Re: Let.s Go Hillary

[Matthijs Krul <mccaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 43% of Obama's donations come from donors who give more than $2300.
> Only 26% comes from those who donate less than $200. So his support
> comes mainly from large contributors (Hillary does fare worse, with
> 12% coming from < $200 donors, and 63% from > $2300 donors).
>
> [Source: opensecrets.org]

Note they're not yet including January, in which Obama raised 2 1/2 times
as much as Clinton did, all from individual donations. That difference
between them is likely to be larger now, not smaller.

> In fact, it is this vigourousness of rhetoric that should raise our
> suspicion. Especially if the rhetoric is: a) vapid (arguable, I
> admit), b) couched in right-wing talking points, c) triumphalist. If
> you take the rhetoric at face value then it is dangerous because it
> suggests Obama actually believes that partisanship, division, etc, are
> the problems.
>
>

I don't know about vapid. It's political rhetoric, of course, not a
scientific journal article. But I certainly don't see that Obama is
"couched in right-wing talking points" particularly. After all, this is
someone who mentioned that there has been undeserved hostility against
hispanics, gays, and atheists in front of a wholly religious Southern
black audience. That doesn't sound so right-wing to me, especially by
American standards.

I agree that Obama shouldn't pretend that division is really the problem,
but it depends on what kind of division we're talking about. Division
between workers and common people among themselves, pitting black against
white, gay against straight, etc., is obviously something we need to
overcome - I don't need to explain to anyone on this mailing list how
capital has historically gained by such divisions. Obama is of course not
mentioning the class struggle, and I have no illusions he believes in it -
he even said he liked "free enterprise". But then I never claimed Obama
was some radical candidate, just that he is better than Clinton, who has
done none of the above things.

>
>
> I think this a very good point, but I would modify it: the Bill
> Clinton, in this cycle, is Obama, not Hillary. Glen Ford, who has been
> writing (and speaking: see his appearances on FAIR's show and Doug's
> Behind the News) makes the "turn right" point in a graphic and in
> argument, here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26ffym
>
>

This seems very weak to me. The author (who really needs to design a
better website) cites no sources and gives no foundation, except that he
seems angry that Obama isn't a more left-wing black candidate. But
left-wing black candidates, like Jesse Jackson, do not stand a chance,
even now. That is no argument to vote for Clinton in the primaries.
Moreover, in the case of Clinton we KNOW she and her husband have made
right turns before and will do so when it suits them. In the case of
Obama, the question is still open. That seems an Obama advantage to me.

It could, of course, be an argument not to vote Obama in the general
election, which I said I wouldn't do either if I had a vote.

>
>
> The "really rightist" part is the reason he seemed to have a chance.
>
>

There is no evidence he actually is rightist. Not in his voting record,
nor in his campaigning. I get the feeling that some people think someone
like Obama would have to be right-wing to get where he is, therefore he is
right-wing. Indeed Obama is not left-wing by any stretch, but then neither
is Clinton; the question is if Obama is more leftist, or rather, more
likely to aid left-wing causes, than Clinton. That is the argument I am
making for Obama.


>
>
> (I assume you are being sarcastic when you say "bastions of"?). Iowa
> is an open caucus, so the Bradley effect is not applicable there. Utah
> and Idaho are conservative strongholds, and the small liberal
> population has the luxury of voting for trophy candidates.
>
>

Fine, but Connecticut was not an open caucus, and it is 86% white, and he
did better than expected there. He also did far better than predicted in
Missouri, also 86% white. As for trophy candidates, I don't see how that
argument makes sense - we're talking about a primary here, not a general
election. And why is Obama more a trophy candidate than Clinton?

>
>
> That he has a platform and rhetoric that attracts "independents" is to
> me a warning sign, not a positive. Unless we believe that 4-8 years of
> a Democrat, any Democrat, is better than McCain for the same period.
> There are some arguments to make that case, but then, both Obama and
> Clinton are fine in the role of "any Democrat".
>
>

Remember, I am arguing about the Democratic primary, not who to vote for
in the generals. The question is, if we accept for the moment that no
third party will play a significant role, whether we'd rather have McCain
or a Democrat win that election, even if neither have our support; and I
don't see how anyone can answer other than the Democrat. From which it
follows that in the Democratic primary, it's best to choose someone who
can beat McCain, which I expect Obama to be able to do more easily (and
polls so far back me up).


>
>
> So, then the question becomes: will the election of Obama help rid the
> US of "plurality voting" any more than the election of Clinton? The
> argument is that neither will have an impact, but if we have to choose
> one, it would have to be Clinton since she is less of a bromide or
> placebo than Obama.
>
>         --ravi
>
>

Neither of them will have the slightest intent on reforming the voting
system; disappointing but predictable. But I really don't see where the
idea comes from that Clinton is somehow more "on the issues" than Obama
is. There is zero evidence for it and it's merely a succesful electoral
strategy by the Clinton campaign to make people believe that. The reasons
I have given above and in my earlier post, to me, make it obvious that
Obama is, though by no means leftist, far better for leftist causes in the
US than Clinton. Obama nominated means getting out of Iraq, encouraging a
lot of black people in terms of their hope for participating in society,
and having a slightly less lobbyist-funded politics, if no more than that.
Clinton nominated means making the same errors over and over again, with
no gain for anyone.

Matthijs Krul