What Now?

So what happens next?

In an ideal world, Hillary Clinton continues her fight for the Democratic presidential nomination all the way through the national convention in August. I can hear the throngs of Democrats now: this is horrible, why would we want a fight in the convention?; to beat John McCain in the fall we need a united Democratic party; why can't Hillary just give up? All of these questions/concerns are legitimate but I want to propose (remember, in an ideal world) a good reason for Clinton to take her fight to the halls of the convention. It is not that I want to see her as the Democratic nominee. I want something bigger. I want something that our friends in Great Britain, France, and to name a few, Canada have:

I want proper representation in local and state governments, U.S. Congress, and in the White House!

In the U.S., two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, represent a population of over 300 million people. There are a few independent politicians, but definitely not enough to be collectively measured as serious political players. In an ideal world, Obama's camp (representing the so-called liberal Democrats) split from the Hillary camp (representing the so-called centrist Democrats), and we would, as a start, have three political parties representing the U.S.

Look at Great Britain, France and Canada:

The Brits have:

• Radical Party
• Conservative Party
• Liberal Party
• Labour Party
• Social Democratic Party

The French have:

• Socialist Party
• Union for a Popular Movement
• Rally for the Republic
• The Greens

The Canadians have:

• Bloc Quebecois
• Conservative Party of Canada
• Liberal Party of Canada
• New Democratic Party
  

Having more than two political parties will solve a few issues that plague the U.S. electoral process. Voter apathy is the most important (and embarrassing) problem facing the U.S. electoral process. Polls indicate that voter apathy is extremely high in the U.S., and repeatedly voter turnout lingers around 50% (and below). This year's Democratic primaries and caucuses have had record turnouts. The Democrats have two candidates that represent a different image compared to the status quo. Clinton (a female) and Obama (an African American) are vying for a chance to be President of the United States. Having two legitimate and qualified candidates that are not the stereotypical white males has really excited the nation. This excitement results from a connection the voters feel with either Clinton or Obama. For the first time in a long time, voters feel invested and properly represented.

It would be nice to see every election (local, state, and general) have this much excitement. It seems that we wait for "generational" candidates to emerge before we become passionate about politics. The problem with waiting for generational leaders is that they come every forty years, and when they do, they (to use a sports analogy) play ball in the same court as their predecessors. The problem with voter apathy is not the candidates; instead it is the lack of alternative political parties. The two-party system cannot, and I stress cannot, represent 300 million people. The U.S. is not a static country. She is a country comprised of farmers, factory workers, data analysis, engineers, doctors, teachers, students, businessmen & women, black, white, brown, old, young, rich, poor. The U.S. is a diverse country, yet, politicians represent as if the U.S. is uniform. The apathy of voters stems from a lack of voice in government, and too many times, voters vote out of necessity and desperation to see certain candidates not elected (the lesser of two evils argument).

As I mentioned in the beginning of this post, this is an ideal situation. Do I think this will happen? Of course not! It would, however, be great to see a debate on the floors of Congress and State Halls between representatives of many different political parties advocating for the farmers, factory workers, data analysis, engineers, doctors, teachers, students, businessmen & women, black, white, brown, old, young, rich, poor. Until that day comes, notes will continue to post from the underground.

Che's 80th Birthday

Ernesto Che Guevara's 80th birthday is coming up in a few weeks (June 14th) and a new website was launched today to commemorate the occasion:

www.che80.co.cu

Che's widow sent a congratulatory message to award winning actor Benicio del Toro for his role in Steven Soderbergh's biopic. Del Toro received the Best Actor Prize in this year's Cannes Film Festival for his portrayal of the legendary revolutionary (see full article here).

Salon.com's Andrew O'Hehir attended the movie premier at Cannes and wrote a glowing review of the film.


Below I have uploaded some archival footage of Che.

McCain's America -- A World Citizen

Senator John McCain addressed the University of Colorado yesterday on his presumptive nuclear strategy if elected the next U.S. president. His address is laced with similarities resembling a continuation of George W. Bush's foreign policy. The full transcript of his address can be found here.

There is such a thing as good international citizenship, and America must be a good citizen of the world--leading the way to address the danger of global warming and preserve our environment, strengthening existing international institutions and helping to build new ones, and engaging the world in a broad dialogue on the threat of violent extremists, who would, if they could, use weapons of mass destruction to attack us and our allies.

McCain is using the same fear tactics that the Bush administration has successfully implemented since September 2001. His definition of a "good international [citizen]" is one that works with other nations on making a safer world from "violent extremists". Good citizens will use international institutions and agencies to confront extremists, and in some cases, create new alliances to help preserve the world from evil. Yet, based on his senatorial record, his declaration is inconsistent with his platform.

Senator McCain's inconsistency is twofold: at the core, the underlying problems are his vote to authorize the Iraq war in 2002 and his continued support of the war (and subsequent surge). The "good" citizen, as he notes above, works to "strengthen existing international institutions". The United Nations (U.N.) is an example of an international institution and on numerous occasions before the start of the war, the U.S. repeatedly defied the U.N. Leaders from France and Germany attempted to stop the run up to war but were unsuccessful in their bids. By invading and occupying Iraq-with only 40 nations in the U.S. coalition- the U.S. was acting at odds with the U.N. and the international community. This act by the U.S. illustrates the Bush administration's disregard for the international community. McCain reaffirms the Bush doctrine and the administration's disregard of the international community by voting to authorize the war in 2002 (H.J. Res, 114).

Furthermore, his continued support of the war and the surge demonstrates his lack of understanding of the realities in Iraq. This disillusionment is just another example of McCain's inconsistent promise that the U.S. will be a good citizen of the world. His response to interrupting protesters is a glowing example of his doublespeak:

McCain promises not leave to Iraq until the U.S. achieves its mission. A good citizen of the world includes international institutions and neighboring countries in the rebuilding effort of Iraq; a good citizen does not allow a civil war to break out between Shi'as and Sunnis; as journalist Nir Rosen notes, a good citizen of the world will not allow (under her watch) a country to cease to exist:

I don’t think Iraq even—you can say it exists anymore. There has been a very effective, systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad, of Shias—from areas that are now mostly Shia. But the Sunnis especially have been a target, as have mixed families like the one we just saw. With a name like Omar, he’s distinctly Sunni—it’s a very Sunni name. You can be executed for having the name Omar alone. And Baghdad is now firmly in the hands of sectarian Shiite militias, and they’re never going to let it go.

(read full transcript here)

McCain would like you to believe that he is bringing a fresh new approach to foreign and nuclear policy. Yet, as just shown, his record proves otherwise. A McCain presidency is just a continuation of the failed policies of one of the worst administrations in recent U.S. history.

Castro on Obama

Excerpts of Fidel Castro's article published yesterday on Obama. A link to the full article is below:

Reflections of Fidel (May 26, 2008)

• I feel no resentment towards [Obama], for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.

• Presidential candidate Obama’s speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it.

• What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency?

• What is the difference between what Monroe [in the Monroe Doctrine] proclaimed and what Obama proclaims and resuscitates in his speech two centuries later?

• In his speech, Obama portrays the Cuban Revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the exact same argument which, almost without exception, U.S. administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country. The blockade, in and of itself, is an act of genocide. I don’t want to see U.S. children inculcated with those shameful values.

• We were always bound by previous forms of power and, following the institutionalization of this organization, we were elected by more than 90% of voters, as has become customary in Cuba, a process which does not in the least resemble the ridiculous levels of electoral participation which, many a time, as in the case of the United States, stay short of 50% of voters.

• I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race.

• Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.

• Is it right for the president of the United States to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext may be?
• Is it ethical for the president of the United States to order the torture of other human beings?
• Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet?
• Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for U.S. citizens? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs?
• Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be?
• Is it honorable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over?

[just a sample of his questions...there are many more]

• Before judging our country, you should know that Cuba, with its education, health, sports, culture and sciences programs, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world...

Alan M. Dershowitz -- Another Absurd Comment

Many Florida Jews Express Doubts on Obama

NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/22jewish.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1211468464-h6/RiOTLnGncbjfRaWiUoA

If you haven't already read this article please do. It's very telling how closed-minded people are in their perceptions of Middle Easterners. More importantly, it illuminates the very sad, sad notion of acceptance of comments made by certain individuals that are down right offensive towards people of a certain region:

Israelis fear Iran “could be the first suicide nation, a nation that would destroy itself to destroy the Jewish nation,” Mr. Dershowitz said.

According to Harvard law professor, former O.J. Simpson attorney, and author Alan Dershowitz, the Iranian regime will martyr itself to destroy Israel. I'm not going to waste my time discussing the baseless and illogical statement made by Dershowitz. Instead, I want to address the culture of accepting offensive and absurd comments directed toward an individual or a to group.

Many articles, blogs, and books have been published on the culture of fear that has dominated the U.S. for many years. Countless U.S. administrations have used fear as a tool to promote and legislate certain policies that are not in the best interest of our country. This fear instilled in us has given rise to a new phenomenon that is governing who we are: acceptance. Fear is used to promote negative stereotypes of any given "enemy" (i.e., Native Americans, African slaves, Japanese, communist, Arab and Muslim terrorist, etc). Once the fear is established, acceptance begins to overtake our reason and our humanity, thus marginalizing specific groups of people. "Islam is a religion of hate. It breeds terrorist. Arabs want to kill all Jews." These horrid statements told and retold from officials and the media begins to slowly sway the perceptions of people. You hear it in the news, you read about it in the op-eds, Hollywood begins to produce films and made-for-tv series about terrorist sleeper cells in the U.S., and tons of books are published glorifying these negative images.

After being exposed to these negative images from all angles, acceptance creeps in. You are reminded of your “fear” when coming across absurd and offensive comments directed towards a specific group of people. This fear leads to accepting statements or the nature of events as true. Dershowitz's statement is an example of fear turned into acceptance. The media attention on Iran in the last thirty years has not been a favorable one. Bush has labeled Iran as part of an axis of evil and some in the media have even compared Iran's president Ahmadinejad with Hitler (this blog does not endorse Ahmadinejad nor does it agree with his policies, but to compare him with Hitler- the architect of the holocaust- is illogical and absurd). It plays into the fear card that is constantly being used and reused against Iran. Therefore, it becomes acceptable (and sadly by some, believable) to hear statements that imply Iran's, as a nation, willingness to attain martyrdom by destroying the state of Israel.

I use the word acceptable to explain this phenomenon because of the consequences (or lack thereof) of publicly making offensive comments. Very few, if any, public apologies have been given when comments of these sorts about Middle Easterners are made. When offensive comments about African Americans and Jewish Americans are made, public apologies are quick to follow. This happens when offensive and absurd comments are unacceptable by the public. Yet, I want to remind the reader that even though such comments become unacceptable, it does not mean the negative stereotypes have ceded to exist.

This way of governing, vis-a-vis fear of specific groups is a cycle that needs to be broken. It does nothing but divide people and create an atmosphere of hate that is neither desirable nor productive. The next time an offensive and absurd statement is made about any specific group (American, Arab, Black, Iranian, Jewish, etc.), it is vital that we all take a step back and really listen and decipher to what is being said. It's time to stop accepting insidious statements and start making an effort not to reinforce negative stereotypes and marginalizing specific groups.

General Peteraus Answers Senator Liberman's Question About Iran's involvement in Iraq

Sounds like the ground work for war no?

Obama Rap

I've met some interesting people on the road...

Questions I would ask...

If I had the opportunity to interview the three presidential candidates I would ask the following questions:

John McCain:

1. How do you explain to voters your continued support of a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers?
2. How can you boast the success of the "surge" in Iraq when an entire country, to borrow the words from your colleague Senator Clinton, has been "obliterated"?
3. Many analyst suggest the U.S. economy is in, or is on its way, to a recession. You've been quoted as saying the economy is not your strong point. How can voters take your candidacy seriously if the number one pressing issue facing Americans is the economy?

Hillary Clinton:

1. After your victory in New Hampshire you claimed that you "found your voice". Yet, your campaign message has morphed a few times since then. It seems that in the last several weeks your populist message has been consistent and indeed you have a voice you are comfortable with. What do you say to voters who question whether your message is genuine or political, cold calculations?
2. What is the difference between Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" and your call for Iran's obliteration if they launch a nuclear attack on Israel?
3. If you really feel passionate about counting the votes of Florida and Michigan, why are you now voicing your opposition to the DNC's decision not to seat their delegates? Why not when the rules were first proposed and implemented?

Barack Obama:

1. What will you say to your followers if the changes you have promised to bring about in Washington are not achieved in time for the 2012 elections?
   
2. Your campaign claims to want to bring about change in Washington. Yet, just like Senator Clinton, your response to a hypothetical question regarding an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, you sound a lot like Bush. How does your "forceful response" equate to change?
   
3. Both Senator McCain's and Clinton's position is clear regarding the plight of Palestinian statehood. What is your stance on the Palestinian question?

If I only had the opportunity to ask these questions...

One (Wo)man, One Vote

Covering the democratic and republican primaries has given me the opportunity to travel across the United States and visit many towns, cities, counties, and states that I would not have on my own. The people I meet in these places have really changed my outlook on the entire election/nomination process. Following the numerous presidential races as an adolescent, I was accustomed to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary selecting the nominees for both parties. It did not even cross my mind that each state has a primary. I live in the Commonwealth of Virginia and I do not remember any discussion about its primary. As we all know, this has changed.

Every single state will cast a vote and unlike all the previous election cycles in my life-time (a little over two decades), the democratic candidates will campaign vigorously in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Watching this phenomenon up close I am witnessing the excitement of people for the elections. The pundits on TV lament on the "long" election season yet they fail to mention that this is exactly how the election process is suppose to be. Everyone should be afforded the right to vote. We live in a media dominated world and thus have been accustomed to short sound bites, flashy graphics, and pundits with their superficial "analysis". The media had declared this race over before a single vote was casted; they had declared this race over after the caucuses in Iowa; they declared the race over after Super Tuesday; and so forth. If the races is over, why are Senator Obama and Senator Clinton still splitting primary states?

Everybody I have met these past five months-from the early primaries to the latter one- want to vote! They want their voices to be heard. Let them vote. For a country that prides herself with the cliche slogan of "one (wo)man one vote", why can't we actually let the process ride itself out? For all the naysayers who claim this long process is hurting the democrats are simply wrong. In Indiana, the chairman of the democratic party was hoping for 800,000 ballots to be casted. Over 1.3 million votes were tallied in their primary. The excitement of the people can only benefit the democratic party and not hurt it.

First blog!

I should've kept a blog the moment I started covering the Democratic and Republican primaries...but I didn't. So it's the night of the Kentucky and Oregon primaries-five months after Obama's and Huckabee's Iowa wins- and I am starting a blog. As they say, it's never too late to start. So bare with me as I learn the ropes of blogging. I'll periodically update my Notes From the Underground on topics I cover- mainly the presidential elections and congressional hearings.

Ciao