Clinton to endorse Obama on Friday Saturday
Well, I did say earlier he would be nominee. I’m pretty confident he’ll be president too, providing some big Rev Wright like calamity doesn’t crop up. We’ll see. The Democrats are in good shape I think.
“Senator Clinton will be hosting an event in Washington, D.C., on Friday to thank her supporters and express support for Senator Obama and party unity,” said Howard Wolfson, one of her chief strategists.
Earlier Wednesday, a group of top Democratic leaders asked all of the party’s uncommitted superdelegates, the officials and party leaders who get automatic convention seats, to make their preferences known by Friday.
Respeck – Hillary did the right thing and didn’t follow through with the stereotype that had been painted of her. Now Democrats, its time to start arming the guns. The real battle is about to begin.
Two other points. The media coverage has been somewhat annoying. Yes, we know he’s a black man, thanks BBC. It’s a big deal, sure, but that is not why he won the campaign. He won through superior campaigning.
Secondly, he is not black, Barack Obama is mixed race. He is as white as he is black. I hate it when journalists complete eradicate the whiteness of mixed race people, as if it doesn’t matter.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, United States
Excellent!
The event has now been moved to Saturday.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/clintons_endorsement_event_now.php
“Secondly, he is not black, Barack Obama is mixed race. He is as white as he is black. I hate it when journalists complete eradicate the whiteness of mixed race people, as if it doesn’t matter.”
Sunny, they are abiding to the one drop rule.
Good article Sunny and as Desi Italiana has pointed out those claiming he is black are using the one drop rule in reverse.
It was interesting to see that Operation Black Vote issued an immediate press release claiming it as some kind of victory for black people, but then they would, wouldn’t they?
Will Clinton now try and go for the VP?
Before people with brown skin start getting excited – just because another person with brown skin has won a contest to become the Democrat Presidential candidate – (funny, I thought skin colour was irrelevant in this day an age) I’d like somebody to tell me what exactly is the difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Or, for that matter, Barack Obama and John McCain.
You see, I genuinely thought Obama would be a breath of fresh air for American politics (and for the world), but after yesterday’s obsequious and, in my opinion, humiliating address to the bellicose Zionist policy-making group AIPAC, Obama has proved himself to be just another puppet.
What will Obama bring to the world that no other American president can? I really cannot see any difference. He will still go ahead with an attack or invasion of Iran if that what the policy makers demand. Anybody?
The fact that he has brown skin is a very small part of why other people with brown skin are excited.
Firstly the fact that he is smart and progressive and has an international background matters. It is the biggest reason people are so enthusiastic about him. If Gov. Bobby Jindal had won the Republican nomination (don’t discount him becoming vp nominee), I doubt contributors to this site would be that excited.
As for Iran, the Aipac speech wasn’t the best. Bob Wright on Bloggingheads has said that his best bet is probably to write off people who vote with Aipac. There are signs that he is doing this by emphasising how Bush/McCain’s policies have harmed israel and empowered Iran.
While I think that Obama’s ability to reshape the economy is limited and dependent on Congress, its unfathomable that he proves to be another puppet and invades Iran. He’s already said that he’s willing to talk to Iran and Cuba.
Secondly, given America’s history the prospect of a black man becoming president is historic. If anything, it would damage the narrative which some people on the left propagate about racism still being pervasive in American society. As John Mcwhorter has said, just having him and Michelle and their two kids in the white house will be a positive role model for many black kids.
South Yorkshire,
You raise a good point and this is one that I have been asking here and on CiF. What is the “Audacity of Hope” exactly?
Even if he is elected, and that is a very big if, he will start from day one with all of the institutions of the American state still in place.
What he has done is to raise the expectations of a number of sectors of the population, to young white liberals,blacks, the poor, who are going to be very disappointed when he cannot deliver on the hope bit.
He is particularly going to disappoint blacks who see him as a “black” President and their man. I would give him about a year at most for the honeymoon if that.
This shows that despite america’s problems, she often leads the way in social progress.
There are many countries where minorities are treated far worse than they are in america.
Shariq:
“If anything, it would damage the narrative which some people on the left propagate about racism still being pervasive in American society.”
Er… it DOES pervade American society, there’s no need to ‘propagate’ this ‘narrative’. The most targeted folks right now are Mexicans and people of Latin American descent– look at the militias lining up and policing the American Mexican border, and the cropping up of nativist organizations in the northeast. And what happened post 9/11, I don’t need to regurgitate for you here.
The point about people like Jindal and Obama being popular does NOT somehow prove that no racism exists. What it does prove is that if someone has relatively innocuous and mainstream politics, they can be politically accepted. No biggie there.
As for Iran, the Aipac speech wasn’t the best. Bob Wright on Bloggingheads has said that his best bet is probably to write off people who vote with Aipac. There are signs that he is doing this by emphasising how Bush/McCain’s policies have harmed israel and empowered Iran.
I thought it was a great speech, another one of his thunderbolts. The man is a genius. If he is to go out and say that he will talk to Hamas then, well, of course he will have to say that he supports Israel. How can you not? Unless you’re a sectarian klutz like Bush II.
Hamas have already unendorsed him for this speech. How narrow and short sighted of the losers to do so.
South Yorkshire:
“You see, I genuinely thought Obama would be a breath of fresh air for American politics (and for the world), but after yesterday’s obsequious and, in my opinion, humiliating address to the bellicose Zionist policy-making group AIPAC, Obama has proved himself to be just another puppet.
What will Obama bring to the world that no other American president can? I really cannot see any difference.”
I hear you. Loud and clear.
Since we are talking about his AIPAC speech, here it is as prepared:
http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SpeechesByPolicymakers/Obama_-_As_Prepared_for_Delivery.pdf
“He is as white as he is black. I hate it when journalists complete eradicate the whiteness of mixed race people, as if it doesn’t matter.”
good point and good atttitude, but its not just “journalists” – that is the entire history of the one drop rule that clearly still has a hold on how society in the US ( and elsewhere obviously, they just made it explicit)views mixed race.
I’m mixed race and it doesn’t bother me that much when they do that.
Truth is until MR people are better known about in society the way we’re talked about will always be uninformed (unless the talker is MR for the most part).
There’s no point getting annoyed about it, far better to do some conscience raising about us (preferably led by us as you know we’re the ones with the most experience of being MR!)…
Another point to make is Obama himself identifies himself as being Black so why shouldn’t the journo’s do likewise? Desi correctly points out part of what’s going down here…
What is all this shit about the colour of his skin? I am white (ish) and I can see the patently obvious appeal of the man. Knocking the ‘Audacity of Hope’ is to deny the idea that there ought to be a better way to govern compared to the current – frankly mental – administration. Hopefully (hah!) the US won’t destroy itself in the process of electing someone from a new generation – which I think is the more significant point – to the presidency. Else it would have become a two family state, rather than a two party state. At least that idea is down the toilet of history, where it properly resides.
So far, so good.
Obama = Blair
Obama will turn out just the same. The New Democrats will be just like New Labour.
‘Audacity of Hope’
that should set the alarm bells ringing in everyones head.
My goal for 2008 – I must dig my bunker another foot deeper.
justforfun
I have linked something above on why Clinton should not be VP.
justforfun,
Frankly, neither I nor you know how it will work out. But your moniker should be cynicism for fun, for sure.
I’d imagine getting a huge majority in both the Senate and the House, would be pretty well, hell, key.
Without it, no President has the ability to influence much, other than foreign policy. Which they do through ‘Shock and Awe’. That is the emasculation that the US places on it’s Presidents, at the expense of the rest of the world.
Maybe…
Frankly, neither I nor you know how it will work out. – quite true. Ignorance is bliss… and then after a few years – once we know the what is now unknown (in the Rumsfeld sort of way), we can always blame those who still cling to ‘the dream ‘and keep voting in these type of pyschopaths.
At least in the American system as far as I can see, the party system is so week that individuals have to pass muster ever 4 years on their own ability. In this country, the Party machinery and job saving MPs keep the pyschopaths and incompents safe for at least 8 years – if not longer , especially if we have a second PM in waiting. John Major ( with Neil Kinnocks help) prolonged the Tory incompetance when they really should have been put down in 92. Now GB is prolonging New Labour when it really it is a kindness to put it down.
justforfun
justforfun,
Maybee aye, Maybee naw. I am frankly less cynical than you. I have this ridiculous trust in the electorate.
What does that mean?
Obama might actually make it possible to be have *gasp* pro-American spirit again. We haven’t served that spirit here since 1969.
Rather a good speech to AIPAC I thought.
Sorry, to bellicose Zionist policy-making group AIPAC I meant to say.
How extraordinary that “Zionist” has become an all-purpose (and thus meaningless) term of abuse.
Especially in the context of AIPAC.
AIPAC? Zionist? Well I never…
And was it “humiliating”?
And you know, there’s just a chance he meant what he said.
I see nothing humiliating about that.
Doug – in america the electorate have their own problems in trying to get past the ‘delagates’ ’superdelates’ ‘electoral college’ etc in getting their vote to actually count.
We here, the electorate, in the UK we have to deal with the party machines, First past the post, party lists etc etc who do everything in their power to maintain their grip on the ‘expense’ account at the expense of our wishes.
I too trust the electorate and would make voting compulsory, increase the education budget to £20k pa per child, teach every one properly rather than the half arsed education we get to give our children and cut back on everything else to pay for it. An educated population is less able to be manipulated and is self sufficient.
justforfun
Sorry for the rant – just got back from a finance meeting at our local primary school arghhhh !! F**king ‘Guardian reading’ LEA wallahs just waste the taxpayers money everytime as the they play at management. They let PFI companies just walk all over them and us – but of course they are all right they can’t be fired for incompetance. No back bone – to challenge these companies even when there are clear breaches of contract. Their motto is to do nothing that rocks the boat or endangers their jobs.
Perhaps. I happen to agree that Gordon Brown is yet another politician who thinks that statism, writ large, is an answer, and someone who is daft enough to push illiberal ideas like 42 day detention.
The point is that the option, Cameron, is just another flavour of illiberal pish. Do you really think he’ll take his hands off the levers of state?
I am in the perhaps fortunate position that I can vote SNP, in other words an end to the Westminster conspiracy. The obvious danger is that I replace the idiots at Westminster with idiots at Holyrood. That, frankly, is a chance I’m willing to take….
Hotel California by The Eagles?
Amen to that justforfun. A – fucking – men. So why does that incredibly sensible policy have zero support in terms of political parties? Because it might mean their personal downfall? Or what? Just asking.
Yes Leon, cheesy 70s riffs are playing in my head. You see when I was young it seemed that life was so wonderful, a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
Noooooo! make it stop!
“Obama might actually make it possible to be have *gasp* pro-American spirit again. We haven’t served that spirit here since 1969.”
Are you a hippie?
Firstly, I don’t see the big deal about the AIPAC speech. What exactly was the problem with it?
Secondly, its a rather poor indicator of future policy, given that even the most right-wing prez in recent history (Bush) made it official policy to support a two-state solution in a way even Clinton wouldn’t go as far as saying.
Thirdly, he had to say something Hamas would repudiate. The idots endorsed him for chrissakes! That’s as close as you can get to a political poisoned chalice.
Even Fidel Castro was intlligent enough to cuss Obama and accepted on the Guardian pages that endorsing Obama wouldn’t be good for the Senator.
Leon,
We now have Sids’ politics bang to rights.
Here’s a line or two:
Now that is perhaps a reasonable definition of any long term Pickled Politics conspirator…
“Obama = Blair
Obama will turn out just the same. The New Democrats will be just like New Labour.”
Lol, actually its more like Blair = Clinton which does not equal Obama. Blair like Clinton moved the Labor Party more to the center-left in order to bring it out of unelectable oblivion. I am no Obama fan, but its pretty tough to say he will move the Democractic party to the right.
Sunny @ 33,
Bloody hell. They let Castro comment and I’m banned. Obviously he held his tongue on Madeleine Bunting..
Now that would have been fun.
steady douglas, steady.
lol!
Especially in the context of AIPAC.
AIPAC? Zionist? Well I never…
Is Zionist a term of abuse now cjcjc?
Well now thats over with….we can get a clearer picture of the race:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107677/Gallup-Daily-Voters-Evenly-Split-Between-Obama-McCain.aspx
Looks to be a close one again…
Yep me too although it isn’t hard to get around…
I may have just turned the corner to be an Obama supporter over McCain. The argument against Obama is that he might be a liberal democrat, big government type. However, McCain may just be another version of big government with his potential to steer the U.S. into yet another military adventure in addition to Iraq. More military would be the worse type of “big government” possible.
Then again, electing McCain may be the only way to get a Bangladeshi in the White House, since his adopted daughter is from Bangladesh.
Also, if Obama gets elected I think its highly likely that he will move to the center. I think its physically impossible to govern the world’s largest economy as a leftie.
“What will Obama bring to the world that no other American president can? I really cannot see any difference. He will still go ahead with an attack or invasion of Iran if that what the policy makers demand. Anybody?”
Are you fucking serious!? Do you think Gore or Kerry would have orchestrated a preemptive attack against Iraq? Created special camps to incarcerate people without a court of law? Allowed torture? There is no way Iran will attack Israel, and no way the US will invade Iran under Obama. You would need to be as psychotic as Bush, or a spineless sellout politician like McCain to even contemplate such as move!
This political cynicism of “all candidates are the same” is very very wrong.
(An edit feature for comments? Hurrah for Sunny!)
“Looks to be a close one again…”
McCain should be worried about this: Obama has been hammered on daily basis by two powerful fronts: McCain and Clinton, and this is the best he could do: a tie. I expect Obama’s numbers to go up very soon.
Ravi,
I’d have thought that the first televised confrontation between Obama and McCain will see a swing towards the younger candidate. Just my opinion, but it reminds me of Nixon -v- Kennedy.
“McCain should be worried about this: Obama has been hammered on daily basis by two powerful fronts: McCain and Clinton, and this is the best he could do: a tie. I expect Obama’s numbers to go up very soon.”
The numbers have been close for awhile even before McCain was specifically targeting Obama or the Democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106138/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-Clinton-44.aspx
I think he won through not being Hillary Clinton.
“I think he won through not being Hillary Clinton.”
You mean he is not dishonest, conniving, politcal hack?
Obama Feinstein is willing to sell his sould to become President. The man sold out the Palestinains to court the Jewish vote and has absolutely no morals.
He called for Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital and every moron thinks he is a change. The man sold his soul within hours of becoming the nominee.
It isn’t Barak Feinsteins right to tell the Palestinians they have no right in Jerusalem so Barak the man whore can get into the white house.
He is basically willing to becomes any lobbies bitch and whore himself to become President.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7437060.stm
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said “(Senator Obama) has closed all doors to peace.”
So tell me how is he different to Clinton and Bush?
He is another Blair.
“I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel”
Barack Obama
So the country which is fighting with the US in Iraq doesn’t matter and get a mention but the one who can buy US Presidents at will does get mentioned and told that it can keep illegal land.
Yep a real change as another whore approved by Aipac drops his pants and presents his backside on que only difference is this time the arse is black instead of white.
Your boy who is a change passed the Aipac test which means he sold out and we ain’t even campaignign yet. But hell you see nothign wrong cause you don’t give a diddly about Palestinians rights to live in peace either.
Also, if Obama gets elected I think its highly likely that he will move to the center. I think its physically impossible to govern the world’s largest economy as a leftie.
= move further to the Right.
or
I am no Obama fan, but its pretty tough to say he will move the Democractic party to the right.
= stay the same course but still on the Right.
The centre in American politics is to the Right, maybe alot to the Right, of all other Western countries.
There is no party of the Left in America. Why do people like to pretend that the Democrats are some sort of Left wing party. They are not. Once this is understood, then why do people suspend belief and assume Barak Obama is some sort of Left wing politian. In America maybe , but over here he would be competing with David Cameron for his job.
Or has politics altered so much in the last 20 years and I’ve been in my bunker too long.
Justforfun
“The centre in American politics is to the Right, maybe alot to the Right, of all other Western countries”.
Dude, I’ve been saying that for the past 2 years on PP, and most people have dismissed this
16. leon makes good points
I fear you are all right about Obama. Its almost worse when a smiling “liberal” presides over this thing. I’m hopeful that some sort of surge of emotional reaction to his presidency will reach him and make a difference. Its good to hope.
Doug The point is that the option, Cameron, is just another flavour of illiberal pish. Do you really think he’ll take his hands off the levers of state?
No – he is a man of little imagination. I form this opinion from the company he keeps. If he is not able to find collegues outside his Eton social clique then he does not have the imagintion or real interest in finding out how others live or challenging his own ideas on life. In short – He will keep the status quo because he likes to live in his intellectual comfort zone. He has not taken the last few years to create any actual hinterland of support to back him up in any of the real changes that this country needs to make. It has all relied on the politics of waiting for Labour to screw up. Not an ineffective way of gaining power as it was bound to happen eventually. But not much good if one actually wants to do something constructive when one gets into power.
So as not to de-rail this thread further – Doug – we can chat about the SNP latter – I ask as I want to keep abreast of gossip from my childrens’ homeland.
justforfun
yes it is good to hope!
jff – “In America maybe , but over here he would be competing with David Cameron for his job.” heh heh good one. I am assuming though/hoping that Cameron has the sense to realise that if he were to start talking about “health policy and public healthcare” when he actually meant ” more affordable private insurance” – that more of us would ctually realise there is a problem with that.
iran has already attacked israel, in the summer of 2006 and on an ongoing basis. they are funding, training and arming both hamas and hizbollah and hiding behind the cloak of “plausible deniability”, which tactic credulous nincompoops seem too incredibly dense to notice. iran’s proxy strategy is also under way in both iraq and the gulf states. and if saddam’s iraq and assad’s syria haven’t attacked israel all-out, it is solely because israel made them abundantly aware of the consequences both at osirak in the early 80s and just a few months ago in the syrian desert, otherwise we’d be looking at a syrian nuke in the hands of army hardliners in short order. what the israelis will not permit is the development of iranian nuclear capability – it’s not for domestic power production when they’re sitting on a lake of oil that is one of the largest in the world.
b’shalom
bananabrain
“There is no party of the Left in America. Why do people like to pretend that the Democrats are some sort of Left wing party. They are not. Once this is understood, then why do people suspend belief and assume Barak Obama is some sort of Left wing politian. In America maybe , but over here he would be competing with David Cameron for his job.”
Hmm, so I guess Obama and the Democrats must be a set of raving anti-migrant xenophobes like the UK conservatives?
Well, guess not. In fact most Democrats a for allowing “a path to citizenship” for undocumented workers and/or granting them visas.
Heck even McCain and Bush for such an amnesty. Does that make them to the left of even the Labor Party?
Is that what you think defines the difference between Left and Right wing? Is immigration a Left Right Issue in the first place? I know plenty of right wing people who are very pro – immigration – as its a good form of cheap labour to replace the indigenous labour force who are too expensive etc etc. Nothing like new slaves to replace the old ones to keep the profits coming in.
If its single issues fo you then – how about capital punishment. Is Obama against the death penalty? Please provide the link where he states he is against it.
Can one be Left wing and Pro – Capital punishment?
Its a genuine question. I’d be interested to hear peoples views on it.
justforfun
Obama will win by a landslide. I don’t really even like Obama but that’s what will likely happen once Americans see him in the debates standing next to McCain, a short, old, warmongering, albeit heroic white guy.
BB – “it’s not for domestic power production when they’re sitting on a lake of oil that is one of the largest in the world.”
That is nonsense. Oil is their main export so why would they want to use that internally when they are desperate for export money. Hence they are seekign alternative supplies internally so they can export extrenally they core natural resource.
What they are developing is for domestic production. It is what they are learning from this that can be used to develop a bomb. It is nonsense to say what they are devloping is a bomb as they are not refining that type of fuel – yet.
This is where Pro-Israeli’s are just plain wrong and allowing Iran to then counter the argument. This has been highlighted by numerous Israeli Defence Officials. It is the knowledge of what to do and the ease with which they can do it which will become the problem and from this knowledge they can develop a bomb.
So they are not developing a bomb but what they are doing is learning how to. As we have seen on the Indian Subcontinent it is easy to then transfer this knowledge.
Thus if you bomb it merely delays as at that point the knowledge is acquired.
I’d say they are probably past the point now and in fact are nuclear capable in knowledge but haven’t refined the fuel.
Anything done now is too late and it is nonsense to suggest they don’t know how to do this now. Now the situation needs to be managed and not escalated.
From the Israeli Perspective they need to make peace with the Sunni World which will create a bridge between Israel and Iran.
Thus Obama wanting to talk to Iran is by far the most sensible move as that allows some degree of management to take place.
Iran will conduct low level wars with Israel by proxy but won’t do any more, it isn’t in their interest as the low level allows their influence to spread.
I suspect Israel already knows Iran is capable and thus is ratching up pressure but won’t do much, you may seea symbolic bombing to slow this down but the world needs to accept that Iran is now nuclear capable.
There is (or was) a strong global interest in seeing Obama elected.
As I said before, his commitment to AIPAC is truly disastrous. An undivided Jerusalem as capital of Israel does exactly what Saeb Erakat has now said:
It closes all avenues of peace.
The only way round this has got to be a shared undivided capital (and perhaps even country).
Now that is Audacity of hope!
that’s an interesting perspective, actually, avi. in fact, i might even agree with you that a bombing would be futile. it is not beyond the iranians to hide their reactors, they’ve had a lot of time to think about it. actually, the best option is for the regime of the mullahs to end; then, you would probably see iran emerging as an ally of israel in a geopolitical context, if only because of the historic enmity between arabs and persians. macho posturing, however, has its place in this particular diplomatic standoff. it’s all about making the iranians think the israelis are serious about backing up their tough talk, which worked extremely well on saddam during the first gulf war, which is why his scuds targeted at israel were only armed with conventional warheads; he had been warned in no uncertain terms that an unconventional attack would be met in kind. this is why the iranians have adopted their low-intensity proxy strategy across the shi’a crescent. if i were running the US, i’d engage with the iranians and bring down their regime through capitalism – it worked extremely well on the soviets and is in the process of doing the same with the chinese. an invasion would, i would imagine, be quite counterproductive. however, deterrent power remains important, which is why the iranians are trying to get their hands on some. and, if i were running israel, i’d be telling the iranians that if hizbollah or hamas or *anyone* let off a dirty bomb in israel, it would be them that would be held responsible. i sincerely hope they don’t try it, but personally, i wouldn’t put much money on the iranians having any scruples about using palestinians (particularly sunni arabs like hamas) as their fall guys – for them it’s a win-win.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Problem is Bananabrain, the US is being undone by its own capitalism as well as the wars that fuel it.
the trouble is that people have been saying that for years. i dare say they were saying something similar about the ottoman empire in 1683 and about the romans after the death of caligula. personally, i’m not holding my breath.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Bananabrain,
I hope the Israeli regime can be brought down by capitalism as well as the Iranians.
BB – Iran is now a nuclear power and has the capability to build a bomb. That much now has to be accepted.
Bombing now will only slow this down and each day that goes by reduces even that.
In addition Iran has learnt from Iraq and has hidden much of its facilities and they are very spread out. So bombing isn’t as easy an option as people think.
Plus Iran can reply quite hard.
I doubt Iran will give a dirty bomb to anyone as it isn’t worth the risk. They have spend decades building up influence across the Middle East and aren’t about to let that go for a chance to hit Israel.
I think it is all sabre rattling to come to terms with Israel on their own terms rather than be led into it or forced into it.
The fact is that Iran won’t stop its activities because it knows that it now has the knowledge to develop a bomb thus air strikes are meaningless and Aipac isn’t waking up tot he reality that it needs to get the US to begin dialogue with Iran rather than threaten it.
The Palestinains have no reason to use a dirty bomb as it would also kill them via fall out.
Thus we have a lot of rhetoric which isn’t constructive.
If Israel wants to neutralise Iran then it needs peace with Syria and the Palestinians which drives back Iran. That is a policy which is being pursued too slowly.
Israel and the Palestinians are their own and each others worst enemies as they can’t live with each other or without each other. This need to be settled to reduce the Shia sphere.
Aipac is thinking nonsense if it believes that peace without giving up East Jerusalem including Temple Mount is possible. Some arrangement needs to be made here and Israel needs to nip this threat in the bud.
Iran has said it will abide by any agreement Syria and the Palestinians make. As long as there is no agreement then Iran can continue to keep the parties apart but with an agreement their ability to do this is gone.
As for America I’d say Barak Obama just cost Israel its chance of haveing the Americans contribute towards a just settlement as both candidates have proven they don’t have the spine to tell their ally what it needs to hear.
One other thing I would say is that if Ehud Olmert is prepared to say:
” The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating”
Then Israel also needs to accept that the International Community has a bigger and longer standing duty for bring peace to the Israel/Palestine Conflict and it is hypocracy that this isn’t happenign as it is fuelling much of this weapons drive.
Israel needs to act as a mature nation and accept that it needs to compromise on major issues to bring peace to this region.
The Palestinians also have a responsibility but they are trying to enter the world nations.
Aipac and the USA as well as Israel also need to realise that even though Iran is Shi’te, bombing Iran will bring more conflict and death as the Muslim world will then rally to Iran’s cause.
It is palin stupidity that people can’t see this.
The only possible solution is peace with Syria and the Palestinians. The is no credible alternative.
By bombing Iran – america and Israel will be seen as hypocrates as they have their own nuke capability and are deciding who can ahve what in territory and weapons.
It is a stupid situation and will lead to much bloodshed which the people who are advocating it will not be affected by and they wil say we told you so. But it is their gross negligence and stupidity that is leading to this.
I’d say anyone who fails to see what was wrong about Obama’s speech is a fool. Obama just brought more misery and bloodshed to a region that doesn’t need such stupid allies.
I am afraid that I agree with the poster who said that Obama sold himself and I am afraid he showed zero leadership or courage.
It is always easy to tell people what they want to hear and it isn’t always easy as a leader to tell them what they need to hear.
What Aipac needed to hear wasn’t said by anyone. Apiac doesn’t have to live with the consequences of its desires the people in the Middle East do.
What would have been brave for Obama is that he should have highlighted to Aipac what a miserable existance the Palestinians have and how it is a duty of Americans including Jewish Americans to bring peace and prosperity to the two nations and two peoples. That would have shown real courage.
Obama failed, Aipac failed and more importantly the Israeli’s and Palestinians were failed.
Equally it is sad that Obama as a black man who knows of the suffering of the black people didn’t care a diddly about the suffering of another people and much like white politicians in the 50’s and 60’s was prepared to sell them out to further his own ambitions. That says a lot about Obama and it isn’t good.
Obama is no Abe Lincoln in being sincere in wanting to bring dignity to people. He basically had a chance to show he is different and in pursuit of power he sold short the Palestinians and I’d say the Israeli’s by not being honest about what was needed.
He is more of a Blair than a Lincoln.
What is tragic is people are building him up as a hope when he just isn’t fir for purpose.
“Is that what you think defines the difference between Left and Right wing?”
Its definitely am important part of it.
“Is immigration a Left Right Issue in the first place?”
Definitely the left tends to be more sympathetic to allowing migrants in. (e.g. the Democrats)
“ I know plenty of right wing people who are very pro – immigration – as its a good form of cheap labour to replace the indigenous labour force who are too expensive etc etc. Nothing like new slaves to replace the old ones to keep the profits coming in.”
So if you are anti-migration you are a xenophobe, while if you are pro-migration you are importing new slaves? Damed if you do, damed if you don’t.
Besides if you ponder the previous post a little more, you will note that the legislation Obama, McCain, and even Bush support would give undocumented workers legalization allowing them to claim benefits like healthcare, minimum wage standards, etc. that as undocumented workers they would be denied.
“If its single issues for you then”
Immigration is only an example. There is also the issues such as gender equality which the US is “left” of the other western countries.
“Can one be Left wing and Pro – Capital punishment?”
Dick Cheney favors rights for homosexuals. Does that make him not part of the right wing?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5817720/
Good point Avi. Obama faced his first big test on a matter of principle…and failed misearably as the opportunist, career politician that he is. At this rate he will be swinging in every direction that the lobbyists push him towards.
He should have clearly made a stand for human rights…by restating Israel’s right to a secure state, but also the Palestinians’ right to be allowed out of the prison in Gaza. He could have highlighted the terrible conditions in Gaza as unacceptable…it is this poverty and lack of hope that creates terrorism. And the surest way to defeat ‘terrorism’ is to treat people with dignity. Obama sold out to a bunch of well-healed bigots for whom the conditions in Gaza mean nothing.