Display:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/9/11040/35996/65/472834

where I added this comment on the candidates:


Hillary Clinton knows that, and is trying to eliminate all angles of attack on that topic - which looks like triangulation or worse, and amounts to accepting the terms of the debate set by the right, but seems to work to some extent in the wider electorate;

Barack Obama knows that too, and is trying to claim the Reaganesque mantle of hope for America - which is also an indirect way to play on America's belief in its own superiority to all others.

ie both are trying to avoid being labelled "anti-American", rather than making boldly the claim that the ideas dismissed as "anti-American" are nothing but.

The bits of their policy speeches that are critical of the current economy are pretty mild, and are each time blasted as "populist", "dangerous" or worse by the pundits (which fully expect these proposals to be ignored anyway once they are elected).

Both of their foreign policies are still far too militaristic.

I still have no idea what either will do in practice against that real menace - an a-national (ie they no longer have any real loyalty to any country) global elite more interested in growing and protecting their money, and the power that comes with it, than in governing.



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Mar 9th, 2008 at 11:21:11 AM EST
The Business Week article is crap.  What do you expect from a corporate propaganda outlet? In the US, corporations always drape themselves in the flag to achieve their goals. Why?  Because a lot of Americans buy that sort of BS. No surprises there.

No one can be elected president in the US by "making boldly the claim that the ideas dismissed as anti-American" are nothing but." Ralph Nader makes the same criticisms of corporate capitalism that you do and you can see how well he fares in presidential elections. I agree with Nader, but I sure as hell have no intention of wasting my vote by voting for him. Edwards was a better-looking critic of corporate influence than Nader and you saw how far he got.

And the perception of anti-Americanism is not the chief problem in any case. It's just one of many arguments that the corporate shills use to defend their bosses' interests. Americans' support corporate capitalism not because it's criticized by foreigners.  The average American doesn't have the slightest idea what foreigners think of him or his political/economic system nor does he care.

No, the chief problem is that Americans still believe in corporate capitalism.  They think the crooks who get caught are aberrations and they hope that, someday, free enterprise will make them, personally, rich.

Finally, since when is calling for hope "Reaganesque"? Is hope some sort of conservative property, or a mere buzzword without real meaning that is only used by opportunists and swindlers? Obama says as much as he can say in the American political context. I suspect that after the first Obama administration has done it's work (with the support of large majorities in both houses of Congress, there will be an atmosphere here more conducive to the kind of debate that you're calling for.  In the current environment it would be political suicide.

"My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama

by JohnnyRook (johnnyrook1@gmail.com) on Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 01:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
dKos needs to be told that, but methinks the attack is also on our economic and political elites, to keep them in line.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 06:26:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series
Agriculture
by afew - Sep 2

Anglo Disease
by Migeru - Sep 2