Obama's "exotic" life story did not prevent him from gaining the respect and support of significant members of the elite. How this happened is worthy of study. People are only now reminded of Obama's "deviant" status due to the Rev. Wright flap, but neither Obama's supporters nor his detractors have to my knowledge put this scenario together with Obama's mainstream status.
Two transitions are worthy of study: (1) the transition from Obama's upbringing to his decision to join a fire-and-brimstone activist black church, itself significant in addition to rejecting his mother's secular humanist perspective and becoming a Christian (yechhh!)--whether sincere or itself a political move (if there is any significant distinction), I wouldn't know; (2) the transition from community activist to political office. It is probably the case that regardless of the possible ways in which (2) contradicts (1), they could be regarded as two facets of one common bourgeois orientation, which I say for the sake of analysis not necessarily for condemnation. It is also interesting that transition (1) made Obama black and (2) whitened him up, metaphorically speaking. Obama's backers among the elite were apparently not troubled by (1), and it doesn't seem to have been an issue until the Wright video mysteriously appeared at just the crucial moment. At 06:29 PM 4/1/2008, CeJ wrote: >Well Obama's up from the ashes story just never sat very well with me. >Sure, it's a typical pattern of single moms of all races that they end >up working for the Ford Foundation in the 1960s. Geraldine Ferraro got >it so wrong. Obama is where he is because his mother was white and of >fairly privileged background. His humble pie myth isn't even as >convincing as Bill Clinton's. But I don't think all that background >will keep him from being a categorically different president. So far >though his relations with the Democratic Party elite are not >indicating much good. If McCain could coax Colin Powell out of his >shame-faced retirement from politics, the Dems are in big trouble. >Would the Dems call him out for being guilty of what most of what they >themselves are guilty of? That is, of going along with the 'WMD lies' >and related intel apparatus misinformation in order to create future >deniability. > >CJ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
