Nice of you to respond to the numerous other points I made and focus on one (which you answer with a statement about Debbie Schlussel!) ~String
Her specifics don't add up, and when the crunch comes she will go with her natural constituency - Beltway ensconsed rightwing corporate interests. She has had plenty of opportunity to actually confront these interests, and never done so effectively. And on the important gut checks with W&Co she normally caves - the Iraq war vote only the most obvious. It's not that she's a bad person, or ill prepared, it's just that political compromise is so ingrained in her that she as become compromised herself - her record in the Senate is spineless. She will put the insurance and drug companies in charge of her national health care plan for the same reason Bill put agribusiness and multinationals in charge of NAFTA, and the Chinese will outmanuever her in Eurasia and Africa and SA as they have every American president who had to cover ass to feel comfortable.
For one thing, [Obama]'s the only viable candidate not in AIPAC's pocket. Exhumed: "How does Obama differ from Clinton on Israel?" Exhumed quoted the Obama Campaign website: Without the obligatory lip-service to the Israeli sacred-cow, Obama would never have gotten this far. That's just how it works in the USA. Even so, there is a significant difference in how cozy Obama is with AIPAC for instance, compared with Hillary, or McCain. The difference merits consideration by those supporting Israel's special status in Washington, and by those opposed. I don't think there is any other issue more pivotal for the geopolitical future. It's more instructive than platform boilerplate to sample some pro-zionist opinions about Obama. These range from Manchurian-Candidate alarmism to indifference. Ed Lasky gives what could be a representative middle-of-the-road pro-zionist perspective on such concerns in the American Thinker (see Barack Obama and Israel). There's no other serious candidate left standing who can give zionists reasons for concern like Obama- and it goes deeper than the specious reasons that the sensationalist smears promote. Obama has not only consorted with people who question Israel's Washington influence- he has also (if very tactfully) stepped over the pro-Israel party line. We are approaching a sufficiently turbulent time in our history when the open examination and questioning of Israeli influence in Washington may become a possibility in US politics. Since we don't enjoy that kind of freedom now, these questions must be kept just under the surface of "polite" national debate. Obama is playing by the present rules as he must, pledging ritualistic allegience to the Chosen Ones. Even as he makes the necessary compromises, to me it's discernable with a closer look that Obama lacks the sold-out-for-Zion gleam. Does this reveal a lack of forwardness, even a certain degree of dishonesty in Obama? Of course, it does. But it's the sort of dishonesty some might forgive under certain circumstances- such as when freedom of expression is under heavy siege. The best that we can hope for in the present environment is limited, humbled, yet palpable resistance to the most blatant foreign manipulation of US government. Straight talk about the unrivaled Israeli lobby is still a fatal taboo in US politics, and nobody gets to the top dissing Israel. It's hard even for the little people to make blog posts critical of Israeli control over US politics, without being swiftboated. So having broached that taboo, I'll now invoke the usual necessary caveats: Anti-zionism is not anti-Judeosemitism; the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was a fabrication, the Holocaust wasn't, etc, etc, and etc.
Obama will be under intense Clintonista and zionist pressure as the 2-way race drags on and on. The GOP is throwing the game, hoping to sit out the building recession and strategic quagmire while Democrats (Clintons, they hope) absorb the blame. Assuming the real Obama sincerely does hold a more balanced view of the Mideast than US Presidents past and present, pro-Israeli and neoconservative political operatives are going to try to corner Obama publicly, and smoke him out. They have 9 long months to expose any antizionist heresy he may be concealing. If Obama ever wavers in obligatory fealty to Israel, AIPAC will crush him, clinching the victory of the most neoconservative-minded candidate available in this lop-sided race: HR Clinton. But that's not the only way the game can be fixed. The greater wild-card in this election, capable of trumping all other factors and propelling Republicans (however divided they may seem) back into power will be the super-über-delegates. They wield the greatest power ever seen in US politics; shock-troops who can deliver a sudden GOP victory, even though the GOP doesn't want it. The Joker that renders the entire electoral poker-game moot is out on the street. We can't ignore in any serious discussion of this election the real super-delegates- terrorists. Should anyone out there decide to raise a little McCain, and raise him right up into the Whitehouse, it will not be difficult to stampede the USA into the arms of our most "military" candidate for "protection" and revenge. If I were an impatient and unscrupulous zionist (an I'm not insinuating that most of them are that short-sighted and ruthless) I would hire some mischief, and summon forth the American Golem this year. If I were a nutty Christian or Shi'a fundamentalist, the same act would seem the most compelling call for the Messiah, and the overturning of all present power structures. Cooler heads (and I include the Kadima, the Democrats, the Likud, and the GOP faithful all within that broad, relatively rational category) know that in the long term, stampeding America back to the right, and further into militarism will not be good for Israel, because things are already primed to rapidly get very much out of hand for all concerned. Everybody fears Uncle Sam's last rampage, if the old man is driven crazy -Everybody except the most crazed radicals, some of whom know that we're all balanced on a razor's edge. How many radicals does it take to change our destiny?
Exhumed: "I hope you're right." Well, when I consider the worst-case, I often hope I'm wrong. For all the political pageantry, and all our partisan chattering, it would not require anything exotic to suddenly turn our entire political world completely upside down. Just low-tech mayhem (use your own imagination) attributable to terrorists within the "Homeland" would suffice to send us off the deep end, completely disoriented by our shallow collective mindset. We could be entirely unbalanced during this election by a sudden shock-and-awe slam into an even more reckless militarism, that most were not anticipating. Through such a swerve, we may come to rue the dismantling of crucial constitutional guard-rails since 9-11. So long as the majority remains in denial in the USA about the pitfalls of blind, reactionary militarism in response to terrorist provocation, we're all rigged for demolition, and offering out the trigger to any fanatics that happen by in the coming months. There are a thousand easy ways for radicals to send the USA into a self-destructive fascist-freakout. For as long as most USAmericans keep ignoring this real and present danger to our democracy, our electoral "reality" show is just a perfidious distraction.
Hype, Israel is a natural and historical ally to the US. That has nothing to do with "zionist" advocacy groups. The Democrats have as balanced a view on the issue as is possible.
I just found out Hillary has her own perfume. Warning: possibly offensive: http://boortz.com/more/video/hillary_clinton_perfume.html
What is it about the minds of right wingers that makes them so utterly unfunny? The only thing offensive about that ad parody was its stupidity. This is at least mildly amusing. Which proves it was probably made by an Obama supporter. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
spidergoat: "Israel is a natural and historical ally to the US. That has nothing to do with "zionist" advocacy groups." Zionist advocacy groups built and maintain the alliance. "It" didn't "happen" by "accident". And zionist is a legitimate descriptor (requiring no " ") of the Jewish separatists, and US government policies that built Fortress Israel. "The Democrats have as balanced a view on the issue as is possible." No, the Democratic Party has a zionist view, and officially maintains zionist policy regarding the Levant. That's no more fair-and-balanced than it would have been to fund and arm the Serbs so that they could dominate Yugoslavia, imprisoning any unruly Croatian neighbors within ghettos.
It's a secular Democracy, and we have good relations with them. They have been our friends for years. To abandon that would be a huge mistake. The US tends to favor a two-state solution, not an ever expanding Zionist viewpoint, which only exists today among a few fundamentalist Jewish settlers.
"It's a secular Democracy" No, democracy within an ethnically-mixed country does not elevate one ethnicity. Zionism is anti-democratic, demanding a Jewish national identity controlling a Jewish "Homeland". This isn't the place for a full explanation- but it clearly isn't democracy, when only token and compliant citizens of other ethnicities are tolerated, while ethnic rivals are forcibly removed, isolated, and oppressed. "They have been our friends for years." Israel has caused the USA considerable harm and expense. This isn't the thread for it, but the human, fiscal, and strategic cost has been uniquely high, compared with any other alliances. "The US tends to favor a two-state solution, not an ever expanding Zionist viewpoint..." The US has supported Israeli expansionism for more than a half century. This isn't the thread for it, but US support has been instrumental in every expansion of zionist territory. "...which only exists today among a few fundamentalist Jewish settlers." Not true. There are many Israelis (including secularists) who promote the Greater Israel ambition. This isn't a fitting thread to point out the personalities and parties involved, but neither is it reasonable to let blatant disinformation go unchallenged.
Israel would be far more dangerous if we gave up our unique relationship with them. They would feel cornered and strike out visciously in self-defense. As it is now, they know they don't have to.
It is sociopathic bigotry to insist that Jewish life in the Mideast -or anywhere- can only survive on violence, and on violent threats. Such an attitude can only bring conflict, for any ethnicity that might take it up. There has always been another way: Coexistence. It's going to take a long time for controlled de-escalation to the multi-ethnic norm of modern democratic life- but that's what must ultimately happen; that's what the USA should be promoting, if we truly believe in our defining ideals.
