Taste Barrack Obama--Is it Poisonous or Progressive pie? PART III

It's important for me to write this blog, because I believe it's the role of citizens in a democracy to ask meaningful questions (especially of their desired candidate) so that the end goal of defining reality is achievable.

It is not our job to seek inspirational speeches or vote on fantastic whims. But rather for the citizen to become as educated on the issues as she/he can, and to push the candidate who shows the most flexibly towards the will of that educated opinion rather than the will of moneyed interests.

Constituents of the Democratic Party have nominated their candidate. I nominated him with a number two pencil on June 3rd even though I knew I was ushering the chicken to the other side of the road-- the other side of the road that was quickly repopulating itself with wolves.

I understand that Barrack Obama has to appeal to a facet of groups that I could never think of asking for endorsement, let alone money or a vote. (Although I would love to appeal to the National Rifle Association because I think we share a common bond--increased public land trusts for recreation).

We live in an interesting time. A time when the sequel of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington cannot be filmed. A time when columnist George Will can stand on his high horse in front of Charlie Rose and explain that McCain-Feingold marked a terrible precedent in America's history. Dollar bills equal speech, he argues, and such a bill was unconstitutional. And yet a 5-4 majority of the supreme court ruled that Congress may regulate campaign financing to prevent corruption of political candidates.

Will writes in "McCain-Feingold's Wealth of Hypocrisy",

... by restricting the quantity and regulating the content and timing of political speech, the law serves incumbents, who are better known than most challengers, more able to raise money and uniquely able to use aspects of their offices -- franked mail, legislative initiatives, C-SPAN, news conferences -- for self-promotion.

That is to say, money is to democracy more important than the idea that needs spreading --OR-- you need money to spread an idea. I don't believe it, but I digress.

The reason I point to such troubling times in relation to Obama is a tribute to "The Iran Trap", which is surely a must-read for any Obama supporters. A lot of people, including myself, believe that Barrack Obama is an educator.

After reading portions of his novel, The Audacity of Hope, I was left with a greater perspective of issues and their complexities. Complexities he was more than happy to share. Complexities I think he shared in his race speech in Pennsylvania following the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Complexities I thought he might share June 4 at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Eight minutes into the speech, Barrack Obama spoke of Zionism and the Halocaust:

I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem and they never leave you and those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoa carry with them.

Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when speak the words never again.

It seemed only logical for him to conclude that the interests of Israelis and Palestinians are the same. I expected him to find common ground among the two cultures, because that was what he illustrated in his book so well--commonalities form the foundation for policy. I expected Obama to turn to the gross inequalities of living conditions in the Palestinian state that drive violence and unrest. In short, I expected him to educate.

And yet, he turned to the same sort of millitarism that has plagued our stagnant foreign policy for eight years; to the topic of Iran and the defense of Israel from people with brown skin. And away we go...

I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts with insuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage...

As President I will implement a memorandum of understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade, investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation.

Chris Heges writes in "The Iran Trap" at Common Dreams that "Obama went on to blame the Palestinians for the conflict, although the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed in 2007 was 40 to 1. This is an increase from 30 to 1 in 2006 and 4 to 1 in 2000-2005."

Where is his sense of complexity that characterized his speech on race? I'm concerned that he did not articulate what the university professors I've seen, who have made it their life to study Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have absolutely pronounced. We need a re-weighing of the causes and effects of our Middle Eastern policies.

At this point in the election cycle, I believe it's constructive for Obama's supporters to slash at his hanging fat if they see any. Do you remember the inability of the American media to ask the tough questions during the primary season?

Following the pitiful ABC debates, Ralph Nader wrote, "The two candidates were unperturbed by any questions from the reporters that they had not answered before or they were soft balls they could hit out of the ball park." He countered with an article of his own, reaching out to experts of many issues to compile their own question. Essentially, what would they ask Hillary and Barrack.

The former New York Times Middle East bureau chief and author, Chris Hedges, asked the following question in February:

The Israeli government is imposing severe and continual collective punishment on the 1.5 million people of tiny Gaza, which includes restricting or cutting off food, fuel, electricity, medicines and other necessities. Malnutrition rates among many children resemble the worst of sub-Saharan Africa. Israel’s leading newspaper, Ha’aretz, has reporters and columnists describing these horrific conditions and concluding that the ferocity of the blockade is detrimental to Israel as well as the Palestinians.

Collective punishment is clearly a violation of established international law. Prominent, former military, security and political leaders in Israel are speaking out against this punishment and calling for negotiations with Hamas. Do you, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, agree with these Israelis or do you continue to support the policy of collective punishment against innocent men, women and children in Gaza?

That's the type of complexity I was just waiting to hear from him speak of at AIPAC.

Sure, the media has dropped the ball in a larger way than giving a married man green-colored headwear as a gift (said to be a faux pas by Chinese culture).

But such a mismanagement of responsibility does not extend to the candidates who have already shown the encouraging ability to worship and pronounce the reality of the situation in front of any crowd. Are citizens so mute that we would see the potential of Obama and close our lips to the injustice of his June 4th speech?

How is Obama going to affect lasting change in Middle Eastern policies if he is unable to balance the equation and "tell things like they really are" (especially) in front of the AIPAC?

Part I
Part II

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •