Voices without Votes » Barack Obama

Palestine: Left behind by Obama

Jillian York — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:35:47 +0000

As US presidential hopeful Barack Obama wraps up a tour of Israel and Palestine, newspaper headlines all over the world are fixated on the Senator's attention to Israel…and lack of attention to Palestine's struggle.

One headline in particular, from Israel's Haaretz, could aptly sum up the feelings of the Palestinian blogosphere: “Obama visit all about wooing Jewish American voters.” Indeed, the words of the Palestinian blogosphere echo this notion, with particular focus on Obama's choice of Sderot as a destination.

bruised earth felt that Obama took advantage of the situation by visiting Sderot, not giving thought to how his actions would affect greater Palestinian opinion. The blogger remarked:

I know he is looking for some votes - but the nerve to visit Sderot (with just a flying visit of Ramallah - where no such statements were made) and again speak out against the daily misery of border settlers who have chosen (!) to live in this location and who are not caged or bound - or worse - imprisoned by the military, shows a level of ‘cheek’ here-to-fore unimaginable.

Let us not forget that Obama was the one Presidential hopeful strong enough to speak out against the violence and plight perpetrated on the Palestinian people. Where is that leader now? Are we to assume he will return once elected?

A very dangerous game continues to unfold…can votes possibly be worth this?

The title of a recent blog post from Desertpeace reads “Obama at the Wall.” Using few words, the blogger explained further:

NOT the wall of apartheid as one might have hoped…..But the Western Wall.

AMPAL (American Palestinian) expressed surprise that Obama hadn't visited the Holy Sepulchre, explaining:

Quite the contrary, it seems that the correct place for a CHRISTIAN future president of the United States of American to visit (kinda like his visit to AIPAC's convention days after he won the nomination) is to the Jewish Wailing Wall. Mind you the Moslem's third holy site, the Haram al Sharif, is just across that Wailing Wall. Seems like he has got it right twice in a row: prostrate yourself, nay, grind yourself into the dirt, in front of the rulers of your destiny (Zionists of both American and Israeli flavors) in order that you be receive some blessing by the so-called Chosen Ones. And even then they doubt you Oh Obama…

While other bloggers focused on Obama's actions, The Angry Arabs' Comment Section took issue with his words, particularly his proclamation that Jerusalem “will be the capital of Israel.” The blogger pondered:

Huh? The phrase “I say it will be the capital” is diametrically opposed to the view that it's a final status issue to be negotiated by the parties. Unless he's got a crystal ball and knows the outcome in advance.

The question remains: Will Obama's seemingly unwavering support of Israel strongly affect his campaign? Joseph Al-Khoury, writing for the Arabdemocracy blog, gives reasons why, for Arab-Americans, it shouldn't:

The US has been unwavering in its support for the Zionist entity since its creation in 1948 providing it consistently with the financial, technological, military means to dominate the Middle East and wreck the hopes of one Arab generation after the other. This is unlikely to change regardless of who takes over the White House come November. But two factors Arab voters should consider while casting their votes. The first factor is that An Obama administration will not be motivated by ideology in its position vis-a-vis Israel while remnants of the neo-conservative and evangelical Christian agenda will persist in a Bush-McCain transition. Pragmatic policies might still be detrimental to the Palestinians but are easier to debate and challenge than those backed by divine intervention. The second factor is that the election of a Liberal modern Black man to the highest office will be good for America, whatever foreign policy he adopts. This is a revolution in the making and as all astute immigrants know it is by joining hands with the locals for the common good that you gain acceptance. As the American poet Gil Scott-Heron cynically puts it: ‘The revolution will not be televised…’ but the election certainly will!

Europeans For Obama

Aggregated from: A Political Glimpse from Ireland — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:54:22 +0000

Sometimes European support for a particular candidate is often treated with a sense of derision when American’s hear that Europe favors a specific candidate because: “Who likes those European’s anyway…” The truth of the matter is that every single person I have spoken to Ireland has voiced their support for Senator Obama from ad executives in top PR firms, recruiters and your average Irish young adult. The Senator’s message of change has resonated with everyone in Ireland who wish esfor a more transparent EU in the wake of the failed Lisbon referendum. Senator Obama is not only liked in Ireland but in other parts of Europe as well as reported by the latest PEW Global Attitudes Project:

I really wish the Senator would stop in Ireland however I might just be tempted to take the plane over to London to hopefully catch a speech if he is inclined to give one. Some people may ask what is the purpose of popularity abroad? To that I answer that in the dynamic nature of the world we live in, to truly accomplish large goals like climate change, reducing poverty and conserving energy. America needs a leader who is respected by the people of the world as well as their respective leaders, we all know Prime Minister Brown and President Bush are good friends and allies but the fact of the matter is Prime Minister Brown is in a similar situation with record low levels of approval.

Most likely if Senator Obama is elected President, he will be dealing with Prime Minister Cameron who is currently the leader of the Conservative Party in England. David Cameron is also known for his support of the war in Iraq but this is unlikely to damage any potential synergy that he will have with Senator Obama during their meeting this week. A future Prime Minister Cameron would me mindful of the U.K’s low support for the war hence most likely falling in line with an Obama campaign Iraq pull-out strategy. Europe is going to prove to be a critical ally in the coming years as China flex’s its economic power in Africa with the only way to counter that power being closer ties between the EU and the USA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNddT0L0wb8

How Many Flip-Flops?

Aggregated from: A Political Glimpse from Ireland — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:47:43 +0000

Well in a previous post I made the statement that Senator McCain has made more flip-flops than Senator Obama but that is a given, considering his greater length of time in the political arena. Despite this length of time, flip-flops are only excusable if they express a sincere change in position based on the facts, a fellow blogger at the Progressive Politics Examiner mentioned that it would be nice to have a leader who changed his opinion based on the facts. I am biased towards Senator Obama hence I give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time but for the sake of this post, we will not excuse any flip-flops.

During my research, I discovered that Senator McCain has made a total of 61 flip-flops based on the data compiled by alternet.org. Alternet.org is a decidedly liberal media platform hence we can assume that their count is pessimistic. Senator Obama on the other hand has made anywhere from 17 - 33 flip-flops depending on which blog you are reading. Let’s take the most pessimistic scenario in both cases which leave’s Senator McCain with the greatest number of flip-flops. My two favorites from both candidates are:

13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.

I was born in South Africa and I know quite well what the Government did to the people there, the fact that Senator McCain opposed divestment at any stage is unfathomable.

Senator Obama supported the FISA bill despite calls from the majority of liberals to Vote NO.

I was dissapointed like most liberals given our feelings about the FISA bill, however I do understand the Senator’s position given he is running for President and a “No” vote would have fueled the fires of “weak on national security” until the general election. These fires would have given the Republican party a focused line of attack which they are unable to attain thus far.

Given the number of flip-flops by both candidates, do they really matter at this point? I am not so sure but that depends on what the media has in plan for both these candidates before the election. I found this great McCain video on politifact.org, whoever created it made one hell of a video with some cool background music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eejYoz3Nl0

McCain plans Obama trip to South America

Aggregated from: J O T M A N . C O M — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:34:00 +0000

Reuters reports: "Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has hectored Democratic rival Barack Obama to visit Iraq, now says Obama should go to South America as well. [...] "And while it is surely not my intention to become my opponent's scheduler, I hope Sen. Obama soon visits some of...

Click for more.

“America's Leadership” TV Ad

Aggregated from: Darryl Wolk Blog — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:25:00 +0000

"America's Leadership" TV Ad

Good ad...
-Darryl

Getting American politics: The Age of Reagan

Aggregated from: Neil Stockley — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:09:00 +0000

Every so often, people ask me for suggestions for the best books to read about modern American politics. For what it’s worth, I usually refer them to the efforts by E.J. Dionne jr. and Godfrey Hodgson to explain the crisis of American liberalism and other big themes in US politics over the last 40 years. Then there is another suggestion, that usually takes people by surprise: to read just about anything that is well-written about Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan.

Following my own advice, I am currently reading Nixonland, a brilliant new work by Rick Perlstein. He explains the secret of Nixon’s electoral success, articulating the resentments and rages of the "silent majority", and describes his toxic political legacy. In bringing the America of the late 1960s and early 1970s to life, Perlstein provides a stark insight into the underlying divisions of modern US politics. He traces the brutal, vindictive and over-personalised nature of much of its political discourse back to Nixon’s campaigning. We should also remember that over the last forty years, forms of this cynical brand of wedge politics has oozed across to the UK, Australia and New Zealand. (Remember the 2005 Conservative campaign? The 2005 NZ National Party campaign? John Howard?) Still, Americans do not live in the age of Nixon: Watergate saw to that. And the politics of race and gender have moved on significantly.

So, on to my other suggestion: the importance of Ronald Reagan and what he achieved. In the almost-twenty years since he left the White House, most analysis of Reagan has been heavily partisan. Now a liberal historian and active Democrat, Sean Wilentz, has produced The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008. This marvellous, incisive book focuses on presidential politics and argues -- convincingly in my view – that, Reagan is the dominant, defining figure of modern American politics. The main contours of policy - tax breaks for corporations, a “unitary executive” theory of presidential power, welfare cuts, a federal judiciary heading rightward –date from the Reagan years.

Wilentz says that Reagan "cemented the alliance between social conservatives and economic libertarian conservatives" and thereby completed the enlargement of the conservative movement. Such was the basis of his two landslide victories. The same movement enabled both Bushes to win the White House. Bill Clinton won two elections but from 1994 on, he faced a conservative Republican Congress, which made for a presidency that was very different from the one he may have planned. Clinton had to duck, weave and, yes, triangulate with this new conservatism. He did not fundamentally alter Reagan’s legacy and in some ways managed and extended it. (See: Welfare Reform Act 1996). The right has also consolidated its power by politicising the process for appointing federal judges. B This year, John McCain, along with all the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, claimed to be the true heir of Reagan.

Wilentz explains in detail how and why Reagan cast aside the old wisdoms regarding nuclear warfare and the Soviet Union and began to end the cold war. Along the way, the book demolishes some conservative myths. America's renewed militarism after 1981 did not bring about the end of communism. The Soviet economy was already collapsing and could not pay the massive defence bills that the cold war demanded. Reagan had high ideals that the nuclear arms race had to end (partly fostered by films like The Day The Earth Stood Still!) and, when Gorbachev arrived on he scene, he seized the opportunity to act on them.

UK readers, who live in the Age of Thatcher, will see some familiar parallels in the way Reagan reshaped the guiding assumptions of economic policy. (So will NZ readers, living in the Age of Douglas.) For example, thanks to largely to Reagan, the idea that reducing taxes on the rich will cure all economic ills has moved to the mainstream of American political thinking; so has the theory of economic deregulation. His abilities as a communicator enabled Reagan to win elections and prevail in the battle of ideas. Yet he was not a popular president by historical standards.

Wilentz puts Reagan’s success down to his "distinctive blend of dogma, pragmatism, and, above all, mythology". His conservative followers have carried on telling and building on these stories, thereby keeping control of the political debate.

On top of that, the right have played hardball politics. Another theme in Wilentz’s book is the number of politically-charged constitutional confrontations that America has seen since Watergate. In the Iran-Contra affair (in which, he is sure, the president was always a key conspirator) Reagan’s henchmen threatened to launch "an ambitious, permanent secret military operation, which would allow the White House to pursue every variety of covert operation completely free of congressional scrutiny or any constitutional constraint" [Oliver North]. In the fight against “communism”, the ends would justify the means. But Reagan ultimately got away it, partly because of blunders by Senate Democrats.

The right’s ruthless determination to win, if not to change the political order was also seen with the Clinton impeachment and the Supreme Court’s highly dubious decision to halt the effort to learn who won the 2000 election. In neither case was Reagan present and Wilentz may be going a little far in claiming that the right’s zeal had its roots in Reagan’s triumphs. Also, the age of Reagan has not seen liberalism routed altogether; the truth is that Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes all faced big shifts in their political fortunes. So have their causes. Wiltentz shows how on the Clinton impeachment, Newt Gingrich and co over-reached and lost both the trial and the political battle. Yes, in 2000, Republican justices effectively handed the White House to George W. Bush. But Bush II has revived liberals’ political fervor.

The reasons for Reagan’s ultimate victory were about economics as much as politics. Wilentz is less strong on economic, financial and social policies than on other areas. Still, he shows how Reagan’s drive to cut taxes (for the wealthy) while massively increasing military spending came at the expense of social programs. The American economy revived under Reagan but that was mainly due to the policies of Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve (appointed by Jimmy Carter). And the wealthiest Americans benefited most from the new prosperity. Meanwhile, most of Reagan’s deregulation policies ended in tears, especially in the banking sector. His successors had to deal with the savings and loan disaster.

Above all, Reagan left behind massive fiscal deficits. Wilentz argues that “Reagan’s fiscal policies left an enduring legacy to future lawmakers” that is, Democrats – “who might wish to build any new social programs even remotely resembling those of the New Deal or the Great Society”. Sure enough, George H.W. Bush had to raise taxes, which arguably cost him the 1992 election. Bill Clinton’s record in social policy was severely constricted by Reagan’s fiscal legacy. And Barack Obama hardly promises an FDR-style New Deal.

Wilentz discusses the domestic policies of George W. Bush only briefly and depicts them as a reheated, radicalised form of Reaganism. They may also be the last gasp of an old new order. With his own massive deficits, failures on social security reform, scandals, mishandling of Hurricane Katrina and, of course, the credit crunch, Bush has disgraced Reagan’s legacy and placed it in real danger. OK, Wilentz shows how the legacy started to unravel in the 1990s and I have seen many predictions that the age of Reagan is about to end. (I recall some from 1982!) For all the Republicans’ problems, the 2008 election is still up for grabs, the way ahead unclear. But as E.J. Dionne jr. argued on Friday, the core assumptions that have dominated economic and financial policy debates for thirty years are falling away in the wake of the Great Panic -- even if the media don’t fully realise it. The script is about to be rewritten. But who will write it and what will they say? I wonder what Barack Obama thinks about that.

The Age of Reagan A History, 1974-2008. By Sean Wilentz.

Illustrated. 564 pp. Harper/HarperCollins Publishers.

The Clinton Plan

Aggregated from: A Political Glimpse from Ireland — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:19:24 +0000

I seem to be in a conspiratorial mood these last few days so here is my latest theory… What if after Senator Obama clinched the democratic nomination, a deal was struck where Senator Clinton was promised the Vice Presidential slot on the Democratic ticket in the general election. I know that sounds highly improbable but let’s reason it out, Senator Clinton received a lot of votes during the primary process and given the beating both Senator’s gave each other, the easiest way to ensure unity would be to have them both on the same ticket. Senator Clinton has expressed interest in this as have some of her supporters and political pundits have used the term “dream ticket” since both Senator’s were in a dead heat during the primary process and combined, they would be a force to be reckoned with.

This might just be the media talking for me at the moment since when I think back to the election coverage, I am remember hearing the term “dream ticket” at least once a week. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Senator Clinton is going to be the on the same ticket with Senator Obama in the general election. Here are my reasons:

Both Senator’s would appeal to the entire democratic base which has surpassed the republican base in terms of turnout during the primary process. It is this turnout that many claim will be the nail on the coffin in the general election for the Republicans
Both Senator’s appeal to different segments of the American population and could potentially steal voters from the Republicans in the general election.
Senator Obama is essentially the leader of the Democratic party but the Clinton’s and their supporters form a sizable part of that party.
The fallout from a Clinton Vice Presidency would be minimal with the most likely outcome still being a win for the Democrats
Listen to how Senator Obama talked up Senator Clinton in his nomination victory speech and in New Hampshire, that is going to set the tone for future campaigning together.

Interview with Barack Obama from Afghanistan

Aggregated from: Darryl Wolk Blog — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:52:00 +0000

Interview with Barack Obama from Afghanistan

Exclusive Interview: Obama in Afghanistan: Face the Nation

Afghanistan snow for Obama?

Aggregated from: Labor View from Bayside — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:21:00 +0000

Whoever wins in November, the US, and Australia will be in Afghanistan for a very long time. Certainly longer than the Soviet Union. The only question seems to be whether Bush or his successor has the first surge. Their optimism about Iraq may prove to be illusionary, either in the short term or the longer haul. Repeat surges there are hardly a political option except perhaps for John McCain.

Let’s hope that Barack Obama isn't being snowed by the military during his overseas tour. If that’s necessary. You have to wonder how many of his enthusiastic supporters in Australia are aware of his plans to increase military spending and the size of the armed forces. He is no dove.

The political and military goals in Afghanistan are even murkier than in Iraq. At least the US will be able judge when the oil is flowing freely and cheaply again. Afghan stability will be a whole new concept.

Because of the attention on Pope Benedict at the World Youth Day in Sydney, coverage of the US presidential election has been thin lately. The speed of the pope-mobile and photo opportunities with babies have been the cliché of the day. It was high theatre with the stations of the cross seeming to take longer than the original story. We can now get back to the important stuff – sport. It was fitting that the mass for the masses was at a racecourse.

Obama Campaign Green About Colors

Aggregated from: KABOBfest — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:25:00 +0000

An internal memo on sartorial guidelines for the Obama campaign staff during his tour of the Middle East discouraged the wearing of green clothing. Why? Obama staffers fear sporting the color of Islam could be read as support for Hamas.

Most of the comments in the Politico article on this ranged from puzzled to exasperated. The best comment was by the Republican hack who joked they are probably banning croissant consumption because of its crescent shape.

The nervous staffers are probably just avoiding a Rachel Ray moment. We all know the Islamophobe blogosphere is quite capable of zaniness when it comes to interpreting what people wear.

His campaign, for being so careful about colors, has unfortunately let him wear other controversial colors in the past: Confederate grey, Mussolini brown, Nazi Red, and Hurricane Katrina flood waters blue.