>Obama as a presidential candidate simply cannot admit that the U.S. commits
>acts of terror. Not yesterday. Not a hundred years ago, but presently and
>continuously. The U.S. is the major terrorist state in the world today.
>Wright seems to know that. Obama can't admit that or try to solve it and
>run for president. So it is not a matter of forgiveness for past actions.
>The terrorism that the U.S. commits in the world is motivated by the need
>for capitalist domination but it is fueled by racist assumptions. So why is
>it "worth a try" to reconcile oneself with this kind of power structure?
It's not to 'reconcile oneself with' the power structure, whatever that means. I mean, if you're not risking (or doing) hard federal time you're reconciling yourself to the power structure. So let's get real, we're talking about the small bathtub of U.S. politics in a presidential election year. Evidently some portion of the U.S. power structure thinks it needs a Black man with international credentials to fix some of the damage Bush has done to their imperial project, but they're also having to concede some ground on racism at the same time.
Railing against the candidates' support of the fundamentals of U.S. foreign policy is all well and good, but you risk missing interesting undercurrents. Well, maybe you don't think they're interesting. Don't worry, as Carrol always says, real politics will resume in a few months.
>This is the crux of the problem with all presidential candidates. It is
>possible to go out and vote for the "lesser evil" if you think that will
>help the people on the other end of U.S. violence.
I know. I'm more interested in what will help organize the next step and the next step in my mind is a/the Labor Party in the US and that's easier to organize under Democrats. Historically Democrats are more likely to start wars, simply because they have a more populist image and therefore can get away with it more easily. So that's a bad reason to vote Democrat if that's the the extent of your analysis and you see yourself as engaged in a tug of war rather than a chess match.
>But Charles has bought
>into the con job that somehow Obama is different; that Obama somehow will
>bring reconciliation.
I read no evidence of that. He's been saying it's the election that's something new under the sun, the process of white people electing a Black person president--that in itself is something, an anti-racist act. In that context, trying to get elected in the racist U.S., Obama's walking a tightrope and Wright twanged it. So that's the topic, not Obama's governing style.
>If Obama is elected president what we will have to
>fight against is this kind of "false reconciliation," the facade of a
>capitalism with a human face, when nothing fundamental has changed.
That's nothing new, and it's not special to Obama. All Democrats, even Republicans, lay claim...compassionate conservatism...humanitarian bombing...Clinton...Carter...
Jenny Brown