"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."