Is Obama A Communist?

[Buck Laser]

Is Barack Obama a communist? If you believed everything that conservatives put in DF, you'd at least begin to wonder if there's any fire behind all that smoke. Just for the hell of it, I decided to do a little research, not expecting to find much. And I certainly wasn't disappointed!

The "evidence" that Obama is a communist seems to come from three stories that have been tediously investigated by right wing sources. Near as I can tell, the three stories are these:

1. He had a "childhood mentor" named Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2058564/posts
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56859

2. Somewhere in one of his offices there is a "communist" (Che Guevara) flag.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/02/obama_che_guevara_flag_scandal/

3. Obama is an "associate" of a former member of the Weather Underground.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

It should be obvious on the face of it that all three of these stories are totally without merit--not because there's not something tying Obama to them, but because drawing any kind of conclusion from any three of them requires such illogical leaps of either faith or imagination as to defy reason. Clearly, stories like this are distributed in the vain hope that some fools will believe them. They are of exactly the same scurrilous material as the "Obama is a Muslim" lies. Here are a couple of good answers to the wingers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080810154144AAORbLy
http://wonkette.com/358710/barack-obamas-secret-jewish-communist-origins-revealed

On a somewhat more appropriate note, I told a poster in another thread that Obama stands pretty much to the right of most European leaders, and he immediately challenged me to produce evidence. Well, that turned out to be a little trickier, because no one publishes a "Communist-O-Meter," so there's no handy measurement available. What I did find is a good bit of material relating to how various European leaders. In sum, most of them like him very much. Here are a couple of references from The Nation, an unabashedly liberal journal more than a hundred years old:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/338175/as_world_embraces_obama_mccain_attacks Current positions v. Europe
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080804/hayden2

For a general background book on the role of progressive politics and socialism in America, you might want to take a look at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080804/hayden2

Here are a couple of wikipedia articles on the general political spectrum in order to get us more or less on the same page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics Basic information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum Basic information
As always, you should be aware that Wikipedia articles like this are frequently subject to dispute. I post them only as a point of beginning, not as any kind of final authority.

Well, what do the European leaders think of Obama? Here's an account of his meeting with Gordon Brown, current UK Prime Minister:

http://letustalk.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/saturday-obama-meets-with-pm-gordon-brown-at-downing-street/

And here's how it went in Germany with Angela Merkel:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/23/german-chancellor-merkel_n_114592.html
How about France? After all, M. Sarkozy is supposed to be some kind of conservative, isn't he?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/23/german-chancellor-merkel_n_114592.html

Oh, shit! Does everybody love him? No. Silvio Berlusconi, the PM of Italy who keeps getting into hot water, doesn't care for him:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/berlusconi-likes-mccain-its-an-age-thing/

So what do we have? I think all we have is a few desperate right wingers who've latched on to what they consider some promising rumors that they're thrashing around in the vain hope that they might scare a few voters away from Obama. We also have considerable evidence that Obama made an overwhelmingly good impression on the major European leaders he met during his recent trip to Europe. There's no evidence at all that he stands to the left of any of them. None.

I should have addressed Universal Health Care, but putting this little report together was a bit more of a chore than I anticipated, so I'll leave that to another day, or call on another DF member to provide the information. It shouldn't be that hard to put together.

[brien]

It not just the "conservatives" there Buck, you missed this story:


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/communist-party-backs-obama-for-prez

An editorial from the CPUSA:


(Click to enlarge.)

Eye on the Prize
7/15/2008

Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s “shift to the center.” (Right-wingers are happy to join them, suggesting Obama is a “flip-flopper.”) It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees. But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority.

A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.

This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.

Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”

If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.

The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.

One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.

Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.

That’s right. The Communist Party Of The United States wants to elect Barack Hussein Obama as our President.

Why do you think that is?

And why has their endorsement been so studiously ignored by our watchdog media?

(Imagine if a similarly storied ultra-right lunatics had endorsed John McCain? Though, of course, there is no group like that on the right.)

Still, won’t it be pleasant finally to have a President that the same hard-line Communists who supported Joseph Stalin can support?

This is the kind of “unity” Mr. Obama will bring us.

Related Articles:

More On Obama And Acorn - 2 Video Clips
The Forces Behind Obama: Soros And Acorn
Obama Is Endorsed By A Former Klansman
John Edwards 'Gets Behind' Obama - Finally
Obama Pal Ayers Is Still A Dangerous Radical
Michael Moore: Vote Twice For Obama In PA
New Black Panther Party Supports Obama?
Rev Wright Erased From Obama's Website
Farrakhan: Obama Is The Hope Of The World
Shocker: MoveOn (Soros) Endorses Obama
Shocker: Castro 'Endorses' Clinton-Obama
Mrs Obama: Moral Compass Beats Experience
Corn Denounced Today's Rally Organizers


************************************************** ******************

I realize that one has no control over who endorses Obama, but I suppose there are certain groups in the country, and in the world, who would rather see Obama lead this country. But upon closer inspection, it is interesting to see who they are, and try to understand why they would support him, over any other candidate. I don't think it is just conservatives who are interested in who supports Obama, but perhaps some people don't really want to know who, besides themselves, support Obama and what they all have in common. Kind of like the yellow-flowered climber Hibbertia that looks so beautiful but once someone smells it, boy does it stink. Good post there Buck.

[apdst]

Let's just say that Obama's mentor had been a Nazi and that in one of his offices he had a Nazi Blood Flag tacked up on the wall; could he safely be considered a Nazi?

[Buck Laser]

Hey, I didn't bother to post every toxic site that played this "Obama is a commie" scam. This is just the same old shit.

I wouldn't care if Obama's childhood mentor had been a three-pronged, seven-headed Andromedan from planetary cluster K-69. I care what Obama is, not who he might have known.

For what it's worth, I had a high school English teacher that everyone thought was a communist. We had pretty limited horizons down in Edinburg, Texas in 1949, and we sorta figured everybody who didn't talk like our parents was a commie.

How about you guys do some real work and try to refute me with something substantial? Are you up to it?

[Blueneck]

And while they are at it how about explaining how he can be both a Communist and a Muslim extremist at the same time.

[brien]

How about you guys do some real work and try to refute me with something substantial? Are you up to it?


Hey I agree with you. I commended your post. I don't think he is a Commie. I just believe he shares some of the same values and philosophy as the Communist Party pointed out in their endorsement.

I think I made it clear that Obama can't control his endorsements but it is also equally important to try and understand why he is endorsed by whom. It certainly sheds light upon the candidate and how he is perceived by certain groups in the US. It also illustrates which values and philosophy Obama shares with some groups in the US. Examine the groups cited in the source of my first post.

[DamnYankee]

If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

[Buck Laser]

And while they are at it how about explaining how he can be both a Communist and a Muslim extremist at the same time.
See, that's just it. The wingers don't care what they can make stick to Obama, they just want something to stick. Principle, virtue, moral values--none of these have a damned thing to do with why these guys don't want Obama. One of the previous posters is on record as saying "We can't have a black president." I take that as pretty clear evidence that that poster is opposed to Obama on a racial basis.

We'll just have to see if anyone is able to produce a rational response.

[brien]

Buck... Also look no further than in your own party for anti Obama unamerican type speech aimed squarely at Obama. Mark Penn, of the Clinton Campaign, advised Hillary to stress the fact in the Primary that Obama was somewhat less than American when he advised her to say she was born in the middle of the country in the middle of the century, etc, essentially wrapping herself in the American flag as compared to Obama. The Penn emails are coming out now that will show the Clinton campaign relied upon these type of negative hits that it was willing to use against Obama. It just campaigning there Buck..

[Stoner]

He has certain issues that resemble communist thinking but negative on the communist.

Communist? Negative.. Inexperienced, lying, unpatriotic rookie? Affirmative.

[IndieVisible]

Obama supporter here reporting in! Well Obama supporter for how long I don't know, depends on Obama. He is not communist but big pussy it turns out. I can not vote for wimpy President. He needs to get tougher on foreign affairs or this Independent Liberal will be voting for McCain. My God I can't believe I was this wrong about him. Hillary had more balls then him. Sure hopes he finds his lost balls before November.

[Buck Laser]

Buck... Also look no further than in your own party for anti Obama unamerican type speech aimed squarely at Obama. Mark Penn, of the Clinton Campaign, advised Hillary to stress the fact in the Primary that Obama was somewhat less than American when he advised her to say she was born in the middle of the country in the middle of the century, etc, essentially wrapping herself in the American flag as compared to Obama. The Penn emails are coming out now that will show the Clinton campaign relied upon these type of negative hits that it was willing to use against Obama. It just campaigning there Buck..
I don't have much of a problem with people attacking Obama on the issues. Some may even think he's too liberal, even though I'd personally hope he moved further to the left.

My brief for Obama is based on two main things: the positions he laid out in his latest book, and my confidence from observing him in action for the last year and half. He's given me confidence that he is actually a leader who's grown up enough to instill some vigor and hope in a tired electorate--and smart enough to deal with leaders of other nations on an intelligent basis.

I know that you as a libertarian dislike the entire two-party system, and if I were of a libertarian persuasion, I might feel the same way. But I think the two-party system is so integrally built into the American ideal that there's no way to change it without radically altering the way America works. One day soon, I will try to write a brief essay on why the two-party system is important, and how the parties can adjust to changing times and ideas. Remember, most of us liberals are as comitted to individual and civil rights as any libertarian, though we generally disagree on the role of government in trade and regulation.

Buck

[preservanation]

Obama is/was a Commie?
Thanks.
I knew it!


I always saw a resemblance to him and Stalin.
Not physically.

[Buck Laser]

Obama is/was a Commie?
Thanks.
I knew it!


I always saw a resemblance to him and Stalin.
Not physically.
How's about you try a serious response? You're one of the people tossing the "Obama is a commie" stuff around. Do you have any reliale evidence, or is this just more chaos shit?

[DamnYankee]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/02/obama_che_guevara_flag_scandal/obama_office_che_guavara_flag/

[BoogyMan]

See, that's just it. The wingers don't care what they can make stick to Obama, they just want something to stick. Principle, virtue, moral values--none of these have a damned thing to do with why these guys don't want Obama. One of the previous posters is on record as saying "We can't have a black president." I take that as pretty clear evidence that that poster is opposed to Obama on a racial basis.

We'll just have to see if anyone is able to produce a rational response.

Buck, how exactly do you know that people such as myself who believe that Obama is a radical socialist with a predilection toward Marxist ideologies, are really just a bunch of racists? What a specious claim? It would be akin to me claiming that those who don't support McCain are all a bunch of closet ageists and is a patently dishonest representation of what many of my cohorts have been trying to say.

Many of us see Senator Obama as a radical activist whose governmental expansion plans, tax increases, and internationalist ideology are a poison pill. Honestly, tax increases in a period of economic downturn in order to fund increased entitlements is like beating an already injured animal to death.

The opposition to Senator Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin, but the content of his ideology.

[Stoner]

Do you have any reliale evidence, or is this just more chaos shit?

No more than the libbies on here accusing Bush of lying and war crimes.

[Buck Laser]

Buck, how exactly do you know that people such as myself who believe that Obama is a radical socialist with a predilection toward Marxist ideologies, are really just a bunch of racists? What a specious claim? It would be akin to me claiming that those who don't support McCain are all a bunch of closet ageists and is a patently dishonest representation of what many of my cohorts have been trying to say.

Many of us see Senator Obama as a radical activist whose governmental expansion plans, tax increases, and internationalist ideology are a poison pill. Honestly, tax increases in a period of economic downturn in order to fund increased entitlements is like beating an already injured animal to death.

The opposition to Senator Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin, but the content of his ideology.
Just a minute there, Bubba! Where did I bring race into this discussion? The closest I got to it was to quote another poster who actually wrote "we can't have a black president," and I said I thought he opposed Obama on a racial basis.

You're inferring way too much from that. I get the idea that you may think you need to justify your opposition to Obama on some grounds other than racial--but I said nothing even remotely close to that, and you damned well know it! I'm pretty much getting to my limits of hearing people say "I'm not opposed to Obama because he's black, but bla, bla, bla..."[/b] As I said above, I can accept that people disagree with him on the issues.

But hear this clearly: When anyone says "I'm not a racist, but..." you can pretty well bet that the person is racist. And trying to drag race into this thread strikes me as a most disengenuous attempt to divert the discussion.

You may consider Obama a radical socialist if you please: I do not. I wish his health plan, for example, provided for single payer health insurance and cut the insurers out of the loop altogether, but circumstances, including the overweening power of the insurance lobbies have made that move impractical.

It probably should be in another thread, but I'd be most interested in what else you think is "radically socialist" about Obama. Please be specific.

[Buck Laser]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/02/obama_che_guevara_flag_scandal/obama_office_che_guavara_flag/
If you'd bothered to follow the links I posted, DY, you'd see that same story in my post. Why are you posting it again?

[PostmodernProphet]

I always saw a resemblance to him and Stalin.


hey....Stalin was ON money.....

[BoogyMan]

Just a minute there, Bubba! Where did I bring race into this discussion? The closest I got to it was to quote another poster who actually wrote "we can't have a black president," and I said I thought he opposed Obama on a racial basis.

I am glad to hear it Buck, I am tired of being called a racist because I don't care to have a socialist as my president.


You're inferring way too much from that. I get the idea that you may think you need to justify your opposition to Obama on some grounds other than racial--but I said nothing even remotely close to that, and you damned well know it!

I appreciate you clearing that up, if I inferred to much I will ask that you please accept my apology.


I'm pretty much getting to my limits of hearing people say "I'm not opposed to Obama because he's black, but bla, bla, bla..."[/b] As I said above, I can accept that people disagree with him on the issues.

Good, I disagree with the man's policies so we can agree to disagree.


But hear this clearly: When anyone says "I'm not a racist, but..." you can pretty well bet that the person is racist. And trying to drag race into this thread strikes me as a most disengenuous attempt to divert the discussion.

I don't know, it could simply be that they are used to being called a racist for having the nerve to not support Senator Obama. That kind of rhetoric is pretty common these days.


You may consider Obama a radical socialist if you please: I do not. I wish his health plan, for example, provided for single payer health insurance and cut the insurers out of the loop altogether, but circumstances, including the overweening power of the insurance lobbies have made that move impractical.

I do consider the man a radical socialist and if you think America is in bad shape now, just wait until we are taxed blind to pay for his social programs and as I said, increasing taxes in an economic downturn is like beating an already wounded animal.

[Buck Laser]

I do consider the man a radical socialist and if you think America is in bad shape now, just wait until we are taxed blind to pay for his social programs and as I said, increasing taxes in an economic downturn is like beating an already wounded animal.
Thank you for the apology on the race issue. I appreciate that. But I'm disappointed that you provide no specifics at all about what you consider to be his "radical socialist" agenda. Do you have any?

[BoogyMan]

Thank you for the apology on the race issue. I appreciate that. But I'm disappointed that you provide no specifics at all about what you consider to be his "radical socialist" agenda. Do you have any?

You said you didn't want that in this thread, so I figured we would start a socialist thread at some point.

[tony mitra]

Interesting avatar you have, Buck.

[PostmodernProphet]

Interesting avatar you have, Buck.

I think it's perfect for Buck.....it demonstrates his perception......

[preservanation]

Ayers is a Radical and Bernardine Dohrn are radical socialists,

Saul Alinsky is a Radical Socialist,

Louis Farrakhan’s a radical racist nut.

ACORN is a Radical group with Commie ties...A front group, IMO. (ACORN is a city-based anti-capitalist group that you may know from their illegal voter registration efforts in the 2004 election.)

James Meeks is a radical separatist.

The Woods Fund is a radical socialist org.

James Cone and Malcolm X are radicals

Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright are radicals.

("Obama shared Wright’s rejection of black “assimilation.” Obama also shared Wright’s suspicion of the traditional American ethos of individual self-improvement and the pursuit of “middle-classness.” In common with Wright, Obama had deep misgivings about America’s criminal justice system. And with the exception of their direct attacks on whites, Obama largely approved of his preacher-friends’ fiery rhetoric. Obama’s goal was not to repudiate religious radicalism but to channel its fervor into an effective and permanent activist organization. How do we know all this? We know it because Obama himself has told us.")
Reports dating back as far as early 2007 held that Obama was educated at a radical Islamic school in Indonesia.


Press accounts revealed that in fact, Obama first attended a Catholic school for almost three years. However, his mother registered him in the school as a Muslim. http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_muslim_connection/2008/08/07/119942.html


OBAMA’S NETWORK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/02/opinion/main4145761.shtml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_4145761)
De Zutter gives us a clear glimpse of Obama’s radicalism. Obama is called “progressive,” of course, and is said to yearn for “massive economic change.” That could simply mean an end to widespread poverty, rather than social restructuring. Yet Obama is also described as holding “a worldview well beyond” his mother’s “New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism.” De Zutter lays out Obama’s ties to radical groups like Chicago Acorn, as Acorn’s lead organizer, Madeleine Talbott, is quoted affirming that: “Barack has proven himself among our members . . . we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.” In “Inside Obama’s Acorn” I explore Obama’s links to this radical group, and to Talbott, who practices the sort of intimidating and often illegal “direct action” Acorn is famous for. (For more on Talbott’s affinity for “direct action,” see “Where Do We Begin?”)
Read the writings, listen to their words, understand their intent and ye shall understand "Radical Socialism".
This is who Obama is.
These are the people who shaped the ideology Obama has today.

Oh yeah...Rezko is a shady crook.

[brien]

I don't have much of a problem with people attacking Obama on the issues. Some may even think he's too liberal, even though I'd personally hope he moved further to the left.

My brief for Obama is based on two main things: the positions he laid out in his latest book, and my confidence from observing him in action for the last year and half. He's given me confidence that he is actually a leader who's grown up enough to instill some vigor and hope in a tired electorate--and smart enough to deal with leaders of other nations on an intelligent basis.

I know that you as a libertarian dislike the entire two-party system, and if I were of a libertarian persuasion, I might feel the same way. But I think the two-party system is so integrally built into the American ideal that there's no way to change it without radically altering the way America works. One day soon, I will try to write a brief essay on why the two-party system is important, and how the parties can adjust to changing times and ideas. Remember, most of us liberals are as comitted to individual and civil rights as any libertarian, though we generally disagree on the role of government in trade and regulation.

Buck


This is all well and good, and I look forward to your two party agenda, but I was trying to address the issue in the OP that stated it was "conservatives" who were tying Obama to the Communist Party and other "unamerican" activities or groups.

First, I showed it was the Communist Party itself that was endorsing Obama, along with Castro, etal, and other sources cited in my first post. These groups are hardly "conservatives". Then, I followed that up with the reference to Mark Penn, a major strategist in the Clinton campaign, who urged Hillary to impune Obama on the "American" issue by urging her to look more "American" than Obama.

Here are Penn's own words:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign/2

Penn also left no doubt about where he stood on the question of a positive versus negative strategy. He made the rather astonishing suggestion to target Obama’s “lack of American roots”:


All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light.
Save it for 2050.


It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values. He told the people of NH yesterday he has a Kansas accent because his mother was from there. His mother lived in many states as far as we can tell—but this is an example of the nonsense he uses to cover this up.


How we could give some life to this contrast without turning negative:

Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century. And talk about the basic bargain as about the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child and that drive you today. Values of fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back.


Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy Fund. Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds

************************************************** *****************

Clinton ignored much of Penn's advice but she did attack Obama on these issues by portraying herself as more "American" than Obama. She did eventually use the "born in Middle America in the Middle of the Century" line he wrote for her.

So, the point here is that one doesn't have to look outside even your own party to see attacks on Obama that you have attributed to the "conservatives". Once again, this is the nature of campaigns and one needs to be mindful when throwing stones from glass houses .

[Buck Laser]

Interesting avatar you have, Buck.

Thanks, Tony. I inverted McCain because another poster also uses a McCain avatar, and I was confusing the mods. Some of them are a little easily confused, don't ya know.

[Buck Laser]

Ayers is a Radical and Bernardine Dohrn are radical socialists,
Saul Alinsky is a Radical Socialist,
<snippage>
Oh yeah...Rezko is a shady crook.
Oh, come on, Preserv. I thought you were smarter than that. You provide two sources, National Review Online and Newsmax, with no substantiating evidence about the other people whose names you mention. I can accept NRO as a respectable source, though I disagree with nearly all of their opinions, but I believe Newsmax is irredeemable trash, the last refuge of a scoundrel who can't find a reliable source.

In general, I don't have much of a problem with your calling them radical, because most of them were or in some cases still are. But you're just tossing names out there, hoping to create some guilt by association. Since you didn't see fit to document the names you tossed, let me discuss some without benefit of Google for he moment.

Ayers and Obama are associated with each other because the both serve on the same board of directors somewhere. Ayers is, I beleive, a full professor at a distinguished university.

Saul Alinsky was for all practical purposes the father of community organization, and taught a great many people the fundamentals of organizing to achieve gains from local power structures that had largely ignored him. In a way, he was the patron saint of the War on Poverty's Community Action Program, which I had the privilege of working in for seven years.

I'm not sure where Bernardine Dohrn is now, but she was certainly, like Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground back in the day. Incidentally, a fair number of those people have turned hard right activists now.

Don't know anything about ACORN, as I was mostly following the ballot manipulation in FL and OH.

I'm not gonna bother to comment on all the others, but I will note that at the time of his assassination, Malcolm X was in a process of evolution that involved moving away from his separationist views. Maybe you should read The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

And James Farrakhan, everybody's favorite hate object, is far from the firebrand revolutionist that wingers love to portray him as. While my wife was on staff at Northern Illinois University, she went to hear him speak twice. Her assessment was that he was saying pretty much the same sort of thing that Bill Cosby has been saying to black audiences, accompanied by applause from the majority white community.

You have failed entirely to speak to my main points, which are that Obama is in no way, shape or form a communist, as you and others have claimed before. Yes, he's been "associated" with some "radicals" if you get to define radical, but he's been associated with people all across the political spectrum. It's as if you say the third grade bully who used to beat me up died in prison, so I must be a criminal as well.

In the OP, I was demonstrating how European leaders have reacted to Obama, as new poster xLIBREx more or less dared me to do. In response, you've trotted out the same old names, but haven't even gotten CLOSE to Obama's real policies. From the insufficiency of your response, I have to assume that you really don't have anything but irrational fear. So go home, do some reading, and come back with something pertinent, Preserv.

[Buck Laser]

This is all well and good, and I look forward to your two party agenda, but I was trying to address the issue in the

OP that stated it was "conservatives" who were tying Obama to the Communist Party and other "unamerican" activities or groups.

First, I showed it was the Communist Party itself that was endorsing Obama, along with Castro, etal, and other sources cited in my first

post. These groups are hardly "conservatives". Then, I followed that up with the reference to Mark Penn, a major strategist in the

Clinton campaign, who urged Hillary to impune Obama on the "American" issue by urging her to look more "American" than Obama.
<snips>


First Brien, I appreciate the thoughtful and relevant response. I do wish conservatives had taken the time to respond as you have without just repeating the same tired old bullshit.

As to the endorsement of the CPUSA (Communist Party), I think that's about as relevant as an endorsement from the Prohibition Party. They've been utterly irrelevant to US politics for so long that it's really laughable.
Castro's "endorsement" is interesting to me, because just about everyone but the first wave of emigres from Cuba, the wealthy and powerful landowners, have realized for a very long time that our policies toward Cuba are outdated and irrelevant, retaining a Cold War flavor for no apparent reason other than the diligent efforts of the Cuba lobby.

I'm much more interested in the fact that major European leaders see him as offering a convincing hope that the US might abandon its inept and insane foreign policy for something rational and sane.

As a strong partisan for Obama, frankly I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to stuff from Clinton's camp, because her goal was for a long time the same as the republicans--to defeat Obama. Perhaps I should, but my interest and efforts (and my financial contributions) will be going to Obama over the next 90 days. I'm one of the millions of small contributors who've helped make his campaign something entirely unique in US history.

Quick note on Obama's "one man diversity squad:" I see this as a strong net positive for him, not an occasion for xenophobia. But I'm not in the least surprised that the opposition is using it. They're desperate to find something to counteract the enthusiasm Obama generates in his campaign, and like Clinton's badly managed effort, they'll clutch at any straw.

I will be marshaling my thoughts on the two party system over the next few days. I want to do it without benefit of documentation from current news stories and such, because the argument is based more on philosophical and historical concepts than current political news.

[Milton Bradley]

I'm much more interested in the fact that major European leaders see him as offering a convincing hope that the US might abandon its inept and insane foreign policy for something rational and sane.


Yeah, that's something that is going to be accomplished by electing yet another Democrat, or Republican.


Lord knows, they aren't beholden to any corporate interests.


:sick:

[preservanation]

Yeah...Buck.
What he said.
Except the not electing Obama part...
That's going to happen.

[IndieVisible]

Buck your avatar is upside down. If you must use the same avatar and want to distinguish yourself from the other person how about adding a mustash on McCain. This is very annoying seeing a upside down avatar and displays lack of imagination IMHO. Not a insult, friendly criticism. Now fix it :)

[preservanation]

how about adding a mustash on McCain. :)How about adding a pair...?
Oh, wait...he's been growing those on his own lately.

[Buck Laser]

Buck your avatar is upside down. If you must use the same avatar and want to distinguish yourself from the other person how about adding a mustash on McCain. This is very annoying seeing a upside down avatar and displays lack of imagination IMHO. Not a insult, friendly criticism. Now fix it :)
Actually, that's a bit OT for what I consider to be a serious thread, especially since there already is one about my avatar.

[brien]

I somewhat agree with everything you note in your response to me. As for the enthusiasm abroad, I rather think it is an over reaction to a vacuous candiate because George Bush has been such a disaster. They can't possibly know Obama because we here in the US don't know Obama, except for what he says he is in his campaign. His voting record is his best source of insight into his politics, and if you examine it closely, it is rather sparse in the last year, and very, very left, in his freshman and sophomore years in the Senate. Perhaps this is why it appeals to the Europeans.

It is my opinion that those who vote for Obama are voting for the proverbial "pig in a poke" because he is inexperienced in executive matters and certainly in foreign affairs. He barely has a voting record in the Senate. I think he needs much more time and experience in government before he should be considered seriously for the top job in the US. But hey, apparently there are many, many people who are placing their trust in him, and all I can say about that is, I hope they are right, otherwise this country is in for a very rude awakening. And if he does everything he promises, it will probably bankrupt the country. So, either way I see it as a lose, lose proposition. There are times I close my eyes, listen to him, and he reminds me of Santa Claus with his promises of everything to everyone..

Obviously I do not support him, but I realize I will have to live with the decision of the US voters, as they will also.

For those who wish to see for themselves, here is his voting record:

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/

[Buck Laser]

How about adding a pair...?
Oh, wait...he's been growing those on his own lately.
Another OT statement, preserv.

[Wndrtch]

It not just the "conservatives" there Buck, you missed this story:


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/communist-party-backs-obama-for-prez

An editorial from the CPUSA:


(Click to enlarge.)

Eye on the Prize
7/15/2008

Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s “shift to the center.” (Right-wingers are happy to join them, suggesting Obama is a “flip-flopper.”) It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees. But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority.

A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.

This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.

Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”

If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.

The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.

One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.

Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.

That’s right. The Communist Party Of The United States wants to elect Barack Hussein Obama as our President.

Why do you think that is?

And why has their endorsement been so studiously ignored by our watchdog media?

(Imagine if a similarly storied ultra-right lunatics had endorsed John McCain? Though, of course, there is no group like that on the right.)

Still, won’t it be pleasant finally to have a President that the same hard-line Communists who supported Joseph Stalin can support?

This is the kind of “unity” Mr. Obama will bring us.

Related Articles:

More On Obama And Acorn - 2 Video Clips
The Forces Behind Obama: Soros And Acorn
Obama Is Endorsed By A Former Klansman
John Edwards 'Gets Behind' Obama - Finally
Obama Pal Ayers Is Still A Dangerous Radical
Michael Moore: Vote Twice For Obama In PA
New Black Panther Party Supports Obama?
Rev Wright Erased From Obama's Website
Farrakhan: Obama Is The Hope Of The World
Shocker: MoveOn (Soros) Endorses Obama
Shocker: Castro 'Endorses' Clinton-Obama
Mrs Obama: Moral Compass Beats Experience
Corn Denounced Today's Rally Organizers


************************************************** ******************

I realize that one has no control over who endorses Obama, but I suppose there are certain groups in the country, and in the world, who would rather see Obama lead this country. But upon closer inspection, it is interesting to see who they are, and try to understand why they would support him, over any other candidate. I don't think it is just conservatives who are interested in who supports Obama, but perhaps some people don't really want to know who, besides themselves, support Obama and what they all have in common. Kind of like the yellow-flowered climber Hibbertia that looks so beautiful but once someone smells it, boy does it stink. Good post there Buck.

You forgot Hamass.

[Buck Laser]

You forgot Hamass.
I s'pose you mean Hamas? Or is there another organization I'm not familiar with? If it IS Hamas, where did you find out they were communists?

[Osborn F. Enready]

I don't think Obama is a communist, he just acts like one, thinks like one, and has the same visions many communists do..... ;)

Hmmmm looks like a duck, swims like a duck.... this could be a duck.

[Buck Laser]

I don't think Obama is a communist, he just acts like one, thinks like one, and has the same visions many communists do..... ;)

Hmmmm looks like a duck, swims like a duck.... this could be a duck.
Sorry Os, but I really don't think you have much of an idea about what a communist is. I'd guess you're calling him a communist because he favors some government-sponsored programs you don't like. Is that it? Is he calling for the masses to rise up and throw off the chains of the oppresors? Is he calling for armed revolution against the power elite? Is he planning to conduct guerrilla warfare?

I keep hearing this shit about him being a communist, but in the end it always seems to come down to a situation where someone doesn't like him, and "communist" is the worst thing they can think of to call him. Would you deny that?

[Osborn F. Enready]

I call him what he is.... anti-constitution, anti-individual rights.

He shares many values of communists, but no, he is not "a communist".

[Buck Laser]

I call him what he is.... anti-constitution, anti-individual rights.

He shares many values of communists, but no, he is not "a communist".

So how is he "anti-constitution" or "anti-individual rights?" I do not believe that about Obama. I believe you are wrong. This is why conversations with you never go anywhere. You get on your stump and proclaim your "truths," while the rest of us have to go "Huh?"

And if we don't agree with you, you call us "sheeple." Not exactly a way to win friends.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
So how is he "anti-constitution" or "anti-individual rights?"

How many times are you going to ask the same question?!?

Brien provided a nice list for the Obama supporters a while ago, perhaps I will go dig it out since you don't remember it.

He is anti-2nd amendment, proven by his stance on the DC gun ban, which he has of course now withdrawn.

He is anti-voting rights, since he doesn't welcome third parties to debate or address them as valid candidates, as well as siding with republicans to keep them out of debates.

He is anti-capitalist, shown in every example of his "hope for change" campaign, up to and including universal healthcare, etc.

I could go on and on Buck, but its clear you never listened to those points before, so what has changed now?

Buck said:
I do not believe that about Obama. I believe you are wrong.

Believe in one hand, prove in the other. Tell me which fills up faster.

Buck said:
This is why conversations with you never go anywhere. You get on your stump and proclaim your "truths," while the rest of us have to go "Huh?"

That because you never admit the facts.

Do you deny Obama is anti-gun rights? Based on which speech in which he spoke from which angle, since he has spoken from all of them depending on the crowd he is addressing?

Buck said:
And if we don't agree with you, you call us "sheeple." Not exactly a way to win friends.

I am not in this to make friends with everyone Buck, only those that share my values.

I can't befriend people seeking my destruction, and Obama supporters, much like Obama, seem to be seeking my destruction, much like the McCain posse.

[NIOSA]

And while they are at it how about explaining how he can be both a Communist and a Muslim extremist at the same time.

Hitler was a Catholic, that didn't stop him from killing & torturing.