From: ravi
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.
^^^^^
CB: Could you elaborate and state more literally what this 'hangover"
danger is ? (smile)
^^^
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.
^^^
CB: Did you miss Ferraro's claim that O has an advantage _because_ he
is Black ? FYI, that's the current line of the KkK. Blacks are not
advantaged and whites are disadvantaged in America. I kid you not.
Then there was Clinton saying that John McCain and she are ready to be
President and O is not. In political party terms that qualifies
metaphorically as stab in the back.
^^^^^^^
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.
^^^^^
CB: Speaking of contorted, would you run that by me one more time.
^^^^^
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.
^^^^
CB: Have to look. The television report I saw said O ahead by 600,000
in popular vote after Ohio and Texas.
The only one on the ballot in Michigan was Clinton. All the other
candidates , including Edwards, took their names off the ballot in
Michigan as a way of complying with the pledge all took not to
participate in Michigan.
^^^^
(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.
^^^^^
CB: Candidates did not campaign in Florida. So what they did was take a
poll. O pointed that Clinton was ahead by 20 points everywhere until
there were campaigns. Then the 20 points vanished.
--ravi
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
