Bloggers of all stripes have moved passed their initial gut reactions on the freshly minted Democratic ticket and have started to formulate more solid opinions based on fact. That’s what covering politics is all about, isn’t it?

“On the surface, Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential running mate strikes me as pretty uninspired,” writes Tim Dunlop from Australia. “It’s hard to imagine that it wins him an extra vote come November, though I think that sometimes the ability of a running mate to do that for any candidate is overstated.”

He continues:

Not that I think Biden is a bad choice per se; in fact, I don’t really think there is anyone better from the list of those whose names cropped up over the last few months. I certainly don’t think Hillary was ever a serious option. He is a fairly personable guy, even if he, rightly, has a reputation for talking to much. He is a regular on US political programs and has developed a solid presence in that medium, a bit of go-to guy for the cable shows looking for an articulate criticism of Bush policy.

Does “articulate critic of Bush policy” translate into “attack dog”? For Sultan Knish and the stories behind the news from Israel, that answer is an emphatic yes. However, there is one caveat.

One interpretation is that Biden is there to launch the dirty attacks on McCain that Obama doesn't want to dirty himself with. This is plausible considering that Obama's dirty campaigns have been fought by lawyers, people who worked for his campaign… But considering that Biden turned a simple question about what law school he went to into an extended rant about how high his IQ is, setting him loose as an attack dog is a plan that's right up there with sending a pyromaniac to light a torch.

I'm sure that Biden will serve as an attack dog, I'm also sure that he'll do most of the damage to his own side, delivering verbal broadsides that roll like grenades back into Obama's tent.

With Obama’s choice, the Jewish blogger DovBear wonders where the hope mantra went:

I don't see how you can talk credibly about change, and youth, and so forth when your running mate is a grizzled, old career Washington insider…

Then there is the experience gap. Does highlighting Biden’s three decades of Senate experience call attention to Obama’s inexperience? Batya from Shiloh Musings in Israel points out filling the VP spot with an experienced poltico appears to be a pattern in American politics when the lead role goes to a newcomer.

• John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson
• Bush and Cheney

Those two quickly came to mind.

I just wonder if anyone really believed that Obama would get the nomination so easily. The man really has no experience, no track record. Sort of frightening.

Then there are Biden's scandals and gaffes: His plagarism, his missed votes in the Senate, the famous foot-in-mouth disease. “So to recap,” opinesNorth Coast Voices in Australia. “Joe Biden is your typical candidate.”


He massages his personal history by ‘borrowing' the words and personal anecdotes of another, where possible avoids mentioning the real extent of his income, rewrites political history, turns up in the Senate when he wants to and generally tries to throw his weight around.

In other words - a 26-year political job horse who now relies on a wing and a prayer to get by in the U.S. Congress.
Definitely not the statesman with sound judgment praised by Obama in Springfield - more like the usual pitcher of warm spit.

A choice which offers little hope of change to the rest of the world.

But let’s leave Biden the man, or Biden the politician on the stump for a moment, and investigate where Biden has made his name: foreign policy. In this category we have a passel of posts that could easily be titled: Joe, what have you done for me lately?

From Erkan’s Field Diary, Biden may well bring an anti-Turkey stance to the White House.

An anti-Turkish vice president according to Hürriyet. He is known to defend Armenian, Greek, Cyprus lobby theses. But Foreign Policy experts state that Turkey is already changing is foreign policy attitudes and there won't much new tension btw Turkey and US….

Biden is also a “prime Serb hater and Albanian Muslim lobbyist” for sponsoring the 1999 resolution for the U.S. to bomb Serbia and, later, recognizing the Kosovo State, according to this 2007 post from Byzantine Blog that was recently reprinted in the German blog Allah’s Willing Executioners.

Iraq Pundit worries about Biden’s and Obama’s “total disregard for the Iraqi people.”

All along, Biden has made it clear that he sees Iraqis as nothing more than savages bent on killing one another. His solution is to divide the country to stop the beasts from murdering the other beasts. He can argue all he wants that President Bush and John McCain are not nearly as smart as Biden is, but at least they will not abandon the Iraqis.

A “100% Palestinian” blogger writing in Sabbah Blog, claims that Israel must be happy with Obama’s pick.

The guy (Obama) is ignorant and naive when it comes to cases such as Israeli occupation of Palestine. And now he picks a guy who proudly says “I’m a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist!” So, what are you expecting from Obama if he’s in office? (not that the other puppet is better).

Joe Biden chairs the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, a post that Obama hopes will compensate for his own lack of experience in the global realm. Obama “safe choice” will also help him win the most important part of all USA elections, AIPAC support - the Zionist Lobby.

One good piece of news coming out of the choice of Biden: He is big fan of the Amtrak train line, Dove’s Eye View informs us. For those who have tried to ride the rails in the U.S., that is not a bad thing at all.

Both men report their personal encounters, specifically re: Biden's Middle East stance. Col. Lang emailed me privately that his encounter happened in about 1996 or so. Let's hope that Biden has or will evolve on the subject of Israel/Palestine and the Arabs.

Daily Kos rounds up views that Biden is a huge Amtrak supporter; his son sits on the board as well. The conclusion is that Biden as VP would be great for the United States rail system. Beats the Republicans, who have been trying to strangle Amtrak for decades now.

A few reporters admitted they knew of the candidate’s infidelities with a videographer long before John Edwards provided proof in a recent statement from Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In fact, the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer had been reporting the story for nearly a year. Now that it has proven true, at least some members of the mainstream media establishment are soul searching and shockedthat they sat on it for so long, especially when papers such as the New York Times reported on the alleged affairs of presumptive Republican nominee for President John McCain.

For reid (1053), a commentator at Kiwiblog, not reporting the story doesn’t prove the impotence of the mainstream press in the United States. Rather, holding “scandals” over candidates’ heads anoints the media as kingmakers.

The media have got enough to screw either McCain or Obama and it just depends which one those who control the agenda want to become POTUS. I said in Jan/Feb that the media will hold the dirt on Obama until about 4 weeks before the vote when it’s too late to do anything about it. (I imagine that homosexual trysts fueled by cocaine will be enough to prevent the first black candidate from being elected.)

At present that prediction still stands but as Adolf has pointed out on No Minister, Shillary hasn’t released her delegates and that’s an interesting wild card. Note though that there’s dirt on her too.

I find it amusing that some people really seem to think the US elections are free and open. They’re anything but.

One of the reasons the story stayed in the news — at least the supermarket press — is that Reille Hunter, the object of Edward’s affection, became pregnant out of wedlock. (Hunter gave birth to a daughter on February 27, 2008.) Edwards, once a Senator from North Carolina, said he is not the father of the child.

A minor debate in the blogosphere targets the fallen image of John Edwards, who was once seen as a charismatic politician who this election cycle helped push working-class poverty to a more prominent place in the political debate.

Shiloh Musings, a blog in Israel, writes:

I remember how upset people were when it was revealed that JFK (and the other men in the family) weren't loyal to their wives. It's so hard to keep one's illusions, to believe what we see. I feel sorry for the young.

Over at the Cuban-American blog babalú, there’s plenty of talk about two-faced Democrats, who have now gown through two major infidelity scandals in the past decade: “Good old liberals….every hair in place during TV speeches…But after 5:30 PM, some R&R.”

On the other hand, Egypt’s own Rantings of a Sandmonkey considers himself an Edwards fan, stating “ I like my politicians the way I like my lawyers- scummy, fake, manipulative and pretty.”

Sandmonkey, however, holds out no compassion for Elizabeth Edwards, who after the 2004 election, learned she had breast cancer.

But before you feel bad for his wife, please take a minute and chill. Don't think she is a victim. Ok, so she has cancer, that makes her a cancer victim, but come on, u get the idea. She knew of the affair in 2006, and still supported his running for office in 2008, knowing full well that if that thing exploded around general election time- and of lookie, it just did- the chances of the Dems winning the presidency would've been close to nill. But she went ahead anyway, aware of the affair, and keeping her mouth shut, defending him, appearing everywhere, using her cancer to guilt people into donating to their campaign and most recently to get herself a speaking gig at the convention- in order to get that coveted female terminal cancer victims whose husbands cheated on them demographic, it's soo important- and a Think Tank job. The woman's ambition and complicity puts Hillary's to shame, and now that Hillary knows that, she is probably glad that Elizabeth has cancer.

http://voiceswithoutvotes.org/2008/08/18/living-me-and-elizabeth-edwards/ No scandal gossip here. Press coverage of Elizabeth Edwards' metastatic breast cancer has me steamed, and as a sister cancer patient, I want to say something about it. My story with breast cancer parallels Elizabeth's. Elizabeth Edwards and I are both *living* with cancer. We are alive!

Dr As'ad Abu Khalil's reaction is like that of many Arab bloggers and commentators, who view the release of the prisoners in exchange for two captured Israeli army reservists, as a victory for Lebanon.
He further adds:

What Israel has said (racistly) about all Arabs (that the only language they understand is the language of force) paradoxically applies to Israel itself. It also brings to mind–to my mind at least–that Yaser `Arafat was one of the worst people to preside over a revolution–any revolution. He so miserably mismanaged the confrontation with Israel, and did not treat Palestinian prisoners in Israel with the respect that they deserve. Muhammad Dahlan is the legitimate “child” of Arafat. And none of the Western coverage is pointing out the cruel and inhumane role of Ehud Barak in 1978: the man who shot Dalal Mughrabi while she was dead. He pulled her by the hair (only after she died as he would not dare do that to an alive Dalal) and mutilated her body before tearing her shirt off. Such are the sexual perversions of the former prime minister of Israel. And as for the details of the deeds of Dalal and her comrades, don't ever believe Israeli accounts of “enemy” operations. The state consistently lies and consistently fabricates. And that saying from the Babylonian Talmud applies to Israel: the punishment of the liar is that he is not believed even when he tells the truth. Just go back to my posts during the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006: I tried to catalogue the lies and fabrications of Israel during the war. Don't you remember the account of the three dead Iranian soldiers that Israel “found” in South Lebanon? Don't you remember that Israel claimed to be holding “hundreds” of bodies of Hizbullah fighters? (The number now it admits is five). I don't know what happened in 1979, but the family of Samir Quntar also denies the typically fabricated account that is put out by Israeli propaganda (repeated verbatim typically in the U.S. press). Quntar was 16 at the time and his brother Bassam has something to say about his brother in Al-Akhbar today. Israel lied about Munich and about every other confrontation with its Arab enemies, just as Arab governments lie. It is not easy for a state (Israel) that was founded on a racist ideology to accept that Arabs are like other people: that they cherish their dead and their living just like other…people

In another post, The Angry Arab asks:

Of course, the New York Times is busy producing propaganda and lies on behalf of the Israeli government. I was reading their accounts of the prisoner exchange and remembering the words of the late George Carlin: why are Israeli terrorists called commandos, and why are Palestinian commandos called terrorists. And there are always stories about the “victims” of Palestinian operations on Palestinian lands but never stories about the victims of Israeli crimes. Not one story about those Israeli “prisoners”: What were those Israeli occupation killers doing in Lebanon in the first place? And I hate how Israeli (and American and Saudi) propaganda keep referring to Israeli prisoners by their names, to humanize them. You will never see refer to them by their names here because I refuse to succumb to the media standards that distinguish between expensive human being, and the cheaper human beings. You want me to feel sorry for an Israeli pilot who was downed while dropping cluster bombs on villages and towns in South Lebanon? Are you kidding me?

Dr Abu Khalil continues to take offence to the news coverage or lack of in the US and says:

These are 197 dead bodies delivered by Israel to Lebanon in the prisoner exchange. The two dead Israeli soldiers have received more coverage those those 197 dead Arab bodies. Hell, dead Israeli soldiers receive more coverage than all the Arab living. Such are the racist standards of the White Man. This explains why MEMRI sent out a bulletin today protesting that Fath's PLC members (from Fath movement, for potato's sake) honored Dalal Al-Mughrabi (the “professional” propaganda outfit, MEMRI, labeled dead Dalal as a “terrorist”). According to Zionism, even dead Arabs (women, children and the rest) are terrorists. If Dalal was a terrorist, does not that make Ehud Barak a Super-terrorist? Those dead Arab bodies are not all Hizbullah: only 9 belong to Hizbullah fighters. 17 belong to the Lebanese Communist Party, 22 to SSNP, and 30 to the Amal Movement. The rest belong to various Arab countries: they died fighting in Lebanon for Lebanon and for Palestine. They all (148 of them) belonged to various Palestinian organizations. Some were from Tunisia. But make no mistake about it: the supply of Arabs willing to fight Israeli occupation will never deplete. Never.
PS I posted this before I read the New York Times. Sure enough, there was not a single picture of a funeral for the dead Arab bodies. Instead, the New York Times have been publishing pictures of Israeli tears for THREE DAYS IN A ROW, including today when the news is the arrival of the 197 bodies.

But what would be the consequences of such a temperamental shift?  If Arab and Muslim voters go Nader's way, they would harm the chances of a prospective winner of the US presidency, a winner who shows great promise for this nation and the world. Understandably, they wish to demonstrate their voting power as an American community. But those voting for Nader - the Lebanese American perennial candidate, a genius activist of a bygone era, a “spoiler” in a previous presidential race- would provoke one half of American society, the Democrats; and amuse the other half, the Republicans. Democrats are dreaming and sacrificing to see significant change in American politics come January 2009; Republicans are busy plotting one scheme after another to trap Obama in positions of discomfort, shame or weakness.

The difference between betting and gambling is that the former offers better chances of winning. Voting for Obama is a smart bet; voting for Nader is high risk gambling. A vote for Nader is effectively a vote for McCain. With a Bush-extension regime Arab and other vulnerable communities would suffer disproportionately.

If America loses Obama as the next president, the country will have to endure four more years of neo-con politics. This extra- conservative era would continue to manifest alienating international diplomacy, excessive defense spending, neglectful health care, degraded ecology, petro-dollar politics and cultural xenophobia.

The best thing that Arab Americans can do to cope with Obama's possessive promoters is to remain faithful to the Democratic ticket. However, it is also important to stay critical.

Let us be realistic. If Arabs and Muslims become too closely associated with Obama, they risk hurting his chances of winning, given Israel’s strong influence on his and all Democratic presidential campaigns. Americans with ties to Palestine and Islam are where they should be in this campaign: supportive but distant, interactive but weary of Obama. It is in their interest to help Obama with moderate support and to challenge him to contribute to a better domestic and foreign policy when he is in power.

The Lebanese American prophet, Khalil Gibran, wrote in 1925: “Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you, or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first then you are a parasite; if the second, then you are an oasis in the desert.”

Vote Obama, admire Nader and listen to Gibran.

Sursock observed that death always follows Rice on her visits. He was also sarcastic about her brushing aside of any suggestions referring to the US interference in Lebanese politics, even after what she had to say upon visiting some of the Lebanese leaders:

Authorities in Lebanon say at least three people have died in clashes between pro- and anti-government groups in the eastern [Bekaa Valley] villages of Saadnayel and Taalbaya….
The clashes took place as Condi “birth pang” Rice paid a surprise visit to Lebanon. Death always seems to follow her. According to the AFP:
Rice said she made the trip to “express the United States' support for Lebanese democracy, for Lebanese sovereignty.”

Tantalus criticized Rice’s incomprehensible support for some of the Lebanese leaders and questioned the actions of some of those leaders for whom she declared the backing of the US government:

Rice, talking to reporters at Ain al-Tineh said Speaker Nabih Berri realizes that he enjoys the backing of the United States.
That's quite confusing for all those who recall that Berri's thugs are the ones who spread the chaos during the fateful days of May 7-21. The Berri-backed Amal sons-of-b*****s threw stones, fired guns, burned tires, talked shit all over the city of Beirut. Was that US-backed too?
How does the US function?

Tears for Lebanon mentioned some of the criticism directed to Rice by some politicians for her treatment of the “March 14 Alliance” as school children:

Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun
on Tuesday criticized U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for
meeting leaders of the March 14 alliance like “students gathered in a
class room.”
However, he emphasized that “one issue remains vague, that is the issue of naturalizing Palestinians in Lebanon.”

Jnoubiyeh posted an article by Franklin Lamb in which he analyzes Rice's visit and in which he states that:

It is likely Ms. Rice's last visit to Lebanon, but not her finale to the region which have averaged roughly one appearance every 9 weeks since assuming her current post. Rice, as with the Bush administration generally, remains hugely unpopular here in Lebanon based partly on her callous remarks: ” it ( the wanton Israeli killing and bombing) are birth pangs of the new Middle East” , “it's too early for a sustainable ceasefire”, “Israel is just exercising its right to self-defense and the United States supports that right”, etc . during the 33 day July 2006 War and her work to delay a ceasefire during the fighting which directly contributed to the more than 1,400 Lebanese killed, 4,500 wounded and massive destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure as well as its economy and environment.

* This article also appears in Global Voices Online.

Via / Postbourgie