Great Speech, Big Questions, and a Curve Ball from McCain

Sen. Barack Obama scored big in the Invesco Stadium last night with an acceptance speech that managed to do everything that the political operatives, pundits and critics had argued he'd have to do: It was at once impassioned, full of actual policy plans, and aggressive in its attack on John McCain, his Republican opponent for the presidency.            

But the speech also raises some important questions.  Biggest among these was Obama's continued insistence that he will expand the military and, instead of bringing the troops home from Iraq, will shift at least some of them to Afghanistan where he's calling for an escalation of a war that seems doomed to failure. The expansion of the military that he is proposing, furthermore, would be unrelated to the Afghanistan conflict, and is of a more long-term nature, suggesting that Obama is envisioning even more future conflicts.            

That in itself is disheartening and represents a failure of vision, but it also begs the question of how he can hope to achieve any of his major domestic goals, if he is intent upon increasing the already $600-billion Pentagon budget further. The reality is that he cannot. Until Obama and Democrats acknowledge that the US cannot continue to be the new Rome, with 800 bases scattered around the globe, and with a foreign policy that is based on gunboat diplomacy, any high-minded talk about national health care, universal college education or even pre-K education, or a crash program to combat climate change is simply hot air and wishful thinking.            

Perhaps most Democrats and progressives will be willing to ignore this internal contradiction and failure of vision on the part of the Democratic candidate, and will enthusiastically support his campaign. Perhaps many independents too will not dig too hard into the numbers and will go for the softer part of his message that the country has been misled and divided for eight years and that we need to come together, and that America is "better than" the America of George Bush and John McCain.            

But now McCain has tossed a monkey wrench into the Obama campaign strategy, with his selection of Sarah Palin, the new governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Palin, unlike McCain, is a genuine maverick  -- a woman who defied her party, running in the Republican primary against a seated Republican governor, Frank Murkowski, and defeating him, and then going on to win the governorship handily, a woman who personally turned in her own party chairman and her own party's attorney general on ethics violations, forcing both to resign, and who has gone on to make a reputation as a corruption fighter, mostly against members of her own party's entrenched political establishment. Palin will be appealing to many women and men who backed Hillary Clinton and who remain bitter about her defeat. Married to a native Eskimo, and with four mixed-race children, she can expect to appeal to many non-white American voters, on whose support the Obama campaign is counting.            

Her candidacy, a bold stroke by McCain, will also pose tactical problems for Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden. If she plays the traditional vice presidential candidate role of attack dog, Obama as a man, and especially Biden, as a gray-haired older white guy, will have to be careful about how they counter-attack. There is a strong sense across the country that it is unseemly for men to attack women, at least in the same manner that they might attack another man. Some women who otherwise might back Obama, could rise to Palin's defense if attacks on her are perceived as sexist or bullying.            

The Obama/Biden campaign has avenues of attack available to it. Palin is an ardent anti-abortionist and a fundamentalist Christian who opposes gay marriage. She is also weak on the environment, backing more drilling in the Arctic Refuge in a state where the evidence of the terrifying impact of climate change and the continued reliance upon oil is already everywhere, in the form of drowning polar bears, drunken forests, receding glaciers and sinking villages being swallowed up by melting tundra.            

Still, Palin has demonstrated that she's a gold-star campaigner, handily winning over a majority of the voters of a very libertarian-minded and macho state despite her anti-abortion stance.          

The one big plus for Democrats in the Palin nomination is that it completely undermines McCain's biggest campaign theme to date: that Obama is too young and inexperienced to serve as president. Given that McCain is turning 72 today, and that he is entering an age bracket, even before assuming office, that actuarially puts him at risk of death, particularly given his poor health record to start with (two bouts of melanoma included), it has been repeatedly argued that voters will pay close attention to whether his vice presidential pick would be ready to take over in the event of his dying or having to leave office mid-term.  

If McCain is saying that Palin, whose resume is even thinner than Obama's, and who is even younger than Obama, meets that standard, he cannot with a straight face, argue that his rival does not.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest
book is ³The Case for Impeachment² (St. Martin¹s Press, 2006). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
<http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/>

Technorati Tags:

Palin

Barack Obama has an undergraduate degree from Columbia in political science specializing in international relations. He has a law degree from Harvard and was president Of the Law Review. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicage Law School. He served 10 years in the Illinois Senate and served on the committee in which Joe Biden is chairman. This is plenty of varied experience. Why is it minimized? And why is it compared to Sarah Palin?

You write about the government you go to Election with...

VT, it's simply naive to say that elections don't matter. It's paranoid in the extreme to say elections are "scripted" by corporate masters. I would agree that we are ruled by two corporate parties, but there are different in their actions. Clearly Gore would not have invaded Iraq, and we would be starting to see some actions to curb carbon emissions had the 2000 election not been stolen. Just as clearly, a McCain presidency would mean a war against Iran, while an Obama presidency likely would not (he talks tough, but would be unlikely to upend his domestic agenda by attacking and driving oil through the roof). I'd love to have a progressive Third Party to vote into office, but there ain't one, and there won't be one. I can write critically about Obama, and do, but I also have to write about what's going on between the two parties and candidates. You'd prefer that the coverage of the election be left to the corporate media because writing anything about the existing two candidates is playing the corporate media's game. Ridiculous. That's not progressive. That's just willful ignorance. You don't understand journalism. Dave Lindorff www.thiscantbehappening.net

Chicken or the egg

Obama is all for going into Pakistan and bigger war in Afghanistan. Saying "I'd love to have a progressive Third Party to vote into office, but there ain't one, and there won't be one" is defeatist. It like saying "I'd love to have peace in the world, but there isn't any, and there won't be any." What I'd prefer to see is progressive reporters reporting on progressive independent and 3rd party candidates as aggressively as they report on Corporate Party candidates. I may not understand journalism, but I understand journalists are supposed to cover all the candidates. If they did, then perhaps, we might have that 3rd party you are so wedded to never seeing. And no, I don't "prefer that the coverage of the election be left to the corporate media". I don't watch the friggin' corporate media, but I do expect journalists who call themselves progressive to let people know what a progressive like Nader is doing. So why don't you write about what's going on not just "between the two parties"? Or is not doing so contributing to the self fulfilling prophecy that there can never be a 3rd party?

It's not one or the other

Believe it or not, progressive journalists can write about both Third Party campaigns and--equally important or maybe more important, but ignored by you, popular movements outside the electoral arena--and about the electoral contest between the candidates that actually stand a chance of being elected. What you really seem to have a problem with is my having deigned to write about that latter contest. You are really saying that you want me and other progressive journalists to leave off writing anything about the contest that in the end will determine whether we are let by a proto-fascist in the vein of our current leaders, or by someone who at least will undo some of the worst fascist tendencies, probably paving the way for undoing the weakening of habeas corpus, closing Guantanamo and other clandestine overseas prisons, and maybe even ending officially sanctioned torture. I prefer to remain free to write about all these things, as well as about third party campaigns and about popular movements for peace, environmental action, labor rights, etc., rather than be pressured into service doing PR for the third parties, noble as some of their actions may be.

Why?

David. I don't understand being the progressive that you are, your buying into the corporate induced charade and horse race that the presidential election is. I suppose when one does this for a living then one needs to continue. Buzz Flash urges its readers: "Up the corporate media" and then your article comes along being like the same corporate media. You know as well as anyone else that this election, like many before it, are tightly scripted, regulated and approved by the corporate military industrial complex ruling elite. How about covering something other than corporate candidates? You're helping to keep the farce going.

Pro Bush but against

Pro Bush but against corruption?? What about the greatest corruption there is - starting pre-emptive wars based on lies??

?????-?????

العاب-العاب الجاسوسات-العاب مسابقات-العاب بنات-العاب فلاش-طبخ-العاب اطفال-خطوط جديدة العاب تلبيس-العاب للبنات فقط-اكسسوارات-العاب طبخ-العاب سيارات-صور صدام حسين العاب بنات فقط-العاب بنات تلبيس-العاب للاطفال-العاب بنات جديدة-العاب مكياج-للبنات فقط باربي-صدام حسين-العاب باربي-العاب البنات-صور حب-خطوط صور سيارات-صور اطفال-صور مضحكة-العاب الاطفال-صور بنات-صور مضحكه العاب تلبيس بنات-صدام-الغاز-مسابقات-تواقيع-صور-معاني الاسماء-صور ازهار-خطوط انجليزية صور زهور-تواقيع للمنتديات-صور قلوب-صور جبال-صور حزينه-تحميل خطوط صور تواقيع-العاب ذكاء-صور توم وجيري-العاب ديكور-العاب قص الشعر-العاب الطبخ-الخطوط-قص الشعر-العاب الطبخ الجديدة-توم وجيري-بنات-ازياء-مكياج-العاب طبخ جديدة-العاب الغاز-خطوط عربية-العاب قص شعر-صور صدام-لعب العاب لعب-العاب بنات فقط-العاب-العاب اطفال-العاب اكشن-العاب تركيز-العاب الصور-قص شعر العاب الغاز-العاب الورق-العاب بنات-العاب تعليميه-العاب ذكاء العاب رماية-العاب رياضية-العاب سباق-العاب سهله-العاب طريفه العاب فضاء-العاب قتال-العاب كبار-العاب سباق سيارات العاب متميزة-العاب مثيرة-العاب كرتون-العاب سيارات-العاب مسلية العاب مضحكة-العاب صرقعة-العاب متنوعة-العاب صوتية-العاب فلاش-العاب للبنات فقط-لعبة توم وجيري-العاب اكشن

PALIN.... creationism.... gimme that old fool religon

Palin's clean-hands reputation has come into question with an investigation recently launched by a legislative panel into whether she dismissed Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law as a state trooper. Trooper Mike Wooten went through a messy divorce from Palin's sister. The governor denied orchestrating the dozens of telephone calls made by her husband and members of her administration to Wooten's bosses. She says she welcomes the investigation: "Hold me accountable."