Is This Change?

by John V. Walsh / June 6th, 2008

I have tired of reading cryptic Obama endorsements, masquerading as attacks on “illogical” women feminists. Clearly Hillary’s sins are legion, but Obama is making it clearer by the day that he is eager to follow in her bloody footsteps. And the Left? It is running after Obama in the “hope” that he can be pressured “like FDR” into responding to a “real grass roots movement.” That simply does not cut the mustard for any rational being. Obama beat Hillary Clinton by taking on the mantle of the “antiwar candidate” who ceaselessly pointed out she voted for the war. Obama of course was not yet in the Senate for that vote. But once a Senator, Obama voted for each and every appropriation for the brutal Iraq war and occupation — hundreds of billions of dollars to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and lay waste that ill-starred nation. In fact his votes were not different from hers in this crucial area.

Meanwhile, the Left remains completely silent about the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy. Want to see what Nader/Gonzalez offers compared to Obama? I quote from the VoteNader.org web site:

There is one clear choice this year for peace in the Middle East.

Nader/Gonzalez…

Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the courageous Israeli and Palestinian peace movements.

Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the majority of Jewish Americans and Arab Americans which polls repeatedly show support a two-state solution as a way for peace in the Middle East.

Only Nader/Gonzalez would reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Doubt it?

Then just listen to Barack Obama’s speech from this morning to the militarist and right-wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Did Obama make one mention of the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza’s 1.5 million people and the UN-documented resulting humanitarian disaster there?

He did not.

Instead, Obama talked about “a Gaza controlled by Hamas with rockets raining down on Israel.”

Did Obama mention U.S. government supplied Israeli firepower resulting in Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza at a ratio of 400 to 1 (Palestinian to Israeli)

He did not.

Many peace loving Israelis and Jewish Americans will be disgusted by Obama’s speech today.

Like the editor at the Israeli newspaper Haaretz who wrote that the Israeli government has “lost its reason” through the brutal incarceration, devastation and deprivation of the innocent people in Gaza.

Obama told AIPAC today that “we must isolate Hamas.” (In its current form.)

Did he mention that a March 2008 Haaretz poll showed that 64 percent of the Israeli people want direct negotiations for peace between Israel and Hamas, while only 28% oppose it?

He did not.

Instead, Obama said this morning that “Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.”

Did he say that Israel must stop bombing the people of Gaza?

He did not.

Obama this morning told AIPAC that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Did Obama mention that this pledge undermines the widespread international consensus two-state solution peace plan?

He did not.

So, in a nutshell:

In this critical election year, Nader/Gonzalez stands on these issues with the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Jewish-Americans and Arab Americans.

Obama/McCain stand with the hard-line minority position of AIPAC.

The “Left” (and the Libertarians) should stop pretending that the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy is not there. The worst lies, as Obama himself shows, are those of omission.

John V. Walsh, @JohnWal97469920, until recently a Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, has written on issues of peace and health care for several independent media. Read other articles by John V..

This article was posted on Friday, June 6th, 2008 at 5:00am and is filed under "Third" Party, Democrats, Zionism.

35 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 6th, 2008 at 5:37am #

    Google to BAR, Black Agenda Report, John Walsh.

  2. bozhidar balkas said on June 6th, 2008 at 6:10am #

    i always thought that obama was selected as a hired gun/mouth for the ruling class.
    from what i see i can conclude that obama will have his war just like all or most prezs had before him.
    what matters, as far as i can make out, is the longstanding US foreign and domestic policies.
    these haven’t changed. prezs come and go. cult of personality remains. expansion continues. working class still looks on from outside hoping or thinking it’s inside.
    i have only listened to obama once or twice and not for long. that was enough for me to decide he’ll be another US deity; chosen by plutucrats.
    thank u

  3. Rich Griffin said on June 6th, 2008 at 8:16am #

    Nader/Gonzalez is an excellent choice, as is McKinney. Wish they could form a fusion ticket of the three of them!!

    Obama, on the other hand, is disgraceful in every possible way.

  4. hp said on June 6th, 2008 at 8:22am #

    “In this election year, Nader/Gonzales stands on these issues with the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Jewish-Americans and Arab Americans.”

    What’s wrong with this sentence ?

  5. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 6th, 2008 at 8:28am #

    Uh, written by a campaign flack? But, hp, don’t forget that three months ago both Nader and Gonzales were too rarified to reply to a post of Nader’s here at Dissident Voice.

    I’d say the question now is, will John Walsh stoop to reply to us posters…

  6. bozhidar balkas said on June 6th, 2008 at 10:17am #

    now that people have pointed out to me that “nader/gonzales stand on these issues w. majority of israelis, and amer jews and arabs”, i can see that it is ambiguous/misleading.
    most israelis and w’jewry want pals to disappear. or so i thought. no i didn’t think it, i knew it.
    how’s one gonna have a jewish state or a state for jews only or mailny w. mns pals inside eretz yisrael.this new state may take up parts of lebanon, syria, and jordan. i do not think nader is for that. thank u

  7. Giorgio said on June 6th, 2008 at 3:07pm #

    This is just PATHETIC!!!
    Obama is and will always remain an AIPAC/Israel arse-licker…

    “The “Left” (and the Libertarians) should stop pretending that the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy is not there.”
    Nader/Gonzalez who? What a dead loss…
    What about the Ron Paul/Paul Ron candidacy?
    It’s most certainly there! except for the BLIND that can’t see….

  8. Giorgio said on June 6th, 2008 at 3:30pm #

    “Is This Change?”
    YES, Ron Paul IS the ONLY CHANGE!
    All else will be just ROMANTIC CLAPTRAP !!!
    Capito?

  9. Hue Longer said on June 6th, 2008 at 6:31pm #

    Ron Paul should run with Milton Freidman

  10. john walsh said on June 6th, 2008 at 8:03pm #

    Ron Paul was a great candidate BUT he is now very over because he ran as a Republican not as an independent.
    jw

  11. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 7th, 2008 at 7:00am #

    Thanks for the comment, john walsh. Now we know Nader/Gonzalez are the equivalent of Ron Paul/Milton Friedman. And that you speak for the Nader/Gonzalez campaign.

  12. Eddie said on June 7th, 2008 at 1:11pm #

    I’m voting for Ralph Nader in November so anyone who needs to know that to dismiss what I’m about to say can have at it.
    I’m really not sure why John Walsh has to reply to comments. He wrote an article. Is he supposed to check every comment someone leaves? This isn’t his website.
    He does reply and he gets slammed.
    There is, as Walsh points out, a real attack going on towards feminists. The feminists I know broke with Obama over South Carolina when he put homophobes on stage to get votes (the two ‘gospel’ singers who say gays are the same as murderers, the ex-gay who tells the country gays recruit, etc.). Feminists (straight, bi and gay) are the only ones I have seen raise the issue of homophobia while Obama’s Straight White Male Crowd (Norman Solomon, Matthew Rothschild, David Corn, etc etc) refuse to acknowledge that Obama used homophobia in South Carolina, put homophobes up on stage and let them spew their homophobia at his official campaign event. That is not a minor thing and it is not going away. Feminists have been as vocal about Barack doing that as they have been about the sexism targeting all women this campaign season. That includes Norman Solomon’s ‘talk to the little ladies’ that popped up on some websites this week.
    I am for Nader so I appreciate Walsh’s article for that reason alone. But I also appreciate his calling out the attacks on feminists.
    I wonder where the rest of the left is? They appear to all be MIA in order to install a corporatist candidate who’s not planning on doing anything to help the people but everything to help Wall Street.

  13. Edwin Pell said on June 7th, 2008 at 6:06pm #

    I am writing in Ron Paul and I am happy. Obama (O-bomb-a) is on board with the Iran war (oil and gas), the Iraq occupation (oil), the Afghanistan (SoCal pipeline) occupation. The system/money rules. The pols conform to the system if they want to win. It is that simple.

  14. Beverly said on June 7th, 2008 at 9:06pm #

    Take it from one of the few black people who did not drink the kool-aid: Obama is Hillary in wingtips. He is another DLC disciple who will continue the greed-based and imperialist policies that enrich corporate America and screw over Joe/Jane Q. Public.

    Democratic power brokers are turning cartwheels over their good fortune. Obama is a stone cold corporatist who will keep Wall Street corrupt and rich, and, also a slick-assed hustler whose looks and youthful appearance can win over young voters reared on 24/7 marketing glitz and whose racial background woos blacks (too willing to fall for any black faces in high places) and liberal whites (too damn P.C. for their own good).

    Get ready to listen to the whines, excuses, and charges of racism by his bamboozled followers when Obama fails to deliver on anything of substance once in office. The bamboozled, made more so by a media instructed to keep them ignorant, just don’t get it – these Democrats are aiding and abetting Republican evildoings – it’s been going on for a long time and Obama is just another in a long line of enablers.

    I encourage you to check out blackagendareport.com for the unvarnished truth about the Great Biracial Hope. The journalists at BAR have followed Obama since his early days in politics and provide information you won’t see in the mainstream press.

  15. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 8th, 2008 at 5:03pm #

    I’m a big GlenFordandMargaretKimberly fan myself, Bev. Still, I can’t forget a line by a long-gone, Vietnam Vet friend of mine:
    “Without hope,
    there is no…
    hope.”

  16. Edwin Pell said on June 8th, 2008 at 8:09pm #

    We are like plants that always face the sun. We always face the government. We need to stop defining ourselves and our actions and our lives by reference to the government. We need to live our lives with reference to ourselves and our communities. We have no power over the killers in D.C. lefts for the most part ignore them and get on with life.

  17. Edwin Pell said on June 8th, 2008 at 8:10pm #

    We are like plants that always face the sun. We always face the government. We need to stop defining ourselves and our actions and our lives by reference to the government. We need to live our lives with reference to ourselves and our communities. We have no power over the killers in D.C. let’s for the most part ignore them and get on with life.

  18. Deadbeat said on June 8th, 2008 at 11:35pm #

    Nader is clearly taking a tougher stance against Israel this year than he did in 2004. Even then the “left” demobilized the anti-war movement because there were many anti-Zionists openly voicing not only the criticism of Israel but the fact of the grip Zionism has on U.S. foreign policy. However the quotation that hp notes still shows the tepidness about this issue by Nader. However this is a good start. Unfortunately, Nader is four years too late because he will not be a factor this year.

    I encourage you to check out blackagendareport.com for the unvarnished truth about the Great Biracial Hope. The journalists at BAR have followed Obama since his early days in politics and provide information you won’t see in the mainstream press.

    BAR lost and is losing a lot of credibility with the manner of their critique of Obama because they arrogantly directed their ire towards Obama’s supporters in the African American community and ignored Clinton’s racial antagonisms. Also BAR has contradicted themselves with their criticism of Obama yet they embraced Howard Dean in 2004 and all of the other white Democrats. BAR (formerly Black Commentator) did not endorse Ralph Nader in 2004. BAR comes off with a very high and mighty “I told you so” veneer.

    African Americans vote for the Democrats because they have no other choice. Clearly BAR recognized this in 2004 with their endorsement of Howard Dean however in 2008 it’s another story.

    The “left” hasn’t really reached out to African Americans (Nader really hasn’t). If the “left” truly wanted to cripple the Democrats they certainly would attempt to attract the most loyal group. However the Green Party self-destructed in 2004 and McKinney notwithstanding is not as popular as Nader and Nader already made his choice of running mate.

    Another reason why the “left” is reluctant to engage African American is that the Black community has been empathic to the Palestinian struggle however Blacks are staying quite about Obama’s position because they believe that in order to get elected he has to “accommodate the Zionists”.

    In other words Blacks are fully aware of the grip that Zionism has on the political economy of the United States and this is a taboo topic on the “left”. So much so that the “left” demobilized the anti-war movement.

  19. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 9th, 2008 at 4:50am #

    Hey, Edwin. You’re still being an idiot or a provocateur. Give it a rest.

    Then, if you still want to disturb the sane, try putting up your post and Being Patient. It’ll post just fine (once).

  20. Max Shields said on June 9th, 2008 at 6:35am #

    Beverly, thank you.

    I’ve asked Obama zealots to do a simple thought experiment: imagine that Obama is running on the Green ticket, and, say, Edwards as a Dem candidate. Would you vote for Obama then? So far I get, “I don’t know?” “It’s a hard choice given the calculation of the Greens getting no votes.” and frequently, a brush off with no response as if I just called their mother a name.

    Many Obama “fans” are simply calculators. Who do they want is reduced to who will the system give them to chose from.

    But there are young voters (historically, they are all sizzle and no beef come voting time) who just think it’s about time to have an African American who is so articulate to be our President that they don’t give a f?uck what he’s saying. They’re more than glad to excuse the imperialism and fill in the blanks.

    The Dem progressives will not hold Obama accountable. He could set the planet on fire (where were they with Bill Clinton?) and they’d either be silent or cheer him on in the name of humanitarianism. He will triangulate and let his “fans” use the race card. Meanwhile we’ll get a sup’ed up Patrick Duval (even the Dems of Mass. have had it with this once transcendent wonderkund!).

    The Obama thing has taken on a trajectory all its own. As resounding speeches become tiring and discrepent with actions, or as he genuflects to the oil, pharma and AIPAC string holders, there will be growing discontent on the left. But the right will be calling him all kinds of stupid things which pull some of the left energy back. The right will actually be Obama’s firewall from the left.

    Yes, the corporate elite have chosen extremely well.

  21. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 9th, 2008 at 6:45am #

    Actually, everybody, DV is putting up so many new articles — and evidently there’s a new posting editor who’s a little slow — that old tried and true methods of waiting out slow-editorial-postings may not work. And needless to say, the new heavy volumes of articles moves day-before-yesterday posts (for example) off the front page, rendering keeping track of answers to your past posts increasingly more difficult).

    In sum, DV is becoming more and more instant-history, exactly the sort of problem created by the mass media.

  22. Max Shields said on June 9th, 2008 at 9:07am #

    DB: “BAR lost and is losing a lot of credibility with the manner of their critique of Obama because they arrogantly directed their ire towards Obama’s supporters in the African American community and ignored Clinton’s racial antagonisms. Also BAR has contradicted themselves with their criticism of Obama yet they embraced Howard Dean in 2004 and all of the other white Democrats.”

    I don’t know who they [BAR] “lost their credibility” with. Frankly I think BAR has it right on Obama and I’m not interested in the context of previous candidates. But I get you’re point. Why are they so hard on Obama when they were willing to let Dean go by without so much as a critique? (Again, I didn’t follow BAR back then, but will give you this point.)

    Here’s my shot at answering your well placed point:
    Status quo white male left of center progressives leave a lot more room to make a point about just how un-progressive they are. The “baggage” is less encumbering.

    Obama, who is very much the male version of Hillary Clinton, has proven that he can take race and turn it on its head. He is the ultimate answer to an economically based racist empire (not to be confused with red-neck or Northern suburban based “racism” which is really not racism – imo). So, what commentators like Glen Ford see when they look at Obama is the duplicity of empire not only outside of Amerika, but within. It is the neoliberalization as well as gentrification of our cities.

    Obama layers the problem by offering a continued no-win to poor and people of color. He highlights what faux Dem progressive candidates have always been about – talk left, act right; but as I said he punctuates it through his black appearance – one that seems not to reflect the black experience in Amerika.

    I think BAR sees this at a very visceral level. Obama offers a very different paradigm from white Dems. He is a poke in the eye candidate.

  23. Martha said on June 9th, 2008 at 9:07am #

    Beverly, thank you for what you wrote. Agree completely. Eddie, your points are always solid. Great article by Walsh. Deadbeat, Black Agenda Report is not “formerly” The Black Commentator. Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberly left The Black Commentator and started Black Agenda Report. As for your assertion that BAR is losing readers/credibility, not in my community. If anything, by standing firm throughout, they now have people saying, “They are right.” Barack’s “Black” support is not what it was in my area. Either you’re appalled that he sat through Wright for all those years or you’re appalled that he turned his back on Wright (and quit the church). Speaking only for the area I live in.

  24. Deadbeat said on June 9th, 2008 at 4:40pm #

    Deadbeat, Black Agenda Report is not “formerly” The Black Commentator. Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberly left The Black Commentator and started Black Agenda Report. As for your assertion that BAR is losing readers/credibility, not in my community. If anything, by standing firm throughout, they now have people saying, “They are right.” Barack’s “Black” support is not what it was in my area. Either you’re appalled that he sat through Wright for all those years or you’re appalled that he turned his back on Wright (and quit the church). Speaking only for the area I live in.

    That is true that BAR is not BC but when Ford and Dixon wrote for BC they had nothing but praise for the 2004 DEMOCRATIC candidate Howard Dean. They also supported Kucinich this year (however not in 2004) and neither did Ford or Dixon offered their support to Ralph Nader in 2004 who was the only viable anti-war candidate running then. Clearly both Ford & Dixon reveal a level of hypocrisy in their critique of Obama and especially the Black community as a whole with their inconsistencies.

    Also, YOU ASSUME incorrectly my remarks. I am “appalled” that Obama didn’t stand firm WITH Wright during the media smears.

    However that issue was not the subject of my post. That is something you interjected to make a point. My point is has to do more with how Ford and Dixon has chosen to direct their critique upon the Black community AS A WHOLE without any analysis regarding the effect Clinton had on assisting with that shift to Obama.

    As an example both Ford & Dixon rarely mention that Clinton early on had greater support from the AfAm community than Obama. That support shifted during the South Carolina primary. Now why would Black be supportive of Hillary Clinton? Why should they be supportive of Howard Dean for that matter. In facts Dean’s position in 2004 were less progressive than than Obama’s in 2008.

    I have also pointed out critiques of Obama POSITIONS that deserves being called out — especially his having to kiss AIPAC’s behind.

    However Obama is NO different than ALL mainstreams politician in this regard. What I have found ironic is that those on the “left” who missed the opportunity to engage on the question of Zionism in 2003-2004 now HAS TO ENGAGE the issue as a CRITIQUE of Omaba. Now that is an irony of history.

    Therefore seeing that Obama’s Achilles’ heel is his fealty to Israel, this may be the spark that agitates the “left” to really confront Zionism.

  25. hp said on June 9th, 2008 at 5:06pm #

    Deadbeat, should I stop holding my breath now?
    If “the left” doesn’t have the brains, the desire or the intention to ever know the truth in regards to Zionism, then what hope is there of the left ever confronting Zionism?
    If you ask me, the left’s motto should be, ‘Zionists lite are us.”

  26. Max Shields said on June 9th, 2008 at 6:08pm #

    “Also, YOU ASSUME incorrectly my remarks. I am “appalled” that Obama didn’t stand firm WITH Wright during the media smears.”

    Why? Obama is a thoroughly vetted DLC and you’re “appalled”? Your use of the word “appalled” assumes the person you’re referring to has somehow rejected a deeply held belief. Such is not the case. “Appalled” would be the proper reaction had the object of you “appal” stood four square on principles when he/she had nothing to gain. Again, such is not the case.

    Maybe AIPAC made him thr0w “his” pastor under the bus.

    Of course BAR isn’t after Hillary. She’s an honest imperialist war hawk who isn’t trying to pretend to be something else. Who needs to call her on what she clearly is and makes no bones about it. No, H. Clinton isn’t even pretending to be the “anti-war” candidate. The purpose of alternative press is to go after the dishonest ones.

    Thank goodness there is a Black Agenda Report.

  27. Shabnam said on June 9th, 2008 at 9:57pm #

    Mr. Walsh you have a good reason to be angry.
    Obama has exposed himself as nothing but a slave who says anything AIPAC wants him to say to win the election. He has done everything so far to get the nomination. We gave him a chance to beat the AIPAC girl, Hillary Clinton, who is willing to obliterate Iran totally to remove the “Iranian threat” with no nuclear bomb for an apartheid state with hundreds of nuclear bombs to beat her opponent but she was defeated although she used everything including race card. She does not understand that people are fed up with Clinton family and do not want Clinton third term where Bill Clinton’s middle east policy laid the ground for Iraq destruction through dual containment policy in 1990s and soft partition of the country by “no fly zone.” People are fed up with American double standard foreign policy which is discriminating against Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan and other states in favor of Israel. Gore and Joseph Lieberman as his running mate were defeated because voters did not want to have a Clinton third term, therefore, Muslim votes for George Bush defeat Gore and his running mate. Both Gore and Lieberman were identified as strong pro Israel who will bring nothing but destruction to Muslim countries. It was during Clinton administration where the term occupied land was changed into “disputed land” where the highest numbers of settlements were built.
    Obama had many supporters among people of the Middle Eastern background because he said “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” The comments drew fire in the United States, particularly from supporters of AIPAC, but were not forgotten among Palestinians. Obama later clarified in a presidential debate that his remark was actually an indictment of the Palestinian leadership that he believes has caused much of the Palestinians’ suffering. Obama lost many supporters after his speech at the AIPAC conference.
    When he said: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
    Barak Obama is naïve to think that he can offer Palestinian’s land to European settlers. Jerusalem IS NOT OBAMA’S PROPERTY. He should not be that naïve to think he can offer other people’s property to please Israel. He may give his own house or other things in his possession but he has NO RIGHT to offer other people’s land to European settlers so he can please AIPAC to receive their approval. This is act of treason against Palestinian people who have been living continually in their land, at least, for the past 21 centuries and has never abandoned their property. It was the European settlers with the help of the colonial British who forced Palestinian out of their land. Whom do you think you are Barak Obama who reserves the right to steal Palestinian’s property and give it to new kids on the block.
    He also continually refers to Israel as ‘JEWISH STATE’ like Olmert. Israel is not a Jewish state. Israel still contains more than 20% of its original owners of the land, the Palestinian people. Obama is so ignorant on the issue of Jerusalem who does not know many Israeli also are fed up with the Middle East double standard policy and his statement “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided” angered them as well. This is AIPAC policy. This kind of talk strengthens the perception of “occupied America” throughout the Middle East region, Central Asia, Africa and beyond. According to this perception America is occupied by the Zionists and those who are running for the presidency are nothing but a puppet. Even Abbas, a puppet, himself was highly critical of Obama comments and reiterated that Palestinians would not accept a Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital. “This is totally rejected and Jerusalem is one of the six items on our agenda,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. “The entire world knows very well that East Jerusalem (Arab Jerusalem) was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”
    Obama must stop kissing AIPAC behind and start studying the Palestinian history in order to avoid statement that makes him to look like a fool.
    I hope Obama’s CHANGE does not mean having a black president in the WH. His policy regarding the Middle East brings NO CHANGE from the present policy. In fact this kind of ‘offer’ is yet to be made by Bush. American people are searching for a LEADER not a slave of AIPAC. American People are not interested in skin color; they say DAMN WITH ALL COLORS. They are interested in someone who shows clear sign of LEADERSHIP. Mr. Obama you like your opponent are not A LEAR. Your policy does not protect the interest of American people rather is protecting the interest of AIPAC and corporations. You have not only alienated many that took your statement about Palestinian seriously but also you have alienated many voters as ‘independent’ and conservative. The American Thinker has written:
    “Amazingly, it has taken less than 24 hours before Barak Obama started backtracking on one key part of his speech to AIPAC Wednesday — the part that brought the crowd to its feet cheering – that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel.”
    “Now the Obama campaign is saying, never mind, we did not really mean that: Jerusalem is a final status issue subject to negotiation between the parties. This severely damages Obama’s credibility.”
    Is this not similar to a statement you made about Palestinian and later you avoid it through ‘interpretation’?
    Mr. Barak Osama let me add my voice and tell you that you have severely damaged your credibility unless you change the course to present a clear and unbiased foreign policy according to the interest of American people who are fed up with 8 years of war and establishment of Prisons, secret or open, all over the world and destabilization policy through illegal economic sanction, use of constructed ‘minorities’ in terrorist activities in the targeted countries including Iran and double standard policy when it comes to Israel. Regarding Iran, you must immediately stop repeating AIPAC’s words on Iran such as vowing to work to “eliminate” the threat it posed to security in the Middle East and around the globe. Or, there’s no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran,” or “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power”. You must first ask Israel to open its nuclear weapon program for inspection and sign the NPT then bring your thousand of nuclear weapons in your arsenal close to zero, according to UN demand, then talk about Iran nuclear energy program.
    Mr. Obama you will not have the support of millions of Muslims in the United States because you have a biased foreign policy regarding the Islamic countries to serve AIPAC’s agenda in favor of Israel not American people.
    Those who are interested in justice for the people of the Middle East and beyond should not vote for the slave of the Zionists. Obama’s fate will not be better than Gore and Lieberman in November unless he presents a more balanced and unbiased foreign policy. People of the Middle East are FED UP with the Zionists in the driving seat.
    After hearing the nominees and Ms. Clinton at the AIPAC, people have summarized their similarities as follows:
    1- You don’t have to be Jewish to love Israel, and I feel at home among you
    2- I know Israel. I have been there.
    3- I get the history, and the Holocaust
    4- I get the terrorist, especially Hamas.
    5- I get the threat from Iran
    6- On that last one, my opponent doesn’t get it. Let me tell you why

  28. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 10th, 2008 at 6:44am #

    thank you, Martha, for summarizing my feelings about BAR. regrettably my community is not so enlightened as yours. And shabnam. thank you for taking the time to launch another epistle to the the galatians. i would suggest that all of us print out this article with its posts, and review them from time to time. In my opinion, it’s DV-on-09.10.008, at its very best to date.

  29. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 10th, 2008 at 6:45am #

    thank you, Martha, for summarizing my feelings about BAR. regrettably my community is not so enlightened as yours. And shabnam. thank you for taking the time to launch another epistle to the the galatians. i would suggest that all of us print out this article with its posts, and review them from time to time. In my opinion, it’s DV-on-06.10.008, at its very best to date.

  30. Martha said on June 10th, 2008 at 7:47am #

    Thank you, Lloyd. Sorry it’s not the same in your area. Or at least not yet. You and Max have added much to think about, thank you.

    Deadbeat, you’re responding to something I wrote that did not refer to you: “Barack’s ‘Black’ support is not what it was in my area. Either you’re appalled that he sat through Wright for all those years or you’re appalled that he turned his back on Wright (and quit the church). Speaking only for the area I live in. ”

    “My area,” then I explain the split in my area, and then closing with “Speaking only for the area I live in.” You’re responding to something as an attack on you and that had nothing to do with you. My point was sharing what I saw in my area and you don’t live in my area. It didn’t apply to you.

    I ignored your comments re: Howard Dean because they were less important to me but since you’ve brought it up again. My opinion (all that follows), The Black Commentator cheerleads way too much. Always has. Black Agenda Report is composed of the hardest hitting writers who left TBC. TBC fawns over Democrats far too often.

    Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon have publicly — in many articles now — noted they regret giving Barack a pass when he was running for the US Senate. They’ve written at length how he was DLC. Written that at BAR. At TBC, they gave the pass. I see it as the difference between TBC (where they were not in control) and BAR.

    So my opinion based on what I have seen at TBC and BAR for many years now, TBC is more of a cheerleader. I don’t think they would take the same approach (Ford and Dixon) to stories they wrote for TBC as the do at BAR. (I think Margaret Kimberley just lets it all out, regardless and that’s why I love her writing.)

  31. lourdes said on June 10th, 2008 at 9:33am #

    Why is it that nobody talks about the threat that Obama poses to our country?

    Obama is an evil genius. His flip-flopping (always flipping to the right) shows that he is in this for himself. He wants power, and the only ones that can deliver political power are the conservatives, the MSM, and the big money corporations.

    How can any self respecting “leftist” believe that Obama is interested in “advancing” any “liberal” agenda?

    Obama is the king of manipulations, a real hypnotist.

    If, and this is a big “if”, Obama becomes POTUS, he will fill his cabinets with all his Wall Street friends. We saw his flip-flopping on Israel.

    When black separatists, the Nation Of Islam, and the crusty old radical left wake up to the dream that is Obama, guess what?

    Black separatists will rise in anger. They have said it already:

    “Obama is benefiting from a landslide of black
    support, built on social credit being extended on campaign promises. The Black Community is like the loving,
    committed spouse, willing to ignore immediate needs so heir partner can conquer the world. But at the end of the
    day, something must be delivered.”
    ttp://brothers. yourblackworld.com/2008/02/tavis-smileys-
    haterology-on-barack.html.

    But nothing is going to be delivered, not to black separatist.

    How can they expect that the MSM and Wall Street – which has refuse to hire black stockbrokers to this date –
    will share power with the NOI or the radical left which, supposedly, wants to put limits on big corporation’s profits and redistribute wealth?

    Obama as POTUS means: civil unrest, polarization based on race, gender and class. There’s no way African Americans will sit passively and take the betrayal that Obama is cooking for them. Obama has never identified his candidacy as “AA”. He’s here for himself and white millionaires, the only ones that can take him to the WH. Can the left take him there? Can the radical left outside the “democratic party” demand Obama to pay his IOU ?

    What is happening here? This is mass delusion going on here, right and left, literally.

  32. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 10th, 2008 at 8:30pm #

    Jeezus, lourdes. Read Martha’s posts to this article for god’s sake. Google to Black Agenda Report (BAR) and read Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberly and Bruce Dixon, my outraged friend. Then if you think you can stand the heat, put up a post at BAR. But FYI, no milky shit’s allowed. Much less crap like “there’s no way African Americans will sit passively and take the betrayal that Obama is cooking for them.” You’ll find that “them” at BAR aren’t taking much of anything.

  33. Lynn said on June 11th, 2008 at 12:50pm #

    To equate Obama as being just another Clinton… please! The media annointed Obama, not Clinton. They didn’t, don’t, and won’t, ever push her on a gullible public. Obama is the chameleon the media provided cover for, not Clinton. Don’t you ever wonder why the press maligned the Clinton’s non-stop?

    Personally, I see Obama as neither Right, Left, or Middle. I see him as the chameleon King, a law unto Himself. If elected, he’s going to do what he wants to do, and because of the precedents set by Bush, those Executive Privileges will be even more dangerous in his hands. Keywords for Obama’s further distortion of Executive Privilege: Nuclear, Finance, World, Ambiguity

    Personally, I saw Clinton as a moderate. Still part of the bureaucracy for sure, but less willing to go to extremes. The motives of a Clinton were/are obvious, and less threatening to the world.

    As for alternate candidates like Nader, if he manages to increase his chances to win between now and election day, I could vote for him. You may say that without support from people like me, non-affiliated with any party, that Nader doesn’t have any chance at all… I say it’s the media… he needs them to cover his campaign to win support at a national level.

    I don’t know how I’ll vote in November, but it won’t be Mr. O.

  34. Giorgio said on June 11th, 2008 at 1:41pm #

    The fact that Obama beat Hillary to the democratic party’s nomination just proves to me one glaring fact: most Americans are by nature more misogynist than racist. Given the choice between two perceived evils they would rather have a black male president than a white female president.

  35. Lloyd Rowsey said on June 12th, 2008 at 8:08pm #

    “by nature” Giorgio?

    “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear. It has to be drummed in your dear, little ear. You’ve got to be c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y taught.” From a 1950’s musical called South Pacific, if my memory serves.