Repression in Egypt

In the midst of growing violence, Egypt's rulers are cracking down on organizations committed to fostering democracy in the country. They are planning to try forty-three foreign employees of international NGOs for illegally working with Egyptian democracy activists. Among those groups whose offices have been raided are the International Republican Institute, which is loosely affiliated with America's Republican Party, and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, affiliated with the Democratic Party.

My Gut Analysis: I can see wanting to drive the Republicans out of your country, but this is rather extreme.

Analysis: The Egyptian government claims it is just enforcing Egyptian laws by prosecuting unregistered international groups. They can also point to the rather unsavory reputation of some of the NGOs in question. For example, the International Republican Institute has been accused of involvement with the 2004 Haitian coup by critics including former US Ambassador to Haiti Brian Dean Curran.

However, human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch have stated that this is just part of Egypt's effort to suppress democratic activists. Furthermore, the NDI points out that it did in fact register with the Egyptian government. The supposed law violations are just an excuse to further repress the Egyptian people.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned that these actions could result in funding cuts to the Egyptian government. One hopes she'll have the guts to follow through and stop taxpayer money from going to these thugs.

Some Disturbing Observations on Honduras

Greg Grandin of The Nation, in an article excerpted on the Upside Down World website, warns that the U. S. State Department may be considering exploiting the coup in Honduras to pressure President in Exile Manuel Zelaya to adopt policies that would serve American economic interests. As he notes, the State Department has refused to refer to what has happened in Honduras as a coup.

My Gut Reaction: We must not allow State Department bureaucrats to stand in the way of supporting genuine democracy.

Analysis: If what Grandin says is true, we may face a return to the corrupt dealings in Latin America and the Caribbean that I discussed in my previous post about Honduras. As Grandin notes, under the Clinton Administration, the restoration of Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the presidency of Haiti was predicated upon the acceptance of IMF policies. There is evidence that the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be pursuing a similar course with Honduras.

Burma Backstep

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently dropped hints that the Obama Administration is considering weakening or dropping sanctions against the state of Myanmar. Her argument is that sanctions have not worked, and have only harmed the people of Burma.

Can we all say appeasement?

This is what I was afraid of when Secretary Clinton was first named to this post. Her record on human rights has been abysmal, as witnessed by her well-documented opposition to American intervention in Bosnia. She is transferring her weak position on fighting for human rights during her husband's term in office to her tenure as Secretary of State. We can only hope that President Obama has the wisdom and the strength to oppose this cowardly action and take a strong stance on human rights in Myanmar.

The Case against Hillary

On Hardball with Chris Matthews, Christopher Hitchens lays out a devastating indictment against Sen. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The conflicts of interest and lack of experience she will bring will potentially undermine President Obama's foreign policy, and badly serve our nation.

The only good side I can see to all this is that it will leave her in a position where she cannot harm President Obama politically.

Hillary for SecState?

The NPR program Day to Day has reported that President-elect Barack Hussein Obama is considering Sen. Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Although I can see the political reasons he would have for doing so, I do not think she is the best choice. As the primaries revealed, she does not have much foreign policy experience. She would be far better off as Attorney General or a Supreme Court justice.

I think a far better choice would be former Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. As Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Dan Simpson notes, Richardson has foreign policy experience, having served as Ambassador to the UN. Furthermore, he is tough enough to stand up to any foreign opponent.

A Palin Imitation of Hillary

Sen. John McCain has added Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to his ticket in an aboveboard attempt to lure Hillary supporters to his campaign. Indeed, some feminists, such as Geraldine Ferraro, seem rather enthusiastic for Gov. Palin. However, feminists who support Senator Clinton have reason to step back very slowly...

Far from being a step forward for feminism, Gov. Palin's nomination thrusts forward one of the most anti-feminist politicians in America. As NARAL Pro-Choice America documents, she opposes abortion even in cases where the mother has been subjected to rape and incest, and is a member of the group Feminists for Life. This group follows Gov. Palin's lead, publishing a brochure, Victory over Violence, condemning the decision to abort after rape. If you're a woman who's experienced a sexual assault, don't turn to Gov. Palin for comfort.

Perhaps the greatest sign of Sen. McCain's anti-feminist credentials is that he chose a wingnut like Palin. He must think women are truly stupid to fall for her just because of her gender.

Convention Summary and Response

Overall, I believe the Democratic National Convention went well for Sen. Obama. No fights broke out between his supporters and the die hard backers of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton's speech was a case study in conciliation, while Sen. Obama's concluding speech was his usual inspiring work, establishing his moderate credentials while establishing the groundwork for a nuanced, issues-based attack on Sen. McCain.

A few observations:

The convention got better as it went along. Monday night was actually rather disappointing, with mediocre speakers like Sen. Nancy Pelosi, whose speech, posted below, was a study in how not to excite a crowd.



Things got better on Tuesday, with some speakers, such as Sen. Bob Casey launching attacks against Sen. McCain and the Republican Party. Casey's "Four more months" line should be adopted as an overall campaign slogan. The best, however, was Thursday night. Gov. Richardson of New Mexico gave a speech, posted below, that made me wish he had been the vice-presidential selection.



Second, building on Sen. Casey's speech, the Democratic Party, and Sen. Obama in particular, need to go into attack mode. This can be done without violating Sen. Obama's pledge to pursue a new kind of politics. It is entirely possible to make issues-based attacks which focus on Sen. McCain's record of favoring the wealthy and backing the Bush Administration while still remaining catchy.

For example, one ad that has occurred to me would feature photos of Sen. McCain and President Bush together with descriptions of how Sen. McCain has supported the President's worst policies, punctuated by the refrain "Four More Years." An ad in a similar vein would feature the same material, with a digital background showing the M in McCain's turning upside down into a W.

Finally, all conventions, in the end, are pap. You will not see any nuanced exploration of the candidates positions just by watching their party's conventions. For that, you have to do your own research.

The Blog of Shame!!!

It seems some Hillbots can't handle the prospect that their candidate could actually be defeated. One particularly cowardly example, Susie Madrak, has banned commenters from attacking Sen. Clinton on her blog. (Never mind the fact that she has continually attacked Sen. Obama on her blog.)

To add insult to injury, she has begun spewing obscenities on her blog. For instance, in one particularly classy post, she called Sen. Obama "really fucking dumb." That was an exact quote.

When I recently commented about the hypocrisy of her language, she called my reference to her obscenity as cute. In that spirit, I am certain she won't mind this comment I heard from a fellow Obama supporter who is annoyed by Hillbots complaints about attacks on Sen. Clinton:

"IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT, STAY OUT OF THE FUCKING KITCHEN!!!"

The commenter in question has also referred to Sen. Clinton as a "piece of shit" and an "asshole," nice gender-neutral terms I am certain the Suburban Guerilla could not object to. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Repent Hillbots, the End Is Near

An article by the Washington Post and MSNBC reports that Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's fundraisers are getting together and working out how to work together for the general election. Sen. Clinton's top financial backers have recognized that the jig is up, and it's time to start backing a winning candidate.

Hillary: The Official Candidate of Whitey

Well, it's official. Senator Hillary Clinton claims only she has the support of "hard working white Americans," as documented on Face the Nation today. Yeah, Hillary, you'll be able to unite the party if you somehow manage to steal the nomination.

Why Hillary Is Unqualified?

Naturally, Senator Clinton supporters everywhere are crowing over the recent victory in Pennsylvania. Regular readers of this blog will be able to figure out how I feel about this.

My opposition to Hillary Clinton does not grow out of the issues or her experience. I feel there is another matter that no one is giving attention to: her moral qualifications for the office.

As I have previously documented in this blog, Hillary Clinton aggressively lobbied for her husband not to intervene in Bosnia in the early nineties, while hundreds of thousands of people were being killed. Essentially, this makes her an indirect accomplice to genocide. To me, complicity in genocide is an automatic, and irrevocable, disqualifier for the presidency.

What especially galls me is that some Hillary supporters are promoting her as being the one tough enough to stand up to Osama bin Laden. If she lacks the moral strength to even oppose genocide, what in hell makes them think she'll oppose al-Qaeda?

Nutter Should Be Over the Hill

The recent brouhaha over Senator Obama's "bitter" comments are all the evidence we need for why Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter should be endorsing him over Sen. Clinton.

While Hillary whines about Barack disrespecting "sportsmen," he comes out and speaks the god-honest truth: rural single issue voters are focusing on issues such as gun control and religion at the expense of our cities and our country. With Mayor Nutter's recent efforts at creating gun laws in Philadelphia, he should be embracing Barack with both arms.

And as for Senator Clinton's contention that Obama's comments were elitist and could lead to Republican attacks, just look at brendancalling's response to a post on the Suburban Guerrilla blog.

Hillary: Complicit in Genocide?

Several days ago, I lambasted the Clinton record on human rights. Given that the events I focused on took place during her husband's administration, I did not give much attention to Hillary's own involvement.

Turns out, I should've.

As Christopher Hitchens describes in a recent Slate article, Hillary Clinton may have played a direct role in convincing her husband to delay intervening in Bosnia. As told by Clinton insiders such as Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, Hillary feared a Bosnian intervention would distract from her health care proposals.

If these accusations are true, they are proof of her moral unfitness for the office of president. Anyone who would sacrifice human lives for their own political gain is beneath contempt.

A Nation of Idiots

In this week’s issue of The Nation, the letters page is crammed with complaints from angry Hillary supporters who were ticked off that the magazine has endorsed Obama. The majority of them were so stupid as to beggar belief. I do not know where to begin.

Perhaps I should start with the person who said that men have been in charge long enough and that only a woman can solve America’s problems. Given that Hillary Clinton voted for many of the nation’s problems as a Senator, including the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, this seems rather doubtful. Even if women are better suited to solving these problems, it’s certainly not this woman. As Reason Magazine noted, this only exposes the bankruptcy of identity politics.

In one particularly galling letter, some idiot tries to harp on the fact that the Constitutional amendment giving women the vote was passed decades after the amendment giving African-American men the vote. This completely ignores the fact that, except for a brief period during Reconstruction, in many parts of this country, black people couldn't exercise that constitutional right until the 1960s. Many civil rights activists died for that right. This letter practically spat on their graves.

Another writer claimed that Obama would be unelectable. If so, than Hillary doesn’t stand a chance in hell. With all the baggage she has, the Republican attack machine will literally bury her in mud. I can just imagine the infamous September 2008 You Tube video “Have a Cigar, Hillary?” Although her supporters claim that the Republicans have thrown all they can at her, the fact that they have so much to throw should give one pause.

Time to Get Rough, Barack

Barack Obama's campaign recently condemned one of his unpaid aides, Professor Samantha Power, for referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton as a power-hungry monster. My only question is: why?

As Andrew Sullivan notes, Senator Clinton and her husband will do whatever it takes to stay in power. They will stoop to dirty tricks (e.g. the race baiting inherent in their release of the Somali Barack photo), negative campaigning, and manipulating the nomination process to get elected.

It's time to fight back. And we have so much to do so with. If Hillary Clinton wants to run on her record, let's start with her health care screw ups. I can see it now...

"It's 3 AM. Your children are sick. Who do you want in charge of our national healthcare system? A man who is willing to work in a bipartisan fashion to create a workable, affordable system, or a politician who wastes opportunities through partisan bickering?"

Super Tuesday in Perspective

Well, Obama and Hillary are almost neck and neck after the results of Super Tuesday, with some surprising results such as the shift in Missouri in Obama's favor. Furthermore, as the Tavis Smiley Show reported last night, some estimates suggest Obama won more delegates than Hillary. I think the results say some very good things about Obama's future.

The fact that he was able to do so well in red states such as Missouri and Colorado illustrates that Obama's lack of baggage compared with someone like Hillary Clinton is a definite advantage. He will not bring out the Republicans in as great numbers as Hillary would.

Furthermore, for the near future, the race will be to a certain extent dominated by Obama. With states where he is likely to win such as Louisiana coming up, he will have an even greater chance to build up momentum.

Obama for Progressives

An article in The Nation by Christopher Hayes explores why Barack Obama is the best choice for Democratic progressives this primary season. Although Hayes's article is well worth reading, his basic points can be summarized as follows:

1. Obama is better on foreign policy.
2. Obama will appeal to a wider array of people.
3. He is not wrapped up in the political battles of the 90s.

To me, the most important issue is Obama's stance on Iraq. To paraphrase the Senator, it is not enough merely to be ready from the first day. In matters of foreign policy and strategy, you must be right from the first. As Senator Obama's stance on Iraq attests, he made the right choice on Iraq from the start: He opposed it.

Furthermore, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main appeal is not nostalgia for the 90s. Barack Obama is ready for the challenges of this century, and will not try to return us to an outdated appoach to the world.

Rudy's Out

Well, Rudy Giuliani's out of the presidential race. John McCain stands a real shot at becoming the Republican nominee, with Mike Huckabee still present as a dark horse candidate.

To me, this makes it even more imperative that the Democrats choose Obama as their nominee. If McCain gets the Republican nod and we choose Hillary, the game's over before it started. McCain has a strong draw among independents, while Hillary's main base of support is among the Democratic faithful.

Obama, on the other hand, has a strong draw on independents himself. He would be able to offset McCain's strength on that regard. Furthermore, he does not have the questions about his character that make life difficult for Hillary.

Some More Reasons Not to Vote for Hillary

There are a number of reasons why I think Obama is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, if you want to vote for a left wing candidate.

1. Labor Issues
Barack Obama is strongly supportive of a living wage and the rights of workers. He has even participated in picket lines for striking hotel workers. Hillary, on the other hand, has hired a PR man, Mark Penn, who has helped company's such as Cintas bust unions, as this Nation article reveals.

2. The War
Many harp on Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. However, that did not prevent him from coming to the correct conclusions on Iraq. Meanwhile, as Christopher Hitchens points out that Hillary has had to make some alterations in her Iraq stance.

Furthermore, Hillary has little more foreign policy experience than Obama, mostly limited to PR visits to foreign capitals.

Obama addresses these issues in this interview with David Letterman:

An Open Letter to the Democratic Primary Voters of New Hampshire

To the New Hampshire Democrats Who Gave Hillary Clinton First Place Standing:

What the hell is wrong with you?

How could you all be taken in by a so obviously manipulative politician who is incapable of taking a firm position on any issue? Are a few tears all that's needed to win your votes?

Some of you will no doubt point to her "experience" in government. WHAT EXPERIENCE? Her only official position has been one term in the Senate, only a few years more than Obama. Just being married to someone in high office doesn't count. The only governmental position she held during her husband's presidency was being put in charge of health care, and we all saw how that worked out.

She is also belatedly trying to position herself as an agent for change. The only change coming from her vaunted 34 years of experience has been a change in her husband's mistresses.

If you are nostalgic for the Clinton years, and harbor secret hopes that her husband will really be running the country, go ahead and support her, but don't try to pass it off as a vote for experience. If you had really wanted experience, you would have voted for Joe Biden or Chris Dodd.