Still, I don't see Obama as being more of a con man than any other establishment politician.
Louis Proyect wrote: > There's no evidence that Petras had any illusions in Obama. > > In fact, he was a Nader/McKinney supporter: > > http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1760&more=1&c=1 > The Elections and the Responsibility of the Intellectual to Speak Truth to > Power: Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney > > The presidential elections in the US, once again, provide an acid test of > the integrity and consequential conduct of US intellectuals. If it is the > duty and responsibility of the public intellectual to speak truth to power, > the recent statements of most of our well-known and prestigious public > pundits have failed miserably. > > . 10.29.2008 > > Instead of highlighting, exposing and denouncing the reactionary foreign and > domestic policies of Democratic Party candidate Senator Barack Obama, they > have chosen to support him, 'critically, offering as excuses that even > 'limited differences' can result in positive outcomes,and that 'Obama is the > lesser evil' and 'creates an opportunity for a possibility of change.' > > What makes these arguments untenable is the fact that Obama's public > pronouncements, his top policy advisers, and the likely policymakers in his > government have openly defined a most bellicose foreign policy and a > profoundly reactionary domestic economic policy totally in line with > Paulson-Bush-Wall Street. On the major issues of war, peace, the economic > crisis and the savaging of the US wage and salaried class, Obama promises to > extend and deepen the policies which the majority of Americans reject and > repudiate. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
