Barack Obama, Reverend Wright and Black liberation theology

This article was refreshing in its perspective of moving the left to join and influence the mainstream upsurge calling for change after the disastrous twenty-years from the Bush-Clinton dynasties.

Flyby News is an independent news service also looking for coalition building partners for major transformations. Many of my colleagues have their noses stuck so high up in the air regarding the 2 or 1-party system that they forget that our best chance for stopping the tyranny of our current system is in the electoral process, and to join with our majority interests.

When looking up the author and the magazine that he is an editor for, in its "about" section, its fifth point of general agreement for coalitions states:

5) "The capitalist parties, especially the Republican and Democratic parties, are fundamentally anti-working class, racist and sexist. We oppose any form of participation in or support for these parties. We call for the working class and its allies to form a new, independent political party that fights for their needs."

Yes.. we need a multi-party system, but first we have to survive to grow out of the 2 or 1-party system. Perhaps working with Obama for future elections with Instant Run-off Voting would be key to take away the "spoiler vote" and the major party systems; so each individual can vote with their integrity in check and have other priority-options in case their ideal candidate does not win.

I also want to encourage coalition-building activists to challenge Obama for a new 9/11 investigation, but after the election.. in 2009.. and deal with global warming without dangerous nuclear power. But I would rather deal with the masses and Obama on these issues than on the current misdirected path toward imperialism and destruction.

So I applaud Malik Miah for this article to unite for the greater cause. The progressive left can sometimes get stuck in its own ideals. But in joining with the masses for the first legitimately elected US President of the 21st Century, is a major step forward. This could lead to our joining with the masses for other campaigns from the bottom up, such as www.nyc911initiative.org a NYC petition for a referendum for a publicly funded honest investigation on what really happened September 11, 2001.

For more on this and our section for campaigns for reclaiming a lost USA democracy, see my home page www.FlybyNews.com

Thank You

I hear lots about this, supporting Obama and engaging his base, but never anything concrete, no references to any attempts to do so. I've heard from one person who did take around a petition at an Obama rally, one that asked people to say that they'd hold whoever won the Democratic nomination to their pledge to begin withdrawing from Iraq, cut the war spending, etc.

His experience was that few would sign; most approached would not. Same for one on single-payer, which Obama says he's for and works towards.

My question is: engage them how? By doing what? Upholding Black liberation theology don't cut it. Neither does the fact that he builds on and encourages hope, so did JFK.

This was an interesting article, but I am not in full agreement....

At 08:54 11/05/08 +1000, you wrote:
>The groundswell of broad support for Barack Obama (both among Blacks and
>whites) is a phenomenon that deserves a serious analysis and
>understanding. It cannot be down played by passing it through the lens
>of pure-and-simple lesser-evilism.
>
>Some radicals dismiss the mass phenomenon, because Obama is a candidate
>of a ruling-class party.
And, by now, firmly a member of the ruling class, period. But more to the point, I don't see any "mass phenomenon" stemming from any awakening on the part of American blacks or reduction in the racism that permeates American society. Rather, the popularity of Obama has everything to do with the UNpopularity of George Bush, whose poll ratings, I believe are the lowest of any American president in history. If Obama wins the election (which appears quite likely) it will be due to disgust with Bush and his "neo-con" crew. If Obama loses anyway, that will be mainly a result of racism.

This article's most useful contribution is in its discussion of Reverend Wright and "black liberation theology" in which parallels are drawn with Martin Luther King Jr. (who the US government had murdered after he started focusing on opposing the Vietnam war and supporting worker's struggles). That is interesting, but any relevance to Obama must rather take into account that Obama had to *denounce* (Obama's own word) Wright in order to continue as a candidate of a capitalist party. The significance of the spectacle of a black candidate being forced to denounce his own religious leader is well elucidated in the essay by political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal, which I reproduce below.

It appears to me that this article is a desparate attempt to find some hope in current events, and to try to identify some "awakening" on the part of the U.S. working class or of the oppressed Black population in particular. I think that is unrealistic. Rather, I think that any "mass phenomenon" is more akin to the integration of Social-Democracy into the government in European countries, which works to tie the working class politically to the capitalists. Surely the rulers would be thrilled to confine the most conscious sector of the American working class, Blacks, within such a political structure!

- Jeff

THE POLITICS OF DENUNCIATION
By MUMIA ABU-JAMAL 4/30/08

When was the last time that you saw a politician asked to denounce a religious leader with whom he or she was associated?

For generations, we have seen a succession of presidents, from both political parties, under the wing of the Rev. Billy Graham.

Historians have recently reported that Graham and his Oval Office acolytes have spoken in racist and xenophobic terms about both Blacks and Jews.

The Rev. Graham recently was lionized as the personal spiritual advisor to presidents, in times of stress, pressure, war and peace.

Neither he, nor his presidential prayer pals have ever been damned or denounced for profoundly racist speech in the palaces of the powerful.

Now, as a Black man begins to climb the greased pole of American political power, he is asked to either defend or denounce a man whom he has known and admired for a generation.

Barack Obama opted for the latter.

He has all but jettisoned the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright from the close circle to the cold periphery of the political realm.

Whence comes this demand for denunciation?

If we are honest, it arises from the specter of white fear, that demand of Black people a higher standard than that of their own.

For what reason has Jeremiah Wright been jettisoned - if not for his proud, open Blackness?

Rev. Wright is an advocate of Black Liberation Theology - a school of Black religious thought that sees the hand of God in the liberation of Black people from bondage.

White Americans are so used to hearing Blacks speak with quiet and pacific tones, that when a man expresses himself fully, as did Rev. Wright, they are, quite frankly, frightened.

(What do they fear, that Blacks will dare remember?)

Through the corporate media talking heads, they demanded that Obama "distance himself" from that scary, Black (uppity?) preacher - and do it fast.

Yowza, boss.

The politics of denunciation is, ultimately, the politics of betrayal. It asks - no - it demands that the candidate denounce those whom the White Nation opposes.

If they don't, then they are presumed to be a supporter of that person, or ideology.

Meanwhile, white conservative preachers can say virtually anything, and calls for denunciation are swallowed into silence.

Former presidential candidate, and Republican supporter, Rev. Pat Robertson, called for the killing of a foreign head of state! (I speak here of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.)

Did the White House denounce this prominent religious supporter? Not to my knowledge (in fact, it would be rather difficult, given the current regime's failed coup d'etat against him).

But Barack, the son of a continental African, cannot be seen calling for Black Liberation; for he seeks not to become leader of the Black Nations, but the world's leading White Nation.

Once again, Blacks, and their deep indigenous concerns, are pushed to the periphery. Their free expression ain't free, for there is a cost.

When I saw his latest dis' of the Rev. Dr. Wright, I thought of a question posed in the Bible, in the words of Jesus of Nazareth speaking to his disciples (in Matthew 16:26): For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?...

What would you do to get a job?
--(c) '08 maj

Rev. 'Icarus', The Obama Campaign, & The Left

By Bill Fletcher, Jr.

The Black Commentator

May 10, 2008

http://www.blackcommentator.com/276/276_think_aw_icarus_obama_left.html

The Greek myth is both simple and compelling. Daedalus,
imprisoned on the island of Crete with his son (Icarus),
fashioned wings made of feathers and wax in order for
the two of them to fly to freedom. Daedalus warned
Icarus, however, not to fly too close to the Sun because
the wax would melt and he would fall. The two of them
took off, but Icarus became entranced with flight and,
ignoring his father's warnings, flew higher and higher
until the wax melted and Icarus plunged to his death in
the sea.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright made two mistakes, only one of
which deserves criticism. The first mistake was that of
playing "Icarus." Throwing all sense of tactics aside,
Rev. Wright became enchanted, if not entranced, by the
publicity he received. Clearly angry about his
perception of having been "dissed" by Senator Obama,
this was his time in the Sun, so to speak. As
demonstrated by his performance at the National Press
Club, his speech was compelling, but his approach in the
Q&A failed to take account his circumstances: he was not
in his own church; indeed, he was not in any church.
Clearly, by the time of the Q&A, Rev. Wright was in the
stratosphere, inspired, perhaps by both the sound of his
own voice and the "Amens" he received from supporters in
the room. Yet, the responses he should have paid
attention to were those of the journalists, most of whom
were apparently not part of his Amen Corner. Since then,
he has been plunging into the sea. The problem is that
many people believe that he is taking Senator Obama with
him. I happen to not agree, for reasons I will present
below.

The second "mistake," however, was very different. Rev.
Wright has, throughout his career, dared to challenge
the myth of US history. For the larger society this
"mistake" is of far greater importance than his
performance at the National Press Club, and for that
matter, whether or not he brings down Senator Obama, US
history has a basic narrative: The settlers were heroes;
the indigenous people were either heathens or naive
primitives, but in either case they were in the way of
progress. Slavery was an unfortunate episode that was
cleaned up by the Civil War, though it has never been
quite clear that the former slaves were ever meant to
rule themselves, let alone anyone else. US foreign
policy has generally been benign, nearly always driven
by either a God-given imperative to improve the world or
our sense that the planet would be better off with our
version of capitalism and democracy. Where Rev. Wright
fell into problems was by challenging this myth. Taking
the standpoint of those who have seen the underside of
the "American Dream", he was prepared to speak to a
counter-narrative that identifies the problematic nature
of US history. By doing so he opened himself to
ridicule, but only when his counter-narrative was
treated in sound-bites rather than taken as a whole.

For this reason the attack on Rev. Wright must be
examined very carefully because there are multiple
agendas unfolding. The larger problem is that the Obama
campaign was treated to a media onslaught that was
completely inappropriate to the circumstances. Rev.
Wright never spoke for the Obama campaign and on that
basis alone, Senator Obama would have been well within
his rights to simply stop responding to questions.
Certainly both Senators McCain and Clinton have done
that when they have been caught in uncomfortable
situations. There was no reason that Obama should have
been expected to handle it differently. Well, there was
a reason that has something to do with his coloring.

It is in this sense that progressives generally, but
especially those supporting the Obama candidacy (even if
critically supporting it, as is this writer) should
remind people that it is not Rev. Wright pulling the
campaign down but instead it is the media that tastes
blood and is trying to promote an atmosphere of
pessimism. Needless to say both the Clinton and McCain
campaigns (and their allies) have been complicit in
this.

It is also important to emphasize that the Wright/Obama
conflict is largely about a means for the mainstream
political establishment to situate Senator Obama with
those to his Left. To the extent to which Rev. Wright
played into this, it was possible, if not essential, in
the view of the Obama campaign, to distance itself not
only from Rev. Wright but from Wright's message. In this
way the message was being trounced along with the
messenger. No real discussion is being permitted about
the issues that Rev. Wright raised because he is being
treated as an out-of-control old man and his message is
being treated as incoherent at best, anti-American at
worst. Insofar as Rev. Wright's message was maligned as
crazy and inappropriate ANYONE conveying that message
was also so categorized. Certainly by ignoring tactics
and focusing more on proving his own dignity and
correctness, Rev. Wright lost control over the
situation. His own anger and desire for rehabilitation
of his reputation outweighed any sense of the current
political situation. This was a major mistake and one
that many people will have difficulty forgiving. This is
unfortunate.

Rev. Wright should be criticized for abandoning tactics
and putting himself before the movement. He should not,
however, be criticized for challenging the myths
associated with US history. Even if one disagrees with
aspects of what he relayed - such as his take on the
origin of AIDS - much, if not most of his argument is
backed up by a genuine examination of the foundations of
the USA and its current role domestically and
internationally. Space to make that argument is
essential. And we, to the Left of Senator Obama, must
continue to advance an accurate sense of the history and
role of the USA. This will put us at odds, at times,
with the Obama campaign which either cannot or will not
agree with such an analysis. Yet if there is a
significant constituency that does, this argument will
gain attention, if not traction.

"Critical support" means walking on two legs, both
offering genuine support, as well as offering sincere
and constructive criticism where there are
disagreements. Rev. Wright apparently decided that now
was a time for lashing out in hurt and anger, rather
than recognizing that the sweetest "revenge" is success.
For those of us to the Left of Senator Obama, success is
more than the election of Senator Obama as president of
the USA. It is really about the building of a social
movement that embraces much of the counter-narrative
Rev. Wright attempted to articulate. With that counter-
narrative, we have the basis for a left/progressive
strategy. Without that counter-narrative, we are simply
wandering in the wilderness, hoping for change.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is Executive Editor of The Black
Commentator. He is also a Senior Scholar with the
Institute for Policy Studies and the immediate past
president of TransAfrica Forum.

c 2008 The Black Commentator

eh. As an ex-American myself, and a partisan of the efforts to build
the Reconstruction Party and the Labor Party in the US, I must say
that "critically engaging" Obama's supporters can best be done
through the vehicle of the McKinney campaign. Once the nomination
fights are over, and they can switch their limited resources to the
actual Presidential campaign, I hope to see McKinney's supporters
concentrated on getting the message of working-class political
independence, particularly Black political independence, out to the
masses of mainly working-class voters who refrain from voting in
election after election in the States, as well as those in the labor
movement who have come to the end of their involvement with the
Democrats, e.g. those involved with teh Labor Party ballot drive in
South Carolina. We cannot do it from inside the Democratic Party.
That morass is no place for a socialist. If this is sectarian, so is
the NDP's independence from the Liberals here in Canada.

Cynthia McKinney at UN Plaza on the 60th Anniversary of the
Palestinian Nakba, May 16, 2008,Dag Hammarskjöld Park, UN Plaza, New
York City:

At YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eeBAtTUFQk

At Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8524313300341970141&hl=en

05/23/08 - Miami Herald
Transcript of Barack Obama Speech to Cuban American National Foundation

It is my privilege to join in this week's Independence Day celebration, and
in honoring those who have stood up with courage and conviction for Cuban
liberty. I'm going to take this opportunity to speak about Cuba, and also
U.S. policy toward the Americas more broadly.

We meet here united in our unshakeable commitment to freedom. And it is
fitting that we reaffirm that commitment here in Miami.

In many ways, Miami stands as a symbol of hope for what's possible in the
Americas. Miami's promise of liberty and opportunity has drawn generations
of immigrants to these shores, sometimes with nothing more than the clothes
on their back. It was a similar hope that drew my own father across an
ocean, in search of the same promise that our dreams need not be deferred
because of who we are, what we look like, or where we come from.

Here, in Miami, that promise can join people together. We take common pride
in a vibrant and diverse democracy, and a hard-earned prosperity. We find
common pleasure in the crack of the bat, in the rhythms of our music, and
the ease of voices shifting from Spanish or Creole or Portuguese to English.
These bonds are built on a foundation of shared history in our hemisphere.
Colonized by empires, we share stories of liberation. Confronted by our own
imperfections, we are joined in a desire to build a more perfect union. Rich
in resources, we have yet to vanquish poverty.

What all of us strive for is freedom as FDR described it. Political freedom.
Religious freedom. But also freedom from want, and freedom from fear. At our
best, the United States has been a force for these four freedoms in the
Americas. But if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that at
times we've failed to engage the people of the region with the respect owed
to a partner.

When George Bush was elected, he held out the promise that this would
change. He raised the hopes of the region that our engagement would be
sustained instead of piecemeal. He called Mexico our most important
bilateral relationship, and pledged to make Latin America a "fundamental
commitment" of his presidency. It seemed that a new 21st century era had
dawned.

Almost eight years later, those high hopes have been dashed.

Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy
in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our
adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives,
and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this
vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric,
authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false
promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United
States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision
has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua.
And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While
the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas,
others from Europe and Asia - notably China - have stepped up their own
engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day
Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.

That is the record - the Bush record in Latin America - that John McCain has
chosen to embrace. Senator McCain doesn't talk about these trends in our
hemisphere because he knows that it's part of the broader Bush-McCain
failure to address priorities beyond Iraq. The situation has changed in the
Americas, but we've failed to change with it. Instead of engaging the people
of the region, we've acted as if we can still dictate terms unilaterally. We
have not offered a clear and comprehensive vision, backed up with strong
diplomacy. We are failing to join the battle for hearts and minds. For far
too long, Washington has engaged in outdated debates and stuck to tired
blueprints on drugs and trade, on democracy and development -- even though
they won't meet the tests of the future.

The stakes could not be higher. It is time for us to recognize that the
future security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to
the future of the Americas. If we don't turn away from the policies of the
past, then we won't be able to shape the future. The Bush Administration has
offered no clear vision for this future, and neither has John McCain.

So we face a clear choice in this election. We can continue as a bystander,
or we can lead the hemisphere into the 21st century. And when I am President
of the United States, we will choose to lead.

It's time for a new alliance of the Americas. After eight years of the
failed policies of the past, we need new leadership for the future. After
decades pressing for top-down reform, we need an agenda that advances
democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom up. So my policy
towards the Americas will be guided by the simple principle that what's good
for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. That means
measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also
through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the
policeman in Mexico City, and the answered cries of political prisoners
heard from jails in Havana.

The first and most fundamental freedom that we must work for is political
freedom. The United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy.
I grew up for a time in Indonesia. It was a society struggling to achieve
meaningful democracy. Power could be undisguised and indiscriminate. Too
often, power wore a uniform, and was unaccountable to the people. Some still
had good reason to fear a knock on the door.

There is no place for this kind of tyranny in this hemisphere. There is no
place for any darkness that would shut out the light of liberty. Here we
must heed the words of Dr. King, written from his own jail cell: "Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice in Cuba. Never, in my
lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two
generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. This is the
terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century - of
elections that are anything but free or fair; of dissidents locked away in
dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won't stand for
this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will
stand up for freedom in Cuba.

Now I know what the easy thing is to do for American politicians. Every four
years, they come down to Miami, they talk tough, they go back to Washington,
and nothing changes in Cuba. That's what John McCain did the other day. He
joined the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after
year, decade after decade. Instead of offering a strategy for change, he
chose to distort my position, embrace George Bush's, and continue a policy
that's done nothing to advance freedom for the Cuban people. That's the
political posture that John McCain has chosen, and all it shows is that you
can't take his so-called straight talk seriously.

My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad. And the road to
freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba's political
prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly;
and it must lead to elections that are free and fair.

Now let me be clear. John McCain's been going around the country talking
about how much I want to meet with Raul Castro, as if I'm looking for a
social gathering. That's never what I've said, and John McCain knows it.
After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to
pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions.
There will be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda. And as
President, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of
my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests
of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban
people.

I will never, ever, compromise the cause of liberty. And unlike John McCain,
I would never, ever, rule out a course of action that could advance the
cause of liberty. We've heard enough empty promises from politicians like
George Bush and John McCain. I will turn the page.

It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for
a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban
Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and
remittances to the island. It's time to let Cuban Americans see their
mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban
American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.

I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the
regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy,
beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to
begin normalizing relations. That's the way to bring about real change in
Cuba - through strong, smart and principled diplomacy.

And we know that freedom across our hemisphere must go beyond elections. In
Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know
that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his
actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration's blustery
condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened
his hand.

We've heard plenty of talk about democracy from George Bush, but we need
steady action. We must put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond
the ballot box. We should increase our support for strong legislatures,
independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police
forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. That is how we can support
democracy that is strong and sustainable not just on an election day, but in
the day to day lives of the people of the Americas.

That is what is so badly needed - not just in Cuba and Venezuela - but just
to our southeast in Haiti as well. The Haitian people have suffered too long
under governments that cared more about their own power than their peoples'
progress and prosperity. It's time to press Haiti's leaders to bridge the
divides between them. And it's time to invest in the economic development
that must underpin the security that the Haitian people lack. And that is
why the second part of my agenda will be advancing freedom from fear in the
Americas.

For too many people in our hemisphere, security is absent from their daily
lives. And for far too long, Washington has been trapped in a conventional
thinking about Latin America and the Caribbean. From the right, we hear
about violent insurgents. From the left, we hear about paramilitaries. This
is the predictable debate that seems frozen in time from the 1980s. You're
either soft on Communism or soft on death squads. And it has more to do with
the politics of Washington than beating back the perils that so many people
face in the Americas.

The person living in fear of violence doesn't care if they're threatened by
a right-wing paramilitary or a left-wing terrorist; they don't care if
they're being threatened by a drug cartel or a corrupt police force. They
just care that they're being threatened, and that their families can't live
and work in peace. That is why there will never be true security unless we
focus our efforts on targeting every source of fear in the Americas. That's
what I'll do as President of the United States.

For the people of Colombia - who have suffered at the hands of killers of
every sort - that means battling all sources of violence. When I am
President, we will continue the Andean Counter-Drug Program, and update it
to meet evolving challenges. We will fully support Colombia's fight against
the FARC. We'll work with the government to end the reign of terror from
right wing paramilitaries. We will support Colombia's right to strike
terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders. And we will shine a light
on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This
behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation,
and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand.

We must also make clear our support for labor rights, and human rights, and
that means meaningful support for Colombia's democratic institutions. We've
neglected this support - especially for the rule of law - for far too long.
In every country in our hemisphere - including our own - governments must
develop the tools to protect their people.

Because if we've learned anything in our history in the Americas, it's that
true security cannot come from force alone. Not as long as there are towns
in Mexico where drug kingpins are more powerful than judges. Not as long as
there are children who grow up afraid of the police. Not as long as drugs
and gangs move north across our border, while guns and cash move south in
return.

This nexus is a danger to every country in the region - including our own.
Thousands of Central American gang members have been arrested across the
United States, including here in south Florida. There are national
emergencies facing Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Mexican drug
cartels are terrorizing cities and towns. President Calderon was right to
say that enough is enough. We must support Mexico's effort to crack down.
But we must stand for more than force - we must support the rule of law from
the bottom up. That means more investments in prevention and prosecutors; in
community policing and an independent judiciary.

I agree with my friend, Senator Dick Lugar - the Merida Initiative does not
invest enough in Central America, where much of the trafficking and gang
activity begins. And we must press further south as well. It's time to work
together to find the best practices that work across the hemisphere, and to
tailor approaches to fit each country. That's why I will direct my Attorney
General and Secretary of Homeland Security to sit down with all their
counterparts in the Americas during my first year in office. We'll strive
for unity of effort. We'll provide the resources, and ask that every country
do the same. And we'll tie our support to clear benchmarks for drug
seizures, corruption prosecutions, crime reduction, and kingpins busted.

We have to do our part. And that is why a core part of this effort will be a
northbound-southbound strategy. We need tougher border security, and a
renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. But
we must address the material heading south as well. As President, I'll make
it clear that we're coming after the guns, we're coming after the money
laundering, and we're coming after the vehicles that enable this crime. And
we'll crack down on the demand for drugs in our own communities, and restore
funding for drug task forces and the COPS program. We must win the fights on
our own streets if we're going to secure the region.

The third part of my agenda is advancing freedom from want, because there is
much that we can do to advance opportunity for the people of the Americas.
That begins with understanding what's changed in Latin America, and what
hasn't. Enormous wealth has been created, and financial markets are far
stronger than a decade ago. Brazil's economy has grown by leaps and bounds,
and perhaps the second richest person in the world is a Mexican. Yet while
there has been great economic progress, there is still back-breaking
inequality. Despite a growing middle class, 100 million people live on less
than two dollars a day, and 40 percent of Latin Americans live in poverty.
This feeds everything from drugs, to migration, to support for leaders that
appeal to the poor without delivering on their promises.

That is why the United States must stand for growth in the Americas from the
bottom up. That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That
means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws. It
means bringing 12 million unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows. But it
also means working with Mexico, Central America and others to support bottom
up development to our south.

For two hundred years, the United States has made it clear that we won't
stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across
the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle - not against foreign
armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and
despair. That is not a future that we have to accept - not for the child in
Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We
must do better.

We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of
the empty stomach. Responsibility rests with governments in the region, but
we must do our part. I will substantially increase our aid to the Americas,
and embrace the Millennium Development Goals of halving global poverty by
2015. We'll target support to bottom-up growth through micro financing,
vocational training, and small enterprise development. It's time for the
United States to once again be a beacon of hope and a helping hand.

Trade must be part of this solution. But I strongly reject the Bush-McCain
view that any trade deal is a good deal. We cannot accept trade that
enriches those at the top of the ladder while cutting out the rungs at the
bottom. It's time to understand that the goal of our trade policy must be
trade that works for all people in all countries. Like Central America's
bishops, I opposed CAFTA because the needs of workers were not adequately
addressed. I supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement because there were
binding labor and environmental provisions. That's the kind of trade we need
- trade that lifts up workers, not just a corporate bottom line.

There's nothing protectionist about demanding that trade spreads the
benefits of globalization, instead of steering them to special interests
while we short-change workers at home and abroad. If John McCain believes -
as he said the other day - that 80 percent of Americans think we're on the
wrong track because we haven't passed free trade with Colombia, then he's
totally out of touch with the American people. And if John McCain thinks
that we can paper over our failure of leadership in the region by
occasionally passing trade deals with friendly governments, then he's out of
touch with the people of the Americas.

And we have to look for ways to grow our economies and deepen integration
beyond trade deals. That's what China is doing right now, as they build
bridges from Beijing to Brazil, and expand their investments across the
region. If the United States does not step forward, we risk being left
behind. And that is why we must seize a unique opportunity to lead the
region toward a more secure and sustainable energy future.

All of us feel the impact of the global energy crisis. In the short-term, it
means an ever-more expensive addiction to oil, which bankrolls petro-powered
authoritarianism around the globe, and drives up the cost of everything from
a tank of gas to dinner on the table. And in the long-term, few regions are
more imperiled by the stronger storms, higher floodwaters, and devastating
droughts that could come with global warming. Whole crops could disappear,
putting the food supply at risk for hundreds of millions.

While we share this risk, we also share the resources to do something about
it. That's why I'll bring together the countries of the region in a new
Energy Partnership for the Americas. We need to go beyond bilateral
agreements. We need a regional approach. Together, we can forge a path
toward sustainable growth and clean energy.

Leadership must begin at home. That's why I've proposed a cap and trade
system to limit our carbon emissions and to invest in alternative sources of
energy. We'll allow industrial emitters to offset a portion of this cost by
investing in low carbon energy projects in Latin America and the Caribbean.
And we'll increase research and development across the Americas in clean
coal technology, in the next generation of sustainable biofuels not taken
from food crops, and in wind and solar energy.

We'll enlist the World Bank, the Organization of American States, and the
Inter-American Development Bank to support these investments, and ensure
that these projects enhance natural resources like land, wildlife, and rain
forests. We'll finally enforce environmental standards in our trade deals.
We'll establish a program for the Department of Energy and our laboratories
to share technology with countries across the region. We'll assess the
opportunities and risks of nuclear power in the hemisphere by sitting down
with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. And we'll call on the American
people to join this effort through an Energy Corps of engineers and
scientists who will go abroad to help develop clean energy solutions.

This is the unique role that the United States can play. We can offer more
than the tyranny of oil. We can learn from the progress made in a country
like Brazil, while making the Americas a model for the world. We can offer
leadership that serves the common prosperity and common security of the
entire region.

This is the promise of FDR's Four Freedoms that we must realize. But only if
we recognize that in the 21st century, we cannot treat Latin America and the
Caribbean as a junior partner, just as our neighbors to the south should
reject the bombast of authoritarian bullies. An alliance of the Americas
will only succeed if it is founded on a bedrock of mutual respect. It's time
to turn the page on the arrogance in Washington and the anti-Americanism
across the region that stands in the way of progress. It's time to listen to
one another and to learn from one another.

To fulfill this promise, my Administration won't wait six years to proclaim
a "year of engagement." We will pursue aggressive, principled, and sustained
diplomacy in the Americas from Day One. I will reinstate a Special Envoy for
the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll
also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected
regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young
Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people.

And we must tap the vast resource of our own immigrant population to advance
each part of our agenda. One of the troubling aspects of our recent politics
has been the anti-immigrant sentiment that has flared up, and been exploited
by politicians come election time. We need to understand that immigration -
when done legally - is a source of strength for this country. Our diversity
is a source of strength for this country. When we join together - black,
white, Hispanic, Asian, and native American - there is nothing that we can't
accomplish. Todos somos Americanos!

Together, we can choose the future over the past.

At a time when our leadership has suffered, I have no doubts about whether
we can succeed. If the United States makes its case; if we meet those who
doubt us or deride us head-on; if we draw on our best tradition of standing
up for those Four Freedoms - then we can shape our future instead of being
shaped by it. We can renew our leadership in the hemisphere. We can win the
support not just of governments, but of the people of the Americas. But only
if we leave the bluster behind. Only if we are strong and steadfast;
confident and consistent.

Jose Marti once wrote. "It is not enough to come to the defense of freedom
with epic and intermittent efforts when it is threatened at moments that
appear critical. Every moment is critical for the defense of freedom."

Every moment is critical. And this must be our moment. Freedom. Opportunity.
Dignity. These are not just the values of the United States - they are the
values of the Americas. They were the cause of Washington's infantry and
Bolivar's cavalry; of Marti's pen and Hidalgo's church bells.

That legacy is our inheritance. That must be our cause. And now must be the
time that we turn the page to a new chapter in the story of the Americas.

The Perils of Racial Solidarity
Presidential Politics 2008 - The Issues
Wednesday, 21 May 2008

by Kevin Alexander Gray

Is it really the duty of us all, as African Americans to keep quiet about the wars in Africa and Iraq, to shut up about the credit and housing squeezes that are swallowing the wealth of our communities, to be silent about police killings and the continued transformation of America into a carceral state that locks up an absurd proportion of its nonwhite population? Where are we really headed if our duty as African Americans at this time is to bury all our grievances, to be quiet and not disturb white people, in order to "let Obama do what he has to do?"

The Perils of Racial Solidarity

by Kevin Alexander Gray

“[Obama] has to convince white folk that he’s 150 percent with them. So we should just all be quiet and let him do what he has to do.”

A lot of black people I know have hit the mute button. When Hillary brings up working class white voters, when commentators say we’re in the post-racial era, even when Barack had to kick his preacher to the curb. “Where were Obama’s friends?” The Wall Street Journal‘s Daniel Henninger asked. Quiet, quiet, quiet.

The current undertone in the black cultural cosmos reflects the old adage, “If you can’t say some good, don’t say anything at all.” The way to show racial solidarity? Shut up.
Black people always have to navigate race fear; the long Democratic primary season has just underlined that. Joking, comedian Jon Stewart asked Obama if elected, “Will you pull a bait and switch and enslave the white race?” Kinda funny. Except that’s precisely the sentiment that underlies white race fear. I’ve heard the same thing said in seriousness by more than one white person. “If Obama gets the White House what will they want next?” Or, “if Obama wins, blacks will think they’re running things.”

So, one argument for keeping quiet is to avoid confirming or fueling white racist suspicions. A caller on one of the radio shows I did after Reverend Wright’s National Press Club appearance said, “[Obama] has to convince white folk that he’s 150 percent with them. So we should just all be quiet and let him do what he has to do.”

Give a listen to the corporate media, and it’s pretty clear what tune black voices are supposed to be singing. Obama is constantly called on to swear allegiance to America – to prove he isn’t swearing allegiance to blacks. The other way to say that is he’s supposed to swear allegiance to white, not black, America. Meanwhile, the back end of that deal is that black Americans are required to substitute Obama for real structural racial progress. As in, “You got your nominee. See, we’re not so racist or bad after all. Now shut up!”

I was talking on the phone to a friend the day after Obama denounced his preacher. She wasn’t mad at either, just blue over “the whole mess.” Like many others, she saw the media as the culprit for blowing the incident up, and wondered aloud if Hillary didn‘t have something to do with it. She agreed with Wright’s politics, felt the hurt between the two men, and recognized that the over-expansive persona many black preachers carry around doesn’t play everywhere. The Press Club is not a black church. On Obama: “Yeah, he saying what he got to say. He’s a politician.” And her advice to me? That I not write or say anything “that would give the other side anything to latch on to.” In other words, the mute button, the race gag.

Wright was Obama’s “fish.” Or that’s what we called it when I was coming up. It’s the “bad nigger” that all “good blacks” would be wise to avoid: the latest Sistah Souljah or Willie Horton. Farrakhan didn’t take the bait so Wright got the hook. Before Wright, Chris Matthews and his cohorts dangled Jesse Jackson out there often repeating the line that Obama “is not like Jesse Jackson” so as to make Jackson’s name (and his politics, importance, ‘style’ and period) a pejorative.

Who knows who will be the next black bogeyman? Will it be Obama’s fellow Chicagoan Congressman Bobby Rush, a one-time Black Panther? Will it be Trinity church’s new pastor, Otis Moss, who says he likes slain rapper Tupac Shakur and is the son of a Black Panther. What about James Cone, ‘the source’ of that “radical,” “anti-white,” “anti-capitalist” “revolutionary” “socialist” black liberation theology? FOX television seems toracism_again think Cone and his ideology deserve denouncing.

On several of the black radio shows I did, callers were split down the middle on Wright and Obama. Most callers – white and black – had no trouble understanding the differing prospective of a church born out a history of enslavement versus one that often condoned or turned a blind eye to enslavement. Most agreed with Wright’s take on American history and where the country is today in regards to its relationship with the rest of the world. On Joy Cardin’s Wisconsin Public Radio program, most callers were sympathetic to Wright even after his Press Club appearance. They thought he had the right to say what he said, how he said it and when he said it. As for Obama, callers were most anguished about him having to reject his minister and play the denouncement game.

And with that anguish came the slam on Wright, which for Obama’s supporters, on black radio, was pretty much the same slam they gave Tavis Smiley. He hadn’t maintained the gag rule. Smiley’s violation occurred when he criticized Obama’s refusal to address or attend any gathering that seemed too black, including Smiley’s “State of the Black Union” in New Orleans and the Memphis events around the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination. Black folk started “hatin’ on” Smiley because they saw him as “hatin’ on Obama.” After a period of “not feeling the love,” Smiley left his morning spot on the popular Tom Joyner radio show. (I have to say I didn’t lament Smiley’s departure: not because I agree with his “haters, ” but because of his ties to Wal-Mart.) The logic I heard during the time Smiley took his lumps was: “Look, Obama’s already got us, we aren’t the people he needs to convince” and, “if he spends too much time with us we know how white folk will react.” Translation: “Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.” Yet racial solidarity is the name of the game not only among blacks. The race card is in play among some of Hillary Clinton’s white support. The difference is that a higher percentage of Clinton’s supporters -- some 17 percent of white voters in Pennsylvania -- expressed, “they wouldn’t vote for a black under any condition.” 81 percent of voters in West Virginia said race was an important factor in their vote.

Why are whites who support Clinton racist and Obama’s black support not labeled as such? My response has been that fundamentally racism is about power and blacks hold little if any power over whites. Blacks have long voted for white candidates.
Hillary is accused of campaigning on racist implications: that people would not vote for a black solely because of race. Fair or not, when your campaign represents a racist perspective, you might get called a racist. Moreover, if Obama used a similar language about ‘hard-working American blacks, not being represented,’ or something like that he would be re-labeled “the black candidate.” Clinton is allowed to be the “women’s candidate.” Both can be “generational candidates” but neither can be “race candidates.”

Ask me to pick between Wright or Obama? Well I agree with history.

“The United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law…”

Wright said that, and I agree with all of it.

And like Wright, I agree that progressive politics in the last 40 years has affirmed the Cuban peoples' revolution, aided the anti-apartheid movement, opposed Reagan's war in Central America, and have maintained that Zionism is racism. But I’m an unapologetic secularist. I’m not into ‘damning’ or waiting for God’s wrath to smite anybody. I believe the people, on earth, are responsible for change. And just as important, I believe Obama is a piece of the story not the whole story.

In the end, I’m against unthinking, uncritical and blind solidarity be it racial, gender or sexually-related, etc. If solidarity makes you fall in line without asking where you’re going, don’t be surprised if you end up lost, or worse.

Kevin Alexander Gray is lead organizer of the Harriet Tubman Freedom House Project in Columbia, South Carolina, which focuses on community-based political and cultural education. He is also a contributing editor to Black News in South Carolina. Gray served as 1988 South Carolina coordinator for the Presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson and as 1992 southern political director for Iowa Senator Tom Harkin's Presidential bid. He can be contacted a
nkagamba- at- bellsouth.net

Towards African-American Unity and a Black United Front

Written by the Nationalities Commission
Wednesday, 14 May 2008

"Power never takes a back step--only in the face of more power."
"Dr. King wants the same thing I want--Freedom."
--Malcolm X

On what would have been Malcolm's eighty-third birthday, it is appropriate that we speak to the urgency for unity and the critical need for a functional national Black united front. Malcolm argued for unity across religious, class and ideological lines on the basis of nationality. Our movement has attempted to implement organizational expressions of his call for unity. Such vehicles like the Congress of African People (CAP), the National Black Assembly (NBA) with its Black Agenda, the African Liberation Support Committee (ALSC), and the Black Radical Congress (BRC) with its Freedom Agenda have all met with varying degrees of success but with little sustainability. We have to turn the corner on building united front organizations to those that are actually sustainable--the conditions of our people demand it.

In this period of neoliberal globalization, in which we see the gutting of social-welfare programs that due to national oppression never fully provided for the needs of Black people, our communities are faced with stagnant or declining incomes, double-digit unemployment, a crisis of home foreclosures and bankruptcies. Add to these depression-like conditions the fact that Black males are facing a criminal justice system that incarcerates them at more than eight times the rate of whites. If they are not locking our young men up, they are shooting them down in cold blood with no fear of prosecution. The Sean Bell case in New York City is just the latest case in point. Moreover, there is the federal government's criminal response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the growing attacks on our communities through gentrification, the use of our youth as cannon fodder for imperialist wars, and the criminalization of our youth. This latter phenomenon is causing our community elders to fear their own children and grandchildren. It's clear that that we need an instrument of struggle to fight back.

While some may argue that there is a vacuum of leadership in our communities, we would argue that there is leadership, but it is one that has retreated from the progressive agenda of the Civil Rights and Black Power eras. As Brother Malcolm would say, "I for one believe that if you give people a thorough understanding of what confronts them and the basic causes that produce it, they'll create their own program, and when the people create a program, you get action." Today, through corporate and government funding from the likes of groups like Wal-Mart and regional and local developers, we have organizations doing for our people rather than empowering them to do for themselves. The result is demobilization and fragmentation within the Black Liberation Movement (BLM). The national Black community's response to Katrina is indicative of this condition.

During the Civil Rights movement, it was the program and tactics of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the left wing of that movement, which played a leading role during that period. They were not the groups that got all the press and money but they were some of the forces that set the line of march for the movement. Similarly, it was revolutionary nationalists and developing Marxists who set the direction within CAP, the National Black Political Assembly, and ALSC during the '70s.

The Achilles Heel of these young radicals was their lack of a basic united-front framework that would engage the many organizations and activists in developing programs, tactical plans and slogans to guide coalitions and campaigns. Instead, sectarian maneuvering and struggling with allies as if they were the enemy became the practice of the day, which has led to our current situation where the middle and right wings of the BLM are playing the leading roles. While we cannot ignore the role of the state in damaging these efforts, more forces having had a basic united-front approach would have allowed us to better withstand the state's penetration of our efforts.

Having correctly summed up the sectarian, undemocratic membership policies and patriarchal error of the '70s New Communist Movement, Black, Asian, Latina/o and Anglo-American leftists entered the Rainbow Coalition Presidential candidacy of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. However, the Black Left was not playing the leading role in the Jackson Campaign. It was the National Black petit bourgeoisie that was taking the lead and fighting for a more prominent role in the Democratic Party. Despite their hard work on issue development and grassroots mobilization, some of these forces, like Jackson, were seduced by their class origin to become "power brokers" for their nationality and class in the Democratic Party. Instead of creating counter-hegemonic and popular forms of organizations, they relied exclusively on the Jackson campaign organizations for their education and mobilization of the masses. So, as Jackson sought to pull the reins on the "Rainbow Challenge" in the interests of the Democratic Party, the left forces were not able to challenge Jackson's retreat from the Rainbow program.

As the Black Left entered the '90s, the increased power of neoliberal globalization; the massacre in Tiananmen Square in China; the demise of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; and the question raised at the anti-globalization protest in Seattle, "Where are the People of Color?" were indications of the fragmentation, the lack of a coherent approach to Black Liberation in the US and the overall weakness of the Left in the era of postmodern identity politics with its aversion to a guiding political narrative.

In the mid-'90s the Nation of Islam, under the leadership of Minister Louis Farrakhan and Minister Ben (Chavis) Muhammad, stepped into this vacuum of leadership in the BLM to propose the Million Man March. Held on October 16, 1995, the march attracted some 1.5 million men. Many speakers spoke in support of voter registration and Black self-help programs. They were also very critical of the Republican so-called Contract with America, which was seen as an attack on programs like welfare, Medicaid, housing programs and student aid programs. However, its male-only focus, religious overtones, and the Nation of Islam's top-down organizing style kept many Black leftists away or at arm's length. Two years later, fed up with unemployment, homelessness, teen pregnancy and Black-on-Black crime fueled by the crack epidemic ravaging our communities, several hundred thousand Black women gathered in Philadelphia on October 24 for the Million Woman March. Broader in composition and led by grassroots women from the East Coast, South and mid-West, this march was held without the slick marketing and big-name speakers at the Million Man March. This march was followed in 1998 by the million Youth March and the Million Worker March in 2004. However, a major weakness of these efforts was the lack of organizational development after the demonstrations, as well as declining numbers after the success of the Million Woman March.

The formation of the Black Radical Congress (BRC) in June 1998, drawing some 2000 participants, would break the cycle of "show up but no follow-up" associated with the Million More Marches. The BRC was inclusive of the various ideological trends in the BLM, e.g. socialists, communists, LGBT, feminists, and revolutionary Black nationalists. In the years following its formation, the BRC would develop over a dozen chapters and carry out local and national campaigns like Education Not Incarceration and Fightback against the War. It was also involved in issues like HIV/AIDS, police violence and in defense of the Charleston, SC dock workers (who had been charged with inciting to riot as they sought to defend their rights and living standards.)

However, in the last five years it has become increasingly clear that some of the initial leaders of the BRC were overextended and needed to pull back. It has also become clear that the infrastructure envisioned at the founding Congress could not be sustained with limited resources and a volunteer staff. So while it has seen a reduction in the number in chapters and Local Organizing Committees, the BRC has advanced a radical analysis on various topics through its listserve, leaflets and newsletters.

This June 20-22 the Black Radical Congress will hold its 10th anniversary congress at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. At this congress, the BRC will address such issues as the state of the Black Liberation Movement and what the BRC should look like as an organization in order to respond to the current crisis facing Black people. Other issues to be addressed are how one funds an effective organization with independence and sustainability as guiding principles. Lastly, the congress will deal with leadership and governance for the organization. Notwithstanding the good work of the BRC, it remains just another organization in the fragmented Black Liberation Movement and has not lived up to its initial hope and potential as a space that successfully and for a sustained period brought together diverse radical ideological currents within the Black Liberation Movement.

Although the devastation and neglect caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast provided a golden opportunity for a united approach, this has not been realized. As Malcolm would say, "Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society." Thus, there have been struggles around issues like organizing methodology, leadership accountability, patriarchy, how to promote grassroots leadership, and the role of "base building" in the context of building the Black united front on the ground in the Gulf Coast Reconstruction efforts.

This has led some of the Black left forces associated with Katrina Solidarity work to call for a Black Left Gathering on May 30-June 1 at the Sonia Hayes Stone Center at the University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill. This gathering will look at the current state of the BLM, the Gulf Coast Situation, and its relationship to the overall building of a national Black united front. It will also look at the issues of the war in Iraq and its impact on the delivery of basic human services to Blacks, other people of color and the general working class.

While much of the attention of the masses is focused on the Obama campaign, we salute the Black left forces who are planning to meet to strategize on how to build unity of action of the Left and radicals of the Black Nation. Both of these motions are composed of activists and revolutionaries who have grasped Malcolm's message and are correctly summing up the errors of the movements of the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s and are in the process of trying to regroup and to rebuild a potent and effective Black Liberation Movement. In fact, Freedom Road has members working in both of these formations. We believe that these two motions need to come together in the spirit of Malcolm's call for a functional national Black united front. At the same time, we recognize that building such unity on the ground and in practice is a process rather an event. Thus, we applaud both efforts for participating in each other's events as speaker and participants.

Moreover, both gatherings will address the aftermath of Katrina and the failure to implement an adequate, democratic and rapid reconstruction. Each will examine the assaults on Black communities across the country through police murder of youth, gentrification and more. It is here that we urge that the two groups, regardless of what organizational forms they decide on for their work, combine efforts in a community-based national campaign. The "We Charge Genocide" campaign, which is up and running, presents at this moment the greatest possibility for cooperation, addresses some of the most pressing needs of our people, and can contribute in a powerful way to the rebuilding of the Black Liberation Movement.

If the Obama campaign and all that it has inspired is to have a lasting impact, it will necessitate the existence of a mass-based, viable Black Left that practices a united-front approach. If there is to be anything to build upon after the November elections, irrespective of who wins, there will need to be a strong left presence, and there will especially need to be a Black left motion that is pushing the envelope. Malcolm's orientation was toward the building of a broader and broader movement. This is as relevant today as it was in 1965. Just as relevant is the notion that if the radicals in any movement do not cohere, the forces in the middle will start to vacillate, and those on the right will gain dominance. We have seen that before, and we must not let it happen again.

--Nationalities Commission
Freedom Road Socialist Organization/OSCL

The mass support for Obama is not at all the same thing as a mass organization.

• The people in this mass have no link to one another, but only share a common link with Obama.
• This mass support has no voice of its own, and the only voice to be heard is that of Obama's campaign rhetoric, which does not even pretend to offer any basic change.
• This mass support is not institutionalized, but is only organized by the electoral process itself and so will undoubtedly disappear once the election is over.
• This mass support has no real unity, for people in it represent different social classes and support Obama for a number of quite different reasons. A multi-class mass can not imply or lead in any new direction.

It is gratifying that young people are registering to vote in great numbers, but what is the significance of this? The Obama campaign is lending greater credibility to our representative democracy, but we must ask ourselves what is the implication of this if a government is neither for the people nor of the people?

The inconvenience of Reverend Wright's speech brought out the elegant manner in which Obama would be able to handle awkward situations. His presidency ideally will focus about moving forward and correcting the previous presidencies flaws, disregarding the retired reverends crude words; thus leaving behind terrible situations that cost the lives of many including, including those who perished in my country Panama. As an audience we often which to be entertained and filled with the hope of a better tomorrow, as is the idea in most of Obama’s amazing speaches. The promise of change if accomplished, I only hope will diminish the medias over exposure on the race issue, and in the division of polls to accommodate the race factor.