Nation-Building

"We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that's what this election is about." -- Barack Obama, DNC keynote address, July 2004

Add to Google Reader or Homepage Subscribe in Bloglines Subscribe in NewsGator Online Add to netvibes

Netflix, Inc.
ThinkGeek T-Shirts will make you cool!
illy coffee - 2 cans, 2 mugs for just $26.

Monday, March 24, 2008

 

electronic intifada http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080317/wr_nm/settlers_palestinians_facebook_dc

posted by Aziz at Monday, March 24, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions
Facebook is now the Virtual Front for the Israel-Palestine conflict. Facebook users residing in the highly controversial settlement of Maale Adumim were incensed when they discovered that they were listed as residing in "Palestine" by default. Reuters quotes one settler, Ari Zimmerman, as saying "I am a citizen of Israel, as are all of the other residents of Ariel. We do not live in 'Palestine', nor does anyone else." A Facebook group was quickly established in protest, called "Facebook Has No Right To Say I Live In Palestine" (link).

In response, Palestinian Facebook users mobilized to create their own groups, including "Action against Facebook delisting "PALESTINE" as a country / Hometown" (link) and "Protest Facebook's categorisation of Israeli settlements as 'Israel'" (link). As with any online dispute that mirrors a real-world conflict, new groups are created and membership in these groups fluctuates constantly.

In response to all of this sound and fury, Facebook's response was largely practical - it now allows residents of affected settlements to choose whether they are in Israel or Palestine. Brandee Barker, Facebook's director of communications emailed Reuters to explain that "Facebook users in the Israeli West Bank settlements of Maale Adumim, Beitar Illit, and Ariel can now choose between Israel and Palestine." According to Barker, residents of the major West Bank city of Hebron, home to over 150,000 Palestinians and less than 1000 Israelis, may also select their country in the same manner. All in all, at present 18 settlements have this feature, with many more added in the near future.

Ulimately, Facebook's decision to put the choice in the hands of its users is an effective means of side-stepping the conflict. Rather than insert itself on one side or the other, Facebook has simply delegated the details to the users themselves. Since the country listing is largely meaningless outside of the narrow confines of Facebook identity and groups, there are literally no real-world consequences to this policy, at least as far as the Israel-Palestine conflict is concerned.

However, a precedent has now been set, one in which residents of Kosovo, Tibet, Taiwan, or even The Republic of Texas might someday theoretically invoke. Having established that its users' country location is partially subjective, Facebook will no doubt be forced to revisit the issue as other disputes from the real world interject themselves into Facebook's walled garden. Clearly, Facebook will need to establish some sort of procedure for future claimants. Unlike its users, however, Facebook is subject to political pressures as it enacts such policies.

For example, at present Facebook users are free to select Taipei, taiwan as their city of residence, but what if China demands that such users be classified as Chinese rather than Taiwanese? China has considerably more leverage over Facebook than Israel's settlers do, and the user-centric approach that Facebook has adopted for the I-P conflict may simply not be practical in such a scenario. Were Facebook to refuse, China might simply bar Facebook from the Chinese internet entirely, leaving a void in which Chinese websites like Xiaonei.com or Zhanzuo.com are poised to fill (the latter which Facebook is in negotiations to acquire). Global technology firms like Google and Yahoo have already been compelled to kowtow to Chinese dictates on user access and content filtering. At stake are hundreds of millions of users, a market that no global Internet company can afford to write off.

In the real world, the ongoing Israeli-palestinian conflict is a festering sore upon the global order, one that drives all manner of secondary ill effects and crises. It seems that online, the conflict is destined to play the same role.

As Facebook navigates these projections of the real world into the virtual space, it will be breaking new ground, that all global Internet communities would be well-advised to monitor carefully.

Labels: ,

Friday, March 21, 2008

 

post-racial politics http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-meyers20mar20,0,3898931.story

posted by Aziz at Friday, March 21, 2008 permalink 1 comments View blog reactions
Jerome quotes approvingly of a piece in the LA Times which argues that Obama made a huge mistake by giving his speech on race, because it didn't evaporate the Wright controversy, it just exacerbated attitudes against Obama on the matter:

I waited in vain for our hybrid presidential candidate to speak the simple truth that there is no such thing as "race," that we all belong to the same race -- the human race. I waited for him to mesmerize us with a singular and focused appeal to hold all candidates to the same standards no matter their race or their sex or their age. But instead Obama gave us a full measure of racial rhetoric about how some of us with an "untrained ear" -- meaning whites and Asians and Latinos -- don't understand and can't relate to the so-called black experience.

...I expected Obama, who up to now had been steering a perfect course away from the racial boxes of the past, to challenge racial labels and so-called black experiences. We're all mixed up, and if we haven't yet been by the process of miscegenation, trans-racial adoptions and interracial marriage, we sure ought to get used to how things will be in short order.


This is a facile, naive argument for a post-racial politics that does not and never will exist. Obama is certainly not selling the idea that there is no such thing as race - if anything, that's the delusion under which our present political status quo doggedly insists on, counter to all reason and pragmatic sense. It's wishful postmodernist thinking to pretend that there is no such thing as race.

Race is a real, genuine concept and has always been in human history. Race is not "bad". Its just a source of variation within the human race, like height or musical ability or intelligence or strength. Its not purely genetic, either - race is also enmeshed at its boundaries with culture, and with language.

The human race would be poorer if there truly was no such thing as race. The better state is one in which race exists but doesn't matter. But before we can achieve that state, we need to confront the fact that race exists. And be honest about what our attitudes are - and yes, all of us, white, black, asian, latino, etc DO have "typical" attitudes about everybody else. We need to confront them, be honest about them, and thus recognize them for the barriers they are rather than wish them away.

Obama does not, despite the stereotype, speak of or promise to transcend race. He promises to approach it realistically instead of in the pseudo cryptic way we all dance around in in politics. That is what made his speech on race so unique.

His goal was to explain his embrace of Wright, not repudiate it, because the latter would be buying into the cynical racial politics that have still not done a thing to heal us as a nation since the trauma of Jim Crow. If that means that everyone who is not ready to move forward with actual progress on race relations, instead preferring the cryptoracial dance that serves as status quo, becomes entrenched in opposition to Obama, then that is actually fine. And if Obama cant win without the support of the racial status quo, also fine. That means that we arent ready for change. But we will be.

Addendum - Larison observes,

That elite conservatives could turn on Obama with guns blazing in their phony p.c.-driven rage was the perfect arrangement for them: they could express disapproval of the media darling because he had made a very un-p.c. blunder, making it possible for them to pose as the champions of the kind of “liberal intolerance” they might have decried a decade or two earlier.

Meanwhile, middle- and working-class white (and probably other) audiences heard this, remembered the anti-racist catechisms they had been taught for as long as they could remember and understood that the proper, approved reaction was to shake their heads and boo. McWhorter makes a similar observation. Now that anti-racism has captured the minds of so many of these people, now that the conditioning has had its intended effect, observers sympathetic to Obama are dismayed that Obama’s nuanced effort to explain (or, as the critics have it, explain away) racially-charged and potentially racialist rhetoric fell on deaf ears. Yet this shouldn’t surprise anyone–if the speech fell on deaf ears, it was the elites who deafened them years before with a single, simple imperative: “Don’t pay attention to race, except when we tell you to!”

Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 20, 2008

 

Obama policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBFrl

posted by Aziz at Thursday, March 20, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions
On the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War, Barack Obama delivered a foreign policy address in which he touched on numerous issues. I am excerpting the portion of his remarks about our Pakistan and Afghanistan policy, however, because I think this is the most critical element. In a nutshell, he advocates a post-Pervez policy, tying American aid to Pakistan not to stability under president Musharraf but rather towards progress in rooting out extremist enclaves and making genuine progress towards democracy.

Afghanistan policy:

The war in Iraq has emboldened the Taliban, which has rebuilt its strength since we took our eye off of Afghanistan.

Above all, the war in Iraq has emboldened al Qaeda, whose recruitment has jumped and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan – a thousand miles from Iraq.

The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is the area where the 9/11 attacks were planned. This is where Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants still hide. This is where extremism poses its greatest threat. Yet in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have pursued flawed strategies that are too distant from the needs of the people, and too timid in pursuit of our common enemies.

It may not dominate the evening news, but in Afghanistan, last year was the most deadly since 2001. Suicide attacks are up. Casualties are up. Corruption and drug trafficking are rampant. Neither the government nor the legal economy can meet the needs of the Afghan people.

It is not too late to prevail in Afghanistan. But we cannot prevail until we reduce our commitment in Iraq, which will allow us to do what I called for last August – providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts in Afghanistan. This increased commitment in turn can be used to leverage greater assistance – with fewer restrictions – from our NATO allies. It will also allow us to invest more in training Afghan security forces, including more joint NATO operations with the Afghan Army, and a national police training plan that is effectively coordinated and resourced.

A stepped up military commitment must be backed by a long-term investment in the Afghan people. We will start with an additional $1 billion in non military assistance each year – aid that is focused on reaching ordinary Afghans. We need to improve daily life by supporting education, basic infrastructure and human services. We have to counter the opium trade by supporting alternative livelihoods for Afghan farmers. And we must call on more support from friends and allies, and better coordination under a strong international coordinator.


Pakistan policy:

To succeed in Afghanistan, we also need to fundamentally rethink our Pakistan policy. For years, we have supported stability over democracy in Pakistan, and gotten neither. The core leadership of al Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. The Taliban are able to strike inside Afghanistan and then return to the mountains of the Pakistani border. Throughout Pakistan, domestic unrest has been rising. The full democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people have been too long denied. A child growing up in Pakistan, more often than not, is taught to see America as a source of hate – not hope.

This is why I stood up last summer and said we cannot base our entire Pakistan policy on President Musharraf. Pakistan is our ally, but we do our own security and our ally no favors by supporting its President while we are seen to be ignoring the interests of the people. Our counter-terrorism assistance must be conditioned on Pakistani action to root out the al Qaeda sanctuary. And any U.S. aid not directly needed for the fight against al Qaeda or to invest in the Pakistani people should be conditioned on the full restoration of Pakistan's democracy and rule of law.

The choice is not between Musharraf and Islamic extremists. As the recent legislative elections showed, there is a moderate majority of Pakistanis, and they are the people we need on our side to win the war against al Qaeda. That is why we should dramatically increase our support for the Pakistani people – for education, economic development, and democratic institutions. That child in Pakistan must know that we want a better life for him, that America is on his side, and that his interest in opportunity is our interest as well. That's the promise that America must stand for.

And for his sake and ours, we cannot tolerate a sanctuary for terrorists who threaten America's homeland and Pakistan's stability. If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al Qaeda targets in Pakistan's border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would invade or bomb Pakistan. This is politics, pure and simple. My position, in fact, is the same pragmatic policy that all three of them have belatedly – if tacitly – acknowledged is one we should pursue. Indeed, it was months after I called for this policy that a top al Qaeda leader was taken out in Pakistan by an American aircraft. And remember that the same three individuals who now criticize me for supporting a targeted strike on the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks, are the same three individuals that supported an invasion of Iraq – a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.


Two other tidbits from the speech are also worth mentioning. First, his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is on the order of 1-2 brigades a month, not a precipitous drawdown. Enough troops will be left behind in Iraq proper, however, for basic security in the Green Zone (to protect the Iraqi government as well as our own diplomats), and a counter-terrorism strike force for rapid response against Al-Qaeda. Given the progress in Iraq in training Iraqi police reported by Michael Yon and Michael Totten, it's clear that they are finally ready to assume the responsibility for more granular security duties.

Second, Obama will increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000. That in itself is significant, and suggests a fairly robust intention with regard to rooting out terror enclaves in Afghanistan.

Overall, the theme is clear: Iraq is a distraction from the real central front.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

 

transcript: Obama speech on race http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

posted by Aziz at Tuesday, March 18, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions

The complete text of today's speech by Barack Obama is reprinted here below the fold. It's a wonderful speech, that calls all of America together and repudiates the race card even as it insists that the grievances of black America - and white America - are founded in legitimate concerns. It repudiates the anger of Black America as expressed by Rev. Wright but refuses to disown him in a cynical political ploy. It truly is what America needs to hear.

And it is absolutely required reading in full, by Obama's supporters and his detractors alike.



 

OBAMA SPEECH IN FULL: A MORE PERFECT UNION
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008/ 10:17:53 ET
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania



�We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.�

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America�s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation�s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution � a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part � through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign � to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together � unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction � towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton�s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I�ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world�s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners � an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It�s a story that hasn�t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts � that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either �too black� or �not black enough.� We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we�ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it�s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we�ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely � just as I�m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren�t simply controversial. They weren�t simply a religious leader�s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country � a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright�s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems � two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn�t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God�s work here on Earth � by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

�People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend�s voice up into the rafters�.And in that single note � hope! � I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion�s den, Ezekiel�s field of dry bones. Those stories � of survival, and freedom, and hope � became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn�t need to feel shame about�memories that all people might study and cherish � and with which we could start to rebuild.�

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety � the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity�s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions � the good and the bad � of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother � a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America � to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we�ve never really worked through � a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, �The past isn�t dead and buried. In fact, it isn�t even past.� We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven�t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today�s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments � meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today�s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one�s family, contributed to the erosion of black families � a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods � parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement � all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What�s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn�t make it � those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations � those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright�s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician�s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright�s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don�t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience � as far as they�re concerned, no one�s handed them anything, they�ve built it from scratch. They�ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they�re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren�t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze � a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns � this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It�s a racial stalemate we�ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so na�ve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy � particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction � a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people � that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances � for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives � by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American � and yes, conservative � notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright�s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright�s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It�s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country � a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen � is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope � the audacity to hope � for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds � by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world�s great religions demand � that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother�s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister�s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle � as we did in the OJ trial � or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright�s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she�s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we�ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, �Not this time.� This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can�t learn; that those kids who don�t look like us are somebody else�s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don�t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn�t look like you might take your job; it�s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should�ve been authorized and never should�ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we�ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn�t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation � the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I�d like to leave you with today � a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King�s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that�s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother�s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn�t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they�re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who�s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he�s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, �I am here because of Ashley.�

�I�m here because of Ashley.� By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Labels: , ,

Monday, March 17, 2008

 

losing the war for hearts and minds http://www.brookings.edu/events/2005/1212middle-east.aspx

posted by Aziz at Monday, March 17, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions
A poll of Arab public opinion in six countries finds that the perception of the Bush foreign policy is that it brings less peace, more terror, and less democracy:

In a series of questions, Telhami found a largely negative view of the conflict in Iraq. A strong majority of respondents answered that the war in Iraq has brought less peace (81 percent), more terrorism (78 percent), and less democracy (58 per cent) to the region. In addition, 77 percent of respondents said that Iraqis were worse off as a result of the war. Only a small number of respondents believed that the United States' objective in Iraq was to spread democracy. Rather, a plurality of respondents believed that the United States' primary motivation for the war is its interest in oil, and an important number believed that the war was motivated by a desire to protect Israel and to seek regional dominance.


The MENA foreign policy objectives for the next Administration are rather neatly summarized (in the reverse) above, aren't they? Basically, reverse the damage.

Labels:

Saturday, March 15, 2008

 

defending Obama in the blogsphere http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4566

posted by Aziz at Saturday, March 15, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions
Chris Bowers and Jerome Armstrong both argue that the progressive blogsphere has been lax in defending Obama on the matter of his ex-pastor Wright. Bowers argues it's because Obama isnt sufficiently progressive to engender loyalty:

Obama is not a part of any progressive fights, so there's no independent organizing going on on his behalf from people who actually understand the right-wing media and how it operates. He's decided he's a post-partisan politician, and when a politician makes that choice, it's not just a disincentive for partisans to fight for that person.


maybe the major A-list progressive bloggers haven't stepped up to Obama's defense; I don't know. However if you venture a bit further out into the long tail I think you will find plenty of bloggers, liberal and progressive alike, defending him. One example.

In fact you will even find conservatives like Daniel Larison and Captain's Quarter defending him. My own defense on the issue of Wright partly riffed off of Larison's point.

If theres any barrier here, it isnt because Obama is "post partisan" but because this is an issue of faith, which by the larger progressive community condescends towards. Most of the defenses of Obama are from a religious perspective, notably.

Labels: ,

Friday, March 14, 2008

 

a proposal for Florida and Michigan

posted by Aziz at Friday, March 14, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions
I have a modest (non satirical) proposal to solve the issue of Florida and Michigan.

First, the easy one, Florida. Since the playing field was largely level, simply honor the results, but assign only half as many delegates to Florida's pool. Thus, both Clinton and Obama retain their fraction of the delegate pool, but the state as a whole is penalized for breaking the DNC rules (delegates which would have gone to Edwards, etc would be discarded, not halved).

For Michigan, to be fair, Clinton did outperform "Uncommitted" by 55-40. The argument for a 50-50 split is unfair because it awards Obama votes that were intended for Clinton (voter intent is sacrosanct in those situations where it can reasonably be determined). Therefore Clinton should indeed gain her 55% fraction of Michigan's delegates. However, Obama should then receive the full remaining fraction. It is true that Obama may not have received 100% of the non-Clinton votes, but many voters likely did not vote, so these factors may be assumed to cancel. Again, however, reduce the total delegate count by 50% as penalty for violating the DNC rules.

I am deliberately NOT going to do the delegate math for the above so that my proposal is minimally tainted by my admitted pro-Obama bias. I hope that we can debate the proposal on its fairness merits rather than on outcomes.

Labels:

 

Hagee and Wright http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/03/13/hagee-and-wright/

posted by Aziz at Friday, March 14, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions
No one should mistake Daniel Larison for a fan of Barack Obama. However, Larison is an authentic conservative voice who expresses his opinion independently of party affiliations. His defense of Obama (and critique of McCain) is thus notable and appreciated:

ne of the best things that can be said about Obama is that he seems to understand that loyalty entails keeping faith with friends and colleagues after it has become politically dangerous to do so. A lot of people give his church grief for preaching against an aspirational “middle-classness,” and I understand the objections to this view, but at its core this view entails a call to solidarity with your community and a willingness to remain loyal to that community even though better opportunities may beckon beyond the horizon.

Obama really shouldn’t have to answer for what Wright says, but I also think that his loyalty to Wright should not be an occasion for bashing the man. There are plenty of things in his record, or the lack thereof, that provide reasons to find fault with Obama. Despite the manifest unfairness about the way that the Paul campaign was treated over statements in decades-old newsletters that were objectively far less offensive than things Wright has said in very recent memory, especially when compared to the pass Obama has received and continues to receive from the media, and despite the profoundly dishonest double standard applied to Paul and Obama, I am not interested in criticising Obama along these lines. Obviously, I don’t share Wright’s views, and Obama claims not to share all of them, but I have to ask seriously what kind of man Obama would be if he disowned his spiritual father for the sake of the approval of others (who may not give their approval even if he did what is being demanded). No one that I would want to entrust with any office of importance, that’s for sure.

That is the real difference between Obama’s modest distancing of himself from Wright and McCain’s embarrassing embrace of Hagee. McCain does not belong to Hagee’s congregation, he has no duties or obligations to him, and yet he welcomes Hagee’s support in the most cynical fashion.


I hope that Obama does have the loyalty and integrity to not drop Wright like a cold stone. Not because I'm any fan of Wright but because this endless cycle of gotcha is perpetuated by compliance with the demands of the PC media police who enforce it. The issue with Samantha Power/Geraldine Ferraro strikes me as similar, but the difference there is that they were both actual representatives of the campaign and so Obama and Clinton have a duty to keep a tight ship. But Hagee and Wright are external actors. The difference, as Larison points out, is that Obama has a relationship with Wright, whereas McCain is exploiting Hagee.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 13, 2008

 

Elliot Giuliani

posted by Aziz at Thursday, March 13, 2008 permalink 1 comments View blog reactions
I confess that I didn't know much about Eliot Spitzer prior to his meltdown. However, I am rather disturbed by what I am reading about the way in which Spitzer used the power of his office for vendettas in a manner that reminds me of Rudy Giuliani.

Spitzer's weapon of choice was the Martin Act:

The purpose of the Martin Act is to arm the New York attorney general to combat financial fraud. It empowers him to subpoena any document he wants from anyone doing business in the state; to keep an investigation totally secret or to make it totally public; and to choose between filing civil or criminal charges whenever he wants. People called in for questioning during Martin Act investigations do not have a right to counsel or a right against self-incrimination. Combined, the act's powers exceed those given any regulator in any other state.
...
Now for the scary part: To win a case, the AG doesn't have to prove that the defendant intended to defraud anyone, that a transaction took place, or that anyone actually was defrauded.


Think about the implications of the bolded above (my emphasis). Where have we seen that before?

And then think about what we have seen happen in the present Administration when the Executive Branch is given unchecked power to prosecute without pesky burdens like proof or due process or other outdated notions.

How do you think Spitzer has wielded this power? Like Spiderman, under the maxim of "with great power comes great responsibility" ? Given what we now know about Spitzer's proclivities and judgement, not bloody likely. Case in point:

Consider the report in the wake of a 2005 op-ed in this newspaper by John Whitehead. A respected Wall Street figure, Mr. Whitehead dared to criticize Mr. Spitzer for his unscrupulously zealous pursuit of Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Spitzer later threatened Mr. Whitehead, telling him in a phone call that "You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done." Some months later, after more Spitzer excesses, Mr. Whitehead had the temerity to write another op-ed describing what Mr. Spitzer had said.

Within a few days, the press was reporting (unsourced, of course) that Mr. Whitehead had defended Mr. Greenberg a few weeks after a Greenberg charity had given $25 million to the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation -- a group Mr. Whitehead chaired. So Mr. Whitehead's on-the-record views were met with an unsourced smear implying bad faith. The press ran with it anyway.

In 2005, Mr. Spitzer went on national television to suggest that Mr. Greenberg had engaged in criminal activity. It was front-page news. About six months later, on the eve of a Thanksgiving weekend, Mr. Spitzer quietly disclosed that he lacked the evidence to press criminal charges. That news was buried inside the papers.


How well did Spitzer's crusades fare in the mainstream legal system, though?

Most of Mr. Spitzer's high-profile charges have gone up in smoke. A New York state judge threw out his case against tax firm H&R Block. He lost his prosecution against Bank of America broker Ted Sihpol (whom Mr. Spitzer threatened to arrest in front of his child and pregnant wife). Mr. Spitzer was stopped by a federal judge from prying confidential information out of mortgage companies. Another New York judge blocked the heart of his suit against Mr. Grasso. Mr. Greenberg continues to fight his civil charges.


Worse than the zeal with which Spitzer persecuted his prosecutions, was the way in which he came to see himself as above the law, a truly righteous paladin on a crusade against evil, defined as everyone else. John Fund writes in an oped in the wapo:

Mr. Spitzer seemed to excel only in the zeal with which he would go after perceived adversaries. Last summer, his staff infamously used the state police to track the movements of Joe Bruno, the Republican president of the state senate, in an effort to destroy his career. Mr. Spitzer then ferociously fought investigators who wanted to examine his office's email traffic for evidence the governor himself may have been involved. His approval rating in New York, a strongly Democratic state, fell to 27%.


And this, most tellingly of all:

Mr. Spitzer cloaked his naked devaluation of the rule of law with gauzy rhetoric that was perfectly pitched to make many liberals ignore his strong-arm tactics. He harshly criticized advocates of judicial restraint such as Antonin Scalia as believing in "a dead piece of paper." In a Law Day ceremony, Mr. Spitzer was blunt: "I believe in an evolving Constitution. . . . A flexible Constitution allows us to consider not merely how the world was, but how it ought to be."


That chills me. A dead piece of paper? How the world ought to be? We have here a man who sees the rule of law as nothing more than a tool to be wielded as necessary, and ignored when inconvenient.

The analogy to Rudy Giuliani is rather strong. Giuliani was also a zealous (new york) prosecutor, convinced of his righteousness. We all rightly shudder at the thought of how close we came to the authoritarian nightmare of a 9iu11ani presidency, which would have made the Bush Administration look like the ACLU. But because Spitzer had that (D) after his name, we looked the other way, it seems. I know I did. And I shudder to think that this guy was one of our top bench picks for president? Thank god he flamed out. and good riddance.

Labels:

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

 

The Muslim Brotherhood

posted by Aziz at Wednesday, March 12, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions
Marc Lynch aka The Father of the Aardvark is an expert on Arab media and politics. He has done exhaustive research and journalism on the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, and has argued quite persuasively that the MB is indeed serious about its commitment to democracy. Unfortunately, the United States has largely looked the other way while the Mubarak regime systematically persecutes the MB invoking the rhetoric of state security - rhetoric that is revealed to be a lie when moderate, liberal and pro-Western members of the Brotherhood are imprisoned and or prohibited from leaving the country.

Lynch laments,

“I’ve grown tired of debating the finer points of the Brotherhood’s party platform searching for clues as to their true feelings about democracy at a time when large numbers of their members are once again being arrested for the crime of trying to participate in elections.”


For more of an inside look at the Brotherhood, read Lynch's interview with Abd el-Moneim Abou el-Fattouh, a key Brotherhood reformist. The debate about the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States' foreign policy circles is alive and well, though conspicuously absent from the top echelons of the present Administration.

Labels: ,

 

two muslims in Congress http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2008/03/andre-carson-wins-in-cd-7-special.html

posted by Aziz at Wednesday, March 12, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions
at City of Brass, I look at Andre Carson's victory in the special election for Indiana's CD-7 in the context of muslim-American and Desi political identity.

Labels:

Monday, March 10, 2008

 

very odd, indeed http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/03/07/very-odd/

posted by Aziz at Monday, March 10, 2008 permalink 2 comments View blog reactions
Why are pundits so enamoured of the Survey USA 50-state head to head poll? Daniel Larison is just one example of how the punditsphere, both left and right, has read entirely too much into it.

The oddness of the results in New Hampshire also stands out: we’re supposed to believe that Clinton, who actually won the Democratic primary there, will run eight points behind Obama and lose a state that has been trending dramatically Democratic, but that both win Ohio in a walk? This polling doesn’t show McCain necessarily winning New Jersey, but it does show Obama’s limited appeal there as of right now. This is an important point: McCain isn’t the one making New Jersey a battleground state in this match-up. In any other cycle and with almost any other match-up that we could have had, New Jersey would have likely been solidly Democratic. Obama does rather badly in his current polling in Massachusetts: he wins the state, but receives just 49%?


Sure, The results are interesting but how can they really tell us anything about the dynamics of the race in November? How relevant can the primary really be to the general? In a primary, turnout is always higher, and in this primary, we have two Dem candidates who are both very very strong and appealing. Of course the various factions in the party will choose sides. But come a nominee they will rally around easily. Look no further than the GOP for a textbook example of the same thing, and the fraternal acrimony was far worse it must be admitted. I mean, John McCain is the GOP nominee. John McCain! And yet even at RedState, ground zero for the GOP civil war, they've largely rallied around him. I don't see any evidence from Survey USA to suggest otherwise on the Dem side.

A far more interesting poll will happen after the Dem primary is over, because that will more accurately reflect the dynamic of the general. This poll is largely worthless. Blue states are going to go blue. Bank on this.

Labels:

Thursday, March 06, 2008

 

Hillary can't win - but should stay in

posted by Aziz at Thursday, March 06, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions

Slate has a cool toy - an online delegate estimator for the Democratic primary. I plugged in an Obama loss by 20 points in EVERY single remaining primary and caucus. Michigan and Florida are not included. The result? 1613 delegates for Obama versus 1596 delegates for Clinton. And the delegate counter is actually optimistic towards Clinton, because it doesn't account for the "blowout principle."

In a nutshell, Obama still has a 17-delegate lead going into the convention even if he loses by an insane, gigantic, utter blowout margin in every single state from here on out. In reality, he won't lose every contest, obviously, and the ones he does lose won't be by 20 point margins.

It's also quite relevant that pretty much every undecided superdelegate who has been asked, has said they will unequivocally NOT vote to overturn the results of the popular will. They recognize that this would destroy the party and especially drive away all the young voters who are the future of the party's dominance over the GOP. There are also rumors that a large bloc of superdelegates (50) are going to support Obama this week, but that was denied by the Obama camp.

Hillary needs to win the raw popular vote (ie, actual number of voters). Then she she has to convince the superdelegates that she deserves their support on that basis despite not having the pledged delegate majority. Right now she is 600,000 votes behind. Its impossible to estimate the popular vote breakdown due to the granularity of districts so this is an area of uncertainty. Note that to convince the supers, she would also need to convince them that she would be a better candidate against McCain, but the national polls at present give Obama that advantage too. This might change - let's see. Hillary is enjoying a huge bounce in PA after he Tuesday wins. But the deck is stacked against her.

Still, if the race is that close going into the convention, then we might well see a unity ticket - Hillary floated the concept first, which suggests she wouldn't mind taking the veep slot (though of course she argued that the "voters" should decide who is at the top of the ticket). I can easily see Hillary playing the role of LBJ to Obama's JFK. It would be a potent combination.

So given all of this, I still think it's important that Hillary soldier on. Not just because of the potential for a dream ticket with both of them but also because Hillary is testing Obama (and vice versa). Obama won his Senate seat in a walk over a ridiculous challenger (Alan Keyes). This primary cycle is testing him like he has never been tested before. A similar argument by Ellen Goodman makes the case for a protracted Democratic primary even more compelling:

We've put to rest the question of whether a woman is tough enough to be commander in chief. Hillary's been the tough guy in the race. Win, lose or draw, Hillary has rewritten the common wisdom.

It's also put to rest the question of whether white Americans would vote for an African-American. In the whitest of states, such as Iowa and Vermont, Obama left the bias about bias in tatters.

As for the notion that these two candidates will mortally wound each other and limp into the race against McCain? Does anyone doubt that Obama is a better candidate now than he was last fall? Quicker on his feet? Sharper at debating? Better at responses? As for Hillary, does anyone doubt her resilience? She lost 11 primaries in a row and came back. Knock her down, she pops up.

Nobody wants to see Democrats writing the attack script for Republicans. If you think these two have been rough on each other, remember 2004, when Swift-boating became a verb. This year will it be Monica-ing? Hussein-ing? Primaries are training grounds. And if Tuesday taught us anything, the voters are not through deciding.


And that's the beauty of this whole thing. The voters are indeed deciding.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

 

NAFTA-gate debunked

posted by Aziz at Wednesday, March 05, 2008 permalink 1 comments View blog reactions
Obama's seeming misstep regarding NAFTA was most likely a setup, a collaboration between John McCain and the conservative Canadian government to bruise Obama by striking at his greatest strength, his aura of integrity.

The Canadian Broadcast Corporation has now investigated the issue and vindicated Obama. Key finding: the Canadian embassy now admits that "may have misrepresented the Obama advisor". More details about the CBC report here.

The Canadians are interfering with our election! I think we should invade.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

 

Don't mourn: organize http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/1/164655/0905

posted by Aziz at Tuesday, March 04, 2008 permalink 0 comments View blog reactions
Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft disputes Ari Berman's article in The Nation, and says that Obama is no Howard Dean. And he invokes the Speech.

I could take issue with BTD's assertion that Obama has not embraced the same Democratic values that Dean made the centerpiece of his campaign. But that's somewhat tangential to the real point of contention, which is what Dean's legacy truly is. BTD seems to think Dean's legacy was his presidential run in 2004, but the real legacy is the 50-state strategy that Dean has put into place since becoming DNC chair, and that's the true manner in which Obama is The Perfect Storm v2.0. As the saying goes, don't mourn, organize. BTD still seems to be mourning 2004. But this is 2008, and the best way to enact a democratic agenda and promote Democratic values is to win. And that's what the 50-state strategy is all about.

Is Obama enough of a Fighting Democrat? Well, thats a debate worth having (and BTD provides no analysis beyond a simple assertion in his post).

Labels: , ,

Election 2008 feed

Nation-Building feed

Archives

View blog top tags
The Assault on Reason

Obama 2008 - I want my country back

I want my country back - Obama 2008

About Nation-Building

Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.