Elephants (R)

You don’t get to hear these lone voices much anymore nowadays, and that’s what makes them unique!

We knew this was coming for a while. Win or lose, Obama has achieved the seemingly unachievable, and I can bet you that the people who where in charge of his fund-raising, public relations, branding and marketing efforts are going to be very sought after. Watch his nomination victory speech here and see McCain’s response here.

This is all so exciting! It’s probably even better than watching the world cup. And like I said, I can’t wait for the one-on-one debates to begin.

So, who will win? Will it be the creative youthful Donkey who sometimes seems to be living in La La Land or the Elephant with the “dinosaur” experience who comes across once in a while as just another Bush?

The majority of the American people are in essence tired of what has transpired under the Elephant Bush administration and basically want something different. They want change. The winner will be the person who can represent that change well and right now I believe that person is Obama regardless of what those who oppose him think of him because it’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is how people, the majority of the American people perceive him and so far, he’s managed to build himself a very good brand.

Hello, let’s not forget that in 2006 during the midterm elections the Senate and House of Representatives went to the Donkeys. It was a shift towards the left. I don’t think the momentum has slowed down. In fact given the increasing oil prices, I believe the dissatisfaction has only grown. Plus, if you take into account how Obama managed to quickly recover from the Wright controversy, then you have another indication of that momentum’s strength.

We’ve still got many months to go and a lot can happen. Potential controversies and campaign management on both sides will of course also be two factors in the final outcome, but at the end of the day, by looking at the midterm election results and the current circumstances, I’d say America is in the mood for a Donkey president.

UPDATE: Have you guys watched the AIPAC speech? I did. The whole thing. Phew, what a speech! And the highlight? When he said “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”

WTF?

Even the Israeli government doesn’t say stuff like that. Even they are cool with dividing Jerusalem into East for Palestine and West for Israel.

Not surprisingly, throughout Obama’s whole speech, that line got the loudest applause.

Overall though, the speech was clearly a middle finger meant to silence those on the right who have banged Obama and questioned him over his position on diplomacy with Iran. It was meant to eliminate doubts over his perceived weakness.

We’ve just seen and heard a very different Obama, and I’ve got to say that I’m so looking forward to what happens next. This is going to be one hell of an amusing election. Damn, I love American politics. The whole thing is just sooo entertaining.

Israelis and Jews lurking around, what do you think after that tough speech?

Thanks to Mustapha, I stumbled upon a pretty good piece by Friedman. I gotta say, I like #5 the most.

As I have argued before: When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some. Then talk.

Right now Iran & Friends — Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria — have a strategy that has produced leverage for them, and the next U.S. president is going to have to think afresh how to counter it. The “Iran & Friends” strategy is built on five principles:

… Principle No. 5: Cast yourself as the “resistance” to Israel and America, so any opposition to you is equal to support for Israel and America and so no matter how badly you are defeated the mere fact that you “resisted” means you didn’t really lose.

Nice. He’s spot on.

Here’s hoping that once the primary silly season is over, the McCain and Obama camps will stop jousting over whether to talk with our enemies — which we must — and will start focusing instead about how we and our friends get more chips to bargain with — which we lack.

I couldn’t agree more.

Meanwhile, I have some advice for McCain. Ronald Reagan had an amazing rhetorical ability to infuse hope and a lot of optimism together with stances that acknowledged the real Soviet threat. People are tired of cynicism and gloomy talk. Obama’s strength is his charisma and uplifting approach. He speaks about the future with a bright sense of hope. McCain doesn’t.

I can’t wait for the one-on-one televised debates between Obama and McCain. Should be a lot of fun watching them. Plus, I still need to make a final pick and go with it. Being the classical liberal I am, I lean right, although I wouldn’t want a Dick Cheney-style neo-con as president. But then again, I wouldn’t want a Jimmy Carter-style one too.

Gosh, I have a headache. The debates should make things a lot easier. Here’s hoping they reveal a lot of substance rather than silly smears.

The other day I came across a disturbing article on the Huffington Post about John Hagee’s loony statements. I swear these American evangelical “leaders” really sound just like some of the crazy nuts we have here. I suggest we throw them both together for a nice little episode of… The Holy Room.

So, God sent Hitler to massacre the Jews because that’s His will? Nice Hagee! Very nice!

The first thing that popped into my mind was “hah! I bet McCain will have to get rid of Hagee’s endorsement now. He can’t afford to associate himself with a guy saying this kind of crazy stuff. He can’t risk pissing off Jewish voters. But Rod Parsely and his hateful remarks against Muslims? Naaa, he’ll probably keep quiet. After all, it seems like he enjoys pandering to the evangelical right, and too many of them support that sort of inflammatory talk. Why risk being a Muslim-lover?”

So yes, those were my cynical thoughts, and that’s why I was very surprised yesterday when I came across this at Little Green Footballs:

McCain rejected the months-old endorsement of Texas preacher John Hagee after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land. McCain called the comment “crazy and unacceptable.”

He later repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent.

… in an interview with The Associated Press, McCain said he rejected Parsley’s support, too.

“I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn’t endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement,” McCain told the AP.

Thank you McCain. You did the right thing. You’re starting to look better now. Although I would really appreciate it more if you could explain to me why you suddenly switched your stance on torture after ranting against it for so long.

But for now, good decision dude.

On a related note, given the religious views involved, I’ve always found the close political relationship between evangelicals and Jews when it comes to supporting Israel very odd.

Related:

• How Would a Sudanese Vote in the 2008 US Elections?

Say hello to Rod Parsley, McCain’s theocrat and good friend. Watch the video. The Pastor’s sermon is just, oh, so full of love and compassion:

Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends, through violence, to conquer the world.

The fact is that America was founded — I am going to stagger you right now — America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed.

Muhammad received revelations from demon spirits, not from the living God.

America has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam in the world.

In fact, I’ll tell you this, I do not believe our nation can truly fulfill her divine purpose, until we understand our historical conflict with Islam.

When it comes to Islam, now the greatest religious enemy of our civilization, its dangerous.

Nice, so on one hand we have a Donkey I personally find too leftist and on the other, an Elephant drifting further and further right, and has an awesome super lovely ’spiritual guide’. Yeah, I kid you not, that’s what McCain called Parsley.

In his campaign for president of the United States, Senator McCain has not only courted Pastor Parsley and called him a “truly great leader of America”, a “moral compass” and a “spiritual guide” but has actually said that he is “honoured” to be in the pastor’s company.

Lovely, but that’s not all.

This is especially troubling in light of the fact that Parsley is a self-proclaimed Christocrat, promoting Christian theocracy in America, who believes that the US is guided by a “divine purpose”.

In other words, Parsley’s petulant stupidity isn’t the problem. The issue is Senator McCain’s lack of moral clarity and his failure to renounce, denounce and reject someone who violates not only the principles of pluralism and decency, but also something far more sacrosanct: the very clear demarcation between church and state in the US.

John McCain may want to keep himself away from the company of such sweet people. Obama ended up doing the right thing and gave Wright a verbal knock on his head. McCain should look into a similar move too.

Give me a Joel Osteen on any given day. Great guy, but Rod Parsley? No thanks. That’s precisely the kind of ‘religion’ that should stay away as far as possible from the political sphere. It’s bad enough having similar rhetoric over here on our side from lunatic religious Muslim figures and so-called leaders. We don’t need more shouted from the other, let alone coming from such a person closely associated to a man who might become the next American president in just a few months.

Forgive me for the current lack of better words, but let’s just say the US presidential race might unfortunately be turning into shit and shittier. On the bright side, at least Hillary Clinton is almost finished.

Related:

• How Would a Sudanese Vote in the 2008 US Elections?

I’ve been following the ongoing negotiations between Khartoum and the US envoy to Sudan closely. Can you blame me? Normalizing ties would be a huge positive and mutually-beneficial step.

I’m glad America has the right conditions in place.

April 14, 2008 (KHARTOUM) — The US special envoy for Sudan is expected to hold a meeting with a Sudanese delegation in Roma Italy on Wednesday to discuss the deployment of Darfur peacekeeping force and the bilateral relations.

… The US Administration wants Sudan to remove obstacles to the deployment of a U.N.-led peacekeeping force, stop violence against civilians in Darfur, and carry out the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between north and south Sudan, including elections in 2009, The Los Angels Times reported last month.

The U.S. offered to restore full diplomatic ties, lift sanctions and remove Khartoum from Washington’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, Williamson said.

What we’re seeing here is a typical “carrots and sticks” approach which rests the decision upon Khartoum’s shoulders. I doubt that’s enough to move the Sudanese regime although with the approaching possible election of a Donkey president, they know they need to fix things fast. Like I said:

… given that it’s the Democrats who’ve been calling for a withdrawal from Iraq and a forced military intervention in Darfur, I’m not exactly ready to comfortably embrace Obama just yet. Darfur needs a political solution. Going back to Clinton’s approach is the last thing Sudan needs. Bush’s is better although it lacks sufficient pressure now because al-Bashir’s regime is heavily cooperating with the CIA again in sharing highly valuable terrorism-related intelligence. Moreover, last year the CIA convened in Khartoum at a conference attended by more than 50 African intelligence agencies.

Carrots and sticks isn’t pressure. It’s a form of seduction. I think that’s the most the Bush administration will do since it would like the valuable intelligence on terrorism to continue flowing in from Khartoum.

I hope Khartoum finds what’s on the table seducing enough.

Meanwhile, I continue to keep track of the developments involving current efforts directed at Sudan by the US administration and the US presidential race.

How would a Sudanese Drima “vote” in the 2008 US elections? Stay tuned for the upcoming article. It should be published over at Pajamas Media soon.

My choice is not final since we still have a few more months to go. Anything can happen during this coming period. You never know. But for now, numerous factors played a role in the conclusion I reached. Two ultimately had a huge influence:

1. a decision McCain made recently.
2. Khartoum’s attitude towards the Democrats.

Comments on this post are closed. Let’s stir up things at PJM instead. I’ll announce the link once it’s available.

UPDATE: Here it is.

Dear Sudanese boys and girls in da house,

dump your thoughts in the comments section. I have my answer and facts but I’d like to hear you out before I publish my choice and concerns in a long upcoming article. I may include some of your comments.

Another way of rephrasing the question could be, which is better for Sudan, America intervening militarily in Darfur or not? In other words, would you like to see this very possible scenario play out or not?

The results of this year’s US elections can and will have a huge impact on the future direction of Sudan. I hope you’re not apathetic.

Americans and other readers, you’re more than welcome to join in.

Sometimes I receive emails from Americans who are curious to know whether I support Donkeys or Elephants. The the truth is, I support neither, at least not in the sense that those asking are implying. I don’t say this to play safe and please people or seem “fair”.

Thing is, I’m not a fan of the Donkey-Elephant paradigm. Why do I have to support either one or the other? Why not look at issues and see who has the best solution to address them regardless of party affiliations?

I’d rather be independent. Actually, if I were an American, I would be an Independent, one who’d have a lot in common with liberal Elephants and conservative Donkeys. Like I said before, my ideal candidate would be the best of an Obama-McCain combination.

I realize I’ve never stated explicitly before which American party I support. Now you know the answer.

Just thought I’d share this interesting and thought provoking post Ethan live-blogged during the TED conference.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has been listening closely to the TED conference. He’s figured out that this is a pretty liberal group. And he asks the group to try a thought experiment - two Americans are in Italy looking at the famous statue of David. One is amazed by the beauty of the form; the other is embarrased by the naked penis. Which one is more likely to have voted for Bush?

Our prejudice is right, as it turns out. Liberals are much more likely to be open to new experiences. Conservatives are more likely to seek familiarity and comfort.

If I were asked the same question, I’d say the one embarrassed by the naked penis more likely voted for Bush. I’m not sure why that would be considered prejudice though. Hello, I have to pick an answer.

Anyways, the next part is what I found really amusing.

… Haidt argues that the brain is well organized at birth with certain moral values, held in place by neural and hormonal programming. He identifies five basic values:

I’m skipping to the third one.

- Ingroup loyalty, our allegiance to our tribe. “When we don’t have tribes, we make them, because it’s fun” - think sports teams.
- Purity/sanctity - The right does it with sex, but he reminds us that the left does it with food
- Authority and respect

I don’t know about you, but the I think he nails the purity/sanctity observation.

I’ve seen too many Elephants engaging in smear and personal attacks against Obama. Others keep banging his policies. This article, by an Elephant however is different. It criticizes what Obama stands for but doesn’t miss a very important part of the big picture, one that puts a big smile on my face and cheers me up. Nice!

Regardless of how you feel about Obama’s ideas, the man has already achieved the seemingly impossible, and for that he has my admiration.

On a related note, I’m quite irritated by the focus on his “blackness”. He’s as black as he is white, but somehow he’s touted constantly as the “black” candidate. Not nice!

Yes, believe it!

This race is getting so much more interesting with every passing minute. A new website called Republicans for Obama has popped up. And no, it’s not fake. It’s real and was even featured on Time!

On a related note Susan Eisenhower, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s grand daughter has a super interesting article in the Washington Post. She’s a self-proclaimed Elephant - a lifelong one - who’s backing Obama! Amazing!

I am watching the Obama phenomenon with great fascination. Sure, he’s vague when it comes to foreign policy but his appeal is so strong and his speeches so inspirational and uplifting that they’ve attracted the seemingly impossible. (His speeches are written by a 26 year old in case you didn’t know). The great discontent felt by some Elephant voters towards their party also made the shift easier.

Meanwhile, many conservatives are sad that Rudy quit the race and are now busy dissing McCain. (what’s so wrong with McCain that makes him deserve all this bashing?)

Also over at Digg, some are saying that Elephants who support Obama are not true Elephants. Barbara Gordon, at Republicans for Obama, responded to the accusations on the website’s blog and explained her reasons for supporting Obama. It’s one hell of a super unique perspective I must say! Her stance is summed up in these two sentences:

We didn’t leave the party behind. The party left us.

At the end of the day, it’s about what issues voters are concerned with most. We could very well be witnessing history in the making!

What? What? What?. It might actually happen! Cool. So Rudy Giuliani who is Bushier than Bush seems ready to quit the race? Phew!

My ideal candidate would be the best of a McCain-Obama combination but too bad that imaginary candidate doesn’t exist. If Obama wasn’t supportive of withdrawing from Iraq, I think I would have picked him immediately. But he wants immediate withdrawal and I believe such a haste move will bring along grave consequences for Iraq, the region and even America.

Foreign policy towards Sudan is another aspect that concerns me of course. Donkey Bill Clinton bombed al-Shifa factory (supposedly a chemical weapons manufacturing facility) and applied harsh sanctions. Long story short, he did us no favors. Bush (regardless of how much you hate him for badly screwing up the Iraq war) took a different approach and the result was the peace agreement signed between the SPLM and Khartoum. It’s the best damn thing that ever happened to Sudan in a long time. These are reasons that make me lean towards an Elephant candidate who will continue that approach.

If only that ideal centrist candidate existed. It would have been more fun if Collin Powell was in this race.

For now, it’s increasingly looking like this: Hillary or Obama Vs McCain or Romney.

Admit it. He makes the best and most uplifting speeches. Crap, I’m almost in tears.

When it comes to the Elephants I’ve been saying for a year now that I support John McCain. As for the Donkeys, it’s either Hillary or Obama. I’m sort of undecided but I gotta say I’m leaning more towards Mr. Hope. And yeah I pretty much agree with Sandmonkey.

As for now… Go Obama!