> this is what's really irritating to me.
> no one here except maybe dwayne can
> understand that it's quite possible to
> be critical of obama -- just as i am
> with clinton, kerry, jackson, edwards,
> kucinich, nader, and on and on --
> without necessarily spending my time
> agitating for clinton or jumping all
> over obama supporters at work, in the
> neighborhood, etc.
Okay. I should not have implied otherwise.
Look, maybe I haven't paid enough attention to your posts. Fact is -- and this is not your problem but mine -- sometimes I have no idea what you mean. But, hey, I truly thought you had changed your mind a little over whether to support a Dem and then over whether to support Obama or not. I thought it was not wholehearted, given the serious reservations you had about *what Obama represents politically* (reservations that, in spite of the different conclusions, in my own silly way, I share with you and others in the list). But I honestly thought your mind had shifted a little. I assumed (wrongly) that the shift had to do with the raw filth that came out (and continues to come out) as a result of Rev. Wright's speeches (not on this list, not even from the Clintons, but on the media and from the right-wingers). I was wrong.
I live in Brooklyn, which is indeed a bubble -- like any other place. However, a few-blocks from my home in all directions, there is Boro Park, Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, a bit further away Staten Island. Those are areas where *a lot* of working people are supporting Hillary Clinton and -- come November -- will be very likely to prefer McCain. Then there's Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Carroll Gardens, and a long list of poorer, predominantly African American neighborhoods surrounding Prospect Park or stretched to the East. In these latter areas, Obama is king.
Then there are the hippies and even yuppies from the Slope who have been invading my neighborhood (Sunset Park) in the last few years -- mostly pro Obama. The area where I hang out is predominantly Latino, Caribbean, Asian, and Polish -- and politically more diverse. So, one way or another, I have daily interaction with a rather heterogeneous cross-section of people. I'm saying this to show that my assumption was founded on something: Maybe I'm too irrational and I just see what I wish to see, but something tells me that, after the Rev. Wright media extravaganza, small chunks of these different politico-demographic groups shifted ever slightly towards Obama.
I tend to take individual opinions as representative of collective views. There's nothing scientific or even disciplined about my perceptions. But I can only rely on what (I believe) has worked for me in the past. To name a case I observed most closely. A friend of my family, who works for the NYC Dept of Ed, was initially a strong Clinton supporter. Then, as a result of the Rev. Wright media fair, she came around to Obama. I didn't learn of one case going from Obama to Clinton. I took that as evidence of something. Of course, I can also list people who didn't switch views. I have a neighbor and friend, who used to run the bookstore of a prominent leftist bookstore in Manhattan, who is against the Democrats (and Republicans), period. She defended Obama and Wright, but she maintained her position against all Dems (and Reps). She's had a similar position vis-a-vis the elections since long, and she's not likely to change it now.
So, again, it's not that I thought your criticism of *what Obama means politically* had vanished. I just thought these events had led you to change your mind on the matter. I'll say it for a third time: I was wrong. If I understand you well, you are encouraging people to engage politically, even if you don't consider their particular choice of venue adequate. And, like others here, you are constrained at work to express your true political feelings. That's all fine. I have absolutely no qualms with that.
So, in my tongue in cheek remarks, my error was to make the unwarranted assumption. That said, I do believe that not supporting Obama (even if you complement that stance with others that may contribute to good things in the longer run), does entail *objectively* enabling the alternative. For the primaries, that means Clinton. And, come November, that means McCain. To me, the notion that one can criticize Obama without supporting Clinton doesn't fly, because the consequences of our actions and ommisions are never limited to those we make consciously. I've argued before why I believe that, at some junctures, we are forced to make choices with only two possibilities.
That said, I'm far from being sanctimonious about it or, worse, from believing that I know what the future consequences will be of one or another course of action (or omission). So, no, I don't comdemn people who disagree with me. Saying that we often, *objectively* play in the hands of the class enemy or crap doesn't mean a condemnation but a statement of fact we cannot eschew. However, motivations do matter. I understand there's uncertainty in life. And that's humbling enough. So, I make my decisions and -- in most cases -- respect those others make.
The "in most cases" clause is because there are cases that are rather clear cut. Mercenaries like, say, Thomas Friedman from the NYT, don't deserve the benefit of my doubt. But, in that department, we have no reasons to think that *anybody* on this list is driven by greed or other anti-human sentiments. That's why I thought it appropriate to paraphrase Obama's call to unity. He's right on that one.
[I wish I could proofread and make this note a bit shorter, but I can't.]