Apologies for the typos. However, one last thing: The insistence that since Obama has clarified his position multiple times on the matter all is well is absurd.

Does anyone believe when a politician tells an important business lobby something--as democrats often do--while backtracking to a more acceptable position to a broader audience (the electorate) that he or she is being more authentic, only to later betray them for a more powerful group. Last I checked, Israel and its lobby (yes, that is what it's called) are much more powerful than the disparate entities that forcefully, and that is the operative word (not the countries fearful of falling out of favor), that support true Palestinian determination--liberal but powerless Israelis, various marginal Arab groups, and progressive American Jews with little institutional power (J Street is new and small).

So when a politician tells a powerful lobby he is supportive of their position, it's rare that he is then going to betray them for a less powerful, and electorally immaterial, group.

FDR did not tell the business community he wanted to deregulate their industries and then sweep through with the new deal (and yes I know Roosevelt did not start as fire breather, but nor was he painfully trying to placate and please. So while I think, or is it hope, Obama holds more sensible views, I am not going to ignore what he tells powerful groups. No one should. History often paints a bleak picture.

Posted at July 19, 2008 11:31 PM in response to Obama: Clearing the Mideast Slate

I fear you are avoiding, as is TG, the meaning of an "undivided" Jerusalem. It is quite clear, as it was to the Palestinians, that an undivided Jerusalem is a dog whistle endorsement of an annexation of Jerusalem as Israel favors. This is in stark contrast to what Israel is accorded by international law, the international consensus codified by the UNGA's vote on the "Peaceful Resolution of the Palestine Question," and what the Palestinian people want.

An undivided Jerusalem is as tenable as "throwing Israel into the sea," as the old refrain went. In fact, by ad ovating an "undivided" Jerusalem to AIPAC, a concept quite clear to trained watchers of the middle east, Obama is imparting a decision against the will of interested parties, something yous supposedly decry.

If someone want to argue the merits of making crass political moves for gain, that is fine. But to willfully insist that Obama's statement in front of AIPAC was misinterpreted is intellectually dishonest. The annexation of Jerusalem as an undivided entity governed by Israel is an established position of the state of Israel. Let's not pretend otherwise. To suggest this is some "minute" detail ignores the parameters of UN 242, Oslo, and the so-called road map.

Posted at July 19, 2008 10:51 PM in response to Obama: Clearing the Mideast Slate

"the common-sense notion that black people might have to be good parents as well as expect help from government"

What a rather hideous and revealing statement. I find it quite laughable when people very far removed from the circumstances of others lives-a well to do professor heaping scorn on someone she hardly knows in this case-make such categorical statements.

Well, beyond the clear implication that Theda thinks that blacks are poorer parents than other groups, she ignores the entire body of literature on why illegitimacy or 'bad parenting,' as she might render it, is so pronounced.

Could it possibly the extremely small social safety net combined with intense, policy-driven concentrated poverty that afflicts black neighborhoods? Should we address that?

The hideous part about this is that illegitimacy and parental breakdowns exist throughout America-regardless of race. As we see across all cohorts, parenting woes, divorce, and illegitimacy increase with poverty.

Since blacks have borne the brunt of economic dislocation, neighborhood segregation, and government disinvestment far greater than any group, it is little surprise that illegitimacy is higher.

But somehow this is all lost of Theda and she insists that poor blacks just need to get along and be 'better' parents. Quit all the griping about resources and such, just do it already!

If this is the message we are supposed to rally around, which Bill Clinton did as President, we need to find better spokesmen--and Im not talking about Obama.

Posted at July 12, 2008 4:14 AM in response to Can Progressives Unite, or Will It Be the Same Old Bit-Politics Story?

Thank you. Note perfect.

Posted at July 10, 2008 7:25 PM in response to Do Blogs Take Labor Issues Seriously?

What matters is where you vote. Call what you want. But she voted right and he voted wrong.

Posted at July 9, 2008 9:00 PM in response to Hillary Explains Vote Against FISA Cave

Yes, JTFaraday, I am going to have to agree with you. I might add that while I share Sirota's viewpoints and yearn for a serious shift in this country, I am afraid that our citizenry is not capable of demanding it, at this point.

Call me a million names, but most American's are suffering rather than prospering but the bloated, inuring quality of modern capitalism and American democracy seem to have rendered the American citizen too distanced from one another to truly avail themselves of their supposed rights to fight back.

I fear (sorry for the melodrama) that most Americans are not only losing--and may know what ails them--but does not know how or where or to whom to turn. As a result, we do not seem to have a very engaged citizenry, which poses a problem when trying to tackle plutocracy.

Outside of a serious shift in the distribution of wealth--which will certainly not transpire barring a much greater recession--I do not see the coalitions forming right now as promising. For the most part, the netroots is a movement that seeks to merely act as boosters of Democratic political candidates without any greater concern for the truth or true political alteration. And the recent Obama craze almost goes without saying, with its insistence on speaking about change with little concern for accountability to that "change," or real push for systemic change.

One can only hope...

Posted at July 8, 2008 10:59 PM in response to Uprisings: Bottom Up and Top Down

"He should say Whatever it takes."

This is exactly the problem with shallow liberalism. It has little interest in presenting its views to the American people.

1) There is nothing that Obama seems to gain from supporting this destruction of the constitution. The American public is not particularly fond of the bush administration nor are they fond of big businesses these days.

Nothing says he gains from supporting this--at least not among the average voter(who likely knows nothing of this).

2)Your tacit endorsement--which suggest you may not understand the basic issues of the I/P conflict--o his statement of an undivided Jerusalem is pathetic. It seems your years working for jewish organizations has rendered you unable to understand that Obama's statement was outrageous. No palestinian endorses Obama's statement. None. The word "undivided Jerusalem" was not an empty talking point. It was a powerful dog whistle to Israel, endorsing the annexation of Jerusalem for an undivided Israel.

This is precisely among the biggest issues for Palestinians. Israel cannot annex east Jerusalem and it is to remain the capital of the future Palestinian state.

I implore you to find Palestinians that support "an undivided Jersualem." Until then, never again say that such statements are not a big deal. If words are not a big deal, then I support Palestine annexing Tel Aviv. Just as long as we can say whatever we want.

Posted at June 22, 2008 1:16 PM in response to Stop Nickel and Diming Obama: He Should say Whatever It Takes

1)Let it be known that this bill was introduced just before AIPAC's conference convened in DC.

2)Among AIPACs main strategies is to get people to cosponsor legislation and support sign on letters for the legislation they support--which this is.

3)This bill is perfectly timed to come up under "suspension" when:

a)Debate on bills is significantly limited and no amendments (e.g. limiting the bill's scope or intentions) can be introduced.

b) There is a general consensus that bills will pass with a 2/3 majority. In short, it is more than expected to pass.

This suggests that this is a very real problem (no amending) and is expected to pass. Further, this is a pet project/gift for aipac.

I would be very surprised to see the junior Senator from Illinois to actively oppose this. It would cause him great trouble shoring up Hillary's friends in the lobby. And,in light of his recent saber rattling and groveling on Iranian issues, it seems consistent with his current rhetorical framework.

Some may question the dire consequences of this bill, but having read a few bills in my day, this is not a comforting piece of legislation. As they say, watch this space.

Posted at June 22, 2008 12:26 AM in response to 169 House Members (77 Dems) Push For WAR NOW with Iran Plus AIPAC's Response

Yes, MJ and the commenters here have it just about right. I recently moved to DC and the canonization of Russert here is truly outrageous.

I was reading the Washington Post (a wretched paper, btw) and buried in the Metro section just before Mr. Russert's premature passing was a story on 7 murders committed over the weekend. Now, I moved here from a city full of violence mind you, but it was disgusting that 7 murders(not heart attacks)transpired and nary a word in the capitol city from one person I encountered. The story was buried in the Metro section and the storyline was more about the police's effort to deal with the problem than the victims, their families, and the communities where these problems are borne.

I really think that as society becomes more stratified--especially in a post modern gentrified global city like DC--the well to do and the chattering class have absolutely no connection to the world outside their bubble (nothing new here). But as this class begins to acknowledge the recession that most everyone has been feeling for 20 years, their utter inability to grasp the world is disturbing. The world is crumbling at the seems and Tim Russert's death (while certainly sad) is most important thing in the world.

They give us our news,keep in mind.

Posted at June 17, 2008 11:02 PM in response to Going Overboard on Russert

MJ,

I dont think any rational person is concerned that Iran is going to attack us. So I am glad that you think we should be using diplomacy. But isn't your tone a wee bit alarmist? Seriously this piece reads if we are on the edge of nuclear war. This is the BS Tom Friedman line that we are now in the midst of a new cold war.

Let's get serious. Iran is not our friend, that's for sure. Implacable foe bent on destroying us? Not at all. C'mon.

Posted at June 14, 2008 3:56 PM in response to Iran: Negotiations Should Not Be The Last Resort