open Democracy News Analysis - north america - Comments

Not logged in on "America’s foreign-policy election "

Not logged in — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:33:06 +0100

The kind of situation the United States finds herself today has got to be changed and the change is not an individual centered process but the situation will need an individual. In all likehood Obama is more sited as compared to McClain to bring about a change and find some way out of Unwinnable wars in Iraq an Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan are alarming and it is difficult how new UD administration will confront the situation. Obama has place Afghanistan of priority list and how he will go about it will to be so easy. McClain perhaps will find it difficult to change what Bust has done and if elected US will drag on and delay a change. Perhaps Obama is not captive of recent past and will be better positioned to introduce a change -which is the demand of the situation and has nothing much to do with political position of Obama.
Subhash Dhuliya

Not logged in on "America’s foreign-policy election "

Not logged in — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:28:28 +0100

The United States needs a change. A major change. Unwinnable wars looming heavily. The situation US is in needs to be changed and change is not brought about by an individual but a situation demands change and an individual is just instrumental. McClain perhaps will find it difficult to change what Bust has done and if elected US will drag on and delay a change. Perhaps Obama is not captive of recent past and will be better positioned to introduce a change -which is the demand of the situation and has nothing much to do with political position of Obama.
Subhash Dhuliya

willow28 on "America’s foreign-policy election "

willow28 — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:32:59 +0100

Foreign policy may well be the deciding factor inside the Beltway. But, don't forget that this is a nation where fewer than 30% of the citizenry hold passports.

It's difficult to imagine the affairs of Pakistan, and South Ossetia will matter one whit to the good citizens of Colorado or South Dakota.

In the end, as always, good old "economy-stupid" will be the main deciding factor.

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "America’s foreign-policy election "

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:29:42 +0100

We don't have to be naive but still can we construct a foreign policy scenario of hope? You have outlined failures of different kinds at present with useful empirical and historical insights. Luckily at the same time newer lessons are being learned from them and we are seeing some latest foreign policy endeavors in that respect benefiting, because we are welcoming patience, intensified and "informed" diplomacy. The article can make "a balance man with the grace" we see unbalance and negatively re-active. I am sure that is not your intention! We have seen the world sour and dark for America - a tough nut to crack as you put it. That itself is an arm of the lesson - above all, a legacy many of us are sure the Presidential candidate: Barack Obama and his Vice Joe Biden are well competent to handle.

I do hope the American voters in their different classes truly understand what the idea of change is about, because I know that it could mean hard choices, what makes democracy interesting, more so at a time people are in misery. Links between the economy and foreign policy might be 'netted' by national security concerns, but then think of co-existence and also "imagined" meaning of a global world if the "real" meaning appears frightening. Turning the back sometimes at what frightens does not necessarily have to mean you would not face up to the task in the event of [reasonable] challenges, with no PEACEFUL options. We cannot afford to downplay sound judgement, the absence of which in the past years as you rightly outlined also plunged the world into the state making America's foreign-policy an issue in the "presidential election" of a two "party-system" democracy. Let us endeavor to send out good signals in spite of "gray sky" or our "definitions" of the real world sometimes!

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

deborah.gordon on "America’s foreign-policy election "

deborah.gordon — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:52:39 +0100

Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, Madeline Albright--these are the players who created policies that were failures from the sanctions on Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I'm no fan of McCain, but when Obama picks Joe Biden, who is a stalwart supporter of Israel, and then threatens Iran and promises the US will always "support" Israel in his acceptance speech, we've been here before.

The heart of our problem in the M.E. is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we're going right back to failed policies and players who helped them fail. We're going there, because it doesn't matter whether we elect a Dem or Republican, if the person wants to be reelected, s/he has to have the organized pro-Israeli community's dollars in their campaign coffers. Until that community's hold on US Middle East policy is broken, we will continue to witness a deterioration in US relations with not only the Arab and Muslim worlds but an international civil society that is fed up with the US being a co-belligerent to Israel's conflicts with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "Welcome to the party: American convention follies "

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:41:42 +0100

To begin with, I score this article "excellent". Ask me why and I will tell you that I spared the time to go once again through some of Godfrey Hodgson's previous blogs on the forth-coming US presidential election, especially the two titled "The United States Election: Time for "Change" (10-01 2008); and "America's Change Election: Reality or Mirage"? (11-02-2008). Both articles, among others, are a sufficient ground to appreciate the way he reasons in the latest blog titled "Welcome to the Party: American Convention Follies". I mean to point out here that there is a good history, not just constructed] to guide commentators.

Of the two blogs cited above to help appreciate the latest - the 2nd], is commented on in several moving senses (see pendragon.jay said: Tue, 2008-02-19 18:30) and (abuelita42pj said: Wed, 2008-02-13 00:27, etc.). Whereas, the 1st cited, has not been commented, whatever the reasons, especially whether bloggers saw it as a 'bait' or something to launch and wake internal and external opinions and interests for the election? In these senses, the latest blog has come when certain DUSTS of the election have settled down to open the way for the main dusts: the conventions and the selection of who the vice presidential candidates who are to run with the respective presidential candidates of the parties after their "hard-won" primaries.

I am going it this way, because I do not want my genuine comments to be misunderstood. All in all, at this stage "Welcome to the party: American convention follies" is obviously important. Hudgson reflects usefully - implicit as injection of advice, very balance in intention! Electoral democracy, where it is respected, is clearly about party-line and politics. The individual might be personalized in the process and yet it is the party venture. In my opinion bloggers and party-strategists reading him and the comments to that effect, on my part would be much advised to spare the time once again to go through the 'blog' of 10-01-2008: "The United States Election: Time for Change". I am not repeating myself and if anyone says I do so, my explanation is I am emphasizing while seeking clarity, because not reading the latter could mean missing the message Hudgson tries to send out now!

Can I try to round-up all? American dream was a source of hope, not only for Americans but also for the world. Now we are seeing how the dream is dashing. Is it not a part of what the "change" idea is about? After telling us much about the woes of the present US administration, Hudgson (10-01-2008, page 2 of 4), could not have put matters better than in the following excerpt: "The most plausible theory is to hypothesise that 2008 will mark the end of the conservative ascendancy that began with the fall of the Lyndon B. Johnson administration in 1968, to be replaced by the Nixon administration and, twelve years later by the Reagan revolution". "CHANGE" is JUXTAPOSED"!

For the Democrats it might mean that sometimes YOU just have to see and not be told that THIS IS YOUR TIME "STAND UP FIRMLY AND UNITE FOR THE VICTORY YOU CAN EARN! About your choice of the Vice President candidate, your effective party strategists can work out! The opportunity is in the "aftermaths - legacies"] of the present administration, which truly and unfortunately create a burden too high for all and particularly the other party's running candidate, who no doubt is a lovable fatherly figure as well. Tony Blair as a case never made it easier for Brown and the takeover! Not a wrong "analogy" considering the team - pitiful! Monica Lewinsky nearly cost Clinton impeachment, because of 'adversarial' politics, but now on party-line bases the woes and mistakes outlined in Hudgson 10-01-2008, do not convince and win hearts this time! Not only American hearts need to be won, but since America is a big power in the world, moral and good examples - are a social capital of unique nature the world as well as America want to see, for the purpose of a peaceful world and sustainable growth paralleled by development based on moderation.

When I listen to the American anthem, it tingles through my whole body. Then I recall in Mahalia Jackson's album "Starportrait", the songs: "My Country, Tis of Thee" and ""Abraham, Martin and John" (not excluding Bobby), ending in "shame on America" and the culture sometimes of confusion and assassination! The same tingling feelings make me not hesitate bringing in this context to the center also, Frank Sinatra's album "ol' blue eyes is back", emphasizing the songs: "You will be my music", "You are so right" (for what is wrong in my life"); "Winners", "Nobody Wins"; "Send in the Clowns"; "Dream Away" ....(not, "Let Me Try Again"); but instead the remaining two in the album: "There used to be a Ballpark" and "NOAH". For me these mark the colourfulness of meanings we can bring into politics, Find the songs and play them you will feel like I do. Above all the gloomy feelings of American elections will become lighter to think and balance with a sense of joy and hope about the greatest "rainbow" nation on earth. The song "Noah" tells us how we have to soar with the eagles, sing with the nightingales and leave in love and peace. Both parties must have good protective details and officers for the lives of their candidates, especially if they must stand for the change as I end sending the "golden flame" protection from above to them both!

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "Barack Obama’s political tour"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:07:11 +0100

Godfrey Hodgson's paper offers several insights. One sees that besides the success of the tours, the center of interest is: which of the two presidential candidates is likely to be a better "Commander in chief" for the United States in the coming four years? No crystal ball will ever give the right answer to the question, but history and contemporary experiences could be of help for decisions about which of the two candidates is better suited.

Let us appreciatively examine selected key issues of American democracy we know have important bearings on idea of commander in chief. 1). America is a 'two party-system' democracy - no 3rd party has succeed to break-in, which on party line issues, among others, leaves more room for "floating voters" in the system. 2) In this election both candidates are ideologically adjusted - in different degrees though], to mid-field [centrist politics and party programs].

These intervene and could make it seem like the personalization of both candidates in the article risks not reading their campaign acts as party-line strategies - tied to party confidence in the 'worth' of their presidential candidates as commander in chief. By analogy, we can be elastic, exemplifying with unnamed Western Monarchies and Republics. Governance structures world-wide offer varieties, but the monarch is interesting, especially if he or she is young, because the establishment can groom! It is not unique as a strategy in presidential state politics. Here integrity and settings of the advisory team are extremely important.

The other reason is to be better informed of American political settings - no less important contextually! As candidates - the products of 'tiring' and 'hard-won' primaries, contesting now in earnest for the office of the president of the United States, they know that to manage affairs of the state is the lot for whoever wins in a popular, free and fair democratic election.

They know and respect and are dedicated to the principles of the 'Rule of law'. That is to say that [as commander in chief] the executive power, legislative power and the power of the judiciary remain their democratic structural pillars, and that even with the veto power of the commander in chief, its settings must be traded with care, looking generally unto national constitution. The post of a commander in chief is no less delicate, more-so with impeachment a constitutional right hence over-dramatizing and not emphasizing the factors: integrity and moral might not reflect the call and hope for change.

During the tours outlined, as candidates of their respective parties, both made speeches, talked in private - a result of which is they are better informed about the weight of their foreign policy challenges and well conscious of the challenges at home, for example, the economic, environmental and social! It would be unfortunate to conclude that during the tours both honorable candidates in any sense meant to promote themselves as president. They know that they are candidates and that not until their American voters elect them and proclaim one of them as a winner, none is yet the president. At the same time it serves the interest of American voters to see and know their candidates as "social capitals" from the modes of external enthusiasm for a great nation, that cannot act alone to bring about "sustainable development and progress" at home and in the world. Home as well as international political arenas are important for this great nation and its voters.

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

Not logged in on "A game of two halves "

Not logged in — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:26:26 +0100

That the world is held in suspense, in my meaning as world citizen, is the "pride" of the American democracy as a value and process. A country holding the world in suspense when its president - Head of State] is chosen also knows or [must] sense that the world "loves" her as a nation - in most cases, not just "lip service": She is looked upon with 'reverence' in a good number of circles. In that case, the internal or external factors: "moral" and "integrity" in the handling of home and world affairs, non-incidentally become a part of the scheme of things!.

Not to be taken lightly, is the fact that, that could also mean that in: that "world love" relationship and its "truth value", CRITIQUE is and could be positive - once again lifting up the moral and the integrity, both as variables and elements that are meaningful for the life of democracy, sustainable national and intra-national relations and progress, preferably within the rather reasonable frame of the "Creative capitalism" conversation, Robert Reich interestingly takes up in the June 27, 2008 article, sub-titled "Responsible capitalism and democracy".

All in all, a state knowing she is loved and seeing others strive, for example, in different senses and degrees to attain political, cultural, and economic development heights similar to hers, should also be aware that being that much highly promoted or held invites external critiques ... intrusive though some might seem], are but 'checks and balances' [inputs] implied and needed to polish the leadership roles beyond the national scene. This should apply to all states but in this particular case, America is central as the state in question. It is about progressive leadership and sensitivity in particular. In this sense, for a powerful nation, the latter is far from argument of psychological self-destruction. Sensitivity should therefore rather be interpreted thus as a strength, making that which is a part of the other reality people see and learn to accept not look too "dramatic" or taken for granted, without a sense of humility, enough to win trust and sustainability.

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

evangelos on "Valuing a single small life in the face of global disaster"

evangelos — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:30:32 +0100

Congratulations, Mr Gabour, you have written a wonderful, touching and sensitive piece.

I too recently took in what has turned out to be a loving, sweet dog, that all she wants is affection and kindness.

Einstein was maybe right afterall - "The world is beautiful, but it has a disease called man"

Luna on "The lost election year"

Luna — Sat, 24 May 2008 19:44:38 +0100

Didn't after all Obama gain from this battle?

I would say yes. Don't forget, he was virtually unknown to a lot of people when the campaign started. This intense fight during the nomination process not only increased his profile but also vetted him in any thinkable way and pushed him on issues he probably hadn't made up his mind about before.

It may be that the Democrats appear by now somehow exhausted but don't forget that also the Republicans are far from being strongly united behind their candidate. McCain is far behind in fundraising, even behind Hillary!! And he still has problems in addressing the evangelicals and the conservative wing.

After this primary season I really don't see a weak Democratic party but a candidate (who can now only be Obama) who has risen from a nice but unknown guy to a strong potential President. What he makes out of all this in the campaign starting in fall remains to be seen. But hopefully he doesn't lose his good spirits and his message of change. Although we all know that in a presidential race even this turbulent primary season might appear as a rehearsal for school theater.

babscornett on "Lady Bird Johnson: a political journey"

babscornett — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:48:49 +0100

I left a comment here where I spoke of the history of slavery and the wrongs done to blacks and compared that with the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jews. I stated that the United States should not be supporting Israel because to do so goes against our Constitution. I spoke of feeling resentment when Sidney Blumenthal talks about the South and can only see Lady Bird as a Southerner when she was an American who was loyal to America. These comments were not posted but were censored. So much for our open democracy. I suppose when Jews control our government or a website then our freedoms are conditioned upon their approval so that we are no longer free. This means that even though our government and our people were able to correct the wrongs done under slavery we will be unable to stop the Jews because all of us have lost our freedoms because of them. What is the difference between the way blacks were treated in the old South and the way Palestinians are treated. What is the difference between an Aryan nation and a Jewish state. My comments are relevant to this article. My people gave me free speech and my people have fought all of the political, economic and military wars this nation ever had and my loyality is to America. So why do we not have an open democracy where I am free to speak my mind. Thank for censoring my post and making my points for me. Everything I said about liberals and jews is true and on their websites we are free to spread hatred against Christians and American culture and history and we are free to talk of how evil the Muslims are but we are not free to speak of the problems caused to us by the Jews. I rest my case. The nation could survive Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwel but the Jews are another story. babs

joe_11 on "Bush's Iraqi endgame"

joe_11 — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:28:24 +0100

Interesting thesis: bush and his handlers believe that continuing a strong presence in Iraq will enhance the GOP political/electoral position in the long run . . . because the GOP will be viewed as a strong "war party" that will never relent in the struggle against terrorism. Maybe this should have addressed the growing GOP disaffection with his war policies (and several domestic policies too)? To be convincing it should definitely have addressed the war powers that have been assumed by this administration which include rewriting or ignoring Congressional legislation along with vast powers to intrude upon, arrest, and even torture those suspected of terrorist links whether they be citizens or not. My big fear is that bush/Cheney definitely have a political agenda that involves fundamentally transforming (if not eliminating) what is commonly understood as constitutional government and the rule of law.