May 7, 2008
Hillary for VP: A dream ticket?
We have a new conventional wisdom. Hillary is done for…again. The notion that Barack Obama has all but secured the Democratic nomination is hard to argue against.
For those of you who wish to see me discussing this in video format, here is the link.
One question I’m not asked on the video, is whether it is conceivable that Hillary will accept the number two spot on an Obama ticket?
I think she probably would: vice-president is more glamorous than Senator. But will she be offered it?
Obama’s people point out that - after a long campaign - the two candidates cordially loathe each other. They say he would prefer almost anybody rather than Hillary. But if Democractic grandees decide that the only way to heal the breach in the party is to have an Obama-Clinton ticket, they might just try and twist Senator Obama’s arm. He would resist, initially. But if the case were made repeatedly and insistently? Who knows, it just might happen.
You look a lot more like photo than Philip stephens does. In his photo, he has obviously tucked his double chin in
Posted by: Pacifist | May 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm | Report this commentThe vast majority of US dems will vote for Obama regardless of whether Clinton is on the ticket or not.
Posted by: robr | May 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm | Report this commentBut the question Obama faces is can Clinton help deliver the middle of the road republicans to vote for him. I can’t see it. Just as Macain would be mad to have a Bush as his running partner.
Obama would be wise to go back to John Edwards to help deliver the south, and support his message of change.
Although John Edwards will not be able to deliver the money which Obama would be able to get with Clinton on the ticket.
I would prefer to see Senator Jim Webb from Virginia.
There are a great many rumours, including a Obama/Blooberg ticket…but Webb could assist him with making inroads to white working class vote, the South, shore up his national security weakness perceptions…and like Obama he was against the War in Iraq frm the beginning.
I don’t believe it will be Hillary. If he allowed himself to be pressured to take her it would be a mistake. He could never trust her on a personal level which due to the relationship and offices of President/Vice President would carry over to the political.
They say Teddy Kennedy is not well, and that is one of the reasons he has not campaigned with Obama. Hillary is a talented politician, many see her has leading the Senate..then there will be a race for Governor of NY sooner than later…. American politics is somewhat like the game of “musical chairs” when the music stops, you run to sit in the nearest chair open or you are out of the game…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 7th, 2008 at 2:33 pm | Report this commentI loved the video! GR, You were so right about your analysis of Obama’s speech last night! Another good reason to bring on WEBB, a highly decorated military officer to dampen the silly accusations that Obama is not a patriot…GR, you should use more video ..it’s a nice touch!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm | Report this commentMr. Rachman, your previous blog was entitled “Why McCain’s big idea is a bad idea”. With all due respect, your idea about an Obama - Hillary ticket is an even worse one. Here are a few reasons:
1. Hillary’s ego is far to big to consider the #2 spot, which she would see as a terrible humiliation.
2. The last thing that Hillary wants is for Obama to become president. Otherwise, she would not be able to run as the “I told you so” candidate against a 76 year old, faltering (as he is already) McCain in 2012. For her, this is far more important than helping the Democrats win the White House this year.
3. Even if Hillary were willing to accept the #2 spot, the ticket would be a diaaster. In addition to having to deal with the Wright smears, which the Republican attack machine will never allow to disappear, a combined ticket would be dragged down by a host of real and imagined, old and new, questions about Hillary, especially the one that is most prominent among all voters, namely whether she is honest and trustworthy. Obama and the Democrats badly need a new face at the bottom, as well as the top, of the ticket.
One suggestion is Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a straightforward, appealing former Republican and Reagan cabinet member.How centrist can you get? If a woman is desired, how about one of the California Senators, Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein? Even better, why not Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona, McCain’s own state, who, while an Obama supporter, can justifiably appeal to the Republican anti-immigrant right because she signed one of the harshest state immigration “enforcement” laws in the nation.
But of course, this would create problems with the Latino vote, which the Democrats must win if they hope to recover the White House. For this reason, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is not only a Latino himself, but an experienced negotiators with even the worst foreign governments, such as North Korea, would be by far the wisest choice. He could certainly make up for Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience.
There you have it: Obama - Richardson. A winning ticket if there ever was one.
Posted by: algasema | May 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm | Report this commentDear Algasema: - A Black/Latino ticket? Would the white majority vote for that?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm | Report this commentMy apologies: I wrote “negotiators” instead of “negotiator”.
Lisa-Helene Lawson also gives some excellent reasons for choosing Webb. Moreover, having two minority candidates, black and Latino, on the same ticket, might be just a tad more than America is ready for.
The Republicans would have a field day exploiting bigotry - using as excuses: Wright (whose views Obama has denounced) as a symbol of anti-black prejudice, and illegal immigration (which Richardson strongly opposes) as a code phrase for hatred of Hispanics.
Perhaps Lisa-Helene Lawson is right and Omama - Webb would indeed be the strongest ticket, even though Richardson would also be a great choice for the second spot.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | May 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm | Report this commentI wrote both my above before seeing the one from Pacifist, with which I reluctantly have to agree, for the reason he states.
Posted by: algasema | May 7th, 2008 at 3:09 pm | Report this commentThank you AYC. Happy Independence day to everyone. Let us raise a toast to peace and prosperity in the Middle East and the world. May the nations of the region rise to the words of the prophets of Israel:
“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” — Isaiah 2:3-4
Posted by: RCS | May 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Report this commentOne final comment before I take some time off from further posting, no doublt to the relief of those tired of reading some of my long-winded comments. I hope that there is no truth to any possible rumor that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might be considered for the Democratic ticket.
Some of us in New York still remember, and do not appreciate, the way he helped to turn this city into a semi-fascist state during the 2004 Republican convention, when hundreds of peaceful anti-Bush demonstraters were arrested and held in jail until the convention was over.
I also resent Bloomberg for banning demonstrations during the convention in our beloved Central Park (which I have the great fortune to be able to see spread out in front of me every day from my window as I write) even though the closest entrance to the Park is more than two miles away from Madison Square Garden, where the convention was held.
Indeed, i wrote a brief (but perhaps slightly “bitter”, to use Obama’s phrase) letter protesting this assault on our basic freedoms at the time, which the FT was kind enough to publish in its print edition.
Others may be willing to forgive Bloomberg for his readiness to turn New York into Beijing or Moscow in order to curry favor with the leaders of the authoritarian Republican party of Bush and Cheney, which Bloomberg belonged to at the time. I, for one, never will.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | May 7th, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Report this commentI do not believe the dems can get into the WH.
1) If Obama is nominated then enough white men
will vote against a black candidate to bring in McCain
2) If Hillary is nominated enough blacks will abstain and hence produce the same result as in (1)
3) A combination of the two will suffer from the race situation as well
So, it looks to me that another year of neocons is in store.
History plays cruel games sometimes.
Posted by: Cassandra | May 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pm | Report this commentHistory, Cassandra, indicates the American voter as a pragmatist first, ideologue second. The hideous legacy left by Bush, who represents his miserable party, will count more than anything else on election day. I guarantee it. For a break-down on U.S. elections history see Allan Lichtman, “Keys to the White House” (2000).
Jim Webb should remain Senator for VA, he is doing a lot for Democrats in that state. I suggest Bill Bradley of NJ: experienced, white, and not Southern. The last 2 Southern running mates, picked because they balanced the presidential candidate’s geographical origin, did not make a difference.
Posted by: Obamaniac | May 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pm | Report this commentObamaniac:”History, Cassandra, indicates the American voter as a pragmatist first, ideologue second.”
True, and the ideologues in both parties have always been a minority…just the activists, hence they have become the face and voice of the parties…the middle (the majority of Americans) will hold and will elect Obama, ..
With the Reeps out of power in both Congress and the White House, the Republican Party has an opportunity of purging the neo-cons from their stranglehold on Reep Foreign Policy, many Reeps would love that including some conservatives…and more importantly, the money for the think tanks that a small cadre of journalists preside over and who fund the neo-con worker bees that they place in key staff positions at State, WH and Defense will dry up…neo-cons know they are in trouble…their more astute members are already trying to REINVENT themselves, as they have gotten spoiled and used to all the money and attention (in the media,think tanks, etc) that has flowed their way since the 1980’s…and they do not want that money to disappear…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 7th, 2008 at 8:07 pm | Report this commentObamaniac and Lisa-Helene:
I am on your side.
My pessimissm is based on the Pennsylvania story. (The poison of racism is still affecting some people: white working class males)
Posted by: Cassandra | May 7th, 2008 at 8:20 pm | Report this commentAlgasema–did I understand you correctly that the only reason Obama won over 90% of the black vote is that 1) Obama is black. 2) Obama is an African-American. 3) Obama is not white (or at least, only 50% so).
Who knew–Obama supporters are racists!
Posted by: Ann H | May 7th, 2008 at 9:35 pm | Report this commentSomething for the superdels to consider.
“Compare Obama’s victory in VA to his victory in NC, with the contests 3 months apart. He did MUCH WORSE, not better.
VA
64% Obama
36% Clinton
Obama got 67% of White Men in VA
Obama got 45% of White Women in VA
Obama got 93% of Black Men in VA
Obama got 85% of Black Women in VA
NC
56% Obama
42% Clinton
Obama got 40% of White Men in NC
Obama got 33% of White Women in NC
Obama got 91% of Black Men in NC
Obama got 91% of Black Women in NC
The ONLY measure by which Obama improved last night was Black Women, he even lost 2% among Black Men. HUGE loss of % for both White Men (-27%) and White Women (-12%).”
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27623
Posted by: Ann H | May 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm | Report this commentYou see through the lens of prophecy, Gideon, but not darkly enough!
Hillary is not the missing half of the Dems’ magic duo. She remains fundamentally a proxy for Bill. The party’s hidden desire is “Obamabubba”. The way to do this is for Obamma to get Bubba as his Secretary of State — a role Bubba might take if he were billed prominently as “healer”, which many Dems quite ludicrously think he was in the 1990s. Obama would heal on the homefront; Bubba would heal abroad. Nothing much would actually change, but the Dems would experience an ecstacy of self-regard more intense than anything they’ve felt yet. The only obvious loser would be the Chelsea, for I’m afraid this magic arrangement might well end with her parents’ divorce.
PS. No, this would not cut into the women’s vote. Black women and pro-choicers would stick with the Dems. They’d miss Hillary for a week, not longer.
Posted by: EJ | May 7th, 2008 at 9:50 pm | Report this commentSorry, EJ. You clearly do not understand the dynamics at work here. Obama would lose a large chunk of votes from women who currently support Hillary (let’s be honest–choice is not typically an issue for older Hillary voters, and many believe the loss of choice would be a good thing for younger women voters to experience) and Obama would also lose Reagan Democrats. So, Obama’s nomination, should it come to pass, would be a pyrrhic victory, indeed!
Posted by: Ann H | May 7th, 2008 at 10:49 pm | Report this commentSo it looks like some of you Clinton supporters are finaly starting to fold and admit that Obama will be the democratic nominee!
Posted by: Sade | May 7th, 2008 at 11:45 pm | Report this commentLBisa-Helene Bawson
Two points:
1. Obama gets over 90% of the black vote (and this percentage has increased over time)
2. Obama gets less than 35% of the white vote (and this percentage has declined over time)
Obama cannot win the general election with these demographics.
All the other statistics you quote are just noise.
Posted by: Ann H | May 8th, 2008 at 12:14 am | Report this commentAnother possible person for Senator Obama to select as his Vice-Presidential candidate is Speaker of the House Nacy Pelosi.
As one of those white male over 40 guys, and registered Libertarian, I will vote Obama this year for President because of his demeanor, honesty, sincerity, and vision. It is time for new generation of leadership, and Senator Obama is the best choice to fill the office of President of the United States.
As for Nacy Pelosi, she has the good sense to get along with people, get work done as best as possible in the current environment in Washington, and gives the ticket geographic balance as well. Senator Webb and Governor Richardson are excellent choices in their own right. Senator Clinton on the other hand is a non-starter for VP under any circumstance.
Posted by: Tom B. | May 8th, 2008 at 1:12 am | Report this commentLBisa-Helene Bawson
I agree that a lot can happen between now and November. However, the demographics of the United States are not about to change radically in that time frame (so much for hope and change).
As to Hillary supporters, choice is NOT the defining issue for them that it may be for others in the Democratic Party, and for obvious reasons. In fact, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is a far more important issue for Hillary supporters. And clearly, Hillary’s health care plan is FAR SUPERIOR to Obama’s, which leaves 16 million people (or over one-third of those not covered by health insurance) unprovided for.
Finally, according to most polls, about 25-50% of Obama supporters would not support Hillary in the general election, and vice versa.
So, it looks like positions in both camps are pretty well entrenched.
Posted by: Ann H | May 8th, 2008 at 1:22 am | Report this commentAnn H,
The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are nuanced…unlike the policy differnces between either DEM candidate and McCain. Most Dems will see it that way in November.
He started with enormous support among independents…he will get them back…he will win some and lose some of the blue collar vote …and maybe some of the Older Jewish vote…but he will bring many first time voters out of all colors, especially younger voters…he will raise vast amounts of money for the DEMS …he is a GIFT to the Dems…most Dems undertsand that… and the Reeps fear all that and more…
even Hillary stated last night that she will campaign for Obama …and that is exactly what she said if you were REALLY listening ….she wants to go out with bargaining chips and on a win (perhaps Puerto Rico) and attempt to fundraise or negotiate her debt away…weigh in on VP pick etc …that is all that is happening now…
In any event I am finished with this exchange with you…it has become more than a little tedious…I am going to go find “P” to talk to…he won’t come back here, as he is bored by our race…now I am too …that is, until Hillary quits wasting all of our time and her husband’s hard earned money! (she just loaned her campaign 6 m again to stay a float)…afterall, you know how hard it is for him to travel around the world and talk and talk and talk!…you keep singing “I am woman hear me roar” the rest of us will dance at Obama’s victory parties in the fall!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 8th, 2008 at 1:51 am | Report this commentIf Obama wins the nomination, and he and Hillary have reconciliation-however tentative to focus on a win, she should be the bull dog let loose to attack the barrage of swift boater just over the horizon. But she should do it not as the VP, but as the next Supreme Court Justice in waiting
Posted by: Steve Feinman | May 8th, 2008 at 2:02 am | Report this commentSince Obama, who has put together the McGovern coalition (which lost 49 of 50 states in 1972) of AAs and liberal elites, will be going down in flames in the general election, it would be extremely unwise for Hillary to sabotage her career by becoming Barack’s running mate. As
former NYC mayor Ed Koch noted about Barack’s GE prospects, “Obama is a sure loser.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/07/ed-koch-obama-is-a-sure-l_n_100697.html
Posted by: Ann H | May 8th, 2008 at 3:55 am | Report this commentWright story: What took so long? USA Today
“Barring some really strange math or a lot of second thoughts, the Democrats seem poised to nominate for president a man with the fewest credentials and least familiarity to the American people of anyone in modern history. It’s just one more way that Barack Obama is breaking the mold, and barring a major shift, he should give some of the credit to the news media.
The vetting of presidential and vice presidential candidates has long been a responsibility that journalists took seriously. In this election, alas, most of the bloodhounds have lost their sense of smell.
Thus, the coverage of Obama’s spiritual relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ is disturbing. First, it took much too long for major news media outlets to appreciate the importance of the Wright connection. Second, the Hillary Clinton campaign should have done the opposition research that would have exposed the dark side of the Obama-Wright connection. Third, Obama’s aides should have seen this train wreck coming and tried to derail it months ago.
Speculation aside, Obama has been ill-served by a press corps that seemingly was mesmerized by the large, frenzied crowds who turn out to see the Democratic rock star. Crowds can be deceiving: McGovern, nobody’s idea of a rock star, attracted huge and exuberant crowds throughout the fall of 1972 — on his way to losing 49 states to Richard Nixon. ”
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/wright-story-wh.html
Posted by: Ann H | May 8th, 2008 at 4:46 am | Report this commentGiddy, you must do some physical exercise to tone up.
Posted by: Tom | May 8th, 2008 at 2:46 pm | Report this commentGive me a break..When did McGovern run 1970’s…oh yeah…like the country is still like the 1970’s!…even the smart neo-cons understand the Reagan era is OVER!…this is 2008 ANN H …this election is happening at the end of the first decade of the 21st century…America is not the America of the 1970’s, 80′, or the 90’s…so quit using your old and tired formulas and scare tactics to predict failure and doom for Obama…He is just the leader this country needs and he will be the next President of the United States. It’s pathetic that there are people that must be dragged into the 21 century kicking and screaming…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Report this commentOh noo Ann is freaking out because Hillary lost her mind and the nomination.
Posted by: Sade | May 8th, 2008 at 4:17 pm | Report this commentand Tom and P ..Gideon looks fine and sounds wonderful!…geesh, you guys are more catty than some of my girlfriends! Let’s have more video not less!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 8th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this commentI agree with above comments to the effect that Nancy Pelosi would be a great choice for Vice-President and Hillary Clinton would be an outstanding Justice of the Supreme Court. As others have suggested, she would also be a good Senate Majority Leader. If she could only overcome her own egocentric notion that she has to be the president, no matter what it takes to destroy Obama and the Democratic party’s chances of uniting to win the election in the fall, she could have an even greater political future and create an even more enduring record of service to her country than she has done through her undisputed accomplishments to date.
If, Hillary had even the slightest chance of being nominated without totally destroying her party, I would willingly vote for her in the fall, even though I am an Obama supporter. I also am convinced that Obama would campaign his heart out to elect her. If Ann H. and other Hillary supporters can muster up whatever it takes to overcome their understandable disappoinment and unite behind the candidate whom the majority of Democratic voters and pledged delegates clearly want to be their standard-bearer in the fall, namely Barack Obama, nothing can stop the united Democrats from winning back the White House.
Posted by: algasema | May 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Report this commentJust last night, Hillary Clinton begun saying that “proud working class white Americans” will not vote for Senator Obama. Prior to this. the Clintons’ racial references were indirect. Now it is blatant. The objective is to wound Obama so badly that is he wins the nomination, he will lose to McCain and the Clintons can say –”We told you so” and seek the Democratic four years hence. The words for this are despicable and shameful. The Clintons have been accused of running a ‘kitchen sink campaign; this is, throwing everything including the kitchen sink at Obama. This is not true. What they are running is a chamber pot campaign.
Posted by: C. Alexander Brown, Canada. | May 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Report this commentWhat if Obama declares that he wants Bill Clinton as running mate?!
Wasn’t Clinton said to be America’s first black president, (despite his inconveniently very white skin)?
This would also give Bill a chance to twist the knife a bit!
P (Thinking outside the box)
Posted by: Pacifist | May 8th, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Report this comment>>Pacifist– I can’t cite US law on this possibility, but as the VP is first in the line of succession, I would question if it is permitted.
It amuses only a little to think of this duo. What would truly please would be word that once they move into the White House together, they both send their annoying wives to the divorce lawyers.
Posted by: WCM | May 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm | Report this commentHi WCM (and Welcome Back).
I don’t know the legalities and it won’t come to pass but if Putin can step down to being Prime Minister, I guess Bill Cinton can step down to VP?
The question would be whether Obama can trust Bill to be left alone with Mrs. Obama!
Posted by: Pacifist | May 8th, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Report this comment“What if Obama declares that he wants Bill Clinton as running mate?!”
Bill Clinton can’t run. He’s been president for 2 terms, he can’t be VP because if the president dies he can’t take over. The law.
Posted by: dave heasman | May 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm | Report this commentIts funny how Obama -Clinton would hands down win the election, and hands down be a great time. BUT they have a grudge against one and another and that ruins it… stupid… stupid humans.
Posted by: Sade | May 8th, 2008 at 6:35 pm | Report this comment**sorry TEAM not TIME. My bad.
Posted by: Sade | May 8th, 2008 at 6:36 pm | Report this commentMy feeling is Obama would not make for a strong leader, but he could be an ameliorating figurehead. If only America had an office of prime minister then Hillary could play Putin to Obama’s Medvedev (she has some of Putin’s cunning and ruthlessness and Obama has Medvedev’s youth and inexperience; furthermore, both Medvedev and Obama seem similarly clueless).
Posted by: RCS | May 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm | Report this commentIf your thesis is correct, RCS, maybe we do need Hillary for VP after all. She would be a worthy successor to Cheney, particularly if it became necessary to obliterate anyone.
Posted by: Roger Algase | May 8th, 2008 at 8:37 pm | Report this commentRoger, are you substituting for algasema, who took a break from blogging?
Posted by: RCS | May 8th, 2008 at 8:48 pm | Report this commentWho is on the respective VP short lists?
If Obama (and assuming Hillary will prefer the Senate), would Jim Webb consider a place on the ticket? If so, I would think he would have sufficient credibility to defuse very legitimate concerns over (possibly stretched) links of the Obama couple to Farrkahan’s Nation of Islam.
Hillary’s base will likely support Obama; the reverse is highly unlikely, no? So, Webb should not cost Obama any key segments.
If Hillary prevails, it will be only because Obama will have been shamed. One would hope that she would step aside and let the Party consider a plan B, if that is possible. If not, then Hillary would need a good man at her side. Webb, again, would fit, no?
Webb brings quite a bit of controversy of his own, but he is McCain’s sparring partner nightmare.
Richardson is a nice waste of serious space.
Pelosi. A wobbling waffler, who actually seems to respect cheney, no?
For McCain, as I stated here months ago, Rice checks the most of the right boxes. She also underscores the Bush-Three reality. She is likely out of touch on domestic policy.
Posted by: WCM | May 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm | Report this commentNo one is more ruthless than Obama, so he might make any choice.
Posted by: John | May 8th, 2008 at 8:59 pm | Report this commentRCS, how did you guess that I had made this secret arrangement with my sidekick, Roger Algase? We will all have to pay closer attention to your election forecasts from now on.
Posted by: algasema | May 8th, 2008 at 10:17 pm | Report this commentObama will be nominated for President and Hillary for Vice President.
There will be more Obamas, and in ten years we will start watching Martínez, as a consequence of demographic changes which translate into the Democratic Party, the party of minorities.
Blacks are between a quarter and a third of the population of Southern states…but there they consitute sometimes the majority of the Democratic Party while the Republican Party has an overwhelming white base…
The same goes incresingly in Western states for Hispanics even if these still do not participate much in politics. Latinos are between a quarter and a third of the population in Western states but soon they will contitute a clar majority of the Democratic Party while the Republican Party will keep the white majority…so there will be a Martinez in ten or twenty years.
But that does not mean that in national Elections for President of USA they will receive the vote of the white majority…probably, and they know it, an important part of whites supporting the Democratic Party in Southern states will not vote for a black President.
Posted by: Enrique | May 9th, 2008 at 3:47 am | Report this commentAnd many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” — Isaiah 2:3-4
Posted by: RCS
That is beautiful RCS. And how shall god judge those nations that steal the land of others, displace their people and murder their children specifially to “wipe them off the map”?
Posted by: Reza | May 9th, 2008 at 9:36 am | Report this commentReza, I’m sure we’ll find out just as soon as Ahmagonnabombya meets the hidden imam.
Posted by: AYC | May 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am | Report this commentAYC,
Posted by: Reza | May 9th, 2008 at 11:08 am | Report this commenthahaha. you are truly a special person. Please say hi to the tooth fairy and easter bunny for me when you see them
didn’t you hear? The tooth fairy is buried in the garden of martyrs, having been killed fighting the imperialist, racist, zionist scum.
The easter bunny wrote a highly succesful anti-imperialist blog, but was also recently martyred fighting the zionists.
Seems the “zionists” have no friends at all these days, eh preza.
Posted by: AYC | May 9th, 2008 at 11:34 am | Report this commentReza,
You forget to mention the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Arab countries who were forced to flee their homes after the wave of anti-Jewish pogroms in 1948. For instance, the massacres in Oujda and Jerada in Morocco, which convinced at least my grandparents to leave.
Posted by: RCS | May 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am | Report this commentIt would be a monumental mistake for Obama to accept Clinton as his running mate OR to offer to pay hers and Bill’s campaign debts.
He would instantly be exposed as just another smoke-filled-room Chicago wheeler-sealer.
Far better to sit things out till all the primaries are fought in early June 3 and let the Clintons burning of their own $1000-bills do the job of defeating them.
America deserves better than yet another dynasty,
Posted by: owl | May 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Report this commentafter the Kennedy’s and Bush’s.
By way of explanation concerning my above comments about Condoleezza Rice, they were based on three specific statements which, to say the least, cast substantial doubts on her willingness to adhere to the truth.
The first was her famous (or infamous) statement that, with regard to Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program, the “smoking gun” might come in the form of a “mushroom cloud”. When future histories of the invasion of Iraq are written, it is very possible that this statement, more than any other event of that time, will be remembered for its cynicism and deceptiveness in playing on the fears of the American people and of the world in gaining support for a war which, as we are continually learning, was initiated for quite different reasons.
Certainly, there can be wide disagreement on what those reasons were and continue to be. Both Alan Greenspan, in his recent memoir, and John McCain, in an even more recent campaign speech, have acknowledged that oil was an important factor. Paul Wolfowitz, much earlier, in effect admitted the same thing in his controversial interview with Vanity fair magazine. But, regardless of what the real reasons were, no one now believes that they had anything to do with Saddam’s supposed nuclear program, or that then National Security Advisor Rice had any grounds for believing that there was such a nuclear program when she made this inflammatory statement.
The other examples of Secretary Rice’s willingness to put loyalty to the Bush administration ahead of respect for the truth were her missleading statements before the 9/11 Commission in April 2004 denying that an August, 2001 FBI memo to the Bush administration had contained specific warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack on the US and that a proposal by former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke contained a “specific action plan”.
More details about Rice’s misleading and deceptive testimony before the 9/11 Commission can be found in a Washington Post article, “Rice Defends Pre-9/11 Anti-Terrorism Efforts” (April 9, 2004). Even if Secretary Rice’s record for truthfullness and candor were otherwise unblemished, something even her most vigorous supporters would have trouble showing, the three statements mentioned above, dissembling on issues of such critical importance to America and the world, not only justify my original comment, but, far more importantly, disqualify Secretary Rice from any serious consideration for being on a Vice-Presidential ticket.
Posted by: Roger Algase | May 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm | Report this commentSorry, I misspelled “truthfulness”.
Posted by: Roger Algase | May 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Report this commentEnrique, I agree with your perceptive comments about white attitudes toward Latinos and blacks and how they are likely to affect this election. Ever since the infamous Nixon “Southern Strategy” successfully exploiting the white backlash against civil rights laws passed by the Democrats under the leadership of President Johnson, the Republicans have tried to position themselves as the party of white voters and to label the Democrats as the party of minorities.
In the South, this has been done by gerrymandering Congressional districts so that black voters are all lumped together in a small number of districts electing Democrats, while the great majority of districts are made up of white voters who elect Republicans.
In states such as Florida, convicted felons, even those who have served their sentences and paid their debt to society, are barred from voting. This disprortionately disenfranchises African-American voters. No one seriously disputes that the purge of tens of thousands of African-American voters from the rolls, including thousands who had no felony convictions but whose names may have resembled those of people who did, helped to put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000.
More recently, some 20 states have passed restrictive voter ID laws, one of which, in Indiana, was upheld by the Supreme Court just before the primary which gave Hillary Clinton a razor-thin margin. It is not inconceivable that this narrow election could have gone the other way if there had been even a few more African-Americans voting. However African- Americans and Latino US citizens often find it more difficult to assemble the documents needed to qualify for the required government issued photo ID and therefore risk losing their vote, which was the sole purpose of these laws, notwithstanding their stated purpose in preventing virtually non-existent “voter impersonation” (which, according to the record in the Supreme Court case, has never taken place in Indiana).
The solution, it would seem, would be increased voter registration drives. The problem here, however, is that voter registration groups are being harassed, either by politically motivated Justice Department investigations, as was the case in Missouri when Karl Rove was in the White House and Alberto Gonzales was Attorney General, or by large punitive fines for technical violations, as is the case under Florida state law (according to a recent New York Times article). It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the Republican definition of “voter fraud” is allowing African-Americans and Latinos to vote.
It is against this background, therefore, that we need to assess the significance of the Jeremiah Wright affair and the obsession with the issue of illegal (and legal) immigration, which is temprorarily in remission as the Democratic candidates seek Latino votes during the primaries, but which will definitely come back with a vengeance during the fall campaign.
Both of these issues are tailor made to give white voters a chance to express their prejudices in a socially acceptable way. It is not considered polite to say that one would never vote for a black president, but it is quite acceptable, indeed obligatory, to denounce Jeremiah Wright’s rantings (while saying nothing about the equally offensive ones of certain right wing preachers and talk show chosts who support McCain).
In the same way, it is considered a more than a bit rude to complain that America supposedly has too many brown skinned Latinos (unless one is Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington, former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan or Congressman Tom Tancredo, that is), but it is perfectly acceptable to oppose illegal immigration because, after all, don’t we have to uphold the rule of law?
A rational observer, especially one from the other side of the Atlantic (I cannot stand the word “pond” - the ocean is far from being a pond - it took a week to cross it the last time I went by ship) might think that the two biggest issues in the fall election would be the economy and the Iraq war. My prediction is that, instead, they will be the two most popular ways of pandering to white racism, namely Jeremiah Wright and the “broken” Mexican border.
Posted by: algasema | May 11th, 2008 at 3:36 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
We agree — I too cannot stand the use of ‘pond’ to denote an ocean (supposedly meant to show ‘oh what a small world’ we inhabit). I also dislike the idiotic sounding and looking ‘too’.
I cannot stand ‘party-cum-militia’ which invariably comes up whenever The Economist mentions Hizbollah.
Posted by: RCS | May 11th, 2008 at 5:50 pm | Report this commentI am glad to see that we agree about the “pond”, RCS, even though it occurs to me that I may have been wrong about the length of time it took my student ship (from the Holland-America line, as I recall) to make it across the Atlantic on my last boat trip, almost fifty years ago. It was probably closer to five days, not a full week.
I hope that no one will mind my confusion over this point, since, as I mentioned in a previous post on one of these blogs, I am almost as old as John McCain. Therefore, since Senator Obama has kindly reminded his presumed opponent of the importance of keeping one’s bearings, I shall, in all earnest (as it is also important to be), try to do the same.
Posted by: algasema | May 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
I am glad to see that at your age you’ve so fluently mastered the new medium.
John is not as young and should have been quicker to learn — but his grandpa keeps hogging the computer.
Posted by: RCS | May 11th, 2008 at 8:27 pm | Report this commentAYC,
You make me laugh as always…So the Israelis are now going after the toothfairy’s land too? Do they believe they are fairylands “chosen people” as well? Whats next, the north pole? I can see the BBC story now:
Israel has launched an attack on the north pole and occupied most of the territory after announcing plans to build 300 Jewish settlements on the Artic shelf. During the attack, thousands of reindeer were killed as they fled their homes trying to escape the advance of Israeli tanks along with several of santas elves who were killed when an Israeli tank shell hit their nursery. The Attack has brought international condemnation but the US has vetoed a UN security council resolution demanding that Israel withdraw and stop all hostility. White house spokesman said that “Israel has a right to defend itself from the terrorist reindeer”.
Separately, north pole militant leader Santa Klaus was killed in his sleep by a 2000 pound laser guided bomb after an Israeli aerial strike hit and destroyed his workshop last night. Among those killed were Mrs Klaus and several elves. An Israeli spokesman called the workshop a “workshop of terror” and labeled Santa the “kingpin of terrorism”. “His beard was proof of that”, said the spokesman. On the loss of innocent elf life, the spokesman said: “we try to avoid civilian casualties at all costs and we are deeply sorry about this unfortunate outcome, but Santa and his terrorist organization are to blame for cowardly taking refuge among elves.
Rudolph the rednose reindeer was also killed after his sleigh mysteriously blew up. His body guards donner and blitzen were also killed in the bombing. Israel has blamed Syria for the bombing and demanded an inquiry into Syrian interference of north pole affairs.
Chilly Willy the penguin has called the attacks on the north pole “a vicious crime. Israel has fired back at Chilly Willy, accusing him of being “hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons” and as posing an “existential threat to Israel’s existence”. TO date, IAEA inspections of Chilly Willy’s igloo have turned up no evidence of a secret nuclear weapons program. Israel and the US refute this evidence. US presidential candidates have mentioned if elected, they would “totally obliterate Antartica if it attacked Israel”
RCS,
I bet you keep a record of every incident in which a Jew trips over a rock. If you want to talk about massacres then lets also not forget about the massacre of innocent Palestinian refugees ordered by your previous war criminal leader Ariel Sharon.
Posted by: Reza | May 12th, 2008 at 5:52 am | Report this comment