BLOG THIS | blog.thismagazine.ca: American Politricks Archives

At Obama's inaugural news conference last night, the President answered questions including a direct question by Helen Thomas, the most senior member of the White House press corps about nuclear arms in the Middle East (The woman was no doubt a thorn in Dubya's side, calling Bush the "worst president in American history." She has brought questions to 10 presidents in her time at White House press conferences).

Obama also tackled Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy's proposal to address crimes under the Bush Administration through a truth and reconciliation commission.

It was the first time a President has recognized a question from a blogger at a presidential press conference -- in this case, the Huffington Post's blogger, Sam Stein, who drew attention to the Senator's proposal. (go bloggers, go!)

Retired Santa Cruz Politics prof. Bruce Larkin asks on his blog Political Design, "Would truth and reconciliation, rather than absolution or prosecution, best serve the people of the United States?"

Says Obama,
"My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen. But that generally speaking, I am more interested in looking forward that in looking backwards."

Although the President's statement offers an all-are-equal kind of tone, it makes you wonder whether Bush and his administration can be considered "ordinary citizens" in the first place. I admire his visionary stance as much as the next gal, but let's hope Obama knows it's important to right past wrongs as well as pursue visions for the future.

More entries on: American Politricks

January 27, 2009

Obama and the Middle East

Posted by Elaisha Stokes at 02:31 PM ET | Comments (0)

I'd really like to write something clever about Obama and the Middle East. I'd love to comment on his commitment to end the war in Iraq, his appointment of Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell as his special envoy to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, or even his reiteration of the right for Israel to "defend" itself. I'd love to provide deep insight into how his policy will change the international face of America. I'd love to sound smart.

But I can't. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed. At least not yet. Or perhaps it's too soon to tell.

Instead, I point you toward this open letter to President Obama by comedian Dean Obeidallah. His observations are far more witty than mine could ever be this early on in the President's term. He made me laugh out loud. Always a good sign.

Enjoy!

More entries on: American Politricks

November 06, 2008

CNN fakes their holograms

Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 09:39 PM ET | Comments (2)

CNN's coverage of the Presidential election included some interesting segments: hologram interviews. You might have seen reporter Jessica Yellin and, later, Will.I.Am in hologram form being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper respectively. If you haven't already, here they are:

Here's the thing though, they weren't actually holograms. From the CBC: "The CNN anchors were not really speaking to three-dimensional projected images, but rather empty space, Kreuzer said. The images were simply added to what viewers saw on their screens at home, in much the same way computer-generated special effects are added to movies.

Kreuzer said the images were tomograms, which are images that are captured from all sides, reconstructed by computers, then displayed on screen.

Holograms, on the other hand, are projected into space."

I think I finally have a proper explanation for Cooper's uncomprehending look following Will.I.Am's short dance.

More entries on: American Politricks

October 15, 2008

Obama Illusions

Posted by derek at 07:24 PM ET | Comments (0)

Now that the Canadian election has ended with a whimper, all eyes are back on the US, where the latest polls are showing that the next President will likely be Barack Obama. Some progressives have whipped themselves into a giddy frenzy at the possibility. I am not one of them.

Obama, to sum up, is for the PATRIOT Act, for FISA wiretapping, for escalating the war in Afghanistan and for the right to launch preemptive wars of aggression wherever the US sees fit. Even on the Iraq war, Obama's leftist credentials are suspect. Obama does not call for anything remotely like US military withdrawal from the Middle East, but rather for a change in the way the war is being carried out, and would still allow for things like US airstrikes and "anti-terrorist" actions inside Iraq. What exactly is progressive in all this?

Obama's position should come as no suprise when one considers the strategic importance of the Middle East to US power. It is simply too important an issue for the ruling class to leave up to ordinary Americans. It's here we see a key role of elections in our societies, namely the construction of "acceptable debate" and the distinguishing between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" politics. Elections, let's be frank, are simply not how such important decisions get made. We should recall that it was the Democrat Lyndon Johnson who escalated the Vietnam War after defeating the warmonger Goldwater, and that the Republican Nixon was forced to draw down and end the war mainly because of the military defeat that was being handed to them by the Vietnamese. In France, it was the Socialist Guy Mollet who greatly escalated the Algerian war after running on a promise to end it. In these cases, it was questions of national interest and power that decided matters, not anything so quaint as the democratic will of the people.

Given the tragic history of attempts to make progressive change through electoral means, it would be tempting to dismiss Obama supporters as naive. But I think their fervour and optimism point to something more troubling, namely, the near-complete absence of any kind of truly emancipatory politics in public life, and the lowered sights that accompanies this absence. Perhaps it's a failure of the imagination, or the ideological triumph of a deep-rooted cynicism, but whatever the cause the result is the bizarre sight of America's progressives lining up to support such an obviously pro-system candidate on the flimsiest of grounds -- their energy and enthusiasm sucked up and transformed so that it ends up strengthening the very system they first set out to oppose.

In times like this I think it would be worthwhile to take a look at the work of Slavoj Zizek, who argues in his latest book that "what prevents the radical questioning of capitalism itself is precisely the belief in the democratic form of the struggle against capitalism." If we are to get genuine "change we can believe in", it is precisely this illusion that may need to be shattered. My worry is that many more people around the world will have to die, this time at Obama's hands, for this to happen.

More entries on: American Politricks

September 24, 2008

Bidini on Palin: The wrong kind of hockey mom

Posted by mason at 12:49 PM ET | Comments (0)

Dave Bidini knows from hockey, that's for certain. So when an opportunistic right-wing politician taints the sport's good name by calling herself a hockey mom, Bidini has a response. In his latest column at thismagazine.ca, the response is clear: she's not cut out to represent either hockey or America.

Palin's comparison between being a hockey mom and a pit bull was one brush stroke too many, an extra, glove-drunk gesture to a hockey community that knows better. This is not to say that much of the northern U.S., Canada and the NHL isn't atwitter at seeing mention of their game imbued in every American op-ed column, but the very passion that produces such a fine game can also be its downfall. As my wife--not so much a hockey mom as a hockey player--said after hearing Palin's "pit bull" comment: "It's those pit bulls that we're trying to keep away from the rink."

Read the whole column here.

More entries on: American Politricks

September 15, 2008

I've got 66 million reasons the U.S. electoral system is broken

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 12:42 PM ET | Comments (0)

Barack Obama is undeniably a political phenomenon (after all, we put him on the cover of the magazine). One of the most remarkable qualities of his presidential campaign has been his success at fundraising. It was just announced on the campaign website that Obama-Biden raised a record US$66 million in August alone, far outstripping any campaign fundraising push in history. For glum Democrats who have spent the last few weeks watching Sarah Palin strip away their lead in the polls like so many strips from a moose carcass, this is a welcome boost to morale.

Pile of U.S. Money But think about that number. American election costs have been spiralling upward for years, each presidential campaign costing exponentially more than the one that came before it. In 2004, the Democrats and Republicans spent about $600 million combined on radio and TV advertising, three times the amount they spent in 2000; according to the U.S. Federal Elections Commission, the parties had already spent a combined US$1.024 billion by the end of July. (Note that those expenditures were by all presidential primary candidates combined, not just Obama and McCain). It's a lot of money. Too much.

How can an electoral system so outrageously costly ever hope to remain untainted by political favours, unrealistic promises, and toxic negative ads? The answer is it can't, and it isn't. Barack Obama's record-breaking fundraising is impressive, no doubt, and I don't think you can fault him for fundraising the amounts that he needs to keep campaigning. But the war chest of cash it takes in 2008 to run for president pretty much ensures that corruption, backscratching, and graft will creep in, and while everyone with the right connections is getting rich, the democratic process itself just gets poorer. Serious campaign finance reform, reasonable spending limits, and the abolishment of the wretched Political Action Committees (that have brought political advertising in the U.S. to such a new and hideous low) must be enacted. And it should happen before 2012 rolls around — with an even bigger price tag.

More entries on: American Politricks

August 28, 2008

Watch Obama speech with Democrats Abroad

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 11:31 AM ET | Comments (3)

Democrats Abroad logo It's fair to say Barack Obama's acceptance speech tonight at the Democratic National Convention in Denver will be a historic one. It's the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, and the venue has been moved to a local football stadium to accommodate 75,000 spectators. You don't want to watch history unfold at home alone on your couch, do you? Democrats Abroad Canada is hosting parties across the country for people to watch the acceptance speech together tonight. Here's a list of public venues where Democrats Abroad Canada is hosting viewing parties, and here's contact information for all the chapters if you want to find out what's going on in your city.

"Since we're all working to get Obama elected," DAC spokesperson Roger King tole me this morning, "it's always good to gather together and watch it and get inspired." The Dems Abroad will also be offering voter registration for Democrats living in Canada, and is accepting donations — but only if you're an American citizen. Canadians, you'll just have to donate a round of drinks to your new Yankee friends.

See the full video of the "I have a dream" speech after the jump.

More entries on: American Politricks

August 27, 2008

Mr. Layton goes to Denver (updated)

Posted by Graham F. Scott at 02:44 PM ET | Comments (0)

A press release came in this afternoon saying that NDP leader Jack Layton is spending three days at the Democratic National Convention in Denver to talk to the Dems' labour caucus, among others, and see if he can shake some important hands. Now, the NDP's electoral standing in Canada isn't exactly on par with the U.S. Democrats, and Layton isn't pulling Obama-level numbers himself (we've been over that already). However, Obama and Layton share one thing, which is that the United Steelworkers of America endorsed them both at its annual convention in Las Vegas in July. The Steelworkers' position is: Obama for President, Layton for Prime Minister.

I talked with Layton's press secretary this afternoon, who explained just what Layton is hoping to get from his Denver trip. His comments are after the jump:

"Mr. Layton has an interest in finding out more about the campaign. It's had quite a lot of attention here in Canada and we do share a lot of the same values and messaging [of] hope for working families here in Canada.
Back when Naftagate happened, We wrote to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton calling on them to stand together with us in order to favour reopening of Nafta. That's the kind of dialogue that we hope to keep going with the Democrats."

I'll update this post if I hear back from the Liberals and Conservatives. Do they have operatives in Denver, officially or un-? Or are they too busy playing electoral chicken?

UPDATE: The Conservatives tell me they have four people working the floor at the DNC. Director of Communications Ryan Sparrow says they have no specific aim, just that "Canada-U.S. relations are always important."

More entries on: American Politricks | Economics | Labour

March 25, 2008

High heat on Iran

Posted by derek at 12:08 PM ET | Comments (19)

Two interesting, perhaps ominous developments on the "will they bomb Iran" front:

On March 11, Admiral William Fallon resigned as head of the U.S. Central Command. Fallon opposed a military strike on Iran and the word in the halls of power is that his exit may indicate an intention on behalf of Bush and Co. to attack Iran sooner than later.

Just yesterday, General David Petraeus, head of U.S. forces in Iraq, blamed a deadly rocket attack in the Green Zone in Baghdad on Iran, saying the rockets were provided by Iran and those that fired them were trained by Iran.

True or not (and likely not, considering the recent track record of people like him) Petraeus's accusation may be an attempt to build justification for a strike on Iran, making an irreversible "fact on the ground" prior to the election of a new president in November.

PHOTO SPIDER DIJON FLICKR.COM

More entries on: American Politricks | From the intern desk | Global politics | War and peace

November 21, 2007

In praise of taxing and spending

Posted by mason at 10:24 AM ET | Comments (0)

In These Times magazine has a refreshing article by Susan J. Douglas calling for a reclamation of the term "tax and spend liberals" in the United States -- a nice reminder that Democratic politics need not go down the pro-business road it is now. She mentions a new book by Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, in which the case for a new New Deal is laid out. She concludes:

For years, Republicans tarred Democrats as "tax and spend liberals." Just as gays and lesbians reclaimed the word "queer" as a move of empowerment, Democrats should embrace the "tax and spend" moniker. Taxing and spending is what advanced, industrialized countries do. And they do it to promote equitable societies.

Canadians would be wise to heed this call as well.

More entries on: American Politricks

Listed in

THIS MAGAZINE. BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL

Please note that all writers hold the copyright for their pieces and it is illegal for any portion of them to be copied or distributed without their expressed permission. So please don't steal.

THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

February 10, 2009

Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

January 27, 2009

Obama and the Middle East

November 06, 2008

CNN fakes their holograms

October 15, 2008

Obama Illusions

September 24, 2008

Bidini on Palin: The wrong kind of hockey mom

September 15, 2008

I've got 66 million reasons the U.S. electoral system is broken

August 28, 2008

Watch Obama speech with Democrats Abroad

August 27, 2008

Mr. Layton goes to Denver (updated)

March 25, 2008

High heat on Iran

November 21, 2007

In praise of taxing and spending