Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Friday, January 04, 2008

Collective Amnesia

And so last night Barak Obama took Iowa and George Will salivates over the prospect of the end of the "Jacksons and Sharptons" being "over." White people statewide who voted in large margins for Barak claimed that they have "proven" that they are not racist because they voted for the black candidate. And so the candidate who wishes to transcend race, finds himself as the new token and convenient weapon against past and present black leadership. Well at least he's happy.

I myself really am not impressed for a variety of reasons. The same populance that voted for Obama also voted for Huckabee. That signals that in general the folks in Iowa are really looking for "outsiders" who are not too much "outside" If they were really looking for change Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would have won the evening. But this isn't about them. What I'm reminded here so far is the run for president that Jesse Jackson made back in the 80's. Jackson did surprisingly well for a great deal of the primaries, which unlike this season did not start a year ahead of time. Had Obama been constrained by the timeframe that Jackson had, there is no way he would have made the poll numbers that he did. Don't expect the news media to point that out. Furthermore If we recall the Jackson presidential run of 1988 we will find that he got 1200 delegates. He won 11 primaries, taking over 50% of the votes in the Michigan Caucus. In Iowa Jackson had only gotten 9% of the vote.

So the thing here is that Obama is really following in the steps of Jesse Jackson, something I'm not to sure will be ever mentioned during this campaign. I won't be surprised by any showing by Obama on the trail until it's delegate time. More later...maybe.

8 comments:

Cynthia said...

Ron Paul stands for something even White people don't want. They know that he is advocating everything from the middle class. Not even white people are willing to be thrown back before the New Deal.

sondjata said...

I think you meant to post this on the next post. ;-)

Cynthia said...

I meant to say he wants to take everything from the middle class.

Don't look at the surface stuff he is saying in the primaries. Dig deeper and you will be surprised!

sondjata said...

If by 'take everything from the middle class" you mean he want's to give free reign to corporations to do as they wish as well as kill of various governmental regulatory agencies as well as the DOE, then yes I know that.

The problem is that currently the middle class is getting killed slowly already. Most don't know it and a great deal of them willingly vote against their interests already.

Again, my interest in Paul has nothing to do with him actually winning. It is about pulling the Republican party leftwards. You simply cannot argue against the anti-imperialism, anti- surveliance society, Non-funny money positions that Paul has taken. it is exactly the positions that Democrats ought to be running.

Cynthia said...

But Paul will not take the Republicans to the left. What you are talking about is the deceptive surface of Ron Paul.

This is an example of the Real Ron Paul.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/06/18470586.php

sondjata said...

Sorry Cynthia but that paper was third hand information. It has no direct quotes from Ron Paul himself.

Secondly the link that was provided in the article to the world socialist forum noted that Paul was against the War in Iraq. His reasoning behind Afghanistan is about Bin Ladin. Furthermore in the debate Saturday, which I watched, he said flat out that the government is wrong to go to war with other nations over their resources. Also the World Socialist article is also wrong when it said that no candidate dealt with the issue of the looming recession. Ron Paul did in fact point out the issue of 'funny money." That doesn't mean I agree with prescriptions but he at least is the only candidate on the right that is discussing monetary policy.

In terms of bringing the Republicans leftwards, my position as stated is that if persons who are Republicans are against imperialism, funny money, funding the Israeli war machine, which is in line with much of the "progressive" left, and they vote those issues and vote Ron Paul, even though he cannot win, it sends a message to the Republican party, similar to what happened after the Terri Shiavo incident. Voters were not happy to see congress get into a personal matter and you saw law makers move away from the party line on that issue. Some even lost seats.

My position has been and will continue to be, primaries are about putting issues on the table, not candidates, Vote the issues first, vote the candidate second.

Cynthia said...

I always look at the whole person first. At primaries, limited issues are always discussed.

Ron Paul - a bigoted past.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca&k=15257

sondjata said...

Yes I know about Mr. Paul's bigotted past. We had that discussion over at Assault. At the same token I'm on record here on suspecting all white persons as being white supremacists until proven otherwise so for me Paul's past is expected. I think I should explain myself in a proper blog post.