> Have you considered the idea that expanding the sense of the possible
> by putting a (neoliberal) black man in the WH became a substitute for --
> rather than a spur to -- a more radical expansion of the sense of the
> possible?
I just cannot fathom how people disengaged with their subject matter can *learn* anything meaningful about it. The way I look at things, this is not about getting right the answers to some political crossword puzzle, divining whether politician X is likely to fulfill or betray his real or alleged promises. It is about our self-emancipation, which requires that we try things out and make mistakes. It is ad hominem. How are the masses of poor Black and Hispanic working people in the U.S. supposed to liberate themselves? By following the safe and canned courses of action prescribed by the radical left? As they say about the financial advisors, if the radical left is so wise, how come they are not already in power? No. I think not. In fact, it may actually take for people to reject that (alien, radical leftist) wisdom and try things on their *own*. I am not saying that the radical left be cynical and stop calling things by their name. I am talking about method. The radical left at the margins of the electoral process are equivocating their strategy. They need to humble themselves a little or a lot, which would be more in keeping with their actual political influence. As Marx put it, the educator needs to be educated.