The excellent Glen Ford, ex of The Black Commentator and now of The Black Agenda Report, gives the shiny & well-spoken Barack Obama a definitive hammering: <http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=251&Itemid=34>.
[WS:] He basically argues that Obama should espouse the tough-talk rhetoric of the 1970 - of which we already know that it got use nowhere - an be marginalized by a popular support measuring in single digits, or espouse the all-inclusive rhetoric - which may or may not get anywhere - and have a decent chance of being elected. What is so great in proposing stomping one's feet, cursing, and the certainty of being defeated instead of "playing the game" and having a chance of winning?
Or to put it differently, what is so great about undermining an electable candidate who, while certainly not perfect, offers a refreshing difference from the same old, same old, business as usual crap that we have seen thus far in the ranks of both parties? As I read the discussion on the Sopranos on this list, people liked this show because while not perfect, it offered a refreshing alternative to the usual TV crap. Why not using the same standards in judging Mr. Obama?
Wojtek