Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Thursday, July 24, 2008

New Settlements...what peace?

The Associated Press is reporting that Israel is planning to expand their settlements in the West Bank by building a new settlement post. How will peace be achieved if the power broker in the deal, Israel, continues to build new settlements and expand old ones? Will the U.S. stand firm in their demands for Israel to halt their expansion?

I doubt it.

*

NYTimes op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristof, has written an interesting article this morning regarding the future of US policy in Israel.

*

Ali Abunimah, the co-founder of Electronic Intifada (EI), details Obama's visit to Israel/Palestine and the disproportionate time he spent with Israeli officials compared to Palestinian officials. It's a good read.

*

Democracy Now! has published the following headline regarding Obama's visit to the Middle East:

Obama Avoids Gaza Strip on Mideast Trip

Senator Barack Obama has wrapped up his Mideast tour. On Wednesday, Obama held a series of meetings with Israeli leaders in Jerusalem.

Senator Barack Obama: “I’m here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States, my abiding commitment to Israel’s security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a United States senator or as a president in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region.”

Obama also visited Ramallah for a low-key visit with Palestinian officials. He did not visit the Gaza Strip, where Israel has recently intensified its blockade. In Gaza, Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri said Obama is offering no alternative to Bush administration policy in the region.

Sami Abu Zuhri: “These positions mean that there is no minimal hope to any change in the US foreign policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. And this means that we are in front of one American policy, and the Palestinian people should depend on their own and on the Arab and Muslim world in facing this opposing American policy, which both the Democratic and Republican parties are adopting."

Saturday, May 31, 2008

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.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

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.