Clinton hammers Obama in debate
Hetty ter Haar
Suzanne Goldenberg in Cleveland, Ohio
Wednesday February 27 2008
guardian.co.uk
Hillary Clinton tonight hammered Barack Obama on his commitment to universal
healthcare and his grasp of foreign policy using a last debate before a set
of crucial primaries to try to expose her opponent's potential flaws.
Following 11 straight primary wins for Obama, tonight's debate was seen as
critical to Clinton's chances of reviving her campaign for the Democratic
nomination and she came out swinging. However, her attacks at times seemed
more flailing than focused.
After so many debates, there was little that was new tonight. However,
Clinton came the closest she ever has to date to expressing contrition for
her 2002 vote authorising war on Iraq. She acknowledged she wished she had
not cast the vote.
The contentious start set the stage for a 16-minute exchange on healthcare,
which saw Clinton repeatedly speaking over the presenters to accuse Obama of
failing to provide coverage to all Americans in his healthcare proposals.
"It would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said, let's make Social Security
voluntary. That's, you know - that's - let's let everybody get in it if
they can afford it. Or if President
Johnson said, let's make Medicare voluntary," Clinton said.
But in what was perhaps a sign of the high stakes for Clinton, tonight's
attack seemed somewhat desperate. Amid raising substantive points on such
issues as healthcare, the Nafta free trade agreement and mastery of world
events, she betrayed peevishness and self-pity.
She accused Obama's campaign of producing misleading campaign literature,
and said the US media had treated her unfairly. Later on, she teamed with
the moderator to increase the pressure on Obama to disavow the pastor of his
Chicago church who has links with Louis Farrakhan.
For Obama, who has been cutting into Clinton's lead in the opinion polls
ahead of next week's contests in Texas, Ohio and other states, there was
comparatively little pressure to deliver a knockout punch.
While Clinton was focused on showing up the differences with her opponent,
Obama's demeanour was relaxed and conciliatory. He repeatedly noted points
of agreement with Clinton and praised her as an able senator.
When Clinton once again accused him of lacking substance to back up his
soaring rhetoric, Obama responded mildly. "I am not interested in talk," he
said. "I would not be running if I wasn't absolutely convinced that I can
put an economic agenda forward that is going to provide them with
healthcare, is going to make college more affordable, and is going to get
them the kinds of help that they need not to solve all of their problems,
but at least to be able to achieve the American dream."
Clinton did not have the luxury to appear relaxed. Her campaign has cast the
next set of primaries as a last stand. If she cannot extract wins in Ohio
and Texas next week - by convincing voters she is prepared to fight for
their economic interests - Clinton may well be out of the race.
Polls this week suggest Clinton's once imposing lead over Obama in Ohio has
evaporated. She now leads by as little as five or six points in the state;
the two are in a dead heat in Texas.
The pressure was telling - as well as the duration of this contest.
Tonight's debate was the 20th such encounter between Obama and Clinton, and
there were signs that they were long past the point of tolerating each
other's company.
A petulant Clinton complained that she was always asked the first question
in debates, and then mentioned a skit on Saturday Night Live sending up the
American media's soft spot for Obama.
Obama, on a number of occasions, seemed to smirk or laugh as Clinton was
speaking.
But despite Clinton's claims of favoritism to Obama, her opponent also came
in for tough questioning from the moderator, Tim Russert, about whether he
would live up to a written pledge to accept public financing of his general
election campaign.
Obama faced even tougher questioning about Louis Farrakhan. Although Obama
said repeatedly he disavowed Farrakhan's anti-semitic views, Clinton egged
on the moderator, Tim Russert, for Obama to issue an even more strenuous
disavowal. "If the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the
word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and
denounce," Obama said to applause.
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2008
If you have any questions about this email, please contact the
guardian.co.uk user help desk: user...@guardian.co.uk.
Akurang-Parry, Kwabena
Kwabena.
Kwabena Akurang-Parry, Ph. D.
(Assoc Prof of African History & World History)
Dept of History
Shippensburg University
Shippensburg, PA, 17257, USA
Phone: 717 477 1286
Fax: 717 477 4062
________________________________________
From: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com [USAAfric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hetty ter Haar [olda...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 3:45 AM
To: USAAfricaDialogue
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Clinton hammers Obama in debate
Kissi, Edward
I have heard to my heart's discontent, over and over again, that Mrs.
Clinton has "gravitas" in foreign policy matters or a superior grasp of
"foreign policy" and "national security." But the failure of the
American press, and its cacophonous pundits, to actually define and
discuss the essence and properties of "foreign policy" has made many
mistake knowledge of "current affairs" and awareness of "foreign news"
for knowledge of foreign policy. That is sad, indeed.
Ability to demonstrate knowledge of what is going on in Russia; Kenya;
Kosovo is NOT grasp of foreign policy. That is "news surfing." If
demonstration of knowledge of current affairs; foreign news and the
week's major developments abroad counted for foreign policy credentials,
then "newsroom junkies", to borrow a pedestrian phrase, who put these
together for the evening news could be the best candidates for the
presidency.
"Foreign Policy", in my view, is the pursuit of a set of principles that
a nation considers as the guiding philosophy of its "foreign relations."
Foreign policy, then, is completely different from "foreign relations."
The "policy" [principles and positions] that a nation adopts as
guideposts in its international relations are rooted in a set of norms.
These norms sometimes come from the history and culture of the nation;
the needs and aspirations of that nation's elite who define and express
the nation's purpose. These normative properties of foreign policy
change in time and with administrations. The basic philosophy underlying
US foreign policy hasn't changed much since the days of the Republic.
Both Democratic and Republican administrations have often adhered to the
same foreign policy philosophies and goals. It is the tactics, means and
methods of achieving those goals that change from administration to
administration.
I have not yet heard either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama enunciate, in any
substantive way, the principles, norms and values that would constitute
their foreign policy. That the press thinks ability to know the name of
a foreign leader, or what happened somewhere yesternight, or last week,
constitutes foreign policy credentials is derisive.
Whereas foreign policy is a collection of basic ideas, principles and
positions of a nation in international relations, foreign relations is a
mode or form of interaction between nations, peoples and cultures.
Foreign Policy is the place where principles are constructed. Foreign
relations is the arena where those foreign policy principles are
actually applied or conducted. A superior grasp of foreign relations
entail some understanding of the feelings, mores and cultural
predispositions of the societies and peoples to whom the principles and
positions of foreign policy are applied. A good foreign policy principle
can be a terrible albatross around a nation's neck when applied
arrogantly and in an imperious fashion, disdainful of the feelings of
other cultures and nations, or pursued from an assumed position of
political and cultural supremacy and unmindful of the changes that occur
in other foreign nations in areas of population, levels of education,
and processes of development.
Sound foreign policy philosophy, and not mastery of the week's foreign
news, and awareness of the changing arena of foreign policy praxis
[foreign relations], lead to better "national security" policy and
credentials. National Security is more than support for war or an
insatiable appetite for more. It is the ability to determine, in a
complex world, the principles and positions that a nation should take
[foreign policy] and the developemnt of sound policy tools to accomplish
those principles. Ability to develop sound and appropriate policy tools
to achieve a nation's broader objectives of security and prosperity
rests on sound knowledge of the cultural arenas in which foreign
policies are pursued. Afterall, whereas foreign policy is merely a set
of ideas, foreign relations are interactions between cultures.
Knowledge of foreign news; current affairs; who shot whom abroad and who
is manoevring at where to monopolize power could get one an A grade in
what the West African Examinations Council used to call "General Paper"
in the General Certificate of Education Advanced Level Examinations in
the 1980s. That is not Foreign Policy.
Edward Kissi
University of South Florida, Tampa Campus.
-----Original Message-----
From: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:USAAfric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hetty ter Haar
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 3:45 AM
To: USAAfricaDialogue
Rita Kiki Edozie
Obama and Clinton: Why We Are All Still Sparring!
We’re still on this topic – will be probably until after Tuesday. I will support the democratic nominee. Though, in other news I’m thrilled by the just-signed peace agreement in Kenya by Kibaki and Odinga; and I continue to be intrigued by processes in Nigeria’s fourth republic! But there is more time to analyze these humungous issues.
I’d like to stay on this topic of American politics for just a while more as the Ohio debate is on my mind, a few interesting threads on the topic have come in, and I did promise more analysis on my preference for Clinton over Obama! Now, even my white colleagues ask me to justify my selection!!
What’s more, I think that forums like USA-Dialogue should be used as a platform for important critical debate and discussion on these issues too; we are not monolithic on our views on these things.
Aside from the fact that I’d followed Clinton’s career since NYC, liked her and supported her bid for President at least six months before Obama entered the race; like I said in a previous thread, I don’t think that there is anything that Obama has demonstrated to me that should have me change my vote other than the fact that he is a “Black’ man.
Given all the pressure the likes of me who have made this choice and more important people than me are getting, including Jesse Jackson’s wife, Eric Dyson’s wife, Senators Maxine Waters, Tubman-Jones, and Jackson-Lee, I continue to look for something coming from Obama that wants me to say, I should support him over Clinton because he represents my ideological interests better.
This is what I was looking for in this last debate in Ohio. I agree with you Kwabena, Hilary was more aggressive than usual – she wanted to point out the superficiality of the Obama ‘change’ discourse. Look she’s losing, it’s good strategy to force your opponent to the table to discuss these issues rationally rather than on the populist whims of campaigning. She succeeded in her goal! I won’t go into the healthcare issue- that’s Hilary’s issue; it should be universal. I think Democrats should embrace that policy from the starting point. It was fear-mongering from the Obama campaign to suggest that she’s pushing socialized medicine to poor people and telling them that she will force them to pay--- especially given that his plan also has mandatory elements.
But there are more important issues that I’d like to lay bare – ones that I think I have more professional insights and personal stakes in:
On Nafta, from that debate we find out that Obama who aggressively criticized Clinton for her initial support for Nafta in certain contexts (his sending around fliers in Ohio), also supports Nafta in some contexts as he said to Californian farmers. In that debate, Clinton made him concede that both of them had the same position on Nafta – it works in some cases and contexts, not in all. There is a need to support global trade, but with important contingencies.
On Foreign Policy, in that debate, Clinton really showed up Obama in my mind, even though I agree with Edward Kissi, neither represents by ideological interests on how America should see the world. Both continue the US’ hegemonic encounter with the world; though differently from the Bush Administration and the Republicans, there’s would not be hawkish and unilateralist foreign policy.
However, as a change agent, I would have expected more from Obama as much as the emphasis of his campaign is that he is a “change” agent.
- On the Iraq War, Clinton did expose the superficiality of his 2002 speech as a ‘state’ senator in Illinois. Had he been a real maverick, as soon as he got to the ‘national’ senate, Obama should have been an anti-war opponent! Kuccinich was, Russ Feingold was! Obama like Clinton supported to continue to funding of the war, and he is on record known to have said that he agreed with the way that Bush was handling the war– he’s no anti-war maverick.
- On Afghanistan, Clinton again showed up Obama’s inexperience on foreign policy but more so his superficiality in changing the preemptive war prone policies of the Bush Administration. Obama claims that it is only the invasion of Iraq that is the problem; he claims that what we need to do is take our preemptive war or unilateral US action to Pakistant where the real war on terrorism is! Obama says we should bomb Al-Queda in Pakistan if Musharaff doesn’t move quick enough! This is not a progressive position to take! In fact, Clinton rightly called him on the fact that he chairs the European military committee in the Senate where he has supervision of NATO affairs. Through this body, a multi-lateral approach to Afghanistan could be explored. Obama agreed that he hadn’t even held a meeting since he began to chair that committee because he’s been too busy campaigning.
- On Africa, Clinton to my dismay but understanding, wants us to continue the Bush Administration’s compassionate paternalism of the Continent as an aids crisis continent – though I like the fact that she will use most of US foreign aid on education spending for Africans!!!
o But here, Obama, the change agent with a Kenyan father misses a great opportunity to show me why I should support him not Clinton. During the debate, there was a lot of discussion about foreign policy – Russia, Pakistan, Mexico, Serbia-Kosovo, Israel, China – where both agree to the ‘tee’ on every single foreign policy talking point. At some point, Barack would simply say, ‘me too’!
o Could he not have interjected Kenya into that debate?? Present to America a new trajectory of relations with Africa – yes given that he has leverage in Kenya! Not one word!
o Must he agree with a discourse that discusses Israel without a balance of bringing in the Palestinian question?
o Could he stand up for Muslims and his Islamic heritage (Kenya and Indonesia) – despite that he is a Christian- to bridge an American foreign policy that is so wrong about how it addresses the Muslim world? He didn’t do so in that debate, nor does he do it in his stump speeches. It turned out that Clinton did not circulate the Obama-Taliban photo. But for me, Kwabena, for a ‘change’ agent, a calm and assured response to it would not accuse Clinton of fear-mongering, but to embrace the picture and precept it as a way to help Americans understand and embrace other cultures.
Having said all this, I am unsure that my own analysis of these things really matters. This campaign process has shown me that American politics is similar to politics all over the world but especially in the developing world countries that the US paternalizes. It’s about the politics of ‘personality’ – personal politics- who do you ‘like’, who do you ‘resonate’ with! Increasingly, it’s also about ‘identity’ politics and thus a kind of group symbolism! The historic nature of this race is exactly that- it underscores that the affiliations of ‘race’, ‘gender’, ‘religion’, and ‘region’ trump critical discussions over issues!
Obama ended by saying that he wants to be President so that he can unite everyone. Clinton merely asks- but on what terms??? Being united to address the political problems of a culturally and ideologically plural society requires great wisdom, experience, compromise and moderation on a range of complex issues: such a platform requires humungous leadership found in American politics on rare, but epochal occasions. ‘Uniting’ Americans without critically debating the terms produces a lot of uncertainty regarding specific issues that are to be performed. That is my discomfort with Obama.
Clinton ended- and always ends her debates- by saying when she is President, this is what she will do! I do not think that Clinton has humungous leadership; but her fighting for universal healthcare for Americans takes courage. Her stance that her role in politics can as a woman can be more than a first lady and a first lady with voice is magnanimous; she is in her second term in the Senate where she did work with Republicans to accomplish the things Obama talks of (working together) – albeit with consequences that come with compromise.
Clinton’s ‘primary’ (this is a primary campaign not a general election yet – we cannot minimize that) platform message is that she has negotiated the terms of change by her own ideas, the ideological platform of the Democratic party and an approximation of the changing and complex will of the voters/citizens all over the country that she speaks to.
Rita Kiki Edozie
Michigan State University
Rita Kiki Edozie (Ph.D.)
Assistant Professor of International Politics
International Relations (James Madison)
Michigan State University, East Lansing
Office Location: 364 North Case Hall
Office phone: 517-432-5291
Website: http://www.msu.edu/~rkedozie/
Moses Ebe Ochonu
On Foreign Policy, in that debate, Clinton really showed up Obama in my mind, even though I agree with Edward Kissi, neither represents by ideological interests on how America should see the world. Both continue the US' hegemonic encounter with the world; though differently from the Bush Administration and the Republicans, there's would not be hawkish and unilateralist foreign policy.
However, as a change agent, I would have expected more from Obama as much as the emphasis of his campaign is that he is a "change" agent.
- On the Iraq War, Clinton did expose the superficiality of his 2002 speech as a 'state' senator in Illinois. Had he been a real maverick, as soon as he got to the 'national' senate, Obama should have been an anti-war opponent! Kuccinich was, Russ Feingold was! Obama like Clinton supported to continue to funding of the war, and he is on record known to have said that he agreed with the way that Bush was handling the war– he's no anti-war maverick.
- On Afghanistan, Clinton again showed up Obama's inexperience on foreign policy but more so his superficiality in changing the preemptive war prone policies of the Bush Administration. Obama claims that it is only the invasion of Iraq that is the problem; he claims that what we need to do is take our preemptive war or unilateral US action to Pakistant where the real war on terrorism is! Obama says we should bomb Al-Queda in Pakistan if Musharaff doesn't move quick enough! This is not a progressive position to take! In fact, Clinton rightly called him on the fact that he chairs the European military committee in the Senate where he has supervision of NATO affairs. Through this body, a multi-lateral approach to Afghanistan could be explored. Obama agreed that he hadn't even held a meeting since he began to chair that committee because he's been too busy campaigning.
- On Africa, Clinton to my dismay but understanding, wants us to continue the Bush Administration's compassionate paternalism of the Continent as an aids crisis continent – though I like the fact that she will use most of US foreign aid on education spending for Africans!!!
o But here, Obama, the change agent with a Kenyan father misses a great opportunity to show me why I should support him not Clinton. During the debate, there was a lot of discussion about foreign policy – Russia, Pakistan, Mexico, Serbia-Kosovo, Israel, China – where both agree to the 'tee' on every single foreign policy talking point. At some point, Barack would simply say, 'me too'!
o Could he not have interjected Kenya into that debate?? Present to America a new trajectory of relations with Africa – yes given that he has leverage in Kenya! Not one word!
o Must he agree with a discourse that discusses Israel without a balance of bringing in the Palestinian question?
o Could he stand up for Muslims and his Islamic heritage (Kenya and Indonesia) – despite that he is a Christian- to bridge an American foreign policy that is so wrong about how it addresses the Muslim world? He didn't do so in that debate, nor does he do it in his stump speeches. It turned out that Clinton did not circulate the Obama-Taliban photo. But for me, Kwabena, for a 'change' agent, a calm and assured response to it would not accuse Clinton of fear-mongering, but to embrace the picture and precept it as a way to help Americans understand and embrace other cultures.
Obama ended by saying that he wants to be President so that he can unite everyone. Clinton merely asks- but on what terms??? Being united to address the political problems of a culturally and ideologically plural society requires great wisdom, experience, compromise and moderation on a range of complex issues: such a platform requires humungous leadership found in American politics on rare, but epochal occasions. 'Uniting' Americans without critically debating the terms produces a lot of uncertainty regarding specific issues that are to be performed. That is my discomfort with Obama.
---Mohandas Ghandi
Moses Ebe Ochonu
Rita:
Indeed, the communication theory of selective perception is true; we all perceive and interpret information in line with our preferences, biases, and idiosyncrasies. I disagree with your reading of the last debate and what you portray as a distinction between Obama and Clinton.
On Nafta, from that debate we find out that Obama who aggressively criticized Clinton for her initial support for Nafta in certain contexts (his sending around fliers in Ohio), also supports Nafta in some contexts as he said to Californian farmers. In that debate, Clinton made him concede that both of them had the same position on Nafta – it works in some cases and contexts, not in all. There is a need to support global trade, but with important contingencies.
Their position on Nafta may not be far apart, but it is Clinton, not Obama, who has made it a center point of her campaign prior to Wisconsin and Ohio by claiming credit for it as a joint achievement of her husband and her. It was Clinton who wrote in her book that Nafta has been good for NY and America. Obama is absolutely right: Clinton cannot have it both ways. She cannot take credit for Nafta's passage under Bill Clinton when the electoral climate favors it and repudiate it when it is not politically favorable to do so. That is political trickery. And opportunism. Calling it that is not an attack on Clinton; most politicians, including Obama, occasionally take opportunistic positions. Finally, Obama's position on Nafta has always been nuanced. It is Clinton's that has evolved into the territory of nuance, from a position of self-adulatory approval. Now she says that while supporting Nafta publicly as First Lady, she disagreed with some aspects of it privately. She must think that she is talking to children!
On Foreign Policy, in that debate, Clinton really showed up Obama in my mind, even though I agree with Edward Kissi, neither represents by ideological interests on how America should see the world. Both continue the US' hegemonic encounter with the world; though differently from the Bush Administration and the Republicans, there's would not be hawkish and unilateralist foreign policy.
Clinton showed up only to further raise doubts about her foreign policy credentials, offering no radical thoughts on the strategic problems facing the US and advancing no grand foreign policy visions. When offered an opportunity to apologize for her vote on the war, she hedged and fell short of an outright apology. Well, at least for the first time she came close to admitting that her Iraq war vote was a mistake, the product of a flawed foreign policy judgment.
However, as a change agent, I would have expected more from Obama as much as the emphasis of his campaign is that he is a "change" agent.
His policy positions are very detailed on every major domestic and foreign policy challenge facing America. He has offered them in campaign literature, speeches, and on his website. In the debate he was asked specific questions, which required disciplined, narrow answers. He did very well. He not only talked about his visions for the country in the areas in which questions were asked, he successfully answered all the flaky criticisms that Clinton was busy throwing his way all night instead of outlining her own visions for the country.
- On the Iraq War, Clinton did expose the superficiality of his 2002 speech as a 'state' senator in Illinois. Had he been a real maverick, as soon as he got to the 'national' senate, Obama should have been an anti-war opponent! Kuccinich was, Russ Feingold was! Obama like Clinton supported to continue to funding of the war, and he is on record known to have said that he agreed with the way that Bush was handling the war– he's no anti-war maverick.
Obama's metaphor of Clinton joining McCain and Bush to drive the bus into the ditch and he (Obama) working with Clinton and others to try and get the bus out is a perfect answer. Once the troops had been sent in, and the mess had been made, the responsible thing to do was to seek a graceful exit. Unfortunately that requires funding the troops in the interim. It would have been irresponsible of Obama to vote against providing money to fund the effort, especially knowing that with the composition of congress, cutting off funds could not happen. This does not in any way discredit Obama's clear foresight and sound judgment in denouncing the war at a time when it was politically suicidal to do so with more than 70 percent of Americans enthusiastically supporting the invasion. For me, Obama's courage to go against the grain of American war frenzy is the strongest indication yet of his foreign policy perspicacity.
- On Afghanistan, Clinton again showed up Obama's inexperience on foreign policy but more so his superficiality in changing the preemptive war prone policies of the Bush Administration. Obama claims that it is only the invasion of Iraq that is the problem; he claims that what we need to do is take our preemptive war or unilateral US action to Pakistant where the real war on terrorism is! Obama says we should bomb Al-Queda in Pakistan if Musharaff doesn't move quick enough! This is not a progressive position to take! In fact, Clinton rightly called him on the fact that he chairs the European military committee in the Senate where he has supervision of NATO affairs. Through this body, a multi-lateral approach to Afghanistan could be explored. Obama agreed that he hadn't even held a meeting since he began to chair that committee because he's been too busy campaigning.
You are misrepresenting Obama. He didn't say he was going to declare war on Pakistan or invade it. He was talking about a targeted strike predicated on good intelligence inside Pakistan to kill bin Laden or his deputy in a situation where the Pakistani leadership fails to act to take out the duo. Many targeted strikes have been carried out inside Pakistan by the US in the last few years with and without the knowledge and approval of the Pakistanis and none of them resulted in war with Pakistan. It is therefore demagoguery to depict Obama's position as the drumbeat of unilateral invasion. He certainly wasn't talking about sending troops or invading Pakistan--only a targeted anti-Bin Laden strike in his hideout inside Pakistani territory. Here Clinton's criticism of Obama's position is one of many of her hypocrisies. A few months ago, she told a radio station that she would do the exact same thing that Obama said he would do if Bin Laden's location in Pakistan is pinpointed and the "Pakis," in Bush-speak, didn't act. When I listened to the clip on Tucker (MSNBC) yesterday, I shook my head at Hillary's desperate and hypocritical attacks. How pathetic!
- On Africa, Clinton to my dismay but understanding, wants us to continue the Bush Administration's compassionate paternalism of the Continent as an aids crisis continent – though I like the fact that she will use most of US foreign aid on education spending for Africans!!!
o But here, Obama, the change agent with a Kenyan father misses a great opportunity to show me why I should support him not Clinton. During the debate, there was a lot of discussion about foreign policy – Russia, Pakistan, Mexico, Serbia-Kosovo, Israel, China – where both agree to the 'tee' on every single foreign policy talking point. At some point, Barack would simply say, 'me too'!
o Could he not have interjected Kenya into that debate?? Present to America a new trajectory of relations with Africa – yes given that he has leverage in Kenya! Not one word!
o Must he agree with a discourse that discusses Israel without a balance of bringing in the Palestinian question?
o Could he stand up for Muslims and his Islamic heritage (Kenya and Indonesia) – despite that he is a Christian- to bridge an American foreign policy that is so wrong about how it addresses the Muslim world? He didn't do so in that debate, nor does he do it in his stump speeches. It turned out that Clinton did not circulate the Obama-Taliban photo. But for me, Kwabena, for a 'change' agent, a calm and assured response to it would not accuse Clinton of fear-mongering, but to embrace the picture and precept it as a way to help Americans understand and embrace other cultures.
I think we can all agree with neither candidate would bring a sea change in the way that American conducts business with the rest of the world; they couldn't even if they tried. The only key difference is that Obama is not in favor of preemptive war while Clinton, through her misguided Iran vote, showed that she could again be duped into another preemptive war. The change that Obama speaks of is more on the domestic front. And his argument that Clinton's bare-knuckle, combative politics will only serve to frustrate progressive ideas and visions for the country resonates with me and many Americans. I recently read an analysis of the two candidates' legislative records and it was clear to me that Obama has passed more bills and have had more people support his bills and legislative efforts than Clinton because he is truly a uniting, pragmatic figure, who believes in getting things done through dialogue and persuasion. Contrast this with Clinton's mantra of being a "fighter"---as if fighting is what it takes to get things done in this extremely partisan period in American history. What has interparty "fighting" done for America lately? Even a good fighter must pick his/her fights wisely. Clinton's "fighting" politics is clearly unsuited to a country evenly divided between the two major parties.
Obama ended by saying that he wants to be President so that he can unite everyone. Clinton merely asks- but on what terms??? Being united to address the political problems of a culturally and ideologically plural society requires great wisdom, experience, compromise and moderation on a range of complex issues: such a platform requires humungous leadership found in American politics on rare, but epochal occasions. 'Uniting' Americans without critically debating the terms produces a lot of uncertainty regarding specific issues that are to be performed. That is my discomfort with Obama.
You are correct that addressing healthcare, the education crisis; the energy crisis; infrastructure; the economic meltdown and other problems require wisdom and compromise. Hillary has shown that she only believes in "fighting" to get things done rather than judging situations and problems wisely and compromising with political adversaries to get things done.
By the way, on healthcare, everyone knows that a plan that compels every adult to purchase insurance from the insurance companies will never pass. Even Clinton knows this from her first disastrous experience with the issue. She is merely engaging in sloganeering with the mantra of "universal healthcare." Her plan goes against a fundamental tenet of American life: choice. It also would merely enrich the insurance companies, although Obama's too would. If Clinton is truly committed to universal healthcare, why does she not support a single payer plan that covers everyone? Obama's plan makes a lot of sense, is pragmatic, and has the potential to pass in congress with broad appeal. It would not be perfect (neither would Clinton's plan) but it would be a vast improvement over what we have now. His plan only mandates children's coverage. Children have no independent means of livelihood and are, in any case, too young to make informed choices, so it makes sense that their coverage be mandated. Adults, on the other hand, should not be forced, yes, forced to buy insurance. The alarming thing about Clinton's plan is that when asked recently about how she intends to enforce the mandate, she says she won't rule out going after people's wages. That got the alarm bell ringing. That would be Big Brother at its most anachronistic.
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Ghandi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Ghandi
Nkolika Ebele
You are very correct. The democratic and the
Republican Parties are not really different in any
way, if the ideology dividing them is sharp and clean,
it wouldn't be easy for the so called republicans to
cross line and vote in the democratic primaries.
Foreign Policy as you said is the embodimment of the
National Interest of a State.American national
interest has remained the same over the
years.Withdrawing or not withdrawing troops from Iraq
is not really a key element of Foreign policy. Ialso
womder why the issue of the Middle East never came up
in the primaries,is n't it more serious thgan Iraq? I
am a bit dissappointed in the way the American press
has been conducting itself in thE primaries.They seem
to be taking sides rather than moderate the
debate.Well obviously we are not that underdeveloped
in this part of the world. If some of the behavior
exihibited by the American press took place in this
part of the world,they would have presented us babaric
and uncivilised.I expected to hear them tell us about
their policy for Africa especially when one of the
candidates have an African decent. You cannot run away
from these truths or from whom we are, that is not
racism, it is identity.
Nkolika.
Unizik, Nigeria
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Pius Adesanmi
You wonder why the Middle East has not featured in the
debates. Remember no-go areas, Babangida's
contribution to Nigeria's political lexicon? Every
nation has its own no-go areas which are more or less
reducible to the vital interests of the ruling clique.
In Nigeria, Sovereign National Conference, Sharia,
Federalism, and most importantly, the wealth of the
people of the Niger Delta, are no-go areas. If you
move near any of the no-go areas in Nigeria, the
ruling class will kill you. Ken Saro-Wiwa moved near
the oil... In America, gun control (guns are never to
blame for the epidemic of school and mall shootings),
the outrageous military budget, and the Middle East
are no-go areas. If you move near the no-go areas in
America, they put you out of business. For any
politician or the media, moving near the Middle East
in any way that smirks of balance is a sure kiss of
death. The scholar, Norman Finkelstein, knows one or
two things about the price you pay for moving near
American no-go areas.
If there is one thing that can potentially destroy
Obama, for instance, it is evidence of his past
flirtations with America's most dangerous no-go area:
the Middle East. He used to believe that Palestinians
were human beings - a totally unacceptable position in
the US. He attended events aimed at drawing attention
to the suffering of the Palestinian people. He and
Michelle were even photographed with Edward Said at a
pro-Palestinian event. You may read the
widely-circulated essay, "How Barack Obama Learned to
Love Isreal", at this link:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
It comes complete with pictures of Obama, Michelle,
and Edward Said. Just wait and see what Rush Limbaugh,
Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Sean
Hannity, and other rightwing lunatics will do with
those pictures in the general election. To be at table
with Palestinians as the Obamas are seen doing in
these pictures, you must first admit that they are
human beings. That is the one sin America never
forgives...
Pius
Pius Adesanmi, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Director, Project on New African Literatures (PONAL)
Department of English
Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
K1S 5B6
Tel: +1 613 520 2600 ext. 1175
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Inbox. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Abubakar Momoh
I am pleased you called attention to the Know-Go
Areas. That is why the concluding remark in Paul
Tiyambe Zeleza's piece on Obama, about what not to
expect from him,is very instructive.
In American politics, you are permitted to talk about
Africa in ways that is selectively approved and
acceptable to the hegemons-Darfur, corruption and
accountability and HIV. You can only talk about Middle
East in a particular way. Everything is about "who is
the friend of Israel". Palestine is written out of the
text. If you are critical and say that the
Palestinians are human beings and we should talk about
Human Rights they will say you are anti-semitic. They
will never tell you why Yitzhak Rabin was killed. That
is why they attacked Jimmy Carter when he said it was
Peace and not apartheid that was needed in Israel.
They do not accept that Zionism is apartheid, yet the
UN had ranked Zionism and John Voster's South Africa
as representing apartheid and that both constituted
crime against humanity; and hence the UN recognised
both the ANC and PLO as liberation organisations.
Nobody remembers that "Constructive Engagement" was
the product of so-called most powerful democracy in
the world, a country which believes only in its own
freedom and not of others. America does not care about
how the world feels about it, it only cares about how
it feels about the world-hence its Arrogance on all
scores. Obama is acutely aware of all this, and they
also constitute some of the limitation to his change
talk. There is very little he can do about many of
these things because they ae No Go Areas. time an
again he said dont demonise, Muslims, dont scapegoat
immigrants, etc. But he needs to be careful because in
America to be a Muslim is a crime. Hence some people
are claiming he went to a Madrassa in Indonesia and
that his middle name Hussein must be made a campaign
issue. That is the meaning of open and free
society-censorship and intolerance! But he needs to
win power and the Jewish community are the only ones
post centrally located to make it happen.
Bill Clinton has been insulting John Kerry and Ted
Kennedy, at every campaign stop, about how Hillary won
Massachusetts and all that. He refused to mention that
the Jew were responsible for her victory in
Massachusetts, a place that is so politically
conservative in spite of the presence of Harvard, MIT,
and Boston University in the region, all controlled by
the Jewish. The Jews ran his White House, dominated
and controlled his cabinet and policies. He refused to
announce that the Jewish community in Boston is most
powerful as they are in New York, Los Angeles and else
where. As they are on arms and military matters,
Media, minerals etc.But if you say all this, you will
be accused of anti-anti-semitism. They forget that
both Arabic and Hebrew are semitic languages, and
hence both Palestine and Israel are semitic! I have
learnt never to be bothered by such blackmail, because
they are not interested in justice and fairness. Thats
is why the killed Yitzhak Rabin, the man who ventured
into the peace arena in the Palestine Question. That
is why Edward Said may still come back to haunt Obama.
If anybody watched Hillary at the Black State of the
Union programme in Louisiana she made allusion to how
how husband appointed many of you Blacks into key
positions in his government as if the White House is
her personal property and as if it was a privilege and
not a right and entitlement for Blacks to be appointed
to government positions. It tells a lot about how Bil
and Hillary condescendingly view Blacks-the mindset of
the Plantation age. Dick Gregory's remark about Dr.
Condellezza Rice is also important. He said everybody
calls her "Condi", apparently because she is Black.
Meanwhile when Madeleine Albright or Henry Kissinger
was there, they were properly and formally addressed
with their full tiles. Anyway, I hope we shall have
time to discuss the sub-text in this whole process
I find all this analyses of who won or did not win
the Debate between Hillary and Obama quite out of
place, if not laughable. It reminds me of when I was
representing my school in the Quiz and Debating
society in High School in the 1970s.
Ultimately, it is the balance of social forces, not
debates, that will determine who wins between Obama
and Hillary and not the debates. Why are low income
whites not voting Obama? That question is not answered
by who is the best debater between Hillary Clinton and
Obama.
One final point, the American electorate, no matter
how good or bad a candidate is, may be persuaded to
vote differently just by one minor issue, event or
activity-often things that are not substantive,
important or weighty. The American voter is as
slippery and unpredictable as any thing. It partly has
to do with what is called "functional illiteracy",
which was put at 65% in the US around 2003, and with
lack of a principled judgment. That is why they often
land with bad leaders, and only often lucky to have
good ones like J. F Kennedy or Bill Clinton. When
Barbara Lee, the Congresswoman from California stood
out as the only person in Washington who refused to
give her vote to George Bush to attack Iraq, she
received death threats, she was attacked as being
unpatriotic. When Noam Chomsky and Mahmood Mamdani
openly wrote about and condemned the attack, many
people were afraid to associate with them in the
American Academy. Today, it is politically correct to
condemn the Bush policy, but then the rating for Bush
was almost 100%. What is my point? The American peple
and government and intelligentsia gave Bush the
political, legal and moral basis to attack Iraq. Many
who knew the truth where too cowardly to speak and
condemn him. They only came back to do what I call
"postmortem" because they were unwilling to risk their
jobs, their lives etc. Lee, Chomsky and Mamdani, among
a tiny minority should be commended. And we as Public
Intellectuals must learn from this-stand by the truth
even when you are in minority, never join a conforming
majority.
By all accounts, Obama transcended race in this
primaries, in spite of race-baiting by the Clintons,
he has also escaped many other things including the
Rezkos, Islam etc. But this is just the beginning of
the struggle. McCain has promised to undertake a
decent campaign, but we know the Republicans will use
every mud to fight this war. But time will tell.
Abu
____________________________________________________________________________________
Emeagwali, Gloria (History)
I appreciate your comments. I believe, though, that to mention Kenya while on the campaign trail is quite risky for Obama. The Kibaki regime has been a darling of the Bush administration because of its promise to hand over some real or imagined al-Qaida supporters. To complicate matters, Obama is not from Kibaki's sphere of influence but from the largely Muslim Luo. Need I say more?
Should he talk too much about Africa, certain constituencies here would portray him as an alien whose heart is really in Africa; that he would empty the U.S Treasury for the benefit of Africa. (Never mind the fact that the Treasury is already empty.)
Should Obama do as you say and embrace further 'Muslims and his Islamic heritage' to bridge a faulty American foreign policy, he would be committing political suicide. There is plenty of time in the future to educate the populace. Bush has embraced the corrupt Muslim House of Saud and gotten rich in the process. Unfortunately Obama does not have that political luxury at this point in time. He knows it. This is a potential land mine and Obama has to tread gently. He is doing a perfect job on this so far and went far enough in 'Dreams of my Father'.....
There is a kind of gentleman's agreement in the Senate that even if you went against a war, once it begins you would give some veiled support to the commander in chief , lest you be hanged upside down from the nearest tree for being a traitor. His 'lite' support for Bush after the war had started was given in that context.
If Hillary Clinton accrued all that experience and expertise in the White House and did all those things she claimed to have done, while her husband was President, well, she probably did it illegally. She was not elected co- President or Vice President.
I find it hard to forgive Clinton for throwing more Black males in jail that all the previous Presidents put together, perhaps;
for the 3-strikes policy for mass incarceration; for not recognizing the democratically elected MPLA, thus prolonging the Angolan civil War; for not lifting a finger to help Rwanda etc. But I blame Him, and not Hillary because, after all, she was not an elected
official at that point in time.
There are some who argue that this is an election of monumental proportions. History is being made.They want to be able to tell their grandchildren that they actually facilitated the election of the first Black President of the United States, but, more so, a man of substance, political savvy, enlightened pacifism and life experience in three continents.
We may never again have such a fantastic team of Democrats on the campaign trail.
Dr. Gloria T. Emeagwali
Prof. of History and African Studies
History Department
Central Connecticut State University
1615 Stanley Street
New Britain
CT 06050.
www.africahistory.net <http://www.africahistory.net/>
www.africahistoryonline.com <http://www.africahistoryonline.com/>
www.ccsu.edu/afstudy/archive.html <http://www.ccsu.edu/afstudy/archive.html>
________________________________
From: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Rita Kiki Edozie
Sent: Thu 2/28/2008 12:26 PM
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Kissi, Edward
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: WHERE IS THE FOREIGN POLICY DEBATE? Obama and Clinton: Why We Are All Still Sparring!
Obama and Clinton: Why We Are All Still Sparring!
We're still on this topic - will be probably until after Tuesday. I will support the democratic nominee. Though, in other news I'm thrilled by the just-signed peace agreement in Kenya by Kibaki and Odinga; and I continue to be intrigued by processes in Nigeria's fourth republic! But there is more time to analyze these humungous issues.
I'd like to stay on this topic of American politics for just a while more as the Ohio debate is on my mind, a few interesting threads on the topic have come in, and I did promise more analysis on my preference for Clinton over Obama! Now, even my white colleagues ask me to justify my selection!!
What's more, I think that forums like USA-Dialogue should be used as a platform for important critical debate and discussion on these issues too; we are not monolithic on our views on these things.
Aside from the fact that I'd followed Clinton's career since NYC, liked her and supported her bid for President at least six months before Obama entered the race; like I said in a previous thread, I don't think that there is anything that Obama has demonstrated to me that should have me change my vote other than the fact that he is a "Black' man.
Given all the pressure the likes of me who have made this choice and more important people than me are getting, including Jesse Jackson's wife, Eric Dyson's wife, Senators Maxine Waters, Tubman-Jones, and Jackson-Lee, I continue to look for something coming from Obama that wants me to say, I should support him over Clinton because he represents my ideological interests better.
This is what I was looking for in this last debate in Ohio. I agree with you Kwabena, Hilary was more aggressive than usual - she wanted to point out the superficiality of the Obama 'change' discourse. Look she's losing, it's good strategy to force your opponent to the table to discuss these issues rationally rather than on the populist whims of campaigning. She succeeded in her goal! I won't go into the healthcare issue- that's Hilary's issue; it should be universal. I think Democrats should embrace that policy from the starting point. It was fear-mongering from the Obama campaign to suggest that she's pushing socialized medicine to poor people and telling them that she will force them to pay--- especially given that his plan also has mandatory elements.
But there are more important issues that I'd like to lay bare - ones that I think I have more professional insights and personal stakes in:
On Nafta, from that debate we find out that Obama who aggressively criticized Clinton for her initial support for Nafta in certain contexts (his sending around fliers in Ohio), also supports Nafta in some contexts as he said to Californian farmers. In that debate, Clinton made him concede that both of them had the same position on Nafta - it works in some cases and contexts, not in all. There is a need to support global trade, but with important contingencies.
On Foreign Policy, in that debate, Clinton really showed up Obama in my mind, even though I agree with Edward Kissi, neither represents by ideological interests on how America should see the world. Both continue the US' hegemonic encounter with the world; though differently from the Bush Administration and the Republicans, there's would not be hawkish and unilateralist foreign policy.
However, as a change agent, I would have expected more from Obama as much as the emphasis of his campaign is that he is a "change" agent.
- On the Iraq War, Clinton did expose the superficiality of his 2002 speech as a 'state' senator in Illinois. Had he been a real maverick, as soon as he got to the 'national' senate, Obama should have been an anti-war opponent! Kuccinich was, Russ Feingold was! Obama like Clinton supported to continue to funding of the war, and he is on record known to have said that he agreed with the way that Bush was handling the war- he's no anti-war maverick.
- On Afghanistan, Clinton again showed up Obama's inexperience on foreign policy but more so his superficiality in changing the preemptive war prone policies of the Bush Administration. Obama claims that it is only the invasion of Iraq that is the problem; he claims that what we need to do is take our preemptive war or unilateral US action to Pakistant where the real war on terrorism is! Obama says we should bomb Al-Queda in Pakistan if Musharaff doesn't move quick enough! This is not a progressive position to take! In fact, Clinton rightly called him on the fact that he chairs the European military committee in the Senate where he has supervision of NATO affairs. Through this body, a multi-lateral approach to Afghanistan could be explored. Obama agreed that he hadn't even held a meeting since he began to chair that committee because he's been too busy campaigning.
- On Africa, Clinton to my dismay but understanding, wants us to continue the Bush Administration's compassionate paternalism of the Continent as an aids crisis continent - though I like the fact that she will use most of US foreign aid on education spending for Africans!!!
o But here, Obama, the change agent with a Kenyan father misses a great opportunity to show me why I should support him not Clinton. During the debate, there was a lot of discussion about foreign policy - Russia, Pakistan, Mexico, Serbia-Kosovo, Israel, China - where both agree to the 'tee' on every single foreign policy talking point. At some point, Barack would simply say, 'me too'!
o Could he not have interjected Kenya into that debate?? Present to America a new trajectory of relations with Africa - yes given that he has leverage in Kenya! Not one word!
o Must he agree with a discourse that discusses Israel without a balance of bringing in the Palestinian question?
o Could he stand up for Muslims and his Islamic heritage (Kenya and Indonesia) - despite that he is a Christian- to bridge an American foreign policy that is so wrong about how it addresses the Muslim world? He didn't do so in that debate, nor does he do it in his stump speeches. It turned out that Clinton did not circulate the Obama-Taliban photo. But for me, Kwabena, for a 'change' agent, a calm and assured response to it would not accuse Clinton of fear-mongering, but to embrace the picture and precept it as a way to help Americans understand and embrace other cultures.
Having said all this, I am unsure that my own analysis of these things really matters. This campaign process has shown me that American politics is similar to politics all over the world but especially in the developing world countries that the US paternalizes. It's about the politics of 'personality' - personal politics- who do you 'like', who do you 'resonate' with! Increasingly, it's also about 'identity' politics and thus a kind of group symbolism! The historic nature of this race is exactly that- it underscores that the affiliations of 'race', 'gender', 'religion', and 'region' trump critical discussions over issues!
Obama ended by saying that he wants to be President so that he can unite everyone. Clinton merely asks- but on what terms??? Being united to address the political problems of a culturally and ideologically plural society requires great wisdom, experience, compromise and moderation on a range of complex issues: such a platform requires humungous leadership found in American politics on rare, but epochal occasions. 'Uniting' Americans without critically debating the terms produces a lot of uncertainty regarding specific issues that are to be performed. That is my discomfort with Obama.
Clinton ended- and always ends her debates- by saying when she is President, this is what she will do! I do not think that Clinton has humungous leadership; but her fighting for universal healthcare for Americans takes courage. Her stance that her role in politics can as a woman can be more than a first lady and a first lady with voice is magnanimous; she is in her second term in the Senate where she did work with Republicans to accomplish the things Obama talks of (working together) - albeit with consequences that come with compromise.
Clinton's 'primary' (this is a primary campaign not a general election yet - we cannot minimize that) platform message is that she has negotiated the terms of change by her own ideas, the ideological platform of the Democratic party and an approximation of the changing and complex will of the voters/citizens all over the country that she speaks to.
Rita Kiki Edozie
Michigan State University
Kissi, Edward wrote:
--
Rita Kiki Edozie (Ph.D.)
International Relations (James Madison)
Office phone: 517-432-5291
Website: http://www.msu.edu/~rkedozie/ <http://www.msu.edu/%7Erkedozie/>
Samuel Quainoo
Hillary has been a disappointment, pure and simple. She was given the benefit of the doubt before the campaign started but she failed to deliver in her campaign, including the debates, with all the resources at her disposal..money, name recognition, the Clinton campaign experts/machinery, the network, super delegates etc.. Hillary counts her years in the white house as part of her experience. If your husband or wife is a doctor, you don’t become one just by living with her or him! She could not even smoke out Monica Lewinsky during those years…how good is her experience on security? Seven years in the Senate does not exactly prepare you for the White house because it is not a chief executive experience. Talking about experience, see what the experience of Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, Condi Rice got us! Americans rightly rejects her combative and aggressive stance against her opponents. The political environment has changed and she failed to recognize that. The campaign style of the 1990s is no longer required and her advisors failed to read that. I was not on board the Obama train but I have become a believer now after listening to his speeches. None of these candidates have any policies except on health care so I wonder what the press and Hillary are talking about when they question Obama on his policies. Can anyone tell me what Hillary and Macain’s policies are on Education, Housing, the Economy etc? I don’t support Obama solely because he is a black man. I will not support OJ Simpson if he decides to run but Obama has proven so far to have the goods and I am on board the train now. Yes, We Can!
S. Ebow Quainoo Ph.D.
East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
East Stroudsburg, PA 18301
From: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:USAAfric...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria
(History)
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008
1:14 PM
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa
Dialogue Series - Re: WHERE IS THE FOREIGN POLICY DEBATE? Obama and Clinton:
Why We Are All Still Sparring!
Rita,
I appreciate your comments. I believe, though, that to mention Kenya while on the campaign trail is quite risky for Obama. The Kibaki regime has been a darling of the Bush administration because of its promise to hand over some real or imagined al-Qaida supporters. To complicate matters, Obama is not from Kibaki's sphere of influence but from the largely Muslim Luo. Need I say more?
Should he talk too much about Africa, certain constituencies here would portray him as an alien whose heart is really in Africa; that he would empty the U.S Treasury for the benefit of Africa. (Never mind the fact that the Treasury is already empty.)
Should Obama do as you say and embrace further 'Muslims and his Islamic heritage' to bridge a faulty American foreign policy, he would be committing political suicide. There is plenty of time in the future to educate the populace. Bush has embraced the corrupt Muslim House of Saud and gotten rich in the process. Unfortunately Obama does not have that political luxury at this point in time. He knows it. This is a potential land mine and Obama has to tread gently. He is doing a perfect job on this so far and went far enough in 'Dreams of my Father'.....
There is a kind of gentleman's agreement in the Senate that even if you went against a war, once it begins you would give some veiled support to the commander in chief , lest you be hanged upside down from the nearest tree for being a traitor. His 'lite' support for Bush after the war had started was given in that context.
If Hillary Clinton accrued all that experience and expertise in the White House and did all those things she claimed to have done, while her husband was President, well, she probably did it illegally. She was not elected co- President or Vice President.
I find it hard to forgive Clinton for throwing more Black males in jail that all the previous Presidents put together, perhaps;
for the 3-strikes policy for mass incarceration; for not recognizing the democratically elected MPLA, thus prolonging the Angolan civil War; for not lifting a finger to help Rwanda etc. But I blame Him, and not Hillary because, after all, she was not an elected
official at that point in time.
There are some who argue that this is an election of monumental proportions. History is being made.They want to be able to tell their grandchildren that they actually facilitated the election of the first Black President of the United States, but, more so, a man of substance, political savvy, enlightened pacifism and life experience in three continents.
We may never again have such a fantastic team of Democrats on the campaign trail.
Dr. Gloria T. Emeagwali
Prof. of History and African Studies
History Department
Central Connecticut State University
1615 Stanley Street
New Britain
CT 06050.
From: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Rita
Kiki Edozie
Sent: Thu 2/28/2008 12:26 PM
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Kissi, Edward
Subject: USA Africa
Dialogue Series - Re: WHERE IS THE FOREIGN POLICY DEBATE? Obama and Clinton:
Why We Are All Still Sparring!
Obama and Clinton: Why We Are All Still Sparring!
We’re still on this topic – will be probably until after Tuesday. I will support the democratic nominee. Though, in other news I’m thrilled by the just-signed peace agreement in Kenya by Kibaki and Odinga; and I continue to be intrigued by processes in Nigeria’s fourth republic! But there is more time to analyze these humungous issues.
I’d like to stay on this topic of American politics for just a while more as the Ohio debate is on my mind, a few interesting threads on the topic have come in, and I did promise more analysis on my preference for Clinton over Obama! Now, even my white colleagues ask me to justify my selection!!
What’s more, I think that forums like USA-Dialogue should be used as a platform for important critical debate and discussion on these issues too; we are not monolithic on our views on these things.
Aside from the fact that I’d followed Clinton’s career since NYC, liked her and supported her bid for President at least six months before Obama entered the race; like I said in a previous thread, I don’t think that there is anything that Obama has demonstrated to me that should have me change my vote other than the fact that he is a “Black’ man.
Given all the pressure the likes of me who have made this choice and more important people than me are getting, including Jesse Jackson’s wife, Eric Dyson’s wife, Senators Maxine Waters, Tubman-Jones, and Jackson-Lee, I continue to look for something coming from Obama that wants me to say, I should support him over Clinton because he represents my ideological interests better.
This is what I was looking for in this last debate in Ohio. I agree with you Kwabena, Hilary was more aggressive than usual – she wanted to point out the superficiality of the Obama ‘change’ discourse. Look she’s losing, it’s good strategy to force your opponent to the table to discuss these issues rationally rather than on the populist whims of campaigning. She succeeded in her goal! I won’t go into the healthcare issue- that’s Hilary’s issue; it should be universal. I think Democrats should embrace that policy from the starting point. It was fear-mongering from the Obama campaign to suggest that she’s pushing socialized medicine to poor people and telling them that she will force them to pay--- especially given that his plan also has mandatory elements.
But there are more important issues that I’d like to lay bare – ones that I think I have more professional insights and personal stakes in:
On Nafta, from that debate we find out that Obama who aggressively criticized Clinton for her initial support for Nafta in certain contexts (his sending around fliers in Ohio), also supports Nafta in some contexts as he said to Californian farmers. In that debate, Clinton made him concede that both of them had the same position on Nafta – it works in some cases and contexts, not in all. There is a need to support global trade, but with important contingencies.
On Foreign Policy, in that debate, Clinton really showed up Obama in my mind, even though I agree with Edward Kissi, neither represents by ideological interests on how America should see the world. Both continue the US’ hegemonic encounter with the world; though differently from the Bush Administration and the Republicans, there’s would not be hawkish and unilateralist foreign policy.
However, as a change agent, I would have expected more from Obama as much as the emphasis of his campaign is that he is a “change” agent.
- On the Iraq War, Clinton did expose the superficiality of his 2002 speech as a ‘state’ senator in Illinois. Had he been a real maverick, as soon as he got to the ‘national’ senate, Obama should have been an anti-war opponent! Kuccinich was, Russ Feingold was! Obama like Clinton supported to continue to funding of the war, and he is on record known to have said that he agreed with the way that Bush was handling the war– he’s no anti-war maverick.
- On Afghanistan, Clinton again showed up Obama’s inexperience on foreign policy but more so his superficiality in changing the preemptive war prone policies of the Bush Administration. Obama claims that it is only the invasion of Iraq that is the problem; he claims that what we need to do is take our preemptive war or unilateral US action to Pakistant where the real war on terrorism is! Obama says we should bomb Al-Queda in Pakistan if Musharaff doesn’t move quick enough! This is not a progressive position to take! In fact, Clinton rightly called him on the fact that he chairs the European military committee in the Senate where he has supervision of NATO affairs. Through this body, a multi-lateral approach to Afghanistan could be explored. Obama agreed that he hadn’t even held a meeting since he began to chair that committee because he’s been too busy campaigning.
- On Africa, Clinton to my dismay but understanding, wants us to continue the Bush Administration’s compassionate paternalism of the Continent as an aids crisis continent – though I like the fact that she will use most of US foreign aid on education spending for Africans!!!
o But here, Obama, the change agent with a Kenyan father misses a great opportunity to show me why I should support him not Clinton. During the debate, there was a lot of discussion about foreign policy – Russia, Pakistan, Mexico, Serbia-Kosovo, Israel, China – where both agree to the ‘tee’ on every single foreign policy talking point. At some point, Barack would simply say, ‘me too’!
o Could he not have interjected Kenya into that debate?? Present to America a new trajectory of relations with Africa – yes given that he has leverage in Kenya! Not one word!
o Must he agree with a discourse that discusses Israel without a balance of bringing in the Palestinian question?
o Could he stand up for Muslims and his Islamic heritage (Kenya and Indonesia) – despite that he is a Christian- to bridge an American foreign policy that is so wrong about how it addresses the Muslim world? He didn’t do so in that debate, nor does he do it in his stump speeches. It turned out that Clinton did not circulate the Obama-Taliban photo. But for me, Kwabena, for a ‘change’ agent, a calm and assured response to it would not accuse Clinton of fear-mongering, but to embrace the picture and precept it as a way to help Americans understand and embrace other cultures.
Having said all this, I am unsure that my own analysis of these things really matters. This campaign process has shown me that American politics is similar to politics all over the world but especially in the developing world countries that the US paternalizes. It’s about the politics of ‘personality’ – personal politics- who do you ‘like’, who do you ‘resonate’ with! Increasingly, it’s also about ‘identity’ politics and thus a kind of group symbolism! The historic nature of this race is exactly that- it underscores that the affiliations of ‘race’, ‘gender’, ‘religion’, and ‘region’ trump critical discussions over issues!
Obama ended by saying that he wants to be President so that he can unite everyone. Clinton merely asks- but on what terms??? Being united to address the political problems of a culturally and ideologically plural society requires great wisdom, experience, compromise and moderation on a range of complex issues: such a platform requires humungous leadership found in American politics on rare, but epochal occasions. ‘Uniting’ Americans without critically debating the terms produces a lot of uncertainty regarding specific issues that are to be performed. That is my discomfort with Obama.
Clinton ended- and always ends her debates- by saying when she is President, this is what she will do! I do not think that Clinton has humungous leadership; but her fighting for universal healthcare for Americans takes courage. Her stance that her role in politics can as a woman can be more than a first lady and a first lady with voice is magnanimous; she is in her second term in the Senate where she did work with Republicans to accomplish the things Obama talks of (working together) – albeit with consequences that come with compromise.
Clinton’s ‘primary’ (this is a primary campaign not a general election yet – we cannot minimize that) platform message is that she has negotiated the terms of change by her own ideas, the ideological platform of the Democratic party and an approximation of the changing and complex will of the voters/citizens all over the country that she speaks to.