Infinitely less censored than its U.S. counterpart, the European press calls the 2008 election campaign exactly what it is: class struggle. And with the learned irony characteristic of a region where the Working Class is genuinely well educated and intellectuals are respected rather than despised -- where the cultural heroes are geniuses rather than muscled morons and singing strumpets -- the press also boldly dares acknowledge that none of our candidates truly represents the Working Class: From der Spiegel:

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY
Fear of Recession Boosting Obama and Edwards
By Marc Pitzke in Derry, New Hampshire

The economy has emerged at the forefront of the debate in the run-up to Tuesday's election primary in New Hampshire. Growing fears of a recession are transforming the campaign into a class battle between rich and poor, underdogs and millionaire candidates.

[...]

One question no one asked was about donations to his election campaign. The answer would have been interesting: The lion's share of the money that Edwards has collected for his candidacy ($11.4 million) comes from insurance companies, real estate magnates, rich lawyers, lobbyists and "miscellaneous business." Even here -- in the cafeteria of the Gilbert H. Hood Middle School, with John Edwards pacing the room -- it seems there are "two Americas."

Full text here:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 23,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,527123,00.html)

Another interesting der Spiegel report catches the common class-struggle thread of the Obama and Huckabee campaigns, something that in the U.S. only one website -- our own Populist Independent -- has dared acknowledge at all:

THE PRINCIPLE OF HOPE
Obama and Huckebee Embody Desire for a Better America
By Marc Hujer and Cordula Meyer

Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, the Democratic and Republican winners in the Iowa caucuses, are both promising the country unity and a new beginning -- in short: a better America.

The full text is here:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 45,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,527045,00.html)

One of the absolute rules of history is that hope -- rising expectations -- is the essential precursor to socioeconomic change. Indeed hope once unleashed can snowball into the very combination of strength and unpredictability we saw demonstrated at Lexington Green, at the Bastille and at the Winter Palace.

No wonder then Hillary denounces Edwards and Obama (and by implication Huckabee too) for raising the hopes of the citizenry: "we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

In other words -- and by Hillary's own admission -- the headlong U.S. march toward an overtly fascist, ever-more-theocratic slave-state will continue no matter who is elected.

Yeah, at times I want to just write the whole thing off as a cheesy three-ring act that isn't worth watching, but there are some important licks to get in (to totally mix up metaphors). On the downside its all so tame there is no chance ever that an elephant would go bersek or a clown set himself on fire in a final "fuck the world" gesture. Another downside is that despite being basically unlimited budget it still captures my interest less than the new (no-budget?) American Gladiator (with the Hulkster!)

This girl I see every once in a while -- housewife type, pretty much stays at home all day, no car -- wouldn't stop talking about the election coverage. I mean, she's got me beat in the endurance category (mental endurance, not where it counts thankyouverymuch) -- she watched 4+ straight hrs of flipping New Hampshire debate. (She claims 6 but no way could it drag on that long..right?)

So anyway, point is the interest and attention span is there. I can't say how much is the sensationalism and how much is genuine involvement but I was really surprised how deep into this stuff she was. Thats true of alot of people I know, actually. So while its fair to say people are apathetic towards the results I don't think its fair to call Apathy on the process or the national discussion.

Last Friday I made a saloon visit -- a rare event now that I've re-united with my once-and-future wife (though damnit we're still living on opposite ends of the country) -- and everybody in the place was talking about the Iowa Democratic Primary and how impressed they were that for the first time since 1964 the campaign is being pulled hard leftward and how significant it is that Obama/Edwards beat Hillary(Bush). This is an ok saloon, a lefty/bourgeois place frequented by a lot of academics, older students, drinking-press types, working scientists and still-idealistic municipal bureaucrats who regard my Marxist views "extreme but thought-provoking" (as a Harvard PhD puts it), so I suspect the conversation was fairly representative of similar quarters elsewhere: the basic theme was "at last there's hope."

Finally of course I couldn't tolerate the foolishness any more. Sitting at a table with about a dozen men and women, a few of whom I've known since the 1970s, I posed four questions:

(Q1)-Have any of you paid any attention to the Huckabee campaign?
(A1)-No (unanimously).

(Q2)-Would anybody care to guess what Huckabee, Edwards and Obama all have in common?
(A2)-Mumbles. Finally from an extremely bright 40s-something woman who is part of local alternative media: "O shit Huckabee is a populist. He's a fucking woman-hating Christian theocrat but he's running as a populist."

(Q3)-Ok folks what happens when the Ruling Class forces the nomination of Hillary -- Hillary who has more Big Business funding now than any candidate in history, Democrat or Republican -- and the Democratic Party betrays all the hope Edwards and Obama have conjured up?
(A3)-Mumbles. Confusion. Protests of "that can't happen."

(Q4)-But suppose it does. And suppose the Republicans nominate Huckabee. And all the betrayed Working Class Democrats who backed Obama or Edwards decide that Huckabee's theocratic populism is better than no populism at all. Who wins then?
(A4)-O my god don't say that! How can you even imagine something that awful?

Look at it from the tell-all perspective of class struggle, and it's obvious...

(You read it here first.)

Last Friday I made a saloon visit -- a rare event now that I've re-united with my once-and-future wife (though damnit we're still living on opposite ends of the country) -- and everybody in the place was talking about the Iowa Democratic Primary and how impressed they were that for the first time since 1964 the campaign is being pulled hard leftward and how significant it is that Obama/Edwards beat Hillary(Bush). This is an ok saloon, a lefty/bourgeois place frequented by a lot of academics, older students, drinking-press types, working scientists and still-idealistic municipal bureaucrats who regard my Marxist views "extreme but thought-provoking" (as a Harvard PhD puts it), so I suspect the conversation was fairly representative of similar quarters elsewhere: the basic theme was "at last there's hope."

Finally of course I couldn't tolerate the foolishness any more. Sitting at a table with about a dozen men and women, a few of whom I've known since the 1970s, I posed four questions:

(Q1)-Have any of you paid any attention to the Huckabee campaign?
(A1)-No (unanimously).

(Q2)-Would anybody care to guess what Huckabee, Edwards and Obama all have in common?
(A2)-Mumbles. Finally from an extremely bright 40s-something woman who is part of local alternative media: "O shit Huckabee is a populist. He's a fucking woman-hating Christian theocrat but he's running as a populist."

(Q3)-Ok folks what happens when the Ruling Class forces the nomination of Hillary -- Hillary who has more Big Business funding now than any candidate in history, Democrat or Republican -- and the Democratic Party betrays all the hope Edwards and Obama have conjured up?
(A3)-Mumbles. Confusion. Protests of "that can't happen."

(Q4)-But suppose it does. And suppose the Republicans nominate Huckabee. And all the betrayed Working Class Democrats who backed Obama or Edwards decide that Huckabee's theocratic populism is better than no populism at all. Who wins then?
(A4)-O my god don't say that! How can you even imagine something that awful?

Look at it from the tell-all perspective of class struggle, and it's obvious...

(You read it here first.)

Great story. Seems to typify the meta-conversation going on nationwide in my own (anecdotal) experience. Its a storyline that can never emerge though because liberals are so openly hostile to religion and even more averse to any down and dirty talk about class.

Its going to be a rude awakening*

*with the caveat that Obama appears to be taking off which would render the above somewhat moot or at least casts it in a very different light

I expect Huckabee to win SC. and Thompson to show strong. Not all of the Huckabee support will be Baptist.

The Dems will be three way, close in no particular order that I can discern. Guess I'll pull the donkey dong for Edwards, just to keep the shyster talking.

Last Friday I made a saloon visit -- a rare event now that I've re-united with my once-and-future wife (though damnit we're still living on opposite ends of the country) -- and everybody in the place was talking about the Iowa Democratic Primary and how impressed they were that for the first time since 1964 the campaign is being pulled hard leftward and how significant it is that Obama/Edwards beat Hillary(Bush). This is an ok saloon, a lefty/bourgeois place frequented by a lot of academics, older students, drinking-press types, working scientists and still-idealistic municipal bureaucrats who regard my Marxist views "extreme but thought-provoking" (as a Harvard PhD puts it), so I suspect the conversation was fairly representative of similar quarters elsewhere: the basic theme was "at last there's hope."

Finally of course I couldn't tolerate the foolishness any more. Sitting at a table with about a dozen men and women, a few of whom I've known since the 1970s, I posed four questions:

(Q1)-Have any of you paid any attention to the Huckabee campaign?
(A1)-No (unanimously).

(Q2)-Would anybody care to guess what Huckabee, Edwards and Obama all have in common?
(A2)-Mumbles. Finally from an extremely bright 40s-something woman who is part of local alternative media: "O shit Huckabee is a populist. He's a fucking woman-hating Christian theocrat but he's running as a populist."

(Q3)-Ok folks what happens when the Ruling Class forces the nomination of Hillary -- Hillary who has more Big Business funding now than any candidate in history, Democrat or Republican -- and the Democratic Party betrays all the hope Edwards and Obama have conjured up?
(A3)-Mumbles. Confusion. Protests of "that can't happen."

(Q4)-But suppose it does. And suppose the Republicans nominate Huckabee. And all the betrayed Working Class Democrats who backed Obama or Edwards decide that Huckabee's theocratic populism is better than no populism at all. Who wins then?
(A4)-O my god don't say that! How can you even imagine something that awful?

Look at it from the tell-all perspective of class struggle, and it's obvious...

(You read it here first.)

Glad to hear you say this. I thought I was the only one seeing it. If Huckabee ran against Clinton, we would have a Republican to the left of the Democrat. What does that tell about the Republican rank and file? What does that tell us about the intellectuals who are controlling the narrative of the Democratic party and liberalism?

And the biggest question for me: WTF is going on that so few people see the significance of this?

And the biggest question for me: WTF is going on that so few people see the significance of this?[/quote]

It's the demographics of the internet, well, the political portion of the internet anyway. They are incapable of seeing it, their blinders are so tight. A few at DU can see the signicance of Edwards, but it's a rare one that can extend the analysis to Huckabee.

They are not working class, they are "middle class".

US Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-01/34617571.jpg


“We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed,” chamber President Tom Donohue said.

The group indicates it will spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it put out in the last presidential cycle.

By Tom Hamburger,
for the Los Angeles Times
January 8, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.

"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

The warning from the nation's largest trade association came against a background of mounting popular concern over the condition of the economy. A weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and other problems have all helped make the economy a major campaign issue.

Presidential candidates in particular have responded to the public concern. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been the bluntest populist voice, but other front-running Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have also called for change on behalf of middle-class voters.

On the Republican side, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- emerging as an unexpected front-runner after winning the Iowa caucuses -- has used populist themes in his effort to woo independent voters, blasting bonus pay for corporate chief executives and the effect of unfettered globalization on workers.

Reacting to what it sees as a potentially hostile political climate, Donohue said, the chamber will seek to punish candidates who target business interests with their rhetoric or policy proposals, including congressional and state-level candidates.

Although Donohue shied away from precise figures, he indicated that his organization would spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it spent in the last presidential cycle. That approaches the spending levels planned by the largest labor unions.

The chamber president is scheduled to announce the broad outlines of the organization's plans for the 2008 election and beyond at a news conference here today. Donohue also plans to fire a rhetorical warning shot across the bow of candidates considered unfriendly to business.

"I'm concerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media," he said. "It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that creates jobs, wealth and benefits -- and who it is that eats them."

In advance of today's news conference, Donohue told The Times of his plans to be active in 140 congressional districts this year, as well as the presidential contest.

At the state level, Donohue said his organization would be active in nearly four dozen contests for attorney general and state supreme courts. Both state courts and attorneys general are involved in decisions affecting business, including consumer protection and a wide range of litigation.

The chamber has become a significant force in state and national politics under Donohue's decade of leadership. Once a notably bipartisan trade association with a limited budget and limited influence, it has hugely increased its political fundraising and developed new ways to spend money on behalf of pro-business candidates.

Under Donohue, the organization has also frequently aligned itself with GOP priorities.

Since he took over the chamber, contributions by businesses have soared, often to pay for political advertising known as "issue ads," which are exempt from many of the Federal Election Commission limits.

Under a system Donohue pioneered, corporations contribute money to the chamber, which then finances attack ads targeting individual candidates without revealing the name of the businesses involved in the ads.

In 2000, drug companies paid the chamber to run advertisements in Michigan to help elect then-Republican Sen. Spencer Abraham. Pharmaceutical companies that year gave the chamber additional millions to run issue ads attacking mostly Democratic House candidates. And large corporations paid $1 million or more to support advertising campaigns against judges deemed too friendly to plaintiffs.

There has been pressure from lawsuits and government activist groups to require the chamber to reveal the source of its political funds and more details on its spending.

Donohue is not inclined to do so.

"I will disclose any funds I am legally required to disclose -- and not disclose any others," Donohue said. "We are exercising our constitutional right to petition the government and we will continue to do so."

In 2004, the chamber also helped defeat Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, flooding his home state of South Dakota with money, ads and more than 50 on-the-ground organizers.

This year that kind of ground tactic is going to be more prevalent, Donohue said, noting that the chamber plans to make use of its ability to communicate freely with its 3 million member companies located in every congressional district.

In the interview Monday, Donohue said he was unhappy with anti-corporate rhetoric coming from candidates in both parties and he wanted candidates to know about the chamber's ambitious plans.

Donohue is not likely to name names at his news conference, but there is no doubt he is unhappy about Huckabee.

The concerns Donohue expresses reveal apprehension that Republican pro-business candidates may lose favor with voters and that the GOP's important but fragile alliance between economic and social conservatives is showing signs of strain.

Even more than Republicans, Democratic candidates have boosted the volume of populist messages as the economy softens. Edwards, whose trial lawyer past has been openly criticized by Donohue for years, launched new advertisements that warn against the danger of replacing "corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats."

The middle class, Edwards says in the new ad, is "losing ground while CEOs pocket million-dollar bonuses and corporate lobbyists get their way in Washington."

Donohue, in effect the nation's leading business advocate, kicked back hard at some of the leading Democratic proposals on taxes, labor law and the courts.

If that agenda succeeds, he said, Democrats "will be gone from power for at least 40 years," though he acknowledged that the political rhetoric might moderate after the primary season.

"People on the other side have been very strong in the way they play in legislation and elections. We intend to do the same," he said

From der Spiegel:

CLINTON'S CHALLENGE
Saving the Democrats from the Obama Effect
By Claus Christian Malzahn

Barack Obama has some interesting supporters, some of America's leading conservative commentators among them. They are hoping the Illinois senator will drive a final stake through the heart of the Clinton era. But the Democrats might suffer as well.

[...]

It is almost unbelievable really: Barack Obama has managed to transform this election, which had been shaping up to be an anti-Bush vote, into an anti-Clinton referendum -- even if that might not have been his intention going in. The point is not to demonize Obama, nor to accuse him of being part of some sort of right-wing conspiracy. It would, after all, be a profoundly historical moment were an African-American to be elected president -- on par with the import of a woman moving into the Oval Office. But Obama's rise comes at a high price for the Democrats. The man from Illinois seems increasingly to be presenting himself as the candidate of some imaginary independent movement. Deep political roots in the soil of the Democratic party are difficult to perceive.

[...]

In Europe, especially in Germany, the idea has taken hold that Obama is a leftist. What a misconception! Whereas Hillary has come up with a solid health care plan reminiscent of those in Europe -- and has no difficulty elucidating even its most arcane details -- Obama slips away like a bar of soap in the shower as soon as concrete issues are brought up. Should one nevertheless manage to corner him, it becomes all too apparent that when it comes to health care -- an issue that is perhaps more important to ordinary Americans than the troops in Baghdad -- Obama is to the right of Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Health care was the central domestic political issue for the Democrats. Obama looks ready to bury it.

No wonder, then, that Hillary Clinton has tears in her eyes...She had clearly not anticipated that a candidate without a platform would sail through the primaries as Obama has so far. The Democratic Party didn't either. The most recent political surveys, showing Hillary running second to Barack, give one the impression that God's own country has fallen into a deep, Sleeping Beauty-like slumber and is dreaming of the end of history. But Barack Obama, as pure as his intentions might be, is not playing the role of the Prince Charming -- rather, that of the Sandman.

Full text linked here:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 70,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,527370,00.html)