[Peace-discuss] Will Americans be chumped by Obama's blackness?

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

> saying that Obama mustn't go "too fast" at the outset, that he 
> has to get re-elected -- and then 2013 will be his year!

Not really all that new or unexpected even after all these years.  Wasn't it
back in the 40s,50's and 60's when liberal reformers and progressives had
acquired positions of authority and official offices in government that we
heard them say with respect to racial integration that they should not be
rushed into making drastic reforms or we would get those extremists back in
power so very little of any real effect was done when it came to making
significant and effective reforms and changes in substance, although there
were several symbolic reforms instigated but never really even those cases
pursued?  It appears to be an establishment mantra offered up by the liberal
wing of the establishment whenever they are pushed to actually make
significant reforms or drastic changes.

As an outside observer and critic, I have made several observations that I
find interesting and thought others might as well.

First, I find it interesting to find the press and everyone else engaging in
post election after-the-fact of the election speculation as to what Obama
might or might not do and what impact it might have to as great  an extent -
if not a greater extent - then they did before the election when they should
have been doing much more of this sort of thing and been much more critical
of the statements and positions being set forth by all the candidates.  If
everyone would have pushed for more detail and done more of this critical
speculation with respect to the candidates and their positions, they would
not need to do it after the election since they would have already explored
most of the possible alternatives and their implications.

Second, the drunken enthusiasm over electing the first Black President has
blinded everyone to the substantive issues and what he actually might stand
for, might do, and the potential implications thereof; the level of
expectation is so high as to set him up for failure and everyone who has
been caught up in the enthusiasm over his election for disappointment if and
when he cannot meet the promoted expectations.  A net result might very well
result in a white racist backlash of "I told you so; a Black person cannot
be a good or effective President who can lead us and fix existing problems
and bring about the changes we want."

Thirdly, I find it amusing that despite claims to not be racist, the
Amerikan people, the world, the media, and the liberal and progressive
reformers all have focused in on Obama's race (the first Black President)
and have made a very big deal of it to the exclusion in many cases of
examining substantive policy positions and as contrasted to treating his
candidacy and election as an non-racial event  where Obama is just another
candidate or President-elect.  This tells me we have not really come a long
way; but we are still as racially focused as we have always been where we
see people in terms of their race, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities,
etc. rather than as just plain people whose ideas, positions, and actions
are what are the focus of analysis.

The following Truthout article served as the source of my first two
observations:

Steve Weissman | Will Ahmed No-Pack Rain on Obama's Parade?
http://www.truthout.org/111108J
Steve Weissman, Truthout: "If state officials across the country ever count
all the absentee and provisional ballots, Obama's popular vote might equal
his landslide victory in the Electoral College, adding weight to his
overwhelming mandate to fix the economy, end our dependence on foreign oil,
create green jobs, provide health care and mend our broken schools. But how
much will all our votes count if, at a time of reduced resources, the Obama
administration allows foreign conflicts to sink his promises on the home
front?"

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:58 PM
To: Randall Cotton
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Will Americans be chumped by Obama's blackness?

As I was waking up this morning, I heard on NPR some chump of a political 
scientist [sic] saying that Obama mustn't go "too fast" at the outset, that
he 
has to get re-elected -- and then 2013 will be his year!

I should have stood in bed...  --CGE

Randall Cotton wrote:
> : [This follows on the point Randall made at Sunday's meeting.  But
Obama's 
> : probably just saying it to get elected, eh? He'll change in office...
--CGE]
> 
> I would like to elaborate on that point I made.
> 
> The question, during Obama's very first news conference, came from Jake 
> Tapper of ABC News. I've clipped below from the transcript. The full 
> transcript is at 
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/politics/07obama-text.html?_r=1&pagewan
ted=1&oref=slogin
> 
> 
> If you would prefer to see the video of this portion of the press
conference
> (and don't mind sitting through an auto commercial first), see 
> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obamas-presser.html .
> 
> *** Q Senator, for the first time since the Iranian Revolution, a
president
> of Iran sent a congratulations note to a new U.S. president. I'm
wondering,
> first of all, if you responded to President Ahmadinejad's note of
> congratulations. And second of all and more importantly, how soon do you
plan
> on sending low-level envoys to countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela,
> Cuba, to see if a presidential-level talk would be productive?
> 
> PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: I am aware that the letter was sent. Let me state
--
> repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development
of
> a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount a
> international effort to prevent that from happening. Iran's support of
> terrorist organizations, I think, is something that has to cease. ***
> 
> Now, first understand there is no hidden prior context here - this was the

> first foreign policy question of his first press conference. Everything up
to
> that point in the press conference was about the economy. That is, there
was
> no prior mention of Iran or terrorism or nuclear anything. Yet when Tapper
> asked about a letter from Iran's president congratulating him and another
> about the possibility of envoys to various countries, Obama brushed these
> questions aside and went COMPLETELY OUT OF HIS WAY to accuse Iran of
> developing a nuclear weapon.
> 
> "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable."
> 
> Obama spoke as if it was well-understood common knowledge that Iran is 
> developing a nuclear weapon. (compare: "Obama's beating of his wife, I 
> believe, is unacceptable"). Of course, anyone who's been keeping up knows 
> that:
> 
> 1.  The UN's nuclear watchdog arm, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy 
> Agency), despite extensive inspections, has been unable to detect any
nuclear
> weapons program in Iran.
> 
> 2. The whole of the US intelligence community has declared that Iran has
no
> nuclear weapons program currently and hasn't had one for at least 5 years
(as
> per the last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran). Iran insists it
never
> had a nuclear weapons program and it has yet to be proven that it ever
did.
> 
> Obama's accusation is just as strong, if not stronger, than anything that 
> ever came out of the mouth of Bush, Cheney or McCain.
> 
> ON TOP OF THAT, practically in the same breath, in a pattern we're all too

> familiar with, Obama accused Iran of supporting terrorism. Nuclear weapons

> and terrorism. The same terrorist mushroom-cloud nexus specter word 
> association crap the Bush administration used to gin up the Iraq War.
> 
> The election is over. He didn't have to say that to get elected. He didn't

> have to say that for any reason. No one even asked him about it. He 
> deliberately went out of his way, prompted only by the mention of 
> Ahmadinejad's letter, to engage in what is absolutely indistinguishable
from
> an effort to sell war with Iran in exactly the same way Bush/Cheney sold
war
> with Iraq.
> 
> And he was only elected 3 days earlier. He doesn't even take office for
more
> than 2 months. Is he just getting started?
> 
> And we're giving this guy a break why? Because he's black? Seems to me we 
> would be railing to the skies if those words came out of the mouth of
McCain
> (or Hillary) three days after being elected.
> 
> Will we let ourselves be chumped into a war with Iran because Obama is
black?
> 
> 
> We should call it what it is, complaining loudly to both him and the
public
> at every opportunity.
> 
> R
> 
> PS: Iran insists, unwaveringly, that their nuclear work is for power 
> generation only. Iran, a Muslim theocracy, has also repeatedly declared 
> (through their supreme leader, Khameini) that for Iran to pursue nuclear 
> weapons would be contrary to Islam. Their own population also agrees that
it
> would be contrary to Islam (polling has been done on this). Wouldn't the
> religious leadership be setting themselves up for enduring discredit and
> condemnation, within their own country and worldwide if they were, in
fact,
> secretly developing nuclear weapons?
> 
> PPS What if Iran isn't, in fact, developing nuclear weapons, and the US
(or
> Israel or some combination) were to preemptively attack Iran based on the
> nuclear terrorism smokescreen that Obama and others are peddling? It seems
to
> me that could easily be the trigger that causes Iran to embark on a
secret,
> accelerated nuclear weapons program, plausibly justifying it to the Muslim
> world under some interpretation of Islam's provision for Jihad warfare.
The
> irony would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
> 

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss