|
|
 Posted May 9th, 2011 at 12:05AM
So I caught the live news coverage as it unfolded a week ago Sunday night, as we learned that Osama bin Laden was shot by a team of Navy SEALS. I guess people with better internet connections learned it beforehand, but I got screwed by work and was busy all day, so I watched and speculated along with the rest of the 20th century hosers as NBC first played their “breaking news” intro (which doesn’t mean much, as I’m jaded by them cutting into regularly scheduled broadcasts regularly), then Brian Williams said it had to do with OBL (ears perked up), then the kill was confirmed, then Barack Obama finally finished his speech and delivered it after suitable build-up.
I thought the flash mobs immediately following appropriate, but the cheering, flag waving, and “U.S.A.” chanting eerily reminiscent of effigy-burning “anti-US” demonstrations in the Middle East. I subscribe to the line of thought behind the Dalai Lama’s response.
With hindsight 20/20, Obama’s direction and handling of the situation was superb. As the talking heads have already talked to death, the predator drone attack would have been the easier, less risky path to take — but less rewarding, as we now know a “small college library” amount of intelligence was collected from OBL’s compound.
I saw talking heads compliment “both past presidents” on Meet the Press this morning, for changes to the intelligence community that allowed this success to take place. Concurrently, I’ve been catching up on a past (pre-OBL demise) Time article which followed FBI Director Robert Mueller. It’s occurred to me that George W. Bush likely did not have much to do with the changing intelligence landscape (other than following other’s recommendations regarding the appointments of new people); while Obama had an obvious, tangible role in getting OBL. But that’s just the partisan in me talking.
There’s not much substance to this post, other than that I’ve kept this blog alive for this long and I would feel remiss to pass this story by without giving my two cents.
I’ll have additional cents to come, if not on this topic, on others.
Posted February 21st, 2008 at 3:54PM
“Nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.”
– Barack Obama in Iowa, March 11th, 2007
Last week, when Barack Obama became the first major candidate to break the silence on the situation in Gaza, he didn’t criticize Israel, whose blockade of a civilian population has been roundly condemned by human rights organizations, nor did he call for restraint from the United States’ top ally in the Mideast. Instead, he fired off a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with a resounding message—one that could have been mistaken for words straight from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) website. “The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel.… If it cannot…I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all,” Obama wrote, adding he understood why Israel was “forced” to shut down Gaza’s border crossings.
– Obama’s Israel Shuffle by Justin Elliot, Feburary 1st, 2008
If Obama does become the next president of the United States, we need to start demanding the “change” that his entire campaign has run on. Unilateral support of Israel will get votes, but it is not change in any shape or form.
Posted January 30th, 2008 at 1:37PM
Came online to make this post, noticed that Edwards finally dropped out. Along with Kucinich about a week ago, the field is only getting narrower. New York has closed primaries, and since I’m registered Green, I can’t vote this primary season. But I feel like it’s important to take a stake in the campaign, and at this point I’d much rather see Obama win the nomination than Clinton.
I’ve come to this conclusion after contrasting both his words and actions to Hillary’s. Although I’ve complained before about both of them lacking authenticity, I think Obama’s facade is more a result of running for president than an artificial, lifelong political persona. Hillary Clinton has always come across as triangulating and self-serving, from her run for the Senate in NY and every move since.
Authenticity or charisma aside, Clinton is also just as hawkish as many of the neo-cons currently in the White House. Her cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq cannot be understated, especially in the face of Obama’s early opposition. Despite political snipes charging otherwise, Obama did indeed oppose the Iraq War early on and for all the right reasons. Being anti-war has never been politically expedient for a politician here. Many have ridden the tired “this war was done wrong,” but few say that it was wrong, and fewer still correctly explain why it was wrong. We invaded and subsequently occupied a nation, killing hundreds of thousands. Clinton only beats around the bush about misinformation, refusing to acknowledge this mistake. And lest we forget, it was during her husband’s tenure that more than one million Iraqis died as a direct result of the sanctions against that country.
Obama has since said dumb things about Iraq, Iran, and various other topics. He’s said what has been politically expedient, and he’s a frontrunner in the 2008 presidential race for it. Pandering to voters is hardly a huge crime, especially when differences actually do exist between the panderers. This is the lesson of 2000, where we had Gore and Bush who, on the face of it, looked to be two sides of the same coin. We now know otherwise.
It’s not all about foreign policy. Obama’s healthcare plan is probably as close as we will get to nationalized healthcare. In the press releases, it even sounds good. Time will tell whether or not he’s able to push it through, and whether or not such a half-hearted attempt at insuring everyone succeeds.
His economic policy is the traditional “closing loopholes” and “repealing tax breaks for the richest.” He says nothing revolutionary here, it’s the same conservatism we’ve seen from Democrats for decades. But in the face of schemes like Huckabee’s Fair Tax, it’s a welcomed relief. Obama’s conservation policies echo many others: reducing foreign oil consumption, investments in renewable energy, and a cap and trade system for dealing with carbon emissions. All sound plans, if any can be accomplished.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton might sound similar on any number of issues. But Clinton comes across as more of a faceless, political automaton than Obama. She’s polarizing and just as triangulating as Bill. Looking at prospective cabinet appointments, Obama’s team makes a better case for a progressive, brighter future in America.
We already had a Clinton in the White House. It was OK. I’m hoping for better this time around. A few shed tears can’t save her now.
Barack Obama for President, ’08.
As a sign of the times, Wikipedia becomes the best place to learn about candidates.
Political positions of Barack Obama entry
Barack Obama entry
Posted December 25th, 2007 at 2:13AM
In 2004, along with a whole host of other Democratic contenders for the White House, Dennis Kucinich ran on a very levelheaded progressive platform. He’s running again for the Democratic nomination in 2008. He’s received very little attention (then and now) with the exception of being the butt of late-night comedy. (And, actually, with the writer’s strike forcing re-runs, even this attention has dried up.)
Why does Kucinich or any “fringe candidate” run? Mostly, to broaden the scope of debate and to get the main candidates to touch upon issues they’d disregard otherwise.
Unlike 3rd party candidates, however, Kucinich believes the best way to do this is to work within the framework we currently have. And that framework is of a dysfunctional democracy that essentially limits our decision to two parties. Politics is a linear, bipolar scale in America. Third party candidates hope to change this; fringe candidates of the two main parties realize the complete impotence of alternative parties – at least for the time being.
The interesting thing this presidential election cycle is that there aren’t clear frontrunners. Pundits will keeping hyping one candidate after another in succession, but it’s still up in the air as to who’ll win the nomination of either party. The beauty of this is that the aspirations of 3rd party and fringe candidates are being realized. Barack Obama’s race is being discussed; likewise with Mitt Romney’s religion. The large field of candidates has provoked discussion far greater than any Tim Russert-mediated debate.
Of course there are problems. Obama’s “race” falls prey to the usual pitfalls: whether he’s black enough, if black is electable, if his blackness ought to be played up (or down). All of this framed to suggest “race” as static classification, similar to the dewey decimal system.
“Black” – defined as having any ancestor, no matter how distantly related, being from Africa, unless: the individual in question is educated and articulate, in which case they’re “acting white,” and therefor Uncle Toms.
Hillary Clinton’s sex is less murky territory (sex is rather black and white… pardon the pun), but still improperly framed in the popular media. One would hope that Clinton’s strong campaign be indicative of the success of the women’s movement and feminism in general. Instead, we’re bombarded with the apparent paradox that Oprah and black women find themselves in. (OK, the black men vote for Obama, white women for Clinton, but black women are in such a bind determining who to vote for based on simplistic “who looks more like me” terms?)
Combine this with the fact that Hillary is still married to “our first black president,” and we find race and sex (hurhur, do we call Bill the “first lady”?) being discussed for all the wrong reasons. Ditto with religion and that Mormon (pedophiliac polygamists, right?) from Massachusetts.
And don’t even bring up the fact that I’m writing this post on Christmas of 2007, nearly a year before the general election. The earlier primaries means an earlier start to campaigning and a longer general campaign between the two eventual nominees. This means extra media coverage of largely unsatisfying politicians, more dirty politics, and increased campaign contributions to cover it all – leading to an increasingly fractured democratic process and further disenfranchisement.
So yes, Sarah, the word of the day is paradoxical.
|
Tags: 
