February 13, 2008
Obama the inevitable?
With his latest batch of primary victories, Obama is looking increasingly unstoppable. This is faintly embarrassing for me, since in my last pronouncement on the US election I suggested that the racial polarisation of the electorate in South Carolina looked bad for him. Obviously - like many a pundit during this election - I spoke too soon.
But - to misquote John Kerry - I was right before I was wrong. The proof of this is sitting in a desk draw in my office. I put £10 on Obama to win the presidency at 7-1 last December. Not a bad bet, since he is now odds-on to be president with Ladbrokes.
What I failed to realise was that while voters in the South are dividing on racial lines, this is not true of the country as a whole. Chrystia Freeland offered an interesting explanation for why this might be in her FT column on Saturday, citing research that showed that Americans who live in largely white areas are likely to be more liberal on racial issues than people who live in mixed areas. Make of that what you will.
Even so, the trend could still be dangerous for Obama in a general election. A racially-divided southern electorate can carry him to victories in Democratic primaries, but might mean defeat all across the South in November - which would give John McCain quite a head start in the electoral college. On the other hand, the latest batch of primaries seem to show that he is beginning to pick up votes among groups that were formally fairly solid for Hillary - in particular, women and Hispanics. Maybe Obama really is unstoppable.
This is the right moment to bet on Hillary (7/2)
Posted by: James Khan | February 13th, 2008 at 1:51 pm | Report this commentClinton’s remaining support is quite solid and seemingly more uncomfortable with an Obama presidency than many Republicans.
In the near-term going into the next round of primaries, I would expect the Clintons and McCain to simultaneously target Obama and sing the same tunes: US-global security and experience. Hillary will bring Bill back to the fore. That is whom people really want. Look for him to given a stirring plea/warning/promise to guide.
Spielberg is known to be close to the Clintons. His siren withdrawal from the Beijing Olymics today puts a hot issue on the table. It is one that plays better to McCain than Hillary. It is one that could force some positions from Obama that could destabilise his advancing support amongst Asians.
This is the hour where Robert Rubin should step forward and deliver his support to Obama. The roster of others from the financial/economic and international affairs who step forward for Obama in the days ahead could turn the election.
Posted by: WCM | February 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm | Report this commentI predicted early on on this blog (before the New Hampshire primary) that it would be Obama versus McCain, and that the latter would win. Mark my words.
Posted by: RCS | February 13th, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Report this commentOn the issue of electability you have to remember that southern states are already off the table for Democrats (except Florida). The real question is can Obama win in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio and of course Florida.
Posted by: Guy Harbuck | February 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pm | Report this commentFlorida is “off the table” in terms of electability, but Hillary is challenging now the DNC’s ruling on that State’s primary and Michigan’s, both of which she won. The general election there will turn on his ability to capture the would-be-Edwards geriatric vote and the Hispanic vote, which is likely an easier demographic for McCain.
What is McCain’s position on Castro? Now and in the past. What is Obama’s record on the subject?
Pennylvania was previously Clinton country, but may move to Obama if he holds the high ground and Hillary remains left to dig about her negativity factors on her own, i.e., without a little uplift from Bill. Ohio should be easier now for Obama to claim. Hillary is certainly not offering anything on the economy that I can see.
Posted by: WCM | February 13th, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this commentYes, the damage that refusal to vote for a black man might do to Obama is the great unknown. But he did pretty well among white votes in Virginia and Maryland the other day, better than he did on Super Tuesday in states like New Jersey and Massachusetts. Exposure seems to help pull his numbers up, and to convince many people that he’s not all about being black.
Also, McCain will look old, tired, and charmless compared with Obama.
Posted by: Hal | February 13th, 2008 at 10:12 pm | Report this commentListening to pundits is interesting–they are so clever!–but confusing. Looking at the polls likewise, also the advent of mobile phones and do-not-call list makes polling definitely suspect.
I prefer to hew to the Iowa electronic market.
After Super Tuesday when the pundits were calling “draw” or even spinning Queen Hill (sorry folks but her campaign has always reeked entitlement) as frontrunner the futures market flipped to favour Obama. After the Potomac sweep his lead over the Clintons is similar to their lead over him last summer.
Check it out:
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_DConv08.cfm
Of course one should never count the Clintons out. Obama must never relax. The Clintons will *never* willingly cede power to anyone, even a fellow Dem. Never. They will fight to the end. Hopefully they will not take the Dems with them!
Posted by: MaryCunningham | February 14th, 2008 at 10:44 am | Report this commentMaryCunningham, the Clintons would certainly follow the old adage of machine politicians that it is better to lose the election than lose control of the party. The Clintons would much rather see McCain win than Obama, so that Hillary could run again in 2012 against a 76 year old man (unless McCain does a Calvin Coolidge and “does not chose to run” again). However, if Obama wins, it’s over for Hillary, as far as running for president is concerned.
What is most saddening and shocking, however, is the almost complete disregard for the issues in this election by the FT punditocracy, including, with all due respect, Mr. Rachman and Mr. Clive Crook. While it is too much to expect of US television to be able to distinguish between Hillary, Obama and McCain on the one hand, and the empty headed celebrity antics of a Paris Hilton on the other, one might expect more of this newspaper’s comment pages and blogs (as its news articles, generally, continue to be the best in the world).
For example, there are two supremely important battles going on now between President Bush and the Congress which may go a long way to determine whether America remains a democracy or continues its descent into the abyss of authoritarianism. One is the fight over President Bush’s insistence on passing legislation exempting phone companies from lawsuits based on their participation in the government’s illegal spying on American citizens. The other is the Senate’s attempt to ban the insidious form of torture known as waterboarding, against fierce opposition from the administration.
While all three of the remaining serious candidates are on record against torture (as one once might have expected of every American before the Bush era) there has been little discussion about what the candidates would do to make sure that that this terrible cancer on our democracy is, in fact, eliminated once and for all, and whether those who have engaged in it, advocated it, or tried to justify it will be prosecuted as the war criminals that they are.
Similarly, in the case of the recently defeated Senate amendment that would have held the telecommunications companies responsible (through private lawsuits) for helping the administration break the law by spying on US citizens without a warrant, Senator Obama took time off from his campaign to vote for it. Senator Clinton? Well, she was missing in action.
Certainly, it is useful to know that there are Latinos, blacks, whites (as well as Asians), men, women, young, old, rich and poor living in the various states, and that this candidate may appeal to one group and that candidate may appeal to another. But the US election is about much, much more than that. Surely, FT readers have the right to expect more serious comment?
Posted by: algasema | February 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pm | Report this commentSeveral contributors suggest that “Bill” could turn it around for his wife. I have serious doubts. Obama will win if he continues to manage to cast the choice in terms of change vs. continuity - and to associate Hillary Clinton’s experience with continuity. By engaging her husband, Clinton merely reinforces this association. In order to win, she would have to somehow dissociate her experience from the concrete policies and politics of the 1990s.
Posted by: Ivo Huber | February 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Report this commentMost factors weigh against Bill being an asset for his wife. The same was said in the case of Al Gore in 2000. Despite his long list of failings and sins, Bill commands exceptional respect amongst black white middle-class voters in the US. When his wife tried to go it alone the past couple of weeks, she lost valuable ground.
Obama would do well to note a couple of things about the Clintons:
1) Should one really fear that Bill will be looking over his wife’s shoulder, nudging her a bit and spending his evenings sorting out policies? I think not.
2) What DOES Bill get out of this? It is clear: mealtickets for the rest of his days. If she loses, he’ll likely need to reinvent himself.
3) What interests does Bill represent? What potential conflicts of interest are there? The FT has noted a few relating to his work at his foundation.
4) Hillary cited Florida and Michigan again yesterday among her wins. She is trying to win these two states through the courts, when she had clearly accepted that they were no-counts in the eyes of the DNC. Her opponents were not smart to follow her into these states, but it will be a travesty to see her win them on legal technicalities or sympathetic judges.
5) The Clintons try to act like they are the 40-somethings going back into the White House. They are the 60-somethings. A second Clinton White House will unlikely be the sex club the first one was. Obama should let Hillary take some of the age credit. She is looking rather tired and frustrated as she tries to run a girl-power game. She has never really shown the dignity or quiet wisdom that her real age would suggest. McCain looks pathetic trying to sing Beach Boys into bomb-Iran speeches.
Posted by: WCM | February 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm | Report this commentHi,
For a change, I’ve been doing marginally more useful things than reading this blog but I just want to ask if there is a tangible difference between one modern American president and another, insofar as foreign policy is concerned?
It seems to me that everything is so wrapped up and sewn up by the major interest groups (oil, arms industry, Zionists et al)that the differences between the candidates are those of presentation, not meaningful substance. Even if they hint @ something different now, they are unlikely to carry it out as they shall face the same lobby groups, powerfully represented in the Congress.
So, let’s not carried away folks, eh?
Maybe it is useful to think of the US presidential elections in the same way as watching one of the numerous “talent” (huh huh) contests on British Television.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm | Report this commentPacifist–Some truth in such a reading, but less and less so than in the not-so-distant past. Party ideologies are not so far apart, but certainly the neocons have marked a measurable shift in US foreign and domestic policy. Preventive wars alone breached nearly 200 years’ foreign policy. Principles that had previously been applied–usually with some retiscence–under the guise of the Monroe Doctrine are now applied globally.
McCain has differed with Bush on substantive policy issues and it is unlikely many Cheney staffers would extend into his Administration. Nonetheless, the current Defence team might, and AIPAC would not lose influence. McCain will likely assert stronger expectations for NATO and allies than Bush–and more than Clinton and Obama. Lieberman clearly marks his team and confirms your suggestion that it would not differ too mcuh from at least the Clinton philosophy.
Hillary is not as open as Bill, and she thrives on fights and righteousness. Clinton’s team would largely comprise familiar faces (Richardson amongst them in a key post). AIPAC would be quite happy and we could expect to see more Carville-Begala PR teams. Do not forget that Carville’s wife was Cheney’s chief-of-staff. On policy, the Clintons prefer light, but like to wave big sticks as popularity boosters.
Obama is less a mystery than thought. He will shape an activist foreign policy, but likely look for Europe to take on more responsibility in its own name or through NATO than either McCain or Clinton, who will be US first on all counts. Obama has demonstrated a serious interest in Africa, but I’ve heard too little of what he thinks of the current crises. Kenya is a homeland of his. I would like to know if he has made any comment–even a knowing “no comment”. Of course, he cannot be seen to engage at any level.
His foreign policy team is the most impressive, particularly with Philip Gordon. One should not expect too much of a learning curve or too many gratuitous appointments. I think it could be his strongest suit, but we are not seeing/hearing much.
On economics, McCain is certainly not Wall Street’s favourite, as he likes the SEC and is a bit of Democrat in this area. Clinton will likely tend to spin wheels on trying to micromanage in a serious downturn. Lawyers will love her. Obama already has Larry Summers and likely Bob Rubin, who won their arguments with Bill Clinton to apply a good mix of discipline and free-trade during his last four years.
There are differences. Obama needs to begin articulating them, as he is the one who most needs to prove he knows what he is doing.
On the foreign policy front, China, Russia, Africa, and Cuba are areas where these personalities bring significantly differing instincts.
Posted by: WCM | February 14th, 2008 at 7:43 pm | Report this commentWhen Bush j.r. became President one of the first things he had to face was the Hainan EP-3 spy plane incident, by many viewed as a test by the Chinese to see how the new president would respond to a relatively blatant assault (the Chinese fighter clipped the wing of the much larger US plane).
One can expect similar crises to greet Obama, Clinton or McCain; the Chinese, Russians, Venezuelans and Iranians will consider challenging US hegemony in their spheres, one can assume that McCain will be tested least and Obama tested most.
The dominance of oil producing countries and state owed equity funds will continue to grow and dwarf the power of any other group; Riyaad and Beijing will be increasing their dominant influences on the value of the US$. That more than anything else shows the degree to which the Iraq adventure has undermined the practical power of the US in the world and the degree to which our world really has become multipolar.
By far the most people in Europe would like to see Obama in the White House. Unfortunately most Europeans have forgotten or never learend how US power has kept Europe safe over the last 6 decades and that Europe’s safety is linked to the strength of NATO. McCain is the strongest proponent of the atlantic bond and in terms of self interest is the candidate Europeans ought to back. Obama will not dissolve NATO or touch our union fundamentally but will certainly demand Europe starts to pay more for its own security and demand much greater involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s something very few people in Europe see coming, but the US secretary of Defense has given us proper warnings ahead.
Posted by: felix drost, amsterdam | February 14th, 2008 at 10:35 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
Posted by: Reza | February 15th, 2008 at 9:06 am | Report this commentI totally agree but i dont really see the possibility that any future US president/congressman or other person in high political office could even pass the first few hurdles of an election without the tacit support of AIPAC/Jinsa/NRA and others. The first thing that both Obama and Clinton did upon announcing their candidacy was to address AIPAC and pledge to go after Iran. This country is basically hostage to the jewish lobby
WCM,
Posted by: Reza | February 15th, 2008 at 9:26 am | Report this commentTHough it may seem only “pathetic” to you when McCain sings Bomb Bomb Iran to the tune of the beachboys, be assured that it looks alot more like Bush/Cheney caliber racism and/or a call for yet another murderous crusade against a muslim country to me (or any other sane person, i would think). Do you not at the very least see the hypocracy in this? Has not every Presidential candidate (and indeed the entire american media) castrated Ahmadinejad and likened him to Hitler for supposedly calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map”?
Re: fd comments: McCain is a powerful senator, but recall that he has not always been the Pentagon’s favourite. His pre-existing advantage of respect is largely popular-based and slimmer than expected; he frustrates many insiders. Agree on most other possible scenarios, except that China and the Saudis/Gulfies will continue to be driven more by their economic visions. Nonetheless, their holds on power will grow more fragile.
Obama v Europe/NATO. Brzezinski is driving this part of the agenda planning. Many in Europe are on the same page, but with differing ambitions/agendas. The question I have is does Obama see the EU as a solution to all of his non-North American problems? Shocks are possible, but not yet likely. It would help if the FT were a bit more interested in related noises.
AIPAC. Certainly “the Lobby” is at its peak. Dissent amongst Jews and Israelis will rise. Obama will offer the best setting for such discussions, as Clinton and McCain/Lieberman are heavily indebted to tired, vested interests. The transition from the Israeli/US exceptionalism that has taken form during the past two decades to a more balanced policy dynamic will be painful and sadly driven by a sharp decline in respect for US economic power, i.e., US MNCs will not be ruling the waves in the next five years.
Or so I hope.
Posted by: WCM | February 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am | Report this commentMoving away from the three what-ifs, today’s FT features discussions on two issues where people will rightly or wrongly expect more from Mr Obama. And quickly. These are Kenya and Sudan. More broadly, fingers are wagging at China where the media is making strides in shifting responsibility for the continent’s problems.
As I have noted before, my first notice of Mr Obama was during his tour of Africa two years ago. He seemed to comprehend as no other American figure where things had gone wrong in the past 50 years. That seemed a start, but I have not discerned much form taken on any ideas that he may be developing.
Again, we hope for some substantial measures.
Meanwhile, the media is responding to the discomforts of a Hollywood elite that are mobilised too easily by Washington’s super PR agencies. Normally, their noises would be marginalised, as have been Richard Gere’s whining over Tibet. When Stephen Spielberg stages a well-timed bit of self-righteousness, the strategy moves closer to institutional policy making.
Philip Stephens today seems ready to hand responsibility for Darfour to China based fully on its half-decade of oil exploitation there. I certainly do not applaud Chinese indifference, but neither can I buy such convenient and cynical re-attribution of the causes for such miserable failure.
Generally, Europe, led by the French, has been the largest funder and guide for African policy through the Lomé Convention and subsequent mandates. China has stepped in and, despite its convenient blindness and opportunism, injected higher levels of capital than ever seen in a short timespan. Unlike aid packages, the Chinese retain control of their investments. It is right to remind them of responsibilities–present and future, but it is arguable that their low-key entry has achieved more than decades of failed World Bank and US AID initiatives.
Like it or not, Africans are largely benefiting and efforts by the West to check Chinese FDI will be unwelcomed. Arguments of hypocracy are not without justification. In the past two decades, the US has the most checkered record and its Christian-Right/AIPAC-directed policies on Sudan should not be spared criticism. The US Undersecretary of State for Africa Jendayi Fraser’s
recent efforts in Kenya, on the back of her meddling in Ethiopia and total failure in Darfour, have failed to merit much attention on these pages.
If Beijing reads Mr Stephens’ and Mr Spielberg’s admonitions thoughtfully, they would, indeed, have reason to assert governance where their money has already gone. I don’t think this is the intent of the writers. Mr Obama should begin to demonstrate to us his 21st century vision for Africa which must include China’s contributions. Hollywood whining should not be the centrepiece of such a vision. It already meets deaf ears.
Posted by: WCM | February 15th, 2008 at 10:55 am | Report this commentA partial answer to my previous question would be to identify the candidate that will try and gain the moral high ground for the sole, remaining superpower.
This would be in stark contrast to the action of the Bush regime that has sunk to the same level as those it calls “terrorist”.
We know all about The Haditha massacre , Abu-Ghraib, Guantanamo, Water-boarding, Special Rendition etc. which have been variously blamed on lack of supervision, immaturity of individual officers, heat of the moment and whatnot but consider this comment from Sean McCormack, US state department spokesman about the car bombing that killed Imad Moughniah:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d1ea4bc-daa0-11dc-9bb9-0000779fd2ac.html
Quote
The world is a better place without this man . . . One way or the other he was brought to justice,”
Unquote
Now, regardless of what you think of the slain man, you have an official spokesman of the US State department, approving a car bombing, in terms that you would expect to hear from psychopaths like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and Ayman Al Zawahiri. In other words, the US actions and language has become indistinguishable from Al Qaida.
This is the kind of thing that diminishes America’s standing in the world and makes it difficult to take her claims of leadership seriously.
May the next president do better. For although I oppose most American actions abroad, I also realise her immense importance and the contribution that she can make to a better world, once she is freed from the malignant tumours of NeoCons,extremist Zionists and similar ailments.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am | Report this commentPacifist–Thanks for mentioning the official response to car bombing. It has been much discussed amongst my circle in the past day, but I was too angered to find words. The principles that made the US once great are, indeed, of the past.
While the US will continue to carry much weight, its squandering of moral authority will prove more costly than any credit binge. There is no doubt a link, as “consumers” really don’t operate in the same civic/moral context as citizens, do they?
Posted by: WCM | February 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am | Report this commentDear WCM,
With reference to Philip Stevens’ article of today, either he has a very short memory or he is a hypocrite.
He blames Beijing for the tragedy in Darfur and sings the praises of the “Liberal Democracies” but does not devote a single line to how Darfur is part of a bigger African tragedy and how his loveable “Liberal Democracies” (France, Britain, Belgium, the US et al) have been raping and pillaging that unfortunate continent for centuries before the Chinese arrived there and still continue to do so (look at the US support for the governments in the small W African oil producers or the frequent French interventions in her former African colonies).
It is this kind of smug, insensitive Western insouciance that provides the Chinese with self-justification that they are doing no worse than joining in the general self-interested free for all in Africa and the rest of the Third World.
Have a nice weekend.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 15th, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentWould suggest the Chinese have employed consultants from Big Oilcos or Mr Cheney’s Halliburton and its peers in shaping their African business models. Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence of Han pragmatism.
Going off thread, you may wish to track Sarkozy’s unfolding strategy to restore religion as a pillar of the French state. A significant controversy is unfolding here and is well covered in today’s (Thursday-Friday) Le Monde, which is headlined “Nicholas Sarkozy s’explique sur sa conception de la religion”. The occasion was the CRIF (Council of Jewish institutions, which leaves the “j” off theri acronym) meetings. No fewer than 20 sitting ministers joined him at this meeting on Wednesday evening.
He outlined this agenda in a book two years ago, wherein as Le Monde reminds us he noted he was n ot really a practicing Catholic, a fact that didn’t stop the Vatican from awarding him a high honour and another podium a few weeks ago in Rome. Accomodating Islam is not high on his points, but he has said that secular teachers cannot succeed in teaching children right from wrong. One can find alarming parallels with an earlier chapter of European discourse in Berlin.
The question is why this debate was of no interest to the media during the election campaign.
Posted by: WCM | February 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Report this commentWCM, Pacifist: yawn.
Posted by: AYC | February 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
Yes, indeed “Due Process” may be boring but it is a bad day for the world when official governments’ policies (as ennunciated by their official spokesmen) are that any kind of justice can be done via a car bomb.
Down that road lies mayhem and terrorism by all parties which also translates into repression and curtailed freedoms, even in
democracies.
Please don’t think that Israel’s state terrorism is a solution to the world’s problems or a model that other should wish to follow. It has not even solved anything for the Israelis.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentRichard Gere is whining on Tibet? Since the communists invaded over a million Tibetans have died or have disappeared as a consequence of the Chinese occupation; even today Tibetans fleeing the country are shot and killed no matter their age by border guards. Tibetans aren’t even allowed to chant the name of the Dalai Lama, when they do they disappear.
We should tolerate the endless assault on pro-Israel groups and Israel itself while we can call anyone’s desire to bring a so much more brutal occupation on the agenda ‘whining’?
That is unethical.
In Congo, 5.4 milion people have died in civil conflict over the last decade, in Darfur since 2001 some 400.000. In Israel and the occupied territories? Since 2000 some 7500 on both sides.
Maintaining the rigid focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an affront to the suffering of millions around the planet who deserve our attention as much as any individual who suffers persecution. The figures above cannot but fail to convey that the world’s attention for this one particular conflict is obsessive and unethical.
Oil producing countries make billions extra because of instability in the ME and heavily invest this in western nations creating a juggernaut of political influence and all some people can point out is how AIPAC is the most powerful lobby. The pro-Israel lobby’s power is insignificant compared to what the oil companies and oil exporting nations can bring to bear. Those who benefit from conflict in the ME are those who benefit from $90 oil. And for them it pays to keep our attention riveted on conflict in the ME so that we pay $50 more than we should.
Oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia now thrive on conflict, without it prices would go down and the legitimacy of their regimes would become questionable; as long as there is an enemy they won’t need to reform and they will spend their money in our countries to placate us and give us more jobs. That it would be in Israel’s interest to prolong this conflict in the ME isn’t in evidence. Quite the opposite, peace with Jordan and Egypt has benefited those nations and a comprehensive peace in the ME would mean huge economical opportunities for Israel as a gateway to the ME.
Again this conversation has veered away from the topic towards the same obsessive subject to which certain respondants here are addicted, I would urge them to try and open their heart to the suffering of not just their chosen few.
Posted by: felix drost, amsterdam | February 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Report this commentFelix Drost, if I thought it would do you any good on this blog, I would say Hear, hear! Oh what the hell: Hear hear!
Posted by: AYC | February 15th, 2008 at 4:31 pm | Report this commentDear Felix Drost,
Is car bombing among your approved methods of obtaining justice? Yes or no?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 15th, 2008 at 4:40 pm | Report this comment>>fd: To question the effectiveness of Richard Gere’s whining is not to condone or endorse China’s history or policy vis-à-vis Tibet. Your litany of atrocious situations is a cheap ploy to shift the point. Richard Gere and Stephen Spielberg are neither voices of the US government nor simple individuals; they are front ends of a highly unaccountable world of super PR. WEll, perhaps they are accountable to those who pay their invoices. Who might that be?
>>AYC: “Western” jurisprudence was once thought to have evolved from the “eye for an eye, toothe for a toothe” system. The Old Testament Jahweh preceded the New Testament, which did not refute the Old. The US Bill of Rights and the French Rights of Man each were shaped in an Enlightenment founded upon established religious and secular teachings, but advancing human governance by very revolutionary and irrational “humanist” principals. One is that each story has two sides and that justice is adjudicated and delivered through a trial by peers.
Posted by: WCM | February 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentYES WE CAN or I HAVE A DREAM
I have just come across this YouTube of a Barack Obama speech, “Yes We Can”, delivered after his defeat in New Hampshire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms
To say it is reminiscent of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” would be a gross understatement — it is almost plagiarism. This is Martin Luther King Lite for the naive yuppies of New Hampshire. And what is Mr Obama’s message? “Change”, “Yes We Can” — for Pete’s sake, what is he saying apart from spraying empty catchwords — Mr Obama, where’s the beef?!!
Yes we can. Yes we can say you are a hollow demagogue.
Yes we can. Yes we can say you are a career opportunist, with narcissistic leanings.
Yes we can. Yes we can assert you pale in comparison with the original you are trying to emulate, Martin Luther King. You are like the background of pop classical hits played in elevators and dentist’s waiting rooms, so distasteful to anyone who has learned to listen to the originals. Yes we can!
Posted by: RCS | February 15th, 2008 at 8:05 pm | Report this commentWCM, you know what they say: live by the sword, die by the sword. Shame. If he’d dedicated his life to philanthropy there would be many, many other people alive today.
Can I call on you and your friend P to support the global action day on 6 March 2008 to express solidarity with Iranian workers, and to press for the immediate release from prison of Mansour Osanloo and Mahmoud Salehi?
Posted by: AYC | February 15th, 2008 at 8:15 pm | Report this commentI cannot help being struck by the almost total lack of discussion on the respective positions of the candidates on domestic US issues. This is not to say that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and issues such China’s support of the genocidal regime in Darfur are unimportant. However, this latter question will have exactly zero impact on the US presidential election for the simple reason that every politician in America at least claims to be opposed.
I would also caution our European friends against overestimating the role that foreign policy (aside from actual hot wars) plays in presidential elections in a country where a large percentage of high school graduates cannot even find neighboring Canada on a map.
In contrast, almost everyone in the US knows where Mexico is, thanks to Lou Dobbs. A friendly suggestion to a few of my co-bloggers: Some relevance, please?
Posted by: algasema | February 15th, 2008 at 8:23 pm | Report this comment>>algasema–Your comments are always thoughtful, but I suggest you encourage a bit of relevance among your policymakers when America’s reach extends beyond its known and limited frontiers.
Posted by: WCM | February 15th, 2008 at 9:51 pm | Report this commentThe new security system on this blog is v hard work
Posted by: Pacifist | February 18th, 2008 at 10:07 am | Report this commentDear AYC,
As the son of one of the earliest, non-communist, Trades Union organisers in the Iranian oil industry, I fully support Trade Unionism in general and the defence of Messrs Osanloo and Salehi.
Indeed, for the supposed “government of the downtrodden”, the Iranian government’s attitude to workers’ rights is disgraceful.
However, I would caution that this kind of action abroad will backfire on those being held as evidence of plotting with foreigners against the Islamic Republic. Tread carefully!
Best regards,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 18th, 2008 at 11:44 am | Report this commentTo the extent that this tread is still about the US presidential campaign, I will add a comment on Mr Obama at the start of a critical week.
Firstly, his interview on 60-minutes (available on the CBS website) certainly conveyed a clear sense of decency about the man that should serve him well. Key points were well delivered. His refusal to bring the context of his campaign down to spinning dirt on the Clintons was convincingly restated. However, his comment that people seem to prefer him projecting image over content should be challenged.
Secondly, it would seem that many who are aligned with Obama are playing it too cautiously by standing and watching at what is now a late date. While it is debateable whether Am Gore would be a boost or a liability, others from legal, foreign policy, military/security and financial/investment fields should be speaking up.
Time to speak up. The noise from the Clintons in the past few weeks has been far from comforting or promising. McCain’s commitment to Iraq exceeds any he has articulated for a single official state in the Union. Tired noises and Lobby power against a new face.
I still believe that those behind Obama represent the best alliances of interests and brain power available in the US today. We need to see more of what they are thinking. They need to change the points of debate. Can they?
Posted by: WCM | February 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Report this commentWe Iranians have our own equivalent of those nasty, US-based Cuban-Americans. They are mainly based in L.A. but they have offshoots in Europe too.
Reading the way they salivate about the possibility of a McCain presidency and their enthusiasm for the war and sanctions that he might wreak upon the hapless people of Iran, I am inclined to hope that McCain does not win. He is obviously another warmonger-murderer in the BU$h mould.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 18th, 2008 at 6:04 pm | Report this commentMcCain will be less focussed than Bush-Cheney. He has enough conscience to hesitate, trip over the wires and fail. He is an inveterate loner who likes to sit at the controls when he flies coach. Look for Lieberman to be his Secretary of State. The US will slip into a tiresome decline under McCain’s leadership, as he is clueless on the economy.
If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, then look her campaign to fail as the Obama demographics go back to their laptops and the feminist blah-blah drives even Ted Kennedy back to McCain.
Smart money has already divested. A McCain win will put the word “decoupling” in the history books. Iran will survive. Nato will crumble. Russia will look wise. Israel will be rethought. The Arabs will abandon politics and stick to their investments and OPEC. The EU will be unsettled by a confrontation with the new French crowd and maybe some Brits, but will recover as it increasingly is called upon to fill the leadership void.
I wouldn’t make this prognosis if Obama wins. A Clinton scenario will be somewhere close but not as bad.
Posted by: WCM | February 18th, 2008 at 7:05 pm | Report this commentThe LA Iranian Armchair generals have been wishing for bombs to rain down on their families in tehran for years. These are the same people who trust FOX news is giving a fair and balanced account while accusing CNN of being run by communists……Their motivations, are of course, commercially driven.
What the americans do not understand aboout iran is that the mullahs have managed to stay in power solely because of american antagonism. THe majority of the IRanian population thinks that, if nothing else, the mullahs have succeeded in keeping Iran an independant state and not a slave of the west like under the shah. This is an important issue for us, regardless of political or religious affiliation
The US, through name calling, sanctions, baseless accusations and talk of regime change, has only confirmed its true intentions toward Iran. BElieve it or not, this has only strenthened the mullahs, not weakened them.
If the US really wants regime change, they will follow up on the Algiers accord and sign another treaty guaranteeing Iran’s security and putting an end to sanctions and name calling. TO use former UN inspector Scott Ritters words: ” Bush should put Condi’s butt on the first plane to Tehran”. The Mullahs and all their proxies, will be GONE in 2 years..
Posted by: Reza | February 19th, 2008 at 2:07 am | Report this commentSo what about the US’ recent offer of talks with the mullahs? How does that work? And isn’t the system of relentless propaganda, repression and corruption something to do with where we are now? I can understand the Persian desire to dominate the Gulf region: Persia has historically been hugely important. Couple that with the current demographic trend - huge numbers of young, unemployed males - and you have to find an outlet for the aggression.
Reza - whilst you may or may not be right in the motivations for the US-based Iranian ex-pats, explain to me how that is different from the powerful bazaaris in Tehran who helped Khomenei to power in the first place, and have subsequently maintained the Mullahs in power?
One thing you, and other Iranian apologists, are forgetting (or glossing over) of course is the historic mission to export the revolution. And the means of doing so. Any comment on the Iranian’s sponsorship of terrorism around world?
WCM. Unbelievable. Fairground fortune tellers have nothing on you.
Posted by: AYC | February 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am | Report this commentDear AYC,
I think the online editor should remove your comment as you are diverting entirely from the subject of the thread. I keep my comments brief as he should delete my reply for the same reasons:
Iran has no desire to “dominate” the Persian Gulf.
All Iranians want is that the PG is not dominated by neo-colonial navies and that they take their nuclear navies and their gunboat diplomacy elsewhere.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists in your eyes but both have electoral mandates and represent aspirations of their people. On the other hand, American carpet bombing and “Shock and Awe” wrought on civilians are terrorism in my books (not to speak Israel’s assassinations of political leaders and starving of whole civilian populations).
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am | Report this commentAYC, Pacifist
As P notes, this post is about Barack Obama.
Please keep on topic.
Damian
Posted by: Damian Carrington | February 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am | Report this commentInteractive editor
AYC–The fortune teller’s paid time was short on the last post! Another 10 cents, and I can offer some details. I will add for free that it would be a mistake for Mr Obama to think my long-term outlook for the US is much better under his borrowed words.
Posted by: WCM | February 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm | Report this commentBack to th subject of the thread, the following (artciles + Video clip) compares the foreign policy advisers and policies of Obama, Clinton and MacCain
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/4103
It quotes PAT BUCHANAN saying “If McCain wins, he will make Cheney look like Gandhi.” which explains why certain people seem to love him.
Hillary, it says, is likely to appoint Richard Holbrooke (remember him?) as Secretary of State
which will be a continuation of NeoConism under another guise. Most, though not all, her advisors would have taken the US to war against Iraq (which does nor commend them for their judgements).
The Obama crowd, led by the veteran Brzezinski were mainly antiwar (as far as Iraq was concerned) but include a few dangerous elements like Dennis Ross.
Overall, the article, confirms one’s suspicions of McCain and Clinton and given the mess that Bush and Co have made of the world, perhaps somebody who is willing to distance himself from NeoCons and their bellicosity will serve the world and America better.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm | Report this commentYou’re using Pat Buchanan as a reliable forecaster? That’s really scraping the barrel - even WCM knows more than Buchanan.
But the fact is that Obama now does look more likely than ever to get the Dem nomination and if that is the case, McCain will almost certainly become the next US President. I can’t see how he could beat McCain. With advisors like Brzezinski, who was as recently as last week was in Syria, the week that country was once again exposed as second only to Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, speaks volumes. Brzezinski failed once - Carter was (and is) a menace, the US’ Archbishop of Canterbury, at least in terms of the wooliness of his thinking - and the fact that Obama has him so close indicates his naivety in foreign affairs. The US needs a seasoned Commander-in-Chief. Obama is not that man.
Posted by: AYC | February 19th, 2008 at 2:59 pm | Report this commentP,
Posted by: Anon | February 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm | Report this commentI think you forget that most (though clearly not all - like John “I’m not a neocon” Bolton) have seen pretty clearly the failures of this administration.
Also, McCain isn’t in the oil industry’s pocket. He basically has a mind of his own, which would be a big change.
As for Obama, what I find fascinating was that Americans initially backed Clinton heavily maybe because of their disgust at Bush and their desire to erase the Bush years. Clinton is by definition the opposite of Bush. Yet, encouragingly, they seemed to move away from that an eye for eye view, to embrace Obama whose main attribute seems that he would rise above all that to deliver hope and change. I must hope and change on their own don’t quite do it for me, but given that many Americans have been living in fear since 9/11 (a fear this administration unashamedly exploited to its own ends), hope and change are attractive enough.
Of course, the media needs to start being harsher now with Obama because the conservative media will not hold back. He needs to be tested more and quickly. If he fell apart in say, September, that would be dramatic.
Dear Anon,
McCain is often mentioned, approvingly, as having a mind of his own. For sure, after the Bush years, that might sound appealing but is it enough? It seems that in his his own mind, Sen. McCain has reached a lot of wrong conclusions and is liable to repeat / continue some of the most egregious errors of the Bush era. That is what I find worrying.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Report this commentVery dangerous, Obambi: wants to bomb Pakistan.
Seriously, if Obama were ever elected, that would be like a straight-seven: two terms of Bush and now this; if that happens then we will know for certain that the American political system is broken.
Clive Crook says: “It makes him an electrifying candidate – one the Democrats would be crazy not to nominate – but also, to be sure, a gamble. If Mr Obama is elected, it might turn out that there is no “there” there.”
Gambling is for the racecourse; let us not gamble with global security.
Dear Damian, the links on this blog are not working. I am referring to the names of the commentators on the right-hand side panel under ‘Recent posts’.
Posted by: RCS | February 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pm | Report this commentAYC,
“I can’t see how [Obama] could beat McCain.”
Let me point you to how you can “see” this inevitable outcome should Barack win the democratic nomination.
Let’s take Virginia for example - and it’s not the only applicable example. In Virginia Barack garnered 623,141 votes; McCain garnered 244,135 votes. If you add all the votes that McCain, Huckabee, Paul, and Romney garnered together you will notice that they are 200,000 votes shy of Obama’s numbers. And this doesn’t even include the 350,000 voters that voted for Hillary who undoubtedly would vote for Obama in the general election.
So I would say that your hollow projections are a product of your own skewed presuppositions and prejudices. No Republican, judging from the numbers, can beet the democratic nominee. So welcome to the 21st century; a century that is witnessing the ascendancy of a new and younger political generation in America. And we have George Bush to thank for that:)
barmakid
Posted by: Barmakid | February 19th, 2008 at 7:33 pm | Report this commentWhile I hope Barmakid is right, I am concerned that the media’”s turn against him in recent days and the weak resolve of US voters will not put Hillary back in the lead.
As far as knowing more than Buchanan, the comment merits no response. Nonetheless, I must confess that the Israeli-wannabe and I are in agreement on Brzezinski. I also am not fond of Dennis Ross.
So, it seems to me that Obama’s foreign policy is caving into/being undermined by AIPAC pressure.
Americans need to ask themselves some hard questions about a political system that puts forth candidates that make Musharraf seem articulate and knowing. (While I have defended him on specific points of attack, I begin each commentary with a caveat that he is not the guy who should be there.)
What sort of subliminal messages are being transmitted in these words we must type for security purposes?
Posted by: WCM | February 19th, 2008 at 11:23 pm | Report this comment