Two fairly well-known politicians who got their respective parties’ nomination for President self-identify and are generally identified by others as African-American or – more to the point, given America’s “racial” history and present reality – Black. They are Barack Obama, Democratic Party, and Cynthia McKinney, Green Party.

They are in agreement on some issues, reflected both in their votes over the years and in their public statements. But there are also major differences, which are often not obvious even to those who pay attention, not to mention those who rely upon corporate media and are therefore likely learn little or nothing of the McKinney/Clemente campaign or the Green Party. Rosa Clemente, a Borikena hip-hop activist, was chosen as McKinney's Vice-Presidential running mate.

Their differences are intimately tied to the political parties they identify with and will represent in the Presidential election. On the surface, they both call for public financing of political campaigns. But the Democratic Party – like the Republican Party – is sustained by support from wealthy individuals and large corporations. The Green Party, on the other hand, accepts no corporate contributions.

Barack Obama, in fact, abandoned the system of federal campaign financing, set up in 1974 largely in response to illegal campaign contributions to former President and Watergate criminal Richard Nixon, who resigned his office in disgrace that same year. That makes him the first Presidential candidate since then to fully abandon that taxpayer-financed system. Even John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, had stated that he would adhere to the federal financing guidelines if Obama agreed to do so.

Because Cynthia McKinney is running as a Green Party candidate, that would not even be an issue.

The two candidates are compared in following paragraphs on a few prominent issues.

The war against Iraq. Barack Obama made an oft-quoted speech against the Iraq War before it began, but has generally supported it since, including “approval of over $300 billion in no-strings-attached war funds.” His withdrawal plan is ambiguous, limited, and in essence “not very meaningful” according to one senior policy analyst. Cynthia McKinney: “I consistently opposed every regular and supplemental appropriation meant to fund the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have participated in International War Crimes Tribunals (in Brussels, Spain and Malaysia) designed to bring to justice the Bush-Cheney administration.”At the beginning of her political career in 1991, while in the Georgia State Legislature, she spoke out against the Gulf War of that time, receiving a great deal of criticism for doing so. But she has never backed down.

Healthcare. Obama stated, “we're going to make sure that Americans don't have to choose between a health care plan that bankrupts the government and one that bankrupts families.” Yet his plan would “work within the private insurance system”. According to MichUHCAN, which is part of a long-term grassroots effort that has forced politicians and candidates to seriously address healthcare issues, between a fourth and a third of USA health care costs are administrative, mainly tied to the insurance industry. This compares with 3% for the Medicare system – a government-run, single payer system for people over 65. Cynthia McKinney: “All too often patients cannot receive the treatment they require because the treatment is blocked by the profit motive of the insurance companies. You have to take the insurance companies out of the health-care equation.” We in the US spend far more money than any other country and we get less. Close to 50 million people are uninsured. Countries that have what others pejoratively call ‘socialized medicine’ are better performing. We need a universal, single-payer health-care system in this country.” While in Congress she supported every bill that promoted such a healthcare system.

Israel. Cynthia McKinney was targeted by AIPAC (American-Israeli Political Action Committee) “ for my opposition to the Israeli occupation of and genocidal policies toward Palestine.” That opposition likely contributed to her defeat for re-election to her Georgia Congressional seat in 2002 as well as in 2006. She in fact supports a just solution for Palestinians, Jews, and all others in the Middle East. But that is the last thing the powerful AIPAC wants. Responding to a well-publicized sermon by his former pastor, Barack Obama condemned those who attribute conflict in the Middle East to “stalwart allies like Israel”. He has consistently voted to continue, and even expand, the long-time USA funding that helps support Israeli aggression and apartheid. This despite the almost universal condemnation of Israeli aggression around the world and over a period of decades, condemnation only countered by the USA government, which has long been hugely under the influence of Israeli lobbyists and their wealthy and influential supporters. Obama has been one of the many so influenced.

Summary. It is clear that Barack Obama has been opportunistic. He is a talented and persuasive speaker, but one must look well beyond his rhetoric to see the reality. He has repeatedly called for “unity”. But when the political winds made it most expedient, he has supported the most divisive war this country has been involved in since Vietnam in the 1970s. He has insisted that the prime corporate opponents of previous universal healthcare plans – the insurance companies – be part of any future plan. And, despite calling for unity across ethnic and religious lines, he consistently supports the horrific Israeli aggression against Palestinians and other Arabic peoples. Domestically this would be like saying he opposes racial discrimination while at the same time voting to fund the Ku Klux Klan.

Don’t get me wrong. Barack Obama, from all i know, seems to be a well-intentioned person who believes he can make positive change from within the Democratic Party. No doubt he can. But such change will be severely limited by the nature of that party, which essentially requires a serious Presidential aspirant to be opportunistic and overly influenced by corporate and wealthy donors. Witness what happened in the last two election cycles, for instance, to Dennis Kucinich, whose positions on the above and other issues come closest to those of Cynthia McKinney.

Cynthia McKinney has proved again and again that she stands by progressive principles, even at the risk of losing her political positions. When the Democratic Party repeatedly failed to stand behind her, and in some cases even worked against her, she finally took the principled position of abandoning it for a party – the Green Party – that consistently stands by a clear set of progressive principles, including independence from the wealthy special interests that dominate both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Main Resources: http://www. ontheissues. org/2008Cynthia McKinney’s responses to Green Party Presidential Candidate Questionnaire, May 1, 2007, at: http://www. gp. org/2008-elections/documents/Questionnaire_mckinney. pdfOn Iraq, Front-Running Dem Senators' Records Match, by Maya Schenwar, 17 January 2008, at: http://www. alternet. org/election08/74126/Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speeach, at: http://my. barackobama. com/page/content/hisownwords/

Obama Seeks Private Funding, By Mary Jacoby, April 26, 2008, Wall Street Journal

Transcript, 4 January 2008, “Bill Moyers talks with Congressman Dennis Kucinich”, at: http://www. pbs. org/moyers/journal/01042008/transcript3. html

“Cynthia McKinney Seeks Presidential Nod from Green Party”, summary by Richa of a talk McKinney gave in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 13 December 2007.

Critiques of AIPAC are numerous. For one moderate and solidly researched critique, see “The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, March 2006, at: http://ksgnotes1. harvard. edu/Research/wpaper. nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt. pdf - Richa, 12 May 2008