Guaranteed Loss for Obama

Israel's military training exercise brings up an easy way to defeat Obama. Bush may not have the leverage left to invade Iran, but Israel doesn't need to worry about U.S. approval ratings. If Israel bombs Iran, and Iran retaliates against Israel, who knows what happens. If what happens is a full-on war between Israel and Iran, the U.S., judging from the current full-throated defenses of Israel offered by both presidential candidates, may not find it too difficult to jump into the fray. And if that move doesn't turn off the American public, McCain will have a powerful argument to use against giving the reins to Obama. Other option -- capture Osama bin Laden and then repeatedly refer to him as "Obama."

Pardonable offenses

While other countries may eventually charge the architects of the Bush administration's torture policy, most people think that the U.S. is not going to go there. But how sure is the administration of that? Even if the odds are minuscule, there's still a chance that in a President Obama's second term, with a solid Democratic Congressional majority, the topic would be broached. Bush's power to pardon people involved in torture (there seems to be very little hard evidence that he was directly involved) could be used to great effect here, and the offenses wouldn't even have to be enumerated -- the parties involved could be pardoned for all offenses they committed against the United States, as Ford did to Nixon. Bush's confidence might well keep him from considering this at all. But if I were Alberto Gonzales, or maybe more relevantly, David Addington, I would be worried.

In Four Years

The non-Poblano poster at fivethirtyeight.com had a piece listing the many wrongs Hillary Clinton did in this campaign, and says that he may never vote for her again. I think that he's right, and that he may even understate the case a bit. Obama pushed back on certain topics, but, by and large, he didn't call into question Clinton's basic morals, or bring up the 90's too much, presumably because he didn't want to awaken nostalgia for Bill Clinton's administration. But in 2012, 90's nostalgia is not going to be a campaign issue. And Clinton may not be lucky enough to be running against someone whose campaign is based on a new kind of politics. If I were running her opponent's campaign, I would just show her meeting with Scaife (with a clip of the "right-wing conspiracy" quote to lead in), promising to suspend the gas tax, and talking about hard-working Americans, white Americans, and have the slogan, "Hillary: she'll say anything to win." None of her campaign positions are going to play any better in 4 years.

right and left both attack obama: from Sekhar

I think most people on the left realize the unique nature of the election in the US this year. For the first time ever, a progressive and an oppressed minority has run a brilliant campaign and is very likely to become president.

Curiously, and this is perhaps a reflection of the state of the left historically, some don't share this understanding. They demand a platform acceptable to the left. I am not sure whether they actually fantasize that it is possible to win an election in the US on a [left]-friendly platform; a modicum of knowledge about where this country has gone in the past thirty-odd years should make the fantasy part very clear. The alternative is that they don't in fact care whether Obama wins or not, as long as he says all the right things.

There are three issues that are (and should be) very important to the left, but which will certainly sink any candidacy - Palestine, Cuba, Affirmative Action. I am confident, based on Obama's life experience, that he will be good on all three issues. Anyone who wants to debate the point should at a minimum read his first book.

At the same time, because of his progressive background, Obama cannot allow himself to be defined as beyond the pale (to use another meaning of the word). The right wing would love to hammer away on any one of these three topics and force him to defend himself day in and day out. Obama has to push these topics to the side so that the focus can remain on what Bush
has done to Iraq, to the economy, and to civil liberties. This means he has to say what is acceptable to most people - on these three issues, that is not what leftists would find acceptable. Most leftists undestand this and support Obama. Some, unfortunately, don't and spend their time hacking away.

The most recent example is Obama in Miami. It could just as well be AIPAC, which is coming up. What Obama said to the Cuban audience is not what I would like to say to them, but I am not trying to win Florida (or any place else). Obama wants to win that state along with many others. Two significant voting blocs there are Cubans and elderly Jews. There are quite a few in
both communities who will never vote for Obama because they are racist. The New York Times story talks about the racism of some of the older Jews. Likewise with the Cubans, where the situation is much more hopeless. The Jewish community, contrary to what the Times story says, has been quite steady in its support for Democratic candidates, second only to Blacks; the
Cubans are mostly reactionary. So why does Obama tell the Cubans he will keep the embargo for now? The topic has to be off the headlines. That is all.

Actually, there is more. Obama has made the debate to be about diplomacy. He has said he will negotiate with all world leaders, friend or not. He has been denounced by the right wing, and also by the Clintons, for this view. There are three things to be said about this. One is that it shows how backward US politics is, that even talking to adversaries is a big deal. Two, it is a debate that Obama can win, by appealing to people's common sense. Three, if Obama proposes actual solutions now like the dismantlement of settlements or normalization of relations, that will be the end of his candidacy.

These points all came out even in the way Obama's speech was received. We can all wish he had spoken differently. But the NY Times, for instance, focused on Obama wanting to meet with the Cuban leadership:

MIAMI - Senator Barack Obama on Friday called for greater engagement with Cuba and Latin America, saying the long-standing policies of isolation have failed to advance the interests of the United States or help people who have suffered under oppressive governments.

In a speech before an influential Cuban-American group here, Mr. Obama said he would meet with the Cuban leader, Raúl Castro, "at a time and place of my choosing." He derided Senator John McCain and other Republican critics as embracing what he called hard-line approaches that have failed.

"John McCain´s been going around the country talking about how much I want to meet with Raúl Castro, as if I´m looking for a social gathering or I´m going to invite him over and
have some tea," Mr. Obama said. "That´s not what I said, and John McCain knows it. After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions."

Sure, Obama could have said he would immediately lift the embargo. That will satisfy us leftists and make us feel good, but it will be futile. Obama won't win and the embargo will stay in place. The way Obama framed the issue, the general public will support him.

Of course, the Cuban leadership in Miami is not going to support him. They are reactionaries, bound to the Republican party. They will never support Obama, or any other Democrat. But they didn't dominate the discourse in the coverage. The left should recognize when one of their own controls the debate so well.

A few more Times excerpts from the piece about Florida Jews:

"The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel," Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch.

"They´re going to vote for McCain," she said.

Ms. Grossman, 80, agreed with her friend´s conclusion, but not her reasoning.

"They´ll pick on the minister thing, they´ll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color," she said, quietly fingering a coffee cup. Ms. Grossman said she was thinking of voting for Mr. Obama, who is leading in the delegate count for the nomination, as was Ms. Weitz.

But Ms. Grossman does not tell the neighbors. "I keep my mouth shut," she said.

The article goes on to say, "[b]ut in recent presidential elections, Jews have drifted somewhat to the right." This has been disputed on various blogs. The percent of Jews voting for Republicans has not changed much in over twenty years; the Democratic vote has fluctuated somewhat, perhaps because of Ross Perot in 92 and 96.

Then, there are the false stories, many of which are circulated by Israel fanatics (the Times doesn't say so):

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern´s friends told him in Aventura. (He´s not.)

He is a part of Chicago´s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama´s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he´s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing
crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)

As with other ethnic groups, age is an important factor. Many Jews in Florida are older, having moved there after retirement.

Younger Jews have grown up in diverse settings and are therefore less likely to be troubled by Mr. Obama's associations than their elders, said Rabbi Ethan Tucker, 32, co-founder of a Jewish learning organization in Manhattan and the stepson of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of
Connecticut. Rabbi Tucker said he had given money to Mr. Obama and would vote for him in the fall. "If association was the litmus test of identity, everyone would be a hopeless mishmash of confusion, or you´d have no friends," he said.

Lieberman won't support any Democrat; it is interesting that his stepson, an orthodox rabbi, is for Obama.

This is Obama's accomplishment, and that is what is going to help him become President, not just his progressive politics.

Here are some articles about attacks from the right -- in the Washington Post, lies we will hear about Obama. From Politico, viral emails forcing Obama to emphasize his American roots. One trusts the left is as smart as the right and can see who should be attacked and who should be supported.

More articles: from Newsweek, an attempt to show that not supporting Obama correlates with racist attitudes. Along the same lines, an Al Jazeera report on racism in Kentucky. http://isbarackobamaamuslim.com/ tries to answer itself.

Obama's massive rally in Portland (60,000) opened with a local indie band, the Decemberists who, it is said, often open with the Soviet national anthem. Some rightwing blogs think the choice of the band shows Obama's politics.