Incompetence the Hague Style

Today's initial appearance of the aged and exhausted Radovan Karadzic (his time on the run has not been kind to him) felt like a small consolation for the years of suffering he and his henchmen caused Bosnia. Today's short hearing disturbingly shows that the Hague prosecutors have not learned their lesson from the Milosevic trial: make it as short as possible. Milosevic's masterful prolonging of the process made the trial into a mockery and robbed the victims and historical justice of the final verdict. Milosevic may have died alone in a small, metal cell of the Hague tribunal, but he left this world engulfed in the mystery which he had worked tirelessly to build: was he indeed a victim of an international conspiracy? While the question seems ludicrous to most rational people, the question mark that marked the end of his life threw the whole Hague process into doubt.

Karadzic seems to intent to do exactly the same. First, he insisted on defending himself despite the fact he has "an invisible adviser" as he put it. This means he has a whole team of experienced Serbian lawyers who will be directing his defense behind the scenes. Secondly, the behavior of his lawyer and Karadzic himself made it clear that he intends to prolong the trial, a strategy that just might work given the fact that the UN mandate for the tribunal expires at the end of the year. For the Tribunal to continue its work past this deadline, another approval by the UN Security Council is needed and Russia has vowed to veto any attempt to prolong the jurisdiction of the tribunal, if only to spite the West. Karadzic knows this very well as it was shown on the night of his arrest when he said to one of the police officers guarding him: "If only I could have waited this out until the end of the year. The Tribunal would be shut, and I would turn myself in to the Serbian authorities."

This would not be so worrying if the Hague prosecutors were up to the task, and from what they have shown in the Milosevic trial and in the beginning of the Karadzic trial, they seem intent to screw this up! Even though they had 13 years to prepare a polished, proof-read indictment against Karadzic, the prosecution said today that it would "amend" the indictment, giving Karadzic 30 extra days to enter a plea! Just to enter a plea! And this was not even something Karadzic had orchestrated. It was the prosecution handing him extra time on a golden plate. Hopefully, the amending of the indictment means that they will try him for each charge separately (this way his siege of Sarajevo would be dealt with separately from the Srebrenica genocide), making it possible to bring out several verdicts, for each charge in the indictment. But even if this is so, why the hell did they wait until today to announce this!

In the meantime, as he laughs in the face of international justice and any sense of human decency, Karadzic will be enjoying the amenities of the Hague Hilton: daily access to a range of newspapers in Serbo-Croatian; a separate kitchen for him and his inmate buddies in case they want to prepare their own traditional Serbian meals and not eat Hague food; a personal doctor; and even a conjugal bedroom where his wife (or his Belgrade mistress) can come and see him any time they want; they can also call him from 9-5 each day.

I am strongly supportive of international bodies of justice, such as the Hague tribunal, but the thought of this trial turning into another legal mess with no end in sight makes me think that it might have been better if the Serbian security forces had dropped Karadzic in downtown Sarajevo rather than a Belgrade jail. Of course, after cutting his hair and shaving his beard. Legal niceties aside, but a part of me thinks that this might have been a more just ending.

5 Senate Races to Watch Out For

There are several Senate races in November that will determine how healthy the Democratic majority in Congress will be starting next year. Most of these races are currently leaning Democrat and considering that they are in traditionally Republican states show the trouble the Republicans are in come November. Let's take them one by one:

1) Alaska. This should be a no-brainer for the Democrats as their Senator, Ted Stevens, was indicted yesterday on felony corruption charges. He has also vowed not to bow out of the race basically handing the Democrats his seat. Considering the fact he is running against the popular mayor of Anchorage Mark Begich, this race seems to be the surest bet for the Democrats in November. Today's poll: Begich 50%; Stevens 45%, but expect Stevens' number to go way down as the news of indictment against him sinks into the minds of Alaskans.

2) New Hampshire. The incumbent Republican (previously very popular) John Sununu is trailing his Democratic challenger Gene Shaheen 11 points (52-41%). Sununu represents the old New Hampshire, but the state has becoming a suburb of Boston in a way and has started leaning Democrat. This coupled with a horrible reputation the Republicans have right now bides well for the Democratic chances to pick up this seat.

3) Virginia (my personal favorite). The polls shows that the battle between the governors, Mark Warner (D) and Jim Gilmore (R) will be a devastating Republican defeat come November: Warner 59%, Gilmore 33%. Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg said of the race: "This is over even before it began. This is an absolute disaster for the Republicans." The state will also be interesting to watch in the presidential election especially if Obama picks Tim Kaine, current governor to be his VP or Jim Webb, the state's current Senator.

4) New Mexico. This is a battle between two Congressmen, Tom Udall (D) and Steve Pearce. Currently, Udall is leading Pearce by 28 points in the polls. The Republicans had a more moderate candidate running in the primaries, but her loss to Pearce has almost guaranteed a victory for the Democrats.

5) Colorado. Congressman Mark Udall is a Democrat and is running ahead of Republican Mark Schaffer 7 points (48-41%). Colorado has moved towards the Democrats in the past few years, electing a Democratic governor, a Senator, and giving a Congressional district to the Democrats. In a year such as this, when the Republican brand name is about as popular as Kevin Federline, this race seems like another promising chance for the Democrats.

Currently, the Democrats have 51 seats and to be filibuster-proof after the next election they need to have 60, so the magical number is 9. This is going to be hard to reach, but not impossible. There are several other states where the Democrats can pick up a seat: in Texas, the race seems shockingly close as the incumbent John Cornyn is only 4 points ahead of his Democratic challenger. Susan Collins (Maine), Gordon Smith (Oregon), Elizabeth Dole (N. Carolina), and Norm Coleman (Minnesota. Here Al Franken has ran a terrible campaign, however) are only favored by small margins over their opponents.

But even without a filibuster proof Senate, the Democrats will be given the reins of power come November (including the White House, hopefully). It was about time!

Karadzic in the Hague

As the news broke this morning that Karadzic was transferred from Belgrade to the Hague, it seems as if a new chapter has been opened in the relations between Bosnia and Serbia. His extradition to the Hague coincided with a major decision by the Bosnian War Crimes Tribunal in Sarajevo that is now taking over some cases of the Hague Tribunal: the Sarajevo court sentenced seven Bosnian Serbs to sentences ranging from 38 to 42 years for their direct involvement in the Srebrenica killings. What is most encouraging is the muted reaction to these developments by the so-called supporters of Karadzic. Yes, there was some violence last night on the streets of Belgrade, but the scenes of scattered hooligans battling determined Serbian police looked more like an aftermath of a soccer match than an outbreak of nationalist-inspired violence. The forceful response of the Serbian police--as well as their impeccable protection of the US Embassy--bides well for the new Serbian government. What is most surprising is that this is all happening while the Serbian Interior Ministry is controlled by a Socialist Party (Milosevic's party) man. It seems that they are more determined than ever to move on beyond the horrific Milosevic legacy.

I have also observed the reaction in Bosnia with a sense of relief. A few days ago, a couple of thousand supporters of Karadzic gathered in the Sarajevo Serb suburb of Pale and staged a very peaceful protest. They protested for a few hours, and then went on home.

This is an important moment since it shows the pragmatism and de-ideologization of ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet in a terrible economy. Dissatisfaction with politicians crosses ethnic boundaries as a whopping majority of Bosnians see themselves as being regularly screwed by their government(s). It is particularly telling that the Bosnian parliament just a few days ago, voted to increase the salaries of its representatives while the unemployment reaches 40%, average pension drops to $100, and an army of young people continuously lines up in front of foreign embassies looking for a way out.

Thus, it is not so much that people are finally dealing with the past, but that the past is being run over by the oppressive present. And this may not be such a bad thing!

Obama's Berlin Speech: "This is our Moment. This is Our Time."

Nationalism as Therapy

As more details emerge about Radovan Karadzic's double life during his time on the run, it becomes fascinatingly clear that for this man nationalism offered a way to fashion himself as a mythical Messiah of his own people. As I wrote in a previous post, prior to the war, Karadzic tried (unsuccessfully) to penetrate the ranks of the Bosnian-Yugoslav intelligentsia: he attended poetry workshops at Columbia, wrote and published poems, and fashioned himself as a Bohemian. Along with his business partner Momcilo Krajisnik (who later became his deputy President of the Bosnian Serb Republic and is also currently in the Hague) he became embroiled in several business scandals. Apparently, he and Krajisnik used business loans to build themselves lavish homes in the Sarajevo suburb of Pale, which later became the headquarters of his murderous army. Reflecting on his prewar life is essential to understanding why this man not only embraced nationalist myths, but lived them: nationalism served as therapy for his inferiority complex. It allowed him to become a Messiah and in the process destroy the place which had reminded him of his own mediocrity: Sarajevo.

During the war, he would frequently recite his prewar poems to foreign visitors, boasting how he had predicted that Bosnia would descend into hell. The former US ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmerman remembers that Karadzic's vocabulary was peppered with images of violence and horror. Karadzic never tried to hide this. In fact, he seemed to reach almost orgasmic levels of pleasure in boasting about the horror his troops were visiting upon the city of Sarajevo. In this Youtube clip, Karadzics hosts the Russian ultra-nationalist poet Limonov on the hills above Sarajevo, recites his "Sarajevo" poem from the 1980s in which he had "predicted" the massacre, and even invites the poet to shoot the sniper at the civilians in the city.

During this time, he fashioned himself as a direct descendant of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, the 19th century collector of Serbian folklore and the founder of modern Serbo-Croatian grammar. Although Vuk shares the last name with Radovan, there is no evidence that they are related. But in Karadzic's mind, the same Serbian blood flew through their veins, authorizing the 20th century Karadzic to act on behalf of the Serbian nation. As his troops shelled Sarajevo, Karadzic would often play gusle, the Serbian single-string instrument that had been played by Serbian folklorists while they recited myths from Serbian history.

In today's article about Karadzic's double life in Belgrade, one of Belgrade's daily newspapers recounts the stories of Karadzic coming to a small cafe in Belgrade during his hiding, taking up gusle, sitting below the picture of himself (which the nationalist owner had put up there not knowing that the real Karadzic was his frequent visitor), and playing for hours on an end, drinking the Serbian plum brandy.

Karadzic's disturbing story is illustrative of the way in which nationalism helps an individual find purpose in life. For Karadzic, it was a form of therapy (I use this term intentionally given the fact that Karadzic himself was a psychiatrist) that helped him transform himself from an anonymous mediocrity to a mythical figure (in the eyes of his supporters, of which there are many in Bosnia and Serbia). Yesterday's announcement that he would defend himself at the Hague trial is a sure sign that he will use the trial to perpetuate this image of himself.

But the fact that he will remain in prison for the rest of his pathetic life is sure to throw this man into the abyss of anonymity. This will be the most just punishment for a man who fashions himself a Messiah of his people.

Obama in Israel

As our candidate touches down in Israel and the Palestinian territories, it is useful to remember that the only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will ever end peacefully is for the US to have a President who will sacrifice the possibility of his second term--even his political career--to pressure Israel into ending the occupation of the Palestinian territories, stopping the settlements on the West Bank, and acknowledging (if only symbolically and financially) the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their pre-1967 borders. Of course, the actual implementation of the latter is an impossibility, but it is essential for the US, Israel and the larger international community to recognize the historical injustice. This in turn would undercut the central message of Hamas--which thrives on the Palestinian sense of victimhood--and help consolidate the Palestinian peace movement.

However, the crazy process we put our candidates through before they reach the White House as well as the amount of historical guilt this country has (justifiably) for the Holocaust, does not bide well for the peace process. Obama's own statements in front of the Israeli lobby in which he supported an "undivided" and Jewish Jerusalem (and later smartly backtracked on) signal the continuation of US' policy of unconditionally supporting Israel no matter what it does, no matter how bluntly it violates international law, no matter how much it continues to oppress the Palestinians, and finally, no matter the extent to which it works against US interests in the Middle East.

Carter was willing to sacrifice his political capital in reaching a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. But Carter's timing was impeccable. He had two courageous leaders on both sides of the negotiating table: Menachim Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat with the latter eventually sacrificing his life for peace with Israel.

Thus, timing is not on Obama's side. Both, the Israelis and the Palestinians seem divided, their peace movements never weaker, and their leaders extremely ineffective. It would take an immense amount of boldness, intellectual honesty, and political courage for an Obama administration to throw itself into a genuine peace-process.

The boldness and political confidence we have seen from Obama on this trip gives me some hope, however.

More on Karadzic's Arrest

The Serbian team for the cooperation with the Hague Tribunal held a news conference today in which they showed the picture of what Karadzic looks like today. He was arrested in Novi Beograd, a suburb of the Serbian capital where he had been practicing alternative medicine under an assumed name, Dragan Dabic. He even went to conferences and public events to talk about his supposed expertise in bioenergy, and published articles in a local alternative health journal. It is certain that ordinary people had no way to identify him as Karadzic, but it is equally certain that the previous government under the nationalist Vojislav Kostunica, protected him.

It is ironic that the new government of Serbia, which arrested him, is a coalition of the ardently pro-Europe Boris Tadic and the Socialist Party of late Slobodan Milosevic. Let's remember that Karadzic is basically a Milosevic creation: without Milosevic he would have been a nobody in Bosnia. It was Milosevic who provided the Bosnian Serbs with the intelligence services and the military infrastructure in building them into a para-state, funding their war effort, and giving them political legitimacy. In 1993 in the wake of the Vance-Owen plan, which Milosevic supported and tried to impose on the Bosnian Serbs in passing himself off as a peacemaker, Karadzic rejected the plan and earned the ire of Milosevic who later cut off all aid to the Bosnian Serbs. Milosevic's animosity to Karadzic and the rest of the Bosnian Serb leadership reflected the larger animosity to the Bosnian Serb leader on the part of the Serbian political elite who had always considered him uncouth, rude, and pretty crazy as well as unreliable. Karadzic was exactly that: unreliable and increasingly out of control.

It was Karadzic who stood in front of the Bosnian parliament in Sarajevo on the eve of the war, warning the Bosnian Muslim president Izetbegovic that if Bosnia was to choose the road of independence: "don't think you will not take Bosnia-Herzegovina into hell and the Muslim people into extinction!" I think these words will be repeated over and over again in Karadzic's Hague trial.

Karadzic was an extremely unhappy and frustrated man. He comes from a small village in Montenegro and moved to Sarajevo as a psychiatrist. Apparently, he did not fit well in his new city. He worked at the famous Kosevo hospital and failed to be promoted. Later, his former superiors would tell the media that he was a mediocre psychiatrist. If he was a mediocre psychiatrist, he was a terrible poet who liked to pass himself off as a Bohemian and a world-renown intellectual. He even went to Columbia where he studied psychiatry but also took classes in American poetry. This did not help him penetrate the ranks of the Bosnian-Yugoslav intelligentsia.

Misha Glenny, among other scholars, has argued that it was Karadzic's alienation from his urban space that caused him to hate Sarajevo. And Karadzic himself was open in his contempt for the city constantly referring to the Ottoman period when "Turks" lived in cities and Serbian peasants lived in villages. Hence, Karadzic held Sarajevo in a siege which lasted more than three years and which crippled the city. Civilians were murdered by his snipers on a daily basis and his military general Mladic ordered his troops over an open military transmitter to pound Sarajevo and drive people insane. During the genocide in Srebrenica, Mladic infamously said that "this was the time when we exact revenge on the Turks." And Karadzic fumed about the injustices the Turks had committed upon the Serbs several centuries earlier.

Well, the hand of international justice, no matter how frail and slow, did finally clinch this horrible man. His trial will be fascinating and will reveal new details about the war. Although I think it won't be as nearly as long as Milosevic's (I hope), since the international community wants a verdict before he dies or kills himself.

Here is what Sarajevo's main street looked like just minutes after the news of Karadzic's arrest broke.....

RADOVAN KARADZIC ARRESTED!

The wartime leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, a man responsible for so much blood and suffering, including the siege of Sarajevo and the genocide in Srebrenica, has finally been arrested in Serbia. Hooray! A great day for international justice, and the beginning of the end of animosities between Serbia and Bosnia!

Following the news of the arrest, spontaneous celebrations broke out in the streets of Sarajevo with people flooding the streets with cars, honking. This is a great catharsis for the people of Sarajevo, the city which Karadzic kept in a debilitating and murderous siege for three years.

Media's Navel Gazing: Stop it!

Will the media please stop navel gazing and shut up with its half-hearted self-criticism of their decision to cover Obama's world tour extensively. The mainstream media that the Right constantly describes as the Left, need to stop being so damn apologetic to the Right wingers in this country. To all of the envious, disillusioned Republicans who are dreading their debilitating loss in November and want to divert attention from Obama's popularity in the world, and Europe, the media have to tell the truth about their decision to send three most famous news anchors with him:

1) The world and the US are tired of watching the bumbling idiot George make a fool of himself and the whole country in front of the world: by massaging Angela Merkel's back, punching the air and snickering while proudly declaring the US to be the biggest polluter in the world, or asking the Brazilian president: "Oh you have blacks too?"!

Seeing Obama surrounded by throngs of Europeans (some estimates put the number of Berliners at Obama's speech Thursday at the staggering 1 million!) who are craving for better relations with the US will be like a breath of fresh air for Americans whose self-esteem has been flushed down the toilet by Bush's policies. It will also be rewarding to see an articulate leader, who is also an intellectual, represent our country when we can finally be proud, if only for the duration of his speech, of being American.

And in answering the constant complaints from the McCain camp that the media never followed him on his trips: watching McCain speak has as much of entertainment value as watching a drop of water drip from the facet, it either puts you to sleep or you want to urinate out of boredom!

The Debt Trap

The New York Times has started running a disturbingly insightful series on the mounting debt that has ruined millions of Americans, making their life hell and ensuring that our economy will continue its downward slide for years to come.

For years, this country's giant lenders spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising that targeted people in need, especially those with health care costs, in offering them teaser loans, promising to get them out of debt. But as people borrowed more, these same lenders jacked up their interest fees, digging these people even deeper into the quicksand of debt. According to the series, these lending practices have gotten completely out of control as average household incomes' have stagnated along with the value of their homes. In the past, many of these lenders did not depend on their loans being repaid since they sold off these loans and made money on their investment. As a result, they could bear the brunt of some borrowers defaulting. But the last few years have seen the real estate prices coming off their abnormal high (due to speculators), and at the same time, wages have become frozen, prices have skyrocketed, and many people have lost their jobs.

Rather than meeting their borrowers half way and agreeing to more favorable terms, which would help Americans get out of debt, these lenders have made astronomical profits on late fees, interest fees, and junk fees that go along with refinincing of mortgages.

But now, the ripple effect is ravaging the lenders as well. Finally, I say! It was about time! While there is no doubt that many Americans have gotten themselves into this mess by living outside of their means, it is absolutely undeniable that lenders have played a big role in getting them in this mess to begin with. Many Americans grow up with the notion that owning one's home is essential to one's self-esteem, which leads many to borrow hundreds of thousands in mortgage without first ensuring their job security. With their sub-prime mortgages, lenders have exploited the American dream narrative, racking up millions in CEO bonus pays.

To give you some perspective, here are a few statistics. Today, the total consumer debt in this country totals the staggering $ 2.56 trillion, which is up 22% from 2000 alone. The average household credit card debt is $ 8,565, up 15% from 2000. College debt has doubled since 1995 resulting in an army of recent college graduates who are forced to declare bankruptcy upon graduation: the average student emerges out of college with $20,000 in debt.

It is therefore undeniable that we are in this mess because of the greed of lenders and the Wall street. They prayed on the average American, profiting from the raising health care costs and luring people into debt, knowing that they would have to default. Well, now that millions of Americans can no longer pay their mortgage and monthly credit card bills, the banks and other lenders are also feeling the pinch. I feel bad that their CEOs might take only a couple of millions in bonus pay this year, but they so deserve to go completely bust. The bankruptcy law that they lobbied for (successfully and with the full support of the Democrats) has made it almost impossible for Americans to get out of debt.

I hope this crisis convinces all of us that tighter government regulation of the financial sector is essential for the sustainability of the economy. We need to remind Obama on a daily basis of this and pressure his administration (when he is President) to change the criminal bankruptcy law, and authorize the Fed to regulate lending practices.

"The Unfinished Busines:" the Story of Mostar

Here is a BBC documentary on the war in Mostar in 1993. It is a brilliant and raw depiction of the events in my hometown. I highly recommend it to anyone curious as to what really happened in the city and the role of the Bosnian Croat army in dividing the city. I thought putting up the documentary would be appropriate given that I have written numerous posts about the current situation in the still divided Mostar. The narrator and the creator of the documentary is a BBC journalist Jeremy Bowen who enjoys a great reputation on the East (Muslim) side and is hated by many of the Bosnian Croat leadership.

Part I


Part II


Part III


Part IV


Part V

The New Yorker Cover...What about the article?

The recent upheaval over the New Yorker cover (above) reflected the power of the New Yorker's brilliant satire to push the public sphere into certain conversations which, while uncomfortable, are important. While I think that some people who are not acquainted with the subtle satire of New Yorker's cartoons might take the cover at its face value, the cover brilliantly exposed the ridiculousness of the distortions and lies that have been thrown at Obama. Hence, I was initially surprised by Obama's reaction to the cartoon, which he called "tasteless," as I thought he was way over the top. The fact that his campaign advisers and himself responded to the cartoon only fed the beast that is the 24-hour cable television frenzy. But after reading the featured article inside of the issue, Ryan Lizza's Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama, I realized just how brilliant Obama's response was. The shrillness of the campaign's response to a harmless, and brilliant in my mind, cover cartoon, pushed the un-self-reflective media away from the uncomfortable article and into a two day-long praise of Obama's historic candidacy in spite of all racist, chauvinistic attacks on himself and his family. By the end of the day, Obama had even the staunchest Republicans vociferously defending him.

I urge all to read Ryan Lizza's piece as it is a fascinating journey through the maddening nooks-and-crannies of Chicago's insular politics. It traces, in some detail, Obama's mind blowing rise from a Harvard newbie in 1991 to his successful bid for the Senate in 2004. For those who thought that Obama was a revolutionary figure and a saint, this article will probably cause you to go onto Zoloft. For me, the article showed that Obama was a brilliant politician. After reading the article I almost had no doubt that this would be our next President.

The main theme that runs through the article is Obama's ability to win over important friends in both, South side and the more affluent downtown, and Hyde Park districts. Lizza interviews many of his closest allies during this time--most of them now disenchanted with him--in tracing the meticulousness of his rise to power. Obama rode the wave of Illinois turning blue, starting with the election of Carol Mosley Braun as a Senator and Clinton taking the state for the Democrats in 1992, the first time a Democrat won the state since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Obama won his first Illinois Senate race by taking the Hyde Park seat from a popular woman from Hyde Park, Alice Palmer. Alice Palmer had initially planned to run for Congress leaving her seat in Springfield open and that's when Obama chose to run. However, during the campaign she decided against it and wanted to retain her seat. The influential Hyde Park elite asked Obama to bow out of the race for the sake of unity. He refused. And he won.

Obama brilliantly navigated the insular channels of Chicago politics. Not only was he not supported by the machine, but he soon found himself alienating the Independents as well. Lizza reports that his reception to the state Senate was so bad that at one point a shouting match between him and another Senator (and a Palmer supporter) almost turned into a physical fight on the floor. But he patiently navigated through these waters and forged a brilliant coalition of Chicago's affluent liberals and his grassroots base in South side. His marriage to Michelle helped him charm the city's black elite. Jesse Jackson's daughter, a good friend of Michelle, became a godmother to one of his daughters.

An event that is almost prophetic of Obama's rise to power is rather dull as it involves not a major speech that electrified a crowd, but a day in Stratton Office Building in Springfield, Illinois in the spring of 2001. On this day, Obama and a Democratic consultant John Corrigan redraw the electoral map of his district. As partisan redistricting is common in American politics, after taking over the state it was the Democrats' turn to redraw the districts in their favor. The two of them, Corrigan and Obama, sat that day in front of a huge map of Chicago and redrew the map of Obama's district. The new district included Obama's Hyde Park base, then it went up through the lakefront, and then through downtown. It encompassed half of the Loop (the southern part of it was becoming increasingly more developed and affluent), went through Michigan Avenue and into the Gold Coast. While the majority of the district were African-Americans, Obama drew himself a district that was wealthier, more educated, more Jewish, less blue-collar, and whiter. The district also included the highest concentration of Republicans in Chicago. It was this winning coalition that served as Obama's base for his US Senate seat in 2004. The rest is history....

But while Obama's calculating behavior might disappoint some, I found the story incredibly telling of what kind of president Obama would be. His ability to navigate the vastly different worlds of South Side and the Loop, each time winning over the powers in each world, bides well for his ability to achieve compromise and break the partisan impasse in D.C. Furthermore, it shows his brilliant diplomatic skills and shows him as a potentially successful peace broker. Above all, his sense of timing is impeccable. He senses the political moment, understands what it is that people are craving for, and molds a narrative which propels him to the top of the movement. But this is not a bad thing. Just because he deliberately constructs his story doesn't mean he doesn't believe in that story.

The New Yorker piece left me thinking that an Obama administration would be efficient, post-partisan (albeit, disappointing to the Left), pragmatic, and extremely cautious.

Obama on Jon Stewart's Daily Show

Here is a chronological bibliography of Obama's appearances on Jon Stewart's Daily Show. Besides being funny, it is also interesting as it shows the evolution of Obama's sense of humor, from very playful and off-the-cuff to more measured and "presidential" after he became a candidate for the Presidency.

Enjoy...

1)November 7, 2005. Brilliantly hilarious. Probably his funniest interview.



2) August 22, 2007. First time on the show as a Presidential Candidate.
Part I


Part II



3) April 21, 2008. At the height of the primary fight, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. Making fun of the racist attacks on Obama during this period, Jon asks if he plans to "enslave the white race" once he becomes President.

Part I


Part II

Phil Gramm II

Continuing the theme of my previous post--the complete ineptitude of the McCain economic team to feel the pain of the average American--here are a few other brilliant quotes by Phil Gramm, McCain's main economic adviser and a self-described "footsoldier in the Reagan revolution":

"We are the only nation in the world where all our poor people are fat." 9/6/81

"Minimum wage laws tend to cut the bottom rung off the economic ladder. The plain truth is there should be no minimum wage law in this great land of free enterprise." 5/17/89

"Until we are on a pay-as-you-go budget, until we have stopped inflation, I do not intend to support any public works project in the United States." 10/9/75

[During one of many Republican attacks on Social Security, Gramm defended cutting benefits to elderly citizens]: "They are 80-year-olds. Most people don’t have the luxury of living to be 80 years old, so it’s hard for me to feel sorry for them."

"A Nation of whiners"? McCain has lost the election...

As the very infrastructure of the American-dream collapses around us, McCain's senior economic advisor, Phil Gramm says that we are a nation of "whiners" and that the so-called economic crisis is only in our heads, "it's mental" the wise economist noted.

On the same day, the value of Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac, the two government-backed mortgage giants, plummeted on the stock market, sending panic through the investors that the US housing market might be on the verge of a total collapse. By the end of the trading day Thursday, Fannie Mai's stock was down 36% and Freddie Mac was down 41%, their lowest level in 17 years. These losses came on top of their $11 billion loss in the mortgage crisis. This means that they very idea of the American dream--that each hardworking family can own a home--is disappearing before our very eyes.

Since the two companies are by far the biggest providers of financing for domestic house loans, if they cannot borrow they cannot provide mortgages to commercial lenders. This means that it would become almost impossible for home buyers to obtain credit, bringing the US housing market to a standstill.

The Obama campaign has to run the clip of Gramm calling us a "nation of whiners" on a daily basis, reminding people that in a McCain administration, Gramm would be our Treasury Secretary.

I honestly believe that McCain lost the election yesterday.

A Tribute to the Brave 28!

I am still furious at the Democrats for passing the awful Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. There are two disastrous effects of this bill. 1) It gives blanket immunity to telecommunication companies that have been involved in warantless spying of American citizens under President's direct orders. What this means is that Bush, who without any shred of doubt has committed a felony (on numerous occasions) by ordering wiretapping without going to FISA courts, can never EVER be held accountable; 2) It authorizes the government and telecommunication companies to gather up electronic chatter of any American citizen without having to previously get a court order. So, Bush's violation of the Constitution was cemented by a Democratic Congress. So, I think it's important that all of us on the left remember this.

But, we still have 28 Senators who were principled and brave enough to say NO to Bush's shredding of our Constitution. I wanted to list their names as a tribute to them all, but also to inform you, in case you live in their state so that you can keep their vote in mind next time you go to the polls. Here are they are in the alphabetical order as listed on Senate's official website:

Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)

I think we should call them up and thank them for defending our Constitution-enshrined rights.

Iran Addendum

As an addendum to my previous post, here is a quotation from Thomas Powers' "Iran: The Threat" from the New York Review of Books. The paragraph summarizes perfectly the rationality of Iran's actions:

"The seriousness of American threats is confirmed by the fact that no significant national leader in the United States has ever disowned or objected to them in clear, vigorous, principled language. It is as if the whole country listens to the administration's threats with breath held, wondering if Bush and Cheney really mean to do as they say, and in effect leaving the decision entirely to them. Americans may count on the President to think twice, but why would leaders in Tehran, responsible for the lives of 70 million citizens, want to depend on President Bush's restraint for their survival and safety? Bush has a history. On his own authority, without the sanction of any international body, he attacked Iraq five years ago and precipitated a bloody chain of events that shows no sign of ending. It would be natural, indeed inevitable, for any government in Tehran, seeing what has happened next door, to ask what could save Iran from a similar fate. An answer is not far to seek: nuclear weapons with a reliable delivery system could do that."

Tensions with Iran: A Calculated Campaign

The news broke today that Iran tested several missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv and has threatened to retaliate on both Israel and US warships in case it is attacked by either the US or Israel over its nuclear program. While there is no doubt that Ahmeninajad's regime is a dangerous one, it is equally clear that the Bush administration has done everything in its power to antagonize the regime even further and make any diplomatic solution almost impossible.

If anyone doubts Bush's hostile intentions towards Iran, they should read Seymour Hersh's new piece in the New Yorker on the activities of the US Special Forces in Iran that have been going on since September 11, 2001. According to Hersh's anonymous sources (and we all know that the man's credibility is impeccable when it comes to his sources), the Bush administration--and particularly, Vice President's office--has been overseeing a massive effort of sending Special Ops and CIA operatives into Iran to kidnap and often murder members of the Revolutionary Guard and even commit attacks on the infrastructure. The Iranian news have been reporting an increase in incidents in the southern part of the country. While it is difficult to confirm the extent to which the Special Ops have been involved, it is hard not to draw the link between the Special Op activities in the same area and the increase in the number of violent attacks. Moreover, according to the author's sources within the Pentagon, the President himself has authorized the use of these forces through one of the most highly classified documents known as Presidential Finding, which is shared with only 8 members of Congress known as the Gang of 8, but who don't really have the power of oversight over the operations due to the extremely sensitive nature of Presidential Finding. The authorization also includes massive funding of Sunni extremist elements within Iran, such as the Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists who have engaged in violent attacks against the Iranian state, including beheadings, in their goal of setting up an Islamic Sunni state. To illustrate just how radical and anti-West these elements are, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, one of the architects of September 11 attacks, is a Baluchi fundamentalist. And what does the Bush administration do? Of course, funds them.

The Special Ops and CIA campaign inside of Iran has apparently gotten so out of control that even some high-level military people are speaking out. One of them is Admiral Fullon, a former head of the CENTCOM and currently the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff who was recently removed from CENTCOM due to his supposed criticism of Cheney's policies. Apparently, Cheney is intent on stirring things up before an Obama administration can take things on a more conciliatory course. Bush and Cheney have removed these operations out of the usual chain of command within the military causing considerable friction between the Vice President's Office and the uniformed military with the latter being furious over the influence of the civilians within the administration (read: Cheney's office) over military operations.

Given the disturbing nature of this administration, I really would not be surprised if there was a war with Iran before the election. If you are worried about this administration think of what a McCain administration would do in this situation. Led by the man who got physical with a diplomat in Nicaragua, called for anti-Vietnam protesters to be shot, and who has on more than one occasion joked about bombing Iran (singing, "bomb bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..."), a McCain administration would potentially be worse than Bush's. Just today McCain smirked in his usual awkward manner when asked about Obama's proposal to have direct diplomacy with Iran.

Yeah, what is Obama thinking wanting to avert a major war with nuclear ramifications? Is it me, or have the Republicans totally lost their collective mind?

Obama responds to Criticism

I think Obama and I are in a telepathic communication as he just responded to the criticism I laid out (following the lead of many other Obama supporters) at his feet. In a town-hall meeting in suburban Atlanta, Obama responded to criticism of his so-called "centrist moves." I copy the New York Times blog in its entirety, as it addresses the same issues I mentioned in my previous post, and Obama's response to these arguments.

Obama Addresses Critics on ‘Centrist’ Moves

By Michael Powell

POWDER SPRINGS, Ga. — Barack Obama had heard quite enough of the complaints that he is pirouetting, leaping, lurching even, toward the political center.

He is at heart, he told a crowd in suburban Atlanta, a pretty progressive guy who just happens to pack along a complicated world view.

“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he said. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”

To this, he adds, parenthetically: “And I must say some of this is my friends on the left” and those in the media.

“I am someone who is no doubt progressive,” he said, adding that he believes in universal health care and that government has a strong to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like.

Senator Obama has faced a wave of complaints from his followers in recent weeks that he is tacking hard toward the political center, and moving away from his liberal base. His critics note that he recently applauded a Supreme Court ruling knocking down a Washington, D.C. ban on handguns, supported a proposed wiretap law that he once promised to oppose and spoke in favor of the death penalty for child rapists. He also has endorsed a role for religious organizations in government that critics, not least many who support him, fear would blur the line between church and state.

So when a Republican who said he planned to vote for Mr. Obama asked about the candidate about his views on Iraq, he took the occasion to expound more broadly on his political philosophy.

“I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and put me squarely in the Democratic camp,” he said. But, he noted, he does not believe that the active hand of government is a replacement, say, for parental responsibility in education.

“I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe in faith,” he said. “That’s not something new; I’ve been talking about that for years. So the notion that this is me trying to look” – he waves his hands around his head – “centrist is not true.”

Mr. Obama, in fact, has written and spoken in favor of a role for religious institutions in the provision of social services, and in his book “The Audacity of Hope” he appeared to endorse the death penalty for child rapists.

As for gun control, Obama said he long has believed that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. “That doesn’t mean that I don’t think we need decent controls” on guns, he said. “Those two positions are not contradictory.”

Mr. Obama has been far less clear about his views on the Washington, D.C. gun ban. As recently as four months ago, he seemed to speak in favor of the law; two weeks ago, however, he seemed to applaud Supreme Court ruling without precisely saying so.

He also spoke to the lurking danger for any candidate who stands accused of abandoning or trimming core beliefs: Voters grow uneasy about the candidate’s identity. This problem greatly afflicted Republican Mitt Romney in the Republican primary earlier this year, when that candidate appeared to re-brand himself and his beliefs with each passing week.

“One of the things you find as you go through this campaign, everyone becomes so cynical about politics,” Mr. Obama said. There is an “assumption that your must be doing everything for political reasons.”

Voters should understand, he said, that they rarely will find themselves in 100 percent agreement with him. “But don’t assume that’s because I’m just doing it for “political reasons, he said.

“That just means we disagree,” he said.

At which point he returned to Iraq, an issue where he has wavered very little from the stance he took many months ago. He favors a phased-in 16-month withdrawal. The McCain campaign has labored hard to suggest that he is inconsistent on this issue.

“We have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in,” Obama said. “You’ve got to be sure our troops are safe, you have to be sure the country doesn’t collapse.”

“When I hear John McCain saying we can’t surrender, we can’t wave the white flag,” Obama said, “no one is talking about surrender.”

But, he added to loud applause, “don’t be confused: I will bring the Iraq war to a close when I am president of the United States of America.”

Warning to Obama: Don't Take Us for Granted

I am sure many of you are shocked by the bluntly critical title of this post as you endured months of Obama worship on these very pages. I still proudly stand by all of my posts and believe deeply in my candidate. However, there comes a time when even a steadfast supporter has to distance himself, if only for a moment, for a healthy dose of criticism. And in the last few days Obama has deserved to be criticized for several things.

HIS SUPPORT ON FISA BILL. The bill that he now supports grants blanket immunity to telecommunications companies that helped Bush and his cronies spy on American citizens without any warrants. This bill is so outrageous that I couldn't have imagined Obama supporting it, especially given the fact he had promised to oppose it. Well, last week, he came out in favor of it. After his website was flooded with protests by his supporters, he sent us all an email in which he clarified his position and acknowledged that while he understands our dismay, he insisted that supporting the bill was essential to national security since it was expiring. FISA courts are there for a reason, to protect our very liberties from people like Cheney and Aschcroft. During the primary season, Obama not only vowed to oppose the bill, but promised to filibuster it. Hence his reversal justifiably angered his liberal base: in just a few days over 7,000 of his most ardent supporters had organized on the Internet and protested his decision. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas said: "I will continue to support him. But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the constitution."

HIS SUPPORT FOR DEATH PENALTY FOR CHILD RAPISTS. After the Supreme Court came out with a reasonable decision to strike down death penalty in cases of child rape, Obama came out on the side of Justice Scalia and Clarence Thomas who were the dissenting voices in the decision and had supported death penalty in such cases. Obama said he opposes "blanket prohibition of death penalty" in such cases, insisting that the heinous nature of such crimes makes death penalty potentially constitutional. He completely ignored the complexities of such cases. Justice Kennedy argued that there was no societal consensus on death penalty in such cases and that imposing death penalty puts unbearable burden on children victims whose testimony would decide matters of life and death. Obama has always been pro-death penalty (in certain cases), but this time, he went out of his way to support it.

HIS SUPPORT OF SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO STRIKE DOWN D.C. LAW BANNING INDIVIDUAL HAND GUNS. This really came as a shocker to me, especially given the fact that as a former grassroots organizer on the South Side of Chicago, Obama is well aware of the horrible damage guns have done to intercity Chicago and other cities. The D.C. law was a sensible ban on individual hand guns, and also stipulated strict rules on how to store weapons in one's home. Obama cited the decisions as allowing for future government regulation of handguns (thank God), but still said that the decision was helpful. How was it helpful? It caused an outcry by mayors and police officers throughout the country who face disastrous effects of gun laws on daily basis.

Obama's stance on these three issues have, for the first time, made me angry with him. Now, I am not a naive, dreamy-eyed idealist who believes that Obama will stroll into D.C. on his horse and change the way politics is done in one day. But I do believe in his genuine desire to change things and bring this country to a better place. I do believe in his intention to scrape away at the unconstitutional executive power this administration has accumulated over the last agonizing 8 years. I do believe in his genuinness when he says he wants to sit down and talk to our enemies and not rush off to war. And I do believe he is committed to progressive issues, such as poverty in inter-cities, environment, and civil liberties.

I do understand that the transition from primary to general election season inevitably entails some repositioning and re-imagining in order to appeal not only to your hardcore supporters but to the general (apathetic) public, but Obama has to be careful not to betray the very core of his message. In other words, he cannot take us for granted. The reservoir of hope and inspiration that he has tapped into is not his to squander. It belongs to millions of his supporters who braved the cold to watch him declare his candidacy in Springfield, or to watch his victory speech in Iowa. It belongs to millions who are desperately in need of change and want this country to do better. It belongs to millions of those who are truly craving to be proud of their country (if for the first time in their lives). In short, Obama has personified this hope, but hope belongs to all of us.

For those of us who have been dismayed by these actions, it is useful to stand back, take a pause of reflection, and realize we have a long way ahead of us. It is healthy to recover from the Obama worship that makes one feel as if they had woken up after a wonderful one night stand only to realize that the person next to them does not look as good as they did the night before after a few drinks.

Obama is still the most intelligent, articulate, and literary presidential nominee this country has had in a long time. His background, his multi-faceted perspective promises great things for an Obama presidency. I just hope that in the process of winning this presidency he does not drain his substance.

Obama to Accept Nomination in front of 75,000 people

Thursday, August 28, 2008 will be a night to remember. On that day, the 45th anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech, the first African-American to be nominated to a presidential ticket in US history will stand before 75,000 people in Denver's football stadium and hundreds of millions watching it on TV and claim a new narrative for American history. No matter what happens before or after, this moment will be the one to savior. Given this announcement by the Obama campaign, I thought it would be useful to post a video of his St. Paul victory speech on June 3, after clinching the nomination. Call me a sap, but I get goose bumps every time I rerun this speech.

Howard Dean: An Ambiguous Legacy

I was really excited when Howard Dean assumed the leadership of the Democratic National Committee. I saw this as a just ending to his candidacy for the Presidency that had been treated unjustly not just by the media, but also by the Democratic Party insiders. Having voted for him in the Democratic primaries in 2004, I was really disappointed with the way his so-called "scream" was used as an excuse by Democratic party veterans to push him out of the way and enable Kerry to become the nominee. As the DNC chair, Dean has done two remarkable things that have strengthened our party.

1) The 50-states strategy. Dean has been one of the primary architects behind the so-called 50 states strategy according to which the Democrats would spread out their money and other resources and campaign not only in the traditionally blue states, but also in all states, especially those red states that had begun to lean blue. I think that this approach proved to be the main factor behind Democrats' return to Congressional power in the 2006 mid-term elections. It has also enabled local Democratic candidates to unseat previously entrenched Republicans in traditionally red districts: Mississippi, Louisiana, and Illinois. Finally, Dean's philosophy has been taken up by Obama in the primaries--and can be seen as the main factor in his ability to defeat the Clinton machine--and is being implemented in the Obama general election campaign. This in turn might lead to several previously red states turning comfortably blue: Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and even North Carolina.

2) The grass-roots movement. Dean's initial popularity in the 2004 primary had to do with his amazing ability to raise money over the internet and through thousands of local grassroots networks, making his movement into a most energetic to date. Even though he lost that primary, it was his strategy that when molded through the hands of a politician as remarkable as Obama proved to be a winner!

Having said all this, it is important to note that Dean's legacy will remain ambiguous due to two major strategic mistakes he has committed:

1) His aloofness during the Clinton-Obama primary fight might have caused some irreparable damage to the party unity. Many pundits have defended him, saying that he was smart to remain on the sidelines while the process played itself out. However, he should have gotten more involved after the end result of the primaries had become obvious to everyone but to Hillary and her deluded Terry McCaulife. He also should have been way more forceful in curtailing Bill Clinton's outrageous behavior in South Carolina and other racially-charged primary contests.

This brings me to the final, and most important, criticism:

2) Dean's seeming ineptitude to manage the preparations for the Democratic Party convention in Denver which is to take place August 25-28. The New York times ran a worrying piece yesterday, detailing numerous setbacks and frustrations that have accompanied the preparations. Some of the most glaring ones (in my mind) are:

a) Instead of renting office spaces at bargain prices, Dean decided to rent prime office space in downtown Denver and equip every room with flat screen TVS. But they have only been able to fill 50% of the office space, literally throwing the rest of the money away on renting empty space.

b) Caterers have been reluctant to participate in feeding the delegates due to Dean's restrictive eating policy. This year's convention will offer absolutely no fried food. Organic, locally grown, food is mandated and each plate has to have at least three of the five colors of food. The contract with caterers runs to 28 pages. Now, don't get me wrong. I think Dean has to be commended for trying to run an environment friendly and healthy convention that will show that the Democrats are serious about making this country healthier and more energy efficient. But his lack of flexibility in negotiating with the caterers as well as the DNC's utter failure to predict the huge costs associated with this food policy, are the reasons why the DNC is millions of dollars in debt. The plans to redesign the Pepsi center alone are $6 million in debt.

Obama has dispatched 10 of his top people to take over the preparations, but there have been frictions between the Obama people and the DNC people over the former's unwillingness (justified in my mind) to foot the whole bill since it was the DNC that had misplaned and mismanaged this whole operation. The things are apparently so bad that even the stage for Obama's speech has still not been built. So, there are even suggestions that Obama's acceptance speech be moved to the Denver stadium, which seats over 50,000 people.

This all might seem like academic, internal, squibbling, but running an efficient and well-oiled convention is key to the Democrats' efforts of winning the White House, and Obama's claim that he is a good manager-in-chief. The convention will also be essential in showing that the Party is perfectly united after the acrimonious primary season.

I still think the convention will be the best one the Dems have ever had (and this really has to do with Obama's historic candidacy), but Dean's legacy will certainly remain in doubt given these problems.

Commemorating July 4th

Today at Monticello during another rambling, incoherent speech, commemorating July 4th, Bush heard from the citizens. "War Criminal," and "He Brought fascism to this shore" is what he heard. See for yourself. What a great way to celebrate the July 4th!

Germany's Health-Care

The NPR ran a wonderful piece yesterday on the state of Germany's health-care. After listening to it, I was tempted to buy the first available ticket to Berlin and move there permanently. For anyone who has doubts about the viability of the universal health care system for this country, has to listen to this piece. Let me summarize the characteristics of Germany's health-care system.

Contrary to the prevalent misconception that the government runs the health-care system in Germany, the government only regulates the non-profits and profits that are the main providers of health benefits. The citizens pay 8% of their gross income and everyone gets equal coverage: no deductables, no pre-existing conditions, and absolutely no waiting lists for MRI or other specialized exams. Thus, the German health care system is run on the principle of solidarity: the more you make, the more you pay, but everyone gets the same coverage, and no one is left behind. The coverage is compulsory. Those making more than $72,000 can opt out of the system and buy private insurance from insurance for-profit companies, and they get to choose from a list of top doctors.

But as the interviews in this NPR piece show, patients are satisfied with their coverage, and are absolutely behind the idea that everyone needs to be covered.

In case you have an elder to take care of, you are paid to take care of them at home if you do not want to send them to the lonely exile that is the nursing home. In case you get sick at night and need a doctor, you get to call him/her at any time of the night and they pay a visit to your home.

The ability of the system to sustain itself is mostly due to the lower health care costs when compared to the US. And how do they do it? The government heavily regulates the non-profits that run the system and put pressure on them not to increase the prices. They are banned from jacking up the premiums on their clients in case they get sick or as they get older. The doctors' salaries are 1/3 of the US doctors' salaries. The average salary is $120,000. This is a very reasonable income, especially if you live in a country where you don't go bankrupt every time you pay visit to a specialist or have a surgery; and where you can take public transportation and not pay 1/3 of your earnings for the gas.

But for us to have a system that even resembles this one, we have to embrace the concept of solidarity. And America, as it is today, is so far away from this moment.

Obama's Pragmatic Idealism

Obama's statement today that his visit to Iraq this month will help him "further refine" his policy towards Iraq started a deluge of criticism from the McCain camp (and was picked up by the media) that he was flip-flopping on his primary campaign promise of withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, with 1-2 brigades per month. It is important that every time they come after Obama with their worn out attacks, which they shout out in lieu of any ideas for the betterment of the country, we stand unequivocally behind him.

So, let me say, unequivocally: I believe Obama to be a pragmatic idealist. Meaning, he deeply believes in the ideas he espouses and with which he hopes to bring this country together in solving our everyday problems and improving our image in the world. At the same time, he is not an ideologue like Bush who, despite the deteriorating situation in Iraq did not change the course until hundreds of thousands Iraqis had been killed and the country thrown into a brutal civil war. Let's remember that it was dogmatism that led the Bush administration to cook the books on WMD and lead this country into the war; it was their dogmatism that led to Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons across Eastern Europe; it was their dogmatism that led to the lack of any effort to slow down global warming or move this country towards energy independence. We don't need more dogmatism from Obama. We need pragmatic idealism. In the specific case of Iraq this means doubling our efforts to withdraw all our troops from the country as quickly as we can, but at the same time, making sure we don't cause another outbreak of the civil war. When the Democrats took up the mantra of unconditional withdrawal, sometime in 2005-6, I became nervous that they would withdraw all troops without any regard to the situation on the ground.

But Obama has always been consistent. He plans to start withdrawing troops, put pressure on the Iraqi government to create a political solution, and monitor the situation, always willing to slow down the withdrawal or change policy if the situation changes. I certainly wish the Clinton administration had been this pragmatic when Bosnia was in flames. Instead, they waited until the Srebrenica massacre to intervene.

In case you think Obama has flip-flopped on this issue, look at this video during one of the primary debates in September 2007 when he refuses to be put into a time-table straightjacket. Tim Russert asks him if he would pledge to withdraw the troops, he says: "I think it's hard to project four years from now. I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency would be out there." Here is the full video:



And if this is the kind of attacks the McCain campaign will run against Obama's foreign policy plan, the same exhausted flip-flop rhetoric, then we are really in for a pleasurable Obama landslide in November.

The Myth of Colin Powell

The media has been engaged in a Collin Powell love-fest for reasons unknown to me. As many pundits drool over the possibility of either McCain or Obama picking Powell as their VP (no way in hell that Obama will pick him), pointing to his "leadership" skills and the "great job" he has done in public office, it is useful to look at the real legacy of this man.

Let's remember that it was Colin Powell who gave that awful presentation in front of the UN Security Council on Iraq's nuclear capabilities. He waved a little bottle of anthrax to scare the world into supporting Bush's imperialism. He insisted that if the US did not act then, the world would be much more dangerous because Saddam has nuclear capabilities (that same day Condi warned of a "mushroom cloud"). Now we know that same day Powell had disagreed with Rumsfeld and Cheney and pointed to the evidence, showing that the WMD case was not that straight-forward and it might have been overblown. His dissent was quieted down and he went on to make the case for war. Can someone please explain to me what is honorable about this man? This man took our nation to war, KNOWINGLY falsifying the intelligence. It was his opportunism mixed with political cowardice that cost thousands of Iraqi and American lives.

And let's also remember his infamous role in the "bulldozer assault" during the Persian Gulf War when the 1st Infantry division used bulldozers to bury Iraqi soldiers (who had surrendered) in fortifying the lines. This was a clear war crime.

So, if no one will hold him responsible for these crimes, can they please shut up about his "courage in serving our nation."