Ruben Navarrette is one of the most insightful writers I’ve encountered lately. His column on Obama and his Pastor does a better job at analyzing the relationship and its meaning than most.
Overall Obama is an extraordinarily inspiring figure, and his message is the right message for our times. McCain’s principled leadership is also inspiring, and it is clear he puts the nation ahead of himself. But Obama seems to be more in tune with what this nation and world need.
That said, Obama will need to confront two major issues which otherwise will be his undoing.
On one side stands his positions on Iraq and Iran. This may sound counterintuitive, because it is part of what propelled him and distinguished him from Clinton and McCain. But increasingly, Americans are aligning themselves to McCain’s perspective that, now that the US is in Iraq, it can only leave in tandem with success and stability for the Iraqi government and people. John Vinocur persuasively argues that Obama’s current policy responses may not be persuasive. Obama’s positions on Iran also expose him to perceptions of naivete and are frankly somewhat scary. Does he understand the fundamentally divisive ideological framework from which Iran’s current rulers rule with totalitarianism and hegemonic ambition?
The second and potentially most damaging issue that Obama will need to overcome is his close relationship to his Pastor, a man whose statements on America (not to mention other issues) would be reprehensible to most Americans. Obama did an excellent job addressing issues of race and religion and was extraordinarily classy in how he managed the issue, but it may not be enough, as this opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal points out to the depth of the problem with having a potential US President sit by while his Minister spews out such hatred.
Anyone who didn’t listen to Obama’s speech on "race" and "religion" in Philadelphia today (March 18 2007) MUST do so. You can see it here. It proves the depth of this candidate, and the hope he can bring to America and the world.
This guy is such an exceptional human being, such an elegant "mentsch", such a sincerely noble politician, truly dedicated to uniting us for a common cause.
Skeptics should listen to his speech before raising their eyebrows.
You can learn a lot about Obama in what he says as much as in what he does not say. He doesn’t pander. He is earnest. He is gutsy. He is truthful. He is real. Bravo to the man!
Clive Crook’s column in the Financial Times today (3/3/08), "Clinton Gets it Sincerely Wrong," is sadly on target. Senator Clinton does not have a particularly charming or personable personality, but that was not her greatest undoing. Her greatest undoing was trying to become something else. Margaret Thatcher was comfortable in her own skin as a tough cookie, and people liked that about her – and voted for her. Senator Clinton instead has been switching personalities based on what the pollsters say.
Robert Redford plays a Professor at a Stanford-like California liberal arts university with an urgent message for his students about the imperative of not leaving governance and public service to the despots, the bureaucrats and the political animals. Even if, no, particularly if, things look bad, service is that much more needed, and giving it your best is what is important.
The title of the movie comes from an analogy from the World War I to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Germans in the first world war used to admire the British soldiers on the front as courageous and determined but they considered their generals mediocre. One German General said something along the lines of, "Never have I seen so many lions commanded by such lambs." Redford’s character feels the same is true of the idealistic young men who volunteered to serve their country in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Too bad the movie has several moments that feel contrived, either because of an overly didactic script or because of the editing. But the movie is worth watching because of several compelling observations, even if some are forced in.
The core message of not turning to apathy just because things are bad is very much applicable to the world we live in today. It is such an easy cop-out to complain and be cynical. It takes more work to do something about it.
The rumors in the Jewish community about Barak Hussein Obama’s "Muslim" connection are embarassing, dumb, and wrong. Every day I get email forwards with silly allegations and fear-mongering. Very sad, not just because it is based on lies and ignorance, but also because it reflects deep prejudice and fear from a religion that has been unfairly tarnished by a minority of extremists who seek to hijack it.
But what nobody in the media has pointed out when they mention how much he has overcome and what testament to progress in America it is that someone whose last name rhymes with "Osama" Bin-Laden and whose middle name is the same as that of the late "Butcher of Baghad", Saddam Hussein, is that Barak has an Israeli first name.
Indeed, "Barak", which means "thunder" in Hebrew, is a common first name as well as a common last name.
So if people are going to make up stories, they might as well balance them out and talk about how he is the product of an Arab-Israeli love affair.
Almost every woman I’ve asked here in Texas supports Hilary. Same with most Hispanics. This is in contrast to the momentum Barak seems to be gathering according to the news. The expectations for his success may be too high and could cause a significant setback to Barak, in spite of his accomplishment narrowing the big gap he had in the polls.
I have been arguing to all who’d listen that in the end of the day, the 3 remaining candidates are all formidable possible leaders and we are lucky to end with them. They all have some weaknesses, but overall their strengths greatly outweigh their weaknesses.
There is nothing like a well-thought-out set of op-eds to cause you some pause.
With regard to Obama, David Ignatius raises some valid and challenging questions here.
With regard to McCain, George Will poses 5 core questions to him here.
And to Clinton, besides the many columns that Frank Rich and many others have been writing, this Wall Street Journal article from Peggy Noonan is quite devastating. Clinton is a real policy-wonk, but inspiring the nation is a critical aspect of any presidency and there is doubt whether she can accomplish, or whether her presidency would be more defined by division.
Which of them will answer these questions best?
The articles are also pasted below.
I wrote earlier about how the American primaries have been a wonderful showcase of democracy at work.
Everywhere I have been traveling lately, from Tel Aviv to Ramallah, from Mexico City to Sydney, Australia, people are fascinating with the US elections.
The only scary thing that will bring us back is if the Obama-Clinton competition is not resolved in an orderly fashion by the people. If Florida/Michigan delegates become an issue, or if the super-delegates end up crowning the nominee at odds with the vote of the people, it will bring us back to the Bush-Gore elections debacle and make American democracy look like a banana republic.
In this context it is good news that it seems like Senator Obama is establishing a firm lead and Senator Clinton is demonstrating remarkable elegance in accepting the will of the people.
One of the most insightful articles to cover the American political
landscape and elections dynamics, is Michael Oreskes’ ‘The Party
Animal Either Plays Well Or Fights Well,’ [available here] in the New York Times Week in Review of Feb 3 2008. Don’t let its dumb title, presumably assigned by yet another editor that underestimates his readers, turn you off. The article is among the best and most on-target expositions of the
philosophies underlying today’s candidates, and their historical line.
For another deeper historical tackle at these competing styles is the
book ‘Crusaders vs. Pragmatists’ from Dr. John Stoessinger.
Sent from my iPhone – pardon typos
.