Another way to put it, which candidate is the most dangerous to the US itself?
The Chimp has been the most incompetent in living memory. he's inflicted some serious damage on the USA, he couldn't have done a much better job of harming the US if he had been trying. He's been a GREAT president for the rest of the world. Contrary to your assertion that there's nothing to pick between the last half dozen. The next one has to be worse/better. But the least competent the better as far as the rest the world is concerned.
So what's with this Obama fellow? Hasn't he actually lived outside the USA in his formative years? He might even know how to find other countries on the map? Fairly bright too from all accounts. Sounds dangerous. Obviously a Republican is out of the question, thanks to the Chimp. So the least competent Democrat will have to do. One who defines his relationship with allied nations by threatening to invade them if they vote in the wrong government sounds like he might be able to carry on the Chimp's good work though, but is it just an act? Will he turn out to be a wiley fellow who can actually talk to international leaders without making them simultaneously cringe with embarrassment and seethe with hatred?
Is there anything between the two Democrat rivals on that score, or not? I can't pick it if there is, but one thing you would have to say is that a black president would at least be a hopeful sign to the rest of the world. That's bad. The world really needs to abandon hope that the USA will ever change for the better. But maybe to raise the hopes of the world, only to dash those hopes ruthlessly, would be a useful thing to do in the long run?
Its just so complicated. I think I'll have to abstain from voting... oh, that's right, I don't get a vote anyhow.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
At 11:19 PM -0600 18/2/08, Carrol Cox wrote:
>abu hartal wrote:
>>
> > Michael Smith says "Perhaps--if you believe it". Why not yes of
>course those would be important differences if they turn out to be
>real! Smith's statement reflects perfectly the disinterest in the
>fate of the world by the people have it in their hands;
>
>I'm afraid you are a bit clueless as to u.s. politics. There is no
>chance whatever that _any_ president will be elected who will be any
>better for the rest of the world than have been the last half dozen or
>so. They are _all_ committed to what they see as the interests of the
>u.s. empire, and it is in that respect that Obama is just another
>politician, just another servant of capital. Some on this list think
>that the people who support him _may_ offer some hope of later political
>action _against_ the actual policies that Obama will support. You do
>know, don't you, that Obama has declared himself ready to send u.s.
>troops into Pakistan if a government unfriendly to the u.s. should
>emerge there.
>
>I'm not sure which of the three remaining candidates is most dangerous
>to the rest of the world -- but all three are dangerous, and my own
>speculation is that Obama may be the most dangerous of the three.
>
>Of course he is lying. He may go through the motions on some of those
>claims you make for him, but the substance will not be particularly
>different from what Clinton or McCain would do. Don't put any more fear
>into McCain's rhetoric than hope into Obama's rrhetoric.
>
>Carrol
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk