brownfemipower recently argued (here, http://brownfemipower.com/archives/2617) that, as a woman of color (and her perspective only she hastened to add), she couldn’t sympathize with white feminists being upset at the loss of clinton’s candidacy for president. among her argument was that, of course, as a latina woman, she wasn’t sad that a candidate who supported militarizing the borders didn’t win the nomination. were i interested in participating in blog conversations, i might have posted a comment to point out that such rhetoric makes it appear that obama is an improvement. which, it seemed to me, seemed to contradict her earlier stated position that all the screaming about who’s sexist and who’s racist in the democratic run off was making it difficult to talk about issues of concern to women of color *as* women of color — and not, as some like to say, women who are also black or women who are also brown. i point to that latter way of phrasing it because i read it the other day, and it highlights how, even people who consider themselves white women who “get it” such phrasing doesn’t really “get it” at all.
but the issues that mattered to women of color, brownfemipower seemed to argue, were issues that recognized the inadequacies of *both* candidates. (she wrote this in comments here, http://elleabd.blogspot.com/2008/05/trying-to-understand-division.html#comment-6878230785463181948)
On my view, of course, they are humpty and dumpty, tweedledee and tweedledum. they both run to the right, they both triangulate, they both are paltry advances over the alternatives from the republican party. there was very little, substantively, that made these two candidates different. which is why, it seemed to me and what i told charles brown at lbo, there should be utterly no shame in voting for a candidate because of his race or her gender. if they are both essentially the same, how can you possible decide on substance? it has to be on an issue besides substance.
it kind of killed me to watch the tube and listen to the radio, where this was widely acknowledged. the candidates acknowledged that they were largely the same, policy-wise. but the last few months have been a ridiculous pretense, on behalf of supporters, that they are not, that there’s something different worth voting *for* obama or something different worth voting *for* clinton.
the mantra of the last few elections cycles, Anybody But a Republican, followed by a sigh of resignation was common among radical leftists. even among the pwogs. but this year? when the candidates for the dem nomination were more alike than ever before –christ, we had sharpton one year! — hardly anyone who was entrapped by the bullshit of electoral politics uttered the phrase that, at one time, seemed to be the only reason anyone voted for a dem: less evil, anybody but a republican.
finally, finally, i heard it: someone who supported obama honestly. ta-nehisi coates said it well the other day, at the brecht forum debates on obama. (link for an mp3 of the discussion here, http://www.wallstreetthebook.com/BrechtObamaPanel.mp3) from a radical left (not progressive, but radical left) perspective, obama had a lot of faults, and coates reeled them off. he knows all that, he told us. but, in the end, he couldn’t help get excited. he couldn’t help getting swept up in the emotions at a picnic for black men he attended earlier in the day, where people who stoked about seeing a black man on t.v. who wasn’t the face in a mug shot. his discussion was admirable because he didn’t ignore the reality: there is a lot, from a radical left perspective, that is reprehensible about obama. there is nothing, he said, substantive in his positions that is worthy of voting *for*. nothing, that is, that truly distinguishes obama from clinton or anyone else that had been a contender. there may be one slightly more progressive thing here, such as not sounding like pat buchanan on militarization of the border, but then there was another issue where clinton might be slightly more ‘left’ (to use the term loosely) and obama slightly more right. it was a wash.
i admire coates for his honesty. i can respect that reasoning. it makes sense to me. he did not try to argue that electing a black man as cheif operating officer of the imperial state would actually change race relations or improve his life or the life of other people of color. he simply said, basically (and to paraphrase): can you dig it? it makes me feel good to see a good looking, smart black man representing. it improves my well-being and there’s a little bit of bounce ot our collective steps these days because of it.
he’s not blowing smoke up my ass trying to convince me that there was ever a substantive difference between them or that, somehow, obama is only saying what he has to say to get elected or that, in fact, his positions are really progressive, maybe even radical!
i could be almost convinced to vote for obama if i thought that the radical leftists supporting him could get behind coates’ program. but they’re not. instead, either overtly or inadvertantly, they insist or let leak out their true feelings: their shared delusion that obama is and remains different, an improvement over clinton, someone who will not triangulate, someone who will not pander to the right to win, someone who is really a progressive, someone who is more honest than your typical politician. the list is endless as to the bullshit i’ve read at lbo.
the wall st. journal today decided that obama is the new bush. bush’s third term. ayup. of course, putting on my cynical, love-to-analyze-the-horse-race-and-psych-out-republican- strategy hat, my guess is that the wall st. journal is laying the ground work for a values attack on obama as a liar, waffler, etc. this becomes really obvious at the end. nonetheless, the rest of what they have to say is worth considering.
i think especially so because noam chomsky and doug henwoud have both frequently pointed out that you can always tell what the rulling class is thinking simply by reading the wall st. journal and other organs of the ruling class. noam chomsky doesn’t have to consult obscure sources to document the atrocities of u.s. imperialism, he finds his sources in the wall st. journal, the new york times, etc. etc.
and you can read what the ruling class is thinking on the op-ed pages of the wsj. at least one sector of the ruling class — the one that closely articulates the business sector’s interests (’coz the ruling class is never a monolith of same opinion and thankd og for that) — happns to be apalled by some aspects of obamas running dog conservativism. (Yes, I know, the real etymology behind ‘running dog’. work with me heeyah. :)
who knows what will happen with obama. at this point, i honestly don’t think he will win, and it won’t be because some white women voted for mccain because they were pissed about clinton. it’ll be because obama hardly distinguishes himself from mccain.
Wall Street Jounral - July 2, 2008
Bush’s Third Term
We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it. Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?
Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.
Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn’t an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.
Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright “was not the person that I met 20 years ago.” The Senator will learn  as John McCain has been saying  that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America’s strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he’ll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he’ll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush’s policy too.
Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for “everybody.” His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama’s protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can’t scare the business community too much.
Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority’s ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats  at least until November.
This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama’s campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.
* * *
All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush’s foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman’s Cold War architecture.
Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama’s political character  and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn’t want voters to believe that in November. He’s still the Obama Americans don’t know.
New Scientist reveals that ânew computer system can predict which [US] death row prisoners will live and which will be killed â with chilling accuracyâ.
I may claim to be against capital punishment, but I'm willing to make an exception in this case ... (NYP)