Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Right Turn?
In many respects, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has played right into the hands of cynics who have long doubted his promises to create a new and more progressive role for the United States in the world. The very morning after the last primaries, in which he finally received a sufficient number of pledged delegates to secure the Democratic presidential nomination and no longer needed to win over voters from the progressive base of his own party, Obama -- in a Clinton-style effort at triangulation -- gave a major policy speech before the national convention of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Embracing policies which largely backed those of the more hawkish voices concerned with Middle Eastern affairs, he received a standing ovation for his efforts.
His June 3 speech in Washington in many ways constituted a slap in the face of the grass roots peace and human rights activists who have brought him to the cusp of the Democratic presidential nomination.
In other respects, however, he pandered less to this influential lobbying group than many other serious aspirants for national office have historically. And at least part of his speech focused on convincing the largely right-wing audience members to support his positions rather than simply underscoring his agreement with them.
Much of the media attention placed upon his speech centered on the ongoing debate between him and incipient Republican presidential nominee John McCain on Iran. While embracing many of the same double-standards regarding nuclear nonproliferation issues and UN resolutions as does the Bush administration and congressional leaders of both parties, Obama did insert some rationality into the debate regarding the need for negotiations with that regional power rather than maintaining the current U.S. policy of diplomatic isolation and threats of war.
When it came to Israel and Palestine, however, Obama appeared to largely embrace a right-wing perspective which appeared to place all the blame for the ongoing violence and the impasse in the peace process on the Palestinians under occupation rather than the Israelis who are still occupying and colonizing the parts of their country seized by the Israeli army more than 40 years ago.
Progressive Israeli Reactions While there were some faint glimmers of hope in Obama's speech for those of us who support Israeli-Palestinian peace, progressive voices in Israel were particularly disappointed.
Israeli analyst Uri Avneri, in an essay entitled "No, I Can't!", expressed the bitterness of many Israeli peace activists for "a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning." Avneri goes on to observe the irony of how Obama's "dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles. And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles." Avneri addressed the view of many Israelis that "Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people."
Support for Further Militarization In his speech, Obama rejected the view that the Middle East already has too many armaments and dismissed pleas by human rights activists that U.S. aid to Israel -- like all countries -- should be made conditional on adherence to international humanitarian law. Indeed, he further pledged an additional $30 billion of taxpayer-funded military aid to the Israeli government and its occupation forces over the next decade with no strings attached. Rather than accept that strategic parity between potential antagonists is the best way, short of a full peace agreement, to prevent war and to maintain regional security, Obama instead insisted that the United States should enable Israel to maintain its "qualitative military edge."
Over the past three years, the ratio of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip killed by Israeli forces relative to the number of Israeli civilians in Israel killed by Palestinians is approximately 50 to one and has been even higher more recently. However, Obama chose only to mention the Israeli deaths and condemn Hamas, whose armed wing has been responsible for most of the Israeli casualties, and not a word about the moral culpability of the Israeli government, which Amnesty International and other human rights groups have roundly criticized for launching air strikes into Gaza's densely crowded refugee camps and related tactics.
Since first running for the U.S. Senate, Obama has routinely condemned Arab attacks against Israeli civilians but has never condemned attacks against Arab civilians by Israelis. This apparent insistence that the lives of Palestinian and Lebanese civilian are somehow less worthy of attention than the lives of Israeli civilians have led to charges of racism on the part of Obama.
Despite his openness to talk with those governing Iran and North Korea, Obama emphasized his opposition to talking to those governing the Gaza Strip, even though Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian parliament in what was universally acknowledged as a free election. Though a public opinion poll published in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz showed that 64% of the Israeli population support direct negotiations between Israel and Hamas (while only 28% expressed opposition), Obama has chosen to side with the right-wing minority in opposing any such talks. Furthermore, Obama insists that Hamas should have never been even allowed to participate in the Palestinian elections in the first place because of their extremist views, which fail to recognize Israel and acts of terrorism by its armed wing. Yet he has never objected to the Israelis allowing parties such as National Union -- which defends attacks on Arab civilians and seeks to destroy any Palestinian national entity, and expel its Arab population -- to participate in elections or hold high positions in government.
He insisted that Hamas uphold previous agreements by the Fatah-led Palestine Authority with Israel, but did not insist that Israel uphold its previous agreements with the Palestine Authority, such as withdrawing from lands re-occupied in 2001 in violation of U.S.-guaranteed disengagement agreements.
In reference to Obama's speech, the anchor to Israel's Channel 2 News exclaimed that it was "reminiscent of the days of Menachem Begin's Likud," referring to the far right-wing Israeli party and its founder, a notorious terrorist from the 1940s who later became prime minister. By contrast, back in February, while still seeking liberal Democratic votes in the primaries, Obama had explicitly rejected the view which, in his words, identifies being pro-Israel with "adopting an unwaveringly pro-Likud view of Israel." Now that he has secured the nomination, however, he has appeared to have changed his tune.
Endorsing Israel's Annexation of Jerusalem Most disturbing was Obama's apparent support for Israel's illegal annexation of greater East Jerusalem, the Palestinian-populated sector of the city and surrounding villages that Israel seized along with the rest of the West Bank in June 1967.
The UN Security Council passed a series of resolutions (252, 267, 271, 298, 476 and 478) calling on Israel to rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem and to refrain from any unilateral action regarding its final status. Furthermore, due to the city's unresolved legal status dating from the 1948-49 Israeli war on independence, the international community refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, with the United States and other governments maintaining their respective embassies in Tel Aviv.
Despite these longstanding internationally-recognized legal principles, Obama insisted in his speech before AIPAC that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
Given the city's significance to both populations, any sustainable peace agreement would need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city for both Israel and Palestine. In addition to its religious significance for both Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims, Jerusalem has long been the most important cultural, commercial, political, and educational center for Palestinians and has the largest Palestinian population of any city in the world. Furthermore, Israel's annexation of greater East Jerusalem and its planned annexation of surrounding settlement blocs would make a contiguous and economically viable Palestinian state impossible. Such a position, therefore, would necessarily preclude any peace agreement. This raises serious questions as to whether Obama really does support Israeli-Palestinian peace after all.
According to Uri Avneri, Obama's "declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous." Furthermore, says this prominent observer of Israeli politics, every Israeli government in recent years has recognized that calls for an undivided Jerusalem "constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared -- quietly, almost secretly -- from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements."
Obama argued in his speech that the United States should not "force concessions" on Israel, such as rescinding its annexation of Jerusalem, despite the series of UN Security Council resolutions explicitly calling on Israel do to so. While Obama insists that Iran, Syria, and other countries that reject U.S. hegemonic designs in the region should be forced to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, he apparently believes allied governments such as Israel are exempt. Also disturbing about his statement was a willingness to "force concessions" on the Palestinians by pre-determining the outcome of one of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations. If, as widely interpreted, Obama was recognizing Israel's illegal annexation of greater East Jerusalem, it appears that the incipient Democratic nominee -- like the Bush administration -- has shown contempt for the most basic premises of international law, which forbids any country from expanding its borders by force.
However, the Jerusalem Post reported that the Obama campaign, in an attempt to clarify his controversial statement, implied that the presumed Democratic presidential nominee was not actually ruling out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem and that "undivided" simply meant that "it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967." The campaign also replied to the outcry from his speech by declaring that "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with." This implies that Obama's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel does not necessarily preclude its Arab-populated eastern half becoming the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Israel, however, has shown little willingness to withdraw its administration and occupation forces from greater East Jerusalem voluntarily. Obama's apparent reluctance to pressure Israel to do so makes it hard to imagine that he is really interested in securing a lasting peace agreement.
It Could Have Been Worse Perhaps, as his campaign claims, Obama was not rejecting the idea of a shared co-capital of Jerusalem. And perhaps his emphasis on Israeli suffering relative to Palestinian suffering was simply a reflection of the sympathies of the audience he was addressing and was not indicative of anti-Arab racism. If so, the speech could have been a lot worse.
Indeed, Obama's emphasis on peace, dialogue, and diplomacy is not what the decidedly militaristic audience at AIPAC normally hears from politicians who address them.
Obama did mention, albeit rather hurriedly, a single line about Israeli obligations, stating that Israel could "advance the cause of peace" by taking steps to "ease the freedom of Palestinians, improve economic conditions" and "refrain from building settlements." This is more than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain was willing to say in their talks before the AIPAC convention. And, unlike the Bush administration, which last year successfully pressured Israel not to resume peace negotiations with Syria, Obama declared that his administration would never "block negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests."
Furthermore, earlier in his career, Obama took a more balanced perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, aligning himself with positions embraced by the Israeli peace camp and its American supporters. For example, during his unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama criticized the Clinton administration for its unconditional support for the occupation and other Israeli policies and called for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He referred to the "cycle of violence" between Israelis and Palestinians, whereas most Democrats were insisting that it was a case of "Palestinian violence and the Israeli response." He also made statements supporting a peace settlement along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative and similar efforts by Israeli and Palestinian moderates.
Unlike any other major contenders for president this year or the past four election cycles, Obama at least has demonstrated in the recent past a more moderate and balanced perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As president, he may well be better than his AIPAC speech would indicate. Though the power of the "Israel Lobby" is often greatly exaggerated, it may be quite reasonable to suspect that pressure from well-funded right-wing American Zionist constituencies has influenced what Obama believes he can and cannot say. As an African-American whose father came from a Muslim family, he is under even more pressure than most candidates to avoid being labeled as "anti-Israel."
Ironically, a strong case can be made that the right-wing militaristic policies he may feel forced to defend actually harm Israel's legitimate long-term security interests.
A Political Necessity? If indeed Obama took these hard-line positions during his AIPAC speech in order to seem more electable, it may be a serious mistake. Most liberal Democrats who gave blind support to the Israeli government in the 1960s and 1970s now have a far more even-handed view of the conflict, recognizing both Israeli and Palestinian rights and responsibilities. In addition, voters under 40 tend to take a far more critical view of unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies than those of older generations. There is a clear generational shift among American Jews as well, with younger Jewish voters -- although firmly supporting Israel's right to exist in peace and security -- largely opposing unconditional U.S. support for the occupation and colonization of Arab lands. The only major voting group that supports positions espoused by AIPAC are right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who tend to vote Republican anyway.
Furthermore, Obama has been far more dependent on large numbers of small donors from his grassroots base and less on the handful of wealthy donors affiliated with such special interest groups as AIPAC. This speech may have cost him large numbers of these smaller, progressive donors without gaining him much from the small numbers of larger, more conservative donors.
Indeed, there may not be a single policy issue where Obama's liberal base differs from the candidate more than on Israel/Palestine. Not surprisingly, the Green Party and its likely nominee, former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, along with independent candidate Ralph Nader, are both using this issue to gain support at the expense of Obama.
Only hours after his AIPAC speech, the Nader campaign sent out a strongly worded letter noting how, unlike Obama and McCain, Nader supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements and would change U.S. Middle East policy. The widely-circulated response to the speech makes the case that, in contrast to Obama, "Nader/Gonzalez stands on these issues with the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Jewish-Americans and Arab Americans."
Betraying the Jewish Community Through a combination of deep-seated fear from centuries of anti-Semitic repression, manipulation by the United States and other Western powers, and self-serving actions by some of their own leaders, a right-wing minority of American Jews support influential organizations such as AIPAC to advocate militaristic policies that, while particularly tragic for the Palestinians and Lebanese, are ultimately bad for the United States and Israel as well. Obama's June 3 speech would have been the perfect time for Obama, while upholding his commitment to Israel's right to exist in peace and security, to challenge AIPAC's militarism and national chauvinism more directly. Unfortunately, while showing some independence of thought on Iran, he apparently felt the Palestinians were not as important.
Taking a pro-Israel but anti-occupation position would have demonstrated that Obama was not just another pandering politician and that he recognized that a country's legitimate security needs were not enhanced by invasion, occupation, colonization and repression.
That truly would have been "change you can believe in."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
99 Comments so far
Show AllDid anyone ever really would doubt he was anything but a more effective conman than his opponents?
A jewish life is worth no more than a palastine life. Too bad so few in our government believe this. :(
I'll now have to vote for Nader again. I thought this guy was going to be different. What a con.
Barack Obama is an ACTOR! Ok? In fact, he is so good at acting that he should receive an honorary oscar for being able to pull off what he has already. Will Obama become the USA puppet of Israel, or is he giving AIPAC a load of BS? I am not sure, and that is one example of why he is such a good actor in my opinion. Obama is someone who most people really are not sure where he will go - only that he promises "change." Yet, "change" has many definitions and if Obama becomes President of the USA it will be interesting to watch what he will do. Honestly, I am not sure what he will do and to me this is what makes Obama so fascinating.
It seems that he is speaking to AIPAC because he wants to convince them that he should be the next President of the USA (AIPAC is VERY powerful. Some people disagree but those that do are unable to look at reality square in the face). I have read several parts in here where the claim is made that the majority of Israelis disagree with AIPAC positions and are against the slaughtering of Palestinian children by the IDF. THAT is a real act of deception.
Peter Piper picked AIPAC of pickled democrats.
Republicans pander to their base and use fear and greed to sway swing voters.
Democrats ignore their base and try to show swing voters how Republican they are.
The big problem for Democrats is that most swing voters prefer to vote for a real Republican over a pseudo Republican.
Why do we need to protect Israel anyway? If they can't protect themselves with 200 nuclear warheads, they've got some kind of problem. We'll probably wind up with those warheads in any case, just like the South Africans gave up their nuclear program when they realized that white-minority rule wasn't going to last. If they don't create a Palstinian state soon, Jews will be a minority in Israel, and we can't let white folk technology fall into the hands of non-white folk, at least according to Bush. Hey, wait a minute...
This is still part of the Obama's secret plan as the stealth candidate for progressive issues. Right?
Pander and make public statements about Israel's right to continue to use excessive force against palestinian civilians, encourage a Walmart type economy, increase the military.
Is that our common dream?
Stop the charade right now. You can support him, but don't change the reality just so you feel better supporting and his lite republican policies that will continue the status quo.
Ralph Nader
Green Party Cynthia McKinney
They are saying and believing what common dream used to stand for.
I told you so. And I don't hate to say it.
Uh, it isn't Peter Piper ~Rebelnow~, He's the modern day "Pied Piper" and he is fantastic at it. And Obama didn't make a right turn, he's always been in the right lane accepting millions of neo-con money and donations with his left turn signal on, fooling the younger generation. It's off now and as the weeks progerss, more and more will become aware that indeed, he's the con man's con man.
He did not win any of the key democratic states, none of them. and he will lose at least two of them in the general election, more likely four or more of them and we'll have McCain instead of Hillary. As bad a some think Hillary is, McCain is far far worse.
Hmm: not so many comments. This could be because CommonDreams seems to have instituted a comment-"moderation" policy on criticism of the Anointed One -- which is a real disappointment: what's really NOT needed just now is the APPEARANCE of "free speech" which is in fact censored.
[Note: if poster "jclientelle" reads this, please be aware that a reply to your post MY post on the Hayden article has been "in moderation" since yesterday afternoon.]
Barack Oshamalama promised "change we can believe in." Then, his first move after clinching the nomination was to grab his knee-pads and shoeshine kit, and head over to AIPAC for some quality groveling. The more things "change", the more they remain the same.
Hey, Kem Patrick,
Come in from the dark side. You can support Nader or the Green Party, I think they are the ones who represent your values.
I think that Hillary would be worse than Obama, I can't think of one important issue where she took the leadership position. She has always supported the horse that won, but only after the race ended.
Success has many parents, failure is an orphan.
Define what is the common dream. Is it just to have any 'democrat' elected?
Or a candidate that will make the common dream a viable possibility.
Obama has too much white in him.
That's the problem!
Well here we go . . . I am on my way to the Libertarian Party web site to sign on. The time has come for a third party. No more hoping for the best and voting the lesser of two evils. I will vote what I believe in and feel better on November 7th rather than feeling disappointed.
At least I will be voting for real change. Washington DC belongs to the corporate money interests not to the people of America any more. The rest of you can keep wishing but the genie will not come out of this bottle on November 6th. The corporate machine has once again paved the way with money . . . .
Kem, honestly, most of us here were "telling you so", about both candidates and those of us who were, are more right than you for backing the other side of the same coin. Saying I told you so in multiple threads is just as annoying if someone was doing it in your private life. Clinton lost, it's over, and she would have done no better. There's no logic you could put forward, all things considered, that could counter that.
There is no way that Clinton would be any different in policy than Obama. If there was a difference it's almost certain that she'd be to the right of Obama, especially in regards to Israel. You're also insane to say that Clinton would win more states than Obama. She has far higher negative ratings than Obama, the Democrats are almost certain to win many of the states that Clinton won that people like yourself claim Obama won't, many of the people who previously had supported Clinton had buyers remorse as time went on and there are a large amount of people who would have voted against her rather than vote for McCain, including many people on the left that were turned off by her antics. People like yourself, by backing Clinton, are just as blind as the Obama supporters. Neither Clinton nor Obama are a real alternative and neither are for polices that the public now wants. The public is the left of both and might as well be communist as far as McCain is concerned. The public has the opinions it does more than anything because what has worked in the past no longer works, a fact Clinton and Obama seem oblivious to, but they none the less are to the left of all the candidates. Clinton would do no better than Obama vote wise or in regards to a fundamental break with failed policies. The left doesn't need Clinton hero worship any more than they need Obama worship.
If you want to oppose Obama's status quo positions please do so, but leave the Clinton worship behind. It's like opposing Bush's policies while backing McCain, it makes no logical sense.
Why the ? in the title?
Obama is a corporate sell out, no question. It's all political grandstanding, more hot air and bombast. But for a second imagine if he really took a stand for human rights and cutting back funding for Israel's military. Guess what? He would defintitely LOSE the election against McSame, hands down. He has to worship the Lukid Zionists to even have a chance at winning the election.
...and sadly there is a 5,000 lb. GORILLA that is sitting in the middle of America's living room: as November 4 approaches the stark reality that America is on the cusp of electing a BLACK MAN president of the United States will be staring millions of white Americans in the face. Red staters, who have proven to be the achilles heel for Democrats in the last several elections since Reagan, do not take kindly to having a black president. You can carry all the big cities as a black democrat running for prez, but if you can't carry the Old South--or the red states, you will most likely lose.
...what I'm saying is that this election is going to be very, very close. There is a very real chance that McSame will win: NOT because he is the better man--he certainly IS NOT. But because, in a word, "he's not black".
Yours in armchair political punditry,
Zamboni F.
hey kem ....obama IS going to win in november.....the neo-cons are afraid he may actually be a good president......that is why they have to character assinate,because they can't debate the issues\merits seriously......mccain is paper thin on everything....flip flop.... flip flop.....his june 3rd speech was HORRIBLE ...he's bring nothing to the table !
An Obama presidency will be much like Bill Clinton's presidency... Where the evil of the US is covered over with a thin veneer of 'compassion'... in contrast to Cheney's presidency where the evil of the US is on display for all to see... Obama will be a kinder, gentler type of evil. In fact, he'll make nice speeches and smile that charming smile at you as he twists the knife in your belly... in contrast to Cheney's snarl while he stabs repeatedly.
Zamboni said: "But for a second imagine if he really took a stand for human rights and cutting back funding for Israel's military. Guess what? He would defintitely LOSE the election against McSame, hands down. He has to worship the Lukid Zionists to even have a chance at winning the election."
Is that necessarily true? Do the voters really care about AIPAC and the bloody murdering Israelis? Or is it that the press keeps saying that you can't win without the Jews on board therefore, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy?
I really don't see what all of the "shock and awe" is about.
It is usually fascists that are accused of antintellectualism and relying on emotionalism rather then research to spur politicial opinion.
Obama in no way has tricked or fooled any one.
He is being absolutely fair, upstanding and honest to his beliefs and owners.
Should we forget that as an Afican-American he has made absolutely no promises to the Black community and has taken Black folks for granted?
Should we forget that as a man of African parentage, he has only promised Africans, that he would clean up terrorism and has made no mention of the various horrors from Dafur to China dumping shoddy and dangerous merchandise throughout the continent, or the continued proliferation of Blood Diamonds or the child slavery in the cocoa fields in Cote D'Ivoire.
Or have we forgotten the thousands of low income African-American tenants in Chicago who he swindled into living into delapidated conditions along with his Syrian Godfather Rezko, or the many AIPAC Chicago supporters who helped keep him in office.
But the most telling point was his article in the CFR mag on August 2007 clearly delineating his plans for a Pax Americana!
No he is no con man!
There is an old Southern Black folk tale about a woman, that had a knock on her door and was aked by a snake to take him in from the bitter cold, lest he freeze and die, (that talkin snake bit should have gave her the message) she took the freezing snake in and clutch him to her bossom and the snake bit her.....
The moral of the story is........!
Nuff Said
Just like John Stewart said: You can't run for president and say anything negative about Isreal if you want to win.
Just like John Stewart said: You can't run for president and say anything negative about Israel if you want to win.
I did not support Obama in the primary because I think he will change anything. I supported him because he is bringing a movement in to politics. We will need all the young people he has enlisted once they too become disillusioned with the Dems. Same with African-Americans. This idea that Obama supporters expect him to be the most progressive Dem in Congress is absurd. This is pure politics. I joined the Green Party in 2001 and I always support local candidates when they appear on the ballot. But that is part of the problem. We need Greens on every line, for every office. Until we start electing Greens to State governments we have no CHANCE at electing them to national offices. Let's have some clarity on this, please! Only Obama or McCain will be President. Choose one... Until you build a viable political party that can win 270 electoral votes, it makes no sense to vote third party. It is literally like not voting. No one in either "major" party gives a damn. And now the fix is really in, because the LP has as many disaffected GOP voters as the GP has Dem voters. So it's a wash and they still win. Make no mistake a protest vote is just a wasted vote for national office. Period.
The Democrats are a party of liars and con men. And this just illustrates it.
Obama refuses to tell the party what his policies will be during the time when the party has a choice in the nominee. During that time, Obama puts forward the con that he's really a progressive who wants 'change'.
Then as soon as he's got the nomination he starts changing not only this but lots of his positions.
-- He pledges full support to Israel
-- He repeats the pledge that he's willing to attack Iran to stop a nuclear weapons program that both the CIA and the IAEA have stated does not exist.
-- He pledge to continue punitive policies towards Cuba.
-- He named a key Wal-Mart defender his economic advisor.
-- He backpedals on his promises to talk to the leaders of Iran and Cuba.
Heck, that's just the changes I can keep track of.
What should massively upset all Democrats is that Obama was essentially lying to them for the last year. It should massively upset all Democrats that a candidate who presented himself in one way during the primaries suddenly changes his stances when he gets the nomination.
Doing this clearly destroys the very notion of democracy inside the Democratic Party. How can party members be expected to make a choice of a candidate when the candidates are free to lie and misrepresent themselves to the party?
The key is that Democrats only believe in one thing. Grabbing power to themselves. Thus, they accept this as there is not a policy or a principle that they won't abandon in their greed for power. Thus they have no problem with a candidate that blatantly lies to them as long as they get the power at the end that they so desire. The evil principle that the end justifies any means is clearly alive in well in the evil (albeit slightly lessor) party that is the Democrats.
Just to see if I can connect to the website; am getting Word Press notices of non-delivery. Will probably delete when I edit.
Just to see if I can connect to the website; am getting Word Press notices of non-delivery. Will probably delete when I edit.
I was just blocked by WORD PRESS on another thread.
I SAID IT TWICE ___~GRANT~___ "I TOLD YOU SO".
And if that annoys you, I don't give a shit.
A few days ago, Stephen Zunes was telling us why Obama had beaten Clinton in the primaries. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/04/9451/. Boiled down, the problem was Hillary's last name, as progressives had been once burned in 1992 when Bill Clinton the candidate was "given some slack" by progressives in spite of his less-than-progressive views, with the anticipation (maybe through some judicious winks and nods from him) that he would move to the left after his election. In fact he moved considerably rightward and created the kind of sense of likely betrayal by anybody named Clinton that keeps on stinging indefinitely, much like my grandmother throughout her life hated all Republicans because of the perceived betrayal of Hoover in allowing the depression to occur.
Judged by the substance and tone of Zune's article today, and if he is typical of other progressives, that "slack" may have run out for Obama off hs AIPAC performance among progressives who had HOPED that the candidate of hope and change would CHANGE but are finding that they won't be waiting until after the election to feel the sting of betrayal. Whether they should ever have provided that slack, as so many of Obama's supporters have been inclined to do when any of us have criticized the lack of liberal content of his stances, is not so clear. Many of us who have posted our concerns on this and other websites have certainly been castigated for "cynicism" and "negativism" for our perceived lack of faith in Obama's good intentions. Be that as it may, as a professional sociologist I'm interested in understanding people's reactions to being betrayed, whether by an unfaithful lover, a thieving house guest, a lying politician or whatever. The lover example suggests one possibility that I expect we will see in the Obama "betrayal:" the continuation of "denial" that the object of one's love either ever has done such a thing or would do such again would suffice to allow the "slack" being offered to be loosened (a good apology like Nixon's Checkers speech can accomplish wonders). Another possbility is Mary Martin's resolve to "wash that man right out of my hair" as the sea is full of other fishes when it comes to affairs of the heart. Likewise, as I and many others who dare breathe the names of McKinney or Nader as alternatives to the D & R nominees whose wandering exceeds the limits of allowable slack have continually said, there are other people out there, if once we could get over the fear that nobody will "ever love us" unless we accept the bastard we have rather than risk being alone. I know that the "games" of love and politics are not the same, but please cut me a little slack and indulge me in the sociologist's tendency to make strange bedfellows of disparate realities.
Some of us never felt jilted but I get your drift Jerry.
to discuss the article's points...
Stopping settlements would be a change and common sense would make gaza viable economically rather than a gulag sealing in innocent and guilty alike. Reality that. The innocent are on our side, support them don't punish them too. How long exactly will this collective punishment continue to produce violent recruits? Because as we see from Bush's Iraq. When it doesn't matter that people are innocent, then how can they expect justice?
Obama is indeed a politician and who knows what baton was passed by hillary? In any case, politician that he is, exactly how much can he suddenly change the dynamic? Presto chango? Suddenly after he is elected, everything gets fixed, just like that? We and he wish right?
I say give him a chance when he is at the helm because just maybe this guy could also be the one to fix it, given some time, as well. We all will have to see what history obama chooses for himself in the executive office. Carter made a peace which held. Obama is intelligent and will likely do a pretty good job as he can for history's sake.
nope... no halo though... lol.
will he end up having horns? Well he and his wife are lawyers.
I am hoping he is too smart to be forced into stupid decisions, once he has the responsibility.
AIPAC has been successful at getting compliance from American politicians because they effectively reward those who go along and punish those who defy them. Punishment is by funding opponents and generating negative publicity. Last week's parade of top US politicians before AIPAC, with talking points evidently provided to them, contradicts Zune's downplaying of the 'pro-Israel' lobby. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is the ONLY factor, but it seems equally incorrect to suggest that it is just another factor. One question is whether AIPAC is really as powerful as Obama and all politicians evidently believe. Could he have defied AIPAC as Zunes suggests, and still gone on to win in November? Another question is whether there is any price to be paid by carrying out the racist and militarist policies advocated by AIPAC (and the military corps). I was going to vote Obama until last week. If there is no price to be paid for carrying out a racist policy which is truly against the long term interests of all, how will there ever be change?
PS One note regarding the comment filtering: I support it. There were obvious agents filling up the commentaries with racist nonsense.
Kem Patrick's depiction of Barack Obama as the Pied Piper is apt. Don't forget what the Pied Piper does at the end of the story to the townspeople who refuse to pay him for his services. He leads all the children out of town by playing a bewitching tune on his flute - and they are never seen again.
If you want to say goodbye to the best and brightest of our next generation, in whom you have invested all your hopes and dreams, go ahead and support that charming warmonger, Barack Obama.
Cut the mess, Obama has always been a neocon, I don't know why no one wants to look at his voting record regarding various bills that denegrate the American citizen to the benefit of the corporatocracy!
You mean as adults folks forgot THE COMMON DREAM, and rather then judging a politician by his record, judged him by the slickness of his "rap" instead?
Kem, are you INTENTIONALLY thick? You didn't tell me jack $hit that I didn't already know, at least regarding Obama, so stop patting yourself on the back for being HALF right. What annoys me isn't you being correct about Obama, it's pretending that whatever you say about Obama doesn't equally apply to Clinton, whom you for whatever reason seem to have a Mao like devotion to. Again, it is no different than someone saying that they dislike Bush's policies then turning around and backing McCain. It makes no sense. If you want to discuss the ISSUES regarding Obama then by all means. Clinton is out of it, was not an ideological alternative to Obama and you could not argue with any facts to back yourself up that she would do better nationally. Move on from using Clinton as a measuring stick, she is just the other side of the same coin and is now out of it. She polls negatively nationally far worse than even McCain, and that has gone up thanks to her horrific antics amongst people that would have otherwise supported her. I can see you, if Obama does lose, saying that same crap in November and being equally blind and willfully ignorant. The Democrats blew the race when they failed to nominate someone with truly new ideas, who was more attune to the political winds blowing to the left around the US now, for whatever reason. By the time this process got down to Clinton and Obama it was business as usual. Few seem to learn from past failures in this country and your devotion to Clinton is just another example of this.
Obama has energized people, young people, and those people (not Obama himself) can build a movement to push for the needed change that Obama will not bring about by himself. The changes are too fundamental and the opposition too powerful and all encompassing, so even if he did want the needed changes it would be near impossible without mass social movements. That, at least, separates him from Clinton. If a movement isn't created, doesn't expand and put pressure on him then nothing will really change.
I realize that people are annoyed by the pessimism from people like myself, I'm sure it can be draining and there does seem to be a rejuvenation of political activism. However, study what has happened in places like Latin America over the last few decades. Countless leaders have come to office on populist rhetoric, they had grassroots support, promised institutional change then when they got in office their advisors (like the economic advisors around Obama) brought them back to the status quo and did nothing more than superficial changes, the achievements of which were exaggerated by supporters for propaganda purposes.
If Obama is about change he'll do what few politicians do in DC, and what no presidents have done in my lifetime, do what the public tells him to regardless as to whether or not he personally disagrees. If this is a democracy and not elite rule the people will govern and he will be their servant. If that doesn't happen color me skeptical.
"As bad a some think Hillary is, McCain is far far worse."
I disagree. If you think the Democrats have rolled over for Bush, they'd let Clinton off the hook for much, much worse.
I was almost about to waver, then Obama gave his AIPAC speech. I can't possibly vote for him after that. I will vote for Dennis Kuchinch for president in November.
well, they know they've got us by the b*lls: we def'ly can't allow McBrainfarts into the WH, which leaves us voting for Donkey Man. Maybe the third party people are right: "if not now, when?"
When Obama loses to McCain, because the former has aligned himself so vocally with Israel and against Iran, rattling his saber at all Israel's foes as loudly as Bush does, we can always blame Nader for losing the election for him. All the Repugs have to do is launch a war on Iran before the election. Then the whole issue becomes the New War and the only question is which candidate makes the better war president. McCain wins on that count, among permanently distracted, military-loving American voters. So he beats Obama handily, and all because Obama refuses to say no to anything Israeli Zionists demand. Obama will be forced to support an attack on Iran because he's already made his hawkish position clear, and voters will turn to McCain as a "war hero" better adapted to deal with the next perpetual war front. The Dems won't say no to Israel or to war as the only diplomatic tool, so the Republicans win every time.
The race to woo only Democrats and unregistered voters is over. Obama won. Now we're a month into the race to woo independents, a few moderate Republicans and a few conservative Democrats.
I'm amazed that Obama actually has any positions at all different than McCain. On Iraq both candidates are driving hard toward consensus, "we're just going to leave our troops way out in the middle of the Iraqi desert for a few hundred years, no casualties at all." On a gasoline price subsidy, I think Obama will find a way to cave.
This is a game that politicians play. I blame voters for not changing the corrupt rules of the game, because only voters and activists can change things.
The idea that this election will be won or lost on the basis of race is Horse Feathers. Racism is quite overblown and its done by people that have a vested interest in people thinking so.
The very fact of Obamas nomination gives the lie to that bunkum. Not that theres not racism, there certainly is, but you'll find more elsewhere than among whites these days.
Obama got where he is thanks to the white's that voted for him when blacks didn't early on. Whites not blacks catapulted him to the nomination, thats fact.
If he loses it will be because he didn't have good answers for the honest questions people are asking. Or because he went hard left or too far left.
I love it when people say "distracted" because people don't agree with them. Palestinians are a question I don't have a good answer on, but if you wouldn't vote for someone based on their position concerning the Palestinian question, I'd say why.
They are far down on the scale of critical situations. I'd say Darfur comes before them, starvation in Africa, the disaster victims in Asia, other places where there is slavery or real genocide.
PaulK
"I blame voters .."
You blame yourself?
"Or because he went hard left or too far left"
You have got to be kidding me. Is this the freaking 1990's all over again? I just love this "change" thing, I'm sure the establishment does too. They get to get away with the same old and have a slogan now to distract people with.
The country is for universal healthcare, Obama is not. He will leave the system in place, with all its imperfections, and tinker around the edges. If he backed universal healthcare, would that make him "too left", when the public is actually to his left as is and is calling for universal healthcare? Obama supports "free trade" (which has nothing to do with free trade), the public doesn't. If he were to move left, again, he'd be smack dab in the middle of public opinion. I guess if called for communist revolution he'd be "too left", otherwise the public is already to his left on the issue. Same goes with Iraq, the power of corporations, media reform, even the environment. Obama is for largely market based measures on the environment. I'm not sure how much you've looked into it but the market based measures in Europe have been a resounding failure and could never work anyway. The market based measures come from the same utopian thinking about markets that our overpriced and inefficient healthcare system does.
Not trying to attack you but you saying that is conventional logic and it has little to do with the opinions of the general public. The corporate, millionaire media might say otherwise, the facts are another thing.
How do you bring about change? By first getting elected.Can you antagonize AIPAC and get elected? Voting Green,Nader or other 3rd party is throwing your vote away.This is the rigged system we have to work within..Also, if you read Obama's words carefully, by promising to guarantee safety and security for Israel, he is not ruling out fair and workable solutions for Palestine..Am I being too naive? Sorry folks ..Obama is the only ray of hope I see in this dismal mess. Will he deliver? I don't know.I know that Clinton and McSame do not even offer this slim ray of hope..This is the state of politics in this country. God help us all....
It's not easy being Green.
Sur-PRISE!
Obama turning to the right? Wake up you sheep, he has never been "on the left".
He should stop his demagoguery with the tax issue and stop his kindergarten slogans of "McCain is Bush III." He needs to tell us soon:
1. What are your views of the huge national debt and what policies will you adopt to combat its runaway growth?
2. What are your views on the budget deficits and roughly what deficit will you accept for the first year of your presidency? What about the next decade?
3. In particular, will you increase the defense spending? If yes, by how much?
4. What is more important to you, energy-independence from the Middle East or borrow-independence from China?
Obama supporters: don't worry. He will never talk about these issues because they cannot be answered with hot air.
Obama deserves his place because he has shown he is a paradigm of moderation. He is a moderate in every area. He is not too bright, he is not too principled , and he is not too honest. Compare that with Nader, Kucinich, or Gravel who are much too bright, too principled, and too honest to be president of the USA.
The problem is that most democratic voters want to win at all costs, but don't care about being doing the right thing. And soon there will be nothing left.
And to all you Obama supporters, let me say this instead of a year from now. "I told you so." As you feel the blade of betrayal slowly twisting in your gut, as there will be no substantial change in our war based economy, as the environment further degrades because we don't want to negatively effect corporation profits, as we will be the only first world country without universal healthcare, then maybe you will realize your support of Obama was misplaced.
Until the next election that is.
By the way, Gore's vice president choice was Lieberman. I wonder who Obama's will be.