The Current's cover story this week is an essay by activist Tom Hayden about how Barack Obama will cause and affect the progressive movement in America — and how Obama alone is not enough to create positive social change.

For the cover, I decided to subvert the typical red-white-and-blue-spangled look of most election coverage in favor of warm golds (a nod to Obama's golden image) and other party-neutral colors. I wanted to visually juxtapose Obama the Myth and Obama the Man, and where those two converge. I found it interesting that Hayden suggests that, despite his historic candidacy (which is progressive at its core), Obama will invariably disappoint many liberal progressives since he will move closer to the center as the campaign rolls on. Thus, Obama's larger than life shadow isn't grinning optimistically, but rather more stoic and reserved, with a hint of uncertainty (it's subtle, but it's there ... I think).

Anyway, read the article, it's pretty interesting. This week's cover in its completed form below (and check the lower left for some Brent Evans/John Cougar sleevefacing — more to come on that soon).

Where, oh, where do we start? The beginning is always a good place, is it not?

On June 23, 2008, RezkoWatch reposted the April 28, 2008, article about Sen. Obama's ultra-leftist backers, in which RW said of Carl Davidson:

Marilyn Katz, a former aide to Mayor Harold Washington and now a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)'s bid for the presidential nomination, "oversaw security for Students for a Democratic Society, a radical group at the eye of the Chicago protests" during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. [...]

Katz and former SDS president Carl Davidson, "two perennially engaged ’60s veterans and ex-SDS members", Jeff Epton wrote December 15, 2003, in In These Times, were "key organizers" of the October 2, 2002, anti-war demonstration. Originating as Chicagoans Against War with Iraq (CAWI), by December 2003 CAWI had morphed into Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. Davidson explained, "as the war transformed from invasion to occupation, CAWI activists managed to avoid splits over sectarian and strategic differences, and committed to stay together and move from 'protest to politics'."

In 2005, Katz and Davidson co-authored Stopping War, Seeking Justice. Davidson is "now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA," Cliff Kincaid wrote February 18, 2008, for Accuracy in Media.

Davidson is also an Obama supporter, now heading up a group called Progressives for Obama. On his personal blog Keep On Keepin' On, Davidson recently defended Sen. Obama's comments about small town people being bitter.

When RW reposted the same article on June 28, 2008, Carl Davidson submitted a comment, which RW added to the main article as an update. Our apologies in advance for the length, but please read it all; the reason will become obvious.

This article is silly, especially to anyone who knows anything about Chicago politics and its left wing.

I've been involved in this scene for decades, and know it as well as anyone, even though I recently moved back to my home town.

Take out the spin phrases about how 'connected' and 'influential' we 1960s new lefties are, and there's not much here. At most it shows we've been active in a number of peace and justice issues, which is not news to another, unless you thought we'd all put on ties and join corporate America after, say, 1980.

I'm often touted as Obama's 'Marxist Mentor,' which is a joke. Obama is a decent liberal out of the Alinksky tradition of community organizers. Everyone knows there's nothing Marxist about Alinsky. I'm simply an acquaintance of Obama, meeting him three times for a few minutes over 15 years. If he even remembers my name, it's as the guy who bugged him, as state senator, to spend more money on afterschool programs. But you'd never know it from the breathless 'exposes' on the right wing of the net.

Chicago does have some tough, independent liberals, going back a long time, as well as a strong Black nationalist and civil rights movement. That's funny part about this piece. It's so intent on its imaginary players, that it completely misses the real players.

Harold Washington's movement, for instance, was launched by Black nationalists and independent Black Democrats, hardly 'connected' to the socialist left. Obama really does have mentors, but certainly not me or an old CP Black poet who he knew as a kid. It's two very tough, accomplished, influential and smart Black liberal women, Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice.

But you don't have a clue here. Your 'expose' is so determined to chase Marxist bogey men, that you throw sand in your readers eyes about what's really happening.

I'm trying to get people to vote for Obama, but certainly not because he's a socialist. He's not even close, or even a completely consistent progressive.

Obama is a 'high road' industrial policy capitalist and multipolar globalist--just read his Cooper Union speech a while back. Clinton is a garden-variety corporate liberal capitalist, which got her on the board of Walmart for years. And McCain is a US hegemonist and an unreconstructed neoliberal capitalist--'state all evil, market all good'--that kind that says 'We're in business to make money, not steel, so we'll gut these plants and speculate in oil futures, and the workers and towns be damned.' In other words, the ones who 'cut taxes' by putting everything on the China Visa card and got us into this mess.

Actually, truth be told, Obama's brand of capitalism is best for productive businesses, as opposed to speculators, and does least harm to the working class. That doesn't mean we can't press him to be better at it, as in promoting and building infrastructure for new green businesses and green jobs for youth. All those solar panels and wave and wind turbines have to be built somewhere by someone.

But my work with 'Progressives for Obama' (http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com) is completely independent of his campaign. We want it that way, mainly so we can criticize him. And we don't care if he 'distances' himself from us, either, because it's really not about us. We don't ever actually endorse him or his platform. We simply say he's the 'best option,' and that we'll have to continue our movements no matter who is in the White House.

In any case, a major change is taking place in our country. we're hopeful, especially about a chance to end the horrible war in Iraq, but the future is still open, not under anyone's thumb.

So, yesterday, RBO posted the article "That was then, this is now" in which Davidson's name was cited.

In the overnight inbox, on August 10, 2008, arrived the following comment from Davidson:

This crap is just silly.

Yes, I met Obama in 1995, along with some ACORN ladies, for less than an hour. I later lobbied him to spend some state money on learning centers with computers for inner city kids, which he did. I was one of several inviting him to speak at our first antiwar rally, but never talked to him that day. A little later, I said hello to him at a fundraiser for his senate race for two minutes.

That [is] the complete total of my 'connections'.

I'm an 'acquaintance,' not a 'friend' and if he even remembers my name at all, it's because of bugging him to spend money on the learning centers.

Today I run 'Progressives for Obama', a web site completely independent of him. We distance ourselves from him, and he can do likewise. Technically, we don't even endorse him; we simply say he's our 'best option.' So there's no need for him to reject what's not there. We do want people to vote for him, mainly as a way to end this horrible, unjust and stupid war. But we criticize him on many things all the time

But if you look out there in rightwing cyberspace, I'm the dreaded 'terrorist' and 'Communist Mentor' responsible for shaping the 'Marxist Obama.' I kid you not.

And this crap gets bounced around as 'Research' and 'Fox-Hannity truth.' Spare me. These guys have such tiny brains that they wouldn't know serious research or polemic if they saw it.

With my trusty Google, and six degrees of separation, I can show 'connections' between these authors and advocates of Biblical slavery and worse, and it would mean just as much.

What this crew really wants to do is 'Willie Hortonize' the entire 1960s new left, which number in the millions, and 'demonize' them to shut them up.

They doesn't [sic] even bother to ask the most interesting questions. Why is Bill Ayers a widely respected educator and school reformer, acknowledged and defended by even Mayor Daley, despite his over-the-top politics of 40 years ago? The irony is that none of these guys, including me, could give a hoot if Obama 'throws them under the bus,' because it's not about us, and never has been. Here, we're only scary, carefully made-up cartoons, with little connection with who we really are, designed to scare gullible people, to play all of you as suckers, and some of you are falling for it.

I've been part of the real Chicago left for decades, and believe me, Obama has never been part of it. He's a decent reformist liberal with ideas far removed from socialism or Marxism.

Obama is a 'high road' industrial policy capitalist and multipolar globalist--just read his Cooper Union speech a while back. Clinton is a garden-variety corporate liberal capitalist, which got her on the board of Walmart for years. And McCain is a US hegemonist and an unreconstructed neoliberal capitalist--'state all evil, market all good'--that kind that says 'We're in business to make money, not steel, so we'll gut these plants and speculate in oil futures, and the workers and towns be damned.' In other words, the ones who 'cut taxes' by putting everything on the China Visa card and got us into this mess.

Actually, truth be told, Obama's brand of capitalism is best for productive businesses, as opposed to many speculators, and does least harm to the working class. That doesn't mean we can't press him to be better at it, as in promoting and building infrastructure for new green businesses and green jobs for youth. All those solar panels and wave and wind turbines have to be built somewhere by someone.

If you want to criticize him, all this stuff is fair game, that is, if you want to get out of the nasty-name calling of the kindergarten sandbox and learn enough to play with the big kids, let alone the grownups.

The funny thing is Obama has real mentors that you completely ignore. Two very talented, tough and accomplished liberal Black women, Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice. But since you can't make and anti-Communist cartoon out of them, you ignore them in the interest of throwing a little red meat to the poeople you have pegged as suckers. Don't be surprised when quite a few see through how you're trying to manipulate them.

Whew! Yes. It IS a lot of reading. But did you notice that Davidson has repeated or rephrased several of the same talking points and concepts? So much for great thinkers!

Lest you think that this is the end, it is not.

Blogger Ridgeliner, who cited an excerpt from the "That was then, this is now" post on August 9, 2008, also received a lengthy comment from Davidson, which you can read in its entirety here.

The narrative remains pretty much the same until the last two paragraphs. In the next to last paragraph, following Jarrett's and Rice's names, Davidson writes in the Ridgeliner comment:

... but since you can make a red-baiting cartoon out of them, they go down you [sic] memory hole. Fortunately, even people on the right don't like being played for suckers with your kind of manipulations, and the ripples aren't going very far.

A minor change, but the final paragraph is the most interesting—and totally uncalled-for—in which Davidson clearly communicates a threat to Ridgeliner:

But watch out, since some enterprising soul—not me, since I'm opposed to it—may turn the tables and start finding 'your connections'.

Note: In Davidson's comment to RBO he referred to Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice as "Two very talented, tough and accomplished liberal Black women"; in his comment to Ridgeliner, he referred to them as African Americans. Why?

Speaking of "connections", let's just see just how honest Davidson has been in writing about his connections, including the true extent of his relationship with Sen. Obama.

Profile: Carl Davidson

First, RBO looked Davidson up at Discover the Networks, which has a well-linked profile.

RBO then looked to occasional RBO poster Dr. Stephen Diamond, who wrote May 27, 2008, in his blog Global Labor and Politics, about Davidson's group, Progressives for Obama:

Among the leaders of "Progressives for Obama" (or P-for-O) are Maoist Bill Fletcher and Fidelista Carl Davidson. Davidson, like [Tom Hayden, one of the leaders of the street demonstrations that tore apart the Democrats in 1968 (with a little help from the rioting Chicago police) and a co-founder of P-for-O,] is ex-SDS as is Davidson's Chicago fellow anti-war activist, Marilyn Katz, who is an advisor to Obama as well as a big fundraiser. Pictured above are two of the P-for-O's favorite world leaders of the Latin American authoritarian left: Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, who were pictured on their website recently in support of Obama's widely ridiculed call for dialogue with dictators.

On January 19, 2008, Trevor Loudon at New Zeal blog wrote about Davidson as "Obama-phile 4".

He is former member of the '60s radical group Students for a Democratic Society (which spawned the terrorist Weather Underground) and spent many years working in various Maoist organisations.

Around 1992 Davidson joined hundreds of former Maoists, Trotskyists and about a third of the Communist Party USA in a new Marxist coalition-the Committees of Correspondence.

Davidson remains a leading member of this organisation, now knowns as the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

Davidson serves on the steering committee of the communist dominated US peace umbrella organisation, United for Peace & Justice and is co-chair of the equally radical Chicagoans Against War & Injustice.

He is also a major US advocate of radical cyber-activism.

In the mid '90s Davidson played a key role in the Chicago branch of the New Party.

This was a Marxist led political coalition designed to endorse and elect leftist public officials. The bulk of its members came from CoC, the equally radical Democratic Socialists of America and the US's largest militant left grass-roots organisation, ACORN.

It was through the New Party that Davidson first met the aspiring Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama.

Davidson was an ardent supporter of Obama for several years and helped organise the famous peace rally in Chicago in where Obama pinned his colours to the anti-Iraq war cause.

Now, exactly what was that that Davidson wrote in his comment about how much "connection" he had had with Obama? Oh, yes, here it is:

Yes, I met Obama in 1995, along with some ACORN ladies, for less than an hour. I later lobbied him to spend some state money on learning centers with computers for inner city kids, which he did. I was one of several inviting him to speak at our first antiwar rally, but never talked to him that day. A little later, I said hello to him at a fundraiser for his senate race for two minutes.

That [is] the complete total of my 'connections'.

Maybe. Maybe not.

In January 2007, Davidson wrote the following about knowing Obama in 1996:

I'm from Chicago, too, and known Obama from the time he came to the New Party to get our endorsement for his first race ever. I've been in his home, and as an IL legislator, he's helped or community technology movement a number of times. He said all the right things to the ACORN and New Party folks, and we endorsed him, but I noticed too, that he seemed to measure every answer to questions put to him several tmes before coming out with it.

And then, of course, we have the 2002 Chicago anti-war rally that Davidson coordinated with Marilyn Katz.

Just in case you need to see it one more time, Davidson commented at Loudon's blog, beginning with "Rather silly to focus on me this way. If Obama even remembers my name, it's as the guy who lobbied him to spend more money on afterschool programs in poor neighbors." You can read the rest for yourself, but by now you should recognize it as Davidson's worn out boilerplate response.

So what do we make of all this?

First of all, there can be no question of Davidson's biography, the details of which are readily available on the internet. He can refute them all he likes but he cannot change the historical record.

Second, the lengths to which Davidson has gone in his comments on several blogs are excessive compared to the issues to which he responds.

Regular Under 16 coach Dermott Drummy took charge for this game, and lined up with a shape that was slightly familiar to Chelsea, but instead of resembling the typical 4-3-3, it was more of a 4-4-2. Jan Sebek made a long-awaited return in goal, whilst Vincenzo Camilleri partnered Jack Saville at centre-back. Conor Clifford captained the team alongside Jordan Hibbert in central midfield, and Jordan Tabor and Frank Nouble flanked Fabio Borini and Uruguayan trialist striker Jhon Pirez.

QPR's team looked a little on the short side but well organised and confident, and pressed Chelsea early, causing breakdowns in their midfield play, and forcing them to hit longer balls to a quiet Pires. The Blues weren't looking impressive and fell behind after just ten minutes to Rangers' first chance. Some fantastic footwork in the box from Andrew Perring drew Sebek out, and as the ball flashed across him he could only watch as it was turned in for the opener by Danny Fernandez.

After the goal, the Hoops sat back a bit and tried to play on the break, but were caught by a well-operated offside trap at the back by the hosts. Chelsea came forward with more confidence and had their first attempt of note when Clifford drove high and rising from 30 yards. Nouble had a weak appeal for a penalty turned down, and Pirez a looping header saved easily by Elkins. The closest they came to a goal before the break was a freak incident - Tabor's cross was sliced and appeared to be heading over the bar, but instead landed on it, but fell to safety in the form of a QPR shirt.

Two changes followed at the break for Chelsea (Rangers having made numerous during the first half), with Aldi Haxia replacing Sebek in goal, and Tom Hayden coming on for the disappointing Pirez. The latter switch allowed Nikki Ahmed to push into a more advanced position, and Nouble into attack alongside Borini. The Blues immediately began to make gains along the right side, with Hayden and Ahmed keen to press and force the issue.

Chances weren't really coming though, and only a Borini free kick which went comfortably over caused any slight worry for the visitors. At the other end, Chelsea were caught on the break and found some luck as Aaron Waters' shot beat Haxia but rebounded off the post into his arms. More changes followed, with Rohan Ince and Milan Lalkovic making the step up from the Under 16s and given a chance at this level (both are still Under 16 eligible for this season).

The changes had the desired effect, and with just under 20 minutes remaining Chelsea finally got level. Some fine dribbling from Ahmed took him into the area, and although his fierce shot was saved, it was across the goalkeeper, and it allowed Hibbert to prod home from a matter of yards. After a much improved second half, the goal was deserved, but the parity was shortlived.

The Blues still had the pressure, but tiring legs at the back and Camilleri having gone off (with Ince now at centre-back) allowed holes to open, and the pacy visiting counter-attack paid dividends with ten minutes left. Ince couldn't overcome Fernandez in a one on one battle and Haxia was beaten just inside his near post, with a possible deflection as Ince made a desperate tackle. The goal could easily have deflated a team not at 100% match fitness yet, but with more changes including the re-introduction of Clifford and latterly Nouble, they found a second wind and another equaliser.

The catalyst this time was Lalkovic. Sporting bright orange boots to match his bright spiky hair, he bore more than a passing resemblance to his fellow Slovakian teammate Miroslav Stoch, and had a similar impact. His tricky and quick dribbling along the right hand side inside the last five minutes was causing all sorts of problems, and it proved ultimately too much. From inside the box his cutback was dangerous, and forced a QPR defender to turn the ball past his own keeper from close range.

The drama was only just beginning to unfold though. With the game creeping into stoppage time, Lalkovic again went down the right, freed by a perfect pass from Ahmed. His first time cross to the near post was absolutely perfect and Nouble latched onto it with a fierce finish for what appeared to be the most dramatic of winners. The big forward took the goal brilliantly, showing instinct and poise when most needed. Unfortunately, this game was to have yet another swing, as QPR went straight down the other end, got in behind again, and scored an equaliser of their own with the very last touch of the match through Javonne Malloy.

So the pre-season opens in exciting fashion for the Under 18s, who now go on to face Brighton & Hove Albion at Cobham next Saturday, August 2nd. Positives to take from today are plentiful, with many players putting in a good performance and showing impressive fitness levels. Under the watching eye of Carlos Pracidelli, who has not joined Chelsea's senior staff in Asia, Nikki Ahmed, Jordan Hibbert, and Fabio Borini played very well, as did Nouble. Milan Lalkovic provided a dynamic directness which could see him step into the Under 18s on a regular basis, and Billy-Joe King looked as good as he ever has at left back. It's also very nice to see the return of Jan Sebek in goal after a troubled first year at the club.

Selected pictures from the game can be viewed here

Team: Sebek (Haxia 45), Ahmed, Camilleri (Clifford 75), Saville (Tabor 85), King, Clifford © (Ince 65), Hibbert, Tabor (Lalkovic 70), Nouble, Borini, Pirez (Hayden 45)
(some substitutes may be missing due to nature of rolling subs used)

Goals: Hibbert 73, Own Goal 88, Nouble 90

Secret US-Iraq ‘Status of Forces’ Agreement Would Preserve Human
Rights Violations, Torture Policies in Iraq

by Tom Hayden

The Bush-Cheney administration is engaged in secret talks with their Iraqi counterparts to craft a binding executive agreement renewing current US military and detention policies when the United Nations authorization expires this December. The “status of forces” proposal is bogged down in disputes between the Pentagon and key Iraqi factions, and faces potential sharp questions in the US Congress in the coming weeks.

Assuming the administration has its way, which is by no means certain, the agreement between the two executive branches will preserve the right of US forces to initiate unilateral military action and continue rounding up tens of thousands of Iraqis in abusive preventive detention facilities where human rights are violated routinely.

Senators including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama oppose any such bilateral executive agreement without Senate hearings and concurrence. House critics like Rep. Bill Delahunt and Jim McGovern already are engaged in hearings on the proposed agreement. House Judiciary Chair John Conyers also has questioned the constitutionality of the measure.

At stake for the anti-war movement and the progressive blogosphere is whether the current administration can bind the next president to its current Iraq policies.

In a June 13 letter to the United Nations Security Council, Human Rights Watch [HRW] called for a rejection of the American rationale for preventive detention. In legal terms, the US currently claims the right of internment “for imperative reasons of security.” But with the declared end of “belligerent occupation” in 2004, HRW argues, the Iraq war is a conflict where Article 3 of the Geneva convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should apply to the treatment of all detainees and prisoners. Those protocols require that “all persons arrested be brought promptly before a judge; have access to legal counsel and family members; be charged with a cognizable criminal offense and receive a prompt fair trial meeting international fair trial standards.” Those standards are systematically violated in Iraq [and Afghanistan] where as many as 100,000 detainees are held without charges, without lawyers, and without an independent judicial process, in life-threatening conditions. American taxpayers spent more than $20 billion during the past five years supporting the repressive Iraqi police and prison apparatus.

In careful language, the HRW letter goes on to “recognize the problem of torture and other mistreatment in Iraqi detention facilities. International law prohibits the transfer of individuals to the custody of a state where there are substantial grounds for believing they are in danger of being tortured.” That’s the prohibition which the proposed “status of forces” agreement attempts to circumvent.

Whether HRW can achieve enforcement of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and Afghanistan is doubtful since their appeals are to the very authorities who installed the sectarian, Shi’a-controlled governing coalition in Baghdad complete with brutal militias and secret prisons. The complicity of the US was revealed in a 2004 article by a top counterinsurgency adviser to the US Command urging a “global Phoenix program” as the solution to global jihad. First implemented in South Vietnam, that is the program now being carried out in Baghdad with little questioning by the American media.

The UN Security Counsel is unlikely to intervene on its own against the proposed “status of forces” language. But increased rumblings in the Iraqi parliament and the US Congress, under pressure from human rights, clergy and anti-war groups, could become a tipping point revealing the heart of darkness the Iraqi and Afghani gulags have become.

US law [the Leahy Amendment, 1997] already prohibits any assistance to military or police entities known to be human rights violators. Key Congressional staff are preparing official letters inquiring why the Leahy Amendment doesn’t apply to Iraq. The Center for American Progress and the recently-formed Campaign Against Torture in Iraq and Afghanistan have demanded the Leahy Amendment be implemented.

That would undermine the remaining authority of the al-Maliki regime in Baghdad and, by threatening to de-fund official repression, force an ultimate choice on Baghdad and Washington. Ending preventive detention policies, holding provincial elections as promised, while keeping US troops in a holding pattern, might well bring about a legitimate Iraqi government that would insist on a timetable for US withdrawal. It may be that or a new generation of suicide bombers born in detention camps.

Tom Hayden is a former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His books include The Port Huron Statement [new edition], Street Wars and The Zapatista Reader. For more information, go to www.stopfundingtorture.com

Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

For many of those who are 40 and older, 1968 stands out as an emblematic year for the transnational politics of dissent, for the development of countercultures and various avant gardes, for the emergence of non-class social movements, and the appearance of what some call the "revolution of the forgotten peoples" in the social sciences which turned more of their attention to African Americans, native peoples, women, gays, and a host of non-state actors. In almost every continent something happened that was tumultuous: Black Power, Red Power, Flower Power, and the anti-war movement in the United States; the Tet Offensive in Vietnam that marked a turnaround and the impending defeat of a superpower, falling into economic disarray and a hard bitten view of itself thereafter. At my university, Concordia, there were so-called "Black power riots" in the very building in which my office is located, which had international consequences that led to the Black Power Revolution of 1970 in Trinidad and Tobago, and one of the Concordia leaders, Rosie Douglas, would end up becoming the Prime Minister of Dominica. Admittedly, most of the discussions of 1968 focus almost exclusively on movements in Europe.

Previously I had commented on this blog that we seem to be living through a rewind of 1968, which in many ways misses out on what is distinctive about where we are 40 years later, what the alignment of social forces looks like, and what matters most on both orthodox and heterodox political agendas. A number of recent articles, books, and symposia have appeared seeking to assess the legacies of 1968, from a 2008 standpoint, and the assessments are, as can be expected, mixed. The points that are raised are very interesting nonetheless. This post comes in three parts below.

1. THE CUNNING OF HISTORY?

Fred Halliday, writing in Open Democracy in an article titled "1968: the global legacy" (13 June, 2008), presents us with the perspective of someone who was active and inspired by the global movements of protest and new movements in art, music, and public debate, but was nevertheless a failure in transformational terms. He notes that in no western European country, which in many analyses is the centre of what Wallerstein called the World Revolution of 1968, were the politics modified. Not only that, there was a right wing shift in Britain and France. If anything, the legacy of 1968 was an ambiguous one, he argues. Halliday is not militating against the ideas, perspectives and movements that marked 1968, rather he wishes to see more sober evaluations of its consequences: "The events were indeed extraordinary, and remain indelible. What is wrong in the memorialisation is the fetishism of the moment, and associated loss of perspective and overall judgment, which leads to three kinds of distortion of focus."

The first of these distortions caused by celebrations of 1968 was what he claims was the absence of feminism, coming only with second-generation feminism of 1969. When Halliday says 1968, he means to be very precise and calendrical about it, whereas others might see it as more of an emblematic, umbrella-like period that encompasses 1969 for certain. Nor is it universally true that feminism was absent from the movements of 1968. Halliday sees the second distortion coming in the indulgence of violence by certain sectors, whether urban guerrilla warfare or what would later be called terrorism. Finally, the third distortion in his view is the absence of "political realism" -- "the ability to match aspiration and imagination with a cool assessment of the balance of existing political forces."

Rather than a "world revolution," Halliday argues, 1968 ought to be seen as the start of an international/ "tricontinental" counterrevolution (I am not sure why these two cannot go together, since the latter seems to be premised on the former). Halliday takes us through a series of deadly anti-revolutionary transformations that occurred across the globe in the period, especially in the Soviet bloc and in China, and notes that the results led to the collapse of socialism as a viable alternative:

It is clear in retrospect that 1968 did not bury European capitalist democracy or American imperialism. It did, however, set in train the death and burial of the Russian and Chinese revolutions and of communism in western Europe. A fine example, indeed, of the cunning of history.

Unfortunately, what Halliday does not do is to present us with reasons why others instead celebrate 1968, and the transformations that they can point to. Moreover, many even on the left would not mourn the passing of either Soviet socialism or China's last serious attempt to claim that its revolution was a communist one.

•••••••

2. THE FUTURE OF 1968

A book edited by Martin Klimke and Joachim Scharloth, 1968 in Europe: A History of Protest and Activism, 1956-1977 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008) presents a range of assessments that, while not the opposite of Halliday's, certainly present different angles of understanding. As the subtitle of the book suggests, 1968 stands not for a year of events but for two decades of events.

In the introduction, the editors begin by highlighting the degree to which students were focused on by the mass media as agents of protest, some even referring to a "student class" emerging that echoed the emergence of the nineteenth century working class in Europe. The protesters emphasized what they rightly saw as the lack of participatory democracy in their societies and their growing alienation from their societies. Capitalism was the target of critiques of authoritarianism and technocracy. Universities were to become the centres of revolutionary protest -- indeed, in my own memories of the transformation of the University of Rome's campus, into professor-less open air classes, mural paintings, and wine fueled meetings of communist youth, these were not the kind of shopping mall environments of today. The Vietnam war weighed heavily worldwide, and inspired revolutionary movements across the globe, not to mention celebratory songs, poems, novels, paintings, etc. Interestingly, while today's Iraq war has been protested across the globe, in virtually every country, there seems to be far less of the romance surrounding these insurgents -- no Jane Fondas ready to pose in photographs with them. Dictatorship was also clearly within the sights of protesters, whether Soviet-aligned regimes in the eastern half of the continent, or the military dictatorships of Portugal, Spain, and Greece.

For the editors of this volume one of the most outstanding features of "1968" (which they place in quotes), was that, "it transgressed the ideological fronts of the Cold War." The focus of their volume is on the transnational dimensions of "1968."

The roots of the movements associated with 1968 are to be found in what the editors calls the "long 1960s." As they say, "1968" stands as a metaphor (whereas for Halliday, it was a single year) for a history beginning with the Hungarian revolt of 1956 and the climax of political violence in Germany and Italy in 1977. Part of this transformation has to do with the emergence of the transnational New Left and the international peace movement. There was a departure from Marxist orthodoxy and its focus on the working class. Nonetheless, capitalism, materialism, and apathy were still targeted by these new movements.

Also of especial interest is the volume's discussion of counterculture. As the editors encapsulate it:

The youths' belief that they were more sentient than their parents' generation, and the hope of building a new society founded on tenderness met with the search for the "new man" in psychedelic music and drug experiences, in "free" sexuality, and in new forms of living and communication. The synaesthetic nature of rock music served as the colorful display and global transmitter of these new symbolic forms of living and communication. Portraits of musicians like Jimi Hendrix promised the same freedom as the images of Che Guevara or Ho Chi Minh, the only difference being that their freedom could be gained in the here and now. Meanwhile, these new symbolic forms of living and communication often provoked conflicts with both conservative elements in societies and state authorities and thus acquired a political dimension. Concerts by the Rolling Stones or Jimmie Hendrix often ended in outbreaks of violence.

The editors assert that, "nobody today seriously doubts that European societies were fundamentally transformed as a result of the events of 1968" -- even if we just finished reading Halliday to the contrary. As they argue, 1968 has had many afterlives and has been virtually canonized in popular memory, at least in Europe if not elsewhere. Let's not forget that a sizable portion of our current population lived through, and often took part in the events of 1968. Finally, as the editors remind us, Hannah Arendt (whose work will also be discussed on this blog) once wrote that "the children of the next century will once learn about 1968 the way we learned about 1848."

One of those youth was Tom Hayden. In a chapter titled, "The Future of 1968's 'Restless Youth'" recounts how he came to be involved:

I was 27 years old as the year 1968 unfolded. When the decade began, I was the first in my family to attend a university, and my non-conformist instincts led me to the campus paper and the sociology department at the University of Michigan. While pursuing an institutional career, I was a follower of Jack Kerouac as well, whose On The Road was published in my senior year, 1957. During that same year, black high school students integrated a high school in Bill Clinton's Little Rock, Arkansas, amidst beatings, insults and federal military protection. Two years later, after I directly encountered black students risking their lives in the South, I became a committed activist.

Incidentally, he also outlines the extent to which the Johnson administration was worried by student protest movements and plans for spying on American students. Tom Hayden wonders why the CIA should have concerned itself -- when he helped draft the 1962 manifesto of Students for a Democratic Society, he says it was "hardly the Communist Manifesto" and more of a "statement of middle class anxiety." The main foci of his concern were racism and the nuclear arms race. As he says in the piece, their prophets were not Marx and Lenin, but John Dewey, C. Wright Mills, and J.D. Salinger.

Hayden is not euphoric, even when he highlights the energy, hope and promise of 1968. As he himself writes:

Then, as it reached its peak of frenzy, about 1969-70, one could feel the tide begin to turn. The movements themselves were convulsed by division. The Marxist sectarians were not dead at all, merely hatching in the garbage we left unattended. After factions ripped its body apart, SDS was closed down as "too bourgeois." No one could transcend the inevitability of the women's movement as it shredded the male hierarchies. The counterculture was shocked by Altamont and Manson. Drug euphoria devolved into the dark trips of paranoia, depression, and schizophrenia. Thousands of veterans came home with bad papers and strung out. Richard Nixon - wasn't he the man we thought we dumped in 1960, the year it all began? - soon became president of the United States.

And yet, he emphasizes, there were lasting transformations and immediate changes that occurred as a result of the long 1960s. Hayden lists these as follows:

• The Vietnam War began to end in 1969 and imploded in the years 1973-75; Nixon and his vice president, Spiro Agnew, were driven from office;
• The compulsory military draft was ended;
• The War Powers Act was passed as a curb on the imperial presidency;
• The Democratic Party and national election rules were radically reformed;
• Earth Day arose apparently from nowhere, historical environmental laws were passed, and the planet Earth was seen in a photo for the very first time;
• After 25 years of failing passage, the 18-year-old vote became law;
• Black studies, Latino studies, women's studies, and environmental studies were integrated into the curriculum of high schools and universities;
• Everyone was humming The Yellow Submarine and quoting Allen Ginsberg;
• Several national blue-ribbon commissions (the Kerner report on the ghettos, the Scranton report on the campuses, the Walker report on Chicago) seemed to vindicate the New Left analysis of causes and solutions.

This does not mean that the 1968 protests were not eventually appropriated by the state, for as Hayden notes, "when order was reformed, order was restored."

Hayden also argues that the 1960s are "far from over." He cites Bill Clinton as the one to outline the basic dividing line in American politics being "between those with a generally favorable view of the Sixties phenomenon (who tend to be Democrats) and those who are still attempting to erase the achievements of the Sixties altogether (the neo-conservatives, for example)." Hillary Clinton was also at least an observer at the Chicago protests of 1968. It is ironic then that one side of 1968, the rise of African Americans in the national political panorama, should clash head on with another side, women's rights, in 2008.

Nonetheless, he is hopeful, and notes that one of the main blocs of anti-war supporters today are those ranging from the late 40s to the late 60s in age. Che Guevara has achieved a kind of global martyrdom. And as Hayden believes, "sooner or later, the new generations will question and resist the programmed future of counter-terrorism, economic privatization, environmental chaos, and sordid alliances justified in the name of this War [on Terror]."

Hayden hopes for a peaceful transition away from imperialism and empire, and that there can be an improved quality of life after empire. Unfortunately, he thinks Canadians may be among those to show Americans the way -- perhaps Hayden has been down so long that it all looks like up to him.

•••••••

3. 1968, SOCIETIES IN CRISIS: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE)

This last item brings us right here to Montreal, to Concordia University, and I am very much looking forward to this and will try to present a report after the event has concluded. An international conference, In English and French, is to be held at Concordia on November 3, 2008, titled "1968, Societies in Crisis: A Global Perspective."

The conference description is as follows:

1968-2008: forty years later, the crisis of 1968 are still a source of nostalgia, pride or resentment to those who took part in them. By virtue of their impact and their scope, they continue to attract the attention of scholars. The ongoing interest in the events of "1968" may be explained by their many dimensions: they may be seen as periods of challenge to political power and authority, and as movements of student and trade union revolt. The ‘crisis of 68' represent the apogee of the aspiration to freedom and change in societies exasperated by the status quo and respect for social and ethical codes considered obsolete. These general protest movements also found an echo because of their global dimension: they swept Quebec, the United States, Europe, Africa and Latin America. In the framework of the fortieth anniversary of the events of 1968, the Lucienne Cnockaert Chair in the history of Europe and Africa (Université de Sherbrooke and Bishop's University), the Concordia University Chair in the study of Quebec (Sociology and Anthropology department of Concordia University), the Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire sur le Québec et ses relations internationales (GRIQUERE) (Interuniversity research group on Quebec and its international relations) and the Groupement interuniversitaire sur l'histoire des relations internationales contemporaines (GIHRIC) (Interuniversity group for the history of contemporary international relations) are organizing a conference entitled 1968, Societies in Crisis : a global perspective. The conference will seek, on the one hand, to analyze the interconnections, influences or distinctive characteristics of the crisis associated with 1968 and on the other, to compare these crisis by placing them in the sociopolitical perspective of the Sixties (decolonization in Africa, thaw in the Cold War, Vietnam War and, in Quebec, Quiet Revolution, among other factors). The object is to undertake a comprehensive, comparative and interlinked rereading of the ‘springtimes' of 1968 in order to understand the social, economic and political origins of the different movements, observe the issues involved as well as the development and outcome of the crisis, and finally, determine the significance and impact of the events of 1968 and their place in the collective memories of Europeans, Africans and Americans.

What is noteworthy is not just that my colleague, Jean-Philippe Warren is one of the organizers (a prolific writer who publishes a book a year, and if he blogged would probably blog me right off the Internet), but that unlike the first two items in this post, this conference promises a less Eurocentric focus on 1968.

No Retreat: If you Want to Win, Stop the War! Barack at Risk

by Tom Hayden

Call him slippery or nuanced, Barack Obama’s core position on Iraq has always been more ambiguous than audacious. Now it is catching up with him as his latest remarks are questioned by the Republicans, the mainstream media, and the antiwar movement. He could put his candidacy at risk if his audacity continues to shrivel.

I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement among African-Americans and young people, the audacity of their hope, still holds the promise of a new era of social activism. The force of their rising expectations, I believe, could pressure a President Obama in a progressive direction and also energize a new wave of social movements.

And of course, there is the need to end the Republican reign that began with a stolen election followed by eight years of war and torture, corporate gouging, environmental decay, domestic spying and right-wing court appointments, just in case we forget who Obama is running against.

Besides the transforming nature of an African-American presidency, the issue that matters most to me is achieving a peaceful settlement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and preventing American escalations in Iran and Latin America. From the beginning, Obama’s symbolic 2002 position on Iraq has been very promising, reinforced again and again by his campaign pledge to “end the war” in 2009.

But that pledge also has been laced with loopholes all along, caveats that the mainstream media and his opponents [excepting Bill Richardson] have ignored or avoided until now. As I pointed out in Ending the War in Iraq [2007], Obama’s 2002 speech opposed the coming war with Iraq as “dumb”, while avoiding what position he would take once the war was underway. Then he wrote of almost changing his position from anti- to pro-war after a trip to Iraq. He never took as forthright a position as Senator Russ Feingold, among others. Then he adopted the safe, nonpartisan formula of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group, which advocated the withdrawal of combat troops while leaving thousands of American counter-terrorism units, advisers and trainers behind.

That would mean at least 50,000 Americans, including back up forces, engaged in counter-insurgency after the withdrawal of combat troops, a contradiction the media and Hillary Clinton failed to explore in the primary debates. To his credit, Obama said that these American units would not become caught up in a lengthy sectarian civil war, leaving the question of their role unanswered.

The most shocking aspect of Samantha Powers’ forced resignation earlier this year was not that she called Hillary Clinton a “monster” off-camera, but that she flatly stated that Obama would review his whole position on Iraq once becoming president. Again, no one in the media or rival campaigns questioned whether this assertion by Powers was true. Since Obama credited Powers with helping for months in writing his book, The Audacity of Hope, her comments on his inner thinking should have been pounced upon by the pundits.

Finally, it has taken the pressure of the general election to raise questions about whether his parsed and lawyerly language is empty of credible meaning. Consider carefully his July 4 statements:

The first one, promising a “thorough reassessment” of his Iraq position later this summer:

“I’ve always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability” — two conditions that could justify leaving American troops in combat indefinitely. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies” — another loophole which could allow the war to drag on.

Then there came the later “clarification”:

“Let me be as clear as I can be” [not, “let me be absolutely clear”].

“I intend to end this war.” [intention only].

“My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.” [ Sounds positive, but “decisively” can mean by military threat in the worst case. And it’s pure theatre, borrowed from Clinton, since the plans most likely will be drafted and finalized immediately after the November election.]

“And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one or two brigades a month…” [but what if the military commanders on the ground assert that it is too dangerous to pull out those troops?]

Obama’s position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now plants a seed of doubt, justifiably, among the peace bloc of American voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals beginning with Lyndon Johnson’s 1064 pledge of “no wider war” through Richard Nixon’s “secret plan for peace” to Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal and the deep complicity of Democrats in the evolution of the Iraq War.

It is difficult to understand Obama’s motivation. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer’s training. Perhaps being surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call “precipitous withdrawal”, and pragmatic Democrats distinctly uncomfortable with their antiwar roots.

What is clear is that Obama is responsive to pressures from the grass-roots base of a party that is overwhelmingly in favor of a shorter timetable for withdrawal than his, and favoring diplomatic rather than military solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At a time that public interest in the war is receeding before economic concerns, it is time for the strongest possible reassertion of voter demands for peace.

The challenge for the peace and justice movement is to avoid falling into Republican divide-and-conquer traps while maintaining a powerful and independent presence in key electoral states, including Congressional battlegrounds, between now and November. There should be at the least:

- A demand that Obama talk to legitimate representatives of the peace movement, not simply hawkish national security advisers.

- A Democratic platform debate and plank that is unequivocal in pledging to end the war and avoid military escalation elsewhere.

- An energized antiwar voter education campaign that builds towards a clear November peace mandate to end the military occupation and shifr to political and diplomatic approraches.

- An organizational strategy to widen the base of the antiwar movement through the presidential campaign in preparation for a massive peace mobilization in early 2009.

Grass-roots people power is the only force that can keep alive the astute sense of pragmatism that led Obama to criticize the coming war in 2002. The stakes are higher now, and the enemies far more shrewd, wishing to rip asunder the Obama coalition. The peace movement assumption should be that there is no one in Obama’s inner circle of advisers to be counted on, no mainstream columnist to catch his eye with a persuasive column favoring withdrawal. They never have. Only the voice of the peace voters - and the countless activists who have volunteered on his behalf - can command his attention now.

For more developments and analysis, see ‘Progressives for Obama’ at progressivesforobama.blogspot.com

Tom Hayden is a former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His books include The Port Huron Statement [new edition], Street Wars and The Zapatista Reader.

In July 1996, the New York Times reported that Marilyn Katz, a former aide to Mayor Harold Washington and now a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)'s bid for the presidential nomination, "oversaw security for Students for a Democratic Society, a radical group at the eye of the Chicago protests" during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. "She was there."

Katz is a loyal foot soldier in a notable effort by the city and the Democratic National Committee to counterspin 1968 so vigorously that it almost becomes a source of civic pride, the gist apparently being: Then we gave you broken heads; now we bring the Bulls and Jim Belushi. Chicago '96, the host committee, has assembled a cadre of ex-radicals like Katz who are eager to share good news. Mayor Daley has held a huggy "reconciliation" with the former Chicago Seven member Tom Hayden. Even the police are taking sensitivity classes. What about those grainy shots of students getting clubbed in Lincoln Park? Consider 'em spun. "It's time to replace that footage," says Julie Thompson, a spokeswoman for Chicago '96. "Our story is now."

Fast forward to October 2, 2002, when Barack Obama delivered his then little-noticed but now-famous speech at a Chicago antiwar rally. On the event's fifth anniversary, activist Marilyn Katz, one of the rally's organizers, and now a member of Sen. Obama's national finance committee, posted the following on the blog of Chicagoans Against the War & Injustice (CAWI), which she had "put together", relying upon "some of her old contacts she met organizing anti-war demonstrations for Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s."

The rally in Chicago on October 2nd, 2002 was not organized by a politician or a recognized political force. Quite the contrary. It was organized by a loose group of friends—veterans of the women’s movement, the student movement, the civil rights movement, who alarmed by the prospect of what they considered an unwise and unfounded march to war and aware, yet seeing no one—from politicians to pundits to the press daring to speak out against a seemingly all-powerful republican juggernaut,—and fearing that if they did not speak out the war, the very room for disagreement with the White House on any issue would vanish, took it upon themselves to reclaim the public space for dissent.

Meeting in a living room in Chicago just ten days earlier, we chose to act agreeing that on October 2nd, 2002, we would assemble in Chicago’s Federal Plaza to stand against the war. With a gut feeling that other Americans also thought the invasion of Iraq was foolhardy, if not immoral and absurd, but with no assurance than anyone would come to a demonstration we agreed that "If we were five, we would be five." "If we were without any elected officials, we would be an involved citizenry. But we would take a stand."

But we were not alone. In fact nearly 3,000 people assembled in Federal Plaza on that day responding to the flurry of emails (a new organizing technology for us) that seemingly liberated people from their sense of isolation and offered them the opportunity of collective action - of community. Black, Latino, White, veterans of the peace and women’s movements, the 60s, high school and college youth, community activist—a mosaic of the City. Long time leaders like Jesse Jackson, Juan Andrade and Julie Hamos and a new voice.... not yet known to the crowd, to the media or to the nation.... the voice of State Senator Barack Obama."

Katz and former SDS president Carl Davidson, "two perennially engaged ’60s veterans and ex-SDS members", Jeff Epton wrote December 15, 2003, in In These Times, were "key organizers" of the October 2, 2002, anti-war demonstration. Originating as Chicagoans Against War with Iraq (CAWI), by December 2003 CAWI had morphed into Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. Davidson explained, "as the war transformed from invasion to occupation, CAWI activists managed to avoid splits over sectarian and strategic differences, and committed to stay together and move from 'protest to politics'."

In 2005, Katz and Davidson co-authored Stopping War, Seeking Justice. Davidson is "now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA," Cliff Kincaid wrote February 18, 2008, for Accuracy in Media.

Davidson is also an Obama supporter, now heading up a group called Progressives for Obama. On his personal blog Keep On Keepin' On, Davidson recently defended Sen. Obama's comments about small town people being bitter.

Katz appears to paint her SDS activities in a less colorful manner than the events of 1968 relate. In the April 18, 2008, Chicago Sun-Times, Katz said she had "met Ayers when he was 17 and they were members of Students for a Democratic Society, a peaceful group from which the Weather Underground splintered." (emphasis added)

Katz also told the Sun-Times that Sen. Obama's relationship with former domestic terrorist William Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn—with whom Obama has been acquainted since at least 1995 when he launched his political career at the Ayers-Dohrn Hyde Park home—"should not be a campaign issue."

As much has already been written by RezkoWatch about Ayers and Dohrn, who served as SDS secretary, nothing more will be added here.

Now the head of MK Communications and a registered lobbyist with the City of Chicago, Katz has personally contributed $1,000 to Obama for America, Obama's presidential campaign fund. Katz, and Allan J. Katz, a share
holder and chairman of the Policy Practice Group at Akerman Senterfitt of Tallahassee, Florida, as well as a Member of the Florida Democratic Committee and Democratic National Committee, and a Tallahassee City Commissioner, are joint bundlers committed to raising a minimum of $200,000 for Obama's campaign.

Another Katz and Ayers associate—and Obama supporter—is Mike Klonsky. In 1968, he was SDS national chairman and a "demonstration organizer". Klonsky "would go on in post-SDS years to form the October League (Marxist-Leninist) and Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), part of the new communist movement that emerged in the 1970s."

Klonsky was named by Ayers in the 1990s to head the Small Schools Workshop (see his blog). In 1996, Klonsky, like William Ayers, was a consultant for Mayor Richard M. Daley's "agenda for public schools."

Now Klonsky maintains a community blog subtitled Freedom Teachers at MyBarackObama.com.

Tom Hayden, the SDS co-founder who organized the 1968 Democratic National Convention riots in Chicago, has endorsed Sen. Obama.

Hayden authored the SDS political manifesto, known as the Port Huron Statement, which the group's founding members adopted in 1962. This document condemned the American political system as the cause of international conflict and a variety of social ills -- including racism, materialism, militarism, and poverty.

Todd Gitlin, SDS president from 1963 to 1964, is now a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University and a regular contributor to Josh Marshall's TPM Cafe. He blogs at ToddGitlin.com. Gitlin was contacted April 18, 2008, by The New Republic to respond to Sen. Obama's Philadelphia speech about his hate-spewing pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Gitlin's critique could hardly be expected as unbiased, since he had already "bet" on Obama February 4, 2008.

Paul Booth is a founder and the former National Secretary of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and former President of Chicago's Citizen Action Program (CAP), formed in 1969 by trainees from Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), according to Discover the Networks. Currently, Booth is an assistant to Gerald McEntee, president of the public employees union AFSCME.

In 1973, "radical activists" Booth and his wife, Heather Booth, founded The Midwest Academy (MA), a "training organization ... for a variety of leftist causes and organizations", which "describes itself as 'one of the nation's oldest and best known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.'"

One of MA's funders is the Woods Foundation of Chicago, on whose board Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) served 1999 to December 2002 as a paid director with domestic terrorist William Ayers. In 1999, MA received $75,000 from the Woods Fund of Chicago. In 2002 MA received $23,500 for its Young Organizers Development Program.

Additionally, in February 2004 Paul Booth contributed $500 to Obama's senatorial campaign. No record has been found documenting contributions to Obama's presidential campaign.

Updates

Trevor Loudon, Obama-file 14 Socialist Led Mega-Union Backs Barack Obama, New Zeal, February 16, 2008.

]]> http://chelseayouthandreserves.wordpress.com/?p=246 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:29:09 +0000 philiprolfe http://chelseayouthandreserves.wordpress.com/?p=246 It's mid June, Euro 2008 is reaching the business end of things but there are only 7 matches left. The Football League fixtures were released on Monday, and attentions are turning towards next season - and it's not just at the professional level. Chelsea today marked the start of a new season of Youth and Reserve football with the announcement of nine first year scholars for the coming season

To followers of the Youth team, the names will be familiar. To those who aren't so much, you hopefully will be as a result of this blog. Neil Bath introduced the new lads on the Official Chelsea website this morning, so now we'll take a closer look at some of them.

We begin with two goalkeepers who traded the starting jersey last season, and both of whom made Under 18 appearances as schoolboys, a trend amongst this intake. Aldi Haxia has been with the club a number of years, whilst Sam Walker only joined from Millwall in September of 2007. They are two different goalkeepers in style, but both with their own strengths - Walker's is in his sheer size, whilst Haxia is an accomplished shot-stopper. They'll have a lot of work not only competing against each other for a place, but also with Niclas Heimann and Jan Sebek, who should return from a season-long injury.

Jeffrey Bruma leads the defensive intake, having led the entire Under 18 team in appearances last season, and steppin up to the Reserves whilst still a schoolboy. It's entirely possible that his first scholarship season doesn't actually see much time in the Under 18s and instead focuses largely on reserve team football for Brendan Rodgers. He's joined by Tom Hayden, who has also been at Chelsea since he was a pre-teen, and made his Under 18 bow towards the end of the 2007/08 season. He's an accomplished full-back who can also play in the centre of defence and will be looking to make one particular position his permanent one. The third defender of the crop is Italian newcomer Vincenzo Camilleri - profile coming! His arrival from Reggina caused controversy at the Italian club, but his early showings at Chelsea indicate he's a tall and composed left-footed centre back with a great reading of the game and superb distribution from the back.

Moving into midfield, Conor Clifford leads the way as the Ireland Under 17 captain, and a player who has captained Chelsea's Under 16s on occasion too. He represents the more defensive aspect of the intake, whilst Jacopo Sala and Kaby represent the attacking and creative side. Sala will become the third Italian in the Under 18 team, alongside Camilleri and Fabio Borini, and already has appearances under his belt from last season. Kaby has been the focus of attention after a well publicised transfer from Boavista and is the son of Guinea-Bissau legend Mamadu Djalo.

Frank Nouble is the sole confirmed attacking first year scholar, and like Bruma, has extensive experience in the Under 18 team as well as a Reserve debut under his belt. As one of the most impressive performers in 2007/08 as a schoolboy, he too will be looking to step up towards the Reserves already.

So there's your confirmed nine newcomers. However, Chelsea have made a habit in recent times of not confirming everybody who's joined the club, for a number of reasons, such as Gael Kakuta last season. There will likely be at least a couple of new faces to join this list, not least Sweden's Marko Mitrovic, who the club has confirmed as being a Chelsea player in reference to him during an interview with Jacob Mellis in the Official Chelsea Magazine. Mitrovic is a left winger or a striker likened to fellow Swede Zlatan Ibrahimovic, although whether that's because of his talents or his Slavic name and the fact he's from Malmo is yet to be seen.

Over the coming days and weeks, the Reserve, Under 18 and Under 16 sections of this blog will be re-organised in accordance with the new squads. New profiles will be up for Camilleri and Mitrovic, and indeed, any new signings for the Under 18s as well as the players stepping up to the Under 16s. Keep it here for all the latest news and happenings.

]]> http://stiffrightjab.wordpress.com/?p=591 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:00:25 +0000 Steve Farrell http://stiffrightjab.wordpress.com/?p=591 by Steve Farrell

(See previous article in the series: 21st Century Democracy and The Third Way)

The most heralded achievement, and high water mark of Republican leadership, since the revival of America's military superiority under Ronald Reagan, is without question, the coming forth of the Contract With America during the election of 1994.

Its 100 day surge through the house of Representatives with its visionary agenda, and its promise and delivery of lock arm partisan voting, is a singular feat - such an one, that ever since, Republican's have looked back with fondness and longing, for a revival of the good old days.

Six years later, Republicans still hope that another leader, similarly charismatic, will step forward, take the reigns, and show the American people that the Republican Party really does have something unique to offer, something that will stem the tide of liberalism, turn on the speed boat engines of conservatism, and lead us back up the Potomac to our Promised Land heritage.

Pleasant dreams, all of them. Frenzied, partisan, election year amnesia, too.

Misplaced in the memory of this vision of loveliness is that the good old days of Republican unity were achieved not by fierce party loyalty, nor by like minded men all committed to a common vision; but, first by a publicity stunt of a Contract - which publicly bound signers to toe the line, and, second, by strong-arm, back-door tactics: including threats for chair and committee removals and vows of campaign fund withdrawal, to all those so unwise as to dissent from that dotted line.

It mocked the whole idea of the promised democratic reform, and should have knelled to all the inhabitants of Republicanland, that something not wonderful, but dreadful was afoot within the Party and its Contract.

What was afoot was the droll duo of ex-Marxist Alvin Toffler and Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, both posing as Thomas Jefferson back from the dead, preaching about some evolving, nebulous, revolutionary new democracy whose name keeps evolving too; from futurism, to anticipatory democracy, to 21st Century Democracy, to the Third Wave, to the Third Way.

Not forgetting all the other bad names for this bad idea, either. But don't laugh. It's all true. Go ask Newt Gingrich. Newt told it all, though it seems almost no one was listening.

On November 11, 1994, still bubbling and cocksure over the Republican takeover of both Houses and his coming coronation as Speaker of the House and King of the Republican Revolution, Gingrich couldn't resist exploiting the moment to put in a free plug for something he so devoutly believed in.

"The core of our Contract," and the solution for those "trying to figure out how to put me in a box," he said, could be found in a book by futurist Alvin Toffler called "The Third Wave;" to which he added: "I am a conservative futurist ." (1)

Now futurism, as we already have alluded to is one and the same with the Third Way, but for brevity sake, Webster's Dictionary gives us yet another interesting take on this subject.

"Futurism: Study of, and interest in, forecasting or anticipating the future, or theorizing on how to impose controls on events.” (2)

The key is "impose controls." Which leaves us to wonder: "What then is a conservative futurist?" Is it a compassionate King with a telescope? A benevolent tyrant with a computer? An H.G. Wells like time-machine-toting-Socialist who tolerates abstinence as a choice? A President Bush like "kinder, gentler" leader who wages high tech, impose-democracy-wars, on small fry dictators? Or is it our favorite, "Margaret Thatcher with a smile instead of a handbag?" These are not all that far fetched!

It seems, from all that we have read, that a conservative futurist is one who busies himself on "conserving" the dictatorship of government controls, far into the future, while all the while preaching about democracy, free markets, and technological leaps. A sort of "Machiavelli for Modern Materialistic Man."

But let's move on.

This was no passing comment by Mr. Gingrich. His commitment to futurism, or the Third Way, the same fascist/socialist oriented Third Way that Clinton, Gore, Blair, and Schroeder are converted to, has a significant history. Gingrich told his fellow Congressmen: "For a long time, I have been friends with Alvin and Heidi Toffler, the authors of Future Shock and The Third Way.(3)

“I first began working with the Tofflers in the early 1970's on a concept called anticipatory democracy. I was then a young assistant professor at West Georgia State College, and I was fascinated with the intersection of history and the future which is the essence of politics and government at its best.

“For twenty years [30 now] we have worked to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition from the Second Wave civilization - which is clearly dying - to the emerging, but in many ways undefined Third Wave civilization.

"The process has been more frustrating and the progress much slower than I would have guessed two decades ago. Yet despite the frustrations, the development of a Third Wave political and governmental system is so central to the future of freedom and the future of America that it must be undertaken." (4)

So central, indeed, that Mr. Gingrich put the book on a recommended reading list for members of Congress and all Americans, right along side the Federalist Papers and the works of DeTocqueville, as if it deserves such hallowed company. But that was not enough, in speech after speech and press conference after conference Gingrich referred to the Third Wave as "the seminal work of our time" (5)

Then comes this revelation:

"While I am a Republican leader in the Congress, I do not believe Republicans or the Congress have a monopoly on solving problems and helping America make the transformation necessary to enter the Third Wave information revolution. Democratic mayors like Norquist in Milwaukee and Rendel in Philadelphia are making real breakthroughs at the city level. Some of the best of Vice President Gore's efforts to reinvent government nibble in the right direction..." (6)

From bad to worse! First the socialist work the Third Wave is seminal, and then Al Gore's streamlining plan, which centralized executive authority, and spread gun carrying police powers to agencies previously lacking them, nibbles in the right direction! Toward what direction is that? The total state? One has to wonder.

But there was a reason, we suspect, Gingrich felt this way.

Alvin Toffler writes: "In 1975 at the request of Congressional Democrats, we organized a conference on futurism and "anticipatory democracy" [the latter being the political game plan of the former] for senators and members of the House. We invited Newt Gingrich, probably the only Republican among the many futurists we knew. He attended.

'That conference led to the creation of the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future, a group eventually cochaired by a young senator name Al Gore, now vice president." (7)

Gingrich, himself would rise within the Third Wave movement, would become a member of the executive committee of The Congressional Clearing House on the Future, and would win the praise of Toffler as possibly "the single smartest and most successful intellectual in American politics..." (8)

But why stop here?

New American Senior Editor, William F. Jasper, in a 1994 piece "New Age Newt: A Futurist Conservative for the 21st Century," reveals that Gingrich's History with the Third Way also includes a collaborative effort with Toffler and twenty new left and new age authors in a 1978 work Anticipatory Democracy, where Gingrich endorsed Governor Jimmy Carter's socialist "planning" agenda.

The book throughout extolled the virtues of "participatory democracy," a revolutionary slogan dear to the likes of Tom Hayden, Derek Shearer, and Bill Clinton, and one drawn directly from the eighth plank of the "Humanist Manifesto II (1973).” (9)

By 1984, Jasper continues, Gingrich's influence in the third way movement brought on kudos from the likes of New Age "philosopher" Mark Satin. In the February 27, 1984 issue of New Options, Satin, identified Gingrich as a top "decentralist/globally responsible" congressman. (10) An interesting paradox, that fits the odd decentralism of the Third Way, which moves power not just supposedly down to the local level, but up to the International level, as well.

Beyond that, Mr. Satin, the author of "New Age Politics" (1978), a guide to New Age political thought, is not the kind of man you expect to be praising the future founder of the Republican Revolution. In that guide Satin calls for planetary governance, "a system of world taxation (on resource use)," "an increased transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries," and "complete military disarmament."

And he rounds it all out by stating his hostility for the nuclear family, traditional marriage, and heterosexual society - all of this, typical Third Way stuff. (11)

Not surprisingly then, ten years later, in the wake of the passage of NAFTA, Henry Kissinger would be heard bragging across the universe that the man most responsible for giving us NAFTA (what Kissinger called the important checkpoint on the way to a New World Order), was none other than Newt Gingrich.

That's right, and it all fits. Heralded Republican Newt Gingrich, and his mentor Alvin Toffler, whether we care to believe it or not, are two cogs in the wheel of the Third Way movement that has swept a new wave of socialism across Europe, into NATO, and into the White House. We are not here to debate, whether it was by complicity or stupidity that Gingrich chose to take the Republican Party and the Contract With America along Third Way lines, also, we will leave that to others to decipher.

What is of pressing concern, to us, is that millions of Americans in 1994, and since then, have put their trust in the Republican Party as a savior from the radical, even criminal reputation of the Clinton Administration, and what they received, unwittingly, in answer to their prayers was a Contract, and a 1990's Republican philosophy, which was and is nothing less than a subtle compromise, at times a subtle aid, and yet in other instance, a source for radical change, to the advantage and promotion of national and international socialism.

Our hope, as we press on in this series, is that an increasing number of Americans, and especially Republicans, will open their eyes to the weakness of their own party, and become better equipped to recognize the hallmarks of the Third Way, so that they can work with us and others, to expose and root them out of the current political agenda of the Republican Party, putting the party back on track, to be a force for much good in the coming century.

Stiff Right Jab Editor in Chief, Steve Farrell, is professor of political economy at George Wythe College, President of the Center for Moral Liberalism, and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel, "Dark Rose."

(From my NewsMax.com archives, November 10, 1999)

Footnotes:
1. Gingrich, Newt; Armey, Dick. "Contract With America," New York, Times Books, 1994, p. 186.
2. New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language, Danbury, CT, Lexicon Publications, Inc, 1992, p. 386.
3. Gingrich, Newt, Armey, Dick. "Contract With America," New York, Times Books, 1994, p. 186.
4. Toffler, Alvin and Heidi, "Creating A New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave" Atlanta, Turner Publishing, Inc. pgs. 16 - 17 (Forward Written by Newt Gingrich)
5. Ibid. p. 8.
6. Ibid. p. 17.
7. Ibid. p. 9.
8. Ibid. p. 10.
9. Jasper, William F. "New Age Newt: A Futurist Conservative For the 21st Century, The New American, December 12, 1994
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.

]]> http://staycspits.wordpress.com/?p=188 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:48:04 +0000 staycspits http://staycspits.wordpress.com/?p=188 From The Nation...

Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream

By Tom Hayden

My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal.

 For Barbara, Hillary has become the screech on the blackboard. From First Lady to Lady Macbeth.

It's getting to me as well. Last year, I was somewhat reconciled to the prospect of supporting and pressuring Hillary as the nominee amidst the rising tide of my friends who already hated her, irrationally I thought. I was one of those people Barack accuses of being willing to settle. I even had framed a flattering autographed message from Hillary. But as the campaign has gone on and on, her signed portrait still leans against the wall in my study. I don't know where she belongs anymore.

At least Hillary was a known quantity in my life. I knew of the danger of her becoming more and more hawkish as she tried to break the ultimate glass ceiling. I also knew that she could be forced to change course if public opinion was fiercely opposed to the war. And I knew she was familiar with radical social causes from her own life experience in the sixties. So my progressive task seemed clear: help build an antiwar force powerful enough to make it politically necessary to end the war. Been there, done that. And in the process, finally put a woman in the White House. A soothing bonus.

But as the Obama campaign gained momentum, Hillary began morphing into the persona that has my pacifist wife screaming at the television set.

Going negative doesn't begin to describe what has happened. Hillary is going over the edge. Even worse are the flacks she sends before the cameras on her behalf, like that Kiki person, who smirks and shakes her head at the camera every time she fields a question. Or the real carnivores, like Howard Wolfson, Lanny Davis and James Carville, whose sneering smugness prevents countless women like my wife from considering Hillary at all.

To use the current terminology, Hillary people are bitter people, even more bitter than the white working-class voters Barack has talked about. Because they circle the wagons so tightly, they don't recognize how identical, self-reinforcing and out-of-touch they are.

To take just one example, the imagined association between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers will suffice. Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties. In one college speech she spoke of ecstatic transcendence; in another, she said, "Our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?"

She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America. She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents.

Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists". Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. (All these citations can be found in Carl Bernstein's sympathetic 2007 Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge.)

All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?

It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.

It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with FOX News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic superdelegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House, whether or not she is the nominee.

Since no one in the party leadership seems able or willing to intervene against this self-destructive downward spiral, perhaps progressives need to consider responding in the only way politicians sometimes understand. If they can't hear us screaming at the television sets, we can send a message that the Clintons are acting as if they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. And follow it up with another message: if Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. That's not a threat, that's the reality she is creating.

]]> http://gitell.wordpress.com/?p=510 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:18:16 +0000 gitell http://gitell.wordpress.com/?p=510 Remember my post on Hillary Clinton's vulnerability to charges of radicalism after the last Democratic debate?

Now I'm joined in that thought by former 1960s radical Tom Hayden. Here's what he writes in The Nation:

"Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties...She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America. She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents.

Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others 'tolerated communists'." 

 

 

]]> http://neweraartist.wordpress.com/?p=166 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:44:00 +0000 Darshan http://neweraartist.wordpress.com/?p=166 A commentary written by Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher Jr., Danny Glover and Barbara Ehrenreich and published online by The Nation Magazine.

March 24th, 2008

All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama. We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country. We believe that the movement today supporting Barack Obama continues this great tradition of grassroots participation, drawing millions of people out of apathy and into participation in the decisions that affect all our lives. We believe that Barack Obama's very biography reflects the positive potential of the globalization process that also contains such grave threats to our democracy when shaped only by the narrow interests of private corporations in an unregulated global marketplace. We should instead be globalizing the values of equality, a living wage and environmental sustainability in the new world order, not hoping our deepest concerns will be protected by trickle-down economics or charitable billionaires. By its very existence, the Obama campaign will stimulate a vision of globalization from below.

As progressives, we believe this sudden and unexpected new movement is just what America needs. The future has arrived. The alternative would mean a return to the dismal status quo party politics that has failed so far to deliver peace, healthcare, full employment and effective answers to crises like global warming.

During past progressive peaks in our political history--the late thirties, the early sixties--social movements have provided the relentless pressure and innovative ideas that allowed centrist leaders to embrace visionary solutions. We find ourselves in just such a situation today.

We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama's unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined.

Progressives can make a difference in close primary races like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon and Puerto Rico and in the November general election. We can contribute our dollars. We have the proven online capacity to reach millions of swing voters in the primary and general election. We can and will defend Obama against negative attacks from any quarter. We will seek Green support against the claim of some that there are no real differences between Obama and McCain. We will criticize any efforts by Democratic superdelegates to suppress the winner of the popular and delegate votes, or to legitimize the flawed elections in Michigan and Florida. We will make our agenda known at the Democratic National Convention and fight for a platform emphasizing progressive priorities as the path to victory.

Obama's March 18 speech on racism was as great a speech as ever given by a presidential candidate, revealing a philosophical depth, personal authenticity, and political intelligence that should convince any but the hardest of ideologues that he carries unmatched leadership potentials for overcoming the divide-and-conquer tactics that have sundered Americans since the first slaves arrived here in chains.

Only words? What words they were.

However, the fact that Barack Obama openly defines himself as a centrist invites the formation of this progressive force within his coalition. Anything less could allow his eventual drift towards the right as the general election approaches. It was the industrial strikes and radical organizers in the 1930s who pushed Roosevelt to support the New Deal. It was the civil rights and student movements that brought about voting rights legislation under Lyndon Johnson and propelled Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy's antiwar campaigns. It was the original Earth Day that led Richard Nixon to sign environmental laws. And it will be the Obama movement that will make it necessary and possible to end the war in Iraq, renew our economy with a populist emphasis, and confront the challenge of global warming.

We should not only keep the pressure on but also connect the issues that Barack Obama has made central to his campaign into an overarching progressive vision.

• The Iraq War must end as rapidly as possible, not in five years. All our troops must be withdrawn. Diplomacy and trade must replace further military occupation or military escalation into Iran and Pakistan. We should not stop urging Barack Obama to avoid leaving American advisers behind in Iraq in a counterinsurgency quagmire like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s and 1980s. Nor should he simply transfer American combat troops from the quagmire in Iraq to the quagmire in Afghanistan.

• Iraq cannot be separated from our economic crisis. Iraq is costing trillions of dollars that should be invested in jobs, universal healthcare, education, housing and public works here at home. Our own Gulf Coast requires the attention and funds now spent on Gulf oil.

• Iraq cannot be separated from our energy crisis. We are spending an unheard-of $100/barrel for oil. We are officially committed to wars over oil supplies far into the future. We instead need a war against global warming and for energy independence from Middle Eastern police states and multinational corporations.

Progressives should support Obama's sixteen-month combat troop withdrawal plan in comparison to Clinton's open-ended one, and demand that both candidates avoid a slide into four more years of low-visibility counterinsurgency.

The Democratic candidates should listen more to the blunt advice of the voters instead of the timid talk of their national security advisers. Two-thirds of American voters, and a much higher percentage of Democrats, oppose this war and favor withdrawal in less than two years, nearly half of them in less than one year. The same percentage believe the war has had a negative effect on life in the United States, while only 15 percent believe the war has been positive. Without this solid peace sentiment, neither Obama nor Clinton would be taking the stands they do today.

Further, the battered and abused people of Iraq favor an American withdrawal by a 70 percent margin.

The American government's arrogant defiance of these strong popular majorities in both America and Iraq should be ended this November by a powerful peace mandate.

The profound transition from the policies of the past will not be easy, and fortunately the Obama campaign is lifted by the fresh wind of change. We seek not only to change the faces in high places, however, but to save our country from slow death by greed, status quo politics and loss of vision. The status quo cannot stand much longer, neither that of politics-as-usual nor that of our security, energy and economic policies. We are stealing from the next generation's future, and living on borrowed time.

The Bush Administration has replaced the cold war with the "war on terrorism," led by the same military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against. The reality and public fear of terrorism today is no less real than fear of communism and nuclear annihilation a generation ago. But we simply cannot continue multiple military interventions in many Muslim countries without increasing the vast number of violent jihadists against us, bleeding our military and our economy, becoming more dependent on Middle East oil, creating unsavory alliances with police states, shrinking our own civil liberties and putting ourselves at permanent risk of another 9/11 attack.

We need a brave turn towards peace and conflict resolution in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Getting out of Iraq, sponsoring a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, ending alliances with police states in the Arab world, unilaterally initiating real energy independence and moving the world away from the global warming crises are the steps that must be taken.

Nor can we impose NAFTA-style trade agreements on so many nations that seek only to control their own national resources and economic destinies. We cannot globalize corporate and financial power over democratic values and institutions. Since the Clinton Administration pushed through NAFTA against the Democratic majority in Congress, one Latin American nation after another has elected progressive governments that reject US trade deals and hegemony. We are isolated in Latin America by our cold war and drug war crusades, by the $500 million counterinsurgency in Columbia, support for the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela and the ineffectual blockade of Cuba. We need to return to the Good Neighbor policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, policies that rejected Yankee military intervention and accepted Mexico's right to nationalize its oil in the face of industry opposition. The pursuit of NAFTA-style trade policies inflames our immigration crisis as well, by uprooting countless campesinos who inevitably seek low-wage jobs north of the border in order to survive. We need balanced and democratically approved trade agreements that focus on the needs of workers, consumers and the environment. The Banana Republic is a retail chain, not an American colony protected by the Monroe Doctrine.

We are pleased that Hillary Clinton has been responsive to the tide of voter opinion this year, and we applaud the possibility of at last electing an American woman President. But progressives should be disturbed by her duplicitous positions on Iraq and NAFTA. She still denies that her 2002 vote for legislation that was called the war authorization bill was a vote for war authorization. She now promises to "end the war" but will not set a timeline for combat troop withdrawal, and remains committed to leaving tens of thousands of counter-terrorism troops and trainers in Iraq amidst a sectarian conflict. While Obama needs to clarify his own position on counterinsurgency, Clinton's "end the war" rhetoric conceals an open commitment to keep American troops in Iraq until all our ill-defined enemies are defeated--a treadmill that guarantees only the spawning of more enemies. On NAFTA, she claims to have opposed the trade deal behind closed doors when she was first lady. But the public record, and documents recently disclosed in response to litigation, prove that she was a cheerleader for NAFTA against the strong opposition of rank-and-file Democrats. The Clintons ushered in the Wall Street Democrats whose deregulation ethos has widened inequality while leaving millions of Americans without their rightful protections against market shocks.

Clinton's most bizarre claim is that Obama is unqualified to be commander-in-chief. Clinton herself never served in the military, and has no experience in the armed services apart from the Senate armed services committee. Her husband had no military experience before becoming President. In fact, he was a draft opponent during Vietnam, a stance we respected. She was the first lady, and he the governor, of one of our smallest states. They brought no more experience, and arguably less, to the White House than Obama would in 2009.

We take very seriously the argument that Americans should elect a first woman President, and we abhor the surfacing of sexism in this supposedly post-feminist era. But none of us would vote for Condoleezza Rice as either the first woman or first African-American President. We regret that the choice divides so many progressive friends and allies, but believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a Clinton presidency all over again, not a triumph of feminism but a restoration of the aging, power-driven Wall Street Democratic hawks at a moment when so much more fresh imagination is possible and needed. A Clinton victory could only be achieved by the dashing of hope among millions of young people on whom a better future depends. The style of the Clintons' attacks on Obama, which are likely to escalate as her chances of winning decline, already risks losing too many Democratic and independent voters in November. We believe that the Hillary Clinton of 1968 would be an Obama volunteer today, just as she once marched in the snows of New Hampshire for Eugene McCarthy against the Democratic establishment.

We did not foresee the exciting social movement that is the Obama campaign. Many of us supported other candidates, or waited skeptically as weeks and months passed. But the closeness of the race makes it imperative that everyone on the sidelines, everyone in doubt, everyone vascillating, everyone fearing betrayals and the blasting of hope, everyone quarreling over political correctness, must join this fight to the finish. Not since Robert Kennedy's 1968 campaign has there been a passion to imagine the world anew like the passion and unprecedented numbers of people mobilized in this campaign.

For more information, go to Progressives for Obama.com.

technorati tags:a more perfect uni