[lbo-talk] black primary turnout

shag shag at cleandraws.com
Mon Jun 23 13:25:11 PDT 2008


I'm sorry. Somehow, my prefatory comments got wipes out in my webmail program. What I'd intended to do was summarize Charles' views to see if I understood him correctly. So I'm assuming your question is directed to him?


> shag wrote:
>> Charles Brown wrote:
>>> B: You can probably believe Joaquin and my anecdotal , but probably
>>> representative sampled, observations of Black people's attitudes over
>>> this particular poll on this point. Black people are more enthusiastic
>>> for Obama 'cause he is Black and worthy of their pride, i.e. it is
>>> "nationalistic". Sure they can't stand Bush and the Republicans as
>>> well,
>>> but that's a negative reason, and doesn't give as much enthusiasm as
>>> the
>>> positives of O.
>>>
>>> But the reason lefts should be cheered by O's success ( including
>>> touching the Dem Party with a ten foot pole) is the large number of
>>> _Whites_ voting for him. It's not new or surprising that Black people
>>> would support a Black candidate. It is that so many Whites are.
>>>
>>
>> 5. Whites voting for a black man is a sign of that they've been
>> "energized".
>>
>> 6. Obama is taking care not to appear too progressive, but that's just
>> because he's a savvy politician, biding his time.
>>
>>
>> shag
>>
>
>
> You really believe #5 and #6?
> Couldn't you just as easily state that had Clinton won having white blue
> collar men voting for a woman was something we should embrace and a sign
> that these voters were 'energized'?
> The available evidence suggest the opposite of #6 may be true. Remember,
> all that anti-Nafta stuff was just Obama using "overheated rhetoric" and
> saying stuff he didn't really mean.
> He reversed his promise on public financing of his campaign because of
> the non-existent threat from the 527's that are allegedly poised to
> spend "millions and millions in unlimited donation" attacking and
> smearing him.
> Breaking with the parties left and supporting crappy legislation
> concerning FISA wiretapping.
> What else did he get carried away and say that he doesn't really mean
> either?
> He's doing a bang up job of not appearing too progressive so far!
>
> John Thornton
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list