So far, I have managed to not write anything public about Barack Obama.

I've relished this little dance of non-declaration primarily because I have had nothing intelligent and/or productive to say about the man and the Presidential campaign has proven itself equally unintelligent.

But two things have happened: the progressive movement's support for Obama has grown exponentially and deepened. Movement people I know and trust are making startlingly starry-eye declarations about the changes this man will bring and my raised eyebrow has morphed into an expression of shocked concern.

That's because of the second thing that's happened: the Senator, now confident that he's nabbed the nomination, has begun making policy statements. And the policies, I say conservatively, don't support starry eyes.

First, some acknoledged truths: Senator Obama has attracted enormous attention from a lot of young people, people of color (particularly people of African descent) and working people. This sudden interest in politics from disenfranchised communities can't be ignored.

And the progressives supporting Obama frequently refer to that. The argument driving this surprising jump of a large chunk of the progressive movement onto the Democratic Party's bandwagon is that if we don't support Obama, we ignore all those who are supporting him. Which is patently absurd.

It's true that Obama's riding this wave of discontent, outrage and the "feeling" amorphousyly known as "hopefulness". It's also true that this has less to do with Obama than with our inability to organize the people who are now supporting him. After all, if they had a real progressive alternative, one would assume that these folks would be voting for that person.

And, make no mistake, there is very little progressive about this candidate. He's smart. He's attractive. He can speak. And these things make him rare among politicians in this country. But he's still a politician whose greatest campaign moments are comprised of flinging platitudinous sound-bites that mask a fundamentally reactionary content.

When Obama makes a policy speech, he doesn't come off as disappointing. He comes off as downright disturbing.

Here's an example from a speech, delivered in Miami this past week, on Latin America. The speech is full of the usual Obama rhetoric about freedom and equality and John McCain and George Bush. It's mostly that: very little concrete. But the little that is concrete, skillfully hidden among the lines of stirring sentiment, sent a chill up my spine.

There are three major policy statements.

First off, on Cuba:

"I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations. That's the way to bring about real change in Cuba - through strong, smart and principled diplomacy."

Then, on Venezuela:

"No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas, others from Europe and Asia - notably China - have stepped up their own engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits."

And finally on the over-all Latin American policy:

"The first and most fundamental freedom that we must work for is political freedom. The United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy."

Well, you probably didn't hear about this speech. We thank artist, writer and long-time activist Ned Sublette (an MF/PL member by the way) for providing us this text through his superb email list. The Internet, as I've often said, makes the truth tougher to hide.

But the media won't help you find it. Its coverage of this campaign has been so shallow and stupid that you don't learn anything from the mainstream media about what this guy's thinking. You have no idea where Barack Obama stands on any issue. What's his plan for the economy, which has now gone into virtual depression in this country and will soon spread that economic collapse internationally? What about health care, a major issue since most people in this country are going to get sick because the economy is going into depression? What about prisons? You know that over 50 percent of the prison population in this country are males of Brother Obama's people. Have you heard this man say one damned thing about that?

And explain to me how this war can continue? And what's his plan to get out? He doesn't have one.

And now...Latin America. Look at those sweet-sounding statements and examine their logic.

First off, the half-century long blockade of Cuba hasn't produced one thing of value unless you value Cubans suffering. What exactly will make it effective now, particulary given the weakening of U.S. "clout" throughout the region?

What has engendered the recent relaxing of restrictions in Cuba is, in fact, the very trend Obama denounces in his speech. For the first time in my life-time, most of Latin America's governments are elected. This was unheard when I first began doing revolutionary politics in the 1960's -- the Hemisphere was a pastiche of the entrenched dictatorship with U.S. support, by the way.

This wave of democracy has, in fact, resulted in some loosening in Cuba because, in the end, Cuba is part of the Hemisphere and reacts to what's going on here.

Secondly, the statement on Venezuela. Make believe this is...say...George Bush. Is there anything in that passage that would surprise you? It's the worst kind of manipulative "them against us" rhetoric clothing a moronic analysis of the situation and an arrogant, interventionist vision of foreign policy.

Venezuela is a democracy. Period. And it's a model for democracy thus far. Its President says exactly what he believes and plans to do. Has from the start. "This is what I believe and if you vote for me this is what we're going to do. Don't like it, vote against me. I'm going to do policies that help most people, especially poor people; elect me and we'll do them."

They elected him and he does them.

Elected twice, survived a coup and survived a major recall. Put forward a major legislative package that was turned back by the Venezuelan electorate and actually congratuled them on exercising their electoral power.

The only strong arm Hugo Chavez' Administration has flexed was denying a re-license to a television station that not only vigorously supported but actually helped orgnaize a coup against the government after having doctored video of a demonstration to makes it seem like Chavez supporters had fired on a crowd. The real footage shows it was the Chavez people who were the targest of gunfire from oppositionists. They defrauded the Venezuelan people and then tried to overthrow the government.

Would you renew their license? Would the FCC in this country?

Finally, the very combinations of economic investment and socially driven development that Obama considers to be a "threat" are in fact the most hopeful and best conceived of this new "Latin America" policy. What's wrong with a development bank of Third World Countries driven by their oil reserves? That it's not the U.S. controlled World Bank and that the U.S. isn't stealing Venezuela's oil anymore?

What about the historic "Union" just announced by the South American countries (which Venezuela and others have been pushing)? Is this not the one thing that region has been needing for a century? Venezuela is not alone in any of this of course; it's regional. But these are the developments that Obama is denouncing!

And "similar governments" being elected is a result of, not some cancerous conspiracy, but because people in other countries see what's happening in Venezuela and they elect people who can make it happen in their countries.

Finally, the statement on the fulcrum of U.S. policy being "democracy". The U.S., says the Senator, will now rise as the champion of hemispheric freedom.

With production steadily falling in this country, with the dollar at half the value it was five years ago internationally, with the credit market collapsing, with oil prices (in the most oil-dependent country on earth) way beyond any affordability, with a war that is quicksand and a military that is so committed to that war it can't fight anyplace else, with an environment that is more unstable and unpredictable than a Roulette table in Atlantic City...how in the world can this man believe the U.S. can dictate terms to anybody?

We are finished as the world's bully and we should all give that demise a standing ovation. Because for an entire century, the United States was the reason there was no democracy in Latin America. In the 20th century, it overthrew or supported the overthrow of seven democratically elected governments (including Chile). It manipulated internal politics. It supported dictators who won that support by assuring U.S. companies exploitation of resources in the midst of shocking poverty and deprivation. It acted like the criminal that most people in this Hemispher consider it.

So now we're going to save them from their own votes?

It's now time to remember that this is world of human beings and our future is tied to each and every one of them. Latin America is, in my opinion, the centerpiece of any plan for this country's future. A united and collaborative Hemispheric plan for development based on the planned sharing of resources and the mutual support for each society's well-being is the only hope.

Obama isn't going to deliver it because he believes in the hegemony of U.S. capitalism. A politician of, at best, conventional right-liberalism, he is not the answer to anyone's prayers.

The real question is can we, as a movement, deliver what the capitalist class refuses to?

We can start by understanding that this "movement of hope" that the Obama campaign talks about isn't Obama "sparking" the masses. It's the masses sparking all over the world and the masses in this country being part of that world-wide spark. Obama is following us; not vice versa. That's what politicians do.

And people, young and older, in some U.S. city who are clamoring for a more hopeful society, for some kind of future among the clouds of despair and hopelessness are the very same people doing that very same thing all over the world.

The human race, faced with its possible extinction, is reacting as we as a humanity have always done.

I want Barack Obama to be President but I have no illusions about what he's going to do. The real hope is our movement and our ability to finally break through the isolationism that the left in this country has languished in for decades. It's up to our movement to reach out and begin a real collaboration with movements throughout the Hemisphere.

Which brings me to the Social Forum of the Americas and other Hemispheric efforts which I'll take up in my next blog entry.