Barack Obama's nomination of Hilary Clinton for the position of Secretary of State was clearly a multifaceted decision. First and foremost, it has long been said that Hilary's relationship with foreign nations and her extensive knowledge of international diplomacy made her a better pick for the Democratic Nomination. In this arena, she is leaps and bounds above the much-less experienced Obama. With wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ever-increasing threat of Iran and North Korea, of Russia and China, the necessity of a well-versed foreign relations appointment is clear. In this respect, it is apparent that Obama has made the right choice. The advantage that he can gain from her expertise and knowledge is invaluable.
In the larger scheme of things however, it seems very clear that Clinton serves numerous purposes for the Obama administration. Not only does she serve a national purpose in terms of her abilities as a Secretary of State, she also fulfills the promise Obama made after his election last month. Claiming to be dedicated, not to partisan politics, but to the inclusion of the best men and women for the job, Obama made it clear that he would be nominating former foes and opposition party members in order to create the best team possible. By placing Clinton in this incredibly powerful and significant position and also by keeping a member of Bush's administration, he has so far kept his promises to the American people and has created what seems to be a very reliable and capable Cabinet. Of course, their actions and their influence have yet to be seen but I think it is a positive sign that he has not gone back on his word yet, although I realize that we are much too early on to make any kind of judgement.
In addition to this inclusion tactic, it is also interesting to note that in some respect this nomination may have been, at least in part, a ploy to appeal to the Hilary fans who were deeply disappointed by her loss earlier in the year. I would think that Obama is already looking to the future and assuming that this placement would be beneficial in his next run for office four years from now. Having Clinton as Secretary of State, although no where near being the first female president, is one of the highest honors that can be bestowed on a governmental official. If and when Obama does run for re-election, he has surely considered how positive it will be to have the Hilary vote when the time comes.
Articles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7758572.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7758673.stm
Video:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01/transition.wrap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Barack Obama or Abraham Lincoln?
Barack Obama has for some time now been compared to President Lincoln, most recently because of his alleged commitment to a 'Team of Rivals" approach to building his administration. The term refers to a book written about how Lincoln brought former opponents into his administration and utilized their knowledge and expertise to better serve the country. As Obama has reached out both to Hilary Clinton and Republicans, it seems as though he may actually be following this same path. Interestingly, this ties in very closely to a part of our second exam. The question on groupthink popped into my head almost immediately after reading the headline of an article about this particular issue. If Obama does decide to include opposition and even former enemies in his decision-making group will this serve to build an administration with the very best ability to serve the country and make sound decisions (because of its diversity of opinion and background)? Or will we find that decisions become increasingly harder and perhaps foster feelings of animosity between members of the group which is clearly not beneficial for the American people.
Hopefully, having a diverse group that includes Obama foes will have a positive effect on his ability to lead. By doing so he would not only be increasing the amount of intelligence and opinion among his staff but he would also be fostering a bipartisanship that could help him should he need aid from Republicans in the future. Should a side of the issue be lost or ignored, I think we can be sure that in a bipartisan Cabinet, that option will be put on the table. In this way, Obama can also insure that his own power will not grow so large as to overshadow opinions and options that could be beneficial to the task at hand. On the other hand however, this choice could allow for decision-making to be mired in opposition and anger which would present a disunited front both to the American people and to governments abroad. Clearly, this is not the kind of image we want to display on an international stage, especially considering our precarious situation in the world at this moment.
Hopefully whatever choice Obama makes will be in the best interest of his country and will prove to be that which can help us fix the massive problems that we are facing right now. Also, I would hope that the phenomenon of groupthink could be abated by a decision to include diverse Cabinet members and thus avoid some of the pitfalls of past presidencies which have fallen victim to this tendency.
Here is an article about Obama's "Team of Rivals" and a wikipedia overview of the term "groupthink"
GOP Breakdown?
Since Obama's historic win earlier this month, there has been what seems like a breakdown of sorts within the GOP. Not only has Sarah Palin embarked on a bizarre publicity tour that has done nothing but further cement her idiocy, but there have also been direct attacks on both the former vice-presidential candidate and her running mate John McCain. As most of us have surely heard by now, there have been a number of anonymous sources from the McCain camp that have personally attacked both Palin's personality and her intelligence. Leaking the budget for her campaign wardrobe and concentrating on her infamous missteps regarding Africa and NAFTA these sources have revealed a tendency that losing parties have to unravel from within once their campaigns have been disbanded and their immediate purposes have been suspended. Clearly, this kind of information would never have come directly from McCain's campaign during the election season for fear of jeopardizing the outcome. However, now that members of this group have seen the writing on the wall and have lost their chance at the presidency, they have not held back on their condemnation of Sarah Palin. And for those who think that this particular instance is just an isolated event, it would be important to also consider the fact that South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has recently and publicly come out against John McCain. According to this prominent member of the party, McCain betrayed certain conservative values in his quest for the presidency. Those particular principles were named as "freedom, religious-based values, and limited government." Don't even get me started on why religion-based values should have no place in politics after our long ago separation of church and state. Beyond this issue, the comments made by the SC Senator also attacked actual policy ideas held by McCain including amnesty for illegal immigrants and support of global warming. And while the truth behind these claims are irrelevant at this point, they prove that the seeds of dissension have been sowed within the GOP after this difficult and embarrassing loss. I think it is important to remember that this was not just a loss, but it was a defeat in which the GOP lost sections of its electorate to a Democratic candidate, some of which have been solidly Republican for decades. This tendency to place blame and face a breakdown is surely a plague that affects any party on the loosing side. It is clear, however, that much of what Senator DeMint has said was opinion and indicated nothing other than a GOP member voicing frustration over a significant loss. What bothers me however, is that these anonymous sources from the McCain campaign have apparently known for some time that Palin was less than ready for the job of vice president but were willing to let this slide if it got their presidential candidate nominated. This is not an opinion. Someone who doesn't know that Africa is a continent really shouldn't be holding such a high political office in this country and I'm sure that the campaign knew that. Is this any different than any other political deception? No, but the fact that people would be willing to leave our country to a candidate without experience or ability is extremely upsetting.
Below are a few articles that outline this issue:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/15/gop-senator-mccain-betrayed-republican-principles-2/
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Prop 8
Above are two sites: one is a website outlining one group's definition of Proposition 8 and their support for it and the other is Ellen DeGeneres's PSA urging voters to vote no on Prop 8. And although not certified so far, this proposition has passed in California. I think that the controversy over this issue is unfounded. And while I understand the importance of religion in some people's lives we have to realize that if we want to preach secularism in our country, our laws cannot mirror religious beliefs. Yes, our Constitution is inherently religious in some aspects but it was also written at the founding of our country which is a far cry from where we are today both socially and politically. Clearly, everyone has a right to their own beliefs but when these beliefs encroach on other human's rights, they cross a line in my opinion.
If we want to extend democracy and human rights and freedoms to other countries (like we claim to want to) then we should be setting an example at home. We should be an open society for EVERYONE not just those people that our religions tell us are worthy of respect. I feel like this particular issue and the fact that it has passed in a country that just elected Obama president is a very strange contradiction. It seemed as though some people are selective in what minorities and alternative lifestyles they accept. But we cannot play judge and jury on other people's lives because we are all human and live together in a country that needs to be unified. And although there has always been racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, this cannot be a justification for its continuance.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Politics and Lies
In another class I'm taking this semester we're discussing World War One and its consequences which parallel those of the Iraq War in our current time. In literature from that time it was clear that authors were disturbed by both the meaningless interpretation of the war by those who were fighting in it as well as the political cynicism that resulted. In Ernest Hemingway's novel A Farewell to Arms he focuses both on the soldier's battle to survive through a war they didn't believe in and the difficulties faced by those who realized that the political system was exploiting the vulnerability and ignorance of the people. When war becomes advertised on billboards and on television it seeks to sell a lie in order to convince people that their participation is necessary and noble. When words like "sacrifice" , "glory" and "strength" are associated with a particular war joining the military and fighting for the honor of the country (or the honor of another country's people) seems like a way to actively participate in this ideology of the great American savior. But when it is revealed that the justifications and the advertisements put forth by the government are false it leads to a sense of disillusionment on behalf of both civilians and soldiers. What does it mean when we find out that our own government has manipulated us? And what does it mean when we no longer trust politics to offer us the truth?
Clearly the similarities between Iraq and WWI are numerous in this respect. We have been coerced into believing certain "facts" that turned out to be falsehoods which has consequently led to a great deal of anger and cynicism. Not only this but how could we ignore the military commercials that air on television every night encouraging people to join the Army or the Marines in order to continue fighting this war we cannot end. In addition to this, politicians, including our president, have spent what seems like a great deal of time trying to convince us firstly to go to war and secondly to remain in it until we "win". Alot of people at this point in time are fed up with what seems like endless lies and persuasion by Washington and are ready for something to change. I think that this is the reason Obama has been so successful in his campaign thus far. In a political environment like the one we live in today, where people all across the country are questioning the validity of the political system as a whole, it is refreshing to have someone who seems removed from the lies. Whether or not Obama is trustworthy has yet to be seen but he offers a distinct change from what we have seen in the last eight years, especially considering the tragedies that have resulted from the war. Much like in WWI, the Iraq War has left a generation of young people that doesn't trust the word of their government in some of the most significant issues facing the American nation. Some people may disagree but ask yourself some questions about the issues. Did you believe President Bush when he claimed WMD's five years ago? How does it feel to realize that, regardless of intention, he was dead wrong? Pick your candidate of choice, the person you are going to vote for; Do you believe everything they say or are you cynical about some of their promises? What does this say about politics and the government? Do we not want to be proud and secure in our nation ?
Clearly the similarities between Iraq and WWI are numerous in this respect. We have been coerced into believing certain "facts" that turned out to be falsehoods which has consequently led to a great deal of anger and cynicism. Not only this but how could we ignore the military commercials that air on television every night encouraging people to join the Army or the Marines in order to continue fighting this war we cannot end. In addition to this, politicians, including our president, have spent what seems like a great deal of time trying to convince us firstly to go to war and secondly to remain in it until we "win". Alot of people at this point in time are fed up with what seems like endless lies and persuasion by Washington and are ready for something to change. I think that this is the reason Obama has been so successful in his campaign thus far. In a political environment like the one we live in today, where people all across the country are questioning the validity of the political system as a whole, it is refreshing to have someone who seems removed from the lies. Whether or not Obama is trustworthy has yet to be seen but he offers a distinct change from what we have seen in the last eight years, especially considering the tragedies that have resulted from the war. Much like in WWI, the Iraq War has left a generation of young people that doesn't trust the word of their government in some of the most significant issues facing the American nation. Some people may disagree but ask yourself some questions about the issues. Did you believe President Bush when he claimed WMD's five years ago? How does it feel to realize that, regardless of intention, he was dead wrong? Pick your candidate of choice, the person you are going to vote for; Do you believe everything they say or are you cynical about some of their promises? What does this say about politics and the government? Do we not want to be proud and secure in our nation ?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Halloween Fun
There has been a lot of talk about how fun this election could be were the consequences not so serious ( especially considering the current economic situation). Most recently, however, there have been some people making an effort to truly enjoy politics. The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner was an opportunity to truly consider the presidential candidates in a new light. Considering the last three times we've seen the candidates converse was during three ultra-serious debates (most especially the last) it was refreshing to watch them laugh and joke like normal people. I think it's really important to be able to see the candidates in this way because I think everyone tends to loose sight of the fact that they are real people and even though they must be truly superior in some ways, their nature is just like ours. We all know that politicians are suppossed to be strong and responsible beyond that which is expected of the general citizenry. But I do think it is overlooked that on an emotional level it must be unbelievably difficult to be a politician, especially on the national stage. During the third debate, McCain made a comment that during a football game he was watching he saw an Obama advertisement condemning him. I can't imagine sitting at home watching television and then seeing my enemy or my opponent pop up to berate me. I'm sure that it is something that these men and women have gotten used to but I do not think that they are emotionally deviod enough not to feel stung due to certain advertisements.
To get back to the actual topic, in the spirit of Halloween, there have been alot of people creating pumpkins with the likeness of their favorite political figures or integrating politics into their annual decorations. There are also tons of people planning on dressing up as Obama and Palin regardless of their political affiliations. I feel like we havn't had enough fun in this election yet because of all that is riding on its outcome but I am personally very excited that these things are finally going on and giving us all a chance to enjoy election season.
For everyone's enjoyment here's the roast video and a political Halloween article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N-j0W6MW-U
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/political.halloween.irpt/index.html
To get back to the actual topic, in the spirit of Halloween, there have been alot of people creating pumpkins with the likeness of their favorite political figures or integrating politics into their annual decorations. There are also tons of people planning on dressing up as Obama and Palin regardless of their political affiliations. I feel like we havn't had enough fun in this election yet because of all that is riding on its outcome but I am personally very excited that these things are finally going on and giving us all a chance to enjoy election season.
For everyone's enjoyment here's the roast video and a political Halloween article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N-j0W6MW-U
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/political.halloween.irpt/index.html
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Risk of Assasination
There's no easy way to talk about a political figure's possible assasination but I think this is a topic that really needs to be discussed because its implications are profound. I'm sure we are all aware that there is alot of chatter going on about the possibility that Obama, if elected, would be assasinated. I think that had this not been a serious threat before, it is now that it has been hyped up by the media and the public. There is no denying that being a black man in the most powerful position in the United States government is dangerous. Without being morbid, I personally, and many people I have spoken with, believe that there are individuals out there who would committ the crime. It doesn't mean that it will necessarily happen but it certainly is a possibility. The point at issue here however, isn't Obama or impending assasination. It is what this says about our country in general.
First off, it is Obama's race that has caused this topic to be discussed at such great length. The idea is out there that should he be killed, it would be by someone who was so inherently racist that they literally could not stand to be governed by a black man (lets not forget that there are those less extremist who would simply never vote for a black man and have outwardly admitted this). I think this clearly proves the fact that although we have come far since the fight for civil rights, we remain a country that has deep racist tendencies. And should an attempt be made on Obama's life we will be a country divided; it will become black vs. white in a matter of seconds. The fact that it is possible that we could return to the situation we faced in the 60's is indicative of the lack of change we have made. It is undeniable that Obama's nomination and his campaign are signs that we are improving but it seems as though that has overshadowed the fact that to truly be a free, democratic nation, all citizens need to be unquestionably equal. This is not so. McCain need not worry about a serious assasination attempt from pro-choice advocates (at least not as far as I know) and this is a policy position that he has chosen, not an inherent part of his identity. Obama, on the other hand, must face a greater threat because of his race. How can we ever claim true equality when this disparity exists.
This particular race issue also does not speak to the fact that the people we are talking about (those that would consider assassination) are technically fundamentalists even though they may not be tied to a specific religion. In essence, fundamentalism is the most extreme conservativism there is (and I mean that not as a political characterization but as a resistance to change) and that would be the force in action here were there to be an assassination. Alot of people would acknowledge that this threat does exist yet would make it clear that this does not provide an accurate or fair description of America as a nation. Now, if we can make this distinction within our own country, how can we not make it for the Middle East? We have equated Arabs and Muslims with terrorism perhaps irretrievably. And we make very little effort to differentiate in regards to those nations and people (as is evidenced by the lack of media coverage actual Middle Eastern people recieve and the ongoing social injustices Muslims and Arabs face in the US). Again, what does this double standard say about this country and its values?
I want to make it clear that I'm not predicting an assasination and that most of my information has come from dozens of conversations with others as well as from media. But I do think the fact that so many people are aware of this and are talking about it indicates that it is a distinct possibility. There are even Obama supporters out there who have been so moved by this threat that in a naive notion have decided not to vote for him in order to "save his life". Clearly this is not the issue I'm getting at here. What I'm trying to provoke is a discussion on whether or not this national obsession with assasination means that our country has failed in its attempts at racial equality. I think that it does. I would really appreciate any comments about this or any disagreements because I think it is one of the major issues in the political community right now. Below is a link to a site that discusses the issue:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513512/They-kill-Obama-US-president-Outcry-Nobel-Prize-winners-assassination-warning.html
First off, it is Obama's race that has caused this topic to be discussed at such great length. The idea is out there that should he be killed, it would be by someone who was so inherently racist that they literally could not stand to be governed by a black man (lets not forget that there are those less extremist who would simply never vote for a black man and have outwardly admitted this). I think this clearly proves the fact that although we have come far since the fight for civil rights, we remain a country that has deep racist tendencies. And should an attempt be made on Obama's life we will be a country divided; it will become black vs. white in a matter of seconds. The fact that it is possible that we could return to the situation we faced in the 60's is indicative of the lack of change we have made. It is undeniable that Obama's nomination and his campaign are signs that we are improving but it seems as though that has overshadowed the fact that to truly be a free, democratic nation, all citizens need to be unquestionably equal. This is not so. McCain need not worry about a serious assasination attempt from pro-choice advocates (at least not as far as I know) and this is a policy position that he has chosen, not an inherent part of his identity. Obama, on the other hand, must face a greater threat because of his race. How can we ever claim true equality when this disparity exists.
This particular race issue also does not speak to the fact that the people we are talking about (those that would consider assassination) are technically fundamentalists even though they may not be tied to a specific religion. In essence, fundamentalism is the most extreme conservativism there is (and I mean that not as a political characterization but as a resistance to change) and that would be the force in action here were there to be an assassination. Alot of people would acknowledge that this threat does exist yet would make it clear that this does not provide an accurate or fair description of America as a nation. Now, if we can make this distinction within our own country, how can we not make it for the Middle East? We have equated Arabs and Muslims with terrorism perhaps irretrievably. And we make very little effort to differentiate in regards to those nations and people (as is evidenced by the lack of media coverage actual Middle Eastern people recieve and the ongoing social injustices Muslims and Arabs face in the US). Again, what does this double standard say about this country and its values?
I want to make it clear that I'm not predicting an assasination and that most of my information has come from dozens of conversations with others as well as from media. But I do think the fact that so many people are aware of this and are talking about it indicates that it is a distinct possibility. There are even Obama supporters out there who have been so moved by this threat that in a naive notion have decided not to vote for him in order to "save his life". Clearly this is not the issue I'm getting at here. What I'm trying to provoke is a discussion on whether or not this national obsession with assasination means that our country has failed in its attempts at racial equality. I think that it does. I would really appreciate any comments about this or any disagreements because I think it is one of the major issues in the political community right now. Below is a link to a site that discusses the issue:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513512/They-kill-Obama-US-president-Outcry-Nobel-Prize-winners-assassination-warning.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)