On Mar 15, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2008/03/obamanomics_hope_has_a_plan.php
Rejected by some fine liberal outlets. I'd have put it on TPM Cafe,
but Josh doesn't pay. Doesn't need to, really. Pajamas does.
Remember, I have said there wasn't that much difference between HRC
and BHO
on paper. The main point of this is that BHO is not some right-
deviationist.
I won't argue the economics with you since I am sure you (or almost
anyone!) are better at it than I am. However, there are multiple
dangers with the Obama hype. One is already manifest: the Obama
campaign has managed to kill off the only viable candidate who (IMHO)
was talking about class and economic issues in a meaningful sense
(even if protectionist, etc). And the way this happened is the real
clue to the danger: not through any serious adoption or even co-opting
of the platform but through the audacity of hype. Stuff such as "this
campaign is about you", "change", "post-partisanship", etc, etc. And
this effect, the post everything rhetoric, shows up over and over
again in the rhetoric of the fanboys and fangirls (read for instance
the hit jobs by various media post-feminist fangirls), trivialising
deep problems that are nowhere close to solution.
Indeed, I too believe there is not a lot of difference between Obama
and Clinton... I would even say whatever difference there is
(politically, morally), it is to Obama's favour. But the educated,
young, liberal Obama lovefest paired with the rhetoric and messianic
conviction(s) of their hero, will result, I am afraid, in a hangover
that the rest of the nation (and world!) cannot afford to wake up with.
Campaign platforms aside, I would suggest that in the past month the
HRC
campaign has revealed its political and moral character better than
any platform
analysis could illuminate. And in those terms there should be
little debate over who
is more liberal, for whatever that's worth.
I am not sure how you define "liberal" (some in the left use it as a
term of opprobrium), but I am not sure I see anything particularly
revealing in the past month of the HRC campaign. The Obama camp
contortions to have it both ways ("the people's will has to be upheld"
bullshit coupled with "well, we really mean delegates, but no
superdelegates" weaselling, as wonderfully demonstrated by Tom Daschle
on Meet The Press) in the last month have been amusing, OTOH.
A few points from what I have read but rarely hear in the media: (a)
while Obama did not put his name on the Michigan ballot, not counting
Wyoming/Mississippi (whose vote counts I do not have at my fingertips)
Hillary actually was leading in the popular vote. (b) Democratic
primary voters in Florida where disenfranchised by the actions of the
Republican controlled state government. (c) it would be interesting to
know what Obama's popular vote tally would be if the "independent" and
Republican votes were taken out.
--ravi
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
