Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

July 11, 2008

Political economy of the sell-out

Filed under: parliamentary cretinism — louisproyect @ 8:29 pm

Professor emeritus Carrol Cox of the University of Illinois has described the notion of Democratic Party “sell-out” as follows: “Talk of sell-out is a perfect illustration of my image yesterday of the DP as an abusive husband whose wife keeps thinking that isn’t really him, that he really loves her but is not true to himself.” This is pretty close to my analogy, which is that of a father who sexually abuses his children. In either case, there will be a tendency to deny that the problem exists. For people who become radicalized, myself included, there is a kind of epiphany that the husband or father is a criminal and not somebody deserving of support. Once that happens, you can’t go home again.

Since Jimmy Carter’s presidency, we have been going through a kind of quadrennial ritual in which the Democratic candidate is supported as a “lesser evil” rather than as a positive good, such as was the case with George McGovern in 1972. To show how far things have come, try to imagine Barack Obama saying anything remotely similar about Iraq that McGovern said about Vietnam in his acceptance speech to the 1972 convention:

I have no secret plan for peace. I have a public plan. And as one whose heart has ached for the past ten years over the agony of Vietnam, I will halt a senseless bombing of Indochina on Inaugural Day.

There will be no more Asian children running ablaze from bombed-out schools. There will be no more talk of bombing the dikes or the cities of the North.

And within 90 days of my inauguration, every American soldier and every American prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and then home in America where they belong.

And then let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad.

After McGovern lost to Nixon, the Democrats never nominated a candidate capable of making such a speech. While McGovern was best known as a Vietnam “dove”, he was also committed to the New Deal type reforms of the Johnson administration whose war he had vehemently opposed.

McGovern proposed 2.5 million public-service jobs in 1972, as well as slashing the Pentagon’s budget by $32 billion. Sigh. Those were the days.

So entrenched were New Deal values that McGovern’s loss to Nixon was not seen as a mandate to carry out Thatcher/Reagan style cuts on the welfare state. If anything, the U.S. has not seen a Democratic presidential candidate in recent years about whom the following could be said:

During Nixon’s six years in office, social spending (adjusted for inflation) doubled. Nixon instituted vast new regulatory bodies: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Agency, and the Consumer Products Safety Commission, among many others. Nixon issued the executive orders creating the affirmative action system in federal hiring, and Nixon appointees on the Supreme Court wrote the opinions forcing affirmative action upon the private sector.

The Financial Post (Toronto, Canada), April 23, 1994

During Nixon’s presidency, powerful economic forces were unleashed that would convince the American ruling class that another approach was necessary. Anything that smacked of the New Deal would have to disappear. Under the rubric of “neoliberalism”, the clock would have to be turned back to pre-New Deal days. However, it was not Reagan who introduced this new policy but the Democrat Jimmy Carter in the same manner that Truman introduced the first McCarthyite legislation, not the Republicans.

Basically the Carter presidency, which was a rejection of traditional New Deal type values, was defended on the basis that McGovernite type liberalism had led to a debacle. Since Democrats have been defeated by Republicans despite retaining Carter’s neoliberalism, one wonders whether a desire to win elections has anything to do with a new, more conservative, economic policy. I would argue that the shift has more to do with the abc’s of Marxist economics than winning elections. Put simply, the shift to the right reflects the need to compete with reinvigorated German and Japanese capitalist economies. From the early 1970s onwards, the American capitalist class has slashed wages and social spending in order to convert the mode of production into a more ruthless engine of profit-production.

In 1976, in naming Carter as Man of the Year, Time Magazine used language that sounds strikingly similar to that is being used to describe Obama today:

On the other side, moderates and conservatives seemed reassured, pleased by the very acts that unsettled Ralph Nader and Gloria Steinem. Particularly on Wall Street, bankers and businessmen were heartened by Carter’s selection of well-known Democratic moderates to the top economic jobs. Says Dallas Oilman Ray Hunt, son of the late archconservative H.L. Hunt: “If Carter is willing to take the flack, he can accomplish more than any Republican on business questions, just like Johnson, the Southerner, accomplished a lot on civil rights, and Nixon the conservative, accomplished a lot in dealing with the Communists.”

The actions of the Democratic President-elect have not alarmed Ronald Reagan. “Sometimes,” he concedes, “I’ve heard some familiar-sounding phrases.” But, he adds, “I don’t know what to think. I’m just waiting to see which Carter stands up.” It is conceivable that Carter will be able to rise above the conventional left-right categories, somewhat like California’s Governor Jerry Brown, and run a pragmatic Administration with a liberal-conservative mix. But the burden of proof is very much on him.

When Carter adopted a “pragmatic Administration with a liberal-conservative mix”, he understood that this was necessary in order to confront increased international competition. A “lean and mean” approach was required in both government and private industry. U.S. imports of Japanese cars rose from 381,338 in 1970 to 1.1 million in 1976, and to just under 2 million in 1980. Japan’s share of the U.S. new car market rose from about 9% in 1976 to approximately 22% in 1980. This phenomenon, and others like it, was more responsible for a more “pragmatic” Carter presidency than any desire to win elections. The immediate need was to liquidate unprofitable automobile plants-hence the look of Detroit in the years that followed-and to curb the power of the UAW and other industrial unions.

When Carter ran for re-election in 1980 against Ronald Reagan, he won 49 electoral votes as opposed to Reagan’s 489. Declaring that it was “morning in America” once again, Reagan convinced the American people that it was possible to turn the clock back to the 1950s when Japanese automobiles were nothing but a curiosity on the American highways. When I entered Bard College in 1961, there was not a single one. It was no accident that when we graduated 4 years later, jobs were as plentiful as low-hanging fruit. Reagan’s promises were of course just as empty as his acting performances in the B movies that he starred in.

In 1984, the Democrats ran Walter Mondale, Carter’s vice-president, against the “gipper”, which was pretty much the same thing as if they had run Carter again. The best thing that could be said about Mondale is that he was not as bad as Reagan. In 1984, the big issue that Mondale decided to run on was the budget deficit that had ballooned for pretty much the same reason as under George W. Bush, profligate military spending. While it would have made sense to cut the military budget drastically, Mondale decided not to antagonize his backers in the AFL-CIO bureaucracy who were as hawkish as Reagan on stopping Communism, as well as eager to see jobs for their members at Boeing and other such companies.

Mondale received significant financial support from Wall Street investment banks like Goldman Sachs that depended on wealthy investors who worried that deficit-fuelled inflation would jeopardize long-term bonds that depend on fiscal restraint. To accommodate Wall Street, Mondale took aim at social spending rather than the Pentagon. When voters were offered a choice between a Republican imitator and a real Republican, naturally they went with the latter.

There was an alternative to Mondale in 1984, at least in the Democratic Party primary. Jesse Jackson ran as a “Rainbow” candidate defending traditional New Deal values and confronting the business-as-usual politics of both Mondale and Reagan. For radicals like me, the Jackson campaign presented a real challenge. It was understandable that some would back Jackson enthusiastically since his campaign seemed poised to break out of the boundaries of the Democratic Party if it refused to honor the values that it traditionally stood for. In this respect, the Jackson campaign resembled Upton Sinclair’s run for the office of Governor of California in 1934 as an EPIC (End Poverty in California) Democratic candidate. Such campaigns might represent embryonic formations of a new party in the womb of the old party and tactical flexibility is required. Unfortunately, Jackson turned out to be the same-old, same-old but he still has enough of the 1984 spirit to understand that Obama and Mondale are cut from the same cloth whatever its color.

In the July 21-28 1984 issue of the Nation Magazine, Alexander Cockburn and Andrew Kopkind (he died of cancer in 1994, at the age of 59) summed up the Mondale campaign in pretty much the way that radicals are summing things up today. Supporting Jackson, they wrote of Mondale:

Quickly the dark motif of Campaign ’84 changed from Anybody but Reagan to Anybody but Jackson. Once again, racism destroyed the promise of a populist, progressive, internationalist coalition within the Democratic Party.

As had to happen, Anybody became Walter Mondale, and he arrived promoting a platform as immoderate and regressive as any to be found in the Democratic Party archives since John W. Davis’s unremembered candidacy of 1924. With substantive objections only from Jackson’s underrepresented contingent, the party’s preconvention committees adopted policies and accepted planks that contained the essential elements of Reaganism: continued military expansion, support for Reagan’s allies in Central America, the Caribbean and the Middle East, further degradation of the welfare system, denial of black demands for equity and unqualified submission to the imperatives of the corporate system.

UPDATE

Yesterday I inadvertently omitted Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic Party presidential candidate, from my “Political economy of the sell-out” article. This addendum on the quintessential “technocratic” neoliberal candidate is necessary since he encapsulates the post-New Deal values that pervade the party today. Dukakis was very much into the policy prescriptions of economists Lester Thurow and Robert Reich, who unlike the Republicans, believed that the government should play a strong role in guiding the economy. Unlike traditional New Dealers, however, this meant influencing the direction of Fortune 100 companies rather than expanding social welfare.

In the May 16, 1987 issue of the Nation Magazine, Andrew Kopkind neatly eviscerated the Democratic candidate’s record in a fashion that has sadly disappeared from its pages. The article, titled “Have We Seen the Future”, begins as follows:

The miracle in Massachusetts has transformed society in ways that Governor Michael Dukakis hardly imagined when he began praying and planning for economic intervention just a decade ago. McDonald’s and Burger King are locked in a furious bidding war for entry-level employees, optimistically termed semiskilled; in some franchises the offered wage is up to $6.25 an hour. As a result, socially useful but unprofitable operations, such as day-care centers, which rely on the kindness of poorly paid workers, can’t find help.

At the same time, a successful workfare program, which provides the service sector with welfare mothers, has so softened support for the welfare system that a state court recently declared the Dukakis administration derelict in its duty to provide public assistance above the poverty line; the Governor is appealing the decision. Nor is there any continuing public day care, well-staffed or not, for the children of workfare or the other offspring of the miracle.

Meanwhile, fathers all over the state are feeding tuna fish sandwiches and fried hamburgers to their kids for stand-up kitchen dinners every night, while their absent wives juggle jobs, meetings and exercise sessions just to keep abreast of prosperity and progress in the nation’s premier postindustrial culture. The unintended consequences of miracles sometimes make the truly devout wish their prayers had never been answered.

Dukakis became the candidate because he epitomized the “post-industrial” outlook of Democratic Party policy mavens who had figured out that their rust-belt social base of blue-collar trade unionists was no longer useful. As governor of Massachusetts, Dukakis viewed the closing of textile mills as a necessary stage in the evolution of a new type of economy that would prioritize high tech companies along Route 128 that ringed Boston, as well as the FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate).

Kopkind continued:

“Economists talk about the ‘invisible hand’ guiding the economy,’’ Teresa Amott, an economist and welfare advocate at the University of Massachusetts, explained, “but here we had an invisible foot.” Mass emigration was proceeding apace; the population was plummeting; the birth rate was among the lowest in the nation; and economic growth was only a quarter of the U.S. average. Grumbling grew to a deafening roar. The corporate community was on a tear after a decade of defensiveness. Its counterattack on the self-doubting and fatigued forces of the 1960s“the consumer movement, environmentalism, redistributive politics, welfare advocacy, programmatic liberalism-fmed on every affront to the privilege of the business class. Every mention of a tax rise brought threats of retaliatory relocation; every new idea or policy proposal was subverted with predictions of job loss.

Dukakis began his term as a target of corporate terrorism, and, in the hearts and minds of the business community, he never moved from the enemy camp. But in the opinion of his liberal supporters he surrendered almost as the first volleys were fired. In 1975 he froze the budget, which in effect cut social programs and welfare benefits. The Freeze of ’75 was another kind of model: the first neoliberal game plan for an America of declining expectations. Tens of thousands of poor people were taken off the state Medicaid program. Hospital and mental health services were cut. Grants to towns and cities were slashed, projects abandoned, aid denied. Dukakis seemed bent on pleasing the business elite. He supported the oil companies who wanted to drill off the Georges Bank; he would not oppose plans for the Seabrook nuclear power plant in nearby New Hampshire; and he was “careless,” as an early supporter told me, about eastern Massachusetts’ biggest nuclear facility, at Plymouth, which has turned into a bigger lemon.

For those at the bottom, Dukakis only offered a training program called the Employment and Choices Program that supposedly would convert an unemployed textile worker or welfare mother into a more marketable source of labor power. But Amott revealed to Kopkind that 40 percent of the women in the program went back to welfare within a year. Of course, Bill Clinton made sure that they no longer had that option after he became president.

I can continue discussing the Clinton, Kerry and Obama campaigns but this territory is presumably drearily familiar to all of you so I will end here.

18 Comments »

  1. As McGovern was the last Democratic nominee worth voting for, Jackson’s 1988 campaign was the last serious Democratic one worth the support of the left(I’m not counting those of Kucinich, et al. as serious).

    Comment by john — July 11, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

  2. I recently heard Tariq Ali say that what separated the antiwar movement of the 1960 from that of today is the relative lack of illusions about the dovishness of the democrats. A serious left-wing alternative is invisible in the US at this point because people, however skeptically, “hope” that Obama will end the war etc. At the moment, these illusions can only be dispelled if Obama is in office (assuming he betrays the hopes of his voters). Louis, since third parties will be below the radar screen in this election – nevermind having a real shot at power – what’s the point of voting for them? One Obama presidency may be worth ten Nader campaigns.

    Comment by mrbacons — July 12, 2008 @ 12:43 am

  3. Thanks for this, this is a very important piece. I have been talking to friends about how we are going around in circles, do the same stupid things, making the same stupid excuses to get screwed by the same people in the exact same way; but no one seems to be listening. I think some of them may appreciate this, but then again who knows?

    Comment by Kai — July 12, 2008 @ 7:04 am

  4. America needs another ‘Acid, Abortion, Amnesty’ candidate. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look as if she’ll get one what with Obama cribbing lines from Hubert ‘politics of joy’ Humphrey (last seen floating in a bottle somewhere on the Japanese current).

    You’ve not mentioned the missed opportunity the Democrats had in ’88 when Gary Hart (McGovern’s campaign manager in ’72) saw his campaign bus swerve off the road to the election and explode in a ball of flames after the ‘bimbo eruption’ that exposed him as a dangerous sexual degenerate. Hart’s sudden exit, left only the so called ‘seven dwarves’ as contenders for the nomination, out of whom Dukakis emerged triumphant.

    The Democrats also managed to bungle the Senatorial investigation of the Arms-to-Iran affair, leaving Vice-President George Bush in the clear to run for the Presidency and win it when he should have been locked up in a prison cell at Leavenworth along with Oliver North and John Poindexter.

    Comment by Fellow Traveller — July 12, 2008 @ 5:02 pm

  5. Most interesting to me is that many critics of Obama are encouraging a vote for him in the belief that his administration would offer up a “teaching moment” about the “democrats”. I wish I believed that. I heard the same thing back in 1992 when Clinton ran, and if anything, what the Clinton administration turned out to be was a stupefying moment for all too many people on the “left”, and remains so to this moment. The only thing that will highlight Obama’s duplicity with the hup ho is the fact that he is black, so many of his more strident critics will come to the fore for exactly the wrong reasons. Count on the race card over analysis in these here United States, which has demonstrated since the 11th of September of 2001 that it does not welcome teaching moments so readily if a game of race can be brought to the fore instead. And Obama, enlightened trickster that he is, will straddle that divide quite capably if he can convince enough people on the “left” that the only reason his critics are vocal is because he is the first black president. Watch how he works that one. He’s easily as foxy as Clinton, if not more so.

    The call for a vote for Obama as a possible teaching moment rings as sadly as did an article written by one Skipper Canis of Fairbanks, Alaska, that appeared in the Progressive back in the fall of 1980. Canis argued at the time that he was going to vote for Reagan over Carter, as it was better to have a clear wolf in the White House then one who was hiding the fact like Carter. And we can see how well that all worked out. Almost thirty years later, the limited critical possiblities in the “democratic” party that played out with the first Rainbow Coaliton campaign have been completely driven from that body where they haven’t been co-opted.

    I’m voting for McKinney just for the cheap thrill myself. I am now of the persuasion that John Brown’s last comments on the scaffold were completely correct, to paraphrase, that the hidden injuries of race and class “go so deep in this guilty land that they will not be purged any other way except by blood”, yours, mine, and everyone else’s. Our so-called allies in the “Progressives for Obama” and other such rot are too busy alligning themselves with scab herds like Andy Stern and other such shits to notice their own assistance in the shutting down of any critical or penetrating discourse within mainstream institutions. If I wasn’t an old hand in the old games of the “democratic party”, twelve years worth, I wouldn’t believe so. But the same old crap is coming down the pike, and those who don’t see it are blinding themselves.

    Comment by Michael Hureaux — July 12, 2008 @ 6:50 pm

  6. I believe the Obama experience, will be a year from now, a chance to talk about breaking from the Dems. I certainly wouldn’t say vote for him.

    I support the embryonic Reconstruction Party based in New Orleans. It is a black led party, with a broad working class program. Cynthia McKinney is supporting it. They ran a city council candidatein NO.

    Comment by Renegade Eye — July 12, 2008 @ 8:26 pm

  7. There may be some downsides to an Obama victory and few voters will vote on the principle that it’s a “teaching moment” anyway. But i can’t agree with a few of Michael’s points:

    1) In Skipper’s sense of “teaching moment” McCain is the lesson, not Obama. The 1980 election opened the door for the right – gave it legitimacy and power. A McCain victory will have the same effect and will also entrench the Dem party as the horizon of popular progressive aspirations. None of us want that, besides that Skipper guy.

    2) Nor is it like the Clinton election. Reaganism had won the struggle for hegemony, while Bush … well you know his ratings. So Clinton had an easy time pursuing and legitimating Reaganite policies. In this election cycle, on the other hand, the right is quite thoroughly discredited. Of course many will accept whatever Obama dished out as pragmatic “change we can believe in”, but a good part of the electorate may dump him and the rest of Dems. For me these considerations outweigh the “cheap thrill” of voting for the Greens.

    It goes without saying that politics is not astronomy and we don’t know for sure who’ll be moving left or right, but I think the tendencies I’ve outlined are plausible

    Comment by mrbacons — July 12, 2008 @ 9:35 pm

  8. So, McGovern was “ideologically pure” or as close to it as you can hope for, so what? He managed to carry what Nixon called The People’s Republic of Mass. and the District of Columbia. Nothing else! He joined Alf Landon as the least effective Presidential candidate in American History. Is that what you want… again? Or do you actually want a John McCain administration? C’mon now, who cares what Obama does or says between now and November, IF HE GETS ELECTED! He’s not the “lesser” in this race. Consider, for example, the Supreme Court. The Next President will probably name 3 or 4 Justices. Do I have to ask? What about the thousands of federal office holders, throughout all the federal regulatory agencies? Can you really believe Obama will appoint the same people McCain will? American elections are all about WINNING. We don’t have a Parliamentary system. It’s WINNER TAKE ALL in the USA. The choice is Obama or McCain. Is that really hard to make?

    Comment by Richard Greener — July 12, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

  9. ‘I believe the Obama experience, will be a year from now, a chance to talk about breaking from the Dems. I certainly wouldn’t say vote for him.’

    Why not, Renegade?

    Comment by mrbacons — July 12, 2008 @ 11:08 pm

  10. Thank you for including the addendum on Mike Dukakis. I lived in Massachusetts during the period when he was governor. I remember him as being quite conservative and ineffective. However, the state experienced an economic boom in the mid-1980’s, the so-called “Miracle in Massachusetts”. This was entirely driven by Reagan’s defense spending. Dukakis, however, had the audacity to take personal credit for this boom, calling himself “Miracle Mike”. In the 1988 election he hinted he would perform the same “magic” for the country that he had performed in Massachusetts. I was astonished at how many people believed this childish nonsense. This election helped me to realize that the Democratic Party is a political dead end.

    As to the “teaching moment” argument, I think I should remind people that the WTO demonstration in Seattle occurred towards the end of Clinton’s second administration. The gulf between the Democrats’ words and actions was becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. It seems to me that the Bush presidency interrupted this learning process. When Bush stole the 2000 election, he effectively let the Democrats off the hook. The Democrats have supported virtually everything Bush has done, yet a barely a word of criticism is ever directed their way. With Obama in office, it will be impossible for them to hide. I’m not saying we should support Obama, but I am saying that his presidency will provide us with opportunities, provided that we know how to make the right arguments.

    Comment by Austin from Eugene — July 13, 2008 @ 10:06 am

  11. As a lefty from across the pond it just looks like Obama is galloping to the right at a rate of knots, presumably to ensure the ruling class that’s he’s a safe bet. There are two questions this raises – this moves everything to the right so much that some might think ‘why not vote for the real thing’ i.e. McCain. This lesser of two evils argument is familiar – it’s used by the Labour Party here to encourage people to vote for them. This is having less and less impact with more and more former supporters turning elsewhere or not bothering to vote at all after 11 years of being dumped on. The point is the working class will respond to the way they’ve been treated in the best way they see fit. If there is a candidate who’s open, honest and strikes a chord in what they say, then it’s better than the usual two sides of the business party being the only options. In any case, it’s the long hard campaigning slog between elections that increases the credibility (and then votes) for Leftists. Socialist councillors here only get elected because they put in the hard work, week in week out, addressing peoples’ concerns and campaigning alongside them.

    Comment by Doug — July 14, 2008 @ 1:34 pm

  12. Yet another personal responsibility lecture from Mr. Obama at the NAACP convention today. Yet another monied twit lecturing the laboring majority on how ot must learn to live without the public sector largesse which has always underwritten the wealthiest estates in the United States. I hope he falls in a manhole tomorrow.

    Comment by Michael Hureaux — July 15, 2008 @ 1:43 am

  13. Calling for people to vote for Obama so that he can “teach them a lesson” is like calling for a recession or police brutality as means to a more political conscious working class. Voting for the enemies’ candidates is a big reason we don’t have national health care, strong unions, or a sizeable progressive movement in this country. Is it a coincidence that Britain, Canada, and France all have mass labor parties and national health care? I think not.

    Comment by Binh — July 15, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

  14. “Calling for people to vote for Obama so that he can “teach them a lesson” is like calling for a recession or police brutality as means to a more political conscious working class.”

    Well no, calling for disasters is like calling for a McCain vote on the grounds that he might be more bloodthirsty. Look, its either Obama or McCain and you get screwed either way. The only difference is that McCain might be *marginally* nastier and at the end of his term people will still look to the Dems for “change they can believe in”. As for unions, health, peace etc, they are not on the ballot in 2008. Actually not even their publicity is on the ballot – if it was you might have a point.

    Comment by mrbacons — July 15, 2008 @ 7:06 pm

  15. The only difference is that McCain might be *marginally* nastier and at the end of his term people will still look to the Dems for “change they can believe in”.

    At the end of Obama’s first term so-called progressive such as yourself will be telling us we have to vote for the “lesser evil” because Republican candidate (fill in the blank) will be “*marginally* nastier”.

    No matter who wins, we lose, and we’ll keep losing as long as we keep voting for our enemies.

    Comment by Binh — July 15, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

  16. I don’t want to tease this thread much longer, but let me respond to Binh’s points:

    ‘At the end of Obama’s first term so-called progressive such as yourself will be telling us we have to vote for the “lesser evil” because Republican candidate (fill in the blank) will be “*marginally* nastier”.’

    Uh, my point was that the Democrats have a truly historic opportunity to discredit themselves in front of the electorate, giving the left its truly historic opportunity to poll at above 5 percent. But we don’t give a shit – we are armed with the profound analysis that Obama is the enemy of the working class!

    I made the point about McCain possibly being *marginally* worse to argue against Binh’s claim that wishing for an Obama victory was analogous to wishing for recession to teach the proles a lesson. I did not mean to advocate voting for Dems as a “lesser evil”.

    ‘No matter who wins, we lose, and we’ll keep losing as long as we keep voting for our enemies.’

    Nice slogan. But how come, with each new election cycle, people are paying less an less attention to it? Doesn’t look like all those third party campaigns have so far weaned many people off the bad habit of voting for their class enemies.

    Comment by mrbacons — July 15, 2008 @ 10:29 pm

  17. The election system should be disbanded. It serves no one but the political and corporate establishment.

    Comment by Jake — July 17, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

  18. […] I should add that my friend is a longtime Nation Magazine subscriber who plans to vote for Obama. His views were shared by Richard, another friend of ours from college, who posted the following comment underneath one of my blog postings on Obama: […]

    Pingback by Obama disappoints « Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — September 9, 2008 @ 6:36 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: