> BHO states that the "promise of America" has essentially been
> fulfilled - Blacks are pretty much at parity with Whites. Racism only
> exists in backward pockets of resistance. His success is largely
> based upon pretending the patient isn't diseased, the house isn't on
> fire. Indeed, as BHO describes things, the patient is the model of
> beauty and health and what looks like a raging fire is only the lovely
> golden light of a rising sun.
>
> Now, you might reply that this, while true, is unimportant;
Yes, that'd be my reply.
How much social power Black people have in U.S. society is not merely a matter of rhetorical argument. Hopefully, it's something that shifts -- something *to be decided* in the practical struggle. In a sense, Obama's candidacy is making that argument tangible to people. Testing the actual limits of so-called "civil rights." Obama's candidacy doesn't nullify progressive politics. It tests its actual (temporary) limits. I think that's the way many Blacks look at his candidacy.
After a compelling argument, Dwayne asks:
> why hope that what is false will lead to
> something true?
I can only reply with other questions: Where is the alternative path where truth securely leads to truth? The effective, mutually-exclusive alternatives to voting for Obama are not that many. Let's list them:
We can vote for Clinton. Or for McCain. Or for Nader, the SWP, etc. Or not vote.
(We cannot say that grassroots organizing for universal health care, out of Iraq, rebuilding New Orleans, women's rights, rights for immigrant workers, gay rights, etc. -- or radical propaganda against capitalism -- should be in the list. They are not mutually exclusive with the above, but complementary.)
Show me how either of these alternatives is a truth that will lead us to more truth. And show me how that alternative doesn't involve hoping.