What's the difference...

An interesting post from my comrade Mel-Anon set my political mind in motion. Mel-Anon discusses the recent assualt on the Edwards campaign's populism by Greenspan, Buckley and The Drudge Report. Mel-Anon draws a corrallary between the current battle for the White House and the types of economic policies/punishments used by the global concentrated capitalists in post-apartheid South Africa. This is highligted with a nice selection from Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which is on my must read list. Overall, Mel-Anon concludes that:

The increased viability of the populist candidates Edwards and Huckabee may explain why the wheels are starting to turn faster on Michael Bloombeg's Unity08 run, more truthfully titled the Rich White Guy Emergency Plan. This group certainly fears Edwards more than Huckabee, since the former has the much better chance at winning the general election, and I suspect that, once he has been disposed of by the Corporate Dems, Bloomberg's backers will magically dissolve into the ether. (It's certainly hard to see where Bloomberg fits in a race that includes Hillary Clinton, who's basically pulling the same roots.)

I can see how this conclusion can be drawn, but I tend to see the Unity08/Bloomberg third party run as less of a bail out from potential populists than as a naive belief (somewhat shared in the Obama camp) in a post partisanship position being available in America. I will admit that the Rich White Guy Emergency Plan concept does ring a little true when considering an Edwards v. Huckabee matchup.

It is the parenthetical that really got me thinking and I don't believe I can agree with the underlying assertion that Clinton is Bloomberg is the "normal middle of the road pack mule for corporate capital." I won't argue that Clinton makes the ideal progressive liberal candidate, but I also don't believe putting her (or Obama) in the same boat as the GOP pack or a Bloomberg is correct either. I also won't offer a defense of Clinton saying she isn't intertwined with corporate interests and money, but I find it either overly idealistic or incrediably naive to not recognize that a good deal of this money has went the Dems way due to corporations knowing which way the wind blows. I would be quite suprised to see anything revolutionary out of the Clinton or Obama camps, but I do believe that either is a significant improvement over the current administration and a better selection for America's next four years than any of the GOP candidates or a Bloomberg third party run. That being said, however, I do not want to fall into the "lesser of two evils" trap that is often used in modern two-party politics. Let us hope that whoever the nominees for both (or more) parties, that they are able to clearly articulate a plan for recovering from the many difficulties left at their stoop by the current administration's attempt at completely discrediting and dismantling government through a whirlwind of ineffectual management, underfunded services and agencies, tax cuts without spending cuts and complete a lack of accountability.

*** Wouldn't it be a little strange though, if Rudy, Bloomberg and Clinton were all in the race against each other? I agree that the thought of that does smack of candidate selection bias.