Charles Brown wrote:
> all the enthusiasm for C
Eh?
^^^^^ CB: She only has 120 less delegates than O. Millions of people are voting for her, which means there is a lot of enthusiasm for her. Repeat: What is really bizarre is the theme on this list that is so upset about enthusiasm for O . That is much more bizarre than the enthusiasm for O itself. It's like suddenly the list is the theatre of the absurd or something. There is almost no rational basis for being upset that people are enthusiastic for O without also being upset about the enthusiasm for McCain, Clinton, all the other candidates who got votes before. To single out O is just astonishing. I've been sitting here watching it and I gotta say "what the fuck is going on ?"
To say things like "I'm upset about the Beatlemania around O" as the main comment on the campaign is itself paranoid or something. No one yet has given a good argument for that to be a main basis for criticizing O more than C.
Finally, people voting for O because he fashions himself as a uniter not a divider, especially of races, even denouncing Farakhan, is one of the most SUBSTANTIVE bases for voting for someone in the US. So , you aren't even correct that there is no substance to O's campaign ! Your giving so little weight and importance on that arch- heavy issue makes O more left than you all are !
^^^^^
> As if Samantha Power is worse than whomever C has in the
> corresponding position. I don't even know who C's "Samantha Power"
is.
> Why aren't they being attacked here ?
Because they're straight out imperialist pigs. Power puts a high- minded gloss on imperial piggery.
^^^^^^^
CB: Puhlease. You all need to quit.
Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk