Obama and the Race/Violence Divide

In recent weeks Nancy Pelosi and former President Jimmy Carter made much needed meta-comments about the increasingly violent tenor of the current political discourse in this country.

Pelosi reflected upon the violent language not experienced in this country since the 1960s, and Carter observed the racist motivations behind a lot of the anti Obama attacks. Both Pelosi’s and Carter’s comments were dismissed by a good many in the mainstream press, to my chagrin.

It’s an important discussion to have, particularly since in my opinion both Carter and Pelosi are correct in their observations.  (see Politico)

But let me temper that a bit with the following context. All Obama agonists are not Racist and race is not the root of much of the anti Obama criticism. During the early Clinton years, the right made a similar effort to delegitimize his presidency. These were the days Rush Limbaugh started a count on the number of days left in the new president’s term, and Clinton agonists discredited his health reform efforts by jiggling shiny trinkets in front of the media about alleged mistresses and Whitewater land deals in Arkansas.  Taylor Branch’s new bio of Clinton, the Clinton Tapes reminds us of how the right came quite close to delegitimizing the Clinton presidency.   Clinton’s opponents may have been racist (some of them), but the germane point is that they hated the Clintonian commitment to relying on government to solve complex social problems.

Same thing Obama faces.

Race is being used as a tool to bring Obama down,  but it is not the source of (all) the animosity. I think the more comprehensive source is ideological.  The big divide between red states and blue states, and between people who believe government has a positive role to play and people who would rather rely on unaccountable market forces that  are structured to exclude millions of have nots in society.  To the extent that opponents of a strong federal government historically back to Antibellum days have also been racist is part of the story now playing out.

It’s an ideology  thing about the role government.  Difficult to see how the president’s commitment to post partisanship abides such a tectonic divide.  And race fuels the animosity. It makes for a less communicative divide, and potentially more violent future.

In the meantime, it is time to heed Pelosi’s and Carter’s comments.

Politico

Obama’s lastest on Tehran Protests Makes Sense

Barack Obama latest comments on Iran’s street protests make a lot of sense. Indeed he has taken a couple days, made sense of events and now that he is speaking out, his words seem to be charting the right course, on politics, and as rachel Maddow says, on basic strategery, and on understanding recent history.  Further, he has explained things today in several media interviews in a very accessible way :

Briefly, here’s why the president has not come out supporting the street protesters.  these are the points:

1) Obama does not want war with Iran.

2) Obama does not want to impose American beliefs upon Iranians.

3) Were the US government to publicly support the protesters, it would be the kiss of death to the protest movement. As Obama said, there is not better way to discredit the protesters than to give credence to the charge that they are dupes of the US government.

Here’s what I like about these comments. 1) They are smart and likewise treat the American people and iranian protesters as smart.  2) they recognize the history of US imperialism in Iran: 1953 coup, and elevation to power and support of the shah of iran; 3) they seek to avoid war and the hysteria that is beginning to accompany Republican cries for regime change in iran; 4) they are responsive to the implicit requests of Mousavi and Iranian human rights leaders.

(consider it ample evidence of what Obma thinks, that the State Department has asked Twitter not to go off line today so as to give street protesters a much relied upon tool for communication.)

But common sense never stopped the republican opposition to exploit extremely delicate international affairs for short term sound bites and political gain.  Thanks to Republicans: (“bomb, bomb, bomb iran” Mccain, Pence, Rorbacher, Lieberman, a chorus is building to overtly support the protesters, threaten the iranian government with regime change,” and impose America’s will on the Iranian people. 

Makes me extremely glad I voted last November.

Obama responds to street violence in Tehran

Keith Olberman tonite started with President Obama speaking about the street violence in Tehran, which he finds deeply disturbing. He cites Iran’s lack of tolerance for political dissent as running against the currents of international law.

But Obama’s words only went so far. the prevailing wisdom is that Obama cannot speak too stridently about the stolen election because Mousavi would then be perceived as a stool pigeon of the U.S. government.  Obama said US does not want to make decisions for Iranians.

Here’s a supplementary take. President Obama risks being branded a hypocrite due our our own stolen 2000 election, which we did nothing about.  Was the 2000 election stolen? Yes. ask Greg Palast. Better yet, ask Justice Souter.

That’s right, the suggestion here is that Obama’s words are limited by America’s  own diminished moral authority, a plague that  spreads into several other Bush era wrongs that have yet to be remedied. 

Obama moral voice here is constrained because  we did nothing when our “Ahmadinejad” became president for 8 years. It serves notice that the president’s voice and actions  might well be constrained on several other fronts as well, unless we act.

Obama Silence on Tehran Protests

News reports of President Obama boarding his plane for Chicago this morning without saying word about the election protests in tehran say more about his mo than it does necessarily about policy. 

In a spring news conference ABC reporter jake tapper (I think) asked Obama why he hadn’t responded immediately to some crisis of the day to which the president responded, (paraphrase here) “I want to know what I am talking about before I open my mouth” 

It seems the Obama m.o. is at play here regarding the Iranian elections.  I don’t begrudge the president for wanting to speak with deliberation. But at the moment the world is experiencing a citizen revolution, the scale of which has not been seen since Tianamon Square 20 years ago.  Obam’s moral leadership as a world leader is also something that a US leader has not had in several decades.

It might be useful were the President to find a way to reconcile deliberation with responsiveness.

At some point during the next day or 2, the Iranian government is likely to move in even fuller force against the protests. Once they are quashed, and Ahmadinejad solidifies control again, it will be too late for Obama to do anything but “congratulate the winner.”  At that point, Obama’s words or his silence will amount to policy, and we all lose.

check out link of people power on streets of Tehran, which demands a response:

Tehran protests

What Obama’s Inaugural told me about His Immigration Policy

With all his rhetorical might, Barack Obama in his Inaugural Address endeavored to pull the country back into the realm of the rule of law.  Although this sisyphusian task will require a great deal more work than rhetoric, this is where it starts and already perhaps this indicates a reverse of course. It certainly feels good to see the new president playing to his strength and using his force of his words to serve notice on the planet that the false choice between security and liberty is over and the constitution has returned.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.  Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.  Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.  And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born:  know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

 Similarly, Obama also served notice that

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, not does it entitle us to do as we please.  Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Such is his attack on the sovereignist approach to power that is derisive of the rule of law. Obama reminds us that such power is doomed because it is discordant with the “justness of our cause, the force of our example.” Obama here is referring to the integrity of our institutions in their treatment of individuals when integrity is measured against the American character which is recognizes is rooted in the immigrant and slave experience.

Obama also reclaimed the immigrant basis for its own identity, appealing to the small town in Congo where his father was born.  The ideal for Obama is to be found in the immigrant experience.

His use of the immigrant experience in this speech is anathama to the immigrant control system that has been developed over the past eight years.   Put simply, Obama entered office with a strong commitment to end the injustices experienced under the Bush Administration.

It seems clear that an Obama Administration will use much different tropes when framing the immigrant.  than the ones the country has been forced to endure under Bush.  The question I have is whether this is enough of a commitment to actually reverse course, given the inordinant amount of government resources already exhausted on immigration control.  Keep in mind his address bore no refere3nce to immigration reform; it spoke of cleaning up other messes in concrete terms but his references to immigration were vague and abstract.  America’s greatness lies in its immigrant past; its character built on the backs of immigrants and slaves.  But will his appreciation of immigration translater into concrete policies that reverse the Bush abuses of power?   It remains to be seen if the President’s attack on sovereign approaches to power will translate into concrete efforts to extend constitutional law into the immigration field. 

Rationale for Palin Candidacy Dies This Evening

The rationale for Sarah Palin’s candidacy, which was to help John McCain double-down on the maverick theme died this evening.  Before this evening, that claim was cynical. Now, it is non-existent.

Palin announced this evening that she will refuse to cooperate with the trooper-gate investigation. She will not speak with investigators, which contradicts her promise of two weeks ago that she would fully cooperate.  According to Commissioner Walt Monaghan, interviewed by Rachel Maddow this evening, Alaskans had high hopes for Governor Palin when she was first elected governor because she promised clean, open and transparent government.  As of this evening, according to Monghan, that hope in Alaska has died.

So what happened exactly? It seems that both republicans and democrats would not be bullied by Palin’s thugs and voted today (I think) to issue subpoenas, including one for Todd, the first dude, Palin this evening charges partisan witch-huntery as the basis for her withdrawing all cooperation. 

Apparently, email and eye witness evidence exists that supports the idea that she broke laws. Is she hiding something here? You bet.  Does her apparent obstruction of a legal and legitimate investigation inspire confidence that she is a “good government maverick”?  You tell me

Obama Misses McCain “Coup”

When Obama left for vacation, silly MSM commentators sniped that his travel destination was too exotic, ignoring that Obama was merely going home to visit his sister and grandmother.  Then came Russia’s attack on Georgia, and potentially a new narrative: Obama sleeps, drinks, strolls and eats ice cream while Gori burns. McCain would act presidential, show his foreign policy card, the MSM would be in love again and Obama in trouble. 

McCain did show his foreign policy card, and I underestimated him. He showed us Dr. Strangelove.

Within a week, McCain managed to trump Obama’s simulated presidency (Berlin and faux presidential seal) with far more damning evidence of faux presidential pretentiousness. Nothing Obama did had any impeding effect on US foreign policy or international relations.  

On the other hand, McCain is simulating a coup d’etat, and that’s gotta leave a mark.  He has commissioned a shadow delegation to go to Georgia as his special envoy; he is in communication with Georgian leader Saakashvili several times a day, and as McCain let slip yesterday, he now imagines himself president (as opposed to the presidential aspirant that Obama identified himself throughout his foreign travels).

In McCain’s mind, he is already president and has embarked on a new Cold War against Russia.  Your can almost imagine him stepping up to the microphone’s and uttering Al Haig’s infamous “I’m in control here,” only to have Joe  Lieberman whisper in his ear that he wasn’t president.

Rather than being forced by the press to compete with McCain’s foreign policy credentials, Obama’s had the good sense to remain on the sidelines, make a few comments, eat some ice cream and let McCain be McCain.  I look forward to the Obama ad highlighting the image of  McCain’s Slim Pickens straddling the bomb.

In hindsight, it was a good thing that Obama was on vacation. Sometimes it is most wise for aspirants to not get in the way. McCain, on the other hand, showed us what happens when an angry old man answers the phone at 3 in the morning.

McBush on Russia-Georgia War

Apparently Bush promised Georgia’s Shashkashvili that the U.S would have his back if he took action in South Ossetia. Sashkashvilli is a smart, U.S. educated politician. He should have known better than to believe the Bush Administration promises, but he did. If anyone is to blame for tipping the dominos that led to the current Russian massacre of parts of Georgia, it is George Bush. He misled Americans into initially supporting his war in Iraq, and he misled Georgia’s government and people into thinking the West would support their  government against the runaway south ossetians.  

The question here is, what is in this war for Bush and his neocronies?

The answer is oil, specifically the oil pipeline going to the Georgia port of Supsa. Oil is the same answer for what Bush stood to gain by going into Iraq.

The short term answer is that a line of thinking suggests that Russia-Georgia conflict favors the McCain candidacy. For example, some people confuse McCain’s bellicosity with strong and intelligent leadership.

Assuming, however, that Russia ceases fire shortly, and the conflict herein is resolved diplomatically, the few day war served to pump up right wing neocons, including McCain. Having tasted blood in the caucasus, McCain is likely to advance the clarion call of Bush/Cheney to bomb Iran this fall.

Stay tuned…

Obama-Bayh ‘08, on Wednesday? (updated)

According to the Billerico Project, Barack Obama is going to name Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind) as his choice for Veep. According to Billerico, Obama will be in Indiana, has cleared his schedule for Wed., his campaign has told the press to stay around.  And the timing makes sense, John McCain has erased the Obama bump from his trip abroad through cleverly juvenile and baseless attacks, and starting Thursday, folks will be tuning into the Olympics and away from the campaign until the Dem’s start their convention in Denver in a couple weeks.

So, the time is now.

Evan Bayh is an effective politician if somewhat lackluster on the stump. Got good marks as governor, and was a Hillary supporter to the end. So a Bayh nomination must be seen as a nod to Hillary’s folks, some of whom remain sorely on the sidelines.  Bayh is a young 53 who helps Obama’s new generation message, even tho he has held elected office since he was 30, and because of his dad, has been in politics since he was born.

Bayh also has strong midwestern support and the idea here is that his coattails will dove tail nicely with Obama’s in Illinois to create a critical mass of support in the rust belt (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Could work.

Here’s my concern. Bayh is a centrist, was a leader of the DLC, voted for the war in Iraq, is considered a fiscal conservative. His nomination gives a strong message to the netroots and youth (millennial voters) that the campaign has decided it can take them for granted, a mistake.

The Bayh nomination also signals that Obama could be doing more than merely tacking to the center for tactical reasons. Obama’s change of heart on FISA and off shore oil drilling could be signs of a centrist presidency, along the lines of Bill Clinton.    The man with hope has become the man from Hope.

We should savor the irony thru our tears.

 

update: Bayh says no announcement tomorrow

Obama Address Raises Two Questions

If Barack Obama had one obstacle to the presidency before the vote in November it was to appear presidential, and pass the commander in chief test. Today he crushed these obstacles. It was that good.  His speech in Berlin could have been given by John Kennedy, and was better than the one that Reagan delivered.

The speech was eloquent and fluid; it commanded respect and drew great favor with the crowd of more than 100 thousand. This is the first time I have seen live television shots of people in Europe waving american flags rather than wearing paper mache masks.

In terms of symbolism, Obama won the day on two counts: 1st, he passed the presidential threshold with aplomb; 2nd, he took substantial strides towards repairing america’s image on the world stage. if only he wins.

The speech leaves two challenges to consider:

1st has to do with the wall metaphor Obama used repeatedly, following Reagan. Reagan said to tear down the physical wall separating west and east; and the metaphorical wall of ideology separating these two hemispheres.

Obama echoed the sentiment that walls should and could come down; sounding a metaphor for race, religion and ethnic divisions around the globe. The challenge for Obama during this campaign is to propose a similar call to Boeing to take down the wall it is constructing along the US-Mexico border, with the ethnic and class divisions that coincide with construction of the virtual and physical fences to our south.

Second, is a challenge to the American people, which I think is an important subtext to the Obama speech.  Since it has become abundantly evident that Obama represents the sort of candidate that Americans say they are ready for, even crave: one who will replace the republican disaster of the past 8 years; one who can string together more than a couple half sentences that McBush passes off as a speech; one that appeals to the hopes and dreams of americans while regaining some respect in the world; one who pledges to end the war in Iraq…..  The challenge here is obvious: would americans elect a man whose father was born Kenyan.

The latest polls just released showing McCain having pulled ahead in Colorado and edging closer in minnesota and Michigan and this despite the horrendous gaffe-filled; competency questioning couple weeks McCain has had, well this speaks the challenge for americans to dig a little deeper here to see the real choices before them.