typing in yesterday’s 2-hour salon. The book makes a point of prefacing each major policy chapter – the one on class/corporate power (Chapter 1: “Obama’s ‘Dollar Value’), the one on race (Chapter 3: “How ‘Black’ is Obama?”), and the one on foreign policy (chapter 4: “How ‘Antiwar?’ Obama, Iraq, and the Audacity of Empire”) with an exhaustive description of the centrist history of the Democratic Party 1945 to the present. My publishers and I anticipated that I would be accused of singling Obama out and so made a very explicit and deliberate point precisely of framing him in the overall context of Demcoratic Party centrism and indeed of the broader American winner-take-all elections systm and political culture going back to the beginning. Truth be told, the book is among other things an effort precisely NOT to single Obama out and to show how (a) his behavior is entirely consistent with that of other corporate Democrats past and present and (b)it is deeply incentivized by the dominant party system and political culture (corporate-crafted and heavily imperial, American-Exceptionalist). He is playing by the rules of the game imposed from the top down on anyone who wants to win.

I’ve heard the “half black” and “half white” phrases from African-Americans actually, but fine on the lecture. Chapter (4) is much much deeper than “figuring out that Obama is an oreo.” For what it’s worth, I stay away from the “acting white” meme; having worked for years (2000-2005) at the Chicago Urban League I am all too aware that the black community is fully capable of producing its own wealth- and power-accommodating conservatives and there doesn’t have to be anything white about it at the end of the day — just like any other ethno-cultural community in that regard, though black America is the leftmost ethnocultural segment of the elecotrate by far. In the black communty in Chicago before pride in the Obama nomination took over there was a fair bit of grumbling about Obama being “bourgeois” and elite, from Harvard and the University of Chicago and so forth – not so much about “acting white,” though you could hear that too.

A large segment of older Americans who had slaves as ancestors (that’s a very clumsy phrase, but one I would strongly invite you to consider using), do not consider Obama to be “black.” AFAIK, he didn’t have any ancestors who were slaves. It’s perfectly acceptable in most of the US in 2008 for a “Single White Male” to seek a “Single White Female.” Most Americans, who are 100% European American find nothing of consequence there.

Paul, I know you don’t consider yourself a refined white supremacist. I’m clear on that.

Unintentional though it might be, from your comment in number 40, this is completely consistent with refined white supremacy:

That’s an understatement. Obama has gone to great lengths to downplay his technical half-blackness and above all to distance himself from specifically black grievances and the supposedly obsolete notion that the U.S. continues to be deeply scarred by anti-black racism.

Now try this.

Americans who are 100% European American have gone to great lengths to deny the ethnic genocide in their history. The English versus the Irish. The English versus the French. The Germans versus the French. and above all to distance themselves from specifically those specifically ethnic grievances and the supposedly obsolete notion that the U.S. continues to be deeply scarred by ethnic supremacy.

Please do not use terms such as “half-black.” It’s insulting. How does someone “downplay” skin pigmentation? Can I “downplay” the thickness of my lips? Can people “downplay” their gender? Can I “downplay” how curly my hair is?

Obama is 100% human. Why is his ethnicity relevant to you? Is it relevant that I am half Irish? Should I feel badly because George machine-gun Kelly was Irish?

Obama’s ethnicity obviously matters a great deal to you. That’s not a compliment. Let it go.

Obama has no greater responsibility to help the descendants of US slavery and legalized white supremacy aka Jim Crow laws, than any other American. Dealing with the historical legacy of legalized white supremacy and the enslavement of Africans (Slavery was illegal in the US for everyone except Africans)is an American problem.

Follow the money. All US citizens share equally in the present value of the United States. A significant portion of that “present value,” was stolen from numerous Native American tribes. Another significant portion of that “present value,” was built by African slaves, who received no compensation. (I trust your familiar with the systematic deprivation of civil rights, education, access to credit …. that the slaves and their descendants had to manage.) You don’t have to have had slave ancestors to figure out that finding ways to compensate the descendants of the slaves makes sense. International courts have already forced German banks to pay restitution to the descendants of Europeans (Jews and Poles mostly) who were enslaved by the Nazis.

You can talk about these kinds of issues without talking about skin pigmentation, hair, the thickness of lips, or other visual cues.

IMHO, descendants of the slaves in America are happy to vote for Obama, because he’s not 100% European American. The fact that most 100% European Americans think Obama had slave ancestors is just kind of an added bonus. They already know he’s an oreo. They know he never would have gotten into the US Senate as an an angry rapper, say, NWA.

Many people who are 100% European American think that Halle Berry and Jessica Alba are BLACK actors, or as you so artfully put it, “half-black.” One smidgen of blood/ancestry that is NOT 100% European American makes someone “black,” whatever that is, in the eyes of many 100% European Americans. That is the white supremacist meme you reinforce when you so casually throw around terms such as “black,” and “white;” a racial grand canyon divides us. The truth is that we’re all one race, the human race. The fact that so many Americans don’t accept that is a tragedy.

Americans who are 100% European American think they have come to grips with the whole “race” thing. That’s because they live in virtually segregated neighborhoods where nearly everyone is 100% European American. 100% European Americans don’t have to face the ethnic struggles that their ancestors faced. In America if you have just the appearance of ancestors who were slaves, life is totally different. Walk into a predominantly European American clothing store, security follows you around, everywhere, until you leave. They don’t want you. They fear if they don’t hound you, you’ll bring in more shopper who are not 100% European American. They don’t want that. It ruins their brand. Drive your car into a European American neighborhood, the police will pull you over again, and again, and again.

You’ve adequately described corporate influence in the Democratic party. What you have failed to explain is how the Dem’s Presidential 2008 candidate is somehow more responsible for it than all the other, older Democrats. Did you think he was going to get elected to the US Senate by snubbing corporate America? This is what Americans who are descendants of the slaves are so used to. It’s always easier to criticize them, because of their ethnicity. Life isn’t fair. If you’re not 100% European American in the United States it’s really unfair.

Congratulations, you figured out that Obama is an oreo. That’s what W.E.B. Dubois thought of Booker T. Washington. Joe Louis was the oreo to the earlier Jack Johnson. Willie Mays was the oreo to Jackie Robinson. Martin Luther King was the oreo to Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. Joe Frazier was the oreo to Muhammed Ali. American who descended from the slaves cannot win. They know, in the eyes of people who are 100% European American, it’s their ethnicity that matters.

[Mod Note: Please be careful in the words you choose. What you think is perfectly acceptable may be offensive to others - especially regarding such a hot button issue as race.]

Same exact ideological space

As you begin to learn about white supremacy, you can drop the “ideological” part. Clinton and Obama were the same. That works just fine. I suspect you slid the “ideological” part in there, because it’s so paramount to show the intrinsic differences between “the blacks” on the one hand and all “the whites” on the other. /s

One thing Obama has that neither Carter or Clinton had to the same extent was a mobilized semi-movement behind him.

Historically, you can talk about this if you’re careful about your language, which so far in this chat you have not been. A candidate who is not 100% European American (and who is incorrectly perceived to have had ancestors who were slaves) has a “mobilized semi-movement” behind him. It’s the understandable and natural reaction against centuries of legalized white supremacy. In other words “white people,” whatever that was (it changed dramatically where you were in the US) were supreme by law, over people of other ethnicities.

The same thing happened wrt gender. Up until about 1919, your gender determined your ability to vote and to own property. The law enshrined that.

It’s the history/legacy of legalized white supremacy that gives the “movement,” its energy.

I’m not necessarily saying people should not buy the Obama brand in contested states (McCain may be worse than Bush II). I’m saying study the history of U.S. narrow-spectrum politics and the history of the candidate and then buyer beware. Get ready to fight and protest, guilt-free, if brand Obama makes it into the White House. I’m saying what Zinn and other left intellectuals always say: the Democrats only budge from their attachment to corporate power and miltarism when they confront rebellion from below as in the 1930s and 1960s. And I’m saying corproate crafted candidate centered narrow spectrum elections are not the sum total of politics – not by a longshot. The more urgent tasks have to do with building rank and file pressure and popular organization and an actual democratic reponsive poltiical culture between and beneath the quadrennial extravanganzas, whateve their outcomes! Hope is in popular mobilization and the question remains as to whether the Obama phenomenon will have pacified and downsized popular struggle or fed its expansion. I am very worried that Obama will encourage progressive self-pacifification if he gets in. At the same I seem him losing as dangerous as well and it is very important that if he loses people udnerstand that it is corporate-imperial centrism (in rebel’s progressive clothing during the primary campaign mainly), NOT the people and NOT “the left” that got beat.

Most everyone at FDL understood that when John Edwards pulled out, so did the last hopes for a modestly liberal Presidential candidate. I have no problem with your description of Obama. I have very serious problems with your omitting the fact that it applies just as well to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and the vast majority of corporate Democrats.