What did you tell us?

BTW Olly mentions Mandela, and I suspect if you were to go look at South Africa and how the black population has fared since the end of apartheid you might come to a similar conclusion to Pilger. Images seem to matter more than outcomes.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Sunny, I did not read any mention of Uncle Tom.

That said, it is insightful. I do not for one minute think that governments around the world are suddenly fooled into dropping their guard. They will all be looking to shore up their defences, in recognition of the fact Obama is but a man who can at most be in office 8 years; when only one term is needed to undo anything progressive he might put in place.

Whilst you yourself have said that you expect no real focus on foreign policy as Obama will have his hands full with the economy, healthcare and perhaps climate change; it does mean that he will not change course in a meaningful way where it will matter most to the rest of the world. What it does abroad.

His and your lowering of expectation with regards to Israel and Palestine, and other major issues of global importance would be understandable if he felt his hands were tied. And perhaps that is precisely what Pilger is pointing out.

It would be worth re-reading Pilger.

Unfortunately, these imperial American progressives cannot hide the fact that Obama’s rhetoric of “change that you can believe in” is an outright fraud in terms of both foreign and domestic policy.

These so-called progressives would have one forget that Obama has supported the escalation of America’s criminal war in Afghanistan, called for the bombing of Pakistan, and that his “opposition” to the US aggression against Iraq is at best based upon cynical *tactical* concerns about availibility of US troops for other wars–and not the immorality of this American war.

On domestic policy, these progressives cannot explain why a supposed agent of change like Obama would support the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street or why he voted for domestic spying measures supported by George Bush.

It’s not John Pilger who has gone off the rails.

It’s those American progressives who are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

“Barack Obama: The Empire’s New Clothes”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=879&Itemid=1

The shit is fucked up.

What a nice way to make the point of not misrepresenting or exaggerating what people say.

You really think I give a fuck about smearing a Fox journalist?

You are definitely scaring me.

What a nice way to make the point of not misrepresenting or exaggerating what people say.

You really think I give a fuck about smearing a Fox journalist?

I’d like to see you write a detailed rebuttal of some of the points Pilger and other far left lunatics make in criticism of Obama, in particular of his stance on foreign policy and the economy

I agree with Sunny that once you cross the line, there is little point in engaging in a rational discussion. But I thought Pilger goes even beyond the line when he writes: He [Obama] says he wants to build up US military power; and he threatens to ignite a new war in Pakistan, killing yet more brown-skinned people.

This seems like shameless race-bait. Why does he mention “brown-skinned” people in this context? Is he insinuating that a black man wants to kill brown-skinned people? And that’s mighty incorrect as well: Obama never said that America would engage in war against Pakistan, but that they would attack Al Qaeda pockets hiding in Pakistan.

I hear that, my point is people are using the fact that he’s a wanker to now make out he’s a pedophile too.

What a nice way to make the point of not misrepresenting or exaggerating what people say.

should give anyone pause on the man’s ability to effect significant change. And I think this is what bothers the “far left”: that all the indications seem to suggest that people’s optimism might just be a tad misplaced and premature

You make it sound like Obama promised “change” in abstract terms, and now people will be disappointed because their concept of change is not what Obama had in mind.

Well, only people who were too lazy to hear what he said, and didn’t go to his website to see his detailed plan on every issue, will be disappointed. Otherwise, his plan is very moderate: it has many progressive aspects (universal healthcare, middle-class relief), and has some conservative aspects (pro-Israel policies, capitalist policies). So yes, the hard-Left will be very disappointed if they think Obama will govern from their point of view. Change means governing from the centre with competent people, as opposed to extreme-right wing incompetence.

I’m not het up Leon, I’m deeply disappointed with Nader. Its like finding out a favourite old uncle is a wanker.

I hear that, my point is people are using the fact that he’s a wanker to now make out he’s a pedophile too.

Your point is completely confused. You cannot BOTH want us to take Obama as a person (beyond whether he is black or white) as the best candidate to lead the US (and I agree that he was given the choice and emotionally delighted that he won) AND refuse to accept any critiques of him.

What is certain is that Obama does not share many of my politics on West Asia, the war in Afghanistan or gay marriage (to name but a few). This does not go against the fact that his election as a black person only 40 years since black people in the US were granted the vote is a momentous thing.

I don’t think anyone can seriously call John Pilger racist (unless you are an ultra Zionist of course). His recent rehighlighting of the appalling treatment of aboriginals in Australia is but one case in point.

I hope I am not going to come to be disappointed by Obama. But, realisticaly, I probably will be because I am an anti-capitalist and he is not, I am against imperial wars and he is not (always). Neither can he be as a pragmatist, a stance I believe he had to take to be elected and one which he will have stand by to carry on. That is the reality of politics.

Yes, but as you mention he has a voting record and an intellect with which he’s made statements about his intentions as well as promises about what he wants to achieve. This prior record, along with the alliances/compromises he’s made throughout his meteoric ascent bring the whole Obama-Messiah thing into question, in fact should give anyone pause on the man’s ability to effect significant change. And I think this is what bothers the “far left”: that all the indications seem to suggest that people’s optimism might just be a tad misplaced and premature (naming no names, Sunny).

btw if there isnt enough of a basis to criticise him — which is what i assume u mean with ur rebuttal line quoted above– then surely there cant be enough basis on which to praise him on either — aside from the fact that yes, he’s managed to get into power — and therefore isn’t ur extravagant optimism just as bad as the dour pessimism of the “far left”?

Its the soft racism of low expectations. Black and brown people are always the poor, oppressed minority you see. They have no brains. As soon as anyone out of them does good, he has to be a lackey of the rich white man or someone’s bitch. So Obama only got to the top thanks to the support of ‘the white man’, not because he was an intelligent, highly disciplined candidate.

It’s the same for Nader. Why can’t he talk about Obama without the racial jibes?

A toady for corporations or self-hating black man is immaterial.

I was talking about the accuracy of reference to that interview not the rights or wrongs of using the word. It’s clear that it’s easy to get het up in the term as part of the smears against Nader.