January 18, 2004
I thought I'd kind of give a wrap up of where things appear to stand in the presidential race of '04.Judging from this article in the NY Times, things are close; real close. In fact, according to a poll by the Des Moines Register, Dean is even in third place. Most of the rest of the article seems to talk about Dean, but the race is definitely a lot closer than I and many others had anticipated. Dean, however, is maintaining his usual rhetoric about being the only one who can beat Bush, blah, blah, blah.Anyway, the Democratic race is close. This brought up an interesting point to me. Many in the White House are saying that Dean would be a great opponent to Bush, because it'd give Bush a greater chance of winning. I think Dean would be a disaster as president. Since he doesn't have much of a platform, who would he fight? Not Europe (except maybe Poland and Romania, who are now friendly to the US), not Bush, not the other candidates. But seriously, would it be good for Dean to win the nomination, so that it would be easier on Bush? Personally, I think the race is going to be close, so I'd like someone who I could feel comfortable with.So, that brings me to this article by David Brooks, also in the NY Times. This article surprised me because it appears that Brooks is Republican, something I thought was strictly against the Times' operating procedures. But the article did make me think about who I would like in the White House, if it came down to a Democrat. I agree with most of Brooks' opinions in the article, and my number one choice would be Lieberman, followed by Edwards. Lieberman seems to be the most moderate and realistic. I believe he really is a man of integrity, and thinks about what he does, even if he doesn't have a glitzy campaign. I think I like Edwards because he has a platform. He isn't there just to bash others, and seems to have thought about what he's doing. I don't know much else about him except that he has a rags-to-riches story that I have to respect. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm for lots of social programs, handing out freebies at my expense. But I think we'd be ok with either of them. Oh, and I'm now back on my own server, so let me know if you see any problems.
Posted by charr at 7:58 PM
Reader Comments
I agree about Lieberman. He's pretty much the only Dem I would not be too worried about if he became president. Of course it looks like he has no chance of winning, and may not even make it of January. Brooks is at least a conservative, he used to write for the Weekly Standard which is a conservative magazine and he was a conservative pundit for the PBS Newshour. He's probably a little more moderate and measured in his tone which makes him a little more acceptable to the Times.
L'impérialisme US se croit le gendarme du mondeA la mi novembre, les États-Unis menaçaient de refaire un remake de la Guerre du Golfe après que les inspecteurs de l'ONU aient été expulsés. Selon l'administration Clinton, l'Irak disposerait d'une panoplie impressionnante d'armes chimiques. Alors que les bombardiers américains étaient déployés pour une dernière démonstration de force, les contacts diplomatiques ont pu - momentanément - éviter une nouvelle effusion de sang. L'impérialisme américain se positionne ainsi comme le gendarme n°1 sur le plan mondial. Comme toujours, cette prétention se fait au détriment des masses appauvries des anciennes colonies.Les tentatives pour isoler Saddam Hussein au sein du camp des pays arabes tombent provisoirement à l'eau. Des alliés stratégiques tels que l'Égypte et l'Arabie Saoudite, qui soutenaient les mesures de représailles contre l'Irak pendant la Guerre du Golfe, ont pris position contre une expédition punitive des États-Unis.En tant que principaux acteurs sur le plan régional, ils se sont prononcés en faveur des inspections de l'ONU, mais ont mis leur veto à l'usage des armes.Ce refus est significatif. Il reflète la pression de l'opinion publique anti-impérialiste de la plupart des pays arabes. A Gaza, des manifestations de masse ont eu lieu contre les États-Unis et contre l'ONU.La politique manifeste de "deux poids, deux mesures" menée par l'impérialisme mondial pèse incontestablement dans la mobilisation: Israël peut impunément faire ce qu'il veut du peuple palestinien et bombarder le Sud -Liban pendant que le peuple irakien subit un cruel embargo depuis des années.L'absence d'organisations ouvrières sur le plan régional capables de mobiliser puissamment autour d'un axe de lutte de classes, empêche les protestations qui prennent un teinte nationaliste ou religieuse de se cristalliser en une conscience socialiste.La population irakienne qui a subi de plein fouet les sanglants bombardements "chirurgicaux" de la guerre du Golfe a dû endurer pendant des années les affres de l'embargo.Selon un rapport des Nations-Unies d'octobre 1996, 4.500 enfants irakiens âgés de moins de cinq ans meurent chaque mois de sous-alimentation et par manque de soins médicaux. Le dernier rapport (mai 1997) mentionne que 27,5% des enfants de moins de cinq ans souffrent de malnutrition.Les sanctions frappent avant tout la population et non l'entourage corrompu de Saddam Hussein qui se cramponne au pouvoir jusqu'à son dernier souffle. Il faut mettre fin à cet embargo le plus vite possible. Tout prétexte des États-Unis pour le prolonger doit être refusé car ce n'est rien d'autre que une soif de pouvoir des États-Unis érigée sur les os du peuple irakien.Saddam Hussein est parvenu à tirer parti des contradictions entre les grandes puissances. Les accords pétroliers conclus par l'Irak avec un certain nombre de membres du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU (Russie, France, Chine ) tempèrent les intentions des États-Unis et de la Grande-Bretagne. La menace militaire est donc écartée provisoirement.L'administration Clinton souhaiterait dès que possible voir remplacer Saddam Hussein par un despote plus docile à l'égard des USA.A cette fin, la CIA a participé à la préparation d'un coup d'État raté en juin dernier. Cet échec a contribué à affermir la position de Saddam Hussein.C'est la population laborieuse d'Irak qui décidera du sort de Saddam Hussein, un despote sanguinaire. A partir de sa propre expérience elle apprendra que ce n'est qu'en créant un système où elle aura le pouvoir qu 'elle pourra décider de l'usage des richesses de la société..Une telle démocratie ouvrière constituerait une formidable impulsion à la création d'une Fédération socialiste du Moyen-Orient et d'une Fédération socialiste mondiale.
I ran the above through a French translator:The US imperialism believes the gendarme of the worldAt semi November, the United States threatened to remake a remake of the War of the Gulf after the inspectors of UNO were expelled. According to the Clinton administration, Iraq would have an impressive panoply of chemical weapons. Whereas the American bombers were deployed for a last show of force, the diplomatic contacts could - temporarily - avoid a new bloodshed. The American imperialism positions thus like the gendarme n°1 world-wide. As always, this claim is made with the detriment impoverished masses old
colonies.The attempts to isolate Saddam Hussein within the camp from the Arab countries fall temporarily to water. Strategic allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who supported measurements of reprisals against Iraq during the War of the Gulf, gave an opinion against a punitive forwarding of the United States.As principal actors at the regional level, they decided in favour of the inspections of UNO, but put their veto for the use of the weapons.This refusal is significant. It reflects the pressure of the anti-impérialiste public opinion of
the majority of the Arab countries. In Gaza, mass demonstrations took place against the United States and UNO.The policy expresses of "two weights, two measurements "carried out by the world imperialism weighs incontestably in the mobilization: Israel can with impunity do what he wants of the Palestinian people and to bombard the South - Lebanon while the Iraqi people undergo a cruel embargo since years.The absence of organized labour at the regional level able to mobilize strongly around an axis of fight of classes, prevent the protests which take a nationalist or religious colour to crystallize in a socialist conscience.The Iraqi population which underwent full whip the bloody bombardments "surgical" of the war of the Gulf had to endure during years the pangs of the embargo.According to a report/ratio of the United Nations of October 1996, 4.500 old Iraqi children of less than five years die each month of malnutrition and for lack of medical care. The last report/ratio (May 1997) mentions that 27,5% of the children of less than five years suffer from malnutrition.The sanctions strike before all the population and not the entourage corrompu of Saddam Hussein which is studded with the capacity to its last breath. It is necessary to put an end to this embargo as quickly as possible. Any pretext of the United States to prolong it must be refused because it is nothing other than a thirst for being able for the United States set up on the bones for the Iraqi people.Saddam Hussein managed to benefit from contradictions between the great powers. Oil agreements concluded by Iraq with a certain number of members of the Security Council of UNO (Russia, France, China) moderate the intentions of the United States and Great Britain. The military threat is thus temporarily isolated.The Clinton administration would wish as soon as possible to see replacing Saddam Hussein by a more flexible despot with regard to the USA.For this purpose, the CIA took part in the preparation of a coup d'etat missed last June. This failure contributed to strengthen the position of Saddam Hussein.It is the working population of Iraq which will decide fate of Saddam Hussein, a sanguinary despot. From its own experiment it will learn that it is only by creating a system where it will have capacity qu ' it will be able to decide use of the richnesses of the company.Such a working democracy would constitute a formidable impulse with the creation of a socialist Federation of the Middle East and a world socialist Federation.
That makes a little more sense. It looks like "D. We. Bush" there is saying the CIA helped Saddam, and the US sanctions are responsible for the sad state of the Iraqis. To the first, I have nothing to contest. The US has done some things that in hindsight seem pretty bad. All I can say is that that was a long time ago. As for the sanctions thing. I hate that argument. Saddam knew well what was happening to his people and country and could have stopped it. People want the US to take responsible for every bad thing in the world, so that they don't have to be responsible, but that just isn't the case.
I heard a good point about the polls this weekend. A large portion of Dean's support in Iowa is at the colleges. Many college students don't use anything but mobile phones, which are generally not included in poll calls. I wouldn't be surprised if he handily beats the other candidates. I think all of the candidates have strong points. Lieberman and Edwards concern me the least. I don't think either one would be awful for the country. Unfortunately, they will both probably have to drop after a few primaries.
|
I agree about Lieberman. He's pretty much the only Dem I would not be too worried about if he became president. Of course it looks like he has no chance of winning, and may not even make it of January. Brooks is at least a conservative, he used to write for the Weekly Standard which is a conservative magazine and he was a conservative pundit for the PBS Newshour. He's probably a little more moderate and measured in his tone which makes him a little more acceptable to the Times.
Posted by David H. Sundwall at January 18, 2004 10:45 PM