[Peace-discuss] Why Obama has to do that...

[E. Wayne Johnson]

A Missouri pig farmer told me once that people
need to learn how to "disagree without being disagreeable".

There are issues that can tend to divide us as a movement and
there are issues around which we can rally together.

At this juncture it is important that those of us who are opposed to war
and racism find one another and assemble ourselves together.  We may not 
agree on all of the
peripheral issues like potay-toe/potahh-toe; eee-ther/eye-ther; 
enn-velope/ahhnn-velope.
It makes no sense to waste our fellowship and friendship on the 
peripheral issues,
provided that we can agree on the central "issues of peace that we are 
all here to address".

Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 08:49:27PM -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>   
>> Am I to understand, Jenifer, that repeating what Obama actually said -- 
>> that he intends as president to kill more people in Afghanistan and 
>> Pakistan (sc. "finish the job") -- is not an "appropriately nuanced and 
>> civilized way of presenting information and opinions"?  --CGE
>>     
>
> The frustrating part of reading messages like these, Carl,
> is that (a) politicians are not divinely consistent, and
> (b) none of us, including you, is an oracle.  
>
> G. W. Bush said in 2000 that he would regulate CO2 as a pollutant.
> It's even possible that at the time, he meant it.
> Of course, he did nothing of the sort.  He succumbed to what must
> have been overwhelming, and *entirely predictable*, pressure from
> giant fossil fuel extractors and users.
>
> So should we have simply quoted Bush at his word, and relied on that
> as a prediction of what he'd do in office, taking no account of the
> political context?  It would have been foolish to do that.
>
>
> A few months ago you were telling us, with repetition and apparent
> confidence, that Hillary Clinton was ready to undermine the Democrats:
> that if she lost the nomination she would work to ensure that Obama
> lost the election so as to give her a better chance to win in 2012.
> It would have been a terrible thing for the Democrats, and a very good
> one for the Republicans, if it had happened.  Well... it doesn't seem to have.
>
> I'm not so much criticizing your making a prediction that didn't come true,
> as making a *divisive* prediction, one with little basis as far as I can see,
> that looked for all the world like a distraction from the issues of peace
> that we are here to address.
>
>
> Naomi Klein's take on Obama was interesting.  She's thoroughly disappointed
> with a bunch of his positions and non-positions, and is discouraged
> at the cult-figure treatment that Obama has received, but ... she figures
> that Obama sees himself as a centrist.  Where the Center moves,
> and *has moved*, so moves he.    that is encouraging.
>
> I absolutely agree that we need to be on the streets in force after the
> election -- no matter who wins.  If McCain wins, I doubt if he'd listen,
> but we should try.  But if Obama wins, he actually might listen.
> We need to get enough attention to move the Center.
>
>
> One continuing concern, as many have pointed out (Durl and others
> last night, Klein this week, Tom Hayden at every opportunity) is
> how to sustain an organized movement.  Klein was impressed at what's
> been mobilized for the Obama campaign -- "getting 35,000 people out
> at midnight for a rally in Florida" -- amazed that Americans actually
> could organize.  How much of that will remain after tomorrow?
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081103/14f8ef43/attachment.htm