[lbo-talk] Obama/Clinton

B. docile_body at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 19 09:28:36 PST 2008


Actually, if its foreign policy that is the big deal, then one of the people I hate most, Ron Paul, has talked the best talk about that. He didn't/hasn't just promised a more humble foreign policy like Bush did in 2000, but said US overseas bases should be flat-out closed. And Paul was hot shit for awhile for saying this (ain't that right, Carrol?), though why it was Paul and not, say, Kucinich, who also has a really anti-militarist line, inspired people, is beyond me.

But, like Max said, candidates make any number of promises to get elected, or before inauguration. The rhetoric of both HRC and BHO is going more and more to the left as the big TX/OH/etc. primaries loom (The NYT calls it more "populist" rhetoric). Freeze subprime foreclosures; penalize corporations that offshore jobs; extra taxes on oil corporations to fund "green collar" projects; references to the two fatcat "oilmen" in the White House and the evils of big business; let college students pay back school loans through charity/pro bono/volunteer work; and I have even begun to hear "single payer" used in addition to "universal health insurance." BHO's advisers are not morally superior to the team around HRC in any meaningful way that I can see, and the plans he's explicitly laid out actually seem less ambitious to me. Frankly, BHO's attitude towards Social Security scares me; his healthcare adviser was one of the people used by the GOP in the 90s to undermine ideas of a national health plan; and so on.

But Max, who I guess supports BHO, said candidates will pledge anything. This should apply to all of them. The Obamaphilia and its backlash, which I was almost instantly weary of after sitting through the absurd Ron Paul fan flare-up (remember the Obama daydreaming girl YouTube vids from months and months back?), versus the polarizing hatred many have of the Clintons from both sides of the political spectrum, could mean that McCain, that complete and utter bastard, could snatch victory from defeat's jaws.

What seems like some big rousing, inspiring push for change could, and probably will, end up just another fucking nightmare. I mean, 6 months ago Guliani was the big guy to beat. It's totally different now, and could be totally different to the same degree 4 months from now. McCain might end up seeming "rational" to the US voting public.

-B.

abu hartal wrote:

"You don't deny that Obama and Clinton have articulated massively different principles for foreign policy. For this reason alone we should take a risk on Obama."



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list