Showing posts with label Hilary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hilary Clinton. Show all posts

Monday, March 3, 2008

Crucial Primaries: Obama's Faith Questioned

In a nation which proudly proclaims constitutional separation between religion and state and promotes secular democracy aboard, it is strange but true that Barack Obama's religion has become an election issue in the United States. As Obama gets closer to making history by clinching the Democratic nomination for US Presidential Elections in 2008, a number of stories are beginning to proliferate in the US media on the following questions: Is he really Christian as he says he is? Or is he secretly a Muslim? Why is his middle name Husain? Did he attend an Islamic School in Indonesia as a child? Is he really committed to supporting Israel? Would Obama take oath of office on the Bible? Why is the Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan endorsing him? Why does Obama want to talk to Iran without preconditions?

In spite of repeated affirmations by Obama that he is Christian, these stories have taken on a life of their own. Though it is hard to prove but not hard to imagine as to the purpose and the origin of such questions and rumors. It is crunch time in the election campaign. There is desperation in both the Clinton and the McCain camps as the polls show that Obama is the most likely Democratic nominee and Obama will easily beat McCain. The attacks on Obama have suddenly stepped up from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain and their surrogates. Hillary Clinton obviously wants to be the nominee and McCain would rather go against Hillary than Obama in November. As polarizing as Hillary is, she will help energize the Republican conservative base to support McCain.

While I understand the nature of politics in the US and elsewhere in the world, I am still mystified as to the relevance of the President's religion in terms of the constitution of the United States. Are we all just pretending about the separation of church and state in the constitution? Or do we really mean it? Is this truly a constitutional and secular democracy? Or are we all hypocrites?

Monday, February 25, 2008

Comparing Ralph Nader and Imran Khan

Amidst the dismissive comments and the howls of protests from Democrats, Ralph Nader has entered the 2008 US presidential race. As expected, his reasons include the lack of debate among the mainstream candidates on what he sees as the core issues of the day. No stranger to US presidential politics, Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934, in Winsted, Connecticut) is an Arab American attorney of Lebanese descent, author, lecturer, political activist, and currently a candidate in the United States presidential election, 2008. Areas of particular concern to Nader are consumer rights, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. A recent documentary titled "The Unreasonable Man" chronicles the life of Ralph Nader. The title "The Unreasonable Man" comes from a famous quote attributed to the early 20th century British playwright George Bernard Shaw who said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Laying out the case for his candidacy, Nader has told the media that include NBC's "Meet The Press" that he wants to bring significant but neglected issues to the table such as the lack of single-payer universal health coverage, the bloated US military budget and the failed US policy of unqualified support for Israel in the Middle East. Attacking both Clinton and Obama in an interview, Nader said, "Obama is an overly cautious captive of his handlers and Clinton is a panderer and a flatterer.”

Nader took Obama to task for changing his position on the Palestinian issue. It should be noted that in March 2007, Obama said at a small gathering in Iowa, "Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people. But here's Obama's position in February 2008: "The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel.… If it cannot...I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all," Obama wrote to Ambassador Khalilzad, adding he understood why Israel was "forced" to shut down Gaza's border crossings." What has happened in the 11 months between then and now is an object lesson and a reminder of the intense pressure under which presidential candidates stake out positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the demonstrated effectiveness of the Israeli lobby in the United States.

While Ralph Nader may succeed in bringing the neglected but important issues into the US political debate, he has almost no chance of being elected to any office. "Obviously, the system is triple-rigged against any small candidate," he said. "All we can do is try to loosen it up, challenge it, bring it to account in some court cases and build for the future. We can also keep an exciting, practical, progressive agenda before the American people — get more people to run for local, state and national office."

Ralph Nader reminds me of Imran Khan in Pakistan. Imran Khan is a well-meaning, well-respected, and honest former cricket hero bringing out the issues of democracy, civil society and rule of law, that the mainstream parties do not particularly care about. But the presence of Imran Khan on the Pakistani political scene does offer hope for the future.