On May 6, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Matt wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:59:19PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>>> But she's ahead now in the polls and there are more primaries
>>> ahead.
>>> Why should BHO be the presumptive nominee, other than because you
>>> like him better?
>>
>> Well, if one believes the following:
>>
>> * Obama is much more electable than Hillary, because Clinton-hate is
>> so strong amongst right-wingers and some independents. Those voters
>> may stay home, or vote for Obama. But they'll come out and vote for
>> McCain.
>>
>> * A McCain presidency would be an order of magnitude more horrible
>> for
>> the entire world than either Obama or Clinton.
>>
>> Then it follows that one would want Hillary to step out.
>>
>> There's really nothing new here. The "spoiler" argument is why some
>> people don't want Nader to run, and didn't want him to run in the
>> past.
>>
Following on this, and recognizing that McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb"
and Frau Clinton's "obliterate" Iran programs prove them to be
similarly horrible, we should certainly consider Obama the lesser
evil. On the other hand, considering that no capitalist candidate is
able to do more than slightly mitigate the horror of US Imperial
policy--or make it much more horrible than US capitalist class
interests dictate--we might well welcome the nomination of Clinton
since it would lead to a much greater
vote for Nader-Gonzalez, the meaningful anti-Imperial choice in this
election.
Although Obama's advocates are afraid even to mention the existence of the Nader alternative, it is above all Nader-Gonzalez that makes Obama "electable" and Clinton "unelectable."
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos