Finn dAbuzz wrote:But of course, you are simply one of A2K's representatives of Euro-Socialism which is reliably fond of dissing its American cousins.
And the only one, apparently, who's come out actively in favour of Obama.
So that leaves your original assertion that "our Euro-Leftists seem to have, clearly, forsaken her in favor of Obama, the Light of The Left" -- and the various rhetorical questions about the meaning of it all that you eagerly hooked up onto that observation -- umm... as another of your signature unsubstantiated, sweeping generalisations, fuelled more by prejudice than evidence? :wink:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Nevertheless, the "substance" of orthodox Euro-Lefty thinking is better represented by Hillary than Obama. In that I think you will agree.
No, I dont actually. The sense in which Hillary better represents the "orthodox Euro-Lefty" profile is purely one of demographic appeal. That's what you rightly pointed out. Hillary's core support, aside from middle-aged and older women, is among small-town working class voters; Obama's core appeal is to urban college grads. That electoral profile fits the respective categories that you sketch of the orthodox left vs the postmaterialist, new age-y left perfectly. But demographic appeal is not "substance".
The substance, in the end, is the policies they represent. And here your contention is doubtful. You could easily argue the opposite. Yes, Campaign Hillary has the better health care plan and the greater passion for it. She does talk more about bread and butter issues, while Obama, especially in the beginning, focused more on political reform etc.
But, this is the Clintons we're talking about. Hillary's track record is hardly one of Euro-socialism. As Senator, she has been extremely conformist and centrist, and a hawk in foreign policy. And as Presidential couple, the Clintons represented Dick Morris centrism, the DLC, New Democrat brand of Democratic politics. They actively scorned the actual leftist/progressive wing of the party. As a result, Clinton's two terms yielded welfare reform and balanced budgets, triangulation, and four more years of things not getting worse.
That's the record Hillary now proudly touts as one she helped bring about. Aside from whether that claim is believable or not, that's hardly your classic Euro-lefty herald you got there. If you look beyond demographics and at the actual policies the candidates have espoused, Obama is the more progressive one.
Even on a demographic note, there's two contrasting angles. The one you overlook is where Hillary has strong financial and organisational ties with the big moneyed donors who held the Democratic party into a corporate-friendly check, while Obama is the candidate who's driven by grassroots progressive activism and a mass of small donors. Hillary is not the populist progressive champion a Euro-lefty would long for; she just
plays one, this season. I think Euro lefties are as likely to see through that as their American counterparts, and there's always stuff like Bill and Mark Penn championing a free trade agreement with Colombia, of all places, to remind one.
So no, the conclusion that "If Euros find Obama's positions more appealing then at least one can say they have shifted away from their traditional foundation," is not obvious at all. The opposite could be said just as well.
The most realistic answer is, like I said before, that neither constitutes a good fit with what you call "orthodox Euro-leftism". Maybe that's why there seem to be more left-leaning A2Kers from outside America who express a kind of sceptical equanimity (like, say, ebeth and dlowan) than there are those who are actively championing Obama or Hillary.
On the bright side, both are already a lot better than John effin Kerry. Realistically speaking, I think Obama is as much as we could hope for from the American centre-left.
