Tuesday, May 13, 2008

John Kerry: More GOP Lies About Barack Obama. Look, I've been around politics long enough to know that it's a contact sport. Words will be abused. Phrases will be taken out of context. But the latest distortion from the GOP, frankly, shouldn't give us all pause - it should spring us into action. Here's the story, if you haven't heard - yesterday, Jeffrey Goldberg published a very interesting and engaging interview with Barack Obama, where they spoke at length about Barack's ties to the Jewish community in Chicago and his views on the Middle East peace process. When speaking about the decades old violence that has threatened our ally Israel, Barack said: But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. Does anyone seriously dispute that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a constant, open wound in the Middle East - exploited by those who would like to see Israel and the United States driven out of the region? Of course not. It's simply undeniable that the conflict affects all of our Middle Eastern foreign policy. For decades, these have been bi-partisan views: There remain enemies of this peace, extremists on both sides who feel threatened by the peace and will be tempted once again to kill it with violence. We can defeat that kind of threat by building a genuine Israeli-Palestinian partnership that will stand the test of time--Bill Clinton Only through the process of negotiation can all the nations of the Middle East achieve a secure peace. - Ronald Reagan Even George W. Bush has said: For the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East. It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. [...] Permanent occupation threatens Israel's identity and democracy. A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. But of course, today, rather than seriously disputing that, or, even better, offering a vision of their own on how to find peace in the Middle East and security for Israel, Rep. John Boehner and Rep. Eric Cantor - senior leadership in the House GOP -- decided to ignore the actual meaning of English words and simply invent something Barack Obama didn't say. Here is what they said Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a 'constant sore' as Barack Obama claims. --John Boehner It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a 'constant wound,' 'constant sore,' and that it 'infect[s] all of our foreign policy.' These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel--Eric Cantor This is so mendacious that the objective journalist Jeffrey Goldberg himself felt compelled to reply. He writes: I have no doubt that Mr. Boehner will issue a correction to his press release in which he states the obvious, which is that Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me. If he doesn't, however, I would, sadly, have to agree with my colleague, the less-forgiving Andrew Sullivan, who called Boehner's statement a "flat-out lie." In fact, I would add to Andrew's post, by calling Boehner's statement mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable. So Mr. Boehner, do the right thing, and correct the record. I'll be happy to post the correction right here. These statements by Representatives Boehner and Cantor are so bad they rise to the level of a danger to our foreign policy. America's allegiance to Israel has always been bi-partisan and unshakeable. It still is, with either Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton as President. But how can we actually have a debate on foreign policy, if the other side simply makes up statements on which to base phony, contrived outrage? No, people need to hear the truth - -now. Here's what Barack said about his personal feelings about Israel in the very same interview: I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what's been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they're asking themselves moral questions. In other words, he said exactly the opposite of what Boehner and Cantor scurrilously allege. The Washington Post gave both Boehner and Cantor multiple Pinocchios for their performance. Barack Obama has spoken time and time again on the importance of our alliance with Israel, and on how important Israel is to him personally. He has spoken movingly about the inspiration he draws from Israel's historic struggle for independence and its current struggle for security, as well as his deep resolve to continue working to strengthen security for all of Israel's people. He has called America's commitment to Israel's security "unshakeable," a commitment built on the bedrock of the deep friendship between the two nations. But the Republican Party insists on twisting his words so far they resort to actually lying about their meaning. We have a foreign policy mess in the Middle East. The Bush Administration's Iraq debacle has weakened our diplomatic standing in the region and limited our options in working on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No wonder all Representatives Boehner and Cantor can do is to create imaginary strawmen to knock down in self-righteous indignation. I'm not alone in condemning this remark. Here's the statement from Rep. Robert Wexler: In his dishonest and ridiculous distortion, John Boehner has shown us the new depths that a truly desperate Republican leadership will sink to in its attempt to smear Barack Obama's strong and unshakeable record of support for Israel. This absurd parsing would be laughable if it wasn't so sad to see the U.S.-Israel relationship used as a political wedge instead of a cause to unite all Americans around a common purpose. And here's Rep. Rahm Emanuel: On the eve of Israel's 60th anniversary, Congressman Boehner should remember that Israel enjoys bipartisan support and commitment to its security. Nothing could be worse for Israel at this time than for it to become a proxy for Congressman Boehner's political games. Senator Obama's record is clear when it comes to Israel's security and friendship with the United States. The politics of character assassination from Republicans on the important issues needs to stop. Playing games to drive political wedges as part of some political strategy does great disservice to our country. We need to talk about how to chart a new course, not spread these kinds of distortions. We deserve better in this country, but we won't get it from the GOP in this election. Already we've seen John McCain trying to describe Barack Obama as Hamas' candidate. That's beneath the John McCain I used to know. But - sadly - that is the only way these Republicans have to try and win an election We deserve better. We need to have an honest and important conversation about how to reorient our foreign policy to meet the challenges of the 21st century. What we don't need are lies, distortions, and rhetoric designed only to whip up fear. That's part of what got us into this mess, and it won't get us out. Call Sen. McCain's office at 202-224-2235 and ask him to condemn these statements from his supporters. [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com] 3:26:14 PM    comment []

As a 'Cease-fire holds in Sadr City after deadly clashes,' Patrick Cockburn reports on the "tactical retreat" by Muqtada al-Sadr in agreeing to the cease-fire. [Cursor.org] 3:11:57 PM    comment []

Tom Hayden: Not The Time To Celebrate Clinton As Brawler. There are few writers I respect more, and have learned more from, than Susan Faludi. But she dangerously ignores dismisses racism as a factor in drawing white male voters to Hillary Clinton's campaign in her New York Times op-ed essay this week Instead she endorses Clinton's archetype as a "brawler" who gets "down with the boys". as a model for women candidates in the future. Sorting out sharply-different perceptions is essential to winning in November, and my comments are intended in that spirit. Clinton has repeatedly criticized Obama for a "pattern" of failing to win the votes of "hard-working Americans, white Americans." Her campaign consultants fanned the flames of the Rev. Wright controversy with reporters behind the scenes. For months. In Indiana, she courted - or did not denounce - accepted the support of the Rush Limbaugh crossover wreckers, and won 65-70 percent of voters who described themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative." In Pennsylvania, she won the support of the voters Gov. Ed Rendell once described as uncomfortable voting for a black presidential candidate. Many if not most of these Clinton voters plan to vote for John McCain in the fall. Yet Faludi writes dismissively that "pundits" [read: vapid commentators] "attribute the erosion in Barack Obama's white male support to a newfound racism." What, I wonder, does this most elegant of writers mean by "newfound racism"? Whether it is "new" or "new-found" is irrelevant. Ten percent of white voters openly say they would vote against Obama on the basis of race. That's the "old" racism. Many other white voters correctly resent the label "racist", because they have rejected notions of racial superiority. But their discomfort with Obama cannot be completely separated from subterranean racial dynamics. They are naturally quicker to merge Barack Obama with Pastor Wright than John McCain with the anti-Catholic Minister Hagee. Part of the squeezed middle-class, they resent any notions of affirmative action based on race. They hate feeling blamed for the sins of their forefathers. The notion of structural or institutional racism leaves them indifferent. Among some, the term "elitist" has become a populist codeword that updates the old definition of "uppity." Faludi ignores these realities as thoughtless inventions of pundits. But her current argument comes close to courting - and rechanelling - the very backlash voters she has written eloquently about in the past. Away from the white woman and towards the black man. In Faludi's apparent new archetype of the successful woman, if this takes a little pandering and brawling, the message is: bring it on. Clinton "has been converting white males, assuring them that she's come into their tavern not to smash the bottles but to join the brawl." Throw back shots at the bar. Finger those guns. Threaten to obliterate Iran. Throw our nuclear protection around those havens of masculinity, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Hillary is a path breaker for future generations of women because she has broken the glass ceiling with her newfound politics of "pugilism". The evidence is that white male working class voters deserted Al Gore and John Kerry by margins of 20-25 percent, long before Barack Obama entered politics. The reasons for this mass desertion are more complicated than race. Clinton should know, because she and her husband embraced the Wall Street policies of NAFTA, WTO trade rules, and the sweeping deregulations and privatizations that kept middle class people working longer hours for less pay, and drove whites, blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, into ferocious competition over college admissions and secure jobs. There always was a viable option known as anti-corporate economic populism for the Democrats, but that progressive Democratic tradition was "off the table" during the Clinton presidency. Clinton's new populism on the campaign trail suffered from its appeals to "hard-working whites" and the belligerent threat to nuke and obliterate the enemy in Tehran. Since when did winning acceptance among traditional white males become such a high priority for a foremost exponent of feminism? Wasn't it to be the other way around, that all men would gradually shed their patriarchal macho codes and join a common struggle for equality and fairness? Is this the tone the Clinton campaign - and its most ardent supporters - want to leave behind? It's one thing to recognize that the idealism of social movements has to be complemented by a tough realism in contests for political power. But it's another to celebrate brawling, and condemn the press for "primly thumbing the pages of Queensberry" and "scolding" Clinton for - here Faludi uses quotations - being "ruthless" and "dirty." Faludi seems to come full circle, accusing the press of becoming too traditionally female. Anyone watching FOX or CNN, will wonder where exactly Faludi finds these cowering wimps. How about George Stephanopoulos serving as a messenger boy for FOX and Hillary in their accusations about Obama's alleged ties to the Weather Underground? Let's be absolutely clear. Obama can win the presidency if he loses the white working class by the same wide margin as Al Gore if he adds 4-5 million new young Obama voters, keeps 90 percent of the African-American vote, and wins a majority of Latinos. He should win moderates and pro-choice voters by exposing McCain's zero support for Planned Parenthood positions. He can expect to do very well among all voters with his alternatives to Iraq, economic recession, and right-wing court appointments wrapped into his theme of change. Obama's support among white males has declined under the hammering of the Clintons, but he still has won white male majorities in ten of 23 states since January. He took 52 percent of the white male vote in Virginia before the negative attacks began, and still held 42 percent of those white males in North Carolina and Indiana [where Republicans could enter the Democratic primary. There still is plenty of opportunity to increase those white male numbers with a message about Iraq and the recession. An interesting question is whether Hillary Clinton and her most ardent supporters can shift from brawling against Barack to embracing him wholeheartedly as the nominee. To celebrate Clinton's brawling at just the moment she appears to have lost means it will take weeks, or longer, to repair the internal damage, learn from the experience, and move forward. The numbers suggest that the Clinton forces can be decisive in Obama's winning or losing in November. And that would perpetuate a schism for a long time to come. [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com] 1:44:25 PM    comment []