Not so sure about that Kim. Powell has a habit of helping the RIGHT people at the most convenient of times. Amongst other things.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin.html

all to be taken w/ a pinch of salt of course.

The basic problem with the show is that the reporter went to Harlem, New York, so that some stock footage from a 1968 Four Corners could be used.

Barack Obama is the Senator from Illinois, so Chicago would have been the obvious place to go to if the show was about his Presidential candidacy. Chicago is a very ‘hot’ place right at the moment for the issues the show was trying to get at.

Because the reporter went to New York - maybe he didn’t want to try his luck with U.S. domestic air travel- the show ends up being about everything but Barack Obama. What he has to do with real estate trends in Harlem is a mystery to me.

Had Four Corners gone to Chicago, thy may have got a scoop on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is now the big topic in the campaign.

You’re saying that Colin Powell terminated his career in the light of comments made by moi!

You’re too kind.

I’m assuming it’s because his “negritude” didn’t meet your authenticity pass mark, Katz and he was, inevitably, too crushed to go on.

I see where you are coming from now.

I wish I were as optimistic as you seem to be that BO will transcend the politics of 1968. As the 4 Corners program indicated, times have changed significantly since 1968. 1968 was the genesis of the “Southern Strategy” that ultimately destroyed the Democratic Party as the natural party of majority in the US. This was a racialist strategy that targetted white resentment.

BO is reaching out across racial lines. It would have been unthinkable that MLK, for example, would have had any chance at all of challenging for the Dem nomination. This fact alone represents enormous change.

However, the engines of racialist resentment are revving in the US at the moment. The Rev Wright imbroglio threatens to explode in BO’s face. The Dem Convention is still months away. The Dem superdelegates will make the final call. If a sizeable majority of them decide that the racial politics surrounding Obama are too threatening, they will plump for Clinton or maybe even for someone else. If that happens, the potential for minor repeats of Chicago 1968 all over the US is more than negligible.

In that case, 1968 may seem like just yesterday.

Not necessarily. I see her more as a strong, smart, firm leader who demonstrates durability, pragmatism and resilience (there’s that word again)…occasionally she has to be cruel to be kind. Bit of a Captain Kathryn Janeway but one growing up in somewhat dystopic society that has been painted w/ a coat of PROSPERITY.

Hillary is running a SMART race in the moral vacuum caused by the “gotcha” media & Rovian/Limbaugh/O’Reilly politics…the excess consumption & debt accumulation deriving from resource & housing booms…& bogus WAR…those who criticise most of her tactics are often the same hypocrites who greedily fed off this redistribution of income to THE FEW.

Apart from the bona-fide “sustainable energy” & anti-Iraq invasion types who instinctively go into paroxysms of vomiting over Bill & Hillary’s tactics (there’s been a near decade of such responses…particularly on the Blogs)…forgetting that the Clinton govt. will be there to supply you w/ the bucket & wash cloth if you require it, provided you’ve made the effort to go out & purchase them/or make them yourselves…whilst the Busheviks & Bush-lites just stand at a distance grinning, making dumb jokes, recording your humiliation in order to make a quick buck. Then they’ll send you the bill for staining the carpet.

“At stake is the future of the triangulation politics that the Clintons became expert at, and an alternative process, copied from the organising and mobilising models of change that Obama is familiar with.”

amused…these two systems are not necessarily incompatible.

Imho, having a character like Obama on your team, w/ his type of associations, and ability to act as a “drawcard” for certain groups could be a blessing in disguise…particularly as time & events move on.

From what i remember, didn’t Captain Janeway after some REAL TENSIONS successfully bring together the Maquis (rebels/freedom fighters who mistrusted ‘The Federation’) and Voyager crews?…:) And then they boldly fought/navigated/used diplomacy to make their way back HOME? She also helped a Borg reclaim her individuality from the hive mind.

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sherylfranklin.com/images/trek/women/voyager/janeway1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sherylfranklin.com/trekwomen_janeway.html&h=118&w=91&sz=18&tbnid=bRaxcVQMTCcJ:&tbnh=118&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcaptain%2Bjaneway&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=3

The quotation from you that I gave (re 1983) was accurate I believe. The poster you were commenting on was referring to skirmishes in ’self styled progressive circles’, not solely to BO’s credibility. It’s there in the previous posts. I disagree with your interpretation.

On the Colin Powell matter, there were two things you wrote at 10.56am. The first was:
“Trouble is, since 1996, Colin Powell made an exhibition of himself as GWB’s Step’n’Fetchit over his lies about Iraq.” [exhibit A]
The second was:
“Step’n’Fetchit was a stock figure of ridicule from America’s long history of racial inequality.” [exhibit B]

In exhibit B you explain the epithet. This was helpful for readers who may not have heard it before. This might be called “pointing to racism”.

In exhibit A, however, you APPLY the epithet to Colin Powell, who I believe is a “man of colour”. Now I’m happy to accept your assurances that you have not a racist bone in your body, old chap. But it sounded just a little nasty to my ears, with overtones of racialist slurs…. but of course I don’t do nuance as well as some…. so perhaps I’m mistaken.

BTW, I think racial factors will be important in the Pres election, whoever the candidates. IMHO the US is much more riven by racial and class conflicts than Australia (f’rinstance). I agree with amused at 10.39am that the program was superficial; Harlem is not a focal point; the US has fully digested the murder of Dr King, etc.

Life Member, Irrelevant Contrarians Assoc.

And arms control, etc., and all those other tremendously important events of 1983 — how exactly do those topics relate to the credibility of the candidacy of BO as US president

It is not BO’s ‘credibility’ as a candidate that is the issue, so much as why he is a candidate of any credibility at all, when a ‘Clinton’ is in the race as well?

It is of course, arbitrary, like any other line, but the early 1980’s and the seeming invincibility of both Thatcherism and later Reagan, laid down the template for centre left opposition to the phenomenon known as the ‘New Right’. Clinton’s presidency was designed as a riposte to those times. Now Hillary is trying to repeat the gig. No go. Times have moved on, and BO is laying down a different ‘template for success’. He will succeed.

The Clintons are sooo 1990’s, like enthusiasm for the ‘new economy’, the ‘information super highway’, the ‘end of the business cycle’ and of course, not forgetting, ‘the new jobs are in nice clean service industries, where everyone has a stock account that never goes down’.

The 4 Corners program on BO was simply terrible, and illustrated everything wrong with the ABC. If I wasn’t opposed to it in principle, I would support privatising the ABC.

And arms control, etc., and all those other tremendously important events of 1983 — how exactly do those topics relate to the credibility of the candidacy of BO as US president?

Ambi, you have an unfortunate habit of being irrelevantly contrary. It’s not a good look.

Another quotation: “Just one question. What exactly DID happen in the climacteric year 1983?”

Well, around then the nuclear comfrontation in Europe (Cruise missiles vs Soviet rockets) was ramping up, leading to big demonstrations in Europe and USA and Australia against these weapons; later all this led to a major step forward towards disarmament [Reykjavik summit? Reagan/Gorbachev?] two years later. These were what turned out to be the final few years of the Cold War: with glasnost/perestroika, Solidarnosc still pushing in Poland, insurgents fighting against Soviet forces in Afghanistan, other Eastern European countries trying to move away from Soviet domination, etc etc; Thatcherism in full swing in the UK…

Yeah, Katz. Nothing was happening from 1983 onwards.

I also think there is plenty of merit in Obama’s plan to engage some nations, despite the associated political and diplomatic problems that will almost certainly ensue.

However, I do like McCain’s plan for a “League of Democratic Nations” as an alternative to the UN.

It is hard as an Australian to see edicts come out of the UN Security Council when those member nations don’t have democratically elected governments. Under this arrangement, it is difficult for a nation like Australia to adhere to the instructions of such a body. On top of that, think of the UN Security Council’s lack of action regarding Darfur.

If all the (actually) democratic nations got together in a multi-lateral forum, then I think that would be productive.

In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil—but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power.

We have spent months debating Barack Obama’s suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain’s proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war.

Aaaah - the G.O.P… where stupid belligerence is the way to win the base. Or perhaps McCain actually believes what he says.

The Clinton v Obama struggle is the first, but by no means the last, of the skirmishes that appear to be developing in self styled progressive circles, over the legacy of the past 25 years.

The last 25 years…

Let’s see… That takes us back to 1983.

Just one question. What exactly DID happen in the climacteric year 1983?

Hilary (having effectively already lost) is still in the game to keep drawing attention to that side of the debate. If waving their arms around and shouting random things keeps the medias attentions purely on the democrats this starves the republican side of much needed mind-space. Once the primaries are over the feeling would be that Obama has already fought and won the tough fight, and anything McCain pulls out would appear to be copying Hilary - a win-win by any measure. Any arguement already hashed out in the media would appear stale.

No such thing as bad press.

And that will only benefit one person: John McCain.

Just lying in wait to ambush Barack the moment he steps from the Convention.

And it was still bad politics.

The easy and effective thing would have been to distance himself, because he probably knew what Wright was like and that he wouldn’t change or be quiet, as displayed overnight at the National Press Club in Washington.

Obama, if nominated, will be like the giant fish in the Old Man and the Sea. There won’t be much left of him come November.

On the other hand, we know it all about Hillary already. She has also actually articulated policies that she will (attempt to) implement.

We are headed for a brokered outcome, either before the convention or during it. And that will only benefit one person: John McCain. All he has to do it avoid giving Mike Huckabee the Veep spot.

Shelby Steele is in denial about the importance of race, and most importantly negritudee, in American culture.

Shelby Steele seems to believe that it has no relevance whatsoever in American thinking.

Shelby Steele opined that a far more suitable Afro-American candidate would have been Colin Powell against a “weak” Bill Clinton in 1996. Maybe.

Trouble is, since 1996, Colin Powell made an exhibition of himself as GWB’s Step’n'Fetchit over his lies about Iraq.

Colin Powell knows it, and has removed himself, probably permanently, from public life.

Step’n'Fetchit was a stock figure of ridicule from America’s long history of racial inequality.

In denying this long history,Shelby Steele reveals himself as a self-hating tosser.

The Clinton v Obama struggle is the first, but by no means the last, of the skirmishes that appear to be developing in self styled progressive circles, over the legacy of the past 25 years.

At stake is the future of the triangulation politics that the Clintons became expert at, and an alternative process, copied from the organising and mobilising models of change that Obama is familiar with. The far more interesting question is the extent of the transformative possibilities that Obama’s approach is able to realise, as opposed to the accommodative triangulation practiced by the Clintons, and the broader political effects of this campaign in places and in minds far removed from Harlem.

Barack Obama’s quest to become the first African American president has suffered another blow once again from his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who today launched an all-out defence of his controversial views from the pulpit - and in the process repeated many of them.

These included: that the US government was responsible for the AIDS epidemic among African Americans; that Zionism was a racist religion; that Louis Farrakan, head of the National of Islam, was an inspiration to many in the black community and that “You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back on you”.

Oh, well. It was good while it lasted.