‘The biggest gamble in American political history’
August 29, 2008 at 4:25 pm | Posted in U.S. Politics | 2 CommentsTags: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin
Vice President Palin?
That’s how Republican pundit Pat Buchanan describes John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin’s executive experience amounts to a year and a half as Governor of Alaska, which should render McCain’s ‘Obama is inexperienced’ jibe as rather useless. Her foreign policy experience is also non-existent, which will make for an interesting debate when she goes up against Joe Biden.
From the same Politico article linked to above, here are some of the supposed advantages of having Palin on the ticket:
In her short political career, Palin has become known – at least in Alaska — as a reformer. Long before the ethical problems of the Alaska GOP were front-page news in Washington, she was working to clean up the state’s government and her own party.
As a member of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Palin pushed an investigation that ultimately led to the state’s GOP party chairman to resign from the commission. Earlier this month, she endorsed Sean Parnell, who is still waiting to hear whether he has defeated ethically challenged Rep. Don Young in Tuesday’s GOP primary.
So in picking Palin, McCain accepts the framing of this election as being about change, and picks a genuine outsider who – superficially, at least – appears to offer a tough approach on ethics reform.
Anyway, enough from me. Here are some media/blogosphere reactions:
Biggest political gamble I believe just about in American political history…that is not hyberbole. I can think of no choice of VP that approaches this.
Joe Scarborough (Republican host on MSNBC):
I can’t imagine a woman that’s been a governor for a year and a half, but to debate Joe Biden on Georgia, a remerging Russia, an emerging China and India, on the Middle East, my God, how does she do that?
Eric Martin at Obsidian Wings:
One thing it will offer the McCain campaign is a sense of historical importance – something they need in the face of Obama’s groundbreaking run. Further, it offers something “new” from a Republican Party that is rightly viewed as musty and bankrupt of fresh ideas. It will also serve as a bid to attract the dead ender clique of Hillary supporters (though I think entirely too much has been made of their clout in terms of actual numbers).
[...]
One major drawback: How can McCain’s main line of critique be Obama’s putative lack of experience, yet his pick for vice president is a 44 year old politician who has only been in the Alaska state house for little over a year. Before that, she was mayor of Wasilla, Alasksa: population 8,000. This is the person that will be one heartbeat away from the presidency – a consideration of particular importance considering that McCain, if elected, would be the oldest president ever to be sworn in for his first term.
This could, of course, turn out to be an enormous debacle if she isn’t ready for prime time. But for now, Sarah Palin looks like a perfect face for the sort of Republican Party I want to support: She’s a pro-life working mom; she’s tough on corruption and government waste without being a doctrinaire Norquistian on taxes; she’s more supportive of gay rights than the current GOP orthodoxy (while stopping short of backing same-sex marriage); she has a more conservationist record than your typical GOP pol, but supports drilling in ANWR; she’s an evangelical but she isn’t a southern evangelical … and if McCain loses, she can run at the top of a Palin-Jindal ticket in 2012!
It’s striking listening to the commentary about why this is a smart pick for John McCain that the arguments are all about how this will help him politically — attract women voters, get attention, disrupt Barack Obama’s “change” message, etc. What I haven’t seen is any conservatives making arguments about why Sarah Palin will help President McCain govern. He’ll call on her insights about . . . what?
It’s a daring pick but I think a very weak pick. I’m perfectly happy with it. Palin is in the midst of a reasonably serious scandal in her home state. Her brother-in-law is a state trooper who is in the midst of an ugly custody battle with her sister. And she’s accused of getting the state police to fire him. Recently she was forced to admit that one of her aides had done this, though she insists she didn’t know.
The first criterion for a veep – and I’m simply repeating a truism here – is that they are ready to take over at a moment’s notice. That’s especially true when you have a candidate as old as McCain. That’s more than especially true when we are at war, in an era of astonishingly difficult challenges, when the next president could be grappling with war in the Middle East or a catastrophic terror attack at home. Under those circumstances, we could have a former Miss Alaska with two terms under her belt as governor. Now compare McCain’s pick with Obama’s: a man with solid foreign policy experience, six terms in Washington and real relationships with leaders across the globe.
I really can’t decide yet whether this pick is genius or insanity, but it’s certainly very, very bold.
Cutting Obama’s nuts off
July 10, 2008 at 8:08 am | Posted in Barack Obama, U.S. Politics | Leave a commentTags: Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson
So Obama ‘talks down to black people’ so much that Jesse Jackson wants to ‘cut his nuts off‘. Yes, MLK is dead all right. It also puts the secret service in a bit of a predicament – should they object if Obama finds himself seated next to Jackson at a fundraising dinner where there’d be a range of cutlery with which to carry out his threat? Should they intervene if Jackson reaches for a butter knife?
It’s a sad, odd little comment and because Fox is (perhaps wisely) holding back the rest of the tape, it’s difficult to know the exact context behind what was said. What we do know is that Jackson made the comment after a segment that touched upon Obama’s Fathers Day speech, wherein he implored black fathers to stop abandoning their kids and start taking responsibility for their own lives. The Guardian suggests that Jackson believed “Obama should have assigned blame to government and public policy for the breakdown of some black families”, which is perfectly understandable except for the fact that blame is almost always backwards-looking and governments don’t have the ability to keep families together.
His outburst is also a bit weird because the content of Obama’s Fathers Day speech wasn’t much different from speeches made by the like of Al Sharpton, Jackson himself, and countless other leaders in black communities. How come they can condemn family breakdown and urge people to act more responsibly but Obama can’t? Like I said, a sad and divisive outburst and as good a sign as any that Civil Rights-era figures like Jackson have had their day.
Update: I forgot to mention that this isn’t the first time Jesse Jackson’s questioned Obama’s authenticity on matters of race. He seems to carry an arrogance that says if you don’t agree with him on such things, then you’re either inauthentic or a traitor to the cause. Which, in stark contrast to the Senator, is an attitude that alienates far more people than it inspires.
Clinton & sexism
July 2, 2008 at 10:09 am | Posted in Democratic Party Presidential Primary, Hillary Clinton, U.S. Politics | Leave a commentTags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Melissa McEwan, sexism
In a medium that allows for infinite interpretations of reality, we can’t be surprised that the internet has facilitated some wildly different representations of politicians. At the beginning of the Democratic Primary, Barack Obama was either a wide-eyed, hope-mongering idealist, or a Bambi-esque neophyte without the strength or experience to be President. In turn, Hillary Clinton was either a smart and savvy politician running a flawless campaign or a power-hungry, say-nothing centrist who couldn’t articulate why she wanted to be President.
However diverse these portrayals were and however removed they might have been from reality, it’s important to remember that they weren’t just invented out of thin air; they were constructed by columnists, talking-heads and bloggers who built their own realities based on what they saw of the primary contest.
It’s a shame, then, that part one of Melissa McEwan and Maureen McCluskey’s CiF piece on the ‘destroying’ of Hillary Clinton in the liberal blogosphere doesn’t provide any background to indicate where this loathing came from. Even before her campaign for President, Clinton was never a popular figure: she was a leading member of the uber-centrist DLC, she voted for the war, she took money from special interests and her staff included union-busters and corporate shills. As her campaign began to smell defeat, she then started making statements that seemed unbecoming of a Democrat. She argued only herself and Senator McCain were qualified to become Commander-in-Chief. She fell short of confirming that Obama wasn’t a Muslim. She repeated the right-wing theme that her opponent was an ‘elitist’ – in spite all the years he’d spent working in poor parts of Chicago. Finally, in one of her last arguments about electability, she claimed the nomination should go to her because she won the votes of more white folks.
These actions prompted a smorgasbord of vicious, dehumanising and frequently sexist tit-for-tat responses, and McEwan recorded these diligently during the primary. But by ignoring the fact that genuine grievances existed, McEwan & McCluskey give the impression, whether intentionally or otherwise, that the prime motivation for attacking Clinton was sexism. Instead, I think the prime motivation was the poor conduct of her campaign, which incited a lot of anger and recrimination and all too frequently mutated into sexist attacks.
If I were them, I would’ve argued that even with genuine points of disagreement and disgust with the Clinton campaign, some previously upstanding members of the blogosphere still sank into the swamp of sexism, and that when seemingly decent, progressive people can still do that, there remains a long way to go before gender equality is achieved.
Image by Flickr user sskennel (Creative Commons)
Barack Obama & the tragedy of the Muslim ‘smear’
June 19, 2008 at 6:11 pm | Posted in Barack Obama, U.S. Politics | 6 CommentsTags: Barack Obama, Islam, Politics
The art of speechmaking has a deeply symbolic role in American poltics. For each era you’ll find a speech that either speaks to the national mood or offers a portent of things to come: Roosevelt’s ‘fear istelf‘, Johnson’s ‘great society‘, King’s ‘dream’ or Kennedy’s call to public service. In the eloquent visions they offer, the idealism they inspire and the unity & resolve they provoke, the great political speeches are wedded to American history almost as much as events themselves, and serve as a point of reference for those who choose the path of public service.
Because of this, the podium from which these political speeches are made has taken on a symbolism of its own. In this image-obsessed media age, great care is taken to ensure the slogans are bold and visionary, that the stage is showered with symbols of patriotism and that the audience reflects the rich diversity of the country. Though it is a cynical and manufactured process, nothing reflects the breadth and depth of the coalition Barack Obama’s campaign has built than the crowds who attend his speeches: young and old, black, white and hispanic all sat side-by-side to insist on a change in the way the country is governed.
But there is one face, quite depressingly, that’s seldom seen at the rallies, in the campaign literature or on the television commercials to support his candidacy. On Wednesday the Politico reported that two Muslim women dressed in hijabs had been barred from sitting behind the podium at an Obama rally in Detroit, Michigan.
“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to,” said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. “The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters.”
Now, I should point out that the Obama campaign has apologised personally to the women involved; they insist the actions were taken independently by over-zealous staffers and are anaethema to the type of campaign the Illinois Senator wants to run. I happen to believe them, but that doesn’t make the news any less distressing.
For one, it’s just a missed opportunity. In the city with the largest Arab population in the US, there was an opportunity for two Muslim women in traditional dress to share a stage with a Democrat who is committed to women’s rights, gay rights, religious freedom and equality of opportunity. The symbolism would’ve been huge – sending a statement to folks at home that Muslim American are Americans too, and showing the rest of the world that for all its faults, there are few places as diverse, inclusive and, yes, tolerant, as the United States of America.
Secondly, this incident puts a human face on an unease with the Obama campaign that’s lingered for some time: namely, the aggressiveness it exerts in refuting the ‘smear’ that the Senator is a Muslim. Now, running for President is difficult enough when you’re a white, middle-aged war hero, let alone a black man whose middle name is Hussein, and it’s only right that his campaign pushes back against rumours being peddled by racists. But, as Naomi Klein argues, “what is disturbing about the campaign’s response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire “Muslim smear”: that being Muslim is de facto a source of shame.”
As difficult as it may be, Obama needs to find a way to address this tension or else risk alienating a religious and ethnic group that has been demonised for far too long. He needs to state plainly that whilst he is a devout Christian, there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, and that those spreading these lies do so not simply to demonise him, but every other American who practices Islam. Ezra Klein has a sensible suggestion:
The bigger move would be to invite them to the sit-down, and then make a speech forthrightly addressing not only the rumors, but the ugly undertone of the rumors, which implies that the religion of millions of Americans and over a billion people worldwide somehow renders them dangerously “other.”
Sure, it would be safer politically just to keep batting the rumours away with the same aggressiveness shown so far, but – as we’ve seen with the Reverend Wright scandal and on many other occasions – Obama is at his best when taking those risks inherent in doing the right thing.
If nothing else, it might stop a few of his anxious staffers from freaking out at the sight of a Muslim woman who merely wants to watch him take to the podium and speak of the next great moment in American history.
Photo #1 taken by Flickr user (ahem!) Barack Obama (Creative Commons)
Photo #2 taken by Flickr user jetheriot (Creative Commons)
CAPS LOCK for Clinton!
June 10, 2008 at 10:08 am | Posted in Misc., U.S. Politics | 4 CommentsTags: Barack Obama, Crappest Website Ever, Hillary Clinton, Humour, John McCain
Now that the concession speeches have been made, the campaign obituaries have been printed, the lawn signs have been removed and her staff has started shopping around for new jobs, where to now for those hurt, angry and betrayed Clintonistas who yelped and wailed for Hillary to the bitter end and can’t bring themselves to side with the big-eared Islamist who performs terrorist fist-jabs in public?
Via Wonkette, such is the devotion of her supporters, they have conspired to build the Crappest Website Ever – an online abortion of clashing colours, cheap flashing gifs, spelling mistakes and a tourettes-like tendency to press Caps Lock. It’s on this online sanctuary – looking something like an amateur’s Warcraft Appreciation Page from 1998 – that Hillary supporters can gather for emotional support and to organise to defeat the brown-skinned bully who stole votes that were rightfully hers:
Take that, you filthy Muslims! Our use of flashing lettering, Obama ‘jokes’ and migrane-inducing colours will beat your cunning conspiracy back to the deserts of Arabialand! [note: you may have to avoid the online poll section which shows a majority of respondents would actually vote for Obama over McCain - there's clearly been some kind of tampering].
The site was apparently started by a sole malcontent to rail against The Bosses who nominated Obama, but has now built into a well-oiled, 35,000 strong machine, as shown by some of the glowing testimonials from Real Life White Americans:
The ‘truth’ about Obama:
Thank you for making this web-sight. It is very well done, you must be some kind of computer genius. I would like to do one too but I just learned about the upper/lower case key.
Can you verify the following which I heard in the last day or two:
1. Obama is now wearing a Palestine Liberation flag on his lapel?
2. Obama gave a speech to a group called “AIPAC” last week, which I was told was the Al Queda Political Action Committee. He vowed to let Iran build a nuclear bomb and suggested that the Israelis could move to Florida?
3. What is this with he and his wife doing some kind of terrorist message – on stage here in America.
4. Please don’t let Obama go to Iraq I am afraid he will radio the enemy our positions or something.Thank you for keeping people like me who try to stay up to day in the know.
Thelma in Dover.
A global conspiracy and an oedipus complex:
Is it a coincidence that the “world domination” Bilderberg meeting occurred the SAME WEEK Hillary left the race. Obviously the male dominated leaders of Europe – our new masters – have sent the orders out.
I also think they have done everything they can to make that menace Bill Clinton do things to harm his wonderful, loving wife.
Let us all be glad for what Hillary did for us. Like kittens who eternally look to their human masters as their mother, we can always look to Hillary as our mother AND MASTER!
NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!
And a Muslim plot to destroy the United States that can only be foiled by THE INDISCRIMINATE USE OF CAPS LOCK:
Thank you for providing this valuable site, a site which will help to do justice to Hillary, her own party campaigned against her. This sexist, corrupted, dishonest, unjust party STOLE HILLARY’S nomination and gave it to an inexperienced, questionable, inexperienced HUSSEIN OBAMA and his terrorist friends.
If they wanted to go by the rules they should have respected the first rule ‘THE PEOPLES SACRED VOTE’, respect the will of the people. HILLARY IS THE PEOPLES CHOICE, THE PEOPLES WILL!
Obama may be the nominee by FRAUD but he will never reach the White House neither will give a chance for muslim nations and antiamerians to celebrate. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
On this evidence, it seems that all professional web developers must support Obama. Prepare yourselves, people; when McCain wins the White House, all web sites will one day look like this.
Obama & Israel
June 9, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Posted in Barack Obama, U.S. Politics | Leave a commentTags: AIPAC, Barack Obama, Israel
Via Hertzberg, a truly enlightening explanation of the tension, condescension and mistrust some Israelis have towards Barack Obama’s bid for the Presidency:
The reasons are many. Israelis instinctively fear charismatic leaders whipping up distant audiences. Or is it that Obama is tapping a pure strain of optimism that, as he told some young people after his speech, should make cynicism seem negotiable? When the Israeli press repeats, again and again, how “inexperienced” Obama is, this is code for their fears, the saddest of which is the fear of hoping for peace again.
In the back of their minds they fear that two generations of special pleading—about how Israel’s occupation should be rationalized as the Jews’ special need to (how does Prof. Yehezkel Dror put it?) “subordinate morality to survival”—may not quite work on Obama, much the way it did not work on Kissinger. Obama has heard Jabotinsky-like apologetics for victim exceptionalism from the Sharptons—indeed, from the Wrights—for two generations. It takes one to know one. The most frightening question is this: if democracy makes a black man a mainstream American, can it also make an Arab a mainstream Israeli?
So there is a peculiarly Israeli condescension for Obama just now, which I predict will dissipate as he grows in stature, and the world he is sketching feels more imminent. It is the same condescension most have, since Oslo, for people who trusted Arabs, or still trust politicians, or stop for pedestrians, or think voters are not just selfish. It is the condescension people in the peace movement endure day in, day out. The thing is, Obama is not a graying professor at a Van Leer Institute seminar. He is quite possibly the next president of the United States.
Mr Avishai also goes on to assess how his speech to AIPAC was received and how it might go some way to reassuring his sceptics. For that, you should go read the whole thing.
Image by Flickr user threecee (Creative Commons)
Clinton to concede tonight?
June 3, 2008 at 3:11 pm | Posted in U.S. Politics | Leave a commentTags: Associated Press, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics
Insert caption here
That’s what the AP is reporting.
WASHINGTON – Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation’s first female president.
The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City. She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.
Most campaign staff will be let go and will be paid through June 15, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge her plans.
In case you’re wondering, yes, this entire post is just an excuse for me to link to this picture. I have no shame.
Update: Will she effectively concede today? The answers are Yes, No and it doesn’t really matter:
Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.
The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.
The end is blissfully near
Shameless self-promotion
Greatest Hits- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Link Blog
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
