I originally brought up Samantha Power as an example of the normalcy of Obama's foreign policies views. Samantha Power is an imperialist because she believes in U.S. dominance, a U.S. led coalition of forces to enforce world order. She believes that this only can be done through a believable and ideological stand on human rights, which allows for U.S. and Co. intervention in selected areas of the world but ignores other places in the world where there is no overt controversy
[...]
...........
Agreed.
But I think it's important to recognize that when Abu Hartal defends Power he's actually continuing his relentless campaign to depict Obama as the answer to the world's US problem. If she weren't attached to the Obama campaign I doubt Abu would've spent even a second crafting elaborate explanations for why she's not so bad after all. The surface topic was Power but the real topic was Sen. Obama's critical importance to world history. Since Jerry and others began looking at the Senator's advisers and funding, Abu turned his guns in that direction.
Remarkably, Abu also managed an Obama-related rabbit out of a hat trick in the "Jacoby on Crisis" thread. Near as I could tell, that thread had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. Even so, Abu somehow managed to bring the Senator into the mix when he wrote:
So if imperial policy is not structurally required--that is, if it's not an automatic or inevitable consequence of the accumulation of capital-- then shouldn't we take policy differences among politicians even more seriously? Jacoby is probably a Obama supporter--he is certainly not a Marxist-- so why are we being asked to consult this piece by those who don't think there is a dime's worth of difference?
[...]
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080218/003800.html>
Which is pretty much a textbook case of a wha the wha? non sequitur.
I feel like we're being played for suckers here.
.d.