[Peace-discuss] Obama on Venezuela; and what is politically possible...

[Robert Naiman]

I couldn't find in this thread where Obama actually said "Dictators
like Castro and Chavez," but if he did say it, it logically contains
the claim "Hugo Chavez is a dictator," just as saying "right wing nuts
like Rush Limbaugh" logically contains the claim "Rush Limbaugh is a
right wing nut."

I disagree with the apparent characterization here of the negative
political constraints. Obviously, there are negative political
constraints, but it should also be obvious that every negative
political action by a politician is not completely determined by
negative political constraints.

For example, a year ago, there was little daylight between the
"frontrunner" Democratic presidential candidates and Bush on Iran.
"Nothing is off the table," they said, in confronting Iran, meaning
we're not going to rule out a "pre-emptive" (i.e. unprovoked) U.S.
military attack, even one with nuclear weapons. At the time, someone
might have said: "oh well, they have to say this."

But apparently they didn't have to say it, because they stopped saying
it. Why did they stop? Because they were challenged for saying it, by
voters, by activists, and by other Democratic presidential candidates,
in a context - the presidential primaries and the debates - where they
were politically vulnerable. and in fact, at a certain point -
opportunistically, one could argue, but in this case the opportunism
was clearly in the best interests of humanity - Obama and Edwards
switched gears dramatically and started attacking HRC as a warmonger
on Iran, forcing her to switch gears dramatically. and the whole net
effect of this process was to significantly reduce, at least in the
short term, the prospect of a US military attack on Iran, because the
White House no longer had the degree of tacit Democratic support for
its bellicose policy that it had previously. so for example, as part
of this process, you had Durbin, who previously said umpteen times
that there was no need for Senate action, actually sponsoring the
Senate resolution with the most co-sponsors stating that the president
doesn't have authority for a US attack - precisely the action that he
had repeatedly argued - in the face of many entreaties by his
constituents - was unnecessary.

I think this example argues for being agnostic about what the boundary
is at any particular time between the politically possible and the
politically impossible. It's impossible to know exactly where it is;
the boundary moves, sometimes dramatically; and in any event,
regardless of where the boundary is, an important part of the job of
political activists is to try to move it.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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!"
>