[Peace-discuss] Not that Obama's any better
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Tue Apr 29 12:25:11 CDT 2008
The problem is that the presidential campaign provides the illusion of politcs,
while policy -- particularly war policy -- is insulated from politics. That was
the cat that idiot-savant Samantha Power let out of the bag -- "you have to take
into account what the generals on the ground are telling you" -- more a reason
for embarrassment to the Obama campaign than her equally accurate "monster" gibe.
Unfortunately since it's the only game in town, even critics of the war who
should know better fall into playing that game. "See, for all they're alike,
barack really is a micrometer-measure different in his war policy than
Hillary..." No, he isn't.
I think it would probably be better if McCain didn't win. If not so much on the
war -- where the incoming president, whoever s/he is, will follow the general US
policy in the Middle East -- then on social legislation.
Of course the one who wants McCain to win, if she can't get the Democratic
nomination for herself, is Hillary. That way she can run against an elderly and
weak Republican incumbent in 2012.
(See Jeffrey St. Clair, "Blonde Ambition: Hillary's Berserker Campaign ... for
2012" <www.counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html>.) --CGE
Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> What's the point is of Carl's campaign to assail Obama. How many times
> do we need to hear of Obama's manifest deficiencies, that they are worse
> than or equally obnoxious as those of x, y and z. It's one thing to give
> information about candidates, it's another to simply rail against them
> as if there are NO differences (that matter). It feels like something
> obsessional. Does Carl want McCain or Hillary to win? I can't figure it
> out.
> --mkb
>
> On Apr 29, 2008, at 12:04 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> Three hours, huh. Well, maybe that explains the subject line, then.
>> That kinda nasty stuff rubs off real easy.
>> --Jenifer
>>
>> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>>/*
>> wrote:
>>
>> But it's important that a certain primitive psychological
>> splitting doesn't lead
>> people to imagine that Hillary's awfulness makes Obama look good.
>>
>> And BTW I had a long auto trip last week and listened to
>> Limbaugh's full three-
>> hour show. It's interesting to hear how he does it. What he says
>> is nuts and
>> worse, but he has polished a rhetorical form that's supple and
>> inventive. It's
>> good audio theatre. --CGE
>>
>>
>> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> > Good article, Carl. Thanks for posting it. However, the subject
>> line
>> > should have read "Hillary Strangelove" as that's what the
>> editorial is
>> > about. "Not that Obama's any better" is off-topic and soooo
>> totally Rush
>> > Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly.
>> > --Jenifer
>> >
>> > */"C. G. Estabrook" /* wrote:
>> >
>> > GLOBE EDITORIAL
>> > Hillary Strangelove
>> > April 27, 2008
>> >
>> > AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the
>> > rhetoric in a
>> > campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary
>> > Clinton and
>> > Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be
>> > crossed.
>> > Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary,
>> > when she
>> > told ABC's "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she
>> > would
>> > "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel.
>> >
>> > This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media
>> > coverage. But it
>> > reverberated in headlines around the world.
>> >
>> > Responding with understatement to a question in the British House of
>> > Lords, the
>> > foreign minister responsible for Asia, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown,
>> said of
>> > Clinton's implication of a mushroom cloud over Iran: "While it is
>> > reasonable to
>> > warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear
>> > weapons and
>> > what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably
>> > not prudent
>> > in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in
>> > many cases
>> > civilians resident in such a country."
>> >
>> > A less restrained reaction came from an editorial in the Saudi-based
>> > paper Arab
>> > News. Being neighbors of Iran, the Saudis and the other Gulf Arabs
>> > have the most
>> > to fear from Iran's nuclear program and its drive to become the
>> > dominant power
>> > in the Gulf.
>> >
>> > But precisely because they are most at risk from Iran's regional
>> > ambitions, the
>> > Saudis want a carefully considered American approach to Iran, one
>> > that balances
>> > firmness and diplomatic engagement.
>> >
>> > The Saudi paper called Clinton's nuclear threat "the foreign
>> > politics of the
>> > madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance
>> that has
>> > distinguished Bush's foreign relations."
>> >
>> > The Saudis are not always sound advisers on American foreign policy.
>> > But they
>> > understand that Rambo rhetoric like Clinton's only plays into the
>> > hands of
>> > Iranian hard-liners who want to plow ahead with efforts to attain a
>> > nuclear
>> > weapons capability. They argue that Iran must have that capability
>> > in order to
>> > deter the United States from doing what Clinton threatened to do.
>> >
>> > While Clinton has hammered Obama for supporting military strikes in
>> > Pakistan,
>> > her comments on Iran are much more far-reaching. She seems not to
>> > realize that
>> > she undermined Iranian reformists and pragmatists. The Iranian
>> > people have been
>> > more favorable to America than any other in the Gulf region or the
>> > Middle East.
>> >
>> > A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran -
>> > and,
>> > presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran -
>> > should not be
>> > answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.
>> >
>> > ###
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Peace-discuss mailing list
>> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
>> Mobile. Try
>> > it now.
>> >
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
>> it now.
>> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list