Return to: Home | World Affairs | North America

38 comments from readers

fairplay
06 November 2008 at 16:32

well, hope is all they've got. appointing emanuel as his chief of staff sums up exactly where obama is heading

more of the same

sending US troops off to do israels dirty work in the middle east

for those who dont know rahm emanuel was considered by many to be mega, the top level israeli spy inside the white house during the clinton era that good old bill wanted leaving alone

the mind boggles. how can a man who nobody had heard of 3 years ago have his finger on the button. we dont even know who he is

Cax6ton
06 November 2008 at 18:15

Hey, Fairplay: It's over. McCain lost. Move on.

fairplay
06 November 2008 at 18:59

mccain wouldnt have got my vote either mate. the fact that he was supposedly the best opponent they could come up with shows how bent this whole charade was from start to finish.

its 4 more years of the same. we will have a major event soon to "TEST" him. what a load of baloney. but if powell, biden and albright say its on the cards you can only imagine after 9/11 what their next trick is.

by the way Cax6ton, ron paul was my man

Cax6ton
06 November 2008 at 19:58

Ron who?

"We don't even know who he is." (Fairplay: 16:32, 06 Nov)

It's over. The fear-mongering is over. Move on.

fairplay
07 November 2008 at 04:52

you surprise me caxton. you dont even know ron paul. shows how well read you are on US politics. ron paul is the guy who won every republican debate hands down with the smallest amount of airtime. the guy who was ignored completely by the zionist controlled media becuase he wanted to do away with funding israel and the corrupt wars in the middle east and that scared them to death.

and last but not least, the guy who stood up against the fed and the lending practises of the banks many moons ago and predicted this current depression (not recession) before anyone else.

obama has strings coming from every joint in his body up to the puppetmasters at the top. do you honestly think a man who was unheard of 3 years ago can rule the worlds so called superpower unless he suits the agenda of the elite?

cack-stone, i suggest you get up earlier and smell the coffee or read the back pages of the sun before the front. oh, and use some softener on that "rupert murdoch is god" t-shirt you own

more of the same. obama is bill clinton, george bush, tont blair etc albeit in a different wrapper

Krisco
07 November 2008 at 09:07

My congratulations to the USA and all Americans for the courage of their convictions. I am breathing better today for knowing that all the wiles and trickery of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Pfoetenhauer, Blackmann and, above all, Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News hosted by his crony scums, especially Johnl Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh collectively failed miserably (in spite of their vicious bile) and had their collective noses rubbed in it. Their "Project for the New American Century" lies in tatters.

Everyone would agree that the best man/party won. Certainly, McCain admitted as much in his most generous, gracious and magnanimous concession speech. The 'cutesy', winking Palin and her allegation that Obama "palls around with terrorists" mercifully cut no ice. One of the best pieces to come out of this was a blog by an ordinary Republican contesting the legacy of war/greed/incompetence/corruption of Dubya. He wrote (before the elections results were known): "Those castigating Bush for his poor legacy would do well to remember that without his valiant efforts we would not have had a black president in the White House!" Democrats would agree.

Krisco.

Carl Jones
07 November 2008 at 09:40

Obama is appointing the same establishment elite as before.....the usual dual Israeli passport holders.....there is hope though, in about 7 years time, the US public will demand change and we`ll go through the same pointless process.lol

Dr. Frans B. Roos, PHD
07 November 2008 at 13:03

Who is Barack Obama?

Voting for Obama was the only way available under the American 2-party political system (a system one step above the Stalinist voting system) to repudiate the last eight years of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the criminals who run what’s called the Republican Party.

But don’t expect too much from Mr. Obama.

He’s a “go along to get along” guy.

He’s part of the “in group” and he’s as much of a “maverick” as John McCain is.

Here are some simple thing Obama can do as president to improve things quickly and dramatically for the US and the world.

Let’s see how many of these things he does:

*All future elections have voting machines that generate a paper trail that can be audited.

*Make sure Americans aren’t forced to wait three, four, even seven hours plus on line to cast votes.

*End the illegal, immoral and financially ruinous occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

*Order swift trials for all the prisoners still held in Guantanamo and freedom for those who are being held without charges.

*Close Guantanamo.

*Outlaw the use of torture.

*Begin the process of dismantling the Patriot Act and other assaults on the Constitution.

*Repudiate the policy of first strike and the idea of using nuclear weapons against Iran or any other country.

*Order an investigation into the recent multi-trillion dollar Treasury Department giveaway to investment banks and brokerage houses.

*Look into the operations of the Federal Reserve Bank and their role in creating the current financial catastrophe that’s overcome the world.

*Aggressively roll back all Bush era anti-environment laws and the non-enforcement of existing environmental protection laws.

*Properly compensate the people of New Orleans for the failure of the federal levee system there and order an investigation into widespread fraud on the part of the US Army Corps of Engineers in that city and in Iraq.

*Roll back media regulation laws to pre-1988 standards and return the “fairness” rule which prohibited broadcast news outlets from acting as propaganda arms for specific political parties and politicians (ex. Fox News.)

*Break the oil industry’s multi-decade collusion with automakers and work towards a ban on the manufacture of gasoline-powered vehicles after 2014 (we’ve NEVER needed gasoline as a fuel to power our cars.)

*Remove the entire ex-Goldman Sachs clique out all government organizations.

All these things are within his power.

Some he can make happen by simple presidential order. Others, he can easily accomplish with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

How many of these things will he do?

We’ll see.

Dr. Frans B. Roos, PHD
07 November 2008 at 13:25

Obama's first one out the gate.

Is this what Americans wanted by voting Obama?

The Israeli war party wins again

Let’s see...

* Rahm Emanuel was (still is?) a dual US-Israeli citizen.

* He fought in the Israeli army

* His father was a member of the Irgun, an Israeli group the British called “terrorist.”

* Emanuel is considered AIPAC's “go to” guy in Congress.

Now he’s Barack Obama’s first White House pick, his Chief of Staff.

And the US news media has nothing to say about it.

Not a very good start crawling in the back pocket of Israel.

fairplay
07 November 2008 at 13:40

he wont do any of the above. he will make each stronger than before. its why he was chosen

Roberta
07 November 2008 at 14:41

So much of the New Stateman coverage and commentary on Obama in 2007 was negative and curiously absent of reason. In one of the articles in fact, Obama was totally written off as a non-starter.

It was astounding just how unprepared (in those days) your writers were to see, really see and comprehend the value of the candidacy- the promise of some true measure of multi-lateralism, an understanding of the global interdependence and at a cultural level what it would mean for modelling equality (both ethnic and gender).

I kept asking from issue to issue- what explain this hostlity? Maybe you have an answer now?

fairplay
07 November 2008 at 15:02

no, its how unprepared they were for the bias of the mainstream media and the fact that all 3 candidates (hilary included) are one of the same thing

Helen Heenan
07 November 2008 at 16:26

Why have we heard nothing from the excellent Andrew Stephen since September?

Murf in Oz
08 November 2008 at 00:04

It's always a worry that the electorate that elects the "new hope" is the same that elected the last hope. Four years ago America re-elected a village idiot who couldn't put a sentence together. This time it elected Bush's complete opposite -- an educated and articulate urban professional.

That's a huge step for the country, and Americans are to be congratulated as much for their vision and bravery in 2008 as they were condemned for their stupidity and fear in 2004.

nationalbankuganda
08 November 2008 at 01:33

Unlike most of these comments I'm more optimistic. Obama understands that a change in foreign policy direction is more than a simplistic altruistic gesture. It's a global community out there. Contrary to the conventional view that global citizens have no say in the US election - well, that's not strictly the case. Many governments have been sent packing over the last 8 years for steering too close to the Bush administration. Blair's only saving grace was that the Tories were percieved to be more slavish. American voters have themselves picked upon this, realising that being liked IS synonomous with America's national interest.

On one side of Obama is the rock of established vested interests. But on the other, is the hard place of people power. In the current world, the latter will prove more persuasive.

FreedomLand
08 November 2008 at 02:17

What "hope"? This is a half-white/half-black man in what is still essentially a white mans' country. He has to accomodate the status quo and that is what we already know it is.

Even his campaign was over a year of not so covert sexism. The result was that he succeeded but not by much and it was certainly no landslide. The Democrats don't actually seem to care that they managed to divide the country by running their best candidates against each other. Winning was more the result of Bush's negativity and the growing economic crisis.

Change, and thus real hope, would have been far better accomodated if Clinton and Obama were on the same ticket from the outset. What the Democrats proved in the end was that they were far more sexist than the conservative Republicans. Thus the issue of race was a false political correctness. It was still Hillary Clinton accepting it all and continuing to campaign for the Democrats that helped them win.

As it has turned out, though, the "mandate for change" is not equality in the full sense but only to provide the opportunity for Americans to re-visit their infamous racist past and to finally achive some kind of healing. Sadly, real reconciliation won't happen as excluding a popular white woman from either top political position has effectively disenfranchised much of the white voting population.

Thus rancour and discontent based upon fear and anxiety will dog the Obama regime as long as it is in office. That makes change for the better that much harder domestically. Internationally, it is quite a different thing, though, as the world's still most powerful nation with an African-American president inevitably sets a standard of racialequality which puts the old "white-is-right" racist hegemony totally in the past.

writeon
08 November 2008 at 10:03

The reaction in the UK and much of Europe among 'liberal-leftist' and even conservatives to Obama's success, has been elation, eurphoria - bordering on hysteria.

I suppose after the disaster that was Bush, this is understandable. Obama as emperor makes it so much easier to love America again.

Yet he's a right of centre conservative politician, these are, afte all, the only kind one is allowed to choose beteween under the two party monopoly system that exists in the United States.

Those who desire and sincerely believe that the United States is a different empire because of Obama are going to be bitterly disappointed. Very little will change, if at all, in the substance of US policies at home and abroad. In fact things, may conceivably get worse, though this is difficult to grasp. For example, Obama could conceivably get away with attacking Iran, a feat that was beyond Bush.

Obama is a student of political rhetoric and essentially a brilliant, black, preacher. But outside of set-piece speeches to a congregation, from the pulpit, he is far less impressive. He knows how to work a crowd, but isn't impressive in a debate or in an interview situation. His obvious weaknesses haven't been examined by a fawning media who virtually gave him a free-ride and didn't press him. He was allowed enormous latitude for bordeline, pomposity in his sermons, and was rarely, if ever, called to account for his lack of real substance. Here was a politician who seemed to have no politics, apart from his race and his personality.

I'm being harsh on him because I don't believe he's genuine. Obama is just as much a constructed persona as George Bush was. Politically he isn't really that different to McCain or Bush or Clinton. We have to strip away the rhetoric, the charm, the presentation, and examine the political realities underneath the false visage of empire.

Camus
08 November 2008 at 12:22

Who are you?

As I skim through these tired iterations of prejudice, wild accusations and turgid ramblings i ask myself why you bother? Dr.Roos (PHD - what does that stand for?) At least you have set Obama an agenda so that you can mark him failed when he does one or two of your list, but surely common sense tells you that the sheer magnitude of the task demands a quick intelligence, a steady hand and a whole army of good advisors. Remember JFK? His first dolally - the Bay of Pigs. The CIA told him "You have three choices. You can declare war on the USSR. You can give in to them on everything. Or you can do what we tell you." He didn't listen and he was three years younger than Obama!! The US system has come up with the leader they deserve. I hope he comes through.

Aiya-Oba
08 November 2008 at 14:57

Every progressive nation, is like the vibrant river,

which while staying the same, allows change in its waters. -Aiya-Oba (Poet/Philosopher)

writeon
08 November 2008 at 16:42

'There's always been a kind of schism inside the ruling elite in the United States, the two most powerful factions within the two-party monopoly compete with one another in an elaborate ritual every few years over political power. This doesn't mean that anything necessarily really changes in society. It isn't meant to. Things are meant to remain pretty much the same. That's what the founders and the Constitution were all about, constructive a stabil and hopefully foolproof system that would shield wealth/freedom from the threat and challenge of the mob/democracy. It was the few protecting themselves from the many. The masses were mobilized in order to fight for independence from Britain, but mostly they were excluded from political power once the job was done by the richest men in the new country, the elite who benefitted most from independence.

This system, elite rule, an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, with the great mass of the people effectively controlled and managed, has existed almost unchallenged for over two centuries. This is a remarkable achievement by any standards.

The President is a figurehead on the ship of state, confusing his role with that of the Messiah results, time after time, in dissappointment and bitterness.

God
08 November 2008 at 20:54

1. Guess this ends forever the myth that Jews and Blacks hate each other. 78% of us Jews (yes, God IS Jewish, he believes in himself) voted for Mr. Obama.

2. The best part of Mr. Obama's speeches are NOT the parts that talk about the financial situation, foreign policy, or taxation. It's when he talks about personal responsibility, about how Americans must step up and pull their weight as individuals. I was moved by his comments about the schools, about how parents must make their children attend and do well and value education; the government can't do that. Oh my, a President who thinks Americans are lazy and that the entitlement concept sucks! YEAHHHHHH!!!!!!

antileft
09 November 2008 at 04:35

"Yet he's a right of centre conservative politician, these are, afte all, the only kind one is allowed to choose beteween under the two party monopoly system that exists in the United States."

One second writeon- what is wrong with that? America is a right of centre country full of right of centre people. If a left of centre party got into power it would be very undemocratic indeed. Itd be like putting a christian party in charge of afghanistan. Just because you personally dont like either party doesnt make the system undemocratic. You dont live there, do you writeon? And if you did, youd be far off on the political fringe. So why would anyone care what you think?

antileft
09 November 2008 at 04:40

"Change, and thus real hope, would have been far better accomodated if Clinton and Obama were on the same ticket from the outset. What the Democrats proved in the end was that they were far more sexist than the conservative Republicans."

What a load of nonsense. Give me one example of sexism from the obama campaign. JUST ONE. Just because obama was against a woman doesnt mean that hes sexist. Grow up.

writeon
09 November 2008 at 18:07

Just one of the odd things about Obama's supposed 'liberalism', in a British context most people would define him as a Tory on most issues, is his support for the racist death penalty in the United States. How is it possible for people to ignore this?

Any reasonably intelligent person who examines, even superficially, the backgrounds of people on deathrow and who actually gets executed, cannot come to any other conclusion that people of colour are substantially over-represented. Not only that white people who commit murder are statistically under-represented on deathrow. This is basically because the American justice system is based on how much money you have. The more money you have the more justice you can buy for yourself. Obviously this means that poor people of 'colour' suffer disproportionally under this system of 'justice'.

Yet Obama supports this corrupt system, a system that sytematically takes human and often innocent life, and he even wants it extended allowing the execution of people not guilty of murder. How 'liberal' is this in reality? How does Obama get away with such views?

Then there's his fawning attitude towards Israel and Zionism. His statements during the election were extraordinarily biased towards Israel. Basically he got down on his knees and declared his undying loyality and support for Israel. It was completely uncritical and an insult to the Palestinian people and their equally ligitimate rights.

Yet once again no probing or examination by the media at all - why? Because large sections of the corporations and families that own the United States decided to dump the Republicans this time and switch to the Democrats. It was their turn to 'rule'. The product needed rebranding and a yet another 'new start' the tablet wiped clean, Bush erazed from memory and it's a New Dawn in America once again!

This would be pathetic if it wasn't so grotesque.

antileft
10 November 2008 at 01:25

"How 'liberal' is this in reality? How does Obama get away with such views?"

I just told you, writeon. Hes more liberal than the majority of his conservative country! That's democracy! Just because hes not liberal enough for you doesnt mean hes not liberal enough for his electorate!

Its pathetic, by the way, how whenever anyone totally destroys your argument you just ignore them. Ignore away- everyone can see that the only reason youre doing it is because you cant articulate a defense. Go ahead- keep rambling about how undemocratic and unfair it is for a right wing country to have two right wing parties- if you made the system it would repesent you- not them.

FreedomLand
10 November 2008 at 05:26

Dr. Frans B. Roos, PHD - 07 November:"...He fought in the Israeli army..."

Rahm Emanuel was elected to the United States Congress from Illinois in 2002 and he is also chairman of the Democrats' Congressional Campaign Committee - and an Israeli citizen but not quite the Rambo he likes everbody to make him out as.....

Quote Wiki: "He and his brothers attended summer camp in Israel..... At some point during his high school years, while working at an Arby's restaurant, Emanuel severely cut his right middle finger. He sought medical attention only after suffering severe infection as a result of the wound, resulting in the partial amputation of the finger..... Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in the Israel Defense Forces during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, repairing truck brakes in one of Israel's northern bases....."

writeon
10 November 2008 at 09:57

One of the easiest and clearest tests for how much real, substantive, change, there will actually be during Obama's reign, is whether the United States will be involved in more or less imperialist warfare under his leadership than under Bush's.

Clearly the American people have voted, for what it's worth, twice, during the last couple of years for less war, in the mid-terms and now. Dissappointingly, nothing really happened to end the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, in fact the war began to spill over into Pakistan and Iran was threatened with nuclear anihilation. Even the Russians were attacked by a proxy army and the encircling noose tightened further.

Will this longterm, imperial strategy, for controlling the resources of Eurasia, change dramatically under Obama? A strategy deemed vital to the future welfare of the empire. I wouldn't bet on it!

writeon
10 November 2008 at 10:56

The United States wasn't conceived as a 'democracy'. It was a Republic from the beginning. Democracy was regarded as something altogether too volatile and potentially destructive and dangerous to be 'played with' by the unqualified, uneducated, unsophisticated, wealth-lacking, majority of the population. People with no real understanding or stake in the nation. It was close to a paradox. Democracy, rule by the many, the people, was only really 'fit' for rule by the few, the best, the elite.

So mass democracy it was never meant to be, from the conception. Very few educated people in the eighteenth century supported universal sufferage and equal voting rights for all, certainly not the elite who shaped the Republic.

How much has really changed over the centuries? Not as much as people seem to belive in my opinion. The system was carefully constructed to preclude the evolution of a monarchy at one end, and the creation of mass, or mob rule, at the other. The twin fears of Patrician Republicans in the eighteenth century and beyond.

Whilst voting has slowly and carefully been expanded over the centuries, one shouldn't confuse this with 'Democracy' or even a 'Democratic Society'. Voting is obviously a characteristic of a democratic society, but obviously it isn't synonymous with democracy itself. A truly democratic society is about far more and profound elements than merely voting.

That only two parties should share power for so long in a country is, in itself, surprising and disturbing. It's difficult to think of an historic parallel. Two parties ruling for centuries, no mean feat. Yet they are not two parties at all. Rather they are twin parties, or two factions of one ruling elite, the party of wealth and business interests. There are, in reality, no other interests represented in the US legislature, business dominates totally.

The point was always to controll who the people were allowed to vote for, to control their choice of candidate, thereby controlling the

antileft
10 November 2008 at 13:22

"The United States wasn't conceived as a 'democracy'. It was a Republic from the beginning."

Is more or less all you say here- the rest is just repeating the same old thing. And it's a tired point which weve all heard 100s of times before- youre playing with definitions in order to try and defend a weak argument. My point is that america is a center right country, and the center right people of that country have a choice of a slightly right wing party and a very right wing party. You dont like that, I dont like that, but it is democratic and repesentative- whether you call it a democracy or a republic. So lets stop playing with definitions.

writeon
10 November 2008 at 20:23

A friend of mine, who used to come to our garden during summer, to play crocket, had an uncle who organized professional wrestling bouts. He made a very nice living out of it. A brand new Bentley every five years, or when they changed models. Bit of a rogue, but generous to his friends.

Anyway, the point is, and what made me think of him and how his work reminded me of the American political, ritual; is that he organized everything, paid for the halls, the accomodation, the transport, the advertizing, the referee, all the wrestlers, the good, the bad and the ugly, the catering - the whole thing, the entire 'show' was in his hands and under control, managed, manipulated.

Only one wouldn't have realized any of this from the perspective of the hundreds of punters who screamed and howled for their preferred wrestler, who battled it out so heroically in the ring, crashing into the deck, bouncing off the ropes and smashing into one another like savages.

What shocked me, and then amused me, was that two of the star wrestlers on the tour; one, a swarthy, masked, dirty-demon; the other a blue-eyed boy with shoulder-length locks and a winning smile; two men who apparently fought to the death in the ring and hated each other; actually, in reality lived together as a couple and were devoted to each other outside the ring. They were lovely people and live in the same expensive retirement home in Cornwall.

Everyone was involved in an elaborate and very profitable charade, just make believe for the crowd, who mostly took the whole show far too seriously. They appeared, at least when they were inside the hall, to sincerely believe, caught up in the electric, heated, atmosphere, of the contest, that it was actually - for real.

Carl Jones
10 November 2008 at 21:07

writeon; very good and none of those employed would question the illusion. Democratic dross.LOL

Krisco
11 November 2008 at 13:37

It is interesting that amongst the myriads of words and articles about Obama none seems to have noted that Obam came through as sincere in his speeches and attracted vast audiences because he writes all his own speeches. Thus everything he says with passion comes from his heart and is not the emotion of some unknown speechwriter learnt parrot-fashion by the speaker. That much was transparent when Obama's speeches were compared with those of McCain and Palin. And the audience could hear this in his voice.

Krisco

Carl Jones
11 November 2008 at 20:34

Mossad messuring the Whitehouse drapes....we are going into the worst period in modern civilian history. You won`t believe whats coming.LOL

antileft
12 November 2008 at 14:28

Why dont you tell us whats coming, Carl?!

Oh and writeon, this is so typical of you- you write a short essay but you say something which you could cover in 1 sentence. Here's what you were saying:

"The american parties are working together and theyre the same." Isnt it?! Why dont you just say that then?? Theres nothing intelligent about making it longer than it needs to be. It doesnt make you any less wrong.

Cybertiger
12 November 2008 at 15:33

"Now he’s Barack Obama’s first White House pick, his Chief of Staff."

Peace for our time? What a hope, what a joke!

writeon
12 November 2008 at 20:34

What's surprised even me is just how quickly Bush, McCain and Obama moved to bury the hatchet and say nice things about one another, moving closer together and emphasizing what joins them, rather than what separates them.

Obama will attempt to counteract and remove the most obvioulsy extreme and counterproductive elements of Bush's policies, things that aren't beneficial and undermine US prestige and simply cost too much. The systematic use of torture, opposition to Kyoto, Guantanamo...

The hyperbole and rhetoric of the campaign always makes the differences between the parties seem far, far, greater than they really are. This is understandable. The factional contest between Obama and Clinton almost resembled the real election, but now that's apparantly all forgotten.

But having twin parties serves a usful purpose electorally. It gives the impression of choice, where there really isn't that much choice. An openly one-party system probably wouldn't qualify as a democracy at all, even to the most obtuse and credulous. Also a one-party system would probably provoke the establishment of an oppostion which might conceivably challenge and even threaten the entire the system. Two parties enables those who are dissatisfied to find a home and vent their feelings and anger within bounderies that are safe and provide an acceptable vent for voter frustrations.

Another victory by the Republicans would have undermined the ligitimacy of the entire process, especially if the result had been so close as to be questionable.

Will Obama follow the same pattern that appears to follow the careers of all presidents in modern times? They start out so strong and so full of ideas and promiss, and yet they all seem to fall from grace and popularity very quickly. Some after only a year or two, others by their second term when they become almost impotent politically.

Obama's fall may be more precipitous than most imagine. His role as saviour will be tested by the coming depression.

Carl Jones
12 November 2008 at 22:23

Cybertiger, great, so there are two of us and 2 makes a CONSPIRACY.lol I`d have thought Ben had gone home by then and I doubt the NS could go to 24 hr censorship, it must be SIS/GCHQ and their decision.

One wonders how long the NS will be allowed to have these comments. And just think, the public are as far (led) up the garden path as they`ve ever been.

The BoE bod (king) says inflation isn`t a worry, he`s telling a blatant lie, with all the paper being pumped out, we are heading for hyperinflation....BTW, hyperinflation by todays standards is anything over 10%.

I say, fill you home with long life foods (tins, pasta, rice, beans, dried milk/eggs and vitamins, list not complete). If you can, at least 6 months worth and try for 12 months. It will take most people at least a year to build a decent supply....you have been warned, £20,00 for a tin of baked Bens!!LOL

Talking of being "disappeared", it could happen anytime soon...looking forward to a nice warm bunk in a REX-84 concentration camp. We must all accept our small part in this life and play it so well that the world might look on....assuming no censorship.LOL

nawawimohamad
13 November 2008 at 08:50

I totally agree with fairplay