Friday, 31 October 2008

A Democratic landslide?

People are asking me whether I am still backing McKinney (the Green Party candidate) rather than Obama, for the U.S. Presidency. Here is the answer: I am still much keener on McKinney. But, due to the media etc., her campaign hasn't taken wing as one would hope. And Obama has been rather better over the past couple of months -- the betrayals [detailed in earlier posts ] that occured a little earlier this year seem to have stopped. So:
I wish Obama luck. In a choice between him and McCain (e.g. in 'swing states'), I would now strongly be tempted to vote for him -- and, between the two, I very much hope he wins.
I am going to a 'Election Night' Party next Tuesday night with a bunch of Obamamaniacs: should be fun!
My latest prediction for the U.S Presidency: it will not be close. This will be a Democratic landslide. The biggest Democrat victory since 1964.
The really interesting and important question now is what happens in the Senate. The Democrats could well now squeeze complete control -- i.e. a 60-40 state of play, or better. This would be good news, as it would mean that the Republicans would be thrown into real opposition, unable to sabotage Obama's legislative programme by themselves. An Obama with a relatively free hand and with a mass movement behind him driving him to do the right thing MIGHT just avoid being the enormous disappointment that I have warned previously he is on balance likely to be. . . Perhaps then we might dare to hope, after all...
p.s. The fact that I still like McKinney doesn't of course mean that I am keen on her dalliance with the September 11th conspiracy-theory people. The '9-11 truth movement' has always struck me as a strange and profoundly disappointing phenomenon: its (in my experience generally aggressive and impossible-to-talk-with) advocates think of themselves as radicals and subversives: but what is radical about believing that no group of Arab non-state terrorists could possibly bring off a stunt as extraordinary as the destruction of the World Trade Centre? Sorry to have to say it, but there seems to be not just an embarrassing paranoid belief in the absolute power and competence of states, but also more than a whiff of covert anti-Arab racism about the denial that September 11th was anything other than what it appeared to be: an audacious and terrible coup de theatre pulled off by al-Qaida.

2 Comments:

Blogger Chris Hyland said...

Looking at the polls I would be surprised if Obama did as well as Clinton did in 96.

I think the main problem for McKinney is that Nader is running against her, and is getting most of the left of democrat coverage.

31 October 2008 at 10:24  
Blogger Shelly Fitzgerald said...

Although I'm pleased that you're encouraging people to vote for Obama in battleground states, your reasoning seems a bit disingenuous to me.

You say you're abandoning your position about voting for McKinney because her campaign hasn't taken wing as one would have hoped. Did you really think it would take wing? Surely you must have realized that she never had a chance, even from the start, given the institutional obstacles that exist for third parties in the U.S.

And with respect to Obama; Has he really gotten better, or has he just stayed true to the conciliatory image he's painted of himself all along: you can't make one out of many without compromising on some things.

I think it's important to be honest about what's happening here so we have no illusions about what we are doing. When we vote for Obama are we voting for the least worst candidate? Yes, and in this way we are voting for the best candidate! In so doing, we help to foster an atmosphere that just may be more amenable to pressure from the people to push a more progressive agenda -- indeed this is the only thing that has ever produced change. As you know, nothing is conceded without a demand, and we are kidding ourselves if we think Obama himself will change this in any meaningful way. One thing's for sure, though, he will certainly be more open to progressive ideas than McCain (or God forbid, Palin).

31 October 2008 at 17:14  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

1. 2. 3. Rupert's Read: A Democratic landslide? 4. 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 23. 24.

25. 26. A Democratic landslide? 27. 28.

29.
People are asking me whether I am still backing McKinney (the Green Party candidate) rather than Obama, for the U.S. Presidency. Here is the answer: I am still much keener on McKinney. But, due to the media etc., her campaign hasn't taken wing as one would hope. And Obama has been rather better over the past couple of months -- the betrayals [detailed in earlier posts ] that occured a little earlier this year seem to have stopped. So:
I wish Obama luck. In a choice between him and McCain (e.g. in 'swing states'), I would now strongly be tempted to vote for him -- and, between the two, I very much hope he wins.
I am going to a 'Election Night' Party next Tuesday night with a bunch of Obamamaniacs: should be fun!
My latest prediction for the U.S Presidency: it will not be close. This will be a Democratic landslide. The biggest Democrat victory since 1964.
The really interesting and important question now is what happens in the Senate. The Democrats could well now squeeze complete control -- i.e. a 60-40 state of play, or better. This would be good news, as it would mean that the Republicans would be thrown into real opposition, unable to sabotage Obama's legislative programme by themselves. An Obama with a relatively free hand and with a mass movement behind him driving him to do the right thing MIGHT just avoid being the enormous disappointment that I have warned previously he is on balance likely to be. . . Perhaps then we might dare to hope, after all...
p.s. The fact that I still like McKinney doesn't of course mean that I am keen on her dalliance with the September 11th conspiracy-theory people. The '9-11 truth movement' has always struck me as a strange and profoundly disappointing phenomenon: its (in my experience generally aggressive and impossible-to-talk-with) advocates think of themselves as radicals and subversives: but what is radical about believing that no group of Arab non-state terrorists could possibly bring off a stunt as extraordinary as the destruction of the World Trade Centre? Sorry to have to say it, but there seems to be not just an embarrassing paranoid belief in the absolute power and competence of states, but also more than a whiff of covert anti-Arab racism about the denial that September 11th was anything other than what it appeared to be: an audacious and terrible coup de theatre pulled off by al-Qaida.
30. 31. 32.