DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on January 26, 2008, 05:50:42 PM
-
In many ways, it?s been a strange campaign up to this point. But it could get a lot stranger.
Consider this: What if we go through the Florida primary and Super Tuesday and the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama remains as tight as it?s been? For the primaries, Democrats have the same rules in every state: delegates are awarded in proportion to the vote ? meaning no winner-take-all. If Clinton and Obama continue to split the vote in many states, it?s possible we could get to late spring or early summer and neither candidate would have enough delegates to secure the nomination.
And that?s assuming they get that far without destroying each other with their increasingly nasty bickering. There just might be an opening for someone else to step in and unify the party. Oh, you know, like say maybe Al Gore.
Gore insists he won?t run despite a movement called ?draft-Gore-dot-com? that?s calling on him to ?transcend politics as usual and bring real hope to our country and to the world.? As recently as last month, the former vice president said he has ?no plans to be a candidate.? But being a politician he added, ?I see no reason to rule it out entirely.?
Also, it?s worth noting Gore has not backed either Clinton or Obama so far, and a recent report indicated that an endorsement by Gore is looking less likely. Former advisers suggest the Nobel Prize catapulted Gore to a new national and international standing that could possibly be tarnished by taking sides in the primary battle.
Here?s my question to you: If the Democrats have trouble picking between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, should Al Gore consider entering the race?
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/25/room-for-al-gore-in-the-race/
-
If Clinton and Obama continue to split the vote in many states, it?s possible we could get to late spring or early summer and neither candidate would have enough delegates to secure the nomination.
Yeah, thats why brokered conventions exist. ::)
Al Gore isn't going to run, nor should he. He's accomplishing and doing what he wants now-being president would interfere with that.
-
Al Gore could depend on getting the "Anybody but Bush " vote but so can they all , of course President Bush isn't running but his unpopularity will be a drag on the party anyhow.
Al Gore could also count on loseing the "Anybody but a Cliton" vote almost as badly as Hillary ,Bill is in the baggage.
I don't see where Al would have much advantage over Obama , as a caadate for "change" what does a lot of exprience and wonkishness count for?
Barak Obama is proveing to be an inspireing orator , this is highly valuable , there are a lot of apathetic voters who might become motivated if they could be reached and inspired success at that would be better than captureing any one voteing block or loseing any one voteing block , the apathetic non voter is a little less than half of the present electroate ruseing them would not be easy , it is worth a try tho.
-
Sorta reminds me of RFK jumping into the race after Eugene McCarthy had acquired some momentum as the Democratic candidate for change. The difference being that RFK had a hundred times the charisma of Gene McCarthy and Algore would be coming in with a ton of Washington baggage. I like Al, but his time has come and gone. He could contribute to change by endorsing Obama, but I imagine that would be tough to do in view of the loyalty he undoubtedly feels for Bill at least, and very likely for Hillary as well.
-
Al Gore could depend on getting the "Anybody but Bush " vote but so can they all , of course President Bush isn't running but his unpopularity will be a drag on the party anyhow.
Al Gore could also count on loseing the "Anybody but a Cliton" vote almost as badly as Hillary ,Bill is in the baggage.
I don't see where Al would have much advantage over Obama , as a caadate for "change" what does a lot of exprience and wonkishness count for?
Barak Obama is proveing to be an inspireing orator , this is highly valuable , there are a lot of apathetic voters who might become motivated if they could be reached and inspired success at that would be better than captureing any one voteing block or loseing any one voteing block , the apathetic non voter is a little less than half of the present electroate ruseing them would not be easy , it is worth a try tho.
However, an Obama win is really a win for McCain. Why? I really wonder if many people in this country (not only in the South!), will vote for a black for President, regardless what they say in the polls? I lived in the Northeast for twenty-fie years and racism exists there; it just exists in a different form than in many places in the Dixie South.
You can talk a "diversity line", but when the rubber meets the road, it simply won't happen, enough anyway.
Don't get me wrong; this is a setback for the nation since the amount of melanin in a person's skin should not determine these issues. Even the Bible states this "There is neither Jew nor Greek..." If God looks at us all the same, then shouldn't we do the same toward each other?
-
<<Don't get me wrong; this is a setback for the nation since the amount of melanin in a person's skin should not determine these issues. Even the Bible states this "There is neither Jew nor Greek..." If God looks at us all the same, then shouldn't we do the same toward each other?>>
Not so much a set-back as a snapshot in time.
White racism creates black racism. Which creates more white racism, which creates more black racism. The good news, I guess, is that the whole process is slowly losing steam. White racism is probably the major curse of American society. It's dying out, but not as fast as everyone would like, and the elections aren't really milestones in the process, they're just pulse-taking times.
Obama's candidacy, and the degree of success it's had to date, are an indicator of how far your country has come since, say, 1950, the mid-point of the last century. It's like the old half-empty or half-full quandary - - look how far we've come in combating racism AND awww, shit, why is there this big racial divide?
-
I hope Obama looses , I hope it isn't because he is black that he looses.
Presents a quandry , what do you tell someone who is spending his vote the same way you are ,but for reasons you disagree with?
-
Congratulate him on his wisdom and perspecuity.
-
I hope Obama looses , I hope it isn't because he is black that he looses.
==========================================================
What would be your favorite reason for Obama to lose, then?
-
However, an Obama win is really a win for McCain. Why? I really wonder if many people in this country (not only in the South!), will vote for a black for President, regardless what they say in the polls? I lived in the Northeast for twenty-fie years and racism exists there; it just exists in a different form than in many places in the Dixie South.
You can talk a "diversity line", but when the rubber meets the road, it simply won't happen, enough anyway.
Don't get me wrong; this is a setback for the nation since the amount of melanin in a person's skin should not determine these issues. Even the Bible states this "There is neither Jew nor Greek..." If God looks at us all the same, then shouldn't we do the same toward each other?
I really don't think it has as much to do with racism as most people would assume. It really is, odd as it sounds, a North/South issue.
Southern democrats are notoriously conservative. It is not unheard of for southern dems to assume that since that democrat is from the north, he "may be too liberal, and we aren't going to back him".
As for blatant racism between blacks&whites? I see that less and less. It exists, but now they are all keeping it in private(albeit, I've become very sheltered by choice, so this view may certainly seem limited to others). And any smart person, racist or not personally, isn't going to vote against someone *just* because of their race.
What do you mean by racism in a different form, to calrify? I don't like assuming(usually).
White racism creates black racism. Which creates more white racism, which creates more black racism. The good news, I guess, is that the whole process is slowly losing steam. White racism is probably the major curse of American society. It's dying out, but not as fast as everyone would like, and the elections aren't really milestones in the process, they're just pulse-taking times.
Obama's candidacy, and the degree of success it's had to date, are an indicator of how far your country has come since, say, 1950, the mid-point of the last century. It's like the old half-empty or half-full quandary - - look how far we've come in combating racism AND awww, shit, why is there this big racial divide?
Racism today is less "Whites/Blacks are superior" and more of "Well, we're all [insert race], we should stick together" sort. Sadly some of the most awful forms of racism I've witnessed in my lifetime are intraracial. Either way, tribalism and prejudice will *never* go away. It can become less bigoted, or more bigoted, but it will always remain.
I wouldn't say white racism is the worst curse, btw, espeically in this circumstance-I'd say irrationality is, and any mention of race in the "divisive" context stems from irrationality.
&why half-empty or half-full? I prefer thinking of it as halfway to another glass.
-
The Obama win in South Carolina, and the overwhelming numbers, were brought about by the actions of Bill Clinton in the last four or five days before the votes were cast.
Bill, often self-defeating in his ego's cavalier strut, and always unable to help himself when old buttons are touched (adult-child), tried to get real subtle in introducing racism into the mix. It backfired.
As a side comment, I shall, as time goes on, look to see if his free pass in Harlem will be called in, due to new reports on his credibility payments.
What was entirely refreshing was to see South Carolina reject such sleazy puppeteering by the Clinton campaign.
The Clinton's campaign tactics, which pivot on creating and utilizing divisiveness, have come neck and neck to the other front runner in that particular genre--Karl Rove. Democrats and their advocates shall have to think twice before raising the spectre's of Rove's ruthlessness and divisiveness from now on--post Bill's frenzied patrician miscalculations. In trying to edge open the door just a little, he let in too much light.
South Carolinians rejected Bill's manipulation, even to the extend that they surprised themselves in actually marking their x in the Black man's box.
A paradigm shift occured here. All of a sudden, racism in American politics seems to no longer be defined by William Jefferson Clinton.
Unless Hillary retires her lifetime love and, lately, sometimes liability, his
proxy MEisms, she will be the final collateral damage in his misguided efforts.
His relentless efforts to repair in the last minute the threat from Obama now leave little doubt as to how neutral and uninvolved he plans to be should she be elected. That now will cost Hillary, as fewer will buy now his claims of nonparticipation in the affairs of state.
The tidal wave that shall win this election is the same wave that sent new Democrats and retired old Republicans in the last house race.
That tidal wave was rebuffed and insulted by those they elected, and Pelosi and others now have their credibility in the toilet.
Obama, though, seems to have connected with the voters that fundamental change is needed, and he--unlike those Democratic shills who quickly became dysfunctional the minute the remaining clout of the Republican/Abramoff stronghold proved it still had the sand to control criticism of the war, which is a subset to the imperialistic standard now carried by the invisible powers that now control our country--seems to have convinced Americans that their tidal wave deserves a second chance.
I myself am elated that the Clinton machine has run itself on the beach. It will again unless they retire the unofficial captain of their ship.
I have no doubt they will be back in the water, but their tactics, now introduced into the sunlight of joe sixpack's comprehension, will either change or prove a deathknell for their hopes at regaining the White House.
That is possibly the only good gain to come from Bill's too-crafty political smugness.
-
<<That tidal wave was rebuffed and insulted by those they elected, and Pelosi and others now have their credibility in the toilet.>>
Very true, but where is Obama's pledge to pull all troops out in the first 90 days?
-
Excellent analysis, Crane.
But, is Bill Clinton's shenanigans enough to get Obama the nod? OR, just a major bump in the road?
-
Bill, often self-defeating in his ego's cavalier strut, and always unable to help himself when old buttons are touched (adult-child), tried to get real subtle in introducing racism into the mix.
Didn't seem too subtle to me. How do you know it wasn't done purposely? Have you considered how it may benefit Hilde in the long run?
As a side comment, I shall, as time goes on, look to see if his free pass in Harlem will be called in, due to new reports on his credibility payments.
Yep, he used a tactic. Ever read the 36 Strategies? He carried a few out quite well with this. I'm duly impressed, haha, but yeah they may outright discriminate against him because of his strategic savvy.
What was entirely refreshing was to see South Carolina reject such sleazy puppeteering by the Clinton campaign.
Oh, I'd venture to say the Clintons got exactly what they wanted.
Unless Hillary retires her lifetime love and, lately, sometimes liability, his
proxy MEisms, she will be the final collateral damage in his misguided efforts...That now will cost Hillary, as fewer will buy now his claims of nonparticipation in the affairs of state.
How so? Nonparticipation, ha. Everyone banking on Hilde getting in office wants that outcome because he will be just as influential with her presidency as she was with his. Not bad years, as I recall.
Obama, though, seems to have connected with the voters that fundamental change is needed
Yes, I hear that all the time. Odd that not even his supporters can discuss how he could bring change, what in his past leads them to believe he can bring change, etc. Nearly all the ones I have spoken to allude to his race within the first three minutes when challenged by my "OK, sell him to me. Make your case. Why should I support him?" statements. Damn poor way to judge a man, imo.
-
"Yes, I hear that all the time. Odd that not even his supporters can discuss how he could bring change, what in his past leads them to believe he can bring change, etc. Nearly all the ones I have spoken to allude to his race within the first three minutes when challenged by my "OK, sell him to me. Make your case. Why should I support him?" statements. Damn poor way to judge a man, imo."
Well, if nothing else, voting for him votes AGAINST the Part's apparatus, aka the backroom deals from The Man.
Never give up an opportunity to ZIP The Man, I always say.
-
Michael Tee
Hero Member
Posts: 5310
Re: Should Al Gore Enter the Race?
? Reply #7 on:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulate him on his wisdom and perspecuity.
Xavier_Onassis
Hero Member
Posts: 2878
Reply #8 on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope Obama looses , I hope it isn't because he is black that he looses
==========================================================
What would be your favorite reason for Obama to lose, then?
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
I hope that there is a less liberal and otherwise better choice , just as dark skinned would be nice but Alan Keys is out of the running this year. If Barak Obama is actually the best I get offered I will be dismayed ,but I would vote for him rahter than someone worse .
Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice woud each be strong canadates , I hope they are both on John McCains short list for veep.
A black president seems inevitable to me now , it may as well be one of us that breaks the barrier.
-
How does a vote for Obama act as a vote against the party's apparatus? Where in his thin resume, (lack of outstanding) experience, and avoidability of controversial issues do you find that he is a vote against the party's apparatus?
-
Because the Party political machine is backing Hillary to the hilt. So, any vote other than Hillary could be construed as a vote against The Man.
-
It's been pointed out that Hillary and Obama are more similar than they are different. Edwards, of the three left running, is probably the most different.
Ergo, it could *also* be construed that Hilde's being backed because they(dems) know Bill will be influential to her presidency(as she was to his), and most dems miss the Clinton years. Also, compare resumes. Obama's resume is not brimming with experience-in fact, in addition to it being thin as rice paper(as most his age), it shows nothing outstanding or exceptional.
Just because you can run for president doesn't mean you are qualified to be president. Ask Lyndon LaRouche ;)
-
Edwards may as well save his money; he's dead as doornails. It is a two-headed monster at this point.
Hillary is so Establishment it is not even funny, to my way of thinking. That alone is enough to get her my ANTI-vote.
-
You know, there are what? 44 states left? Though, his campaign managers haven't shown strategic prowess. >:( They should have hired me lol.
Aside, how do we know Edwards isn't in the game to siphon votes away from Hilde or Obama so no majority is reached and a brokered convention will be necessary? At that point, they all three have a chance. If I were Edwards, thats what I would do. He already has Jim Wright endorsing him, all he needs is a few other well-connected Dems and he could have the nomination.
I still don't see Hilde & Obama being different. One has more experience and is more realistic, the other a rice-paper-resume and is more idealistic. Thats about it.
-
Let's see, you want Obama to lose so that so that we can get Condi Rice or Colin Powell as Republican vice presidential candidates?
Powell would be a great candidate, but he won't run for VP. Condi is finished: the Stink of Juniorbush is upon her. Let's elect the National Security Director who presided over 9-11. Great slogan! No, Condi will write her book and sink into a nice, cushy, obscurity with soem foundation or perhaps a right wing university. I am thinking Pepperdine would love to make her a president.
Alan Keyes will never rise to own his own talk show. Celling him the Black Harold Stassen demeans the real Harold Stassen. Keyes will never be elected to anything by anyone.
-------------------------------------------
It is not necessary that the US elect a Black President now or ever, especially because of his color. I suppose there were a few who voted for Dukakis because they felt it was time for a Greek-American, or against him because Greek-Americans disgusted him, but that is the wrong reason.
If Obama is elected, it COULD be because he got a huge turnout of Black Americans to vote for the first serious Black candidate in history. If he is nominated but does not win, this COULD be because a lot of White Americans don't think even a half-Black man is smart enough to lead the nation. We will never know, because no one has to choose a reason.
Lots of votes are cast for a reason, but some are cast on a whim: George McGovern got a lot of votes of people who thought they were voting for George Wallace. Many votes are cast because of perceived visions, dreams, and because of the influence of friends and relatives.
-
Excellent analysis, Crane.
But, is Bill Clinton's shenanigans enough to get Obama the nod? OR, just a major bump in the road?
It was racism and its exploding in the chamber of the blunderbuss that won South Carolina SO DRAMATICALLY. (Watch Ami come back with 'there is no chamber in a blunderbuss.)
Will racism play in California? Not likely the same. But if racism is not the play in California, and Obama is still riding the drama wave of South Carolina, then he will benefit highly because that wave will carry the state over the small but tight racist element that will vote him no simply for that.
His roll is the important thing, and it was the surprising result element in SA that gives him a strong push, imho.
This has just begun. I was only commenting on the South Carolina/Bill's boo boo incident.
Guess everybody knows that most of the pundits see this run as the most exciting in recent memory, and to about half the most ever???
-
You know, there are what? 44 states left? Though, his campaign managers haven't shown strategic prowess. >:( They should have hired me lol.
Aside, how do we know Edwards isn't in the game to siphon votes away from Hilde or Obama so no majority is reached and a brokered convention will be necessary? At that point, they all three have a chance. If I were Edwards, thats what I would do. He already has Jim Wright endorsing him, all he needs is a few other well-connected Dems and he could have the nomination.
I still don't see Hilde & Obama being different. One has more experience and is more realistic, the other a rice-paper-resume and is more idealistic. Thats about it.
This "game" is as much about perception as anything, though. And, weakness can compound easily in that kind of environment.
-
(Watch Ami come back with 'there is no chamber in a blunderbuss.)
Why do you think I would lie?
-
<<Odd that not even his supporters can discuss how he could bring change, what in his past leads them to believe he can bring change, etc.>>
First of all, with Obama, I'd say there is the HOPE of change. We have much more reason to hope for change from Obama than we do from Hillary. That photo of Hillary with Bill, Madeleine and Wesley Clark says better than any words ever could what is the likelihood of real change from this woman.
Obama at least opposed the war in the beginning, even if he later went along with Hillary, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of them in voting to continue the war funding. Not his finest hour, but he did at least have his moment of glory, standing almost alone in his opposition to Bush's criminal, fascist war. And unlike the Clintons, he doesn't have any liberal blood on his hands. I'd forgotten all about Lani Guiniere, who Bill unceremoniously booted in response to the very first wave of fascist complaints. It's pretty obvious where Bill and Hillary are coming from. With Obama, one can at least hope.
-
<<Odd that not even his supporters can discuss how he could bring change, what in his past leads them to believe he can bring change, etc.>>
First of all, with Obama, I'd say there is the HOPE of change. We have much more reason to hope for change from Obama than we do from Hillary. That photo of Hillary with Bill, Madeleine and Wesley Clark says better than any words ever could what is the likelihood of real change from this woman.
Obama at least opposed the war in the beginning, even if he later went along with Hillary, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of them in voting to continue the war funding. Not his finest hour, but he did at least have his moment of glory, standing almost alone in his opposition to Bush's criminal, fascist war. And unlike the Clintons, he doesn't have any liberal blood on his hands. I'd forgotten all about Lani Guiniere, who Bill unceremoniously booted in response to the very first wave of fascist complaints. It's pretty obvious where Bill and Hillary are coming from. With Obama, one can at least hope.
Well, MT, as much as I am a rebel, there ARE times you must support the group. I am sure he felt he needed to then. Plus, on a pragmatic scale, the Party leadership can make members toe the line if they need to and that is probalby always on their minds as well. So, basically, sometimes you must stand on principle and others, well, go with the crowd.
-
<<Odd that not even his supporters can discuss how he could bring change, what in his past leads them to believe he can bring change, etc.>>
First of all, with Obama, I'd say there is the HOPE of change. We have much more reason to hope for change from Obama than we do from Hillary. That photo of Hillary with Bill, Madeleine and Wesley Clark says better than any words ever could what is the likelihood of real change from this woman.
Obama at least opposed the war in the beginning, even if he later went along with Hillary, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of them in voting to continue the war funding. Not his finest hour, but he did at least have his moment of glory, standing almost alone in his opposition to Bush's criminal, fascist war. And unlike the Clintons, he doesn't have any liberal blood on his hands. I'd forgotten all about Lani Guiniere, who Bill unceremoniously booted in response to the very first wave of fascist complaints. It's pretty obvious where Bill and Hillary are coming from. With Obama, one can at least hope.
What's wrong with the photo? I quite like Gen. Clark, btw. He looks great for a fellow his age(must be the embryonic stem cells he injects daily :D ).
Obama may have spoken out against the war, but between present and yea he never really voted his words.
And all politicians get "blood on their hands", depending on who you talk to.
Voting on a matter of HOPE is something I cannot fathom. If you can, however, then go right ahead. I simply implore anyone to do their homework, especially since I realize less and less are doing so.
Res Ipsa Loquitur.
-
That photo of Hillary with Bill, Madeleine and Wesley Clark says better than any words ever could what is the likelihood of real change from this woman.
"Every Jewish person that is around the president is a dual citizen of Israel and the United States of America . . . And sometimes, we have to raise the question: 'are you more loyal to the state of Israel than you are to the best interests of the United States of America." --Louis Farrakhan on mentioning National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and presidential advisor Rahm Emmanuel.
-
"Every Jewish person that is around the president is a dual citizen of Israel and the United States of America . . . And sometimes, we have to raise the question: 'are you more loyal to the state of Israel than you are to the best interests of the United States of America." --Louis Farrakhan on mentioning National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and presidential advisor Rahm Emmanuel.
OMG. This is America. Was the KKK correct in lynching Catholics due to the possibility that loyalty to their church outweighed their loyalty to the US?? This is America, not England*, for a reason.
England passed a law-series of laws, actually-wherein loyalty to the church over the sovereign and law was punishable by denial of priviledges and immunities.
EDIT : 15:26 CST : Actually, John Jay did discuss, in the Federalist papers, that the loyalists to the Church could pose a threat to New England. However, watching a threat is one thing, and revoking their rights due to the threat is unconstitutional, as many in this forum with all of Bush&Co's violations know all too well.
-
<<Voting on a matter of HOPE is something I cannot fathom.>>
It only works if you're not satisfied with the way things are going now. A war that the Democrats all deplore but most of them voted for ("He FOOLED us!!") and that none of them want to cut the funding for ("We support the troops!") and a Middle Eastern policy that is stuck on blind support of Israel no matter how badly the Jews are fucking the Arabs. Clinton supported Israel, Bush supported Israel, Hillary supports Israel. Hillary's supporters supported Israel. And despite all the evidence of mounting Arab and Muslim anger, NOBODY is in the running (except Obama) who ISN'T on the record as a strong supporter of Israel.
That's why Obama represents hope. He isn't tied in to the same tired old politicians who surrounded Bill, typified by Albright, "well worth the price" her comment on blockade policies that had KILLED about half a million innocent Iraqis. He isn't tied to the blind support of the State of Israel, which more and more is being openly recognized as a source of much of America's problems with the Arab world.
If you're satisfied with the way things are going and have been going, then DON'T vote for a change, don't HOPE for something better, stick with the people and the policies that have gotten you into the mess you're in. And if you don't like the mess, then don't vote for any of the tired old faces that have been around forever and either caused or contributed to the mess or did nothing to stop it.
-
Ehh, you don't have to go on hope. Cold, hard analysis works just as well. So does strategic assessment, etc. Either way, its all more complex than you give it credit for. If you really think one man can, in four years, reverse all wrongs then go right ahead and believe that.
As for Israel-as-America's-baby arguments: I hear all the time about, for ex., Israel's three rockets fired at Hamas. I never hear about the ten fired at Israel before that to prompt the reaction. So fully understand, please, that much as with everything else, you don't get the full story with the media. I am critical of Israel when it is warranted, but comments like yours are a little too sensationalist and chomsky for me. : //
EDIT : 19:29 CST : Google "Qassam Roulette". I believe thats what it is called.
-
<<As for Israel-as-America's-baby arguments: I hear all the time about, for ex., Israel's three rockets fired at Hamas. I never hear about the ten fired at Israel before that to prompt the reaction. >>
With all due respect, that's a very shallow analysis of a struggle that started in 1948 and ended up with 3 million Arabs living under a military occupation for 40 years. And you want to reduce the whole conflict down to the last rocket exchange? Gimme a break.
Israeli propaganda has worked overtime to produce the perspective that you just gave us an example of.
It's like analyzing World War Two by picking any particular day during the war and saying "Well sure we heard about the 20,000 tons of bombs dropped on London today but nobody ever mentions the 70,000 tons dropped on Hamburg."
The injustice of the Middle East is not how many rockets were fired last week or last month. The Arabs don't hate America because the Jews fired five rockets into Gaza last week. The central injustice of the Middle East is the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the fact that millions of Arabs have been living under Israeli occupation for 40 years. The Arabs are getting fucked and every fucking Arab in the world knows that. But in America, nobody knows that. The MSM and the politicians do not focus on the Occupation, on life under the Occupation, on houses bulldozed, on people detained for hours at checkpoints, on walls separating farmers from markets and pregnant mothers from hospitals - - they focus on bombs - five from this side, ten from that side. The Occupation, of course, continues.
In terms of hope and change, the old-style politicians, Hillary, Bush, etc., are kind of like you; they pretend not to notice the Occupation at all; they talk about rockets, bombs, "terrorism," etc. That three million human beings eke out a miserable existence under Israeli military occupation just doesn't register. It's not a part of the conversation. And that's not surprising. Hillary, Bush, Kerry, Pelosi - - all of them have been regular speakers at Jewish events, pledged undying friendship to the people of Israel and continued a policy of military support to Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year.
Obama really is a different man, a real break with the past. He has not pledged undying friendship to the state of Israel, has not spoken at AIPAC dinners, has not committed; and the HOPE is that Obama will break with the old policies, will not automatically support Israel in every atrocity, such as the Lebanon war and the killing of thousands of Lebanese civilians; that maybe, just maybe, Obama can break free of domestic Zionist pressure and tell the Israelis: No more for you. No more for you, pal, unless you end the Occupation and give the Arabs their land and their lives back.