Yes, John Derbyshire and I did agree because we read the same speech. But Obama was clearly talking about how the divisions over race have been a roadblock to political changes and how those with economic privilege have taken advantage of those divisions for their own benefit.

THere is no way to read the speech in any other way, nor any way to understand Obama's affinity with Rev. Wright. Yes, Obama argues that he's sees more opportunity for political change and more successes for black American than Rev. Wright has in recent decades, but he also has been clear that "unity" is not something you can naively wish into existence -- a point he said in his speech -- but must be built on understanding the way race has been used by the elite to stop that unity.

Obama was an Alinksyite organizer and his speech comes right out of that tradition of understanding both the obstacles to unity -- of race, of class and political paralysis -- with his own charismatic bent articulating how to move forward. But the analysis is quite recognizable and brilliant in its own right.

Posted at March 19, 2008 1:06 PM in response to Obama: How Race Card Protects Class Privilege

True-- government can be convoluted, especially as major social change is being made-- and real universal care is major social change.

So yes, if we passed a law that closely regulated available health insurance services with serious cost controls, collected general revenues to fund subsidies for people to buy that insurance, and limited all costs to a fixed percentage of family income, the difference between such a system and a single payer system would be in the bureaucratic structure but not in the efffective results.

Which is why progressives should focus in like a laser on this issue of limiting all health care costs, INCLUDING to stress out-of-pocket costs, as a percentage of income. We achieve that and any system created will achieve most of the results people want from a single payer system.

Posted at February 27, 2008 3:00 PM in response to Mandates versus Affordability

Yes-- that's why much of the Congressional Black Caucus represent heavily latino districts.  See this Time Magazine piece:

Nationwide, no fewer than eight black House members--including New York's Charles Rangel and Texas' Al Green--represent districts that are more than 25% Latino and must therefore depend heavily on Latino votes. And there are other examples. University of Washington political scientist Matt Barreto has begun compiling a list of black big-city mayors who have received large-scale Latino support over the past several decades. In 1983, Harold Washington pulled 80% of the Latino vote in Chicago. David Dinkins won 73% in New York City's mayoral race in 1989. And Denver's Wellington Webb garnered more than 70% in 1991, as did Ron Kirk in Dallas in 1995 and again in 1997 and '99.

Latino voters, like many voters, no doubt are biased towards the familiar, which currently helps Clinton, but there is nothing in current political reality that says that Latino voters won't support a black candidate.

Posted at January 30, 2008 9:02 AM in response to McCain and the Failure of Anti-Immigrant Politics

Not sure which union you mean here?   Do you mean the teachers who brought the lawsuit against the special strip caucuses or the Culinary for supporting them?

Posted at January 25, 2008 12:07 PM in response to How Nevada Caucuses Killed Myth of Union Intimidation

And who funds "movement conservativism", aside from the religious and NRA folks, other than big corporate interests?  Movement conservativism is well documented to have been assembled by a range of corporate foundations and big business interests.  

Look at the funding for major rightwing think tanks and you will find rivers of corporate cash, just as those same corporations fund the elections of elected spokespeople for movement conservatism. 

Sure, corporate America has its own factions, but a large chunk of it has been allied arm-in-arm with movement conservatism from the beginning.

Posted at January 4, 2008 12:10 PM in response to Obama Delivers on the Ground

I agree and am excited by Obama's mobilization of new folks.  That was the point of my original post back in June and I've been more favorable to Obama than many folks precisely because I see mobilization and organizing as a good thing unto itself. 

But the issue isn't just workplace centric, but the problems of corporate responsibility which extends from subprime mortgage meltdowns to health care.  My point isn't to trash Obama, who I am favorable enough towards that I may vote for even over Edwards, but to raise what I see as a lack in his analysis.   "Change" is good but if you want to make change against entrenched interests, winning an election isn't enough-- you need to target that energy for the longer haul. 

Posted at January 4, 2008 7:56 AM in response to Obama Delivers on the Ground

Brad-- An inept administration? For whom?  Corporate profits have soured in the last seven years, large corporations have received hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts, and tax rates on the wealthy were slashed.   The "ineptness" is a feature, not a bug, for corporate interests from this administration, since it allowed them to feast on lax regulation and corporate handouts.

As to monomania, there are lots of issues to talk about, but the issue is not "evil" corporations but corporate POWER, the disproportionate power wielded by those with money versus those who power is based on one person, one vote.    Voting is just one exercise of power over policy and the problem is that the corporate exercise of power has been devastating.  You can't talk about health care without addressing the issues of power that have prevented affordable health care being made available in this country.    If Obama just makes people feel complacent about that inequality of power, then he will ultimately fail to deliver on the hope he is promising.

Posted at January 4, 2008 6:53 AM in response to Obama Delivers on the Ground

If you have friends that thought they were denied jobs because they were not already members of a teachers union, then they have a legitimate beef, since that's illegal.  And for 99% of teachers, they don't join the union until after they are hired.

As noted by others, the AFL's anti-raiding pact is mostly a fiction, since unions fight over workers all the time. 

But why is it odd that you have to be in a union to work at a union-organized job site?  If Microsoft has a contract, you have to be affiliated with Microsoft to work on it.  Business has all sorts of exclusive licensing and contract deals, yet people seem to have some principled objection to exclusive contracts only when workers are benefiting, rather than employers.

Posted at November 6, 2007 4:25 PM in response to Writers Strike-- and Why Professionals Are In Unions

BTW found this response to the particular issue of comics and Warren Ellis (whose concerns were apparently addressed in updated strike rules):

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=37507226&blogID=325633175

Posted at November 5, 2007 1:47 PM in response to Writers Strike-- and Why Professionals Are In Unions

A question is whether the online writers have tried to organize themselves so their interests are more fully on the table.  These kinds of problems cited are like any other issues in democracy:  the problems of democracy are usually solved by more democracy.  

Most of the Hollywood unions have tried to organize non-union workers in the industry; there's been a big focus recently on organizing the reality TV writers-- who yes exist in the form of editors who craft a storyline out of all the hours of tape.  

So I have sympathy for anyone who doesn't feel there interests are fully being addressed, but would have more sympathy if they are expressing it in a way that usefully aggregates the voices of everyone in that situation-- ie. as a union that can vote on proposals and counterproposals.

Posted at November 5, 2007 1:38 PM in response to Writers Strike-- and Why Professionals Are In Unions