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
You can't blame Obama for Edwards' failure. On a superficial level,
BHO was positioned more to the center than the left.
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.
I don't think he has trivialized anything. You could criticize his
proposals for lacking depth or scope, but that's different.
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.
BHO has played by rules he did not set and has put himself in a position
to win.
You can't ask a serious candidate to do otherwise.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
