Agreed... but I think was disappoints many people is that they did not
see him as an "establishment" politician!!! But then again, many people
also believed that Iraqis had WMDs.
CHAD
Jim Devine wrote:
Still, I don't see Obama as being more of a con man than any other
establishment politician.
Louis Proyect wrote:
There's no evidence that Petras had any illusions in Obama.
In fact, he was a Nader/McKinney supporter:
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1760&more=1&c=1
The Elections and the Responsibility of the Intellectual to Speak Truth to
Power: Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney
The presidential elections in the US, once again, provide an acid test of
the integrity and consequential conduct of US intellectuals. If it is the
duty and responsibility of the public intellectual to speak truth to power,
the recent statements of most of our well-known and prestigious public
pundits have failed miserably.
. 10.29.2008
Instead of highlighting, exposing and denouncing the reactionary foreign and
domestic policies of Democratic Party candidate Senator Barack Obama, they
have chosen to support him, 'critically, offering as excuses that even
'limited differences' can result in positive outcomes,and that 'Obama is the
lesser evil' and 'creates an opportunity for a possibility of change.'
What makes these arguments untenable is the fact that Obama's public
pronouncements, his top policy advisers, and the likely policymakers in his
government have openly defined a most bellicose foreign policy and a
profoundly reactionary domestic economic policy totally in line with
Paulson-Bush-Wall Street. On the major issues of war, peace, the economic
crisis and the savaging of the US wage and salaried class, Obama promises to
extend and deepen the policies which the majority of Americans reject and
repudiate.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
