Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore

The audacity of false hope

Filed By Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore | January 07, 2009 12:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Living, Politics, Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, inauguration, Israel, January 20, military, offshore drilling, Palestine, preparing for 2009, Rick Warren, Robert Gates, war, war crimes, Zionism

I'm finding it harder and harder to understand progressive and radical-identified people who continually voice their hopes for the Obama administration, hopes that I can't see as anything other than delusional. Like, for example, the hope that Obama will do something to halt genocidal Israeli policies, even though his policies on Israel are to the right of every recent administration. Or the hope that he'll do something about health care, other than giving more money to the insurance companies destroying everyone's lives. Or the hope that he'll end the US occupation of Iraq in any substantive way, unless perhaps he runs out of troops because he sends them all to Afghanistan or other US incursions. With the Obama administration filled with Zionist crazies, it's quite possible that US troops might be fighting alongside their Israeli counterparts.

I don't have a problem if someone looks at Obama's actual positions, and says maybe he won't appoint a right-wing anti-choice homophobe to the Supreme Court, which quite possibly might distinguish him from his predecessor. Unless, of course, Rick Warren is looking for a job...

Speaking of Rick Warren, there's the argument voiced by delusional progressives and radicals that Obama is "bridging the divide"--the divide between the right wing and the Democratic establishment, I guess, or between Obama's funders and the "progressives" who voted for him. Bridging the divide means never doing anything on principle, which is certainly what we've seen from the Democratic Congress over the last few years. More of the same would be an understatement.

So it continues to stun me when I hear all of this hope about Obama, when will it end? I mean, it hasn't ended yet, even after he's appointed every Clinton administration lackey he can get his hands on to key places in his administration - oh, right, he's looking for people with experience, yes experience... Just like the Wall Street bailout couldn't help but involve the same people siphoning billions away from the US public, right - they've got experience! This false hope didn't end when Obama decided to support offshore drilling, "clean coal" and potential use of the nuclear option (energy or otherwise). This false hope didn't even end when Obama decided to keep CIA war criminal Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense - oh, right, well you do need experience with war crimes to work as Secretary Of Defense!

And now, when Obama refuses to say anything about the Israeli annihilation of Gaza, because apparently "you can't have two Presidents at once" (of course Dick Cheney knows that - oh, wait, where is Dick Cheney's position in the new administration?), Obama supporters say wait until January 20, everything will change on January 20! Meanwhile, former Congresswoman and Green party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney headed out on a boat to try and deliver relief supplies to the Gaza Strip - sounds like experience to me. But wait - she may not have experience in embezzlement, war crimes, or Clintonian economics -- next!

When a new friend recently mentioned to me that going to DC for this inauguration would feel so different from previous years, I assumed this friend would be protesting - yes, I thought, the protests will be different because the protesters will be more rigorous in their analysis, more committed to their defiance! But then, of course, I realized this friend was talking about celebrating the inauguration. What fascinates me is the way that Obama continues to move to the right without pressure from the right - and people on the left keep clapping their hands with all the audacity they can muster.

Mattilda also blogs at

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

The man still isn't President and hasn't done one damn thing to change policy and you are acting like you are giving a review of his administration eight years from now. The audacity seems to come from LGBT people who have no hope to begin with. Don't expect me to buy this "theory" of yours, Mattilda.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | January 7, 2009 7:41 PM

Theory? Do you think that 'god's in the mix', Warren, Donnie McKulkin, being in bed with the uberrich looters who wrecked our standard of living and promiting a wider war are theories. They're not. They're facts.

Give us a break, Monica. When you voted for Obama you bought the Brooklyn Bridge. For cash! But now you won't buy Mattilda's theories?

Monica, this Bambi act you put on is getting a little old. Hopefully, before it's too late, the short documentary film linked to below will give you a clearer picture of what happens to Bambi in the real world of power politics. The gutting of ENDA, ditching hate crimes, DOMA and DADT and the victgory of Prop 8 are what your party and your candidate did to us.

Now watch the film.

I agree that the left shouldn't be so enthusiastic about Obama, but I don't see him (yet) as part of the "right."

He seems to be so concerned about building bridges that he's forgetting about all of us he's leaving on this side of the river. I'm not sure that protests or out-and-out pessimism is the answer, though. We have to keep the pressure on Obama to deliver.

Unfortunately, at least as far as LGBT issues go, we're so fractured and caught up in being "offended" by every little thing, we're effectively disempowering ourselves. When have we ever had a president who makes even one group happy 100% of the time? We've got to accept that Obama's not going to do everything we want just because we want him to -- we've got to start MAKING him to.

Pouting on the sidelines because our feelings are hurt isn't going to do anything.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | January 9, 2009 11:00 PM

If you hadn't noticed, Rick Warren was payback for making him drop Sam Nunn. Mind you, I'm not disagreeing that it is what we're faced with -- that the bits of largesse putting substance to fair-minded rhetoric, if it happens at all, will be few and far between. But that just proves Mattilda right.

I expect to see some good stuff on the environment and bare bones correction of extreme civil liberties/Constitutional violations like Guantanamo but not much else. The man's a DLCer to the core with a base that's more conservative where we're concerned than Bill Clinton's was, so I'll feel lucky if we're only screwed as badly as we were then -- on our stuff as well as the broader progressive package.

Many of his statements on Israel/Palestine have been particularly troubling. Same with the sabre-rattling on Afghanistan (sorry, folks! forcibly establishing a "free" democracy in another country was a bunk idea from the start; the US was doomed for failure if the actual goal was the welfare of the Afghan people).

Some folks on the left need to get their heads out of their asses and realize Obama's not their friend. He's a politician, one who I'd still argue is better than Bush, but still a politician.

But there has been significant pressure from the right. I just think we've learned to ignore it because it's become white noise.

Monica makes a good point, but I agree with some of your criticisms. I think "hope" is really "hogwash" because he's already proven that hoping he'll do the right thing won't make him do it.

You're right - there is little hope he'll abolish the insurance companies that are preying on our lives to make a buck. His healthcare plan does nothing more than make the insurance companies richer at the expense of losing a little bit of the control they have now.

Since they have a death grip on us all now, I'm sure they're OK with just a choke-hold and more money.

I'm willing to give the guy a chance to prove himself before condemning him, but I'm not a believer in hope - at least not the kind of hope Obama is trying to sell. There's only so much he can do to change Washington and he's sold it like he was going to sweep the town clean and fill it with unicorns, rainbows and glitter.

Still, I think he deserves his "first 100 days" honeymoon to see how things are gonna shake out.

What I wonder is why people ever thought Barack Obama was going to implement any kind of radical agenda. He's more liberal than any president since, well, since I'm not sure when, but he's still pretty centrist. I always kept my expectations in check. However, I'm also willing to wait at least until he takes office before dismissing him.

Mattilda, I love it that you always manage to say what I'm thinking. My best friend summed up the Rick Warren debacle like this. "Change you can't believe in."

I love that all the Obama hopefuls say that he is making concessions to the right in order to bring everyone into his big tent. But where is the reciprocal move to bring the right further left? Oh, right . . . there isn't one.

Serena, believe it or not, a lot of people on the right were pissed at Rick Warren for even letting Barack Obama set foot in his church. I'm not trying to get in a pissing match here between left and right, but look, Obama's gonna do what he feels he's gotta do to hold onto power. And like all politicians he pays attention to who can help or hurt him. We can't do either at this point.

There's this whole new generation of poverty and global warming evangelicals for whom social issues like gay marriage and abortion are secondary concerns. They'll still vote against us, but it's no longer a dealbreaker for some evangelicals to support someone who isn't down with their social agenda.

And Obama's gonna do whatever he can to hold onto them, because they can go away and make life hard as hell for him. They know how to play the political game after all. We on the other hand can't even win gay marriage in California of all places. We're no threat. Maybe if we could figure out how to be a threat -- i.e. get our shit together -- then maybe he'd give a shit about us.

But it's our responsibility, and nobody else's, to make sure we're listened to.

You're right. We have to be listened to. Obama is an intellegent man, so "Intellegent President" is not an oxymoron any longer. This means the barbarian way of hollaring, demanding and holding our breaths until our faces turn blue won't work with this man like it did with Bush. Obama would understand if a shoe was thrown at him, unlike Bush.

So, to be heard with this man means we have to change tactics and approach him in a way that means WE have to show a little intellegence. So far, the LGBT movement gets an "F" in acting smart when it comes to Warren. I would love to sit down with people and discuss ways to approach Obama on the Warren issue that shows a little smarts. Too bad LGBT people are spending all of their time screaming and showing anger rather than discussing strategies that require us using our brains.

Conversely, I feel that we did very well with the Warren issue. We articulated concerns shared by a borad range of groups, heightened recently by Warren's ties with Ugandan extremist.

We objected.
We have that right.
And it was right to do so.

If "we" did well, then how come he's still giving the opening prayer? Sorry, "F."

Again, I disagree.
More and more people got to take a look at Warren, who his associates are and who he represents. The damage done to him is considerable.

And perhaps he is still giving the prayer because the President-elect knows that the LGBT community lacks the cohesion to protest this effectively, as for many the Kool-aide is still potent...

"And perhaps he is still giving the prayer because the President-elect knows that the , as for many the Kool-aide is still potent..."

You just made my point. Thank you. If "we" want to be effective, then "we" need to sit down and discuss how to be effective. No one wants to sit down to discuss this, making it a team effort, so, "we" failed.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | January 9, 2009 11:15 PM

No, I think you're missing the point, which is that we don't have the discipline or attention span necessary to sustain a protest, that we too often opt for an inside game instead of either doing both or upping the ante, that we settle for crumbs out of a collective low self-esteem, that we're just nice folks -- unlike our opposition who have a vampire's taste for blood (I mean, really, have you ever really looked at Dobson -- if ever there was the undead, he's it) and have a collective sociopathy regarding getting what they want no matter how much pain they cause, and that your reaction is part of the problem. If you have another way, lay it out where it can have an equal chance of surviving the scrutiny of all of us, yourself included, who care enough to pick it apart to find the steel core that works.

I'm not convinced that Obama will be any better on LGBT issues than Clinton was. We'll have to wait and see. While I don't think he'll be the progressive savior some have made him out to be, I do think he'll end up doing more to make us happy than Bubba did. But again, time will tell.

What I am convinced of is that everyone who is ready to judge his administration before the man is even inaugurated needs to settle down. How can you even back up a statement like "Obama continues to move to the right" when he hasn't passed any actual policy yet? Yes, he's said some things I don't like. But Bill Clinton was an amazing talker who screwed us royally on the policy front. To me, Obama's actions as President will speak louder than his words.

Good lord people, can you let the man be president for 2 seconds before you start reading him the riot act? Jesus. Calm down.

One could argue that Obama could have let us lick our wounds from Prop 8 before appointing an anti-gay bigot into a position of prominence at a national event as significant as his inauguration.

Obama certainly saw no need to respect us and our feelings before promoting his bigot buddy into the national spotlight. I see no reason at all to treat him with any more care, deference, or respect than he's showing us.

Wow, that's telling. I suggest that a huge first step toward a just and compassionate world would be to start respecting everyone, even the people who hurt your feelings.

But I didn't spend two years campaigning on a pro-LGBT platform, Obama did. And I didn't debase my own stated values by appointing a man in direct opposition to those values, Obama did that too.

As far as the evidence we've seen so far post-election indicates, in my opinion, it's the Billster all over again: Pretty pro-LGBT words said on the campaign trail to garner support and votes, quickly forgotten once the election has been won.

I hope he proves me wrong, but given the facts I fully expect to be proven exactly right.

Like it or not, conservative Christians are a political force to be reckoned with in this country. We know that all too well. Having Rick Warren at the inauguration is a political move. And no, it doesn't make me feel any better.

But isn't it time we acknowledged the reality of our situation? Religious bigots (or "people of faith") aren't going away. They have major political influence and oodles of money. No politician of any stripe is simply going to ignore them because our feelings are hurt.

But Rick Warren aside, Obama has made a lot of ambitious promises for us (listed here:

1. A trans-inclusive ENDA
2. Hate crimes protections for sexual orientation AND gender identity (the Matthew Shepard Act)
3. Repealing DOMA
4. Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell

I think they're sincere promises, but he's not going to follow through on them unless we push him to. And right now, we're fractured and leaderless. Wasting time and energy by getting in a huff about some fat preacher isn't going to get us anywhere.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | January 9, 2009 11:30 PM

Then next time, when he wants votes, money, sweat, and tears to get him re-elected or to keep his Congressional majorities in place, he should get them from the religious political extremists like Rick Warren and ilk.

"Sincere promises" do not require "pushing" to achieve nor are they, as they're now being handled, given a timeline that screams pie-in-the-sky-maybe-when-I-get-a-second-term-and-if-the-veep-doesn't-veto-'cause-he's-following-the-party-line-that-they're-ballot-box-poison.

Mike, you weren't born with a great big KICK ME sign tattooed across your ass nor were you born on your knees with Obama's ass placed squarely in front of your lips. Stop living as if you were and sinking the hopes of the rest of us along with your toadying.

Marla, who's toadying? I'm not saying that this is a great situation and I love it. I'm saying this is how things work. Of *course* Obama's not going to follow through on his promises unless we push him. It's the only way any political promises get kept.

Now, if we wanted to talk about "supposed to," then sure, I'd be the first to say that Obama's wasn't supposed to invite Rick Warren, that he's supposed to want to help us out of the goodness of his heart, that he's supposed to support marriage equality, and that he's supposed to start working on all these issues from day 1.

But that isn't how politics works. Politics is about power, pure and simple, and right now our side is disunited and leaderless and captive to the Democratic party. We're not as powerful as the religious right, nor is there any reason for Democratic politicians to fear that we'll make life difficult for them or abandon them. And you know that's true.

Make no mistake, the evangelicals are going to be around for the next four years. Obama wanted their support on issues like poverty, the environment ("creation care") and community service. And many went with him despite his views on the gays and abortion. But that also means they'll be there to pipe up when a social issue hits the cycle.

All I'm saying is that we've got to deal with the fact that some of our most ardent opponents will have the president's ear even though in an ideal world they're not supposed to. Obama just doesn't see our issues the way we want him to, even though he's supposed to. Railing at the unfairness of it all does nothing to change the facts. So yeah, it's absolutely our job to keep engaging him and making sure he follows through on his promises. Because if we don't engage him, we know who will.

Our side has got to stop whining and start winning. Get over the hurt feelings, accept the less than ideal reality of the situation, and HOLD POLITICIANS' FEET TO THE FIRE until they deliver for us. I don't think that's toadying, but call it what you want.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | January 9, 2009 11:18 PM

No, we will not leave it until post-inauguration because the ways that we will all relate then are being hammered out now.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | January 7, 2009 7:05 PM

Faith, hope, devotion to the One True Leader and similar frivolities are for children and superstitious folk, the kind who think that The Exorcist was a documentary.

That nonsense has nothing to do with politics. For serious advocates of GLBT equality, an end to the war and an end to the economic looting of the rich all we have to go on are the words and deeds of politicians. By any standard Obama’s a right centrist who’s rapidly moving further right. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the people thoughtless enough to vote for him and he’ll screw us just as badly as Bush or Clinton. Neither party has a chance in hell of finding a way out of losing a war while the country slides into depression.

The problem Matilda notices with ‘progressive and radical-identified’ is to be sure their delusional hope and faith in the One True Leader but it has another component. These people pushed to get Obama elected for partisan reasons. They’re Democrats like Alex who ignored Obama’s prowar position and now whimper about it, who ignored his open bigotry and now seem shocked that he’s still acting like a bigot and who don’t have a clue about the real relations between politicians and the uberrich. Those are the relations of political prostitutes and their clients. Clearly Obama is a lap dog for the looting rich, but why that might be important seems to have escaped ‘progressive and radical-identified’ Democrats.

Those who leave the Democrat party and become part of the independent left, and especially those who help build a LGBT left may gain some credibility and those who don’t leave the Democrats won’t. They’ll have to realize that if elections provided a vehicle for change they’d be outlawed. They’ll have to give up the thrill of electing another in an endless succession of lesser evils and begin to use elections as an organizational and educational tool for real change, fundamental change.

With an unwinnable war and an impending depression on the near horizon American society faces a national political crisis like the ones of 1776 and 1860. It’s long past time to step out of the last closet, the political closet and help prepare to make sure the crisis ends on our terms, not theirs.

Outstanding and so very true, Bill---and I llove the last paragraph

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | January 9, 2009 11:05 PM

Thanks Maura.

The coming year will see a spiking of temblors and political fracturing in the two parties who share power.

It'll come from several directions. Mass firings, wage cuts like the ones imposed by Democrats on auto workers, a surge in unemployment, foreclosures and auto repos will produce demoralization among working people and it’s hitting African-American, female, immigrant and Latino workers first and hardest. But this will be the year when hope and shock will be replaced by a steel hardened determination to win back what was looted from us by the rich and their toadies in DC, especially Obama.

Add to that the steadily growing impact of a widening by basically unwinnable war. Obama and the Democrats will shift the focus of the American war for muslim oil from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. If he’d listen the English and the Russians could tell him why Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. At the same time the zionists are using terrorism to try to dismantle the dual power Palestinian state. The first antiwar demonstration will at be Hopey’s inaugural pageant and the next round of antiwar demonstrations will be on March 21st at the Pentagon.

And add the new offensives being launched by the christist right after their stunning victories against same sex marriage. Those bigot victories were given the imprimatur of the Obama Himself when he invited super-bigot Warren to speak at his inaugural. The response to the losses for same sex marriage and to the Warren invitation in our communities proves that the understanding that Obama and the Democrats are our enemies, not our friends is widespread. On our side of the street hope has already become rage.

We’ll look back on 2009 as the year hope turned to rage, a year of new beginnings for us and of setbacks for the bigots, the looters and the war makers in the twin parties, and their hangers on.

It’s going to be a happy, happy new year for the left.

[email protected]

Monica, we shall see...

Mike, I'm not talking so much about taking offense as focusing on Obama's actual policies, rather than some wishy-washy ideas of "hope" that only further the status quo.

Alex, I agree with you here: "Some folks on the left need to get their heads out of their asses and realize Obama's not their friend." And yes, there is always pressure from the right -- my point is that Obama was not elected by the right, and he doesn't need right-wing votes to pass policies through Congress right now either, but he still panders to the right...

Jerame, I like this quote: "There's only so much he can do to change Washington and he's sold it like he was going to sweep the town clean and fill it with unicorns, rainbows and glitter." Of course, there's only so much he can do to change Washington, especially when that's not his agenda...

Veronique, no argument there -- center at best...

And Serena, so so true about no reciprocal moves from the right -- there never are, of course...

And Mike, if "our" issues are limited to accessing marriage, I'll take "their" issues.

Monica, since the "LGBT movement" is a sham at best, it's hard to imagine this movement saying anything particularly useful, although the anger around Warren at least relates to fighting structural homophobia, an issue that the "LGBT movement" mostly ignores in favor of the new standbys of marriage, military service, hate crimes legislation, etc. and no, I don't think hate crimes legislation does anything to fight structural homophobia, since it only puts more power in the hands of races, classes, homophobic law enforcement.

Sam, Clinton is the perfect comparison for Obama -a "liberal" politician who ensure the passage of policies that the Reaganites couldn't even get through -- welfare "reform," NAFTA, expansion of the security state, etc.

Rebecca, I like this quote: "Obama certainly saw no need to respect us and our feelings before promoting his bigot buddy into the national spotlight. I see no reason at all to treat him with any more care, deference, or respect than he's showing us."

Bill, I love your analysis of the electoral process and the Democrats, although I must add that many of the people I'm talking about are part of the independent left, and therefore their faith in Obama is even scarier...

But wait -- The Exorcist wasn't a documentary?!!!

Renee Pookmuffin | January 7, 2009 8:15 PM

I think Rev Warren is an ass,but give Barak his first 100 days!! I do not agree with his choice, but he IS NOT PRESIDENT YET!!!

All this postulating really get us nowhere.
While we're argueing the right wing fundies are sharpening their knifes, planning their next move. What do we have a plastic spoon? A factionated plastic spoon?
What's the plan? Where do we go from here?

It doesn't take the smarts of some of the folks on this blog have ( I enjoy the posts here) to figure out we have to take the fight to them and not let them determine where the battle will take place. We don't seem to learn from our mistakes either.

We lost prop 8 and that sucks, it hurts on a personal level for many of us,!! There's always a next.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | January 7, 2009 11:34 PM

Thank you Mattilda, thought provoking as always including the comments. I regret that more attention was not given to the desperate need to demilitarize our country. Renew ourselves as a defensive country rather than an offensive country. We spend untold fortunes on weaponry, bases and a bloated over sized military.

We basically provide (for free) the military protection for Japan, S. Korea, Germany all of which are remnants of treaties from the Second World war, Cold war and the Korean war. Useless old agreements that go on forever. We provide huge quantities of what we call "foreign aid" in the way of bombs, bullets, tanks and planes while the real needs of human survival go under answered.

We blindly support Israel even when she is wrong basing it on them being "nicer" than their neighbors. I think it has a lot more to do with other things. I would imagine you have read "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" which clearly demonstrates how we have thrown away our credibility and good will through support of the policies of oppressing Palestinians. Why does the world hate us? Look in the mirror.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | January 8, 2009 12:09 AM

Some folks on the left need to get their heads out of their asses and realize Obama's not their friend. He's a politician, one who I'd still argue is better than Bush, but still a politician.

Alex, your words sum up my opinion succinctly!

In general, Obama and the Democrats are behaving as if the last election was not a repudiation of Bush and the Republican Party. Once again, the Dems seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I never expected Obama to be progressive, but even I have been disappointed by some of his first moves, particularly Rick Warren, Robert Gates, and his silence on the Israeli slaughter in Gaza.

I'm still hugely relieved it's not President Elect McCain, however!

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | January 11, 2009 1:20 AM

Only very naive people think that In general, Obama and the Democrats are behaving as if the last election was not a repudiation of Bush and the Republican Party because it was not.

Bush's policies will continue after he's gone. He was a bigot who opposed same sex marriage. So is Obama and so are most Democrats.

Bush gave handouts of trillions of dollars to the looter rich to recoup their losses in the deepening economic disaster. Working people will get austerity measures like the takebacks imposed on unions by the Democrats in the auto industry. Obama and the Democrats will continue Bush's policies while plastering them with fig leafs.

Bush invaded and attempted to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, menaced Iran and routinely committed acts of war against Syria, Yemen and Pakistan. He set up a concentration camp at Guantanamo and severely limited our civil liberties. Obama and the Democrats backed him every step of the way and say they'll continue to do so.

Bush may be an object of scorn but he and the Wall Street looters are laughing all the way to the bank. Because they own it. Although he and his party are out, his policies remain in place. The election was a change in personnel, not policies. That’s why there’s widespread praise for Obama among Republicans, conservatives, war criminals, the looter rich and his fellow anti-GLBT bigots. The only ones confused about the meaning of the election are those misguided people who made the gross and unprincipled error of voting for Obama.

Renee, as far as I'm concerned, "them" certainly includes Barack Obama...

And Robert, absolutely -- I would argue for abolition of the US military, in fact.

Brynn, such a good point -- "Obama and the Democrats are behaving as if the last election was not a repudiation of Bush and the Republican Party" -- same thing the Democrats did after getting control of Congress in order to end the US war on Iraq -- as soon as they got control, what's the plan? Oh, I know -- more funding!

Is all of this a form of Hillery-envy? I wonder if all of this exercise in ESP would have the same results if Hillery was the President-Elect? Seems that some LGBT think they are absolutely, positively sure what Obama will do for the next four years, when they have a difficult time figuring out what they are going to do in the next four days.

The Myan Calendar ends Dec 21, 2012 and the next year with peak solar flares is 2012, so all of this will soon be a moot point. Bend over and kiss your asses good-bye. (See, I can be just as ridiculous as the rest of you.)

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | January 9, 2009 11:58 PM

Actually, my wife and I would have been surprised if a Hils-prez had reinstated so much of her husband's government. Obama's more Clinton than Clinton, it seems!

And just to let you know, there are many Zionists who disagree with this current war Israel is waging. Contrary to what many on the left said, "Zionist" does not have to equal "frothing, raging racist"

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | January 8, 2009 9:20 AM

Chris, I do not doubt there are many Israelis and Jews around the world who disagree. A majority of Americans wanted our military out of Vietnam and still want us out of Iraq, but the opinions of "The People" do not matter to the interests within both the Israeli or American governments.

Any criticism of Israel or her actions toward the Palestinians and the "You are antisemitic" card is used in America. It has even effected what many academics can say which is why I recommend the book above which was co-authored by two top foreign policy experts. One Jewish, one Gentile. Take a trip to the library, it is an amazing read. I have loaned my copy out but one of the two authors is Tettalbaum of the University of Chicago. Peace.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | January 8, 2009 7:15 PM

"Zionist" does not have to equal "frothing, raging racist"

Chris is right. There are at present 8 non-racist zionists according to the Census Bureau in the US; as of 2000 there were 3 in Florida, 2 in Nebraska and 1 each in New Jersey, California and Ohio. There was another one in Alabama of all places but she died years ago.

At its core zionism was an accommodation that accepted the anti-Semitic view that Jews had no right to live in Europe. Zionists abandoned European Jews to their fate at the hands of the Nazis and diverted their efforts to colonize Palestine with the cooperation of the English and later the French and Americans. That was not altruism on the part of the leading NATO powers. Zionism is the imposition of a European military colony in the Middle East whose role is to permanently destabilize the region.

Divide et impera was an ancient notion long before the Romans named it. It’s not an abstract concept. The role of the zionist military colony is a defining example of how the policy of Divide and Rule works in the real world.

The only thing that will save the Zionist settlers is if they face the harsh reality that their colony is built on quicksand and that to avoid a terrible all-out war with their neighbors they must abandon zionist colonialism in favor of a secular, socialist Palestinian state. We can hope for that but it seems unlikely to occur until the US is dislodged from the region (i.e. when the US military brass get's it collective ass kicked out of South West Asia in the same way they were booted out of South East Asia). But by then it may be too late to avoid a bloodbath. The hatred and thirst for revenge has been building since 1947.

Below is a link to Lenni Brenner’s excellent book Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, A Reappraisal that examines the role of zionism in 1930’s and 40’s. The link will give you access to the entire book and a review in the London Times.

Monica, I thought this was the (Hillary) Clinton administration...

Chris, I would love to see some examples...

Thank you Mattilda. As usual, you hit the nail on the head. Except I don't think it's "false hope". I prefer to call it "willful delusion".