Yes, we can – pander (Obamakins: From denial to reality)

[laststeamtrain]

Yes, we can – pander (Obamakins: From denial to reality)

By Bill Fisher

(Bill Fisher) -- Barack Obama’s recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Council – AIPAC – dragged many of his supporters back from denial to political reality.

These Obamakins are hungry to believe his candidacy signals an authentic change in how politicians behave and the way American politics are run.

They’ve had it with the slice-and-dice-say-and-do-anything-to-win Karl Rove playbook. They’re weary of political messages that tell us more about focus groups than about candidates. They’re disgusted with the dumbing down of our country’s political discourse.

<snip>

Much of what the Illinois Senator told his Jewish-American audience in Miami was totally predictable. He confirmed America’s everlasting friendship with Israel. He vowed we would always be there to protect the security of the Middle East’s only democracy. He pledged his allegiance to a two-state solution.

<snip>

What would we be calling these remarks if they came from John McCain? Right – pandering 101!

But what can we call them if they come from the guy who has staked his political future – and ours -- on the promise of change?

How about sad?

<more>

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=7009

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Sink n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. Kitchen n/t

[aquart]

2. Supporting anything Jewish is "pandering"?

But he's right about what the Obama supporters would say if McCain said it.

Obama was absolutely right to do it. What's sad is that his supporters will have to rationalize it to themselves.

[bemildred]

4. What a silly shit.

Does he think politics is about making enemies?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laststeamtrain]

6. Uh....no. But I do acknowledge that you are very polite when you make personal attacks. n/t

[stray cat]

7. Pro-choice is also pandering under that definition; heck being a dem panders to dems.

[Skittles]

8. pandering is SOP for ALL politicians

ALL of them

[Alcibiades]

9. What's so sad?

What's the alternative to support for Israel? Throw Israel under the bus?

I heard his speech, and it revelatory of a nuanced understanding of the politics of Israel and the rest of the region, a refreshing change from the past eight years.

Being an agent of change doesn't mean we have to radically alter every single policy this country has had, or swap our friends for our enemies and vice versa. At this point, actual competence would be a radical change. If some people fail to see that Obama would be a major change in the region because they choose to interpret his support for Israel as "pandering," then that's what I find sad.

[blindpig]

10. Some change

Between the AIPAC and Miami speeches, what's so hard to understand?

If "all politicians pander" then how can you trust them about anything? When are they telling the truth?

Oh, I've got it, they only tell the truth when they're talking to you.

Change?

[pollo poco]

11. with you blindpig

All politicians pander.
Some claim they are different.
That's the real falsehood. Not the pandering. The initial claim of difference.

The people want change.
They must have lip service.
The people who control elections do not want change.
They must have more than lip service.

For us- the progressives- the lip service period ended with the primaries.
We are "in the bag" and require no more in the way of pandering. Expect a steady backing off of the more lofty promises.

Is this deceitful? Only the part about change. Designed to secure the progressive vote.
Hypocritical? Only on the part of those who will now defend in their candidate what they have earlier declared indefensible in other candidates.

(eg "it's no big deal" "all politicians do it" "you got a problem with that?")

Many of us knew this was coming, when we made the choice to vote for BO as the lesser of two evils.

I voted for Bill Clinton, too.
When I was thirty.
We all loved him!
Charismatic. Sexy.
He was a rock star!
So different from all the rest.

Each generation learns the truth in it's own time.
I would have thought, for example, that after Viet Nam, no one would sign up for the army ever again. But now the US has a fresh crop of totally ruined vets to neglect. You see, those old vets were...so...old. What insight could they possibly offer the brand new shiny eager patriots?

You can't speak some truths without being accused of cynicism- or worse.

But truth speaks well enough for itself. I am confident that in hindsight these lessons will be well understood.
For at least 20 years!

[laststeamtrain]

12. Foreign Policy In Focus: "Endorsing Israel’s Annexation of Jerusalem"

Endorsing Israel’s Annexation of Jerusalem
Stephen Zunes | June 11, 2008

<snip>

Most disturbing was Obama’s apparent support for Israel’s illegal annexation of greater East Jerusalem, the Palestinian-populated sector of the city and surrounding villages that Israel seized along with the rest of the West Bank in June 1967.

The UN Security Council passed a series of resolutions (252, 267, 271, 298, 476 and 478) calling on Israel to rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem and to refrain from any unilateral action regarding its final status. Furthermore, due to the city’s unresolved legal status dating from the 1948-49 Israeli war on independence, the international community refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, with the United States and other governments maintaining their respective embassies in Tel Aviv.

Despite these longstanding internationally-recognized legal principles, Obama insisted in his speech before AIPAC that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Given the city’s significance to both populations, any sustainable peace agreement would need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city for both Israel and Palestine. In addition to its religious significance for both Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims, Jerusalem has long been the most important cultural, commercial, political, and educational center for Palestinians and has the largest Palestinian population of any city in the world. Furthermore, Israel’s annexation of greater East Jerusalem and its planned annexation of surrounding settlement blocs would make a contiguous and economically viable Palestinian state impossible. Such a position, therefore, would necessarily preclude any peace agreement. This raises serious questions as to whether Obama really does support Israeli-Palestinian peace after all.

According to Uri Avneri, Obama’s “declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.” Furthermore, says this prominent observer of Israeli politics, every Israeli government in recent years has recognized that calls for an undivided Jerusalem “constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared – quietly, almost secretly – from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.”

<more>

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5289
*

I back Obama for POTUS. But, he needs to know people are watching, listening, thinking. It's not all a matter of 'rock star' cheer leading. There are people looking to him for real change not just an emotional rush.

[pollo poco]

13. BO for POTUS

We are watching, listening, thinking and HOPING.

[laststeamtrain]

14. Hope & five bucks will get you coffee & a pastry...

...with bus fare left over; maybe.

:hi: