But, I think you are dead-on in these series of posts (bravo), esp. that last bit. There is just a breath between Vietnam and Gulf War I & II. And in that breath, we have Obama. The next election, and the one after, and the ten after, will all be fought by the warriors of Iraq War.

Having not yet read the Reed article, I think I’m more optimistic than you about Obama’s potential to be hugely better than McCain, though part of that is also a function of being very, very pessimistic about McCain. McCain has the potential to be a lot worse than Bush I think, and the difference between a good democrat and a bad republican is pretty stark (although maybe in the sort duree?) That said, the distinction I’m drawing there between McCain and Obama is a symbolic one, which is why I feel like someone up there is rigging the game just to make the narratives more explicit. And, after all, symbols matter: while the policy differences are significant too–perhaps more significant–I’m not willing to discount what the difference in personal narratives represents, and the importance the choice and the result will be as formative moments in future formations of “American” identity.

Wallerstein made the argument here that while (as you’ve said) Obama is just another democrat hiding center-right leanings under a populist message, the thing about him is the potential he has to galvanize a certain section of the quasi-left that is more significantly at odds with the way things are going these days, and that actually do have the potential ability to exert pressure on the powers that be. As he puts it: “Change is indeed possible, and potentially a very positive change. It all depends far less on Obama than on the rest of us. But Obama might, only might, give us the space in which the “we” of “yes, we can” can push him and the United States.” I’m more or less in agreement with that; the whole point of this series of postings on “spectacle” is to recognize the power they have, and Obama is a kind of spectacle in his own right.

What’s curious here to me here is that you want to talk about the Bush Doctrine as a qualitatively new political theory, and yet read it back through white supremacy and imperialism in general. What gives? I mean, as you yourself make clear, Bush & Co. didn’t invent pre-emption; they just gave it a new formalization. And this really undercuts the erstwhile starkness of the choice you think we have in front of us. The answer to your final question is a resounding “no, unfortunately.” The man with the Muslim name who wears the legacy of white supremacy on his skin supports U.S. imperialism, supports the doctrine of pre-emption with regard to Al Qaeda, and hasn’t spoken word one that indicates he’ll do anything to displace or unsettle the momentous institutional racism that exists in this country in the form of, say, the war on drugs, educational policy, etc., etc., etc.

Adolph Reed’s article on Obama clinches my thoughts on the thing rather well:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=697&Itemid=1