||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SOME QUESTIONS FOR OBAMA
BILL FLETCHER, BLACK COMMENTATOR - Senator Barack Obama has become a
major celebrity, a truth that is now almost a cliche. . . Yet before I
jump into his campaign, I have a few questions that I first want to
share with you and which I hope he will address in the not-too-distant
future.
There is a way in which I cannot tell who is the real Senator Obama.
For one, he has not carved out - at least as of this writing - any
cutting edge issues where he is taking the lead and defining the
terrain. Second, and to some extent more troubling, he permits people
to see and assume in him what they want to see and assume. I have said
to many of my friends that this situation reminds me of an episode from
the original Star Trek series where there was a creature that appears to
the viewer the way the viewer would like to see it.
I am, to add to this, very uneasy about some of the Senator's foreign
policy pronouncements, particularly with regard to the Middle East. To
his credit, he opposed the Iraq invasion and had the courage to say so.
Yet over the last year, he has displayed a peculiarly uncritical stance
when it comes to Israel and has all-but-ignored the plight of the
Palestinians. This past summer, when Israel launched its massive and
deadly assault on Lebanon, the Senator was quite vocal in his support.
He seemed to miss the Israeli use of illegal cluster bombs and the lies
the Israelis offered for their unapologetic destruction of entire
Lebanese civilian communities.
Further, the Senator seems to ignore the atrocious conditions being
faced by the Palestinians who, after all, are occupied by the Israelis
in violation of United Nations' resolutions. . . Compounding this odd
situation, the Senator seems to want to be a "hawk" when it comes to
Iran, describing that country as a threat to Israel and the USA. . .
I am not ready to write off the inspiring Senator from the great State
of Illinois, but no matter how hard I try, I keep thinking about that
creature from Star Trek.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/229/229_cover_questions_
for_obama_fletcher_ed_bd.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WASHINGTON POST OPPOSES REAL DEBATES
[The Washington Post, which can't stand things getting out of its
control, produced this editorial on the recent presidential debates, an
editorial that neatly ignores the fact that Gravel and Kucinich best
represented the views of a majority of Americans on Iraq and that Ron
Paul was the most interesting person in the GOP lineup. Leaving aside
the perverse anti-democratic presumption that candidates should be
judged by how much money they raised, debates are not polls. They are,
for want of a better term, debates and the last thing one wants in a
debate is three or four people all trying to say the same thing better
than the others. The minute you get a Gravel, Paul or Perot into the
debate, the discussion becomes real, which, of course, this is precisely
what the Washington Post doesn't want]
WASHINGTON POST - If you tuned in to the recent Republican and
Democratic presidential debates, you may have had the same reaction as
many viewers looking at the crowded stages: Who's that? The Democratic
debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed
into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort
out their presidential choices aren't helped by debates cluttered with
the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he's a former senator from Alaska) on
the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he's a libertarian House member
from Texas) among the Republicans. If the standard is that any declared
candidate is entitled to a podium, we're going to end up with even more
crowded stages in 2012.
One possibility would be to allow viewers to vote off one candidate
after each debate; it seems to work well for other TV programs. But
there may a better way to improve the debate system, though this would
need to be done carefully and slowly. For starters, as this process
continues, debate organizers ought to think about using various tests to
narrow the fields. Has a candidate demonstrated any indicia of viability
or seriousness: standing in the polls, ability to raise money, trips to
the state where the debate is taking place? When Mr. Gravel says he's
not running to win, that ought to be grounds enough to toss him out.
Yes, at this early stage, poll standing alone isn't enough to exclude a
candidate; some serious, experienced candidates are mired in the single
digits, and they ought to be given their chance to catch fire. But as
the process moves forward, the bar for inclusion should move higher.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/05/07/AR2007050701553.html
MORE POLITICAL NEWS
http://prorev.com/politics.htm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SOME QUESTIONS FOR OBAMA
BILL FLETCHER, BLACK COMMENTATOR - Senator Barack Obama has become a
major celebrity, a truth that is now almost a cliche. . . Yet before I
jump into his campaign, I have a few questions that I first want to
share with you and which I hope he will address in the not-too-distant
future.
There is a way in which I cannot tell who is the real Senator Obama.
For one, he has not carved out - at least as of this writing - any
cutting edge issues where he is taking the lead and defining the
terrain. Second, and to some extent more troubling, he permits people
to see and assume in him what they want to see and assume. I have said
to many of my friends that this situation reminds me of an episode from
the original Star Trek series where there was a creature that appears to
the viewer the way the viewer would like to see it.
I am, to add to this, very uneasy about some of the Senator's foreign
policy pronouncements, particularly with regard to the Middle East. To
his credit, he opposed the Iraq invasion and had the courage to say so.
Yet over the last year, he has displayed a peculiarly uncritical stance
when it comes to Israel and has all-but-ignored the plight of the
Palestinians. This past summer, when Israel launched its massive and
deadly assault on Lebanon, the Senator was quite vocal in his support.
He seemed to miss the Israeli use of illegal cluster bombs and the lies
the Israelis offered for their unapologetic destruction of entire
Lebanese civilian communities.
Further, the Senator seems to ignore the atrocious conditions being
faced by the Palestinians who, after all, are occupied by the Israelis
in violation of United Nations' resolutions. . . Compounding this odd
situation, the Senator seems to want to be a "hawk" when it comes to
Iran, describing that country as a threat to Israel and the USA. . .
I am not ready to write off the inspiring Senator from the great State
of Illinois, but no matter how hard I try, I keep thinking about that
creature from Star Trek.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/229/229_cover_questions_
for_obama_fletcher_ed_bd.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WASHINGTON POST OPPOSES REAL DEBATES
[The Washington Post, which can't stand things getting out of its
control, produced this editorial on the recent presidential debates, an
editorial that neatly ignores the fact that Gravel and Kucinich best
represented the views of a majority of Americans on Iraq and that Ron
Paul was the most interesting person in the GOP lineup. Leaving aside
the perverse anti-democratic presumption that candidates should be
judged by how much money they raised, debates are not polls. They are,
for want of a better term, debates and the last thing one wants in a
debate is three or four people all trying to say the same thing better
than the others. The minute you get a Gravel, Paul or Perot into the
debate, the discussion becomes real, which, of course, this is precisely
what the Washington Post doesn't want]
WASHINGTON POST - If you tuned in to the recent Republican and
Democratic presidential debates, you may have had the same reaction as
many viewers looking at the crowded stages: Who's that? The Democratic
debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed
into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort
out their presidential choices aren't helped by debates cluttered with
the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he's a former senator from Alaska) on
the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he's a libertarian House member
from Texas) among the Republicans. If the standard is that any declared
candidate is entitled to a podium, we're going to end up with even more
crowded stages in 2012.
One possibility would be to allow viewers to vote off one candidate
after each debate; it seems to work well for other TV programs. But
there may a better way to improve the debate system, though this would
need to be done carefully and slowly. For starters, as this process
continues, debate organizers ought to think about using various tests to
narrow the fields. Has a candidate demonstrated any indicia of viability
or seriousness: standing in the polls, ability to raise money, trips to
the state where the debate is taking place? When Mr. Gravel says he's
not running to win, that ought to be grounds enough to toss him out.
Yes, at this early stage, poll standing alone isn't enough to exclude a
candidate; some serious, experienced candidates are mired in the single
digits, and they ought to be given their chance to catch fire. But as
the process moves forward, the bar for inclusion should move higher.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/05/07/AR2007050701553.html
MORE POLITICAL NEWS
http://prorev.com/politics.htm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment