Clinton as a parrot

Dana Milbank tears Hillary Clinton apart in his "Washington Sketch". Amidst a revealing description of Clinton's itinerary (including her photo-op waving to non-existent audiences) in West Virginia yesterday, Milbank interweaves the dialogue of Monty Python's famous "dead parrot" sketch (video below). The Clinton campaign may insist that victory in West Virginia is a sign of life yet, but the American press know a dead parrot when they see one.

Zombie-like, the Clinton campaign lurches on to Kentucky, invoking the ghosts of race and class in the Faulknerian gloom. Never accuse us of stretching the undead analogy too far.

Millennials will shift politics left

Bob Herbert in the NYT picks up on the growing number of studies and surveys done about the political orientation of young people in the United States. This generation - dubbed the "Millennials" - between their late teens and early 30s face a far bleaker economic landscape than their parents did. Indicators of the economic decline include a difficult job market, growing student debt, a drop in health insurance coverage and a rise in the percentage of income young people spend on rent.

In its report - "The Progressive Generation" - on the economic views of the Millennials, the left-of-centre think-tank the Center for American Progress suggests that this generation of young people is far more "progressive" than its predecessors, including the grunge-era depressives of "Generation X." That's because the Millennials have their backs to the wall. It is in government - and not in the eternal, self-healing logic of the market - that they seek answers.

As the CAP report outlines, a "majority of 18- to 29-year-olds believe that the government can be a force for good in the economy, and that increased investments in healthcare, education, and other areas are necessary to ensure strong and sustainable economic growth."

Herbert, one of the Times' more liberal columnists, finds cause for hope in the attitudes of the Millennials: "there is very little doubt that over the next several years they are capable of loosening the tremendous grip that conservatives have had on the levers of American power." So too must the Obama campaign be encouraged by the CAP report; Obama has aggressively courted the support of young voters, on whom he may have to rely in November to help overcome the staid pensioners unconvinced by his appeal to "change".  Read the rest of this post...

Hillary the Stubborn

I have to agree with the BBC’s Kevin Connolly that Hillary Clinton’s ‘die-hard battling’ in West Virginia is something you can’t help but admire. However, I disagree with his speculations on the source of Clinton’s determination to stay in a race she is apparently losing. He offers three reasons for this hardcore campaigning where many would have given up long ago. A quick comment on each of these suggests there must be something more to it.
 Read the rest of this post...

The climate is a-changin'

John McCain today set out his plan for tackling climate change, proposing to cut US greenhouse gas emissions 60% by 2050. McCain asserted his independence from the President Bush’s legacy of inaction and suggested that he would reclaim a position of leadership for the United States.

Most strikingly, he stated that:

"If the efforts to negotiate an international solution that includes China and India do not succeed, we still have an obligation to act."

This is a bold move by a Republican presidential candidate – Bush has for the last eight years made US participation in international efforts to reduce emissions contingent on the involvement of these countries. Obama and Clinton both propose larger cuts, as do Senators Warner and Lieberman, but it is striking that there is a firming cross-party consensus on the importance of acting on climate change.

Lula and Obama

Recently, I was talking with Kay Dilday – a contributing editor of openUSA – about the rise of Barack Obama. She said she still could not believe that he would make it. I said I thought he could and in part because he was an expression of the normalisation of America in the aftermath of its shaping control over globalisation. Now, it was becoming a country – still a very considerable one of course – like others. It was joining the world. Kay objected that on the contrary, no other country could make someone like Obama its leader. Implicitly, she was suggesting that were he to make it, it would be evidence of American exceptionalism.

I’m not holding Kay to her argument. I’m reproducing it because I guess lots of people think on these lines and it made me question why I think differently.

Of course, it is true that no other white country would make a black man its leader at the moment. But what other white democracies countries have had such significant numbers of blacks as part of their historic population? Isn’t the exception that the US had slavery and then Jim Crow? When its Nobel Laureate for literature and finest living writer is a black woman (Toni Morrison), its Secretary of State is black (Condoleezza Rice), and its previous Secretary of State (Colin Powell) was not only black, he had also been a hugely admired head of the armed forces – then what are we seeing??

I’m not trying to diminish the importance of an Obama presidency, or even his selection as the Democratic candidate. I’m trying to look at whether it means the US is out on a limb or getting closer to the trunk of humanity.  Read the rest of this post...

Obama: the view from Palestine

I was drinking beer with my friend Baha' the other night when the US presidential election came up. Baha' is an educated, left-wing Palestinian guy who lived in the US for a while. Like a lot of Palestinians, he is sympathetic to Barack Obama, preferring him over Hilary Clinton, but is puzzled about Obama's views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

If Obama is supposed to represent "Change", Baha' asked me, why doesn't he stand up to the Israel lobby? Why not make a complete break with the old politics?

It's a fair question, and a complex one. It's also a question that's been underlined in the last few days with Obama's repeated statements about the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel.

Obama wins... New Zealand

Forget Kentucky, Oregon and West Virginia. Say goodbye to primaries in Puerto Rico. A new poll has revealed that 47 per cent of New Zealand wants Obama! OK, the support of my countrymen and women is unlikely to shift those last few super-delegates Barack’s way. Still, it is oddly indicative of how popular he is around the world. He easily won the Democrats abroad caucus and his candidacy has inspired global excitement – from hard-steppin’ reggae to my quiet street in sunny north-London, where a number of houses are decorated with Obama 08 posters.

Of course, were global popularity to mean anything, I have a funny feeling that the US would have a different President right now. Doesn’t stop us singing though - altogether now – "we need Barack…".
 Read the rest of this post...

Iran writes back to Hillary

Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, writes an open letter to Hillary Clinton in response to her promise to "obliterate" Iran.

--------------------------------------------------------

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
US Presidential Candidate
c/o MSNBC.com

Your Excellency,

In one of your recent campaign interviews you stated that: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. . . . In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them" (Interview with ABC).

This is not different from President Bush's stated policy towards Iran. The logic of threatening a total obliteration of Iran, possible only through a nuclear holocaust, is based on the "right of power", not the "power of the right".

As you may know, chapter I, article II of the United Nations Charter states that:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Regardless of any hypothetical attack on Israel, the United States is legally bound not to threaten Iran or any other country. In addition to the UN Charter, the US constitution prohibits such threatening policies. Article IV Clause II states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

As an Iranian, I feel compelled to ask you some questions. First, why are you threatening "the Iranians"? Second, if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA, what would then be your policy and position?

I do not agree with the rhetorical statements and foreign policies of Dr. Ahmadinejad, the President of Islamic Republic of Iran. However, while the military capability of Iran to attack Israel is questionable, Israel's capabilities concerning the conventional and non-conventional armaments to attack Iran is beyond any doubt.

With respect

Ebrahim Yazdi,
Secretary General, Freedom Movement of Iran and
Former Foreign Minister, Islamic Republic of Iran

To be or not to be Islamist

The Moor Next Door blog reports on how the Islamic Society of North America has asked the McCain campaign to stop referring to "Islamic" or "Islamist terrorism", describing the term as insensitive to the Muslim community. A McCain spokesman was swift to reject the request.

McCain's people may be going against the new establishment wisdom. As terrorism.openDemocracy reported yesterday, a study released recently by the National Counter-Terrorism Center has advised against the use of "Islamic" or "Islamist" as adjectives for militancy or terrorism, suggesting "violent cultists" as an alternative. While McCain's policy statements are littered with references to Islamist terrorism and extremism, Obama is careful to eschew any such adjectival use.

McCain hopes that by unflinchingly calling a spade a spade, he'll convince the public that he knows "the enemy" and recognises its obvious threat. Sadly for a country thirsting for moral clarity, the spade is not a spade. Qualifying terrorism as "Islamist" doesn't help explain or counter the threat posed by militant groups like al-Qaida, but only creates a vaguer sense of its "otherness". By being careful, however, Obama gambles that prudence and subtlety can persuade where blunt bluster simply shocks and awes.
 Read the rest of this post...

McCain's Jeremiah Wright?

A film produced by the San Francisco lefty mag Mother Jones links McCain to the bigoted preacher Rod Parsley. Just as Jeremiah Wright felt compelled to speak venom to power, Reverend Parsley, who McCain describes as his "spiritual guide", doesn't shy away from spitting bile at Islam. Juicy bits include:

• "America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."
• "Mohammed received revelations from demon spirits, not the living god."
• "America has historically understood itself to be a bastion against Islam in the world."
• "This is about to freak you out...Since September 11, 2001, 34,000 Americans have become Muslims...This means that thousands of Americans have embraced the very religion that inspired the worst assault upon their nation in a generation."

Will Parsley damage McCain as much as Wright has hurt Obama? Probably not. After all, it's far more acceptable to long for Manichean apocalypse than criticise one's own country.  Read the rest of this post...

Obama: as white as Kerry?

Interesting findings in a recent Gallup poll: it seems Obama enjoys as much white support as John Kerry did in 2004.

It's obviously early days yet in the Obama-McCain battle, but such statistics encourage the view that Obama has in fact succeeded in building a wide coalition of support, making mince meat of the Clinton campaign's desperate suggestions on Thursday that Obama's push for the nomination rested on the backs of black voters. The following months should provide Obama the opportunity to broaden his base of support even more.

The Rubicon crossed

Brent Budowsky on The Hill blog sees a seismic shift in the fallout of Tuesday's primaries. Tuesday was "the night they drove old Dixie down, the night the old politics ended, the night a great new era in American politics truly began. The battle now begins in earnest. On Tuesday, May 6, 2008, the Rubicon was crossed."

The distractions and "old politics" of the Clintons have been finally laid to rest, rejected by voters tired of the hot air of the pundits and the craven pandering of hollow policies like the proposed gas tax cut. Obama's novelty will once more be allowed to rise to the fore.

But is Obama really in the clear? Has his "new politics" - which rest so much on intangibles like his strength of character - hurdled the obstacles of Wright and of "bittergate"?
 Read the rest of this post...

Clinton against history

We produced perhaps one-too-many grisly undead analogies yesterday, but it's tough not to when the Clinton campaign insists on providing us with so much material. Today seems no different. With one foot in the grave, Clinton's people scheduled an event in West Virginia - up for grabs in the next round of primaries - at McMurran Hall in Shepherd's University, a place made legendary in 1862 when it sheltered the bloody wounded from the carnage of the Battle of Antietam. Historical portents bode ill for Clinton, as Dana Milbank sketches in the Washington Post.

One more nail in Hillary's coffin...

... and one more big talking head heralding the end of the Democratic race. After yesterday's results, Obama must be the nominee.

Late update: Continuing our ghoulish theme, Clinton's advisers insist that the coffin is not yet shut, and that there's life in this campaign yet. The wake continues - undeterred - to West Virginia.

Vote both?

While many analysts pronounced Hillary Clinton dead-and-buried after her underwhelming performance last night, some Democrats hope to keep her corpse fresh. VoteBoth.com launched yesterday, urging Democrats to unite behind a joint Obama-Clinton (or Clinton-Obama) ticket.

The motivation behind the project is obvious; at a time when the Bush administration and the aspiring McCain presidency should be susceptible to attacks on all fronts, the Democratic candidates chip away at each other in front of a hungry public. The party of the donkey needs to stop chasing its own tail.

Of course, it's rather difficult to envision a single ticket that can contain such swollen personalities.

"Learn from Obama"

Barack Obama's unprecedented rise up the political ladder has turned heads the world over. Writing in the Times of India, A.G. Noorani suggests that Indian Muslims - themselves a significant minority in India - must learn from Obama's model of political engagement, eschewing sectarianism for consensus building. Just as Obama's politics include and transcend narrow identities, Muslim political leaders must adopt a secular approach in repairing the "social contract" between majority and minority communities.
 Read the rest of this post...

Do the math

The race for the democratic nomination continued today after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seemingly stumbled to yet another bloody draw. However, upon closer inspection the result significantly favoured Obama. A much greater margin of victory in North Carolina means that his lead over Clinton increases. With the finish line fast approaching and the candidates likely to halve the six states that are yet to go to the polls, Clinton needs something approaching a miracle, or at least an Obama slip-up that dwarfs the controversy provoked by the comments of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Clinton is still likely to notch up massive wins in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico. But Obama should be able to minimise the damage by gaining slightly smaller victories in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Clinton will likely need to win more than 80% of the delegates still in play to regain the lead. In the meantime, Obama will continue to unleash newly pledged super-delegates, demonstrating he has momentum within the party as well as the electorate.

From a faux Moorish castle in Indianapolis, Clinton still declared victory and referenced her one remaining real hope for the nomination - that delegations from Michigan and Florida be seated at the Democratic convention. Elections in these states have been declared void and Obama did not contest them, so such an outcome would seem more than a little undemocratic. Gaining the nomination like this would also damage the chances of Clinton actually being elected president.

So, advantage Obama, but this never-ending election will continue.  Read the rest of this post...

Feminisms contested

In a searching piece in the left-of-centre weekly The Nation, Betsy Reed parses through the debate amongst feminists prompted by the ongoing contest between Clinton and Obama. Many "progressive feminists" reject out of hand the assumption - as posited by a number of their older brethren - that women should vote in terms of gender interests before racial ones. Clear fault-lines in American feminism are emerging as a result of the campaign.

In some sense, this is a clarifying moment as well as a wrenching one. For so many years, feminists have been engaged in a pushback against the right that has obscured some of the real and important differences among them. "Today you see things you might not have seen. It's clearer now about where the lines are between corporate feminism and more grassroots, global feminism," says [law professor Kimberlé] Crenshaw. Women who identify with the latter movement are saying, as she puts it, "'Wait a minute, that's not the banner we are marching under!'"

Feminist Obama supporters of all ages and hues, meanwhile, are hoping that he comes out of this bruising primary with his style of politics intact. While he calls it "a new kind of politics," Clinton and Obama are actually very similar in their records and agendas (which is perhaps why this contest has fixated so obsessively on their gender and race). But in his rhetoric and his stance toward the world outside our borders, Obama does appear to offer a way out of the testosterone-addled GOP framework. As he said after losing Pennsylvania, "We can be a party that thinks the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, and act, and vote like George Bush and John McCain. We can use fear as a tactic and the threat of terrorism to scare up votes. Or we can decide that real strength is asking the tough questions before we send our troops to fight."

 

 

The stubborn grand theory

American political scientists have made a niche in the last twenty years of expounding the "grand theory". As the Soviet Union crumbled in the late 80s, so too did the fundamental premises that framed strategic thinking in Washington and elsewhere. A rash of large ideas (with attached buzz words) rushed into fill the void. 1993 was a bumper year for this species of pontification, notable efforts including Samuel Huntington's now infamous "The Clash of Civilisations" and Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man", which argued that the end of the Cold War was confirmation of the final triumph of liberal democracy and the free market.