Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘democratic-party’

Eric Cantor on 60 Minutes: ‘Why are Jews Democrats? It’s Tikun Olam!’

Friday, January 6th, 2012

Eric Cantor had his 60 minutes of fame on the show of the same name.  Lesley Stahl asked him why Jews are Democrats and not Republicans, as he is.  Shorter Eric Cantor: It’s the damn tikun olam!  It makes me so friggin’ proud!

“It’s Tikun Olam. That is a concept in Judaism which means repair the world – and it’s a very charitable concept. And it’s that way in the Christian faith and others as well, that you give back. And clearly there is the ability to characterize all the social programs that exist at the federal level as reflecting that need to repair the world and to help those who can’t help themselves.”

Yeah, right.  Jews are charitable, give back, need to repair the world, and help those who can’t help themselves.  Those are Democratic values.  What are Cantor’s values?  What are Republican values?  They’re the 1%. Isaiah wasn’t the 1%. Jeremiah wasn’t the 1%. The 1% are not the values of the massive proportion of American Jews.  Eat your heart out, Eric Cantor!

Loughner: In Dreams Begin Murders

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

Delmore Schwartz‘s most famous short story is entitled In Dreams Begin Responsibilities.  It is about a young man who dreams he is in a movie theater watching a movie which turns out to portray his parent’s courtship.  As he watches it, he worries that his parents may not actually end up marrying each other and he volubly urges them not to break up.  Otherwise, he might not be born.  When he wakes up, he realizes it is the morning of his 21st birthday.  His dreams teach him his responsibilities toward life, his own and his parents.

Today’s NY Times features an eerie journey into the dreaming subconscious of 22 year-old mass murderer, Jared Loughner.  Instead of leading him to life, the killer’s dreams brought him to the dark side.  That’s why I used the title for this post In Dreams Begin Murders:

Mr. Gutierrez said his friend [Loughner] had become obsessed with the meaning of dreams and their importance. He talked about reading Friedrich Nietzsche’s book “The Will To Power” and embraced ideas about the corrosive, destructive effects of nihilism — a belief in nothing. And every day, his friend said, Mr. Loughner would get up and write in his dream journal, recording the world he experienced in sleep and its possible meanings.

“Jared felt nothing existed but his subconscious,” Mr. Gutierrez said. “The dream world was what was real to Jared, not the day-to-day of our lives.”

And that dream world, his friend said, could be downright strange.

“He would ask me constantly, ‘Do you see that blue tree over there?’ He would admit to seeing the sky as orange and the grass as blue,” Mr. Gutierrez said. “Normal people don’t talk about that stuff.”

He added that Mr. Loughner “used the word hollow to describe how fake the real world was to him.”

Another NY Times article today notes a mental health expert who speculates that Loughner suffers from severe paranoid schizophrenia.  Those on the right who are fending off responsibility for the violence he wrought on Tuscon, Arizona and the nation, are fond of noting that the shooter was insane and not making a coherent political statement:

It is also not clear, some doctors said, that today’s partisan climate had any bearing on the assault. “The psychosis picks up on the grand themes of the day, whether those are antigovernment or something else,” Dr. Stone said.

In the logic of delusion, a grievance may be conflated with some larger mission, whether religious, political or artistic. “It’s not political thinking,” Dr. Torrey said. “It’s psychotic thinking.”

There’s a great deal to be said for this.  Psychotics who kill may formulate ideas that sound like coherent political statements and it may appear that such thoughts drive their behavior, often such ideas are inchoate and confused.  After all, one of Loughner’s friends of seven years ago called him a leftist.  Yet his MySpace profile notes among his favorite books are Mein Kampf (and The Communist Manifesto!) and he tried to kill a Democratic Congresswoman with moderate to liberal views.  Similary, Naveed Haq, the Pakistani-American who forced his way into the Jewish federation building in Seattle and shot five people, killing one, once had himself baptized in his search for religious meaning.

It seems to me that in some ways the violently mentally ill are, whether consciously or unconsciously, attempting to wreak upon the world some of the same internal anger, violence and chaos that rages within them.

Yet Haq, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, received no mercy from the Jewish community here, which argued that Haq was perfectly competent, knew right from wrong, and should get what he had coming to him.  Bright lights like Pam Geller, in commenting on the Haq trial, even called Islam a mental illness.  To many Jews, Haq was a murderous anti-Semite who had to get a life sentence.  And that he did though it took the prosecution two trials to do it.  The prosecutor refused to accept a plea of insanity and confinement to a mental institution, which is what Haq really needed:

“The insanity defense, which may be tried in this case, is often unsuccessful,” Dr. Torrey said, “and one reason is that juries are afraid to send people to state hospitals, where they belong. They’d rather lock them up for longer, in prison.”

On a related subject, I’m rather amused by the claims from the right that violent political rhetoric characterizes both sides of the debate and not just their side alone.  On Warren Olney’s To the Point, one interviewee noted the extremism voiced on sites like Daily Kos.  There’s one major difference between the tone of the discussion on the right and left.  On the left the vituperative, intolerant rhetoric comes from the knuckleheads at the bottom of the heap like those in the DK talkbacks.  On the political right, the violence comes right from the top: from the talk show hosts, elected politicians, presidential hopefuls.

As Paul Krugman noted in his column this week, while Keith Olbermann is passionate and angry, he will never adopt the hateful swagger of a Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly.  He won’t physically threaten, he won’t use language that is violent.  Among elected officials, you won’t find any Democratic candidate who places crosshairs over the districts of Republican rivals as Sarah Palin did.  While Democrats can be just as cantankerous in their views as Republicans, they don’t tend to use eliminationist oratory as a good number do on the other side.

Someone needs to clean up their political act and it ain’t Democrats.

Doug Pike Takes J Street Endorsement and Funding, Then Rejects It

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

Doug Pike, profile in craven cowardice

Every so often, something happens in politics which totally mystifies.  Today brings news that Doug Pike, Democratic candidate for Congress in PA’s 6th District, and a J Street endorsee, has rejected the group’s support and returned the $6,000 it gave him.  Why?  Do you want the real reason or the made up one (from Pike).  His explanation involves a claim he didn’t understand J Street’s real positions on Israel and how much they differed from his own.

What positions?  Well, take settlements and building in East Jerusalem.  He didn’t know J Street, his own Democratic president, and the rest of the world outside Israeli right wing circles opposed such expansionism.  Pike appears to believe Bibi Netanyahu should be able to plop down massive amounts of new homes for Jerusalem’s ultra-Orthodox and their 12-children households right smack dab in the middle of historically Palestinian neighborhoods:

Pike said, he was “troubled” by J Street’s recent stance that Israel halt construction in eastern Jerusalem…

The endorsement was an impediment to my being able to explain my convictions about Israel’s security.

You see, if you accept funds from J Street you can’t possibly be in favor of Israel’s security, can you?  Well, sure you can be in favor of Israel’s security, as the scores of other Congressional candidates are who accept such funds.  But it IS an impediment in defending yourself to far right-wing Aipac moneybags supporters who’ve undoubtedly importuned Pike to abandon J Street.  I urge those who track Aipac-inspired political donations to keep tabs on how much primary dough Pike gets from such PACs.  It will at least match $6,000, but probably go far higher.

This statement from Pike is boilerplate Aipac and urges the U.S. to refrain from exerting any pressure on Israel to negotiate in good faith or demanding any sacrifices or compromises whatsoever:

“The United States should encourage a peace agreement…but ultimately, this must come from negotiations between the two sides,” Pike wrote in a column addressing his decision. “I agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu: Negotiations should begin as soon as possible without preconditions.”

Dr. Manan Trivedi, Democrat for Congress in PA's 6th district.

I am chagrined to report that Douglas Pike is the son of Otis Pike, who served a Westchester, N.Y. district that abutted my home for nine terms.  He had a distinguished record as an environmentalist and I knew him as a politician with a conscience and principles.  Apparently, the move to Pennsylvania or something else has caused his son to abandon whatever values his father may’ve tried to teach him.  It’s sad.

I’m glad to report that J Street’s supporters responded by raising $30,000 in new money in response to Pike’s reversal.  Let that be a lesson to those who are mesmerized by the siren song of Aipac dough.

But I’m pleased to report that there is an even better Democratic candidate running in his district: Dr. Manan Trivedi.  Trivedi is an Indian-American medical doctor, Iraq war veteran and Lt. Commander in the U.S. Navy.  And he’s going to his first seder this week.  So somehow I doubt Trivesi is going to pose much danger to Israel’s interests if elected to the House.  Not that this will stop all Aipac’s PAC-related donors from funding lots of attacks against the candidate’s pro-Israel bona fides.

Pike has a $1.2-million campaign war chest.  Trivedi, only $120,000.  I’ve just donated to his campaign and I urge you to do so.  Let’s show profiles in cowardice like Pike and all those Aipac-ers who will flock to his campaign that there is a reward for those in the U.S. Congress who take a principled, pragmatic position regarding Israeli-Palestinian peace.  I’d also urge J Street to endorse Dr. Trivedi.  It would be great to have progressive American Jews support an Indian-American Congressional candidate.  That would be one of the finest examples of American ethnic democratic politics at work.

The primary winner earns the right to knock Republican loyalist Jim Gerlach out of Congress for good: “soon and in our day.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Does Joe Lieberman Own the Democratic Party?

Monday, December 14th, 2009
Joe jamming up the health care pipes (Hartford Courant)

Joe jamming up the health care pipes (Hartford Courant)

Let me say something slightly radical: yes, we need health care reform, but do we need it that bad that we’re willing to get down on bended knee to shine Joe Lieberman’s dirty shoes for it?  Why can’t Democrats walk away from the deal, make a huge stink about it, kick Joe out of the caucus, wait a few years and vote his ass off the island?

I don’t think the American people will hold it against the Democrats to lose health care because of this royal jackass.  Just look at what he’s torpedoing: the public option, the expanded Medicare provision.  These are items that most Americans want.  Hell, these are items most Connecticut voters want.  If I lived in that state I’d be sore ashamed of myself, my state and my senator.  I’d be mounting a campaign to recall him if state law allowed for it:

“If you think you are sick of Joe Lieberman now,” Jim Shea, a columnist in The Hartford Courant, wrote Monday, “just wait until you get sick.”

Power to the insurance industry, right on!

Power to the insurance industry, right on!

I’m sick and tired of Joe Lieberman holding a gun to the head of my president and the Democratic Party.  Call the guy’s bluff.  Let him walk or give him a good strong push.  If you don’t you know what will happen by caving to him now: he will be emboldened.  Now, EVERY Democratic legislative initiative will be held hostage by his machinations.

Sometimes when you have a really spoiled pet you’ve got to lay down the law; otherwise it’s sleeping on the bed with you, jumping on the table to snatch dinner, practically running your life.

Senate Democrats, don’t let that happen.

Gaza and the Shame of American Jewish Liberals

Saturday, January 3rd, 2009

Phil Weiss alerts me to a disturbing column written by Rabbi Eric Yoffie in the Forward attacking J Street for its insufficient sympathy for Israel’s assault on Gaza.  His piece is shameful not because it expresses sympathy for the Israeli suffering from Palestinian rocket attacks.  This is certainly legitimate.  It is shameful because he demeans J Street for expressing too much sympathy for the Gazans.

I have written several times glowing posts about speeches and statements Rabbi Yoffie has made about Christian Zionists or Muslim-Jewish understanding.  And I have never criticized him before because I have never read anything that I felt was so far off the mark.  But this piece requires a strong denunciation since it lacks any sense of moral calculus or compass regarding the horror of this event.

He goes off the rails in his argument almost from the beginning:

I suspect that most American Jews feel the same discomfort that I feel. They support the military offensive too…

Not so fast.  Glenn Greenwald reports on a Rasmussen survey that confirms that while the American public is sharply divided on the conflict, that Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed:

Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin (31-55%).

Since 80-85% of Jews consider themselves Democrats that would mean that even IF a majority of Jews supported the Operation Solid Lead, that the split would be close to right down the middle (I’m conceding that the 20% of Jewish Republicans would strongly favor the assault).  This is Yoffie’s first questionable assumption.  Here is more questionable thinking:

…They [American Jews] expect Israel to be both politically wise and morally sensitive in how it fights. It is especially important to us that Israel do everything humanly possible to avoid the death of innocents and to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. There is much evidence that Israel has worked hard to limit the carnage, and the credibility of Israel’s leaders in providing assurances on these points is an important factor in assuring the continued support of American Jews — and, indeed, of all Americans — for the Gaza campaign.

This passage too is full of dubious assumptions.  Israel has killed 400 civilians in Gaza and undertaken an 18 month siege which has reduced the enclave to penury.  Eric Yoffie is an intelligent person and learned rabbi.  How can he possibly believe what he is writing?  It simply flies in the face of reality as the rest of the world (outside Israel’s most ardent backers) knows it.

Yoffie’s insinuation that the majority of Americans support the operation is also questionable.  Rasmussen finds that Americans support it by a slim plurality (44-41%).  The longer the operation continues surely the more opposition will mount among Americans.

Here Yoffie takes on J Street’s courageous position attacking the Gaza incursion:

…Not a few Jewish doves have demonstrated an utter lack of empathy for Israel’s predicament. J Street, a new Washington lobbying group and a major voice of the dovish pro-Israel community, has spoken out sharply against Israel’s actions in Gaza. While it claims to represent the moderate American Jewish majority, in this case it has misread the issues and misjudged the views of American Jews.

It is interesting to note that Yoffie’s presumption is that American Jews owe Israel the benefit of the doubt in issues like this military offensive.  The majority of our empathy must go to Israel’s “predicament” rather than to the Gazans who presumably deserve less because they simply are not Jews.  This is a stale notion that lost favor years ago even among American Jews.  The day when we got out the flag and waved it no matter what Israel did (and especially when it did anything morally questionable) are long gone.  Israel no longer gets a blank moral check from most American Jews.  And that’s as it should be. We state what we think is in Israel’s long-term interests, but owe no special obligation to support Israel when it strays from our view of what those interests should be (as they have done in Operation Solid Lead).  I’m simply shocked to read that the leader of the most liberal American religious denomination is still spouting such virtual inanities.

Consider the moral calculus of this statement and ask yourself what is missing:

A second J Street statement was worse by far. It could find no moral difference between the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian militants, who have launched more than 5,000 rockets and mortar shells at Israeli civilians in the past three years, and the long-delayed response of Israel, which finally lost patience and responded to the pleas of its battered citizens in the south.

Notice that Israel has suffered 5,000 rockets fired at it while the Palestinians have suffered…hmmm, I seem to have missed that portion of Yoffie’s statement.  The Palestinians haven’t suffered anything, have they?  Well then, in that case you can see how easy it is for Yoffie to get into high moral dudgeon over J Street’s purported embrace of a “pro-Palestinian” position.

Here is more ignorance masquerading as sympathy for Israel:

These words [of J Street's criticizing both Israeli and Palestinian violence] are deeply distressing because they are morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naïve. A cease-fire instituted by Hamas would be welcome, and Israel would be quick to respond. A cease-fire imposed on Israel would allow Hamas to escape the consequences of its actions yet again and would lead in short order to the renewal of its campaign of terror. Hamas, it should be noted, is not a government; it is a terrorist gang.

Most people in the world feel, at best, deeply divided over this conflict; and at worst they feel Israel is almost entirely in the wrong.  Yet somehow Yoffie transforms this reality into one in which J Street is “morally deficient” for seeing precisely what most other people are seeing: an aggressive Israel attacking disproportionately a virtually defenseless (except for crude handmade rockets which cause far more fear than actual mayhem) Gaza.

Not a whiff from the good rabbi in the above passage of Israel’s draconian siege on Gaza and the effects this is having on 1.5 million civilians who have done nothing to warrant such punishment.  And regarding the Hamas line he espouses, it is once again wrong.  Hamas IS a government whenever Israel isn’t intervening (like now) against its control of Gaza by preventing it from being one.  Hamas was elected by Palestinians democratically.  It was the U.S. and Israel which refused to accept the democratic results of this election and determined to topple Hamas by force.  Not a word about that, Rabbi Yoffie.  Why not?  Or is it possible that Middle Eastern democracy is only considered legitimate when it’s flying an Israeli flag?

In order to justify Yoffie’s rejection of Hamas as a legitimate representative of the Palestinians, he trots out this definitive “wisdom:”

To be a dove of influence, you must be a realist, firm in your principles but shorn of all illusions…

Being a “realist” as far as Yoffie is concerned means accepting that Hamas are nothing but a bunch of thugs incapable of being legitimate partners of Israel or of governing Palestine.  The only problem is that many Israelis, among them respected generals and intelligence analysts, don’t agree.  So Rabbi, are they unprincipled and illusion-filled or are you perhaps getting a bit ahead of yourself in making such definitive and ill-considered statements about the nature of Hamas?

As a reality check for my views, I did what I normally do in these circumstances: I checked with my closest Israeli friends, who are all left of center, haters of war and ferocious opponents of the West Bank settlement movement. In virtually every case, they saw the action in Gaza as tragic but necessary and were astounded by the opposition of American doves.

You’ll note that Yoffie’s “closest Israeli friends” are the moral arbiters of what a correct American Jewish position should be on this issue.  Could it be that his Israeli friends represent as narrow a spectrum of opinion as his own views expressed here?  Can Yoffie deny that the pages of the Israeli press are filled with reports that question Israeli motives for this attack, which denounce it as a failure practically before it began, which portray the immense suffering of Gazan civilians?  I guess the many critical journalists I’ve been reading in Haaretz and Ynet must not be among Yoffie’s circle of “closest friends.”  I’d like to introduce him to Akiva Eldar, Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Yossi Sarid, B. Michael, David Grossman, Uri Avnery, and many others.  They might teach him a thing or two about what those Israelis believe who aren’t among his intimate circle.

…Why, we ask, should Israel’s center-left government, after long periods of restraint and desperate efforts to renew the cease-fire, be expected to refrain from fighting terrorists that are regularly attacking from right across the border?

Because the operation won’t work.  Because the only way to end the violence is to negotiate.  Because Hamas legitimately demands something in return for the end of its attacks–that is, an end to the horrifying siege that has starved its children and brought death to its critically ill who lack medicine or care.

American Jews see Israel’s Gaza offensive as a tragic necessity, unwelcome but inevitable, carried out by a reluctant Israeli government doing what it must to end rocket attacks against its citizenry. In short, American Jews are, as usual, sensible and centrist, and supporting Israel in her hour of need.

Again, not so fast.  While Rabbi Yoffie speaks for a large religious denomination, I don’t believe his views are those of the majority of American Jews.  And even if I concede that they are the views of the majority, there is by no means the consensus he posits.  American Jews, like the rest of Americans, are deeply divided about this.  To claim otherwise, is simply like whistling in a graveyard.  You’re hoping you’re right, but haven’t a clue or a means to prove it.

Rabbi Yoffie’s piece in the Forward proves to me that while he may have liberal instincts on many issues, when it comes to Israel he is little better than the mainline Israel lobby organizations.  We cannot expect wisdom from them or him on these issues.  It grieves me to say this because he has often been eloquent and profound about some subjects as I’ve noted above.  But not this one.  Not by a long shot.

J Street–you’ve done something honorable.  Don’t even think of backing down or being intimidated by this flackery.  You are in the right.  Time and history will confirm it.  It is Rabbi Yoffie who will be eating his words in six months time when he sees that this military project has failed just as all previous ones seeking to do the same thing have failed before it.  Unfortunately, Rabbi Yoffie would do well to consider these profound words from Zechariah: Ki lo b’choach, v’lo b’hayil, ki im b’ruchi, amar Adonai tzevaot.  “Not by strength and not by might, but rather by my spirit says the Lord of Hosts.”  “Spirit” is words, negotiations leading to peace.  Those are the only things that will work here.  Remember that little bit of Jewish wisdom, Rabbi.

400 Years of Suffering Redeemed

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008
Jesse Jackson cries at Obama victory celebration

Jesse Jackson cries at Obama victory celebration

Charles Blow has written one of the most eloquent meditations on Barack Obama’s victory considering it as a redemption of centuries of African-American slavery and suffering:

History will record this as the night the souls of black folk, living and dead, wept – and laughed, screamed and danced – releasing 400 years of pent up emotion.

They were the souls of those whose bodies littered the bottom of the Atlantic, whose families were torn asunder, whose names were erased.

They were those who knew the terror of being set upon by men with clubs, of being trapped in a torched house, of dangling at the end of a rough rope.

They were the souls of those who knew the humiliation of another person’s spit trailing down their faces, of being treated like children well into their twilight years, of being derided and despised for the beauty God gave them.

When I read Blow’s reference to “400 years” it immediately called to mind another 400 year interval of suffering. Biblically, Jews endured 400 years of slavery in Egypt before they could make the journey with Moses through Sinai to the Promised Land. Perhaps, this is yet another reason that Obama’s quest resonated among American Jews.

Martin Luther King, of course, channeled Moses tragic vision of the Promised Land on Mt. Nebo, in the famous speech delivered the day before his assassination:

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

And I believe Obama deliberately alluded to this speech in this hopeful passage from yesterday’s victory speech:

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you we as a people will get there.

Moses of course, like King would never reach the Promised Land. Joshua was Moses’ disciple and he was the one who reached the end of the journey. So in a sense, Obama is our latter-day Joshua. He is the one who has broken through, kept his eyes on the prize, and won a monumental victory on behalf of American liberty and justice.

Tom Friedman today spoke of Obama’s achievement as the final victory in the American Civil War that began at Bull Run in 1862. An important idea to keep in mind.

But there is another important redemption as well in this victory: Obama has redeemed the 2000 election  stolen from Al Gore by George Bush and our Supreme Court. For the first time since then, a Democrat will assume the presidency. This must give Gore mixed emotions. But I hope he can share the joy amidst his own personal regret at what might have been.

Joe & John, Their Heads in the Toilet

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

Tim Egan’s take on the 3rd debate:

…In the third debate, he [McCain] scuffed and huffed, but ended up with a somewhat muddled conversation with a plumber. Little wonder, in the ideological wilderness of 2008, a time when McCain’s dark-side supporters want him to stay dirty, that McCain chose to dwell on a guy who spends a lot of time with his head in the toilet.

No offense to Joe since he makes a better living than I do.  But Egan has it about right as far as McCain is concerned.  His campaign is dirty and his head’s in the toilet.

A few months ago, I predicted that McCain would end up running a campaign that looked a lot like Bob Dole’s given the age, ideology and temperaments of the respective candidates in both races:

I’m beginning to think a McCain candidacy is going to echo the clueless, out of touch 1996 campaign Robert Dole ran against a far younger, more politically nimble Democrat by the name of Bill Clinton. If 6 in 10 Americans and some of his own key advisors believe the precise opposite of what McCain espouses regarding Iran, how long before we all see that the Republican emperor is hopelessly out of touch and has no clothes?

Turns out, I was dead on.  I predict this election is going to have an outcome similar to 1996 as well.  The only question is how badly other Republican candidates will do.  And that doesn’t look good for them either.

This brings up an important question of governance.  What will the Dems do with their newfound success?  Will they govern from the center?  Or will they meander into ideological territory like the Republicans did under Bush and DeLay?  Will they squander the mandate they’ve been given?  Or will they resort to squabbling among themselves and the sort of aimless agenda that they’ve been known for in the past?

Will Obama also grab the bull by the horns and act decisively in confronting economic and foreign problems?  I’m looking forward to what could happen regarding the I-P conflict, Iran and Iraq.  If Dems play their cards right things could look a lot better in the Middle East by the end of Obama’s first term.  Especially if Tzipi Livni is prime minister.  If Netanyahu wins, then all bets are off.

It’s Biden…Ho-Hum

Saturday, August 23rd, 2008
Biden: a smile a mile-wide and an inch deep

Biden: a smile a mile-wide and an inch deep

The N.Y. Times reports that Barack Obama has picked Joe Biden as his running mate.  And all I can say is ho-hum.  He’s playing it safe.  Telling the world he’s afraid it will notice his weaknesses and hence the attempt to stick a finger in the dike of his inexperience.  This is reactive and not proactive politics.  One of the things I’ve admired about Obama’s campaign thus far has been his willingness to make daring moves, to do the unexpected.  It allowed him to break out of the mold.  It set him apart from Hillary Clinton, the candidate who seemingly tried to do everything the same old, boring, old-fashioned way.

Biden is a consensus builder.  He’s not an especially bright bulb.  In fact, he comes across as a bit of a buffoon due to his shoot from the lip style.  I expect we’ll be seeing Jay Leno and David Letterman dredging up every stupid, silly comment Biden has made in 35 years of Senate service.

Yes, Biden is a steady hand–I was going to say in the Cheney mold though I immediately realized how ridiculous it was for anyone to believe Cheney was being added to the 2000 Republican ticket to add a note of rigor and stability.  Biden will certainly add more gravitas to the ticket than Cheney did.  But man is he ever old and tired.  And I never trust a politician from Delaware who has a perpetual suntan.  He also looks like he just had his face “enhanced” by a surgeon’s knife.  Biden’s smile, while a mile-wide, somehow always reminds me of Mack the Knife or a gameshow host.  And does he ever love to hear the sound of his own voice!

I have to say I wasn’t thrilled by any of Obama’s VP choices.  There was the white guy from the Midwest, Evan Bayh; the Catholic guy from the near South, Tim Kaine; and Biden.  I thought Kathleen Sebelius would’ve been a groundbreaking pick, though perhaps it wouldn’t bring much politically to the ticket other than a breath of fresh air.  And Chuck Hagel–now that would’ve been a groundbreaking candidate who would’ve stolen some Republican thunder.

When I think of the boring prospect of adding Joe Biden to the ticket, I look back fondly on the vice presidential candidacy of Lloyd Bentsen.  Now, that was a politician who really had the goods.  Only someone of Bentsen’s character could’ve sliced and diced Dan Quayle as he did in that famous debate.  Obama needed a Bentsen and I’m afraid he chose an Edsall.

This has been cross-posted at Huffington Post.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE