Sickened at the prospect that a victory for reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi in the Iranian presidential election might have led to better relations with the United States, neoconservatives here and their fellow war hawks in Israel are celebrating the dubious victory of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yes, this is true: Right-wingers in America and Israel don't want peace with Iran, nor do they want anyone to get the impression that President Obama's efforts at engagement with Iran might actually work, nor do they give a damn about the Iranian people. Mad Mahmoud is the man neocons love to hate, and they're as happy as clams that their guy found a way to steal the election.

Had Mousavi won the Iranian election as many in Iran and around the world hoped, it would likely have signalled a new and more positive direction for U.S.-Iranian relations as well as providing support for the "Obama Doctrine" of engagement with Iran and others in the Muslim world with which America's relations have been troubled. Such a development would at the same time have undercut the neocon attitude of hostility and suspicion toward Iran, as well as undercutting the right-wing Israeli government's aggressive stance toward Iran. As we know, neocons can tolerate peace only when it is imposed with an iron fist or the heel of a jackboot, and the prospect of peace through diplomacy in the Greater Middle East must surely have given them nightmares the rest of us could scarcely imagine.

In the run-up to the Iranian election last week, Daniel Pipes of the right-wing Middle East Forum came right out and admitted in a speech at the right-wing Heritage Foundation that he would actually vote for Ahmadinejad if he were allowed to vote in Iran (video). This speech was followed by a June 12 blog post by Pipes in which he reiterated that he was "rooting for Ahmadinejad" based on the twisted logic that the fundamentalist clerics who really rule Iran will always be our enemies and it's better to have an Iranian president we can really hate than "a sweet-talking Mousavi" who lulls us into thinking we can be friends. Never mind the aspirations or even basic human rights of the Iranian people; never mind anyone's desire for peace in the Greater Middle East. I've long had a pretty strong distaste for Daniel Pipes, but following this admission I'm more convinced of his utter vileness than ever. This is, after all, a man who has publicly advocated for the profiling and internment of Muslims in America, and who considers Israeli and Palestinian existence mutually exclusive (see Sourcewatch). As we leave the age of the neocons behind, I look forward to watching Pipes and others like him slide into the bitter, drooling irrelevance and oblivion they deserve.

The American Enterprise Institute's equally malignant Michael Rubin likewise told Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review that it might be better for Ahmadinejad to win, because a Mousavi win might give Obama and the rest of us the impression that diplomacy was actually working. Painting Iran as inherently and hopelessly evil, Rubin said of the Iranian election that should Mousavi win "it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger." James Taranto strikes a similar tone in the Wall Street Journal, warning against the "eagerness to see Obama's feel-good foreign-policy approach succeed."

Now that the Iranian election appears to be over, right-wingers will be tripping over themselves in the rush to use Ahmadinejad's victory against Obama. In fact, once and future Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has already piped up, saying that Ahmadinejad's win is proof that Obama's "policy of going around the world and apologizing for America is not working." These losers obviously have nothing left but the hope that Obama will fail, or can at least be said to have failed. I look forward to watching Romney and his party lose again in 2012.

Right-wingers in Israel, meanwhile, have been making noises very similar to their American bedfellows, and appear to see nothing good for themselves in any warming of relations between the U.S. and Iran, as observed by M.J. Rosenberg at TPM. From Israel in the run-up to the Iranian election Yaakov Katz wrote in the Jerusalem Post that members of the Israeli defense establishment were "silently praying" for an Ahmadinejad victory, fearing that a Mousavi win would result in decreased pressure on Iran and its nuclear program. Now that Ahmadinejad appears to have successfully stolen the election, Israeli officials and their allies in America are calling for renewed pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff write in Haaretz that an Ahmadinejad victory is actually preferable for Israel because a Mousavi win would only "paste an attractive mask on the face of Iranian nuclear ambitions."

I suspect we'll hear more of this in days to come from eager neocons on both sides of the Atlantic. Obama's policy of engagement will work, however, and is working, as evidenced by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to his Cairo speech, by the Lebanese election results, by the reform movement in Iran, and by the likelihood that Ahmadinejad kept his office only through vote-rigging, suppression, and intimidation. Obama will succeed, and once he has neocons like Daniel Pipes can take up residence in the dustbin of history where they belong.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

As Iranians go to the polls to elect a president, American neoconservatives are openly rooting not for moderate reform candidate and former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi but for anti-U.S. hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is an obvious sign both of the neocons' preference for conflict over peace between the U.S. and Iran and of the generally bankrupt state of conservatism in America, reduced now to banking on failure for the Obama administration (see Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow).

Should the reformist Mousavi win the Iranian election and become president, it would likely signal a new and more positive direction for U.S.-Iranian relations as well as providing support for the "Obama Doctrine" of engagement with Iran and other adversaries. Such a development would at the same time undercut the neocon attitude of hostility and suspicion toward Iran, as well as undercutting the right-wing Israeli government's aggressive stance toward Iran. Indeed right-wingers in Israel like those in America appear to see nothing good for themselves in any warming of relations between the U.S. and Iran, as observed by M.J. Rosenberg at TPM and Yaakov Katz at the Jerusalem Post.

The unpleasant fellow you see pictured here is Daniel Pipes of the right-wing Middle East Forum, a raging neocon who said in a speech this week at the Heritage Foundation that he would vote for Ahmadinejad if he were allowed to vote in Iran (video). The American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin likewise told Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review that it could be better for Ahmadinejad to win, because a Mousavi win might give Obama the impression that diplomacy was working. Painting Iran as inherently and hopelessly evil, Rubin said of the Iranian election that "should someone more soft-spoken and less defiant -- someone like former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi -- win, it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger."

Without so openly rooting for Ahmadinejad, other neocons are playing down the significance of a possible Mousavi victory, obviously worried that a shift in power will signal a fresh start for U.S.-Iranian relations that could leave American and Israeli hawks out in the cold. The same right-wing pundits who constantly point out Ahmadinejad's bad behavior as reasons to confront Iran now argue that it doesn't matter who the president of Iran is. Martin Peretz wrote at the New New Republic: "We've known for a long time that elected leaders do not carry the weight of those who have been anointed." Ilan Berman likewise wrote at the American Spectator: "Whoever ends up becoming president will have little real power -- and even less influence over Iran's geostrategic direction."

The prospect of peace in the Greater Middle East must give sociopaths like these nightmares the rest of us could scarcely imagine. 

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

President Barack Obama's interview this week with Arab news network Al-Arabiya appears to have been a success. The president's first interview since taking office, his appearance with the network's Washington bureau chief Hisham Melhem was an effort to extend a hand of friendship to the Arab and Muslim world, and included Obama's acknowledgment that Americans "have not been perfect" in their dealings with that world:

"My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives...," Obama told Melhem in the interview, "...My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as twenty or thirty years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task."

Obama's interview included a re-statement of his committments both to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and to follow through on his promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital during his first months in office. It also included an aknowledgment of his own personal connections to the Muslim world -- connections for which Republican bigots viciously attacked Obama during the 2008 campaign, but which can hardly hurt him now as he begins the work of repairing US relations with the Muslim world:

"My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.... And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams."

Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya comes as his new Mideast envoy, former senator George Mitchell, heads to the region to restart a peace process long neglected by Obama's predecessor, and follows his contact with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas immediately after his inauguration Jan. 20. Obama's overtures to the Muslim world are certain to offend many conservatives, who regard Arabs and Muslims with extreme hostility and suspicion, and who think that the only people in the Middle East we ought to be talking with are the Israelis. Many of these were deeply offended when Obama's first call to a foreign leader was to the Palestinian president instead of his Israeli counterpart, and are likely to be equally offended that his first interview was with Al-Arabiya instead of the Jerusalem Post.

I say tough cookies for them. Elections have consequences. While President Obama has neither said nor done anything to suggest that he is about to "abandon" Israel (as I'm certain his conservative critics would love to charge), he clearly recognizes that a Mideast policy based on an exclusive relationship with Israel and on callous disregard of Arab concerns has not worked. The time for change has come, and from where I sit it looks like President Obama is off to a damn good start.

See also Washington Post, Youtube. 

The John McCain campaign has been forced to fire its campaign chair in Buchanan County, Virginia, following his publication of a racist newspaper attack on Barack Obama. Bobby May, pictured here, who has also served as treasurer and correspondence secretary of the Buchanan County Republican Party, recently penned a column containing an overtly racist attack against Barack Obama for a local newspaper, The Voice, which lists Mr. May among its columnists. May's column contained a number of inflammatory charges against Obama, including the following on Obama's plans for America if elected:

"FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Mandatory Black Liberation Theology classes taught in all churches - raise taxes to pay for this mandate. Put Rev. Jeremiah Wright in charge...."

"DRUG CRISIS: Raise taxes to pay for free drugs for Obama’s inner-city political base...."

"2ND AMENDMENT: Under Obama will only apply to gang-bangers, illegal aliens, Islamo-Fascist terrorists, and Senator Jim Webb’s aide...."

"FOREIGN RELATIONS: Appoint Rev. Al Sharpton as Secretary of State, Jesse Jackson as UN Representative, and let Bill Clinton handle all other "foreign relations" ... As long as Hillary doesn't find out...!"

"THE WHITE HOUSE: Hire rapper Ludacris to “paint it black.” Taxes to be increased to buy enough paint for the job plus spray-paint for graffiti...."

"THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES: Raise taxes to send $845 billion, most of it to Africa so the Obama family there can skim off enough for them to free their goats and live the American Dream...."

"NATIONAL ANTHEM: Change to the "Black National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson...."

"US CURRENCY: Update photos to reflect US diversity; include pictures of "great Americans" such as Oprah Winfrey, Ludacris, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Paris Hilton, and Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson (Obama's new Secretary of the Treasury - 50 Cent refused position after learning that he would lose his crazy check if he accepted the nomination)...."

"US FLAG: Replace 50 stars with a star and crescent logo; red stripes changed to green to represent Obama’s tree-hugging radical environmentalism and his lack of experience. Flag lapel pins, having become a substitute for "real patriotism," will henceforth be banned...."

At the end of his column Mr. May challenged Obama to meet him on "County Talk," a Friday morning talk show on radio station WMJD 100.7 in Grundy, Virginia. Mr. May seems quite the local mover and shaker in Buchanan County Republican circles: In addition to his work with The Voice and WMJD, May has appeared in the Virginia Mountaineer with other local Republican leaders. Mr. May's photo above was cropped from a larger photo of him here with GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell, formerly posted at the Buchanan County Republican Party's website, now purged from that site but heroically rescued from oblivion and posted at the Daily Kos with news of May's dismissal from Team McCain. According to the Daily Kos, Mr. May also provides the advertising specialties for Virginia congressman Virgil Goode, currently seeking re-election and noted for his opposition to Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison's taking the oath of office on the Quran rather than the Bible. Here is a photo of May with Buchanan County GOP leaders from a March 2006 edition of the Virginia Mountaineer:

GOP MEMBERS elected Saturday [3/25/06] were, from left (front), Delores Childress, treasurer; Leona Ratliff, recording secretary; Harriett McClanahan, second vice chairman; Jerry Lester, chairman; David Lowe, first vice chairman; and (back) Bobby May, corresponding secretary; and Bobby Hall, parliamentarian.
(Photo/Tucker Davis)

First noted in a Los Angeles Times political blog, Mr. May's story spread via blogs such as the Daily Kos (including this blog: see Oct. 5 below). May's dismissal from the campaign was finally noted by Keith Olbermann on the Oct. 8 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, when Olbermann named Mr. May "Worst Person in the World" for his racist attack on Obama (see video). Meanwhile, the Buchanan County Republican Party's website, which contained material by or about Mr. May throughout its pages when I previously looked (including the photo with Bob McDonnell above), has at time of this writing been taken offline as references to and photos of him are presumably being purged, Mr. May himself presumably expelled, any potential career for him in politics presumably ended. Like Trotsky in Stalin's USSR, Mr. May will now be airbrushed out of photos with prominent Republicans like Bob McDonnell. Wild!

The bigot Bobby May has been fired from his GOP campaign job and crowned Worst Person in the World as he deserves, John McCain has taken another notable hit in return for the overwhelmingly negative and "racially tinged" campaign he and Sarah Palin have been waging against Obama, and a county Republican website in Virginia has been forced offline. I call this a score.

In a newly-released excerpt from Sarah Palin's CBS News interview with Katie Couric, the vice-presidential nominee was unable to name so much as a single newspaper or magazine she has read (see CBS News, Huffington Post):

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

COURIC: What, specifically?

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

COURIC: Can you name a few?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

The fact that Palin was not able to name so much as a single national or international publication that she has read speaks volumes on how out-of-touch she really is with the world beyond her Alaska backyard. National leaders, and those aspiring to become national leaders, typically read such publications as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Affairs. Those possessed of more curiousity about world affairs might look over any of the international news agencies available on the internet. Any average citizen might at least be able to refer to Newsweek, Time, or a regional daily paper that covers national and world news. It appears that, for Sarah Palin, "news" means tuning in at 6:00 for the local 30-minute news broadcast, 20 minutes of which consists of sports and weather.

Palin displays not only a lack of knowledge about the world, but also a lack of curiosity about it - a lack of the desire to know anything, a fatal flaw shared by the Bush administration, but perhaps even more dangerously pronounced in Palin.

Barack Obama's performance on foreign policy issues in Thursday's CNN debate, his victory in the Americans Abroad primary also announced this week, and the intense global interest in his campaign, highlight his potential as a global leader at this critical juncture for America and the world. Obama's vision for the future direction of American foreign policy came through strongly in his response to the opening question of the debate, on whether the candidates as president would talk directly with the new Cuban leadership now that Fidel Castro has stepped down. In her response Clinton simply reiterated American policy of the past fifty years, insisting that Cuba must first jump through certain hoops before any direct presidential talks would be granted, as she has also insisted with regard to Iran and Syria. As expected, Obama's response was quite different, repeating his conviction that America must talk to its adversaries as well as its allies. "Precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations...," Obama argued, "...the president [must] take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago," suggesting that he would take a far more direct presidential role in diplomacy than Clinton might be willing to offer. "If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned...," Obama further argued, "...I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time," to me a welcome observation given the high-and-mighty attitude that America has projected to the rest of the world in recent years. "I think that it's important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years...," Obama concluded on this topic, "...for the president to be willing to take that extra step.... That is the kind of step that I would like to take as president of the United States."

Obama's willingness to take bold new steps in American foreign policy, and his own international background, have made him an attractive candidate to many of our global neighbors as well as to Americans living overseas. This week's win for Obama in the Americans Abroad primary, representing American diplomats, aid workers, teachers, and other US citizens living and working around the world, indicates that by a wide margin American expatriates prefer Obama. Having myself spent extended periods living, working, and traveling abroad, I can attest to the deepened sensitivity such an experience provides with respect to global concerns, to America's image around the world, and to how our global neighbors feel about our considerable influence on their lives. I can only assume that it is this deepened sensitivity to global concerns which led 65% of Americans Abroad to go with Obama in what was announced this week as his 11th straight primary win since Super Tuesday. From my own contact with overseas friends as well from the international media it is apparent also that the Obama campaign has sparked intense interest and support among the citizens of other countries around the world. This was apparent on Bush's recent visit to Africa, when Bush himself was upstaged by enthusiasm for Obama. This enthusiasm is not limited to Africa: Observers in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere have also welcomed the prospect of an Obama presidency as potentially the beginning of a new era in America's relations with the rest of the world. Obama's opposition to authorizing the war in Iraq, as well as his opposition to confrontation with Iran, have set him apart from Clinton in the eyes of many who would like to see a less pugnacious, more cooperative American posture on the world stage. I for one wholeheartedly agree: Obama is a world-class leader for the 21st century.

In case Republicans should be tempted to mistake our little debate on "change" vs. "experience" (i.e., Obama vs. Clinton) for a sign of fragmentation, take note: We Democrats can afford a lively debate on the future of our party. The reason Republicans can't agree on a candidate is because of their candidates' weaknesses. The reason Democrats can't agree is because of our candidates' strengths. We happen to have two very strong candidates who are attracting a lot of enthusiastic support. The Republicans have a field of highly flawed candidates from which they are struggling to choose the least flawed option on the basis of electibility (certainly no unifying figure such as they have had in the past, and such as we have two of now), and a Republican record of corruption, arrogance, and disastrously poor judgment on which to run in the general election. Democrats know that, whoever receives the nomination of our party at the end of the day, we are united to win in November.

Barack Obama's stunning win in Iowa showed Democrats that the 2008 election could be about more than simply beating the Republicans. In New Hampshire, unfortunately, many of those inspired by Obama appear meanwhile to have been persuaded by the Clinton campaign of lowered expectations to give up their "false hopes" and retreat to a "safer," more "practical" choice. We have seen the glimpse of something better, however, and the forces of politics as usual shouldn't be claiming victory just yet. Judging by the gains Obama and Edwards have both made against the Clinton machine, it is apparent that many in the Democratic Party are now hoping for more than a rerun of the Bill and Hillary Show as the only realistic alternative to the horror show of Republican rule. While Obama and Edwards both project strong messages of change to which many are responding, the Clintons themselves have also contributed much to the decline of their presumed inevitability. We have seen much lately of how angry, bitter, and manipulative the Clintons can become when they sense their presumed ownership of the Democratic campaign challenged, either by another candidate or by the voters themselves, who in great number appear to have abandoned Billary for something a little more exciting and fresh. As Maureen Dowd asks in the New York Times today, "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?" The Clintons give the impression of a pair who have decided that they are entitled to the Democratic nomination and to another eight years in the White House, and that no one had better get in their way. While both Obama and Edwards remain strong contenders despite the New Hampshire results, some consideration seems due also to the combined strength of a possible Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket for change capable of first taking down Billary and then taking down the Republicans. Coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama maintains a slim lead with a total so far of 25 delegates to Billary's 24 and Edwards' 18. Edwards and Obama combined total 43 to Billary's 24 (excluding superdelegates). Poll results collected by Real Clear Politics for upcoming primary states likewise show strong numbers for both Obama and Edwards even where Billary holds a double-digit lead. Obama and Edwards both project messages of change that have attracted strong support for many of the same reasons, and are both directing their fire mainly at Billary rather than at one another. Whichever of the change candidates drops out first can be expected at least to endorse the other against Billary (as left-progressive candidate Dennis Kucinich can also be expected to do). Notice also what a handsome and youthful pair Obama and Edwards make as compared to Billary or to any of the Republicans. The strong crossover support Obama in particular has gained make him a realistic contender against the Republicans; and with the fiery Edwards at his side could form the closest thing to a progressive dream ticket imaginable in the real world of Democratic politics, as well as an energetic alternative to the Geriatric Old Party (GOP). People in high places must be giving this some thought even as I dream.

http://www.mceades.com

For progressives the 2008 election grows more exciting almost by the minute. At its outset with Hillary Clinton as the presumptive Democratic nominee, it looked as though the best for which we could hope was the replacement of Republican rule gone mad with Democratic politics as usual in the style of the 1990s: Good, perhaps, but nothing to get terribly excited about. Today in New Hampshire, however, the slick, strictly top-down Clinton campaign is falling to an insurgent Obama campaign driven largely by a wave of grassroots support crossing demographic lines that few could have predicted. Today, the images of Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea on the campaign trail seem as stale as an old rerun of Friends: perhaps "I'll Be There for You" should be their campaign theme song. In contrast, Obama with the movement that is growing around him gives the distinct impression that something new is in the air. With echoes of Martin Luther King and the Kennedy brothers, Obama seems to combine the idealism of the Sixties with an all-new progressive spirit for a new century. The Clintons manage their campaign from the top down, competing with the Republicans like a corporation competes with another corporation: through marketing and influence peddling. So tightly controlled is their message that at one recent event on the campaign trail Chelsea (aka Mini-Me) could not allow herself to answer a harmless question from a nine-year-old reporter covering the event for her school newspaper. While Obama also runs a well-funded, professional campaign, its driving force is his response to the hopes and aspirations of Americans who, seemingly out of nowhere, appear to have decided they are ready for something more than politics as usual. While Clinton calculates, Obama inspires. I hope the wave of support he has already inspired will take him all the way to the White House.

PS: OOPS! Clearly got it wrong this time, folks! Let's hope for a better pro-Obama poll result next time!

http://www.mceades.com

Barack Obama's public appearances in Iowa and New Hampshire since winning the Iowa caucuses Thursday have presented Americans with the living image of something we have not seen for a very long time. As much as Obama has distanced himself from the partisanship which emerged out of the tumultuous 1960s, he cannot help but remind us also of the very best that we inherit from that great era of progressive change. Watching and listening to him since Thursday, I can't help being reminded of Sam Cooke's great civil rights anthem, "A Change is Gonna Come." While the presumptive other leading Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, speaks like a manager in the pragmatic, calculated language of the 1980s and '90s, Obama comes across like an idealistic breath of fresh air from the era of Martin Luther King and the Kennedy brothers. Clinton appeals to voters' timid desires for a "safe" choice, promising to be the most effective bureaucrat and listing all the things she as national mommy will do for us if elected president. Obama appeals to our courage, promising to walk side-by-side and hand-in-hand with America into a new era, focusing not on himself but on us and on what we are accomplishing today by joining him. In his speeches Obama has been compared both with Dr. King and with Bobby Kennedy; and the prospect of an America with the Obamas as First Family begs comparison with the Camelot of John F. and Jackie Kennedy: A new Camelot for a new century. At the same time, Obama promises to finish the unfinished work of that era, efforts cut short by assassins' bullets and by a resurgent conservative movement bent on taking America back to the 1950s. For the world, Obama will put a new face on the United States - a face as different as can be from the angry and arrogant face of Bush/Cheney, as different as can be from the slick, managerial face of the Clintons, and not at all unlike those American faces for which the world mourned in 1963 and 1968: Americans for whom avenues, boulevards, parks, plazas, and monuments in cities around the world today are named. If Obama is inspiring support not only here in America but around the world, maybe it is because he reminds us all of a better America: an America the world largely did not hate, but deeply respected and admired. This was an America that put men on the moon as an accomplishment for all of humanity, and that in putting Obama in the White House will be making another "giant leap for mankind." Images are important, and with Obama as president the world will see a very different image of America from that it has grown to hate over the past seven years, an image of the future that clearly echoes also the best of our past. Beyond mere images, Obama clearly possesses the ability to unite a majority of Americans along a progressive path despite our political differences. As a left-wing Democrat, I find Obama's positions on certain issues far too conservative, and President Obama can count on my taking issue with him in these regards; in the meantime, he has my vote. At least in Iowa, many conservative independents and even former Republicans who find him far too liberal appear to have decided likewise. After all, as Obama reminds us in his speeches, the future for America and the world is not about him, but about us. Barack Obama can, should, and will be the next President of the United States.

http://www.mceades.com

Possibly Pakistan's best hope for democracy, Benazir Bhutto has been savagely ripped from the picture of her country's future. While most blame Islamic extremists linked to al-Qaeda and /or the Taliban for her death, rumors circulate and accusations fly as to what role the US-backed dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf may have also played in the killing. Though few have accused Musharraf of playing an active role in the assassination, many have suggested that he and/or elements of his government may have played a passive role by simply choosing to do nothing to prevent it. It has been widely reported that the government repeatedly ignored security requests made by Bhutto and her staff, and an e-mail from Bhutto herself has been released by CNN indicating that the former prime minister would hold Musharraf directly responsible in the event of her death. Despite her obviously great courage in pushing forward with her campaign for democracy in Pakistan, Bhutto clearly feared for her life in her final days, and these fears were clearly tied to Musharraf's failure to provide security. Despite Musharraf's continued backing by the Bush administration, we know that Bhutto represented a considerable threat to his position of absolute rule in Pakistan, particularly given also her strong support and admiration in the United States. We also know that with Bhutto now gone the US will be forced to retreat to its former position of dependence on Musharraf as the only bulwark against a nuclear-armed fundamentalist theocracy in Pakistan, and therefore that any democratic threat to Musharraf's rule is now significantly diminished. While the dictator and his cronies privately celebrate Bhutto's death, they along with their American sponsors also go through the motions of public mourning, dismissing as mere "conspiracy theory" all suggestions that anyone other than Islamic extremists may have been involved. Calls such as Hillary Clinton's for an international inquiry into the assassination, similar to that into the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, will in all likelihood be rebuffed as "unnecessary" by Washington as well as by Islamabad; and therefore in all likelihood will never be permitted to bear fruit. Despite all their best efforts at sweeping the matter under the rug, however, both Washington and Islamabad will likely be haunted by the specter of Bhutto's death for some time to come.

http://www.mceades.com

The furor among Republicans over presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's negative comments on the Bush legacy in Foreign Affairs is a demonstration of the GOP's weak standing nationally, in particular of its diminished ability to appeal both to its increasingly hawkish conservative base and to more moderate general election voters. "American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out...," Huckabee writes correctly in his article, "...The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad." Were he a Democratic candidate, such statements would not be a problem, either with the left-leaning Democratic base or with general election voters, particularly given Bush's deepening unpopularity among most sectors of the general population. Since Huckabee is a Republican, however, these comments may well sink his candidacy. Unlike everyone else in America, the hardcore Republican base still overwhelmingly supports the pugnacious stance Bush/Cheney and their neo-con friends have taken toward the rest of the world, and appears hungry for more of the same. Indeed while the rest of the country moves toward moderation, the Republican base continues to move to the extreme right, and candidates hopeful of receiving the Republican nomination seem forced to move right along with them, creating a serious problem of what to say to the rest of the country. There is indeed more than a little incongruity between Huckabee's rather dovish statements in Foreign Affairs and his far more hawkish statements to conservative audiences along the campaign trail. In one way or another, each of the Republican candidates is having and can be expected to continue having his own version of the same problem, whether on national security, immigration, family values, or tax policy. Currently Mitt Romney is playing the hawk against what he calls Huckabee's "playground diplomacy," even calling on Huckabee to apologize to the president for his remarks: soothing words to the base, perhaps, but a potential disaster with everyone else. Having formally endorsed Romney's campaign, the conservative National Review declared that a Huckabee nomination "would represent an act of suicide by [the Republican] party" and "a shiny Christmas present for the Democrats," as though a Romney nomination would promise any different outcome. Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile - once thought to be the GOP's best hope of defeating the Democrats - is tanking in all the early primary states as well as everywhere else owing to his own improprieties as NYC mayor. Republican endorsements are all over the board, and the base is wringing its hands wondering on whom to place its ever-dimming hopes for victory in 2008. Beautiful, simply beautiful.

http://www.mceades.com

Ever true to its planetocidal corporate friends, and amid protest as shown in the photo at right, the Bush administration has once again proved itself an obstacle to progress at the United Nations Climate Change Conference on the Indonesian island of Bali (see Bloomberg, TIME, UK Indymedia). Once again also, the international community has caved in to US demands, dropping specific and binding targets on greenhouse-gas emissions from a draft of the conference document in order to save an agreement hoped to guide discussions on a new climate-change treaty over the coming two years. As always, Bush & Co. explain their opposition to binding climate change targets on the basis of favoring "economic growth," which in plain language translates as "money we can make destroying the earth"; and attempt to pass off procrastination as compromise.  In late news Saturday, the US delegation did agree under pressure to a compromise document including technological and financial assistance to developing countries in the effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but still excluding any binding targets for greenhouse-gas reduction. At its previous rejection of the compromise, the US delegation was booed by the conference audience and told by a delegate from from Papua New Guinea to "either lead, follow, or get out of the way." Minutes later, according to CNN, the US accepted the compromise (see also BBC, New York Times).

"The US are acting like first class passengers on a jumbo jet who believe that a catastrophe in economy class won't affect them...,'' charged Tony Juniper of the London-based environmental group Friends of the Earth International, "...If we go down, we go down together." Carl Pope, president of the Sierra Club, called the US performance "the most explicitly irresponsible action that any American administration has taken in any of our lifetimes." John Coequyt of Greenpeace observed likewise: "The US has been fingered as the problem here, and they really are." Former US vice-president and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore made similar charges in an address to the conference: "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here...," Gore declared, "...We all know that." Offering a glimpse of the very different American face 2008's victorious progressives will show the world from that to which it has been treated through the long, dark years of Republican rule, Gore continued: "Over the next two years, the United States is going to be somewhere it is not right now.... We are going to change in the US." Democratic senator and ex-presidential candidiate John Kerry offered like sentiments: "I wanted to make certain that those folks who are involved in the negotiations understand that they are not alone in dealing with this.... The administration is isolated in its own country."

It would seem not only America but all the world has much to look forward to on Inauguration Day 2009.

http://www.mceades.com

I wouldn't generally describe myself as an Oprah Winfrey fan any more than I would describe myself as a fan of Martha Stewart or Dr. Phil. Nothing against any of these fine folks: daytime TV just isn't my cup of tea. I think that Oprah's appearance on the campaign trail in Iowa this weekend with Barack Obama was notable, however, for the fresh air it brought particularly to the foreign policy debates so central to the 2008 election. In a Des Moines introductory speech for Obama broadcast live Dec. 8 on C-Span's "Campaign 2008" (see video, 10:00-19:00), Oprah highlighted foreign policy concerns in a tone that came as a refreshing contrast to the politics of fear and hostility projected most vociferously by Republicans but more subtly even by some Democrats. While others talk of waging wars and building fences, Oprah's call to "dream America anew again" in the 2008 election included the call for "a new way of doing business in Washington and around the world" based on international understanding rather than fear and hostility. Noting Obama's efforts to end the genocide in Darfur and his longstanding opposition to the war in Iraq, Oprah observed: "These are dangerous times.... We need a leader who shows us how to hope again in America as a force for peace...."

"In my conversations with friends, we talk about how we get worried about America. Yes, I'm worried and it's not just the threat of terrorism or enemies beyond our borders. It's our estrangement from the rest of the world and the dangerous imbalance that creates. It's a dangerous imbalance when we fail to realize that all human hearts are the same. Tragedy and loss and suffering and war and indifference destroy humanity, not just Americans. We need a president that cares about our relationship with our friends and our enemies."

In era when American politics seems driven mainly by fear and hostility - toward perceived enemies in the Muslim world and elsewhere, toward undocumented immigrants, toward a rising China, toward even America's old friends in Europe - US voters need to be reminded that they are part of a larger global human community. Perhaps for fear of offending the nationalistic sentiments of post-9/11 Americans, even Democrats have been unwilling to do this. Hillary Clinton, in particular, often seems as eager to rattle the saber of nationalism as any Republican. Both Obama and Oprah deserve credit for parting with the herd, and for bringing a badly-needed spirit of internationalism to the discussion.

http://www.mceades.com