Towards a new consensus. Friday, Jun 13 2008

Barack Obama should hone his message to instigate a tidal wave of progressive policy that will sweep the plate of reactionary conservatism clean. He should begin building on the foundations of the new liberal consensus whose foundations were laid by Billion. Bill Clinton contributed to the liberal cause dispute being paralysed by an antagonistic Congress hostage to the whims of gun-toting conservatives. This time is different, change is coming to America. Liberals are the fastest growing and largest ideological group in the country.

We have the majority in the Senate and the House, the Presidency and more importantly the public opinion. Many would suggest that Obama needs to toe the middle ground to make sure he does not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I beg to differ. Centrism, naturally a Clintonian virtue, was not what led to his vanquishing of the Clinton machine. Obama’s message was explicitly and implicitly liberal. His views on the range of issues from Healthcare to Education to Iraq to Clime Change to the Economy to Social Issues correspond strongly with left-wing values held by the likes of McGovern and Carter. That label, to which Republicans have ascribed some kind of warped understanding and toxicity should be worn proudly by the Obama campaign and the Obama administration, it should be reclaimed. I will not list the contributions and achievements made by liberals, they speak for themselves and they overwhelm the failing economies and procrastinated wars perfected by the modern Republican machine.

The old saying ‘Republicans know how to win elections, Democrats know how to govern’ is not without merit. However, it is finally the time to hone a Left-wing message that should and will correspond with the general mood of the public. The conservative revolution that began with the election of Ronald Reagan is finally receding, it is more likely than not that Conservative Christians to which the GOP has been hostage for the last 28 years will either stay at home this November or grow more disillusioned with the Republicans - already a large number of polls suggest that Obama’s message of unity has given birth to so-called Obamacons.

This should not be read as the result of his mastery of the political center. As I mentioned the might of the Right is finally failing, and the Right has nobody to blame but itself. It has run its course, the empty and ethically bankrupt strategy of waging war and blaming abortion has failed. The dangers of putting God in the White House are clear. The heat of Global Warming has lit a fire under many Evangelicals. The injustice of supply-side economics have crystallised with the sub-prime crisis. And the 47 million uninsured have largely de-validated the all-wise, all-knowing market as the solution.

As a result the American people have moved to the Left on many of these key issues. This is why Obama beat Hillary Clinton, this is his niche. If he had tried to beat the centrists in their game, he would’ve failed grotesquely. His emergence as the Standard Bearer of the Democratic Party is because he is the first Dem in a long time to talk like one. Many would say that this strategy worked in a Democratic primary but not in a General Election. Again, I beg to differ, Obama’s delegate lead was established largely because of the droves of independents that flocked to the polls in support of his insurgent candidacy. His message resonates because the people see the Right for what it is, a largely failed, vacuous, competency-impaired mask for incremental fascism, it exists in a moral and ethical vacuum predicated on winning elections by exploiting the worst and dumbest in people. Their biases and fears, their ignorance and lowest common denominator and then devise a strategy to exploit it.
Obama should not make the mistake of underestimating the potency of the liberal message in this election, in this moment.

No Responses »

 

Thank you, Hillary. Thursday, Jun 5 2008

On Saturday, Hillary Clinton will officially suspend her candidacy. She will resolve to her defeat. She will concede to her opponent. And, she will exit the presidential race. Her withdrawal will mark an historic moment in American politics. The stretch of her remarkable campaign represents the closest a woman has ever been to realistically become President of the United States of America.

When this campaign began my allegiance to Hillary was profoundly inspired by a deep seated affection I had for her husband, the former president. Now, as her campaign draws a close, I find that the Clinton to whom I feel the greatest amount of affection is in fact Hillary Clinton.

By no means was Hillary a perfect candidate, and maybe without the baggage automatically summoned by her famous last name, we would be celebrating a historic moment of a different flavor. I am not about to make excuses, Hillary and her supporters are naturally flawed individuals, I do believe however, that at times in this campaign standards of judgment were not applied equally, objectively or assiduously to both candidates.

This however, is the nature of politics. The eight-year presidency of a man who did not, in fact, win the election remains a salient example of the work to be, and the constant imperfection of this union.

I have nothing more nor less to ask of Hillary except that she remain the Hillary I know. The Hillary that braved the all-boys club of presidential politics and trailed a blaze that was groundbreaking as much as it was audacious in its pursuit of the highest office. Hillary’s positives maybe romanticized and her negatives maybe be exaggerated. She maybe seen as a legendarily determined woman whose commitment to her country and its people sustained her through a brutal campaign. Or, she maybe seen as an egotistical and power-hungry megalomaniac with a take-no-prisoner’s attitude towards winning.

To me however, Hillary Clinton will remain the proudest I have ever been of a politician I supported. She will always have my allegiance, my loyalty and my affection. I will always be proud of her and of the campaign she ran.

Thank you, Hillary.

No Responses »

 

From Mearsheimer and Walt to the birth of J Street. Monday, Jun 2 2008

In March 2006 two prominent academics; Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard University published what has been described as the most controversial essay in International Relations discourse since Samuel Huntington’s widely celebrated work, The Clash of Civilizations.

The essay that was originally commissioned and then rejected by the Atlantic Monthly had a simple objective and that was to discuss the impact of the Israel lobby on US foreign policy. While at face value and certainly to many IR scholars outside the US the topic is nothing new and a many conversations and articles have opined on its intricacies. In the US, however, the article unleashed a firestorm, indeed one does not exaggerate when saying that nothing like it has ever been published certainly not by two intellectuals - agree with them or not - of the stature of Mearsheimer and Walt.

The title of their groundbreaking piece was appropriately enough, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Their hypothesis was equally non-radical, after describing the impressive degree of material and diplomatic support the US provides to Israel, the writers argue that this support cannot be understood or explained on strategic or moral grounds. Indeed they state that “it was due largely to the political power of the Israel lobby, a loose coalition of individuals and groups that seeks to influence American foreign policy in ways that will benefit Israel”. They go on to explain that not only does the lobby encourage and pressure the US government into providing unequivocal and unconditional support to Israel, it has played an influential role in shaping foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the invasion of Iraq, the confrontation with Syria and the Iranian stand-off. Their final assertion is that the policies pursued have in fact been detrimental to both countries’ long-term interest.

The response to the piece was predictably fiery. As foreseen by the writers, charges of anti-Semitism were levelled against them. Their essay was erroneously criticized for its supposed factual and historical omissions that, in the view of their critics, weakened their argument. Indeed much of what has been said about Mearsheimer and Walt corresponds with the vitriol leveled against former president Jimmy Carter for his book, Palestine Peace not Apartheid. While many academics around the world, and I stress this point purposefully, lauded the book for its moral courage and encouraged the discussion around an issue key to US foreign policy but seldom openly discoursed, the reception it received in the US was far from positive. At least in the traditional circles of foreign policy and security studies.

However, something changed in the perception, a seismic shift not only in the way Americans perceived their special relationship with Israel but, more pointedly, in the way American Jews related to the lobby that has historically assumed a prominent role in supposedly representing their wishes. Although the lobby is made up of numerous individuals and groups, its most vocal voice is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. A hard-line organizations whose membership includes a vast catalogue of right-wing neoconservative military hawks. For too long they have been the pro-Israel group with the most influential voice, they have as the writers outline pressured consecutive American governments to provide an uncritical cover for Israel. This support has obviously manifested itself in favorable military aid grants, an automatic veto of any resolution condemning Israeli aggression at the Security Council, and an unrelenting stream of funds to subsidize anything from expanding settlements to the development of more “effective” cluster bombs.

Today though the tide is changing. While many decried the piece as anti-Semitic and bigoted, it received respectful and favorable reviews from traditional pro-Israel outlets including The New York Times and Israeli newspaper Haaretz. The more encouraging development though was the debate born out of an attempt by two academics to discuss the ultimate taboo in American politics. Whether or not they are included in the ensuing debate is irrelevant. What is important, however, is that more people, American and Jewish are discussing the influence of the lobby, its hawkish policies, and its ultra-conservative slant, evaluating whether or not these positions and policies promoted by organizations like AIPAC truly benefit the long-term interests of the US and Israel.

The reality, is that they do not. As a result, an organization long overdue has been created. J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. They support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the US’ role in the region.

The organization has won the backing of many individuals with extensive experience in the region including; Former Israeli Foreign Minister and Public Security Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, Former US Sentaor Lincoln Chafee, Maria Echaveste Former Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Sara Ehrman Former Political Education Director at AIPAC, Robert Greenwald from Brave New Films, Robert Pastor Former Senior Director of the National Security Council, Eli Paster Executive Director of MoveOn.org, Kevin Quigley President of the National Peace Corps Association. View more supporters of J Street here.

The organization has openly rejected the kind of support the traditional Israel lobby has solicited from the US government in claiming to represent American Jews:

One of its current campaigns is “Don’t go, Joe!”, its aim to get Sen. Joseph Lieberman to withdraw his commitment to speak Pastor John Hagee’s Israel Summit in July in Washington D.C. Sign the petition.

The organisation is already facing an uphill battle. It has taken challenge, it is going to change the political map in Washington and with it the Middle East map, but before it does that it’s going to face a hell of fight from the tradition Israel lobby, they have already begun their efforts, J Street will only survive with our support. Sign up to the J Street newsletter here and help put a pro-Israel, pro-Peace voice in Washington by donating.

No Responses »

 

Hillary Clinton: Why I Continue to Run. Monday, May 26 2008

This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband’s primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy’s, had continued into June.

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.

I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year’s primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy’s son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, “I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.

And today, I would like to more fully answer the question I was asked: Why do I continue to run, even in the face of calls from pundits and politicians for me to leave this race?

I am running because I still believe I can win on the merits. Because, with our economy in crisis, our nation at war, the stakes have never been higher - and the need for real leadership has never been greater - and I believe I can provide that leadership.

I am not unaware of the challenges or the odds of my securing the nomination - but this race remains extraordinarily close, and hundreds of thousands of people in upcoming primaries are still waiting to vote. As I have said so many times over the course of this primary, if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I will support him and work my heart out for him against John McCain. But that has not happened yet.

I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Sen. Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - in the end, everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

I am running because my parents did not raise me to be a quitter - and too many people still come up to me at my events, grip my arm and urge me not to walk away before this contest is over. More than 17 million Americans have voted for me in this race - the most in presidential primary history.

I am running for all those women in their 90s who’ve told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, “See, you can be anything you want to be.” As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.

I am running for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American Dream - the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

I believe I won a 40-point victory two weeks ago in West Virginia and a 35-point victory in Kentucky this past week - despite voters being repeatedly told this race is over - because I’m standing up for them. I’m standing up for the deepest principles of our party and for an America that values the middle class and rewards hard work.

Finally, I am running because I believe I’m the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain. Delegate math might be complicated - but electoral math is not. Our campaign is winning the popular vote - and we’ve been winning the swing states we need to get 270 electoral votes and take back the White House: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Florida and West Virginia.

But no matter what happens in this primary, I am committed to unifying this party. Ultimately, what Sen. Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences. And I know that if we come together, as a party and a people, there is no challenge we cannot meet, no barrier we cannot break and no dream we cannot realize.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

==

Keep Going!

One Response »

 

Song of the Week(s). Sunday, May 25 2008

In the spirit of Arabia, I choose this song. It’s by Fairouz, a Lebanese singer. To the Arab world Fairouz came suddenly, as a miracle. At a time when Arabic singing was weighed down with convention and predictability, and spirits were nationally at their lowest, her voice rang, as though from the beyond, the notes of salvation and joy. Arabic music has never been the same since. Nostalgic but vibrant, sad but defiant, folkloric and yet so new, hers has been for nearly 30 years perhaps the only voice that seems so capable of jubilation in an almost cosmic sense. By turns mystic and amorous, elegiac and fiery, her singing has expressed the whole emotional scale of Arab life with haunting intensity. Often singers give listeners pleasure, as they expect. She often gives them, beyond their expectation, ecstasy.

Raj3een ya Hawa

No Responses »

 

’tis the season to be Hopeful? Friday, May 23 2008

At the risk of getting too ahead of myself, it seems things are changing. A semblance of something good in a long, long, dark winter that has engulfed my region, and I can’t help but feel a certain sense of hopefulness. Barack’s message has entered the popular zeitgeist and apparently infiltrated the often stifled political climate of the Middle East.

Only a week after President Bush, on a speech in Israel, went out of his way to make a fool of himself and criticize the presumptive Democratic nominee, if not by name, for calling for direct negotiations with “enemy” countries; Iran, Syria, Venezuela etc. The very same country in which the president found time to declare his personal distaste for diplomacy announced that it has been engaged in high-level direct negotiations with its nemesis, Syria. The talks mediated by Turkey and held in undisclosed locations are aimed at reaching a peaceful settlement for the decades-old crisis that threatens the region every now and then with the possibility of another war.

As usual, the Right has jumped on the bandwagon and tried to paint the talks as political manoeuvring by embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmret, who faces serious corruption allegations, or even a strategic error of the highest order, since it is widely known that Syria would naturally like the Golan back, occupied since the Israeli invasion of 1967, the Heights remain a thorn in any potential settlement between the sides. The Right has declared the area strategic to Israel’s security and sees giving it up as some form of capitulation or even in the words of one idiot, “appeasement”.

It is, however, a cause for celebration that they are talking. The Bush brand of conflict resolution has proved a spectacular failure and for one of his staunchest allies to talk openly and with “an open mind” with one of his most reviled adversaries is a humiliating repudiation.

In any case, talks have come and go in the Middle East, some with great rewards; Israel is at peace with Egypt and Jordan largely thanks to peace talks. The urgency inherent in the climate with the region facing some of its toughest tests forces us to even rethink the reasons behind talks, if there was a time to avert all out war it is today, with the rising power of Iran, the simmering Civil War in Iraq and the potent explosiveness of Islamist extremists, leaders like Olmret and for that matter Assad are needed and indeed should be encouraged in their endeavours.

But wait! The hopeful season does not end there. Yesterday, Lebanese factions announced in Doha, Qatar that they have reached an agreement that would end the conflict that has seen the country edging slowly to the brink of all out war. Under the agreement, the opposition led by Hizbollah, would form a national unity government with the Sunni-Christian-Druze majority led by the Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Many see the agreement as a win for Hizbollah, whose show of force last week resulted in the deaths of 62 people in addition to the seizure of West Beirut; the worst violence the country has seen since its 15-year Civil War. The actions stunned the nation and reminded people in Lebanon and in the region of the all-too-recent sectarian strife that cost the nation more than 100,000 deaths.

Under the agreement, Gen. Michelle Suleyman was agreed a consensus candidate for President, an office empty since November, when Syrian-backed Emile Lahoud’s term ended. In addition, the opposition made up of two main factions; Hizbollah and Michel Oun’s Free Patriotic Movement would have a veto over any cabinet decision. There is proposed redistricting before the parliamentary election next year as well as a timetable for talking about, and resolving, Hizbollah’s sizable weapons arsenal.

All in all, good developments, positive Ones. Of course there may have been ulterior motives involved (See: Syria-Israel talks implications on Hizbollah, Hizbollah’s strength forces Israel to try and isolate Iran and bring Syria to the Western fold). However, for a region so used to failure in politics.

This is good!

No Responses »

 

Long Live the King. Wednesday, May 21 2008

The last few weeks have been frenzied. I have neglected this place, for that I apologize.

Today, I write not about politics.

I write about a dream that was born with a speech that enshrined a fallen President in modern history’s most lustrous pages. It was an era in which everything seemed possible. A discourse that was civil and dissent that was welcomed. A time wherein we stood witness to an elevation of spirit that took us to a place grander than all of us. A country that once was greater than the sum of its parts. I write about an eloquent challenge that called on us to ask ourselves what we can do for each other.

November 22, 1963.

I write about a hope that was revived by a new commitment to make bright that torch yet again. A nobility that defined interacting with adversaries. A humility when admitting our mistakes. A dignity with which we disagreed with each other. The passion of the young intersecting with the wisdom of the old. The determination to bridge the divide and accept our designation as equal by virtue of being human. I write about inspiration that says that we can be good, that we can be brave, that we can be just.

June 6, 1968.

I write about a belief that has endured through countless tragedies by the protection of a lion. A palace that shone bright with example for all of America, and the world to follow. A man who is determined to keep that torch burning. A fight, not yet won, and not nearly over against injustice and prejudice, against greed and inequality. A fight that despite the bullets and the sacrifices, the stolen dreams and the unfinished legend, still goes on.

I write about that place inscribed with the names of three brothers who belong to the embrace of history as kings among men.

For more than 45 years, Edward M. Kennedy took it upon himself to continue the work of his brothers, and remind all who would listen, all around the world, that in politics there is still a place for compassion, unity and progress.

For more than 45 yeas, Edward M. Kennedy fought with relentless zeal and an indefatigable spirit for the normal person who only seeks assurance that when needed, we will, all of us, be there to help.

Camelot still shines a bright palace in our midst, reminding us of a better politics, a better government, a better ethics, and a better us. Teddy has served us well, so we wait, we wait for the Lion to rise again. We wait to see him in that old chamber a defiant voice for those whose interests are seldom protected.

We are all Kennedys today, and we speak in one voice:

“The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die” Edward Moore Kennedy.

No Responses »

 

Clinton: I’ll work my heart out for him. Monday, May 5 2008

I love this story.

In a Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton made clear that if Barack Obama is the nominee she will work hard to deliver him the White House.

“If Senator Obama is the nominee, you better believe I’ll work my heart out for him” She said.

When supporters of Obama in the crowd grew louder in their cheers, Clinton paused and then added she expected him to “do the very same for me”.

The statement made me feel that they could in fact work together, they would be a formidable team. Obviously, the “Dream Ticket” dream is over, but hey President and Senate Majority Leader isn’t too bad.

2 Responses »

 

Zimbabwe heading to a Recount. Sunday, May 4 2008

The saga of Zimbabwe’s election has reached larger proportions. On Friday, the election commission announced that opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, had won more votes that incumbent despot Robert Mugabe, but not enough as to not warrant a run-off.

The New York Times reports that the opposition party has denounced the officials for accelerating the release of the results before the opposition had any chance to challenge them.

“They did not verify the results,” Mr. Chamisa said. “They did not give us an opportunity to contest the results. They are waylaying the people’s will. Clearly, this is scandalous.

The opposition rejects the results and has been arguing that they won the necessary 50.3% for Mr. Tsvangirai to become the new president. Following the release of the official results however, they have not made these pronouncements publicly. No date has been set for the run-off election.

No Responses »

 

Tribute to Ann Coulter. Saturday, May 3 2008

Gotta love Letterman:

One Response »