Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Says He'll Reshape US Foreign Policy. But Can He?
The presidential hopeful opposed the Iraq war and spoke sense about Iran, but expect business as usual on the Middle East
Now that Barack Obama is almost certain to be the Democratic party's nominee, in spite of last night's expected Clinton victory in West Virginia, those who want to believe he may change America's foreign policy should turn to his pre-campaign biography. I don't mean the recent and obviously self-serving Audacity of Hope, but Dreams From My Father, which he wrote in his early 30s.
In four tight pages, before the main section about the dilemmas of being a person of mixed race in America, Obama recounts his 1960s childhood in Jakarta with an Indonesian stepfather and a white mother. Working in the US embassy, she found herself alongside "caricatures of the ugly American, prone to making jokes about Indonesians until they found out she was married to one".
Obama recalls how she picked up "things she couldn't learn in the published news reports": the role the CIA had just played in toppling the popular nationalist leader, Sukarno; the fact that half a million alleged communist sympathisers were murdered; the way the massacres were suppressed both by the regime and terrified survivors. Obama was only six, but his mother later told him of her shock that "history could be swallowed up so completely, the same way the rich and loamy earth could soak up the rivers of blood that had once coursed through the streets".
It's a beautiful book. One wonders whether any would-be US president has been so good a writer. More importantly, has any other candidate grown up with such a direct encounter with a country under massive political repression or seen the cynical face of the US empire? The Republican nominee John McCain accuses Obama of not having national security "experience", but what experiences do he or Hillary Clinton have which compare with Obama's? They were raised in the usual American cocoon of believing that the values behind the country's anti-colonial beginnings still guide its international behaviour. Obama, by contrast, knows the US has run a global empire for at least the past half a century. His mother taught him, he writes, "to disdain the blend of ignorance and arrogance that too often characterised Americans abroad".
This awareness of how many people around the world see the US is the bedrock on which Obama's approach to foreign policy is built. It is the opposite of the naive self-image of the US as a beacon on the hill. It explains his principled opposition to the Iraq war from its inception. It underpins his criticism of Clinton's threat to "obliterate" Iran if it considered attacking Israel. As he put it: "We have had a foreign policy of bluster and sabre-rattling and tough talk, and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran ... It is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush ... This kind of language is not helpful," he concluded coolly.
This does not mean Obama is a friend of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He calls him "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive" to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people. He says the Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us", and supports sanctions to prevent it getting nuclear weapons. But, unlike Clinton, he criticises Washington's refusal to have direct talks with Iran, as well as Cuba.
Over Israel, sadly, Obama has chosen to make large-scale compromises. He saw how Hillary Clinton, in an earlier vintage, was bullied by the pro-Israel lobby after embracing PLO chairman Yasser Arafat's wife. Since first bidding for a Senate seat from New York, she has become ultra-conservative on the issue. Obama, too, has felt the pressure. After remarking in Iowa last year that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people", he was accused by a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of not supporting Israel. Obama now uses an ingeniously expanded sentence: "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel."
McCain may sneer that Hamas would cheer an Obama victory, but Obama's line is hardly distinguishable from the present administration's. The speech he made on race relations after the Jeremiah Wright issue erupted was widely regarded as a brilliant analysis of the psychology of black churches. But it included an alarming phrase that described the Middle East's longest conflict not in terms of land and forced displacement but as one in which Israel is an innocent victim of outside forces. Obama denounced the Rev Wright for having a "view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam".
This year David Harris, director of the American Jewish Committee, was quoted in the New York Times as wondering: "Does Obama feel Israel in his kishkas?" (the Yiddish word for gut). This sets the bar especially high, or low. Scrutiny now has to focus on candidates' entrails as well as their minds. But Obama has been working hard to oblige. In the current crisis over Gaza, Obama echoes the Israeli government's line. Before Clinton or McCain, he came out against a proposed UN security council statement that would have expressed concern over the Israeli blockade. He describes Israel's siege as "forced" by the Palestinian rocket attacks.
Although he repeatedly outlines a general principle that the US should talk to every important player without preconditions, he does not apply this in the Middle East. In 2006, Obama blamed Hizbullah for the war with Israel and did not join the appeals for Israel to accept a ceasefire. Last month he criticised Jimmy Carter for talking to Hamas. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction," he said.
Past presidents have greater freedom than future presidents, apparently. So the big questions remain: does Obama really want to change US foreign policy and can he, if he does? Having a black person in the Oval Office, and especially one with an understanding of US imperialism, would have a colossal international impact in itself. But would this merely result in even greater disappointment once the months go by and US policy stays the same? In my kishkas I feel Obama is our best hope. In my mind I prepare for business as usual.
--Jonathan Steele
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
37 Comments so far
Show AllSo long as Obama continues absolving Israel and blaming the world's problems on "radical Muslims," there is little likelihood that he will reshape US foreign policy.
The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right that many Democrats feel that Jim Webb should be Obama's VP.
Oh, why not! Webb was only Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy.
But better yet, why not dig up ole Ronnie Reagan and have him "stand tall" next to Obama.
Now THERE'S a winning ticket!
And well-balanced too. One dead, one alive. Because, hey, don't underestimate the dead vote in places like Cook County.
Oh and change, you want change; change it'll be If elected, the Democratic leadership will promise to change Ronnie's embombing fluid each and every day.
Since we're on the subject of "digging up people," why not dig up that great American philosopher Rodney Dangerfield and have *him* run with Obma.
I can hear ole Rodney now; what a campaigner he would be. ...
"Hey, I wanna tell, change, that's the thing nowadays, change. You gotta change, I tell ya.
"Sheesh, my wife tells me to change. I tell her how 'bout I change you into another zip code.
"Hey, change, oh yeah, change. A guy comes up to me, asks me for change, I say: 'Change! I'm for it! Ayyyy!"
"Yeah, but you know, nowadays you gotta be careful about change. Gotta be careful. My kid, Eddie, he wanted to change. He went to Sweden and changed into Edwina.
"Hey and I wanna tell ya.
But I love being Obama's running mate. Even though I think he's just using me. To get chicks.
He came up to me the other day. He says, "Rodney, what should I do about price supports?" I said: "Change 'em!"
"Change, that's the thing nowadays, Johnny, you gotta change ..."
It is amazing how little grasp most American people have in understanding what diplomacy is all about!
A country doesn't really need diplomatic ties to talk to our friends nor to nations that are supporting us. Diplomacy is necessary to try to resolve and difuse conflicts with possible adversaries to try to find common ground and to establish high level contacts and personal relationships within unfriendly foreign Governments. To identify the various camps of political ideologies within a regime etc.
Diplomacy is an skill and is a very serious skill and subject.
US Presidents for decades have been appointing Ambassadors to various countries as a reward for an individual being a large campaign contributor to their election campaigns! So we end up having "Car Salesman" or some other wealthy political cronie as US Ambassador as opposed to sending trained and skilled diplomats to important posts.
Diplomatic Isolationalism is the dumbest policy there is!
After all, if you refuse to talk with HAMAS who the hell are you going to hold talk with about any meaningful and lasting Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement with?
Diplomacy can avoid many misunderstandings and put fears to rest. It can difuse potentially explosive situation and avoid conflicts.
"But if the only tool you have is a hammer, than every problem looks like a nail" Mark Twain.
Quoting from an article by Patrick Martin, "Clinton wins West Virginia primary but Obama nears nomination" --
"What is most significant about the current stage of the nomination contest is the rallying of major sections of the business and financial elite behind Obama, and more generally, behind the Democratic Party. With the eruption of a major financial crisis in the United States, there is considerable concern in these circles over the potential for mass social struggles emerging in the United States — and hence the need for the populist demagogy that the Democratic Party specializes in, to divert such struggles away from any challenge to the profit system."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/demo-m15.shtml
The Democratic Party has done this time and time again. They co-opted and then sold out every broad-based 20th century mass movement.
The Democratic Party is a safety valve for an American public "steaming" with anger and frustration.
The economic elite's abiding fear is that the general population, angry and organized, will figure out exactly what's going on: AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Meanwhile, Obama -- who (surprise!) has more corporate money behind him than either Hillary or McCain -- is being used by the ruling class to create the impression among the general population that, if he's elected, real change will take place. When, in fact, if he's elected, nothing fundamental will change.
To think otherwise is to believe that Corporate America would give Obama tens of millions of dollars -- to do what? -- to undermine their power?!!
This is how stupid the ruling class in America thinks the average citizen is.
Everytime someone says: "Oh Obama, he'll help the little guy." -- well, those are corporate dollars hard at work.
The ruling class, overwhelmingly outnumbered, lives in fear that the general public will find not only their voice but their awesome strength.
So don't kid yourself, don't become pessimistic; because, day by day, it's happening.
Greenerthanthou and Hank, etc...
Look, I completely agree that there are alternatives to the current system and that we are manipulated by corporate power, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
And heretofore I've voted, as I said before, for Nader and Anderson before him. And what did it get us? Most notably, Bush.
I have argued many a time that the Parliamentary system is a better system than ours in terms of direct representation of the people.
But, we have what we have. I decided to become a Democrat because it is the only realistic way to have any progressive change in this country as it is. This is reality speaking.
Our culture is one of deep indulgence and vapidity, augured on by an amoral economic system that manipulates people with advertising.
Is it right? Is it moral? Is it good for the environment? No and No, a thousand times no. But, barring a revolution, that's the way it is. By the way, I'm not saying a revolution isn't in order, but it's pretty obvious that people aren't ready for one yet, despite all the truth to what you say about the war, poverty, income inequality and corporatism. Kevin Phillips, an uber republican that has written many books about the state of things despises Bush and in fact has said on Moyers' show that we live now in a plutocracy! That's from the man that engineered Nixon's win in '68!
Listen, I march for peace at our town's weekly rally in front of the post office, I buy my food at a cooperative, I live simply on a small subsistence farm and I try and live my beliefs in all ways, if I can. Most importantly, I do talk politics, or more truly, I talk philosophy of life with my neighbors and friends and that's how things change in a lasting way, if they change at all. The track record of revolutions ain't so good.
So, get real fellahs. Accept the world for what it is and work to change it. Go ahead and vote for Nader again if that's what you think is right. I personally think that if you really look at the man closely, he'd make an awful President. He's a contrarian, an agitator, a voice of conscience that we need. This election, however, it's time to put a stop to the Republicans and then agitate from the left when a Dem gets in there.
greenerthanthou:
Neither will I "hold my breath" waiting for an Obama/Nader debate to materialize; and I agree that it's likely an empty campaign promise; after all, Obama did nothing to protest publicly the exclusion of Kucinich from the Democratic Party debates. But I'm not planning to hold my breath about much of anything this campaign season, if I can find any voice to DEMAND debates between Obama and ALL the progressive 3rd party candidates, including the nominee of my own party, the Green Party. Not that MSM are likely to hear this voice, but why couldn't a progressive forum like Democracy Now! conduct such: like any "special interest" forum that brings candidates to its meetings, why couldn't DN or another agency sponsor such a forum for all candidates bidding for progressive support? Then hopefully our Obama-loving "alternative" media like Common Dreams, Alter Net and The Nation would at least have the integrity to report the results so that progressives could make their own decisions about which candidate to support. At this point in the campaign I'd rather spend my energy promoting such debates than in endless repetitions of the pros and cons of voting for a preferred candidate versus a "lesser evil" one. I think I've found my little niche in this campaign, anyone want to join me? jerrydrose11@yahoo.com.
Yeah, Hank, what you said.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the Obama/Nader debate. That was a campaign promise, and it will be broken.
The pathetic thing is, like Kerry, he isn't even promising to end the occupation or to bring peace to American foreign policy, yet many of the peace loving people here at Common Dreams have convinced themselves that he will, because, deep down (deep, deep down) Obama is a decent person.
At least Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the war. Kerry, Clinton and Obama don't even have to say that. Their faith-based followers believe that they have a plan so secret, they can't even say it out loud. Shhhhh. Don't wake the faithful from their beautiful dream.
Arnaldo and Donald May ----
There are plenty of alternatives, it's just that the two-parties have got you trapped. How does that sit with you, allowing yourself to be trapped? It's been this way ever since I can remember. The corporations choose who is acceptable for you to vote for. If you don't like it and vote elsewhere, you'll get smeared .... yes! even by those who are supposed to be on your side. In 2000, under 5% voted for Nader yet Nader and his supporters have been thoroughly maligned for practicing their civil right to vote for whomever they feel best represents them. This lesser of two strategy has gone on for too long. It's time to end it!
With this logic, I could turn it around and say all those who voted for Kerry took votes away from the best candidate there was at the time, Nader! Kerry voted FOR the war. Remember? "I will find the terrorists and kill them!" Yeah, that's the guy people were being emotionally coerced into voting for. They put up "Vote Kerry!" signs in their flower gardens and front lawns. A man who chose to kill millions of innocent people - and most of you supported him! (voting for killing = support for that killing), simple equation.
Most people are easily swayed by whomever they think is higher on the ladder than they are. They are like sheep. This type of person will never support an alternative because the "enemy" works night and day to keep them in the fold. They know this and still willingly go along. It's time to stand up for what's true and right, otherwise intention and truth will disappear. The steam will escape right out of our little movement. Haven't you noticed?
Focus on the issues, says Donald May. How do expect to do that? Your government is closed to you, haven't you noticed? 85% of Dem voters want out of Iraq within six months! Obama won't promise to end the brutal war on Iraqis before the end of his first term! That's an issue to focus on. How about Israel's brutalization of Palestinians? How about people dying because of the corporate hold on our health care system? Do you need more? Obama wants to increase military spending! Is against class action law suits. If you have to hold your nose and vote for him, please, at least be honest! Stop the fantasy, it's sickening.
Some say voting third party has never worked in the past. When has voting Democrat worked in the recent past? The candidates today are to the right of Richard Nixon! Is it working? Nixon was impeached for one thing: snooping on the Democrats. that's it. The Dems rufuse to impeach a president who has broken multiple laws, torture, spying, imprisoning innocent people, lying in order to start a war, etc, etc. And the Dem candidates are not credibly challenging that! Let's take out our nose rings!
Oh for heaven's sakes! In a new administration, (a) For starters, we might have a competent Secretary of State. (b) We might also have competent diplomats in the capital cities of the countries who are not only our friends, but the countries we will need as friends.
That will be a HUGE change in foreign policy.
Arnaldo, I'm voting for Obama, but the chance of him being a great President isn't that high. I'll be glad to be wrong.
The only good reason for voting for Obama, one that doesn't involve faint hopes of greatness, is that he's better than the alternatives. That's good enough, and then one can focus on the issues rather than the personalities. People should outgrow this need to have a wonderful leader, because most of the time they're going to disappoint you.
Look deeply and vote your conscience. It's the best one can do. The system is rotten to the core, but to not vote or to vote for "the winner" is a slap in the face to the few rights we have left. Other than that, hit the streets and tear down the walls.
Obama will debate Nader, how wonderful. Maybe finally we will have a debate worth watching.
As an outsider, looking in at the circus which is the US Presidential election, I can not believe some of the things which are going on. The Republicans have chosen their candidate, they got that sorted a while ago, and whilst he is for me, the scariest option for President, his party are not divided.
The Democrats on the other hand, are fighting each other tooth and nail, and even if one of their candidates wins, how on earth will they work together, to undo the mistakes of the Bush administration?
I would like Obama to win, because he does not use the inflammatory rhetoric of McCain or Clinton, he seems intelligent and cautious. I would worry for the future of the World, if McCain or Clinton were to win, there would be more macho posturing on the World stage, which would lead to more war and conflict.
Obama has to mind his words, he cannot afford to alienate his sponsors, we must hope that if he becomes the next President, he will adopt a different approach to foreign policy, one which involves talking and listening in equal measure.
Humanity is filled with inconsistency, hubris, egotism and finally imperfection. That this is so cannot be such a shock to anyone who has lived beyond puberty. Cynicism has its place but, come on, give Obama a break.
I have been a leftist progressive type for most of my adult life (I'm 51) and am probably to the left of most anyone you know. Yet, I've had to concede that, for whatever reason, the vast majority of people do not agree with my positions at this time. This has saved me from needlessly bashing my head against a brick wall.
Mr Obama is the most intelligent, cogent, clear-headed, collected, charismatic and articulate candidate for President that has surfaced in my lifetime and probably for several generations. And he has a real, honest-to-goodness chance of winning the election and taking office. I never thought I'd see the day I would be able to vote for someone with conviction again.
Do I idolize him or think of him as a saint? No, absolutely not. Do I think he is pure as the driven snow, without venality of any kind, completely magnanimous, etc.? Of course not. Do I think he is perfect? A resounding no! I see him simply as the best hope for progress in this election, if not in any election since Carter lost to Reagan.
He is young. He is of mixed race and has a life experience radically different from anyone elected as president before. He is the way of the future in that sense. He is clearly wise enough and has the moxie to be a great President. He doesn't have baggage dragging him down. He does not evidence an intense ego as some of the other candidates do (Edwards combing his hair for an hour). He is simple and straitforward in manner and dress despite the blather about his talking a lot of words. He has, still, the potential to go his own way.
Contrast that with McCain and Clinton. Clinton has shown that she does not take the time to think things thru clearly before making statements, and her egoic desire has gotten the best of her many times in this campaign. Obama is simply on a higher level, and he remains relatively untainted by politics.
And what about Nader. I have voted for him twice, including 2000. Both times I knew he could not possibly win and my vote was intended to show the American people that there is a solid minority in this country that wants progressive change. In the real world, quite frankly, I wouldn't vote for Nader to be boy scout leader. He lacks pragmatism, is incapable of compromise, and is insufferably idealistic. He would make a terrible President. He is great at what he has done advocating from the fringe.
A great President must be visionary, eloquent and able to bind a majority of people together. He must utilize his skills in pursuing goals, but he must be realistic and willing to compromise, not on principle, but in consideration of alternatives. He is the AGENDA setter, the leader, the one who knows how and when to choose to battle.
I used to mock Bush to my conservative friends at the American Legion by asking them rhetorically, "Would you follow this man into combat?" Even many of them had to admit that he did not present to them the character of a leader they would trust with their lives. His cock o' the walk bluster, his clear lack of imagination and intelligence, his simplification of complexity, his vainglory as leader, obvious when you look at it this way.
It seems a usefull way to look at a potential leader. When you consider death as a result of choosing a leader that is inadequate to the task, you bear down on the facts. Nader? Clinton, McCain......?
So, I'm not looking for perfection. I'm looking for someone that is confident enough to adapt and roll with the blows to come. He's not being elected dictator. And, like Lincoln, like FDR, he might just be the next great Prez.
I find it refreshing and hopeful that we might have a president who has a multi-cultural heritage, and who has lived in foreign countries, and who has experienced (relative) poverty, and who, despite all of this, remains idealistic and optimistic about the possibilities. As a cynic, I don't expect much, but I'd rather have the potential for policies that benefit the common (wo)man than have the certainty of four more years of the anti-social performance of the current administration.
Obama is same old, same old. An Israeli agent.
He has continued to fund the war.
Obama is for keeping the illegal sanctions on Cuba. Definitely not change.
He's for keeping our worldwide empire of 700 plus military bases. Ditto.
He won't rule out anything in relations with Iran. new boss same as the old boss
His top advisors, Power and Brzezinski are neo liberal interventionists.
He's so pro Israel, Palestinians have no hope with this guy.
He's pro-Colombia, an undemocratic country; and anti Venezuela, a democratic country.
He wants to increase military spending and the number of troops in the armed forces, neither of which are called for. In fact, a massive reduction in war department spending is urgently needed...or Obama can forget about all those social spending programs he talks about.
Aren't these all the positions of Bush? Indeed, dear reader, they are.
Little Brother: Thanks for keeping the focus on FAITH as the requisite to accepting the validity of the Obama candidacy, especially in the area of this article, foreign policy. My additional comment for now is simply to anticipate the disillusionment that may await those who have made that leap and may eventually realize they have lept over a cliff: of a lost election if not a lost world. That's why it's so, so important that Obama have his feet kept to the progressive fire BEFORE the election. I have little hope that hitherto progressive beacons like Common Dreams and The Nation will furnish this fire, committed as they seem to be to the unquestioning adoration of the would-be Dear Leader. The best news in this article and its thread of comments is that Obama has made a promise to debate "any of my opponents," presumably Nader and also presumably the Green Party nominee (Cynthia McKinney or whomever) as well, again one would hope, those of Socialist, Libertarian and other "third parties." Such debates would redeem the sorry season of "debates" that have focussed on wedge and faux issues, and allow the articulation of a truly anti-imperialist view for consideration of the American people as they select their next President. "Open that debate!" should be the clarion call of every progressive media outlet.
How many of those that scream "antisemitism" are really "antigentile"?
Obama Edwards '08.
As the author said, prepare for business as usual. The president doesn't make foreign policy, the military-industrial complex does.
I agree with most of what's been written here.
As I've been saying, I concluded some time ago that Obama is of a higher caliber in both intellect and character than the competition-- in fact, the competition put together, Brundlefly-fashion.
But I haven't made the leap of faith. And it is a leap of faith. Despite the vast edifice of discourse-- speeches, position papers, an infinity of analysis, punditry, scholarship-- raised around presidential campaigns, in the end the votes are cast based on the mysterious phenomenon of personal faith. It's said that faith is a gift; if so, it's a gift I've seldom received.
Those who've been converted to Obama's candidacy, in varying degrees of intelligence and sophistication, truly feel in their kishkas that Obama will rise to the occasion and lead the US out of darkness and back to a Promised Land. They readily forgive the rhetorical concessions that he's made to conservative forces, from praising Saint Ronald Reagan to scolding Palestinians and cozying up to Israel.
There seems to be a two-tier argument: first, the typical realpolitik rationalization that Obama must play up to the popular, AIPAC-enhanced view of Israel as a staunch and honorable ally, and take similar orthodox or conservative positions on issues of importance to progressives. But, Obama supporters state or hint, if you read all of his writings you'll see that he's truly a progressive at heart. So he's, er, keeping his powder dry instead of expressing "outside-the-mainstream" opinions that will only alienate ordinary Amerikans.
Second, even if Obama is creating a "third way" that involves unpalatable options, e.g. reaching out to Republics and walking a centrist, moderate path, he will prove flexible and responsive to pressure from progressive citizens. One often hears the FDR quote applied to Obama, which I crudely paraphrase, in which FDR supposedly encouraged leftish forces to elect him despite his unwillingness to openly credit them, and "make" him do the things they supported by exerting public pressure.
That's all well and good, but it remains wholly dubious and speculative if one lacks the requisite faith in the man. Admirers urge us to cut him some slack for his objectionable and offensive comments, and disquieting developments such as Obama's putting Jimmy Carter at arm's length, and presuming to criticize Carter. But again-- they have the requisite faith to mute their own criticisms.
Since the Obama spark hasn't ignited in my skeptical, cynical kishkas, I still see him as studiously noncommittal, and even his passion seems a little too controlled, even manipulative, for my taste. But then, I have a deep-seated aversion to authority figures, including politicians-- so maybe my perspective merely expresses the low expectations of soft bigotry. :?:
elmysterioso, Obama has repeatedly portrayed himself as a 'visionary' and a 'peacemaker', but has done nothing of substance to back up the portrayal.
He has ALWAYS played the game, from the moment he decided he wanted to be in politics. All very calculated and controlled (the latter is what caused Wright's downfall, he didn't allow himself to be controlled by his self-appointed half-white Massah).
elmysterio:
"Now what really remains to be seen is that if Obama is elected president, will he do a 180 and start governing wisely instead of continuing the irrational American hubris that has characterized US foreign policy for the last 100 years."
Remains to be seen indeed. Absent some defining action like an Obama vote against the supplementary war funding bill, the voter must take Obama on faith, while lacking any evidence beyond their own "belief" that this will occur. The dictionary defines FAITH as
"belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Is that what we want, faith-based voting?
I think Obama originally started off as a 'visionary' and a 'peacemaker'... but due to the nature of politics in the United States, NOBODY can aspire to the office of President without selling out their morals to the status quo. You MUST be pro-Israel, pro-business, pro-empire, pro-war, pro-tax cuts in order to even be considered. Now, Obama being the political creature that he is, must understand that and is playing along with the game. He has to. He has no choice. Look how far Dennis got or Edwards got by speaking truths...
Now what really remains to be seen is that if Obama is elected president, will he do a 180 and start governing wisely instead of continuing the irrational American hubris that has characterized US foreign policy for the last 100 years.
What a puff piece !
""Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel."" Only an Obamabot would fail to rip Obama to shreds for such an absurd statment. Or question how a 6 year old could have such an in-depth understanding of his mother's job. Didn't she teach English at the U.S. embassy in Jakarta ? How would this affect her, or Barack, adversely ?
Obama says whatever he needs to say to be elected. And he's very good at completely abandoning what he's said in the past.
Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever to pay any credence to a book he wrote years ago. There's nothing at all to indicate that this in any way represents the foreign policy he'd follow as President.
While being typically Obama-vague, the statements he's made as a candidate show little or no indication that he'd change US foreign policy.
--Obama supports the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's voted to fully fund the wars as a Senator. At the time of his 2004 DNC speech he was widely quoted as saying there was little difference in Iraq policy between him and Bush. His statements on Afghanistan constantly suggest increasing that war.
--He's basically said he'd attack Pakistan. That's what launching attacks on targets in Pakistan without the approval of that sovereign nation's government.
--He's basically said he'd attack, and even nuke, Iran. He's fully adopted the AIPAC\Likud line that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (despite the CIA's denial) and that Iran is a threat to Israel
--In general, his policy towards Israel would be the same as Bush's. He's given no indication of anything better there.
--He's promised to increase Pentagon spending. He's talked frequently about increasing the size of the Army and the Marine corp, about providing new weapons and about providing new training. Me, I tend to think Einstein was a smart guy who had it right when he said "You can not simultaneously prepare for and prevent war."
I'm constantly amazed how the Obamabots present views for Obama that Obama never states. There's this constant lie out there that somehow Obama is a peace candidate. But there's nothing to back this up.
Even before Mr. Steele introduced the new terminology, there has been, I think, far too much focus in this campaign on Obama's kishkas, or, to put it otherwise, on what is in the man's heart as opposed to what he sometimes says or does. Now I think it's great that a real human in the White House (wouldn't that be a novelty?) might come out of a really humane upbringing, as Mr. Obama seems to have had. But does this justify the pattern I think I see of his supporters projecting onto him the progressive ideas that are in their own kishkas? We are told endlessly that he will, for example, be more "even-handed" in his dealing with the combatants in the Middle East when, after he said as much, the wrath of AIPAC came on his head, and he capitulated with as strongly a pro-Israel and anti-Hamas statement as one could imagine. And so the supporters of this candidate of hope are reduced, like Mr. Steele (and like myself to a degree) to hoping that the candidate of Hope and Change will change once he gets in office. Hope is great, but look at the realities (the kishkas if you will) of Obama's largest campaign contributors (think Goldman Sachs) and his likely foreign policy advisors (think Anthony Lake). It's a long campaign and we have yet to see whether Obama will show any evidence that his actions will match his kishkas. And we might not have to wait long to find out; a supplementary Iraq/Afghanistan funding bill will come to a vote shortly, and there will be an opportunity for both McCain and Obama to demonstrate their kishkas and whether there will be any difference in their behaviors. I'm hoping that every progressively-kishkaed Obama supporter will do what so many say they are going to do after he's in office and contact Obama to help give him the spine to do the right (left) thing.
US foreign policy is already shaping itself into a giant turd about to be flushed into the toilet of history.
Neither Obama, nor anyone else so inclined, can make any radical changes that pose a basic threat to the American Empire. If he is elected president and tried to do what, say, Ron Paul suggests and have this country mind its own business, we will all be reading 72 point headlines about his mysterious death from some disease for which there are only a handful of recorded cases in all of history. Nobody even knew he had the disease. The Vice President, having been sat down with a shotgun to his head and told to "behave" or else, will be duly sworn in and it will once again be business as usual. In Oliver Stone's "JFK" the Donald Sutherland character says at one point, "Politics is power, nothing more." Get in the face of that power . . . and you'll be dead. Much too much is at stake.
I, too, was disappointed in Obama's criticism of President Carter, after declaring how important it is to "talk with our enemies." If he has clarified this apparent contradiction, I've not heard it.
Are "terrorists" not a subset of "enemies"?
This will unquestionably come up when Obama debates Ralph Nader. This email arrived yesterday from Nader/Gonzalez:
We were thrilled to hear that Barack Obama is open to debating Ralph Nader.
On Meet the Press on May 4, Senator Obama told Tim Russert that he was willing to debate with "any of my opponents about what this country means, what makes it great."
Senator Obama!
What a breath of fresh air!
Finally!
A Democratic presidential candidate who is willing to debate the corporate takeover of our democracy!
Can't wait.
Nader v. Obama.
Nader and Obama could barnstorm the state - can you say Lincoln-Douglas? - debating public health insurance, curbing the excesses of the oil industry, reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East, and the corporate takeover of our democracy.
What a breath of fresh air!
Did we say that already?
Thank you Senator Obama for being so open-minded!
That is what truly makes America great.
Open, public debates that strengthen democracy.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
In the meantime, back here on the ground, the Nader/Gonzalez campaign is busy trying to overcome the Democratic Party's historic ballot obstructionism in Senator Obama's home state of Illinois.
Last time out (that would be 2004), the Democrats blocked Nader from the ballot in Illinois.
This time (that would be 2008), we're not going to take no for an answer.
We've got our Nader's Raiders on the ground in the Land of Lincoln.
And so far, they have collected over 10,000 signatures on our way to the 50,000 signatures we need by June 26.
And in the four short days of our Illinois ballot access fundraising drive, we have collected $34,876 from 352 of you - our loyal supporters.
So now, we only need an additional 150 of you to donate $100 each and we'll meet our goal of $50,000 to get Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in Illinois.
We want to get there by the end of the week.
So, please help us get there now.
And once we're on the ballot in Illinois, maybe Senator Obama would be willing to host Ralph Nader for the historic Nader/Obama debates.
Let us know when and where, Senator.
Anytime.
Onward
The Nader Team
I don't look for Obama to upset apple carts in Washington; he's too much a go-along, get-along politician. But I do expect his personal experience and knowledge to help mollify outraged foreigners. It would be nice if he would clean up Bush's messes, especially by getting our troops out of Iraq.
Jonathan, as always never disappoints me with his incisive analysis of current events. I reached, more or less, the same conclusion when I read his first book. His grasp of conventional knowledge about the world was a surprise given that most people I have interacted with, one way or another, in this country have a skewed view about the rest of humanity. I was particularly amazed by his understanding of Kenya's history, politics and culture despite the fact that he has hardly spent much time there. I too feel that he may opt for a strategy of caution instead of transformation to keep adversarial forces at bay if he wins the presidency.
No one, I mean no one can be elected President by promising or hoping to be an honest broker in Middle Eastern politics. Almost out of pity, I can understand Obama's reluctance to cross the neo-fascists in Israel and Washington government. To detractors and war mongers Obama's black, anti-american, young--hence naive, and inexperienced, so you got to figure that making him anti-semitic too will be next on the agenda.
Dmia, there is nothing--NOTHING--at all to suggest that what you're saying is true ( empty "hopeful" rhetoric notwithstanding).
This is really very simple.
The day Obama is elected, the United States will have better relations with the rest of the world.
The last president to promise to change US foreign policy for the better failed to do so and served only one term. Too late he tries to repair the evils he forebore while in the White House.
The previous president who promoted a great change in US foreign policy represented by the Schlesinger Plan, a plan for developing the third world as independently viable trading partners, was assassinated.
Changes in foreign policy can only come about after the removal of the powers behind the throne. To do that will require a change in the American public not only of the mind, but of the kishkas.