[lbo-talk] Subprime Pritzker pure gold for Obama

[shag]

At 09:06 AM 3/18/2008, Carrol Cox wrote:
>shag wrote:
> >
> >>
> > ferraro's is right in a kernel of truth kind of way: what's tipping it for
> > teflobama is that he is black. specifically, a black man.
> >
> > so? that should be a good thing, eh?
> >
> > there should be nothing especially shameful about that -- unless you
> > ultimately buy into a liberal view of race. and the folks i describe above
> > like to think they don't.but they do == and thus refuse to cop to the idea
> > that they are voting on the basis of race. they then have to twist
> > themselves into pretzel shapes as to why there's a big difference between
> > the two.
>
>O.K. Now we have it pruned down to a judgment question on which there
>can be honest (but not really debated) differences of opinion.
>
>First, the premise: Both Clinton and Obama are war criminals and enemies
>of the working class.  Either will head an evil administration which
>will cause millions of deaths around the world in the medium not to
>speak of the long (and perhaps even the short) run. That is a given. As
>Michael Smith says, Jesus-they're De ocrats!
>
>So the question:
>
>Will a large vote for a Black Man (regardless of how he performs in
>office) be a blow against racism? That is the case for Obama. It does
>not depend on any conviction as to what kind of administration he will
>head or what policies he will support. (Those policies will be
>destructive: that, as I say, is a given.)
>
>Or,  will a large vote for a woman (regardless of how she performs in
>office) be a blow against sexism (without being a vote FOR racism)? That
>is the case for Clinton. It does not depend on any conviction as to what
>kind of administration she will head or what policies she will support.
>(Those policies will be destructive: that, as I say, is a given.)
>
>By focusing it this way leftists can express different positions as
>Obama or Clinton fans without casting aspersions on motives. (Please
>note: votes and or campaign activities of leftists will have no more
>effect on the outcome than do the wishes of Chicago Cubs fans as
>expressed in 7th-inning cheers. From a left perspective this is merely a
>sporting contest, which they cannot affect.) Those who _really_ support
>the Democratic Party of course are not leftists but liberals who will on
>occasion ally themselves with left causes.
>
>Carrol

well, not really, because then you're going to get into what's happening in 
the feminist blogosphere: the more oppresseder than thou wars. the 
oppression olympics as it's otherwise known. it's anathema in these 
circles, so anyone who supports clinton as a blow against sexism is accused 
of giving primacy to gender. and anyone who support obama is accused of 
giving primacy to race. and then each side will try to avoid being seen as 
giving primacy to either one, while the other looks for evidence otherwise.

ho hum.

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