In The Great Tradition, Obama Is A Hawk

Not that this diverts one iota from Mr. Pilger's argument, but Amy Goodman, on Democracy Now, pointed out that Obama revised his statement on Jerusalem after the presentation to AIPAC.  He later said it had to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Eric, I believe JP was speaking more broadly than simply the liberal left ignoring Obama's statement in Miami. As an Obama scrutinizer I missed hearing about that one myself.

I am hoping that Obama's public political dumbing-down act as he is being forced to move even more rightward against neo-Neanderthal McCain turns out to be just that once elected. After all, who would've expected to see Hillary dumbly downing shots and beers pandering for more of her "people?"

More importantly, since I myself am a fellator I can hardly regard your assessment of a liberal left as being too busy fellating a particularly sharp or insightful criticism. Unless it's sour grapes for your having missed out on being one of the fellated.

At worst (best?) it would seem an awfully weak and misapplied insult. I am radical left, and applied to me fellator is a compliment, a high compliment indeed.

May I suggest the approbation "self-hating" fellator as perhaps more stinging and appropriate?!

If indeed you're wearing a Freudian-slip, or Freudian-briefs, there is no harm in letting more of it show. I know I for one look forward to seeing it.

:)

Eric, Eric, Eric...

Are you Freudian-slipping?

"However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters"

I think this is well said. It does, for example, imply that Obama benefits from being black, as well as being disadvantaged. However, Pilger's comment was made in a very careful context, to avoid the absurdity of Geraldine Ferraro's self-serving, classist as well as racist comment some months ago that Obama wouldn't be where he was if he wasn't black.

I am grateful when I see people on the left confront issues of race and gender in a more meaningful way, without the oversimplified, but rhetorically safe and easy, approach that one can never utter a word that non-whites, or women, sometimes benefit from being non-white, or being a woman, without being racist or sexist. The reality of the interplay of class with racism and sexism is so profound, and so often ignored, that the entire discussion is often devoid of much integrity.

Even in the times of slavery, were it somehow possible for a black person to have run for President, for example, (or a woman), I suspect there would be a significant minority of people who would have given extra support, just because he was black (or that she was a woman) in a time of great racism (and sexism). In such a case, the black person would need to exhibit the proper attributes of the ruling class. Not everybody in 1840 was a racist, if that implies an unwillingness to take a black person seriously if the black person did not seem threatening - even slave-owners would probably have seen no contradiction. Does this mean racism did not exist in 1840?

Today, there is a very large percentage of women who have been elevated into a privileged class. The glass ceiling and pay disparities in the world of the privileged corporate class continue to disadvantage women - but what, exactly, does it mean to be disadvantaged in the ability to obtain equality in an illegitimate sector of society? A much smaller percentage of black people have also been elevated into the privileged class, and face tremendous hurdles even there. But sexism and racism today are very strong, especially among the poor and the socially disadvanted.

Times have changed since 1840, since the days of Jim Crow, and the interplay of race and gender with class are more complicated today than they ever have been in this country, in my opinion. It is important to confront the interplay of class with race and gender, and avoid simple platitudes that blacks never benefit from the color of their skin or that women never benefit from their gender. Such platitudes are as equally racist and sexist as the statement that the northern Native Americans lived in an ideal culture is prejudiced. They are as equally racist or sexist as the opposite comment - that such-and-such a black person or such-and-such a woman wouldn't be there if he/she wasn't a black or a woman.

I am grateful for John Pilger's analysis, which did not suffer from the trap of oversimplicity that I'm afraid has afflicted a large part of the Left today - the reactionary Left. I see this reactionary Left prominently on web sites such as AlterNet.org.

Dan Nissenbaum

Dear John: Please note that Harry Truman was not elected president when he took over from FDR in 1945; he had been FDR's vice president until that time. His great "victory" came in the election of 1948. So while I agree he committed one of history's single worst war crimes -- the dropping of the atomic bombs on defenseless civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 -- it is more historically accurate to say that upon his 1948 election victory as a legitimate president, he went on to wage war against Korea, laying waste to North Korea through massive bombing, and threatening to use nuclear weapons against China after Mao intervened to save their ally Kim Il-Sung (who had fought alongside the Chinese Communists and provided decisive support for the ultimate Communist victory of 1949 that brought Mao to power). Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement with you about Obama.

> His second statement, largely ignored

Of course it was ignored.  The liberal left can't say anything when it's fellating.