Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWas Obama's Rhetoric on Israel for Real?
UNITED NATIONS - When Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate for the November U.S. presidential elections, addressed one of the most influential pro-Israeli lobbying groups last week, he offered himself as a more trusted ally of Israel than his rival, Republican candidate John McCain.
In his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama promised Israel 30 billion dollars in U.S. aid over the next decade (adding to the 140 billion dollars it has received so far), and even justified the recent Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian nuclear plant (an attack in total violation of that country's national sovereignty).
And in his eagerness to woo Jewish votes, Obama crossed more than one line in the Middle Eastern sand: he even vowed to protect an "undivided" Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
The Jerusalem pledge drew furious denunciations from Palestinians -- on the very day that U.S. President George W. Bush, an avowed friend of Israel, announced he was suspending a proposed move to shift the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Obama tried to pacify the Palestinians by pledging "to help Israel achieve the goal of two states", a Jewish and Palestinian state.
Was Obama playing up to a pro-Israeli audience (which gave him 13 standing ovations), or was it the usual rhetoric of a U.S. politician on the campaign trail?
"Much has been made of Obama's recent shameless and altogether unseemly groveling at the AIPAC convention, making a series of statements that are anachronistic and extreme even by the standards of contemporary mainstream Israeli political discourse," Mouin Rabbani, contributing editor to the Washington-based Middle East Report, told IPS.
No doubt Obama is insistent on demonstrating that he will be as faithful and dependable a "shabbes goy" as his predecessors and rivals, he added. "But I think most commentary on this issue misses the point. Obama has not done an about-face."
Sure, he has some "indiscretions" from early in his political career where he indicated that Palestinians have some legitimate rights -- "and even went to the extreme of permitting the daughter of a Palestinian professor (Rashid Khalidi) to babysit his kids, and himself having dinner with the 'professor of terror' (the late Edward W. Said, professor at Columbia University)," Rabbani said.
"But I have seen no evidence that in recent years, including those before the announcement of his presidential campaign, that he has advocated a serious reconsideration of U.S. policy towards the conflict outside the framework developed in the (former U.S. President Bill) Clinton years," he added.
Responding to the Obama speech, even Mahmoud Abbas, president of the U.S.-backed Palestinian authority, was outraged enough to protest Obama's promise to hand over an undivided Jerusalem to the Israelis.
As Abbas pointed out: "The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied (by the Israelis) in 1967.And we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital," he added.
Less than 72 hours later, and facing criticism from Palestinians, Obama backtracked on his statement on Jerusalem. In an interview with Cable News Network (CNN), Obama said: "Well, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."
Nadia Hijab, senior fellow and co-director at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington, told IPS that U.S. politicians respond to the strength of diverse interest groups and "Obama is no exception".
"So the question is not whether we expect Obama to be even-handed because it is the right thing to do, but whether enough pressure can be brought to bear on him to make him do so," she added.
"Currently AIPAC and its American Jewish and Christian Zionist allies are the strongest U.S. pressure groups when it comes to Israel, and politicians toe the line -- even if they have previously expressed some sympathy to the Palestinian cause (Obama, Hillary Clinton) or pragmatic approaches (McCain after the election of Hamas)."
However, Hijab added, AIPAC's stranglehold is being challenged by diverse groups: Palestinian and Arab Americans; liberal as well as non-Zionist American Jews; and U.S. "realists" like Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, co-authors of 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy'.
During the recent commemorations of Israel's 60th anniversary, she said, the Palestinian narrative was heard in the United States louder than ever before in the mainstream media.
New Jewish organisations -- such as J-Street, the U.S. office of the Israeli human rights organisation Btselem, and Jewish Voice for Peace -- are being established to push for peace in a way that recognises Palestinian rights,
"The realists are refusing to be silenced. If these trends get stronger, then -- and only then -- will we see a shift in Obama's stance," she declared.
Rabbani pointed out that as a general observation, the ability of individual U.S. presidents to influence, let alone reverse, policy on important (as opposed to marginal) issues is rather limited due to a powerful combination of institutional, political, economic and other constraints.
This applies to both domestic and foreign policies. U.S. policy towards China is a good example: every new president campaigns -- most recently Bush and before him Clinton -- on a platform of reading Beijing the riot act about all and sundry abuses, and within months of assuming office learns to treat China like the valued partner that it is.
"Very quickly, human rights abuses become phenomena that only exist in weak or hostile regimes like Iran, Zimbabwe and so on," Rabbani said.
So even under the very best of circumstances -- which is assuming that Obama is genuinely committed to pursuing policies that are even-handed vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict -- this would not happen.
"At most, there would be some changes at the margin, pushing the policy a bit more this or that way without transforming its fundamentals," Rabbani said. After all, what would an even-handed policy look like?
It would, for example, encompass making U.S. military aid to Israel dependent on Israel using such weapons in accordance with existing U.S. legislation (such as cluster bombs); it would entail U.S. re-classification of Israeli maintenance and continued expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank as grave breaches of the IV Geneva Convention (with the requisite accountability) rather than an unhelpful inconvenience that might, or might not, affect the atmosphere at the next round of scheduled, utterly meaningless, Israeli-Palestinian talks, and so on, he said.
Rabbani also said it would require a transformation of Washington's relations with the various parties, including a termination of U.S.-guaranteed Israeli impunity in the occupied territories, and holding Israel and its Arab adversaries to the same standards.
"The prospects of any of this happening -- i.e. pursuing a policy of genuine even-handedness -- are simply nil," he added.
Since the 1970s, he pointed out, it has become a commonplace to characterise every outgoing U.S. president as "the most pro-Israeli president in American history".
It has also been a truism, with U.S. presidents generally behaving in ways that are more pro-Israeli than Israel itself, particularly during election campaigns.
"I have every confidence this will be equally true of a potential Obama administration. I don't think personal factors will have a significant influence, but to the extent they do his determination to prove he is not a Muslim (rather than denounce this ethnic baiting), to live down his former dinner engagements etc, will only add to this."
Simply stated, Rabbani said, "Obama should be seen for what he is -- a thoroughly conventional American politician who has every intention of becoming a thoroughly mainstream American president."
© 2008 Inter Press Service
79 Comments so far
Show AllGore has done good things, I like Gore. I think he's way better than Obama, who to me is a classic sell-out, say anything, do anything politician.
If you say Ralph gave us Bush then I say Gore gave us Obama (by not running). I had so hoped Gore would run in 2004 and now. Too bad. I predict McCain will beat Obama. Given a choice between the real McCoy and a wannabe Americans will choose McCain. McCain doesn't pander as much. He is an unabashed war mongering, Big Business, typical Republican. Most Americans are okay with US imperialism in my opinion.
Obama paints himself to be the colorless, Great "Black" Hope when in reality is just another pro-war, pro-status quo, pro-establishment conventional politician. And if you are honest you must admit that if he weren't he wouldn't have made it this far and would have met the same fate as did Ralph Nader, Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney and even Ron Paul.
Come on, we know that in order to get elected you must be acceptable to the powers that be. Until we break with both parties of big business nothing will really change. I will admit that Democrats are marginally better than Republicans but that isn't really saying that much. And that's the truth!
Al Gore is not in the "Lessor of two evils" category. I don't feel compelled to go on and on about him, because we all know what he has done.
The 2008 election does not present as clear of a distinction between good and evil as the 2000 election, but McCain is a scary man--he can barely express a coherent thought, but he is with it enough to chant "More War".
With Nader, it all boils down to his ego. His post election interviews are disgusting. He will never admit that Gore would have been better than Bush, because he once stated otherwise. He once stated otherwise because it clearly benefited him and him only. His favorite line is that Gore didn't win his home state. How is this a crime? Nader didn't win any state.
Wrong again. When the theft of the elections occurred not one single Democrat in the Senate would sign on to investigate. House members pleaded them to sign on but none did. Democrats refuse to impeach or stop the war. What's so great about Democrats? The only thing you can really say in their favor is that they aren't Republicans.
Issue: U.S. Democracy
Republicans: No position on democratic reforms. Republican Party supporters provided unaccountable voting machinery in key states like Ohio in 2004 Presidential election.
Democrats: Talk about making voting machinery auditable, but refused to participate in investigations of election fraud in 2004.
Greens: Call for major democratic reforms to strengthen citizen participation and minority representation, including proportional representation, ranked choice voting, monitoring of elections, and public financing of campaigns
You seem to forget that the Democrats and Republicans do not own this country. Third parties have the right to run for office. You live in an either, or, world. I could also say that the Democrats are ruining the chances of us getting more progressive candidates like Ralph. I have a right to vote for the candidate of my choice. Is this not a democracy?
Bush and Gore are not the same, but I happen to think that Ralph Nader is much better than both. I voted for Ralph. That is my right.
Look, I understand your logic of lesseroftwoevilism I just don't subscribe to it.
Just another shade of hypocrisy.
If Nader had been a principled man he would not have entered that particular race. 2000 was a unique year. The Earth was truly "In the Balance", and the scales tipped the wrong way. The implications for the world are enormous.
The Democrats did not allow the race to be stolen, there was nothing to be done following a Supreme Court ruling. You didn't prevent Bush from winning, I didn't prevent Bush from winning. By the time the Supreme Court ruled, there was nothing to be done short of Revolution.
One man did have the power to stop Bush. Instead, he chose to say that Bush and Gore were the same.
Anyone with that kind of judgment is no hero.
jstevens June 14th, 2008 2:30 pm
Election 2000. Voting for Nader brought us the worst President in modern history when we could have had one of the world's most respected leaders.
Wrong. Nader didn't bring us Bush. Your sold out, weak, cowardly, and unprincipled Democrats brought us Bush.
Gore actually won the election but the Democrats allowed themselves to be stepped on and the Republicans to steal it. Don't place the blame on Nader. Besides if the Democrats were better candidates and addressed progressive issues we woulder need Naders.
This Democratic Party vs. third Party debate has become a perseveration.
It's too late to look towards voting as a one-step solution in 2008. A third party vote is symbolic only and will make no difference. The numbers will be small and easily dismissed. A Democratic vote guarantees disappointment for progressives.
We should vote anyway because it is a precious right and turnout at the polls show that the populace is not inert. More than once I have gone into the voting booth and voted for nobody.
We cannot get anywhere if we do not build up popular support for alternatives between elections.
As long as every progressive that is unhappy with the sold out, unprincipled, cowardly and discredited Democrats continues to vote for them then they will get away with doing what they are doing now: enabling the Republicans to literally get away with murder unopposed. In that case you are 100% correct, it is insane.
When enough progressives come to their senses and tell those bastards (that refuse to uphold the constitution, impeach or stop the war) to GO STRAIGHT TO HELL then voting for a third party will be the smartest thing you ever did. And that's the truth!
talicap: Apply the definition of insanity to voting for Third Party candidates.
Election 2000. Voting for Nader brought us the worst President in modern history when we could have had one of the world's most respected leaders.
So vote Third Party in 2008, and what result will you expect?
Definition of insanity:
1)To continue putting Democrats in office starting with Obama and expecting them to fundamentally change the Republican culture of corruption. 2)Voting for a Democrat because they are marginally better on issues important to you, although they oppose what you actually want. 3)Voting for a Democrat because they are not a Republican. 4)Believing that lesseroftwoevilism will eventually give you what you want. 5)Believing Obama is an "outsider". 6) Believing Obama is not the establishment's candidate. 7)Doing the same thing over, and over again expecting a different result.
Blueticket - And by the way, McKinney was unseated due to her perceived anti-Israel bias by Zionist money, and Nader is an Arab-American, so that's all you need to know there about his chances and why he gets such bad press.
You're demanding that Obama fall on his own sword. Courageous of you, unfair to him.
blueticket - Do you really believe there are no differences on foreign policy between McCain and Obama? Ask the Likudniks who they'd prefer (other than Hillary or Lieberman).
You see no difference in Obama and McCain's positions on Iraq?
On Iran?
On North Korea?
How about Russia?
Take a look at the foreign press. These are the people who inevitably have to record the effects of our administrations' bullying and chest-beating. In all countries except Russia, people prefer Obama by huge margins.
How about social issues? Science? Corporate welfare? No differences?
Believe me, Obama was not my first choice, but as this country teeters on the abyss, I'm not about to allow a crazy old man with Hanoi Hilton gremlins running around in his confused head to kick it over the edge.
And by the way, I did support Nader and have contributed financially to McKinney.
You know, at least Clinton didn't seem to put on any airs of pretending to be a better politician than this... How disappointing, yet totally unsurprising. I guess this is what passes for revolutionary these days...
At 7:50 PM, opeluboy asserts that a vote for Nader (or McKinney) is a vote for McCain (where have I heard that line before?)
He (I assume) further implies that an Obama presidency would somehow affect the Palestinians differently than one led by McCain.
That is a statement of faith, which is to say, one unsupported by evidence. Try this: ask McCain and Obama whether they think Israel should recognize Palestine's right to exist. The only difference between their replies would be the length of time they took to say no.
(For the record, I'm voting for McKinney, simply because she has worked harder for the long-term goals of the Green Party than has Mr. Nader, whom I respect and admire. Mr. Nader, would you consider running as Ms. McKinney's VP candidate? That would be a formidable debating team (and a change that was more than rhetorical.)
Let me ask a question. There are many here who say they will vote for McKinney or Nader due to Obama's pathetic groveling at the bloody feet of AIPAC. Can you tell me how that is going to help one single Palestinian? Will it save one life? Will it reduce Israel's arsenal, curtail its slow-motion genocide, settlement building or anything else? Or is this just your way of making yourself appear radical?
Or is it possible that the people who threaten to vote for Nader or McKinney really want McCain to win? The hardliners in Israel would certainly appreciate this, since Hillary Clinton is no longer an option. So is it possible that much of this anti-Obama rhetoric is actually coming from Zionists seeking to destroy Obama's candidacy? Does anyone reading this think Likud would prefer Obama to McCain?
Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are two of my favorite people. I would prefer either to Obama. Both are fearless, passionate about their ideals and, were they to ever be elected, unquestionably change this country for the better.
But neither will ever be elected. That's EVER.
Your vote for them does nothing for those suffering in Palestine. It will not stop war with Iran, something McCain and his supporters would delight in. It will not end the occupation in Iraq.
Around the world, foreigners are excited about the Obama Presidency. Not so a McCain administration.
While I am terribly upset, as an activist for Palestinian freedom for 3 decades, at Obama's AIPAC speech (and many other shortcomings, as a Kucinich supporter) I am not ready to give the Middle East John McCain.
That would make the past 7 years look like the warm-up act.
jstevens, thank you for your posts. I was ready to vote for Nader after Obama's speech to AIPAC, but it's such a long shot and it will just give Rethuglicans the phony excuse to rig another election and get away with it again by saying that McCain won because so many Democrats switched their votes to Nader. I'll stick with Obama since he's the "lesser evil. It's a shame we only have two parties in this country --- two sides of the same coin.
emgscot51, regarding your question about Obama being biracial instead of black: The only true blacks are from Africa, the ones with no white blood. American "blacks" are biracial, but years ago white America declared that anyone with a drop of black blood in them are considered to be Negro or "black," even if they have more white blood. It doesn't make much sense to me, either. I guess it's because black blood is dominant (physical features).
according to a recent estimate I saw on another web site, 40% of the National Democratic Committee's funding comes from American Jews.
If this is an accurate estimate, it cannot be ignored by Clinton, Dean, Pelosi,Obama or any other Democratic representative or candidate.
Ask your congress people or senators if they have received support from AICAP or any of its affiliated organizations, and see what response you get.
1. "And in his eagerness to woo Jewish votes,"
2. ""So the question is not whether we expect Obama to be even-handed because it is the right thing to do, but whether enough pressure can be brought to bear on him to make him do so," she added."
The fact that it was a misstatement became obvious the next day when he restored to the current position of the US, that the negotiations must be between both sides.
But, the second quote makes a universally accepted view that American politics are not moved by Principle and logic but Pressure, or cash.
This election, like others that became landslides, the pressure is in the form of "how many votes can you deliver?" and all the TV Ads, surveys show, that the Republican Party is doomed.
This may be the largest landslide since McGovern, an anti-war candidate who lost. Hard to believe, isn't?
McGovern was against killing and he became a casualty.
Do we really want to make sure Bush III is elected?
Remember, this election is about the truth, such as found in rare places, like here, and logic.
---------------
So, how do I explain what he said? I can't but having read enough fiction, much of it by politicians, I can imagine that whats-her-name got him to AIPAC and offered everything to the PAC audience, they have a lot of cash.
Now, was he tempted to go further than his competitor, his defeated competitor? Nobody knows or is telling.
Where were his advisers in all this? Asleep?
I don't know, therefore I call it a mistake, almost. Why almost? Because he showed the courage and integrity to publicly repudiate his own statement.
Have you ever heard of a politician, a winning politician do that before? Yes, John F. Kennedy, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
After the BoP fiasco, an adviser coined the phrase we all agree is true: "Every President has a Bay of Pigs!" Perhaps more than one, maybe some hidden, but they all have one or more, most likely more than one.
Therefore, we should be reassured that Sen. Obama is subject to reason, facts and logic and has the courage to admit a misstatement. And. that he had the misstep that leads all to more rigorous phrasing.
Is that a sign of weakness? Is Sen. Clinton courageous because she will not or cannot admit her vote to go to war against Iraq was a MISTAKE?
Considering what I think are the inescapable conclusions, I'd say the Sen. Obama made it clear that HE will not force a border down the throats of the Palestinians and, if this view causes him to lose the election, so be it! will that earn him mention in "Profiles in Courage"?
In my opinion, based on my study of writings based on Ibn Rushd (Averroes) the logical implications are clear enough and I need not say more than the festivities for Jan. 20th may require a rehearsal, or two.
The author I read was Tomas Aquinas who referred to Ibn Rushd as the "Commentator." I highly recommend both.
RichM: Thank you for admitting that Nader and McKinney will not win. In Nader's case, he's not even trying or campaigning in any meaningful way.
You wrote: "By this time, it should be clear that passive acceptance of what the Establishment defines as "our options" is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place."
I would assert instead, that by this time it should be clear what voting for Nader did to the world in 2000, and what voting for Nader (or McKinney) would do again in 2008.
Our choices are the demented "surge-master" who would actually take war mongering a few steps beyond GWB, or Obama, who speaks out clearly against the war. This is clearly not the time for the symbolic protest vote. That gesture has its place, but it was inappropriate in 2000 and it is inappropriate for 2008.
Bush vs. Gore.
How much more evidence do you need?
Opeluboy; Absolutely, couldn't agree more.
NateW: "if the Palestinians and their friends want to counter the influence of AIPAC, they need to start playing in the same lobbying playpen as AIPAC…."
So the system is corrupt so you suggest the best way to solve it is by upping the anti and increase the number of bidders for favours of the Regis. Personally I don't think feeding the beast more will kill it off or even stop its self delusions or more lately hallucinations.
The article says about the same thing as you though in terms of : Nadia Hijab, senior fellow and co-director at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington, told IPS that U.S. politicians respond to the strength of diverse interest groups and "Obama is no exception".
"So the question is not whether we expect Obama to be even-handed because it is the right thing to do, but whether enough pressure can be brought to bear on him to make him do so,"
I'm not a diplomat or a pragmatist, so I'll say that in my opinion the Zionists have a major if not controlling shareholding in both of the only significant political parties, a complete stranglehold on the MSM, and most Americans are in any case racist and ignorant, so as to absorb like blotting paper the propaganda they are fed at face value as far as the middle east is concerned. Most of them do not think that the suffering of a Palestinian is any of their concern or responsibility.
That said, I think Obama will, as far as he can, bring "change" to the present American Fascism in general, and the foreign policy in the ME in particular. It is doubtful how much he can do without being assassinated for it though. I would suggest to him his best "insurance policy" would be to select Kucinich" as his VP (just as nobody in their right mind would kill Bush to get Cheney, I think this is sound advice! Asking Clinton is a sure bullet).
But the real point is, he would never get the chance to change anything without appeasing the real power behind the power behind the money…. hence, AIPAC, and of course he has to lie to be elected. Well not really lie quite like Bush in 1999, but of course things are never quite the same on the other side of January 2009, are they? He can always find plenty of reasons to go back on what he said. He's already doing so: "Well, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."
At the end of the day the Israeli and American Zionist position, and to some extent even the two state solution, has become obviously impractical and its possibilities have already been eclipsed. The empire is dead as is the illusion of American democracy. The choice was their's and they chose Empire and that power should rest on "might is right" and "who can stand the most pain", and quite frankly, Israel and America loose on both counts in the context of new asymmetric war.
I think Obama is the pragmatist who might just keep Israel's nukes in their silos, and that will be no small achievement as we go forward.
the worst of it is that AIPAC is not really that great of a contributor; they work more on the basis of intimidation and blackmail. the mainstream media has a lot to do with its power. obama is bending over backwards to hide his muslim tonalities and in doing so has shown somewhat of a jelly belly.
All Israeli funding by the U.S. comes in the form of "earmarks" which McCain had to exclude from his recent attempts to avoid anything labeled as such. Another "special relationship, apparently. Whether or not this was a strategic move to give McCain an "out" later on, cannot be answered by me. The Israeli lobbies became expert in the earmark process and they have managed to pin the entire gross national product of Israel back to U.S. taxpayers. Of course, the MIC (military industrial complex) has benefited greatly from this inbred philosophy. Until U.S. voters demand a say in this cabal, nothing will change.
"Discreet enough?" Don't you mean deceitful enough? I'm not sure how many more layers you can lay down over this cave before everyone falls right into it. Since when did we choose a president who knew and used 'codespeak' so as not to offend any particular group? I want a candidate who is willing to risk it all, since it all may not be there much longer.
re RoR 10:32am
(responding to fpal)
"The concepts of morality, justice, rights, cooperation are absent from American political dialog."
Balderdash! Maybe you don't get U.S. TV where you live, but the candidates positions on those topics are covered extensively in the U.S. media.
------
balderdash back atcha. topics covered extensively on TV where i live (the lower 48) are flag lapel pins, militant preachers, misogyny, and funny middle names. even the concept of "concepts" is considered too abstruse for extensive coverage, lest folks start flipping channels in search of something that doesn't hurt their heads.
i'd like to see coverage of candidate positions on issues such as the legitimacy of the federal reserve, imperial overreach, war as the supreme environmental crime, and corporate personhood; maybe you would too.
but we won't. why? because there is no significant disagreement between the major parties on these or most other concepts. the very existence of third parties tends to highlight this fact, which is why the corporate media go to such lengths to paste the "concept" of tinfoil hats on them.
What has gone missing here is an appreciation of a basic tenet of speech-making: know your audience. AIPAC, for all intents and purposes, is an American auxiliary of the Likud Party (Israel's equivalent of the Republicans). That Obama was able to say what he did without being booed out of the hall was rather remarkable, given the attitudes of the audience. Another thing to consider is context. Among the e-mail smear campaigns directed against Obama has been a rather successful one within the American Jewish community that is getting a lot of the target audience to buy into the lies peddled: secret Muslim, Louis Farrakhan associations, etc. To have not addressed AIPAC would have legitimized said lies by avoiding a chance to address a portion of the audience reading it. A final consideration is this: if the Palestinians and their friends want to counter the influence of AIPAC, they need to start playing in the same lobbying playpen as AIPAC. If money is a problem, they should hit up their arab "brothers" in places such as Saudi Arabia and who use the Palestinian problem as a diversionary sop with their own people. Perhaps that explains why there is no Palestinian equivalent of AIPAC.
fpal
you said;
"The greatest democracy on the planet, the U.S., is having an election BUT it only gives its citizens 2 choices for president."
First, the U.S. is not a democarcy! It is a democratic republic. It has never been a democracy. The founders were scared of democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on "what's for dinner"?
We had dozens of candidates, that have been narrowed to several, if you count the boutique candidacies of Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, the Communist Party Candidate, the Socialist Workers Party candidate, and assorted other minor group candidates. We have lots of candidates to choose from.
You also said: "And political campaigns in the U.S. are designed to use/need lots of money. A great deal of money. Money is the expression and exercise of political will."
True!
Money buys advertising, (TV, Radio, banners, posters, flyers, phone banks, etc.), money pays for; travel expenses, salaries of political staff, web sites, venue rental, and myriad other expenses. Money is a means to an end. Of course it takes money to run for office. The candidates state their position(s) and ask like minded people to donate money to their campaign, that's the way it's done in the U.S. How is it done where you live?
"The concepts of morality, justice, rights, cooperation are absent from American political dialog."
Balderdash! Maybe you don't get U.S. TV where you live, but the candidates positions on those topics are covered extensively in the U.S. media.
Dem Party apologists who argue "Let's look realistically at our options..." (jstevens, 9:10 am) are cowards & conformists with no respect for democracy. By this time, it should be clear that passive acceptance of what the Establishment defines as "our options" is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place.
If we continue to passively accept the notion that "our options" are limited to the 2 pieces of slop served up by the 2 big business parties every 4 years, the present ominous trajectory will never be reversed. Obama's groveling before AIPAC is only one aspect of his complete prostration to the Establishment. He also grovels before Wall Street, the anti-Castro fanatics in Miami, & the military establishment. His recent hiring of Jason Furman as economic policy director is a signal to Wall St that neoliberal business-as-usual will continue unimpeded in an Obama administration.
The argument that the Naders & McKinneys can't win is true, but this is only because American voters have been trained to passively accept "our options" as defined for us by the Establishment. A genuine "culture of resistance" does not exist in the US population. A culture of resistance has to start somewhere -- and it doesn't start by caving in to the Demo-publicans every single time an election rolls around.
Vote for McKinney? Most Americans haven't even heard of her.
Vote for Nader? What exactly will that accomplish? What is the intended/expected outcome of a vote for Nader?
American Presidents don't even run the country. Corporations run the country.
With George Bush we have a particularly destructive situation where the President wants to go above and beyond what evil corporations would do with our country. Invading Iraq is in this category.
McCain, if elected, will follow the example of Bush, now that Bush has lowered the bar for war.
Why not look realistically at our options? At this point, the best option for America is a President who actually wants a better world, but knows that you have to be somewhat moderate in over to achieve that goal.
Would any of the people voting for Nader or McKinney be willing to bet a lot of their own money that they would get more than 8% of the vote?
As an enthusiastic Obama supporter, I was outraged by his brown-nosing of AIPAC. AIPAC, which has long wielded virtually total power over US policy toward the Middle East, is, to me, a subversive organization which ought to be investigated and prosecuted as an agent of a foreign power. Seeing all 3 presidential candidates kowtow to it was sickening. Will the day ever come when the growing American Jewish peace advocates and their allies can push this reeking lobby group off into obscurity?
Obama's miserably groveling performance at AIPAC is not the only of his dangerous policies. He supports the embargo of Cuba which the UN has called illegal many times. He also seems to believe that Latin America should genuflect before him once he becomes POTUS. What will change from the Bush years if he is elected? From real aggression to hot-air saber-rattling which will drive oil prices through the roof? Given his statements at AIPAC how can he "get out of Iraq" and still "leave everything on the table" against Iran? This guy is one gigantic fraud or else a ninny.
IF he doesn't get elected ..duh! ... he can't help anyone.
The US presidential election is hijacked by pressure groups, interest groups, religious groups, lobbyists, and also by a large amount of media with covered interests.
It's a pity to see what the US democracy has become.
Interest of business and power overwrite the interest of the US citizen.
The worm(s) is (are) in the apple and the apple is rotten.
I recommand that the US citizen clean 'their house' before pointing the finger to Russia or elsewhere.
I am also highly suspicious regarding the voting machine.
You know, an easy solution to this would be to vote McKinney.
Here comes the 34% of the electorate necessary to secure a plurality all crying in unison:
"But she doesn't have a chance to win! Its too important to risk a McCain win! Obama can be pressured! The Greens have no organization!"(as if that grows on trees)
Frickin' chickens.
-matti.
On the Errand Boy and AIPAC
On those forsaken alleyways of non ending gravelling, @$$ kissing and showing generosities in the form of hundreds of Billions of Dollars of the tax-payers money.
The Errand Boy keeps walking on the 1.220.000 murdered and mutilated bodies of innocent Iraqis and +4.000 US casualties.
The Errand Boy is just another piece of toilet paper for the Zionists' GENOCIDERS and their installed agents here.
The Zionists will pull down the chain sooner than later, just as they have done to Bushes, Clintons, et al.
Hasn't the central theme of Obama's candidacy been his promise to have nothing whatsoever to do with lobbyists.
Yet ,strangely enough ,his very first action ,upon getting the nomination ,was to genuflect before AIPAC . Which is arguably the biggest lobbyist of 'em all.
One could scarcely believe one's ears ,hearing him vow to make Jerusalem ,in its entirety , the capital of the Israeli state .
Clearly the Zionists see their way clear to getting all that they could possibly ask for - and more .
The speech was very depressing and disappointing! However, I am not going to lose hope entirely. If Obama gets to the White House in a landslide and brings quite a few progressives to Congress with him, I think we are going to see him change to a more reasonable Israel policy. I think his pandering is to get elected, unfortunately. But if he has alot of support, I think Obama has the decency and smarts to relook at the two-state solution and, hopefully, to sign on Jimmy Carter as an adviser!!!!
Yeah, go Nader. I'm feel so saved now.
I definitely am not surprised. As a matter of fact, what surprises me is how easily everyone's hopes are dashed when their shining prince shows us his real side.
Obama is bought and paid for. He is king made. Deny it if you must but, ask yourself one simple question. When was the last time a no-name pol got to make the keynote address at ANY Democrap or Rethuglican convention?
I knew since 2003 that he was being prepared for something greater. Not by his desire to 'unify' us or by embracing any real change. He was being prepared to preside over the final days of the Amerikkkan Rethuglic. Mark my words. He will be elected. The powers who rule us want him and so it will be. What will happen next, however, will make Shrubya's reign look like the good ol' days.
I don't dislike the man personally (he gives really good speeches). However, anyone who believes that the two parties will put up anyone who will challenge the status quo is not only ignorant, but they are actually dangerous. Cast your votes and get him elected but, please, don't fool yourself into thinking that he will be any different than the last 43 psychopaths that ruled you.
Many of the bloggers here in CD are NOT surprised at his rollover.
They also cannot understand why the others ARE surprised and feel betrayed.
Cynical? Or, stupid? Or, sinister? None of these options are good.
If there was any doubt that Obama is not really about change, his policy on Israel---which is the same as Bush's, btw, and McSame's---ends that.
you put a guy with a past that the AIPAC can use and he is controlled.
PLEASE just VOTE PRO AMERICA
That's why Bush gives us that shity grinn and challanges us all.. He knows that we all want it, and we all like it, that is the BIG BONE, that the U.S. keeps in its mouth. We turn it loose and the world will devour us...It's that simple.. We created the problem, now we have got to figure a way out of it with out loosing the bone.. any Ideas??
Good luck, Maybe the earth will turn on it's axis and shift poles, thats real...Maybe global warmming, Thats real... I think the polar movement, will get us. While we are running around trying to win elections and such. No one seems to care about the real problems facing the world...we need space flight, and damm fast! Frist we need medicial advancements,... an inoculation to prolong life, and to repute Ignorance....... There,I've said it all, Very simple soluation. There is Billionaires supposedly every where, We need to finance this project and fast. Do any of you know any of them???? I have the theorys and the knowledge on both, we naeed a team of research scintists without self intrests,,, rattlinjack@blackfoot.net
I have to admit, I still don't care for Obama a lot. I won't go into all the details. But I also have to admit, as time goes on, he gets more out spoken about what we - I see posted on here a lot. Maybe its a sign of what Dennis seen/knows and why he asked voters to back him when he droped out? I'm hoping real hard he's preaching to the choir when he visits groups we here seem to distrust. But even if that's the case, he's going to have to decide/show just where he stands at some point. We're in a position now where we can't afford another 4 years of bush law. But we also can't afford someone who's only going half way to please those in which pockets he's in also. Israel, nuclear power, doesn't mention impeachment or even the fact that laws have been even bent any to investigate. And if asked while taking questions some where, he pretty much blows it off with a recorded like response, something about time. That dam word always seems to pop up on this aspect, Dennis and Waxman excluded. He should be screaming what this country could be today if we had followed Carters wind and solar idea's Anyways, I'm to tired to get into this anymore. But talk about riding the fence. Right now I see him like another Clinton. He'll slow down the process, but won't really even make a dent in the problems we face that are effecting us world wide.
The reason most dont understand America is that we have been taught to believe in our system. Now we have the Internet! What a shame, It discloses all the wolves in sheeps clothing... And by researching history we find that we all hvave been partakers of the crimes, we as a country, in politics, have been doing this very same thing since the beginning of time. "Big Dog keeps the Bone"
Now that its Disclosed, what do we do?????? We are all part of the problem,WE LIKE THE BONE!!!!
Gravel/McKinney/Nader/Barr. vote the duopols out of Washington. It's our only chance to regain control of our country.
By crawling on his belly like a snake before the AIPAC Obama demonstrated that he'll sell out the interests of America and of us Americans for his shot at power. That he is a stooge of the monied interests who have put him up as their president. That he is a $218,000,000 imperialist tool. That he is utterly unworthy to be POTUS.
But the AIPAC "Festival" this year in Washington was notable for the complete lack of restraint on the part of the entire American political class in their wild, obsequious embrace of the Israel Lobby. There must have been an understanding before hand that the event would be disappeared by the MSM, and it was.
Sheep that we are we continue to wash our own brains at the the River Lethe, the stream of forgetfulness and inanity that is kept flowing by the American media.
McCain/Obama will occupy Iraq just as Israel has occupied Palestine since 1967, and they will do their best to smite Iran and to destroy what little is left of Palestine, or they will destroy the United States financially trying to do so, all at the insistence of the AIPAC.
And then, children, the chickens will come home to roost, just as Obama's pastor quoth to him.
...and if it wasn't, is any of his rhetoric for real? I don't see how so many supposedly clever people (and then there's Mark Morford) can have been taken in so completely!
People here seem to desire that Obama gallantly commit career suicide (thus giving the presidency to McCain, or allowing Hillary back in) and are offended that he refuses to commit ritual hari kiri by denouncing Israeli policy, spitting in the face of AIPAC and inviting the Zionist media to lynch him.
I have to wonder if some of the people making these pronouncements are Hillary supporters, ardent fans who found nothing wrong with her decades-long love affair with Israeli criminality and unending efforts to prove her slavish devotion to that thuggish regime.
Or are they simply people like myself, hugely upset and disappointed that a hopeful candidate would repeat the pathetic catechism Israel and her traitorous minions insist all our leaders intone, when we were expecting so much more?
Regardless, to blame Obama — or anyone else for that matter — for kow towing to Israel misses the point. It is those who force this servility on our leaders that we should be furious with, those who will ruin them if they don't toe the line, who will destroy their careers and their lives and replace them with hardcore Zionists who will gladly do their bidding.
It would be difficult to find someone on this site more pro-Palestinian than myself. Obama's obsequiousness on this issue is insulting and demeaning. But understanding why he is doing it only makes me a more unyielding foe of Zionism and its stranglehold on our country.
emgscot51 | 5:21 pm
[...] Perhaps I don't understand America despite living here for 20+ years.
_______________________________________
Don't be hard on yourself, good emgscot.
I don't understand America either, and I've lived here for 53+ years. In fact, except for a three-week visit to Europe thirty years ago I haven't lived anywhere else.
I'll go further, and suggest that the day you begin to feel that you DO understand America is the day you ought to start making plans to leave. 8)
Better pray for a micricale... Like getting Hillary To change and run on another ticket? She has more common sense than all the rest of these other so called candidates, she could name Dennis as her runing mate... Obama will be striped down to the bare nothing's and disclose him for what, and who he really is, Hillary was right she was the best candidate to run against the republicians, they cant get anything on her, they tried and failed, only got her husband for a wild woody, and he only scerd one person, Bush and Cheny Have been taking turns screwing everyone, that includes his prized right winged so called christian's, there blind Idiots, hope there rears are sore!!
O'Bama is violating basic ethical principles by courting "special" interest groups instead of the public. If O'Bama had what it takes he would challenge AIPAC in a press conference to fund media messages that serve the true public interests. Instead, O'Bama will legitimize AIPAC's zero-sum racket by accepting its support without conditions.
The government's charter is to serve the public interest, not "special" interests. The "special" interests are supposed to accept where the chips fall when the public interests are served. If you want to know how the social democracies outperform the USA in healthcare, education, energy, food, transport, and general quality of life by a factor of two or more, look at how the people demand their governments protect the public interests against "special" interests.
I'm wondering if this wasn't Obama's Bay of Pigs already in a speeded-up world. Well, Kennedy was able to put that behind him and in spite of it, do good things. It was so silly-- especially in view of the Hillary Clinton remark never cited in summaries of her worst mistakes. (key word: "obliterate" if you don't know to what I refer-- it was probably the stupidest remark to come out of her mouth in her entire lifetime.) There is absolutely no reason for any American candidate to abandon the concepts of balance and fairness in addressing the Bush manufactured problems with Iran and the Bush exacerbated problems of Israel/Palestine. I'm hoping if not betting that Mr. Obama never makes such a grave mistake about anything again.
It sounds as if I'm ready to forgive Obama
but not Clinton for doing essentially the same thing. No. I'll forgive both of them if neither of them ever makes such a foolish choice again.
Nothing can 'save' the Israelis except their own good behavior. Little chance of that with U.S. protection of their atrocities.
MONETARY-CAPITAL
The real discussion is about all of our relations to the monetary-capital system. Some Jews and many others realising this money-based system truth hundreds of years ago began a program of nurturing economic control, through investment in business and industry worldwide. Under the present money-capital system, ecological (natural capital) infrastructure is destroyed worldwide including the heritage of semi-indigenous peoples like the Palestinians.
POLITICAL CHAINS
It is surprising, given we all know invisible (usually undeclared) monetary campaign gifts run the political nomination and election systems that; when we refer to groups like AIPAC, we don't address the reality of their money's control is what chains Obama among other politicians. It isn't as though they have particular truths that are important except the truth about how the present monetary system runs.
EXOGENOUS
We have presently become 'exogenous' (derived from the Latin meaning 'other-generated') peoples on the earth. Unfortunately some Jews among others are leading this charge to our destruction.
INDIGENOUS
Some Jews among others understand that we need to discover our universal worldwide indigenous (> L = 'self-generating') roots again, including integrated indigenous economic 'value' systems that have sustained some of the largest urban and rural populations of the earth over tens of thousands of years without destroying natural capital. Many have come to realise that the true democracy of indigenous peoples was founded in a primary level of Economic Democracy where everyone exercised ownership of in their fields of expertise through their Production Societies.
To those who are so proud of succeeding in this destructive exogenous monetary capital system, I ask you to rediscover and realign with the roots from which humanity grew over hundreds of thousands of years and which continues to sustain us.
I guess I'm not too surprised that an individual with the middle name Hussein feels that he has to sound like a Likudnik or an Israeli neo-con. Disappointed, maybe, but not surprised.
It is true that the power of the US president is limited by the formidable bureaucracy of second-tier and backroom power brokers and the usually timid members of congress (witness the present paralysis of the democrat majority) who limit severly the actions that may be taken to resolve international (and national) injustices. This lack of real power was one of the first shocks felt by John Kennedy after he was elected to the office. I expect that Obama is experienced enough in politics to know that. However, I am very disappointed that he did not use his charisma and rhetorical talent to powerfully attempt to persuade the AIPAC members to arouse their sense of humanity and decency in bringing their influence to find an end to the suffering and misery of innocent Palestinians and Israelis in this brutal cross-slaughter of non-combatant civilians; that he did not use the occasion to plead for justice and for the opening of dialogue between the people of Israel and their Palestinian neighbours and fellow Semitic peoples to end the senseless carnage that is destroying both countries. The populations in both countries want dialogue and peace, the brutality continues because of politics, not because the people wish to destroy each other. The power of the US presidency is the power of the "bully pulpit" and Obama failed to lay hold of that power in meeting this first challenge to his proclaimed skill in bringing people together. He did that in his address about racism in the US; how powerfully such a crafted message regarding the Israeli and Palestinian peoples would have resonated beyond the mental and physical confines of that AIPAC meeting!
I know this is off subject but after yesterday's and today's comments, I just have to ask.
Why is Obama considered "black"? Isn't he biracial? Perhaps I don't understand America despite living here for 20+ years.
Did Obama retract his pledge to dialogue ith Iran?
Obama is just another elitist, corporate, Israel loving predatory politician who would sell his mother down the river if it meant becoming president. At first, I respected Obama and his message of people power... but more and more, we're seeing the tiger's true stripes, and they are the stripes of a fascist. Seeing him kiss AIPAC ass, sell out the Palestinians, promote harmful economic policies and betray his family pastor and church, we can see that he is not the "Great Hope" we all pray for, just another establishment hack.
The key is never to vote for candidates you see often in the corporate media.
There's only two ways they get there. They either collect millions of dollars of corporate money to buy time in the corporate media to present their message. The money is one barrier. But we've also seen how even if an independent group raises the money to buy advertising they are often refused access by corporate media anyways if the message isn't corporate supported.
Or, the other way that you see a candidate on the corporate media is when the corporate media choses to push and promote the candidate.
Either way, if you are seeing a candidate on the corporate media, that means that the candidate will support corporate interests.
Thus, if you want elected officials that will support you and your interests over corporate interests, the clear rule to follow is to never vote for candidates you see often on the corporate media. Certainly not any candidate getting favorable messages from the corporate media.
The candidates that support your interests will first be ignored by the corporate media. Then they'll be ridiculed by the corporate media. Then if they get passed that they'll be viciously attacked by the corporate media.
That's the candidate to vote for.
Exactly how are we supposed to 'pressure' President Obama? How well has it worked for the last two years to try to 'pressure' the Democratic leadership in Congress to end the war or to support impeachment? And a President is much more inaccessible than the Congressional leadership, although they've grown pretty inaccessible to mere citizens themselves.
If you want to give this a dry-run, come to Denver for the Democratic Convention. Lets see what the response to an attempt by citizens to speak to or to pressure elected officials. What you'll see is fences and riot police keeping you far, far away from candidate Obama. So, come to Denver in August to give this 'pressure' idea a try and see how well it works.
Then you'll know by November that your only hope is to vote for candidate that truly represents you. You'll know for certain the feel of a police baton or the shock of a taser that greets any attempt of citizens to 'pressure' a politician.
Gawd I'm sick of this crap that says that I'm not supposed to even listen to what Obama says in order to judge whether I want him to be President.
Surely its the silliest political theory ever advanced to say that we are supposed to ignore his stated positions and just magically fantasize about him being the President we dream of in order to con us into voting for him.
And I love the way the Obama supporters are already setting up the second con to follow this one. What's the second con? Its that its all going to be your fault. Its a dead cinch certainty that Obama won't be the progressive President that the first con has presented him to be. When he pays off his campaign backers, he's going to have to dissappoint all the deluded progressives that are backing him.
So, they are already setting up the second con. The Obama camp will then claim that Obama was a very anti-progressive President simply because the Progressives didn't organize well enough to force him to be a progressive. Never mind that the system is tilted such that only money influences a President and that popular organizing is damn near worthless. We know damn well that the people with big bucks will be inside the Oval Office talking to Obama while the rest of us will be kept hundreds of yards away by fences and riot police. None of this matters, they are already setting up the second con whereby they'll blame us for Obama's awful acts as President that are to come.
Amazing.
Its so much simpler just to vote for a candidate that does clearly speak and take positions that we already agree with.
"So the question is not whether we expect Obama to be even-handed because it is the right thing to do, but whether enough pressure can be brought to bear on him to make him do so."
The same can be said on just about any subject, and of just about any politician. Electing Obama, or anyone else, is not a solution. It is a chance to make the second half of the above proposition a conceivable possibility. The work is in front of us, not just to get the current scoundrels out, but to keep enough pressure on the new scoundrels that they are forced to start doing at least some of the right things.
I don't understand why everyone seems so surprised. Trust me, if they're available to vote for on either the Rethugican or Democrapic ticket, they will not have YOUR best interests at heart.
We've had a one-party system forever and a month of Sundays and yet, as long as the TV turns on, there's some food in the fridge and the car starts when you turn the key, most folk could give a damn about anyone other than themselves.
Obama will be no better than the last 43 assholes that claimed to lead and, for me, he may be worse. Nothing scares my black butt more than Obama presiding over the fall of this country. That would be just the thing needed to unite even the most liberal white person with the rabid rednecks. While I might be paranoid, that doesn't mean that it can't happen.
I sent the following to the Obama campaign. It may not make a difference, but I encourage all of us to hound the campaign with each rightward step it takes.
------
Greetings,
I am writing to express concern as a potential Obama voter and campaigner.
I have been an avid member of the Green Party and voted as such last November because I couldn't bring myself to vote for the right of center policies of John Kerry (especially his unwillingness to commit to an end of the war in Iraq).
Obama is the first democrat that has inspired me enough to vote for him come November. I switched my party affiliation in order to vote for him in Oregon's primary.
Unfortunately, he has already begun a journey toward the failed policies of the right -- a process that will guarantee the loss of progressive voters such as myself to Nader and Cynthia McKinney.
He is exaggerating the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program, a program our own intelligence agencies concluded was not geared toward the development of a nuclear weapon.
He has literally kissed the ass of AIPAC (something that, I understand, is somewhat necessary) in order to woo Jewish voters. Pledging unconditional support for Israel despite its ghastly human rights record regarding the Palestinians. It is already apparent an Obama presidency will continue to fuel the fires of a major cause of Islamic terrorism toward the U.S. -- favoritism toward Israel in negotiating a lasting peace in the Middle East.
More recently, he appointed Wal-mart apologist, Jason Furman, as his economic policy director -- ensuring that his economic policies will favor the big-box corporate consumerism model that necessitates cheap labor and wars over access to resources (e.g. Iraq).
Lastly, he seems to be forgoing mention of ending the Iraq war ($3 trillion) as a means to fuel his social and infrastructure programs. It seems like this is an easy response to the Republican "how are you going to pay for that" mantra.
To conclude, I am watching Obama's campaign with a wary eye and the "change" he is touting with a healthy douse of skepticism. Rest assured, the possibility of myself and millions of progressives voting for an Obama ticket diminishes with each rightward step his campaign takes.
I implore the Obama campaign to take my words into consideration and deliver real change come November.
It does not matter. This was a gigantic blunder, the analog of the infamous German "Zimmerman telegram" that encouraged Mexico to attack us in WW 1. Obama has given Israel the green light to attack whomever it considers a danger to its security if he becomes our next president.
One year ago, I was almost alone in pointing out that Obama is a dangerous saber-rattling imperialist in a sheep's skin on the grounds of his printed interviews with the Chicago Tribune and his earlier speech to AIPAC. Common Sleepwalkers might do well to reprint these. I am encouraged to notice the great awakening that is going on.
jstevens (2:56 pm) wrote, "... If Obama veered too far from the norm on Israel, he could expect the 3% support that Ron Paul was awarded. .....We can have ideal candidates who never get elected, or we can face reality and think strategically like conservatives do."
Let me rephrase that: We can have good candidates who never get elected (precisely because they are serious about progressive goals), or we can have sellout candidates who basically align with rightwing positions, and seek to disguise their unappetizing willingness to sell out, with "inspiring speeches" about hope, & vacuous slogans like "Yes we can."
It is not a question of insisting on "ideal" candidates. The present system doesn't even allow us "good" candidates. Kerry stunk to high hell, and Obama is not really any better. He's merely more skillfully packaged. The guy supports the "War on Terror", & thus the conceptual framework for Bush's foreign policy. He doesn't repudiate the framework -- he merely insists that he will add a larger component of "diplomacy." But he doesn't at all renounce the US use of force, & says nothing about cutting military spending.
Not only does Obama support the WoT, he also supports the Cuba embargo, & now he's blatantly sucked up to AIPAC. This is too much to be airily dismissed as a mere matter of "pragmatism." It basically renders him worthless in terms of progressive goals. His only "progressive" aspects are purely cosmetic -- the fact that he's black; & that he's affable, charming & well-spoken. He will provide a more attractive front for US foreign policy, while none of its underlying goals of domination & empire will change in the slightest.
sphne is correct. If Obama veered too far from the norm on Israel, he could expect the 3% support that Ron Paul was awarded. For progressives, the challenge is to not repeatedly be victims of their own ideology. We can have ideal candidates who never get elected, or we can face reality and think strategically like conservatives do.
Just another American politician genuflecting and publicly pledging allegiance to Israel.
Absolutely disgusting.
The greatest democracy on the planet, the U.S., is having an election BUT it only gives its citizens 2 choices for president.
And political campaigns in the U.S. are designed to use/need lots of money. A great deal of money.
Money is the expression and exercise of political will. The concepts of morality, justice, rights, cooperation are absent from American political dialog.
If Obama was sincere, he's a sellout and a hawk that has revealed a hidden Conservative streak.
If he wasn't sincere, he's a liar and just as bad as bush.
Either way, his speech to AIPAC demonstrated without a doubt that is unfit to run this country and would make a poor choice as president.
I said from the beginning that Obama was green and his inexperience made him unfit to be a candidate. (I had some hope that somehow he would find a way to run the country though if he was elected as he was much better that Clinton or McCain) Now, after his speech at AIPAC, I can say that I would be genuinely afraid for this country if he is elected. He's just a puppet and as bad for this nation as Clinton or McCain would be.
I sincerely hope that neither Obama or McCain is elected in November.
Another 'friend' of the two-state solution we won't live to see. It could be clever ploy to get the jewish votes, but I'm a pessimist, so I feel there won't be any changes in the US, and therefore Europe's, stance in this conflict. Israel will be allowed to push out or kill as many Palestinians as possible and create the Greater Israel some guy in the sky promised their ancestors who, according to the Bible, killed lots of people to get it in the first place.
Get used to it. Obama's decisions will be based on the highest bidder....like AIPAC the biggest lobby in our country that controls Foreign policy and instigates all the WARS in the middle east. Americans need to fight AIPAC and win our country back or we will be screwed up the A#@& by them FOREVER.
The bottom line, if you don't grovel amd prostrate yourself before the pro-Israel Christian and Zionist groups you will not be elected. It is up to we the people to become informed and spread the word. I do believe an Obama administration would be more receptive to a change in policy than a McCain or Hillary whitehouse.
Mr. Barack "Jello" Obama strikes again.
Obama will be much better than any other choice we were served so far... Much better than Hillary. I can't stop laughing about this video she's in:
http://www.minimovie.com/film-128295-Welcome%20Back,%20Clinton
Hopefully that dinner with Ed Said years ago has tempered his passion for the zionist state of israel. What a complete disservice the zionists have done to the cause of jewish people around the world ... like their counterparts al-qaeda.
I BELIEVE OBAMA HAS THE INTEGRITY NOT TO LIE TO THE AIPAC GROUP, BUT ALSO IS DICREET ENOUGH, AND SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THEY WILL CREAM HIM IF HE OUTRIGHT SPEAKS OF SUPPORT FOR THE PALESTINIANS.
IF YOU CHECK SENATE VOTES ON ISRAELI POSITIONS - NO SENATOR IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO CROSS ISRAEL. SEE GOOD 'OLE LEIBERMAN !!