Jim Devine wrote:
On the other hand, if Clinton is elected, she'll probably turn out to
be as bad as Obama would be. But it would be a sign that at least some
of the struggle against sexism has been successful.
Yet on the third hand, if McCain wins he may turn out to be as good as Bush!
Carrol wrote:
It seems to me that to put one's hopes in either
Obama or Clinton is to express utter despair.
^^^
CB: I don't know about utter , but it does seem plausible that it
expresses some desperation. Like the sociologist said: Most Americans
lead lives of quiet desperation.
Obamania
On Feb 11, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
hey, if Obama is elected, he'll probably turn out to be as bad as
Clinton would be. But it would be a sign that at least some of the
struggle against racism has been successful.
On the other hand, if Clinton is elected, she'll probably turn out
Carrol wrote:
It seems to me that to put one's hopes in either
Obama or Clinton is to express utter despair.
hey, if Obama is elected, he'll probably turn out to be as bad as
Clinton would be. But it would be a sign that at least some of the
struggle against racism has been successful.
On
Carrol wrote:
When a national coalition to replace the DP-Pimps at UFPJ ==
When something somewhere entirely unexpected and unpredictable now
occurs [e.g., Walmart employees emulate the Fisher Body Sit Down Strike)
--
When 50,000 white, black, asian marchers come out to a pro-illegal
On Feb 10, 2008 6:28 AM, Julio Huato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carrol wrote:
When a national coalition to replace the DP-Pimps at UFPJ ==
When something somewhere entirely unexpected and unpredictable now
occurs [e.g., Walmart employees emulate the Fisher Body Sit Down Strike)
--
Carrol wrote:
When a national coalition to replace the DP-Pimps at UFPJ ==
When something somewhere entirely unexpected and unpredictable now
occurs [e.g., Walmart employees emulate the Fisher Body Sit Down Strike)
--
When 50,000 white, black, asian marchers come out to a
Jim Devine wrote:
Carrol wrote:
[clip] Then it will make sense to talk of HOPE.
Julio Huato wrote:
In other words, you are HOPELESS.
I know it's a cliché, but whatever happened to optimism of the will,
pessimism of the intellect?
That is what was echoing through my mind as I typed.
Jim Devine wrote:
I know it's a cliché, but whatever happened to optimism of the will,
pessimism of the intellect?
How is voting for Hillary, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Gravel, Nader, the
SWP, etc. -- or not voting! -- a manifestation of this optimism of
the will?
me:
I know it's a cliché, but whatever happened to optimism of the will,
pessimism of the intellect?
Julio Huato wrote:
How is voting for Hillary, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Gravel, Nader, the
SWP, etc. -- or not voting! -- a manifestation of this optimism of
the will?
I interpret optimism
On Sunday 10 February 2008 14:52:00 Julio Huato wrote:
How is voting for Hillary, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Gravel, Nader, the
SWP, etc. -- or not voting! -- a manifestation of this optimism of
the will?
I've never understood that slogan. Can somebody tell me what it means?
Carrol wrote:
It seems to me that to put one's hopes in either
Obama or Clinton is to express utter despair.
And putting your hopes in Nader is a sign of cheerfulness? (It's odd
to have the words cheerfulness and Nader in the same sentence.)
One can say that Al Sharpton carries some real baggage, but what is
the primary baggage that Jesse carries relative to Obama? Jesse is
divisive *because* he represents black demands for equality.
--ravi
Well, black voters have turned out in vast numbers, and the overwhelming
Matthijs Krul wrote:
One can say that Al Sharpton carries some real baggage, but what is
the primary baggage that Jesse carries relative to Obama? Jesse is
divisive *because* he represents black demands for equality.
--ravi
Well, black voters have turned out in vast
Michael Perelman wrote:
Young voters turned out for Howard Dean with great enthusiasm, yet he was a
pretty
conservative governor. Obama is absolutely correct. Voting is about hope,
but the
hopes are sure to be dashed. All it takes is a nice delivery, some focus
groups,
a good
43% of Obama's donations come from donors who give more than $2300.
Only 26% comes from those who donate less than $200. So his support
comes mainly from large contributors (Hillary does fare worse, with
12% coming from $200 donors, and 63% from $2300 donors).
[Source: opensecrets.org]
On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
Can you cite a single piece of legislation that Obama sponsored that
would indicate that his presidency would make it far better for
leftist
causes in the US than Clinton?
Hillary's campaign points out in a release this morning that aside
from
Hillary's campaign points out in a release this morning that aside
from the vote on whether to promote Gen. Casey, the Senate voting
records of the two on Iraq issues are identical.
Doug
Another reason to vote for a Green Party candidate.
On Feb 8, 2008, at 7:07 AM, Matthijs Krul wrote:
43% of Obama's donations come from donors who give more than $2300.
Only 26% comes from those who donate less than $200. So his support
comes mainly from large contributors (Hillary does fare worse, with
12% coming from $200 donors, and 63% from
Please distribute widely.
…from Sister McKinney
We cannot be satisfied so long as the Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and the
Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. August 28, 1963
Dear Friend,
Are you:
* Incredulous at the fact that two
On Feb 8, 2008, at 4:40 PM, ravi wrote:
One can say that Al Sharpton carries some real baggage, but what is
the primary baggage that Jesse carries relative to Obama? Jesse is
divisive *because* he represents black demands for equality.
Well yeah, but JJ, despite his being a bit of a fraud
On Feb 8, 2008, at 3:38 PM, raghu wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008 11:33 AM, ravi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/26ffym
And his statement of my own point that Obama serves as a safety
valve/
outlet and also as a stunted end not a means to our goals:
In 2007, the Obama package amply
ravi
On Feb 8, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
One can say that Al Sharpton carries some real baggage, but what is
the primary baggage that Jesse carries relative to Obama? Jesse is
divisive *because* he represents black demands for equality.
^
CB: Jackson's campaign theme was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/07/2008 6:36 PM
. . . I think that was in 1972, when the CP ran its
own independent campaign, but most of its members
supported McGovern
CB: Did you do a poll of the members or did you
get this info from the FBI ?***
By 1972, weren't most of
Greetings Economists,
On Feb 7, 2008, at 3:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By 1972, weren't most of its members _employed_ by the FBI?
Doyle;
I'd like to second Michael's gentle call here to be nice. At best
this 'rehashes' nothing very interesting about economics, and perhaps
more to the
Neither of them will have the slightest intent on reforming the voting
system; disappointing but predictable. But I really don't see where the
idea comes from that Clinton is somehow more on the issues than Obama
is. There is zero evidence for it and it's merely a succesful electoral
strategy by
I don't know whether this article adds anything worthwhile to the debate
but it tries to look at how foreign policy advisers for Obama and
Clinton might influence policy.
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1226/1/
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1226/1/
Foreign Policy:
On Feb 8, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
One can say that Al Sharpton carries some real baggage, but what is
the primary baggage that Jesse carries relative to Obama? Jesse is
divisive *because* he represents black demands for equality.
^
CB: Jackson's campaign theme was Rainbow
One can say that Al Sharpton carries some real baggage, but what is
the primary baggage that Jesse carries relative to Obama? Jesse is
divisive *because* he represents black demands for equality.
--ravi
^
CB: Jackson's campaign theme was Rainbow Coalition, i.e. racial
unity. It is
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Matthijs Krul wrote:
Obama's support comes mainly from a vast
amount of small individual donations, whereas Hillary is much more
reliant
on large donors and companies.
Yeah, he's gotten more small donations than she has, but he also gets
the big bucks from the
Clean Black Nuclear Obama Power:
http://www.deq.idaho.gov/inl_oversight/waste/images/snf_dry_storage_can_000.jpg
Matthijs Krul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there are good leftist reasons to
support him.
As was already pointed out, Obama's support comes mainly from a vast
amount of small
Just to add my two cents to the Obama/Hillary issue. I'm not an American,
so I don't have a vote in the US elections anyway, but I would definitely
prefer Obama over Clinton. None of us, I'm sure, have any illusions about
Obama being even remotely radical, neither on economic or nor on so-called
Jim Devine
I think that was
in 1972, when the CP ran its own independent campaign, but most of its
members supported McGovern
CB: Did you do a poll of the members or did you get this info from the
FBI ? Most party members are not public because there is not freedom of
political
me:
I think that was
in 1972, when the CP ran its own independent campaign, but most of its
members supported McGovern
Charles:
Did you do a poll of the members or did you get this info from the
FBI ? Most party members are not public because there is not freedom of
political association
On Feb 7, 2008, at 12:33 PM, ravi wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Matthijs Krul wrote:
As was already pointed out, Obama's support comes mainly from a vast
amount of small individual donations, ...
43% of Obama's donations come from donors who give more than $2300.
Only 26% comes from
CB: No, they considered it a Business Party, and said so.
Louis Proyect wrote:
Do you have a citation for that? I, of course, am not referring to the
3rd period, when the CP was certainly hostile to the Democrats.
I remember hearing the CP presidential candidate (Gus Hall) saying
that
CB: No, they considered it a Business Party, and said so.
Do you have a citation for that? I, of course, am not referring to the
3rd period, when the CP was certainly hostile to the Democrats.
Louis Proyect
Matthijs Krul wrote:
Even when
times were vastly rougher and the leftist challenge vastly stronger
than
they were now, like around WWI and the Great Depression, the
two-party
system in the US stood as a rock amidst the storm. It's simply not
feasible to expect it to collapse as
Matthijs Krul
Contrary to what Charles Brown thinks, I think
the Bradley effect will be quite minor - Harold Ford in the 2006
Senate
election performed more or less as polled, and he was a really
rightist
Democratic candidate in Tennessee of all places. Obama has won such
bastions of ethnic
everybody.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 05:30:37PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
Who just me ?
Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/07/2008 5:20 PM
Be nice.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 05:14:01PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
But you are not tired of being offensive ?
--
Michael Perelman
CB: I believe this was because the CP considered itself a Labor Party.
Sort of like the Bolsheviks were the Social Democratic _Labor_ Party.
Squelch is a loaded term in this context, therefore. They would be
saying , if you want to build a labor party, support us.
Instead I think that the CP
Who just me ?
Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/07/2008 5:20 PM
Be nice.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 05:14:01PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
But you are not tired of being offensive ?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
Be nice.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 05:14:01PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
But you are not tired of being offensive ?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
But you are not tired of being offensive ?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/07/2008 4:47 PM
I'm tired of this defensiveness.
On Feb 7, 2008 1:16 PM, Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jim Devine
Charles:
Did you do a poll of the members or did you get this info from the
FBI ? Most
I'm tired of this defensiveness.
On Feb 7, 2008 1:16 PM, Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Devine
Charles:
Did you do a poll of the members or did you get this info from the
FBI ? Most party members are not public because there is not freedom
of
political association for
Matthijs Krul wrote:
Even when
times were vastly rougher and the leftist challenge vastly stronger than
they were now, like around WWI and the Great Depression, the two-party
system in the US stood as a rock amidst the storm. It's simply not
feasible to expect it to collapse as long as plurality
Jim Devine
Charles:
Did you do a poll of the members or did you get this info from the
FBI ? Most party members are not public because there is not freedom
of
political association for Communists in the US.
no, I didn't do a poll. But that was the word on the street and my
friends in the CP
Very astute, especially because I agree with you.
Just to add my two cents to the Obama/Hillary issue.
3 thumbs up!: http://leighm.net/images/incvl.jpg
On Feb 7, 2008 2:47 PM, Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
everybody.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 05:30:37PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
Who just me ?
Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/07/2008 5:20 PM
Be nice.
On Thu,
Louis Proyect
CB: No, they considered it a Business Party, and said so.
Do you have a citation for that? I, of course, am not referring to the
3rd period, when the CP was certainly hostile to the Democrats.
CB: Why aren't you referring to the 3rd period ?
I believe I saw it in Party
Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/07/2008 12:05 PM
CB: I believe this was because the CP considered itself a Labor
Party.
Sort of like the Bolsheviks were the Social Democratic _Labor_
Party.
Squelch is a loaded term in this context, therefore. They would
be
saying , if you want to build a
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Matthijs Krul wrote:
As was already pointed out, Obama's support comes mainly from a vast
amount of small individual donations, ...
43% of Obama's donations come from donors who give more than $2300.
Only 26% comes from those who donate less than $200. So his
. . . I think that was in 1972, when the CP ran its
own independent campaign, but most of its members
supported McGovern
CB: Did you do a poll of the members or did you
get this info from the FBI ?***
By 1972, weren't most of its members _employed_ by the FBI?
I think Hillary Clinton will be an excellent candidate. The Democrats managed
to
lose the last elections with boring policy wonks, devoid of any charm. Now
after
eight years of George Bush, throwing on election will be more challenging. The
Hillary is not just a policy wonk, she is grating
Michael Perelman wrote:
I think Hillary Clinton will be an excellent candidate. ...
More than anyone else, she has the potential of finally proving the emptiness
of the
Democratic Party to the general public.
she's better than Mike Dukakis for this purpose? hard to believe.
--
Jim Devine /
On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Michael Perelman wrote:
More than anyone else, she has the potential of finally proving the
emptiness of the
Democratic Party to the general public.
Have you forgotten Kerry? Dukakis?
Doug
I had Kerry, but left out Dukakis. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, could be
charming, but these others
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:24:23AM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Michael Perelman wrote:
More than anyone else, she has the potential of finally proving the
Michael Perelman:
I had Kerry, but left out Dukakis. Bill Clinton, for all his faults,
could be
charming, but these others
CB: Is the emptiness of the Democratic Party the lack of charm of its
presidential candidates ?
, Michael Perelman wrote:
More than anyone else, she
Instead, I think that the lack of charm reflects the emptiness. I don't think
that
they are aware of the problem. The Republicans ran an worhtless candidate --
Bush --
but they realized that they had to give him an image, which they did
successfully.
As a candidate, however, Bush, especially
Charles Brown wrote:
Is the emptiness of the Democratic Party the lack of charm of its
presidential candidates ?
in some ways. The _real_ primaries (the collection of campaign
contributions) favors anyone who can rake in the bucks, whether they
have charm or not. Thus, Mondale, Dukakis,
Jim Devine
Charles Brown wrote:
Is the emptiness of the Democratic Party the lack of charm of its
presidential candidates ?
in some ways. The _real_ primaries (the collection of campaign
contributions) favors anyone who can rake in the bucks, whether they
have charm or not. Thus, Mondale,
Michael Perelman
Instead, I think that the lack of charm reflects the emptiness. I
don't think that
they are aware of the problem. The Republicans ran an worhtless
candidate -- Bush --
but they realized that they had to give him an image, which they did
successfully.
As a candidate, however,
Michael Perelman wrote:
Instead, I think that the lack of charm reflects the emptiness. I don't think
that
they are aware of the problem. The Republicans ran an worhtless candidate --
Bush --
but they realized that they had to give him an image, which they did
successfully.
Did anybody
On Feb 6, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:
Did anybody see the Democratic Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius,
give her party's response to Bush's State of the Union speech a couple
of weeks ago. Speaking of emptiness, it doesn't get much more hollow
than this. Plus, she comes across as
Charles Brown wrote:
Is the emptiness of the Democratic Party the lack of charm of its
presidential candidates ?
me:
in some ways. The _real_ primaries (the collection of campaign
contributions) favors anyone who can rake in the bucks, whether they
have charm or not. Thus, Mondale,
Jim Devine
It's true that a lot of the emptiness of the DP is fake populism or
reflects the shortcomings of true populism. (Much of what Edwards
said fits in either or both categories.) But amazingly, the real
primaries run by the donors filters theses populisms out too.
--
CB: Nicely put.
Jim Devine wrote:
It's true that a lot of the emptiness of the DP is fake populism or
reflects the shortcomings of true populism. (Much of what Edwards
said fits in either or both categories.) But amazingly, the real
primaries run by the donors filters theses populisms out too.
I would
me:
It's true that a lot of the emptiness of the DP is fake populism or
reflects the shortcomings of true populism. (Much of what Edwards
said fits in either or both categories.) But amazingly, the real
primaries run by the donors filters theses populisms out too.
Carrol Cox writes:
I
68 matches
Mail list logo
