It's common for hysterics to pronounce every Presidential election as the "most important in history." Let me state as clearly as I can that the 2008 election is not that significant. Sure, lots hangs on the outcome, but probably not as much as partisans believe.
Over the past few weeks, it has become clear that both major party contenders, plus the leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the U.S. military leadership, are all converging on a common set of understandings. If there is one person out of step with this consensus, it is the GOP candidate, John McCain.
Let's check the list. Obama almost alone among U.S. politicians stated clearly that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake. All credible analysts now agree.
Obama said the proper way to conclude this unnecessary war is the withdrawal of U.S. troops within 16 months of when he takes office. All responsible parties now agree, except, of course, McCain.
Obama has said that we must devote more forces to Afghanistan, which is the real venue for the fight against terrorists like al-Qaeda. (Iraq never was.) Everyone else now agrees, except of course McCain.
When one considers these factors in an unbiased way, it is remarkable that a relatively young, inexperienced Senator has been right so often about so much. Leadership has always been more about instinct than experience. Experience can be a bad teacher.
In McCain's case, his years as a POW have clearly perverted his judgment. He is still, emotionally, fighting a war that long ago ended. He also is conflating that war, during which he suffered unimaginable cruelty, with the present wars. But the analogy is deeply flawed.
McCain is stuck with an outdated world view. He thinks the U.S. is the strongest country in the world and that therefore our will should be imposed wherever we perceive our "national security" to be at risk.
Give me a break. What "national security" issue existed in the secular dictatorship of Sadaam Hussein's Iraq? Sadaam hated al-Qaeda and Osama bin-Laden. He was a petty dictator, if an especially vicious one.
But since when has our country cared about the human rights of foreigners? Since when has our main goal in the world to be "exporting Democracy." Trust me, if that was a national priority back in 1969, our experiences as Peace Corps Volunteers in Afghanistan would have been far higher on the Nixon Administration's priority list than they in fact were.
McCain knows or understands none of this. He is lost in a past that will never return.
***
Race. The issue has been injected into the Presidential race by the GOP. This is sad but inevitable. So, now that McCain has chosen to play the race card, let's examine the facts. McCain is descended from a Mississippi slaveowner family. His male ancestors slept with their black female slaves, leading to children, inclduing most notably, Mississippi John Hurt, a direct blood relative of John McCain, though he never acknowledges this.
I, however, have copies of the handwritten slave rolls and therefore the written proof of McCain's racial history. Why does he remain silent about this? It is possible, given the sexual exploitation of slave women by the McCain men, that the current GOP candidate is part-black himself.
In this context, now comes Barack Obama, a half-white, half-black individual who has chosen his African-American side as his personal identity.
So, the 2008 election in fact poses the son of slave owners against the son of an educated African. It is not exacty back and white. The next time Republicans play the race card, trying to undermine Obama due to some freakish rapper's comments, or some errant minister's comments, somebody should demand this documented history be part of the discussion.
Until you talk about the whole picture, you are spouting nonsense. Tonight, I am sharing public record truths. There is no black-white race for the White House this fall. But there is a race between a slaveholding family and a man whose parents only met 100 years after all of this ugliness ended in America,
Think about that.
1 comment:
“So much rides on this election that all other elections in my lifetime pale by comparison. This is an era where we need a new vision, a new courage, a new sensibility about our role in the world. We are no longer, nor will we ever again be, #1. That self-destructive fantasy needs to be discarded.” - David Weir, 080801
“It's common for hysterics to pronounce every Presidential election as the "most important in history." Let me state as clearly as I can that the 2008 election is not that significant. Sure, lots hangs on the outcome, but probably not as much as partisans believe.” - David Weir, 080802
OK, I'm confused. I'll give you this, it's hard to hit moving targets. Maybe I'm missing something here, but you seemed to shift at a breathtaking clip in the past 24 hours.
Second verse, same as the first (think Herman's Hermits here):
“Over the past few weeks, it has become clear that both major party contenders, plus the leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the U.S. military leadership, are all converging on a common set of understandings.”
“If there is one person out of step with this consensus, it is the GOP candidate, John McCain.”
? So who is that second major party contender if not McCain.
Nitpicking aside, your “common set of understandings” is flawed; Barak Obama does not understand the fundamentals involved well enough to converge with anyone who has read the US Constitution. His demonstrated lack of knowledge is frightening. His public statements over the past 6 months have repeatedly demonstrated an utter, and appalling, ignorance of our constitution and the critical relationships between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches.
As I have said many times over the past many months, Obama is an empty suit. His public image is crafted, and those largely responsible for it are on a moral equivalence with used car salesmen. An Obama presidency will not be leadership.
If you must “look around”, take a good look at the core of Obama's support. There is much emotion and little thought. Read carefully the articles, such as:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/us/politics/28web-nagourney.html?_r=1&sq=&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=3&adxnnlx=1217804838-JLTxL83Fuy0Kp5vI58gUxg
Adam Nagourney asks what is wrong with Obama's current pole numbers. In spite of enormous support by the main stream media, he is not showing the strength, particularly among “likely voters”, that so many would suspect (or desire).
A big part of this mix is the total, and delusional, belief that Americans want the sort of change that Obama's campaign portends. The vast majority of Americans do not want the USA subjugated to the losers who run the rest of the planet. The vast majority of Americans want the USA to be victorious in Iraq and Afganistan. The vast majority of Americans want a future of growth and prosperity. The vast majority of Americans want realistic solutions to the spiraling cost of energy, such as drilling off shore and in ANWAR and licensing of nuclear power plants.
Increasingly Americans are becoming aware of the fraud of man made global warming and are increasingly irritated by Nancy Palosi and Harry Reid efforts to stonewall sound, practical solutions in key areas.
And here is a most interesting development: Many women once enamored of Obama are becoming disenchanted now. It seems that his overly groomed persona is increasingly being seen as “metrosexual” as opposed to manly. The glitter, for many, is fading. Flash - most American women still find real men more attractive.
Post a Comment