War Paint.

Gracious as a winner, Obama has his way of preparing for what a campaign entails.

Here is a pair of pictures from the LA Times, and one from Google Images.

First, Obama, in 2005 after his Illinois race for the Senate. Graciously, in his Senate office he features nice wall art -- a portrait of Justice Thurgood Marshall, an urbane and sophisticated African-American lawyer of undoubted, exceptional skill. He was well recognized before he was appointed by Lyndon Johnson to the Warren Court - Marshall being the NAACP lawyer who had argued Shelly v. Kraemer in 1948 where racially restrictive covenants running with deeds to housing were struck down as unconstitutional, and in 1954 he litigated Brown v. Board of Education, ending segragation of the Topeka Kansas schools, where "separate but equal" was held by the Supreme Court to be inherently unequal. He was Johnson's Solicitor General before the Supreme Court appointment, and was the first black Justice [probably also first as Solicitor General].

Marshall never backed down from a difficult fray, with a firm but restrained will to win. Appropriate for the courts, even if not best for the less restrained world of political campaigning. And it was a time for Obama to relax and to smile.


Second, an earlier 2004 photo during the Senate campaign, Obama serious. Intent. Preparing for his delivering the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Party's national convention. There will be time to smile later, work's needed now. Political effectiveness is key in a contest where there's one winner out of two.

Big question. In early November, how close will John McCain resemble Sonny Liston?

The Dean says, put him on the transporter and beam him up, Scotty.

Al you are now a transportation study. They are going to study beaming you to deep, deep dark space using the Enterprise transporter. Doing it as part of that multi-party Minnesota Nice "trust me" advice you should be heeding.

This in June 4, 2008 reporting, from the AP:

Oberstar calls for Franken to 'disown' Playboy column
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressman Jim Oberstar, the dean of the Minnesota congressional delegation, joined fellow Democrats in criticizing Al Franken's 2000 sexually explicit satirical Playboy column.

Oberstar says in a statement Wednesday that the column was "amateurish and silly, he needs to disown it."

But Oberstar adds that he considers Franken to be bright and hardworking. Oberstar says he expects Franken will receive the DFL nomination this weekend.

Last week, three Democratic Minnesota House members, to varying degrees, criticized the column, which Republicans have been trying to make an issue in the campaign.

Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr says that the candidate will continue to seek Oberstar's guidance during the race.

At least it's the transporter, Al, not one of those virtual machines where the story you wrote says ...

_________UPDATE________
I misread the Oberstar message. I was wrong. That simple. I was wrong.

Oberstar said, and apparently meant, only what he said, no hidden message that the Franken situation over the Playboy article and other writing was beyond salvaging -- Oberstar apparently meant only as Oberstar was quoted - that the issue and decision making should go to the delegates at the endorsement convention, and that Oberstar believed that Franken, in speaking there should publicly in an appropriate way "disavow" the Playboy thing, and somehow address and not duck the criticism Franken was receiving about it.

A very fair view. I misread it as more critical of Franken, which was incorrect.

The message was, Franken speaks and "disavows" the item, then the convention votes, and I, James Oberstar, will be satisfied with the outcome of that vote, whatever it is. And I, James Oberstar, am not in advance saying what it will be or what it should be.

It is for the convention delegates, not me, James Oberstar, to decide. That's how it worked out I was wrong in reading the Oberstar "disavow" comment as something judgmental beyond this retrospective view of what was said and how things turned out.

The most lingering thing Franken faces is the position expressed by Connie Perpich on behalf of Planned Parenthood, a reluctance to go along with Franken; and the resignation of the DFL Feminist Caucus head over how that caucus petitioned its membership to endorse Franken without due regard for the leadership position of the person who resigned. Finally there is the cold comfort remaining from Betty McCollum, who has yet to endorse Franken while having had no reservations whatsoever about endorsing revolving door lobbyist and career politician, Elwyn Tinklenberg. Her priorities clearly differ from mine. I am fully in support of Franken as the person pikced to take it to Norm Coleman, while I have great difficulty with the choice the DFL presents in the Sixth District, between its endorsed man, and the GOP's incumbent, between lobbyist and laughingsotck.

AIPAC you can believe in.

Except, from some of the comments to the post, some have a wait and see attitude before believing their focal issues will not change.

The link is to a post on the JTA website, with the JTA website's "about us" not telling what the initials "JTA" stands for, and with news frontpage here.

I tried to access other news items on the JTA website, but encountered one of those annoying register/logon screens, and I already have enough %^*&)#&5&%3~! passwords and will not incur one more.

Stories were about McCain sniping, and Clinton and Obama on the same page, sniping at McCain - more or less that. You can access the opening blurbs, full text requires passing the logon screen.

Since there was that access intercept screen, while my first access went through to the full text of Obama's speech to AIPAC, perhaps a speech more important in gaining votes than the preaching to the chior session yesterday at Xcel center, I am posting the entire thing - to help others dodge the intercept should they encounter it.

Have a look, scan it, study it, it is a prepared text with policy committment language on the middle East, and there's Iran-talk. Site comments of readers of the post, as they stood at about 6:00 pm when I downloaded it, are at the end. [For what they may be worth.]

Obama remarks at AIPAC (AS PREPARED for delivery)

Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference

Senator Barack Obama
June 4, 2008

It’s great to see so many friends from across the country. I want to congratulate Howard Friedman, David Victor and Howard Kohr on a successful conference, and on the completion of a new headquarters just a few blocks away.

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative emails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President. And all I want to say is - let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

But if anyone has been confused by these emails, I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.

One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room - grassroots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have travelled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests - it’s rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as President, I will work with you to ensure that it this bond strengthened.

I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was eleven years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black, he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was two. My mother was white, she was from Kansas, and I’d moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn’t know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea - that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

I also learned about the horror of the Holocaust, and the terrible urgency it brought to the journey home to Israel. For much of my childhood, I lived with my grandparents. My grandfather had served in World War II, and so had my great uncle. He was a Kansas boy, who probably never expected to see Europe - let alone the horrors that awaited him there. And for months after he came home from Germany, he remained in a state of shock, alone with the painful memories that wouldn’t leave his head.

You see, my great uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division - the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder - part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. General Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited Congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce, “first-hand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda.”

I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words: “never again.”

It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel’s destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don’t even acknowledge Israel’s existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

I have long understood Israel’s quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an IDF helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha Rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bi-partisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel’s security is at risk, and I don’t think any of us can be satisfied that America’s recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.

Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq - is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al Qaeda has stepped up its recruitment. Israel’s quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel’s safety.

The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East’s only democracy for the region’s extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade - investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we - as friends of Israel - must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it. Because a secure, lasting peace is in Israel’s national interest. It is in America’s national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won’t wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my Administration.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this Administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.

The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security - to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements - as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis.

Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper - but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process - not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That’s what I commit to do as President of the United States.

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don’t end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel’s efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria’s support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

There is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder in our commitment to Israel’s security. So while I don’t want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today’s policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran - the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Senator McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Senator McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy, but offers only an alternate reality - one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium, and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

Senator McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran - it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq’s leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with men like Ahmadinejad just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These Presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives - including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear - to the people of Iran, and to the world - that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime - from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

I was interested to see Senator McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage - not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It’s a good concept, but not a new one. I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran. This bill has bipartisan support, but for reasons that I’ll let him explain, Senator McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous Senator is blocking the bill. It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. And the Bush Administration’s policies have driven up the price of oil, while its energy policy has made us more dependent on foreign oil and gas. It’s time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year’s US-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

That is the change we need in our foreign policy. Change that restores American power and influence. Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakeable commitment to its security.

As members of AIPAC, you have helped advance this bipartisan consensus to support and defend our ally Israel. And I am sure that today on Capitol Hill you will be meeting with members of Congress and spreading the word. But we are here because of more than policy. We are here because the values we hold dear are deeply embedded in the story of Israel.

Just look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years. From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world - from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. In the face of constant threats, Israel has triumphed. In the face of constant peril, Israel has prospered. In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.

As any Israeli will tell you, Israel is not a perfect place, but like the United States it sets an example for all when it seeks a more perfect future. These same qualities can be found among American Jews. It is why so many Jewish Americans have stood by Israel, while advancing the American story. Because there is a commitment embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity. To tikkun olam - the obligation to repair this world.

I will never forget that I would not be standing here today if it weren’t for that commitment. In the great social movements in our country’s history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man - James Chaney - on behalf of freedom and equality.

Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.

That work must include our shared commitment to Israel. You and I know that we must do more than stand still. Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel as it writes the next chapter in its extraordinary journey. Now is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world.

***

5 Comment(s)
---------------------------
As usual Obama’s speech was outstanding! It is a comfort to know that he stands with Israel and how important it is for United States interest to have an ally in the Middle East. Ruth

ruth f goodman | Jun 4, 2008 | Reply
---------------------------

A scriptwriter could have written the above words, and any good public speaker, which Obama is, could have delivered it. Actions speak far more loudly than any words that Barack Obama might say.

(1) Obama solicited and accepted the endorsement of MoveOn.org, which published not only pro-Palestinian material in an official bulletin, but also a deliberate insult to General David Petraeus. The instant someone spits, whether literally or figuratively, on an officer’s or enlisted person’s uniform, that’s three strikes right there–Obama is out.

(2) My.Barackobama.org welcomed anti-Israel material from Tony Wicher until I forced its removal by exposing it at IsraPundit and elsewhere. Wicher used the phrase “Zionist thought police” while quoting Desmond Tutu’s “Jewish Lobby.”

(3) Barack Obama praised and endorsed Al Sharpton, the racist and anti-Semite who orchestrated the hate event at Freddy’s Fashion Mart. Also Google on Sharpton and “Yankel Rosenbaum.”

(4) The official bulletin of Obama’s church included a guest piece from a Hamas terrorist, a blood libel that accused Israel of making an “ethnic bomb” to kill Negroes and Arabs, and “state” of Israel, as in “so-called state of Israel.” The latter bore Jeremiah Wright’s signature.

Bill Levinson | Jun 4, 2008 | Reply
----------------------------
Sorry, that should be my.barackobama.com.

Bill Levinson | Jun 4, 2008 | Reply
----------------------------

Bill, are you going to post the same disproven nonsense, falsifications and slanders on every single post on this website in which Barack Obama’s name is mentioned? Doesn’t it ever get old? How do you pay you rent considering the fact that you spend your entire day doing this all around the web? Are you an RJC operative or something?

Frank N. Bean | Jun 4, 2008 | Reply
-------------------------------

I heard the speech and I’m somewhat impressed.
To trust him is an other matter. How could he be a member of that church whose pastor and visiting pastors were so openly racist against whites and against the jews in particular.

Talk is cheap, (with the exception of the fee for the speechwriter)and a good speaker can deliver words that have little meaning if the speaker doesn’t belive in them.

His whole life is a mystery and an enigma that yet to be deciphered. Hopefully not the expense of the citizens of Israel who are suffering daily form the terrorist arabs.

Klara | Jun 4, 2008 | Reply
----------------------------

1 Trackback(s)
Jun 4, 2008: from FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו » Blog Archive » Obama’s Israel-Palestinian policy: mostly the same; one big surprise

_________UPDATE___________
There are coverage stories, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here; unlike earlier more equivocal coverage, here. Friends agreeing with friends, appearing before friends, it all must mean something - besides the wisdom of friendliness.

Sound and fury, signifying it cost a lot to rent the hall.

If you care to read the speech, Strib has it online for two weeks, before Strib takes it off free access and puts it into their pay-per-view archive.

It probably will be on YouTube, without any future access restriction. Reading it, you can see it is nothing special - YASS - yet-another-stump-speech, but it is the phenomenon, not the words, that matter - although the words had one real message --- that the primary is over and "I define the highground as mine, the lowground his, but beyond that here are my core issues for that definition":

So I'll say this — there are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.

Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years — especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

Giving full credit to the man's total honesty, he is not saying change to be delivered, as an actuality, but his small print, the disclaimer below the single word "CHANGE" in large print talks of belief -- believe. Apart from any promise of any actuality being realizable, "you can believe." The solid part of the entire speech is "I am more of a change than my only remaining standing opponent now, McCain, for whom I have great personal respect ..."

Read it:

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard.

Huh? Come again. That's pure false rhetoric and he knows better. There's more:

You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say — let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.

Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college — policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

And it's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians — a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.

If they'd give us the oil as we're after we'd be safer, since their reserves are second greatest behind the Saudis. A change like that would be great but they want to keep their natural resources to assure them a better future, not servitude.

In the end, we know, it is certain now, he's quit Reverend Wright's church over the embarassment of staying there instead:

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.

Well, that's not it. Wright wanted that, he's basically a good man. But it's not the end, only building to the end -

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.

That's getting there, humility, the long road, the American people - it has to end this paragraph, and sure enough -

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Bingo! Wright's written out of today's and tomorrow's script. But, bless him, too - no mention needed.

Here is what it was about:





The words did not matter as much as a point in time transitioning toward the general election, and taking down the house, in the hall where the opposition will put on a stodgy stale convention in a few short months. He took down the house, it was his, and they are an attractive and promising pair, the Obamas.

And - At the end, all those people during Obama's triumphant exit from the hall holding up, the CSPAN live broadcast showed it, holding up digital cameras, cell phones with digital cameras included, none of it Made in America. We do make stuff in America, before factories get closed and the jobs end, as Strib reports today, Wednesday, June 4, 2008.


And if anyone doubts that NAFTA has leveled the playing field, there is this.

Pocket change is change we can believe in. While we hold it it's there, when we spend it it's gone. And pocket change has been like that for some time so we've no cause to be skeptical of its delivery not being real. It goes in the pocket, it goes out of the pocket, it cycles that way like a tide ebbs and swells. And a rising tide lifts all boats, they say.

Don't get me wrong - I shudder at some of the tired rhetoric ["the gap between Wall Street and Main Street," "generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment," and, it is always "short months," months in politics never are long, etc.].

Yet, Barak Obama clearly is more appealing an alternative to me than John McCain and I will have less trouble voting for him over McCain than the marginally greater trouble I would have had voting for Clinton over McCain, given how she never delivered on health care reform the first time she had the portfolio as hers, from Bill.

And McCain, well, it could have been Huckabee.

There is that to be said in favor of McCain. However, a few of the Huckster's folks ought to be there, when the GOP gets to convening, and it would have been nicer if party boss Ron Carey had not dumped recently on the Ron Paul people. More of them in St. Paul when the middle-aged-and-older-very-white suits take over the hall from the young, people of color, and the casually dressed; more Ron Paul people then and the show would have promised to have been more entertaining and capable of generating better TV ratings with the viewing public.

__________________
Photo credits, in order, Reuters, GoogleAFP, AP, Strib, Toronto Globe & Mail, and the SUVs pic goes with Strib's linked article.

Remembering Tiananmen.

While much online press and blog attention has been shown the Obama free-admission rock concert at Xcel arena and the upcoming Franken-Nelson Pallmeyer face-off situation, and the Hilary non-conciliation speech plus that camp's origination of a petition to make Obama's decisions for him after losing the contest [be the first on your block to sign up for this petition effort], there's more. Rice spoke to AIPAC on CSPAN [the channel not carrying Obama live]. Cantwell, Klobuchar and others had televised hearings on oil and commodity pricing with Soros and the former head of the CFTC testifying along with an industry representative looking to cast blame elsewhere [remember Phil Gramm, he was noted for monkey-wrenching regulatory capabilities over energy back in a late-night bill addition in 2000, called "the Enron loophole" from times before the Enron bubble burst]. All that is news.

But this is an anniversary for those feeling a government should serve and not demand. For those truly believing that soverignty anywhere and everywhere rests or should rest with the people.

Guardian has coverage, a retrospective editorial and reporting of efforts to free those still imprisoned for Tiananmen 19 years later. The reporting first, where this link should reach a video recollection, or link to it from the article:

Civil rights activists called on the Chinese government today to release more than 100 prisoners from the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests as a sign of its commitment to improve human rights ahead of this summer's Olympic Games.

On the 19th anniversary of the bloody crackdown by People's Liberation Army troops, participants and supporters said the recent openness of the Sichuan earthquake relief operation could pave the way for a wider national reconciliation if the events of 1989 are reviewed and those punished are pardoned.

Human Rights Watch said 130 people are still in prison as a result of their roles in the pro-democracy demonstrations, which started in Beijing and spread to several other cities. By freeing them, the group said China could show "the global Olympic audience it is serious about human rights".

Hundreds, possibly thousands, of pro-democracy demonstrators and their supporters were killed by army tanks and troops in and around Tiananmen Square on June 3 and 4, 1989.

Civic groups and foreign governments - including the US and UK - have called for a full investigation and a pardon for those imprisoned in the crackdown that followed.

The government in Beijing insists the actions were needed to restore order, but it has blocked public debate on the issue.

One of the most prominent activists from 1989, Han Dongfang, said in a statement that the relative transparency shown by the Chinese authorities in their handling of the Sichuan earthquake should be repeated for the political wrongdoings of the past.

"The shift in leadership style shown by the government in response to the earthquake disaster suggests that the time is now right for such a step," said Han in an essay titled "A Time for Unity, a Time for Reconciliation" that praised the role of the army in the relief effort.

In Tiananmen Square today, the security presence was beefed up, as is usual every year on June 4. Police checked the bags of many visitors entering the area for liquids, banners and petitions.

But most tourists seemed oblivious to the significance of the date, which is a taboo subject in the domestic media.

"It is my first visit to Beijing. The square is far more impressive than I imagined," said a middle-aged man who had just arrived from Liaoning province with his wife. "I never heard of any trouble here in 1989. We live in a country village. We don't know about that kind of thing."

I live in Ramsey, and can sympathize with that last quote about being in a country village, not being up on things. The editorial retrospective said:

For some, the events that occurred in Beijing 19 years ago today have been pushed towards the sidelines of history.

The Great Leap Forward and the consequent famine or the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution were, in purely quantitative terms, much longer and bigger (including in terms of victims) that the massacre of protesters on the night of June 3-4 1989.

"[F]riends" of China take care to describe it as the Tiananmen Incident or, at most, as a "clampdown". The protesters have been suppressed or forced into exile across the globe, except for those who have come to terms with the regime that rules in the new China; a few are still in prison.

What happened that night is a non-event as far as the rulers of China are concerned; commemoration is suppressed and, if it is remembered at all, the occasion is portrayed as a glorious defence of the people's true interests by the army. How many people died remains unknown, though what is clear is that most were not students in Tiananmen, but ordinary citizens of the capital trying to stop the armoured vehicles after previous successes at blocking their progress to the square.

Yet June 4 remains a crucial moment in China's history [...] The killings of June 4 were enough of a tragedy in themselves. But, beyond the deaths along the boulevard leading to Tiananmen and then in the square, the outcome of the Beijing Spring confirmed China in a political course which reaches back into distant history, but from which, crucially, Deng Xiaoping and his elderly colleagues decided not to divert 19 years ago.

The patriarch, the ultimate survivor of the Communist system, embarked on the path of economic, market-led reform in 1978 after his victory over Mao's anointed successor, Hua Guofeng. While this was hugely successful in one sense, kick-starting the moribund economy and bringing China into the world economic system, it had, by 1989, aroused widespread resentment bred from the inequality Deng saw as necessary for growth, inflation and corruption.

But there was a more fundamental question: if the Chinese were to be free to run their lives economically, why not politically as well? If the command economy was being dismantled, why not the command political system, too?

I have recently done a bit of re-reading about "The Battle of Seattle" where death was not a factor among demonstrators, but where the WTO will was reinforced by martial law amid claims of police brutality and arbitrariness and with some arrestees having recently attained financial relief and clearing of their records - in that the mayor's mandate was to stay out of certain areas of the city and they were arrested while outside of the verboten region - standing, grouped, not causing any ruckus.

So, that entire question about economic freedom and political freedom, is far from simple. The WTO perseveres, and while the 1999 meeting in Seattle was not the feather in Bill Clinton's cap he wanted, more like a sharp stick in the eye, nonetheless the WTO perseveres while globalization means we arguably cannot exclude goods made with slave labor or in sweat shop circumstances, but still can let a little local pork involving streetcars in Portland trump Eastern European market access, but that Congressional thing deserves another full post beyond this digression. It seems US economic freedom rests with those having lots of money to start life with, while impediments and rules and custom constrains the rest of us not born into the Bush family or its functional equivalent.

The Guardian editorial continues:

The student demonstrators in the square may have lacked a coherent message. The atmosphere may have taken on aspects of a carnival. But, underlying it all, was a basic questioning of the right of the Communist Party to exercise monopoly power, a demand for discussion and plurality.

That questioned a tenet of Chinese rule dating back to the First Emperor of 221BC. The doctrine of legalism - rule by law rather than rule of law - co-existed with the more benevolent strains of Confucianism. Mao had identified himself with the First Emperor, and in 1980, Deng and his colleagues were in no mood to cede the authority they had spent all their lives fighting for.

Their decision to declare martial law and send in the People's Liberation Army was not taken lightly. As shown in the smuggled-out records in the book, the Tiananmen Papers, they deliberated long and hard, often in deep disgruntlement as they discussed how to deal with the pesky students who could draw on the traditional esteem in which their class was held in China. Reformists in the leadership, led by the party secretary, Zhao Ziyang, tried to find an accommodation. By the beginning of June, some student leaders were ready to return to campus and build on the moral victory they had won since launching the protest in mid-April. But the moderates were overruled on both sides and the tragic result unfolded.

That may say something about the dynamics of a student movement that was poorly co-ordinated and lacked clear, realisable aims - and was filled with its fair share of egos and hotheads. But it says a lot more about the Chinese leadership, then and since. The desire for compromise, for understanding, for a peaceful way forward that encompasses as many participants as possible has little or no place in a tradition that, stretching back through the imperial millennia, puts a premium on top-down rule with force always lurking in the background to be used on dissidents who are portrayed as traitors to the received wisdom exercised by the rulers.

Luckily, our system permits a focus for young voices and energy, and Barak Obama is there to assure us "change" is right around the corner, but the word change is his, not McCain's, and we should not, I suppose, settle for small change, pocket change.

Expectations and the future may not square totally for some, but it may for others, and it gets back to which set of expectations we should expect to prevail after the November elections are over, and individual candidate losses and victories can be tallied and reform of DC and its ways and means can then commence.

Jack profiled, KARE 11: Last Updated: 6/3/2008 5:43:53 AM .

Photo and profile excerpt from the KARE 11 website:

Nelson-Pallmeyer's staff and volunteers are working the phones, dialing for delegates, heading into the state convention. Most of those delegates have already met Nelson-Pallmeyer and the perceived frontrunner, Al Franken, at district and county conventions.

Because Franken and Nelson-Pallmeyer have both pledged to abide by the party's endorsement, that gathering at the Mayo Civic Center Friday and Saturday will determine which Democrat's name appears on the ballot next to incumbent Norm Coleman's name.

"As Minnesotans we can solve a lot of the problems we face," Nelson-Pallmeyer told KARE 11 Monday, "This is an anxious time but I believe this can be a hopeful time."

While many pundits have already moved beyond the endorsing convention, and are focusing instead on the Franken-Coleman matchup, Nelson-Pallmeyer still feels good about his prospects.

"I think why people are attracted to my campaign.." Nelson-Pallmeyer started to say Monday when he was interrupted by the ringing of a bell and cheers from volunteers.

"We like that sound!" exclaimed Nelson-Pallmeyer, "That sound indicates another firmed up delegate who's going to be voting for me in Rochester."

"The decisions we make in the next few years on climate, health care, the war, and the economy will determine the quality of life for many generations to come," Nelson-Pallmeyer told KARE.

"As long as our politics comes with some honesty about where we are, and some sense of hope about where we can go, I think that's what people are looking for now."

The professor of peace and justice studies has been a strident opponent of the war in Iraq. He calls for a responsible end to the conflict, but believes there's still a need for a full accounting of why the United States invaded that country five years ago.

"The real obstacle to moving forward in Iraq is we're still trying to take their oil and still trying to build permanent military bases there," Nelson-Pallmeyer remarked, "As long as that's true we're going to have a bloody insurgency. As long as we're not honest we won't win the help of other nations in that region."

He also supports a single-payer version of universal health care program, supported by tax dollars. Nelson-Pallmeyer argues people and businesses currently pay far more in premiums than they would in taxes to pay for such a plan.

"We're the last industrialized nation that isn't doing this, and those places -- Germany, France, Japan, Canada -- are all taking care of people for less per capita than we do here."

He graduated from Saint Olaf with a political science degree in 1973, and holds a master of divinity degree from Union Theological Seminary in New York.

His studies and jobs took him to some of the most poverty-stricken areas in the United States and other parts of the world. It's an issue he's revisiting now on the campaign trail.

If the people on the Jack for Senate team can survive convention weekend, they'll go to work on Minnesota voters in general. For now, they're concentrating on the 1,200 elected delegates and 188 superdelegates who'll be asked to choose between Al Franken and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer.

I first was attracted to Nelson-Pallmeyer from a household mailer (click to enlarge):



Third item down, other candidates for local office did not see it as an early [prior to precinct caucus] issue position, but it was something I liked very much:

Jack helped to convince nearly 200 House Democrats to vote to close the School of the Americas, where foreign soldiers are trained to repress their local populations.

While it does not resonate in Minnesota as greatly as issues of jobs, health care, energy, the war, K-12 schooling, and affordable access to well maintained first rate undergraduate and graduate education, it is a position that showed "the courage to lead" to me. You can Google and study the issue, nuns arrested in protests, death squads, dictators and their juntas, etc., all I say for now:

No such school, no problems as reported with the Zetas.

They are a renegade group of School of the Americas alumni, reported here and here as converting their skills to private sector torture, and to intimidation and drug trafficing at the border and in the US. Something like Blackwater in terms of being privateers chasing a bigger payday, but more unrestrained even than Blackwater, killers, looters, kidnappers, not nice at all.

Using their training to advantage, doing some of the things that alumni of the school leave trained to do. From all reporting it is not a good place. While it cannot be blamed for the dictatorship of Samoza himself, he went to West Point as did many other junta higher-ups in Central and South America over time, but much of his officer corps were trained to be effective fighters at School of the Americas.

John Negroponte may like the school. While Reagan's ambassador to Honduras he probably rubbed elbows with the alumni group.

Jack and I do not like the school.

In closing, again, Franken also would make a fine Senator. He shows the promise of being above average in skills and dedicated to positions on the issues I agree with and that I feel most thinking voters in Minnesota not among the super wealthy would also find resonant. Ciresi also would be fine if there is no endorsement, if that scenario plays out with a following three candidate primary as some expect possible. I would gladly support Ciresi in a heartbeat if that primary scenario happened and he won. But I prefer Jack.

Coleman should be retired as a single termer able to beat a recently deceased opponent, as his level of popular appeal. One up on John Ashcroft that way, but not much more to like than with Ashcroft. Jack, in the best of worlds to me, should replace Norm, in the Wellstone seat. Jack would be an independent, honest, and differing voice in DC where there are something like ten active registered lobbyists for every Representative and Senator in Congress. Jack's absolute integrity in such tempting circumstances would never be in doubt. As with Franken and Ciresi. The DFL sentate race has three excellent options.