Certainly he’s disappointed many of his supporters. As I said, while I more or less expected it, I felt a distinct thrill of disappointment when I read his statement. While I realize that liberal Dems tend to tack to the right once they know they’ve got the nod, it seems a bit…previous. We haven’t even had the convention yet.
The problem is, Obama can’t win if he looks ’soft’ on terrorism because the Dems have let the Republicans own the whole national security issue and define the requirements. I guess it’s too much to hope that the Dems would wrest the issue away from the right and challenge the Bush administration’s (and the nation’s) assumptions about the most effective way to fight it. Why did the left let this issue become the right’s sole property? I see it as a stunning failure of imagination as well as a failure in courage and leadership.
Realistically, it’s probably too much to expect him to take this on single-handedly right as he’s initiating his campaign for the general election. Isn’t it? I am too cynical — or, as I prefer to frame it, ‘pragmatic’ — to expect him to push a progressive platform while he’s trying to beat McCain and yet….I can’t help feeling that Edwards would have repudiated this terrible legislation. But isn’t that precisely why people said that Edwards could never win in the general? And Obama never really presented himself as an Edwards sort of progressive.
Bear in mind I don’t feel particularly inclined to defend him — he was never my choice for presumptive nominee. I am trying to understand the thinking behind this decision and to spin it in a way I can stomach.
Europe this week bade President Bush farewell - and if it was a fond farewell, it is because they know he’s leaving not only Europe, but the corridors of American power.
Edward R. Murrow told his generation of journalists, no one can eliminate their prejudices. Just recognize them.
Here is my bias.
Extremes of wealth and poverty cannot be reconciled with a truly just society. Capitalism breeds great inequality that is destructive unless tempered by an intuition for equality which is the heart of democracy.
When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of the people who have neither power nor privilege we can no longer claim to have a representative government.
Read historian Gordon Wood’s landmark book “The Radicalism of the American Revolution.” America discovered its greatness, he writes, by creating a prosperous free society, belonging to obscure people with their work a day concerns, and pursuits of happiness, a democracy that changes the lives of hitherto neglected and despised masses of common, laboring people. […]
You will search the dominant media largely in vain for journalism that tells the truth about the fading of the American dream. As conglomerates swallow up newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, and broadcast outlets, news organizations are folded into entertainment divisions.
The news hole in the print media shrinks to make room for ads, celebrities, nonsense, and propaganda, and the news we need to know slips from sight. So it’s up to you to tell the truth about this country we love.
Of course, Moyers isn’t the only one concerned with the state of news today. The Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton hosted a two day workshop on the Future of News a couple weeks back. A full 8 hours of its sessions are available for download via podcast. I’m about half way through…
“We still have a long way to go to the presidential elections in November, more than sufficient time for the intentions of the voters to change. … There is no doubt that as far as the interests of Colombia are concerned, McCain would be the ideal president. But it’s the same for the middle and upper classes of the United States. McCain would be ideal, especially after listening to the pacifist and naive Neville Chamberlain-ideas of Obama in regard to confronting Iran, inasmuch as the Iranian threat is real and one fears a repeat of the Democratic government of Jimmy Carter, who was a disastrous dolt as much for the United States as for the rest of the Western world. ”
“The issue is that the Democrats lack vision in international affairs. For example, look at the issue of the “assassinations of Colombian trade unionists.” For them this is such a serious fault that they can’t sign a Free Trade Agreement with their first ally in Latin America. It hasn’t occurred to the myopic Democrats that by emphasizing the unproven murders of Colombian trade unionists as an argument against the FTA, they may well encourage such killings by President Uribe’s own enemies.”
When and if Barack Obama takes the oath of office as President of the United States, who most will he owe that high privilege to?
According to Alexandre Adler, one of France’s leading historians, journalists - and according to many - a neocon, that person would be George W. Bush. Read the rest of this entry »
In highlighting the ongoing legal prosecutions at Siemens - the German mega-giant now mired in what some have called the greatest bribery scandal of all time, Klocks writes:
“What German courts were unable to achieve and even the Pope would have failed to accomplish, has now been done by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. … The capitalists themselves insist that the train of greed remain on the tracks - its tracks.”
Kocks then goes on to describe how the Pietists created the first capital markets - which leads him to what created the business powerhouse known as the United States of America: Read the rest of this entry »
Wolcott’s got a When Democrats go Post-al look at the lefty blogosphere up at Vanity Fair that’s getting lots of attention and is generally none-too-flattering.
Is there a hidden hand behind the anti-China protesting of recent weeks, other than of course the much maligned ‘Dalai Clique?’ Indeed there is, according to Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry. According to a statement, in part published in Venezuela’s El Universal, “The manipulation of the media in regard to the protest of violent groups in the Tibet Autonomous Region is an ingredient of a formula from the psychological warfare laboratories of the United States, that is applied to permanently destabilize countries that refuse to meekly submit to the mandates of imperial rule.”
Translated by Miguel Guttierez
April 8, 2008
Venezuela - El Universal - Original Article (Spanish)
Caracas: Today, the National Government has denounced a campaign of “infamies” launched from the United States against China over the Tibet incident and said that it anticipates the success of the Olympic Games in Beijing.
The Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Venezuela will give its absolute support to realizing the event in Beijing, and will be sending its largest delegation ever to an Olympic Games.
“Consistent with the principle of brotherhood among peoples in their battle against all forms of imperialism, the government expresses its full and unreserved solidarity with the government and people of the People’s Republic of China as they confront the relentless and systematic campaign of infamies they have been victimized by during the past few weeks through the major mass media companies,” it said.
The “manipulation of the media in regard to the protest of violent groups in the Tibet Autonomous Region is an ingredient of a formula from the psychological warfare laboratories of the United States that is applied to permanently destabilize countries that refuse to meekly submit to the mandates of imperial rule,” it added.
I don’t have a ton of faith in this effort, but I don’t imagine it could be any worse than having members of my own synagogue intimate that I’m an anti-Semite because I don’t unequivocally support Israel.
The [Israel] Foreign Affairs Ministry has long since been exerting considerable efforts to bring the prominent writers for an extensive tour of the country, in recognizing the influence many of the writers wield and the fact some of them represent websites that are less-than-friendly towards the Israel.
While Israel enjoys relatively balanced coverage in American mainstream media, there are numerous blogs identifying with the liberal left who are unwaveringly critical of Israeli policies, often referring to Israel as an apartheid state which, among other things, is responsible for Washington’s decision to go to war in Iraq.
The unique tour was organized by the Solomon Project, which was founded in 1996 to “educate the American Jewish community about its rich history of civic involvement.”
The bloggers, along with leaders from various progressive organizatios, will meet with Israeli bloggers, journalists and Knesset officials. They will also be briefed on the security situation in the region and Israel’s civil society.
The group will be taken to view Sderot and Israel’s ‘narrow waistline’ by helicopter in an effort to convey the true meaning of a return to the borders of June 4th 1967. The guests are also scheduled to visit with the top negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, Saeb Erekat and may also meet Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni.
“We are looking forward to an informative and educational trip,” said National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) Executive Director Ira Forman, director of research for the Solomon Project Research.
“It is important that progressive bloggers and leaders of progressive organizations learn first-hand about the current situation in Israel. We also want to provide them with an eye-opening experience that will help them better understand the complexity of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I haven’t written much about this, but I will be traveling to Israel for two weeks later this year. What saddens me is that the government of Israel thinks that a visit to Israel might be able to accomplish what none of us who have tried to be reasonable on sites such as Daily Kos about Israel have been able to accomplish.
On the other hand, I’ve often remarked to people who have never been there that you just cannot fully understand how gut-wrenching the conditions are there - throughout the country and the occupied territories, from a humanity level and from an anthropological level, unless you go there.
You also come away realizing why belief in and talk of refusal to recognize one’s existence has no place in a peace plan of any type for the Middle East.
While the debate in the United States seems to center around whether with Barack Obama, there is any there there, it seems that in some places he is regarded as the Democratic answer to the much vaunted Republican idea machine. Alfredo Toro Hardy of Venezuela’s El Universal writes, ‘Confronted with the flood of proposals from their Republican counterparts, the fonts of Democratic thought seem to have dried up. … As if by magic, these past limitations seem to be disappearing due to the impact of the Obama phenomenon. He has been responsible with offering Democrats and his campaign a ‘vision’ which, combined with his oratory and charisma, offers a solid counterweight to the strong conservative tendency that characterizes the national mood.’
By Alfredo Toro Hardy
Translated By Barbara Howe
March 13, 2008
Venezuela - El Universal - Original Article (Spanish)
Democrats have begun confronting some serious limitations. Their lack of policy proposals and ideas has often played into the hands of Republicans - and at times when the Republicans have been particularly prolific in this regard. It’s from the right-wing side of the political spectrum that the majority of the ideas which have fed the public life of that country have emerged Read the rest of this entry »
Would the nations of Latin America be better off replacing the Organization of American States with a new grouping that leaves out the U.S.? After the success of last week’s Group of Rio Summit - which the U.S. did not attend - in defusing a military-diplomatic crisis involving Colombia and a number of its neighbors, there are many people south of the United States that seem to think so. Ángel Guerra Cabrera for Mexico’s La Jornada writes in part, ‘Seemingly intractable antagonisms and ideological crisis can be overcome as long as they are addressed without the presence of the United States … Looking back at history, the OAS has never condemned a single Yankee misdeed against our America, nor has it defended any of our just causes.’ In terms of the attack against Ecuador by Colombia, Cabrera expresses the suspicions of many Latin Americans, when he writes, ‘the roots of the Ecuador incident, momentarily defused by the Rio Group, remain unchanged: the Colombian conflict, the fruit of a very unfair and devastating social and political reality which has been encouraged by “Plan Colombia,” is the nucleus of a feverish U.S. plot of subversion and military interference in South America, aimed at overthrowing the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, and closely related to the fierce onslaught against Cuba.’
By Ángel Guerra Cabrera
Translated By Fernando Uribe
March 13, 2008
Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)
The Group of Rio Summit’s resounding rejection of military aggression against Ecuador and the consequent defusing of the diplomatic crisis that it sparked, has once again forced Bush - who longed for fire in the Andes region - to experience the bitter taste of defeat WATCH . In this reversal, he had to swallow the clear and vibrant desire for unity, cooperation, and peace in Latin America and the Caribbean, which was so forcefully displayed at Santo Domingo’s capital, Quisqueya.
[Editor’s Note: The “Group of Rio” was founded in 1986, and includes nineteen Caribbean states: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. The 35-nation OAS (Organization of American States) has been the dominant regional decision-making body for many years. The earliest forerunner of the OAS first convened in Washington in 1890, and consisted of 18 nations].
The great lesson of the summit is the enormous capacity for dialogue and understanding that the governments of our region possess, with which seemingly intractable antagonisms and ideological crisis can be overcome as long as they are addressed without the presence of the United States.
The best evidence of this came days earlier at OAS headquarters in Washington. Due solely to Yankee pressure - even though for the first time all present clearly condemned all U.S.-inspired interventions, it was impossible to translate this into a collective statement.
On the other hand, despite the fact that Yankee pressure increased on the eve of the meeting in the Dominican Republic (as President Rafael Correa briefed several of his counterparts) U.S. intentions ended up crashing against a determined majority. So there was more than enough reason, in light of this experience, for Ecuador to assert the necessity of creating an organization of Latin American states without the Empire. Looking back at history, the OAS has never condemned a single Yankee misdeed against our America, nor has it defended any of our just causes.
The success of the Rio Summit was also made possible by other decisive factors. The most important was [Ecuadorian President] Correa’s unwavering defense of Ecuadorian sovereignty and demands for its violation to be condemned - and the unanimous disapproval of this ominous precedent. This included the resolute attitude of heavyweights like Brazil and Argentina not to accept under any circumstances, violations of the territorial integrity of another State, which left Uribe isolated.
The only positive attitude towards the Latin American peoples, once assured censorship of the summit to the armed attack against Ecuador, was not insist on the large differences in approach for the sake of opposing defuse the climate of war created.
The skilful and transparent conduct of the meeting by Dominican President Leonel Fernandez created the climate for the bright and balanced involvement of Hugo Chavez who took the lead, supported by [Nicaraguan President] Daniel Ortega and [Bolivian President] Evo Morales. This was the turning point that kept away the shadow of a fratricidal war and led to the unexpected conclusion. This singular attitude favored by the people of Latin America not only assured the summit’s censure of the armed attack against Ecuador, it made certain in the interests of not extending the warlike atmosphere, that little would be made of the vast differences in approach suggested by individual states.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing coverage of the United States from the Latin American press.
Is Barack Obama in danger of going the way of ill-fated French Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal - who was defeated by another member of an unpopular incumbent conservative party - namely, Nicolas Sarkozy? In this note of caution from a Socialist member of the French Assembly, Mr. Obama is duly warned. From the pages of the French newspaper Liberation, Jean-Jacques Urvoas writes, ‘Perhaps one would permit a Frenchman with informative but unhappy experience to risk offering some advice: In an electorate concerned about the prospect of a recession and pessimistic about the future of the country, it’s important to concretely describe one’s ambition and not merely settle for the rewarding role of being a midwife of ideas.’
By Jean-Jacques Urvoas
Socialist Deputy from Finistère
Translated By Kate Davis
March 3, 2008
France - Liberation - Original Article (French)
The Democratic Party primaries seem strangely familiar. The similarities with the procedure that ended a year and a half ago with the Socialist Party’s nomination of Ségolène Royal WATCH are in fact striking. How can we not compare the trajectory of the senator from Illinois with that of the president of the regional council of Poitou-Charentes [Ségolène Royal]? Like her, he was an outsider long before becoming the “front-runner” in the primaries. And his turn has the same explanation: a massive participation in the primaries.
Like the new members of the Socialist Party, these unexpected voters upset all expectations. Read the rest of this entry »
Is there something odd about one war [Iraq] in which the post-war claims more lives than the war itself, and another [Colombia] in which hostages are taken not for a quick exchange of ransom, but to be held for years simply to make a point? This op-ed from Guatemala’s leading newspaper, Siglo Vientiuno, ponders the question of how the new millennium has altered humanity’s most destructive preoccupation.
“Like the temperature, the seasons, the rain and other natural phenomena that in this new century no longer respond to the old cycles we once knew, the dynamics of war (humanity’s most destructive activity) also seem to have changed.”
Victor Galvez Borrel
Translated By Paula van de Werken
January 14, 2008
Guatemala - Siglo Vientiuno - Original Article (Spanish)
Guatemala: Like the temperature, the seasons, the rain and other natural phenomena that in this new century no longer respond to the old cycles we once knew, the dynamics of war (humanity’s most destructive activity) also seem to have changed. Take two hot spots for example.
The first is the war in Iraq. Effectively, while the invasion of that country officially on May 1, 2003 (after the much-publicized victory if international coalition forces led by the United States after 40 days of combat that devastated the Iraqi Army). A few days later a different war began - and it continues today.
In the last four and a half years (until the end of October 2007) that conflict has resulted in 4,145 dead soldiers (92 percent of them North Americans and a total of five Salvadorans), as well as 28,171 wounded. In other words, 24 times more dead than during the initial invasion.
In addition to recording more deaths after victory than during the initial invasion, this war is characterized by the complexity of the battle being waged on several fronts: against the troops of the international coalition, against the government and the rebuilt Iraqi army (trained and subordinated to the invading forces), and between the majority Shiite Muslims (55 percent of the population) and the minority Sunnis (18 percent of the population).
This latter front gives the conflict the feel of a civil war, which had up to now spared the Kurds (21 percent of the population) but which now threatens to draw them in due to the recent bombings of their territory [northern Iraq] by Turkey. This feature creates the third and key paradox of this war: The troops of the international coalition don’t what to do in order to stay, but neither have they found the formula to go. Attacks with “car bombs” and the taking of hostages are two principal weapons of the fight.
The second “hot spot” is the internal armed conflict in Columbia, the oldest in America, which was ignored and isolated since it became impossible to conceal in 1980.
Huckabee’s got protesters already! Is it performance art? Civil disobedience? Street theater? Self-centeredness? Neither Fred nor Cindy is welcome in MY home.
The data provided by Gen. Petraeus on sharply declining Iraqi casualty rates is certainly open to analysis, debate, and challenge. We plan to take a closer look at them in a future post. However, MoveOn.org does not provide adequate factual support for its larger assertion that Petraeus is “constantly at war with the facts” and is “cooking the books” for the White House. In the absence of fresh evidence, we award MoveOn.org three Pinocchios
I was listening to the testimony of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on NPR while running errands. Several times I heard interruptions by spoiled, bratty girls masquerading as responsible adults. I’m appalled to think that I might actually have once been friends with some of them. You know who you are, and you bring only shame to this lesbian feminist.
Jamie Stern-Weiner posts at Daily Kos and ukwatch.net. We’re all familiar with Kos, but what about ukwatch? Here’s how ukwatch describes itself:
In an age dominated by corporate media control, the importance of alternative media – in contesting mainstream interpretations, promoting alternative understandings and supporting the development of a radical popular culture – can hardly be overstated. ukwatch.net is our contribution.
Corporate media control is a bad thing, but government media control — at least in Venezuela — is a good thing, argues Stern-Weiner. Here’s what he (she?) has tosay about Chavez’s latest power grab:
There’s an extraordinary spectacle currently playing out in the broadsheets both here and in the United States with regards to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’ decision not to renew the license of a major Venezuelan TV channel, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). The move is being portrayed as an attack on freedom of speech and a threat to Venezuelan democracy, and is being cited as proof of Chavez’ authoritarianism by those who have been accusing him of being a would-be dictator from the second he was elected to power.
[ . . . ]
RCTV, together with three other private media corporations (Globovision, Venevision and Televen), which together control some 90% of the TV market, played a leading role in instigating and supporting the 47-hour coup. These private stations, owned by anti-Chavez billionaires and businessmen, have led an unceasing anti-Chavez campaign since the day he was elected. During the coup, they cooperated in suppressing any news that might portray the putsch in a bad light. [Emphasis added]
Never mind that five years have passed since the abortive coup. If you’re a would-be (or already are) a dictator who’s anti-American and anti-capitalist and anti-globalization, but pro-socialism and pro-Iran and pro-Castro, it’s perfectly OK — even desirable — to suppress freedom of speech.
Faiz and others can try to make themselves look like the mainstream all they can, but these people are even considered to be left-wing here, in the Netherlands.
![[The New Zealand Herald, New Zealand]](http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/images/705183.jpg)
![[The Independent, U.K.]](http://worldmeets.us/images/hillaryobamarushmore_independent.gif)
