Boombats wrote:Is it against the law to threaten semi-lethal rochambeaus?

Mmmm...cheese. - Homer Simpson

I didn't read all of these posts...so sorry if this has already been said, but this has been the topic of a few recent conversations so here are my two cents:

1. In a presidential election, most americans don't fully know or understand the political platforms of the candidates they vote for. The VAST MAJORITY of people that I know who voted for GW bush in the last two elections unwittingly voted against their own economic interest because of his stance on non-political social issues and his "showmanship" (for lack of a better term).

Another non-political issue, and perhaps the biggest advantage that a candidates can have is name recognition and/or celebrity status. People feel comfortable voting for a recognizable name, regardless of the issues at hand...and on top of that, people who feel disaffected by the political process and wouldn't normally vote at all can be drawn to the polls to support a celebrity candidates who doesn't have any "political baggage"...i.e. how Jesse "the body" Ventura became governor of minnesota.

So going with these ideas I feel pretty safe in narrowing down the viable candidates to:

McCain or Guilani vs. Obama or Clinton.

2. Aside from the fact that few elected officials ever live up to their campaign promises, in a presidential election the politics of an individual candidates are really secondary to the general politics of the party (one of the draw backs to the two party system). So I think it's really more practical to support the candidates that will be the best "vote getting tool" for the party whose politics support your most general personal interests, rather than the individual whose politics may be most closest to your own.

I think that Obama will be the best vote getting tool for the Democratic party. Objectively there are other candidates that are more experienced and probably more qualified to be president, but they lack the name recognition of Clinton and the media hype thats given Obama celebrity status.

I think the two biggest advantages that Obama has over Clinton are what some people think are his biggest obstacles: his race and his lack of a political track record.

On the issue of race and prejudice in general, I dont think that there is any real disparity in the potential losses of traditionally democratic votes due to being black or being a woman. Sticking with my firm belief that most elections are won on non-political issues, I think that there are more people outside the realm of traditionally democratic voters who will support Obama because he's black than there are who would support Clinton because she is a woman.

Then we're back to the disaffected voting age american. Think about the fact that 2004 had the highest voter turnout in a national election since 1968 and even then only 55.3% of voting aged americans participated...and on top of that over 52 million people who registered to vote didn't. This means that the majority of americans didn't vote for either canidate. This is where the lack of political baggage and stigmas can help Obama, as (again) it did with Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, or Arnold Schwarzenegger in california.

Ali Abunimah of Electronic Infitada on the Obama speech to AIPAC:

From left to right, Michelle Obama, then Illinois state senator Barack Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Image from archives of Ali Abunimah)

abunimah wrote:I first met Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama almost ten years ago when, as my representative in the Illinois state senate, he came to speak at the University of Chicago. He impressed me as progressive, intelligent and charismatic. I distinctly remember thinking 'if only a man of this calibre could become president one day.'

On Friday Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago. It had been much anticipated in American Jewish political circles which buzzed about his intensive efforts to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors who up to now have generally leaned towards his main rival Senator Hillary Clinton.

Reviewing the speech, Ha'aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama "sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period."

Palestinians are not allowed to asked for evenhandedness from the West, and are not allowed to complain when they don't get it ( and are not heard in the US media when they do complain. ) Israel is only accepting of a pro-Israel position from US politicians, and a candidate using words like "listen to both sides" is condemned as an anti-Semite.

abunimah wrote:Obama assured his audience that "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." Such advanced multi-billion dollar systems he asserted, would help Israel "deter missile attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." As if the starved, besieged and traumatized population of Gaza are about to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Obama offered not a single word of criticism of Israel, of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians.

Zero words? Check. He passed the test, and his campaign is now permitted to continue.

abunimah wrote:Obama excoriated Hizbullah for using "innocent people as shields." Indeed, after dozens of civilians were massacred in an Israeli air attack on Qana on July 30, Israel "initially claimed that the military targeted the house because Hezbollah fighters had fired rockets from the area," according to an August 2 statement from Human Rights Watch.

The statement added: "Human Rights Watch researchers who visited Qana on July 31, the day after the attack, did not find any destroyed military equipment in or near the home. Similarly, none of the dozens of international journalists, rescue workers and international observers who visited Qana on July 30 and 31 reported seeing any evidence of Hezbollah military presence in or around the home. Rescue workers recovered no bodies of apparent Hezbollah fighters from inside or near the building." The Israelis subsequently changed their story, and neither in Qana, nor anywhere else did Israel ever present, or international investigators ever find evidence to support the claim Hizbullah had a policy of using civilians as human shields.

In total, forty-three Israeli civilians were killed by Hizbullah rockets during the thirty-four day war. For every Israeli civilian who died, over twenty-five Lebanese civilians were killed by indiscriminate Israeli bombing -- over one thousand in total, a third of them children. Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israel's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians. But Obama defended Israel's assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its "legitimate right to defend itself."

Quick math assist: That's 43 against 1075, and the 1075 side had their roads, bridges, airports, seaports, and utilities wrecked, and there are still cluster bombs blowing up, and there are injuries from white phosphorus, and there are injuries from DU. Obama can't even gently warn Israel that there are limits.

abunimah wrote:Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

But Ali, you brownies with the funny names can't fund a campaign. Obama is here to save America. Stand aside.

abunimah wrote:The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

And then Barack Obama disappeared.

yuck!!! i was hoping my man obama would avoid the palestinian-israeli debate altogether, because it seems like no one can avoid taking side with the israelis. man... if just one person (i can look to as a sound leader) would come out and give israel the spanking it so honestly deserves, i would be floored. yuck obama!!!! yuuuuccccckkkkk!!!!!!!!!!

Do you think a president could actually get elected if they called for a more even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? I'm not asking facetiously, I'm genuinely curious what people think about this. It seems that if a candidate even hints at not marching in step with prevailing Israeli policies in this country, it's all over for them. Maybe I'm just being defeatist?

John W. wrote:Do you think a president could actually get elected if they called for a more even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

YES!! This bias is not demanded by the population. It's a concession to money and media power. BUT- any candidate who tried this would have to attempt a complete end around the existing barriers of campaign finance and corporate media. He would need to buy airtime ( if he could get it ) and speak very frankly and directly to the American people about the course he was setting out on. It would go something like this:

My fellow Americans, one minute after the conclusion of my address to you tonight, I will be caught in the vortex of a tornado of negative spin and character assassination. If you want to elect me, you will need to break through a tsunami of negative propaganda that is headed straight for me, and by extension, you, if you align yourself with my campaign. My campaign will ask more from you than that, too. My campaign will make these demands of you:

We must examine all war crimes equally, without favoritism shown to any religion or ethnicity.

We must examine who we sell arms to, and examine what they do with them.

We must return to separation of church and state, and reinforce that border to prevent religious extremists from conquering our democracy ever again, because if we don't, innocent men and women will continue to die for the ambitions of religious fanatics.

That would be a good start.

john w. wrote:I'm not asking facetiously, I'm genuinely curious what people think about this. It seems that if someone even hints at not marching in step with prevailing Israeli policies in this country, it's all over for them. Maybe I'm just being defeatist?

It is all over for us, if we don't end this Clash of Civilizations. We're just passengers on their rollercoaster currently.

Ian Williams in the Guardian UK takes some healthy cuts at Obama:

williams, guardian 3-6-07 wrote:Last week Barack Obama performed an inadvertent public service by taking two of my favorite hobbyhorses for a ride round the electoral ring. One was the corrupting power of money in presidential primaries, and the second was demonstrating that the Israel lobby was every bit as powerful as it has traditionally claimed on its website, even as it denounces anyone else who says so.
( ...)

Hitherto Barack Obama has been a superficially attractive Presidential candidate, compared with the rest of the pack. The inane accusation that he was educated in a Wahabi madrasa led to a reflexive sympathy, as did his unequivocal opposition to the war in Iraq.

But as Ali Abunima demonstrated yesterday, he has fallen at the first hurdle.

Just like Hillary Clinton, who was stalked for years by conservative pro-Israeli groups for expressing some mild sympathy but is now probably on the hawkish end of Israeli politics, Obama has been to burn incense on the altar of AIPAC.

"No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States," he declared. Not Shamir, not Sharon, no matter who is invaded - the aid cheques and cluster bombs must get through? Sorry, Barack, this gives pandering a bad name.

It is embarrassing to see the contortions that Obama is reduced to. His position for AIPAC on the Iraq war is now within a cheque's thickness of Clinton's.

Ouch. Man, they talk about AIPAC over in Britain. That's weird.
full column here

sleepkid wrote:

rayj wrote:If Ralphie boy was actually granted access to the media in a fair and balanced campaign, well, things would most likely be very different indeed.

Ironically, Ralphie boy killed the Corvair! A car that had environmental and economically friendly features, which if they had continued to develop, would probably have had a great impact on the cars we drive today and the way they affect both our wallet and our environment.

The NHTSA later conducted tests on the specific models of Corvair cited by Nader which proved showed that Nader's accusations were speculation and not factual dangers. However, these tests were conducted after sales of the Corvair had fallen to almost nil and GM had discontinued the line.

Way to go Ralphie Boy...

Incidentally, Laura Bush killed someone driving a Corvair in Texas! 2 weeks before JFK was shot! The mystery deepens!

clocker bob wrote:

John W. wrote:Do you think a president could actually get elected if they called for a more even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

YES!! This bias is not demanded by the population. It's a concession to money and media power.

And the gross fact is, votes vould be won by appealing to Jew-haters. There are a lot of Americans that, due to their Anti-Semitism, are angry at the govt. for supporting Israel for all these years. I'm not antisemitic but I am against the way we back up Israel's bullshit. So anyway yeah a lot of Americans would be happy, not to see Palestine get props from Obama per se, but to see "the Jews" get "taken down a notch." Ugly but true.

Creative Loafing, a regional SE US indie rag, is doing a series on the topology of modern racism and nationalism. There's a large focus on immigration policy as the current hot button debate, but there are implications for the extremist support and denouncing of Israel as well:

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyro ... d%3A206566

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyro ... d%3A210579