A few bullet points for now.
Given the three main contenders, I was an Edwards supporter. I was
sorry to see him drop out, but it was probably inevitable.
The worst development though is the push by MoveOn for Obama on
SuperTuesday. This is a big, big mistake. I'm willing to accept the
limitations of liberal politics as a practical matter, but blindness
and stupidity are unacceptable, and this is a criminal misuse of
resources and commitment. Other organizations are following
suit. The stuff I've been reading in support of Obama is not the
usual pragmatic calculation of the best option progressives have,
it's pure unadulterated self-delusion. I know this is a stupid
society, but I think I'm shocked.
And mind you I'm not just griping because liberal politics doesn't
meet radical expectations; I'm complaining because these people are
behaving like lemmings blithely jumping off the cliff.
I don't even know who Gravel is.
I don't have a concrete empirical answer to Charles' question, but
one can venture some educated guesses based on the Obama TV
commercials of the past couple of days. I haven't seen such
incredibly virtuosic manipulation of visual imagery since Leni
Riefenstahl. It's un-fucking-believable!
I think there are a number of diverse forces behind this snowballing
campaign. Aside from those who helped set Obama up to tip the
balance in favor of the Republicans, those who really think they can
win are obviously banking on isolating the hard-core redneck voting
bloc who will never vote for a non-right-wing candidate, and getting
everybody else to vote for Obama if he's the nominee. And really,
what does any segment of the ruling elite have to lose by having
Obama in the driver's seat. Kleptocratic corporate and government
practices will continue relatively unabated while some cosmetic
improvements may be--maybe--made, if not thwarted. Everybody will
return to couch potato position watch what happens, with the crackers
and the lefties smoldering on the sidelines.
Setting up Obama to oppose Clinton is another maneuver that demands
analysis. Clinton ultimately accomplishes the same political result
as Obama, but there are already a number of people pissed off at the Clintons.
I think certain factions saw in 2004 that Obama could be a player,
and puffed him up as a Plan B for the Dems or a Plan A for the
Republicans. The Republicans can only win with McCain; otherwise
their ass will get beat down for sure.
At 06:57 PM 2/4/2008, CeJ wrote:
Why did the white media and white money
build him up as the Great Black Hope?
CB: Indeed. Why ?
A while back Louis Proyect talked fatuously about how Kucinich was the
'stalking horse' on the war issue. How wrong could you get. Kucinich
and Gravel are totally outside the mainstream, even the left center of
the Democratic Party.
If you look at Obama, you see he is somewhat right of Edwards, who was
indeed the DNC's stalking horse on the issues of health care, poverty,
and the war. Obama has successfully co-opted the rhetoric of the
issues but has very little substance when you actually look at his
policy proposals. Even on the foreign policy issue, where he is
supposed to be the one who wants to talk directly with the axis of
evil rulers--while he threatens to bomb them, he wants talks without
preconditions. Well, that begs the question of a really large
pre-condition (total destruction).
The DNC looks set to bet the farm on Obama because they think he can
successfully incorporate the rhetoric of health care, poverty, and the
war as issues without really doing anything 'dangerous' about the
issues. I don't want to impose a double standard on Obama, but he
really is more conservative than Edwards (who staked out a claim at
the left center of the party) on the issues. Boring.
He also has a fake 'humble roots' story that is easier to sell than
Clinton's or Edward's.
CJ
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
