Not at all. I simply said that pragmatism was a failed policy. The Democrats have a chance of winning in '08 because there are a number of clear issues they can stand on, thus the decrease in the need to demonize an Other in propaganda. Third party candidacies have not bolstered or deterred the pragmatic approach; history has just recently borne that out. Real ongoing effort needs to be made to change the entire political system in the US-- and this will have to go far beyond liberals supporting this or that figurehead every 4 years, and arguing back and forth about how said candidate will 'play in the sticks.' Democrats have no material interest in such an effort. andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@yahoo.com> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> So absolutism works so well? Don't vote, vote for the Socialist Party or Nader. Let McCain win. That worked so well too. We are faced with ugly and unappy choices. I have been on both sides of this -- yours for 15 years. I don't know the right answer. Are you sure you do? --- amadeus amadeus <amadeus482000 @yahoo.com=""> wrote: > yeah, let's stick with pragmatism.... it worked so > well in the last two elections... > > andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen @yahoo.com=""> > wrote: I am aware of Obama's limitations. But it > already says > something that the conservative press feels it has > to > race bait him as an Ayrab terrorist rather than as a > black man. He's also not quite as centrist as you > are > making out -- he's not a Clinton (Bill or Hilary), > he > record in Illinois is pretty good; he's now running > on > having opposed the war; it's true his style is > highly > conciliatory and he opposes conflict and will not > fight hard for things we want and need. But does > have > a gift for winning over conservatives without > pandering to them, basically by making it seem as > (and > maybe it is true) that he really listens. And the > candidates who support the positions we like -- > Edwards to some degree, Kuchinich -- poll in the > single digits and have no choice. So insofar as one > is > going to play presidential game at all, at the > present > it's Obama or Hilary, and he's way better and has a > far better chance. She's way too polarizing. Usual > caveats about spineless and untrustworthy Democrats. > > > --- Doug Henwood wrote: > > > > > On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Michael Pollak wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Doug Henwood wrote: > > > > > >> His name - Barack Hussein Obama - will do the > > rest of the work. Is > > >> there any way a dark-skinned man with a name > like > > that could ever > > >> get elected? > > > > > > But conversely, for that very reason, if he > could, > > wouldn't it mean > > > something? > > > > Yeah, it'd mean the American people could swallow > > post-political > > centrism in an all-new wrapper. > > > > Doug > > ___________________________________ > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Have a burning question? > Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from > real people who know. > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk > > > > --------------------------------- > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.> ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </andie_nachgeborenen></amadeus482000></blockquote> <hr size=1>Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49936/*http://videogames.yahoo.com">the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.</a>