[Peace-discuss] Ralph Nader on Obama & Israel

Thu Feb 28 15:14:15 CST 2008

Actually, I don't believe in God... but I wouldn't make a point of that if I were running for office (God forbid) any more than politicians make a point of airing opinions and beliefs that would lose them votes (having run for office yourself, I'm sure you can relate). And no, I wouldn't say Obama was lying -- I save that nasty accusation for the REAL liars -- Bush, Chaney et al (notice I didn't say "like" Bush and Chaney." By the same token, Obama didn't say "Hugo Chavez is a dictator." What he said was, "Dictators like Castro and Chavez." Unless he was really gonna stick his neck out (always a wee hours dream of mine) and say, Latin America is finally moving in the right (left) direction, he had to (at least for now) give lip service to the prevalent anti-socialist view that has been foisted upon unAWARE voters. And yeah, I do hope he's not really locked into that position. 
   --Jenifer

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  So, along with Bob's Hillary bumper-sticker ("Ready To Lie From Day 1"), you 
have one for Obama: "God, I Hope He's Lying!"

And the charges about Harding's ancestry were generally unknown because the 
federal government moved vigorously to suppress them. William Estabrook 
Chancellor (1867-1963), an Ohio Democrat and professor at Wooster College, wrote 
about Harding's blackness (by American definitions -- wonderfully skewered in W. 
B. Michaels recent THE TROUBLE WITH DIVERSITY), just before the 1920 election 
(between two Ohioans, Republican Harding and Democrat James G. Blaine). For his 
pains he was fired from the college, and his pamphlets were seized by federal 
authorities and destroyed. (In toto five copies apparently still exist).

He seems to have been an elevated racist (I never met him), educated at Amherst 
and married into the family of Harriet Beecher Stowe. He wrote prolifically, 
publishing some forty books and hundreds of articles, but when his biography of 
Harding appeared, after Harding became president, it was suppressed, apparently 
by the Bureau of Investigation (precursor to the FBI), who monitored him from 
then on. Unable to research or find a teaching position, he went to Canada.

BTW Harding himself was piece of work, combining personal qualities of Clinton 
and Bush (e.g., bad grammar -- which Mencken famously pilloried -- and affairs 
in the Oval Office); he headed a corrupt administration (Teapot Dome), and one 
of his lovers extorted vast sums from the Republican party and a trip to Japan 
during the 1920 election as the price of her silence; and -- perhaps to counter 
the racial charges -- he seems to have undergone an induction ceremony into the 
Ku Klux Klan in the White House. --CGE

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Yeah, a protest vote (and vocal protest) is safe in IL, but I have an 
> axe to grind w/ Nader from 2000, so I'd NEVER, EVER vote for him.
> 
> Yeah, I have a medium-long list of things I wish Obama hadn't said and 
> hope he doesn't really believe when it comes time to act on them or not.
> 
> Yeah, right. The country knew they were voting for a (half) black when 
> they elected Harding and didn't mind a bit (Harding had one white and 
> one black parent??). Nice relatives you have, btw.
> 
> Jenifer
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" /* wrote:
> 
> He's gone just the other way on Israel/Palestine.
> 
> Of course the US has already elected a (half) black man president,
> Warren G.
> Harding. (A relative of mine was involved in "outing" him, just
> before the
> election of 1920.)
> 
> And, actually, you don't have any "REAL choice" in the matter.
> Illinois will
> deliver its electoral votes to the Democratic candidate, whoever
> s/he is, in all
> circumstances short of an alien landing. So you're free to vote for
> Nader, if
> you want. It won't make any difference. --CGE
> 
> 
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> > Nah, Obama's just making sure he continues to be a viable
> presidential
> > candidate. I've noted that the more general and enthusiastic
> support he has,
> > the more outspoken he becomes. I'm hopeful. What other REAL
> choice to we have
> > other than voting for him (and then continuing to work to get our
> agenda
> > heard and acted upon, of course). Tearing him down is a waste of
> time and
> > energy, imho, and only produces a standing wave.
> >
> > Folks, the US electorate is about to elect a (half) black man
> president of
> > the US fer crissakes!! Dunno about */you/*, but I never tho't I'd
> live to see
> > the day, and */I /*have blessings to count.
> >
> > Nice delusion that "a substantial majority" is doing- or thinking
> about much
> > of anything beyond what immediately affects them.
> >
> > Again, we must agree to disagree. --Jenifer
> >
> >
> >
> > */"C. G. Estabrook" /* wrote:
> >
> > The best we can do is hope that Obama is lying? (He's certainly
> not "keeping
> > quiet on the issue"!)
> >
> > In fact, Obama is to the right of US public opinion on this as on
> other
> > issues, notably the war. A substantial majority want the USG to
> play an
> > even-handed role in Israel/Palestine, which it obviously isn't.
> Obama's task
> > (and that of the Democrats in general), as he recognized early
> on, is to
> > neutralize the opinions of he majority in favor of the elite
> positions. --CGE
> >
> >
> >
> > Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> >> Well Ralph, we're all hoping Obama'll do as you say if/when he's
> elected.
> >> (I have a long long list of things I'm hoping he'll do
> > better
> >> on when it's "safe" for him to do so). But he's not gonna get
> > elected by
> >> running on that particular platform (as well you should know), so
> > that's
> >> why he's keeping quiet on the issue, discretion being the better
> > part of
> >> valor. ("Liberal evangelist"... excellent!) --Jenifer
> >>
> >> */"C. G. Estabrook" /* wrote:
> >>
> >> "...Senator Obama is a person of substance. He's also the first
> > liberal
> >> evangelist in a long time. He's run a brilliant tactical
> campaign. But his
> >> better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by
> himself. And I
> >> give you the example, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is a
> real off
> >> the table issue for the candidates. So don't touch that, even
> though it's
> >> central to our security and to the situation in the Middle East.
> He was
> >> pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the
> state Senate.
> >> Now he's supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section
> called
> >> Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn't have any
> sympathy for a
> >> civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one
> Israeli.
> >> He's not taking a
> > leadership
> >> position in supporting the Israeli peace movement, which
> represents former
> >> Cabinet ministers, people in the Knesset, former generals,
> former security
> >> officials, in addition to mayors and leading intellectuals. One
> would
> >> think he would at least say, 'Let's have a hearing for the
> Israeli peace
> >> movement in the Congress,' so we don't just have a monotone
> support of the
> >> Israeli government's attitude toward the Palestinians and their
> illegal
> >> occupation of Palestine."
> >>
> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/

---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080228/7a6edade/attachment-0001.html