NO HOPE FOR CHANGE

Barack Obama's silence on Gaza is no surprise, but it is a major disappointment for anyone still hoping that he could be an objective arbiter in the Mideast peace process. Over the past 48 hours, 300 Palestinians have lost their lives under Israeli (and US made) bombs. The world has made its reaction clear, but all we know from Obama is that he's "monitoring" the situation.

The US media is overly forgiving and dismissive of his refusal to say anything substantive. This is partially due to the holiday season and Obama being on vacation. However, it should be noted that he released an official statement on Christmas day mourning the passing of Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf. The situation in Gaza is far more serious. So let's be real - the whole 'holiday' excuse is meaningless.

Appearing on the Sunday morning talk shows, Obama's senior advisor, David Axelrod reiterated his boss's previous comment (or lack thereof) and his undying commitment to the state of Israel. He also dutifully reminded us that there is only one president at a time - the convenient refrain we hear whenever the Obama team refuses to answer pertinent questions.

Barack Obama has consistently released statements on major world events. Lesser occurrences have also gotten him to speak out, especially when they have anything to do with Israeli interests; for example, he immediately denounced Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's speech at the UN General Assembly a few months ago. His silence now is totally inexcusable... unless one accepts that Obama does not care about the Palestinians. At least we know he cares about Israelis, Americans, Indians and Pakistanis.

What the Israelis are doing now to Gaza is completely inexcusable (the same is true for the devastating blockade that has lasted far too long). I couldn't help but laugh during a local FOX news report that described the fear in Israel - they showed a guy running somewhere while talking on his cell phone with a big smile on his face. Meanwhile, images coming out of Gaza are truly horrific. Surely Obama watches the news (maybe even on Al Jazeera).

He will eventually speak and say something like this:

The recent events in Gaza are tragic and the loss of civilian life is regrettable. However, the Israelis have a right to live in security. This could have been avoided. The fine folks I met in Sderot should not have to worry about rockets raining down on them. Enough is enough! Hamas needs to cede control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority (under Israeli supervision). They need to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. Until they do that, the Israelis have every right to stay on the defensive. The US needs to stand behind our stalwart ally.

My expectations of Obama have always been low, especially when it came to the Middle East, however, I've always maintained high hopes. With every day that passes though, reality settles in and I find myself hopeless. The people in Gaza have been virtually hopeless for decades - the truth hurts. Over the next few days their lives will continue to be be shattered along with most of their surroundings. The prospects of Arab-Israeli peace look bleak as ever and our incoming president doesn't seem like he will help at all. We'll have to wait and see what happens after January 20th, but there doesn't seem to be any hope for change as far as US policy on Israel is concerned.

To his credit, I believe that Obama is crushed by what is happening in Gaza; I think he understands the plight of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, he refuses to admit that to the people who elected him... maybe even to himself. The result is a cognitive dissonance I've written about before. He is unsure of himself because he feels compelled to act contrary to his convictions. There are two possible outcomes - his 'true' beliefs will shine through, or he will be corrupted by the beast of politics. Regrettably, it seems the latter is true. Who knows? Perhaps he was corrupted long ago.

STILL COMMITTED

For weeks now, the meme on the blogosphere has been that President-elect Obama has been slowly alienating the coalition that elected him. From his appointment of centrists to his cabinet to the recent flap over his invitation of evangelical Christian minister Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, there’s been plenty of red meat for those commentators who are chomping at the bit to declare that the Change We Need is dead before arrival.

For that reason, I found it extremely telling to read the President-elect’s interview with TIME in the forthcoming Person-of-the-Year issue. Throughout his (admittedly brief) time in national politics, Barack Obama’s most defining habit has been candor - in spite of ideology and, to some extent, even in spite of politics. He hasn’t been afraid to speak frankly when simply falling in line and not making much noise would be more politically expedient. It’s what brought him to the brink of voting for John Roberts’ confirmation to the Supreme Court, before offering a thoughtful and well-reasoned explanation of his ultimate opposition. It is also explains why during the Rev. Wright scandal, his first instinct was to give an honest, unprecedented and statesmanlike speech on race at the height of the most damaging controversy of his presidential campaign, when the easier route would have been to simply give a categorical denunciation, as he did once Wright forced his hand.

More to the point, it is what drove him to set concrete expectations for what his administration must achieve in its first years during the TIME interview. This candor is the mark of a supremely confident person, who knows what he wants to accomplish and how to do it, and does not fear the consequences of showing his cards, albeit briefly. But while Obama’s willingness to set expectations was unsurprising, what was still remarkable to me was the height of the bar he has set:

On [domestic] policy, have we helped this economy recover from what is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Have we instituted financial regulations and rules of the road that assure this kind of crisis doesn't occur again? Have we created jobs that pay well and allow families to support themselves? Have we made significant progress on reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage? Have we begun what will probably be a decade-long project to shift America to a new energy economy? Have we begun what may be an even longer project of revitalizing our public-school systems so we can compete in the 21st century? That's on the domestic front.

On foreign policy, have we closed down Guantánamo in a responsible way, put a clear end to torture and restored a balance between the demands of our security and our Constitution? Have we rebuilt alliances around the world effectively? Have I drawn down U.S. troops out of Iraq, and have we strengthened our approach in Afghanistan — not just militarily but also diplomatically and in terms of development? And have we been able to reinvigorate international institutions to deal with transnational threats, like climate change, that we can't solve on our own?

And outside of specific policy measures, two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, "Government's not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government's working for me. I feel like it's accountable. I feel like it's transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information, that believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient." Those are some of the intangibles that I hope people two years from now can claim.

Reading this laundry list, one must be reminded that the president-elect is not describing what he thinks he'll achieve by January 2017, when he hopes to retire to Hyde Park. He is setting benchmarks for what his administration must deliver within two years, in order to deserve a reprieve from the obligatory flogging most presidents take in midterm elections.

Though this won’t happen, this interview should put to rest the firestorm in the blogosphere about Obama’s supposed abandonment of progressive policy goals. The main ingredients of Obama’s campaign promises are all there: close Guantanamo. Restore transparency and accountability in government. End substantial American involvement in Iraq. Move early on health care reform. Provide the catalyst for a green energy revolution. At the core of each of these changes is the elimination of an eight-year thorn in liberals’ sides: torture, executive overreaching, economic inequality, etc. Once the conventional wisdom about Obama’s supposed “triangulation” is swept aside, one simple fact remains: the president-elect is just as committed to his campaign agenda now as he was the day before he was elected. He isn't backpedaling on the big questions.

Nor is he unrealistic about the challenges ahead. Though he offers a robust agenda, he also seems to recognize that he will only be able to begin the work on many of the key tasks. The important point now, though, is not whether or not all of these goals are accomplished by November 2, 2010. It is that starting late next month, we will have a president who was not afraid to set a high bar for himself, even in the immediate aftermath of an election - who was willing, at the farthest possible point from electoral consequence, to recommit himself to an ambitious agenda.

This might be dismissed by some as post-election euphoria and blustering. But at a time when the country teeters on the edge of a new depression, I think it cannot be shrugged off so lightly. To me, it can only mean one thing: the new president is ideologically committed to the goals he laid out in his campaign. He is, at heart, a liberal – a pragmatic one, to be sure, who might disdain the label for fear of alienating potential partners, but a liberal nonetheless. Those liberals who fear a turncoat president should be pleased at their good fortune. The next president won’t just enact liberal policies: like FDR, it seems he will use pragmatism and transparency to give them a legitimate, durable new label: centrist.

(P.S.: sorry for the lack of posts lately. Obligations in the real world got a little crazy recently. Posting will be more frequent in the future.)

I'M GONNA MISS THIS GUY...!

If you haven't already seen it, watch the video.

By no means am I a fan of George W. Bush, but I know I'm not alone when I say I'll be missing him. Obviously it has nothing to do with his policies or what he stands for. Over the past eight years, he has been a steady source of entrainment. Afterall, how often do we have the pleasure of seeing our president (impressively) dodge flying shoes during a press conference in a foreign country?  So what if most people either don't respect him or despise him? At least he makes us (and them) laugh!

Barack Obama on the other hand is far from entertaining. Eloquent bouts of rhetoric notwithstanding, his press conferences are boring at best. He tries to crack a joke every now and then, but he only comes off as corny. I guess being smooth and funny don't always go hand in hand. There is at least one benefit to that: we won't have people all over the world laughing at our president anymore!

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

In his first newspaper interview since being elected president, Barack HUSSEIN Obama implied that he will use his full name when taking the presidential oath of office. The reasoning he provided for this was one of tradition, saying "I'll do whatever everybody else does." However, it should be noted that not all presidents have used their full names at previous inaugurations (recent examples include Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan). So we'll have to wait and see what actually happens on January 20th.

Of course, Barack has often said he will do something only to turn around and do the opposite; to be fair, he didn't actually say he'd use his full name, but it is an inferred promise he's likely to keep. Afterall, media agencies are already reporting that he plans to "reach out" to the Muslim world. I don't know where that came from... he only mentioned Islam once in the interview; in response to a question regarding his intention to deliver some major speech at a Muslim capitol, he said the following:

"This is something that I talked about doing in the campaign and it's something that I intend to follow through on. What the time frame is, how we structure that, you know, is something that I will determine with my national security team in the coming weeks and months.

But I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular.

So, we need to take advantage of that and the message I want to send is that we will be unyielding in stamping out the kind of terrorist extremism that we saw in Mumbai.

We will be at the same time unrelenting in our desire to create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership with countries and peoples of goodwill who want their citizens and ours to prosper together. And I think that the world is ready for that message."

Barack is supposed to be a smart well-rounded guy (he appears to understand things), but he seems intent on heading down the same erroneous path. First of all, the image of the Muslim community needs to be rebooted just as badly in the American psyche as does America's image in the Muslim world; this is a fundamental point that US officials either do not understand or refuse to accept. If that sounds inaccurate, ask yourself why Obama was mentioning national security when he should have been invoking democracy. I realize the future Secretary of State is part of the national security team, but exact words are important, especially when they come out the mouth of a trained lawyer. Despite the problem of extremism in the Muslim world, Obama should not continue to view it through the cloudy lens of suspicion and fear. Maybe his advisors continue to serve him badly, or maybe he's been effectively brainwashed. Maybe he genuinely believes the things he says. Nevertheless, objective diplomacy is needed if the barriers between the US and the Muslim world are to be overcome, not more of the same.

On inauguration day, Americans need to be reminded that their new president has 'Muslim blood' in his veins. Obama said he's "not trying to make a statement one way or another" but that is precisely what he needs to do - make a statement. He has repeatedly failed to adequately address problems vis-a-vis the Muslim community; that needs to change. Using his full name when taking the presidential oath will be a small step in the right direction, but one I hope he takes.

He needs to "reboot" the way the US deals with the Muslim world and appreciate mistakes that have been made in the past. Yes, there are fringe groups of extremists who purport to follow Islam, and unfortunately they are not dealt with appropriately. Clearly this has a negative impact on US-Muslim relations. However, there is also considerable blame on the American side. Most importantly, continued blind US support for the state of Israel stands in the way of any rapprochement, especially while the third  holiest city in Islam remains under brutal occupation. Let's not forget Afghanistan, Iraq, and (hopefully not) Iran. Of course there are other issues that need to be addressed as well, specifically on the domestic front.

I don't expect much from whatever speech Obama eventually delivers - he will probably talk down to those living in the Muslim world and tell them what they need to do. It's fine for him to give advice, as long as he's willing to take some in return - Americans need to be effectively taught that Islam in and of itself is nothing to be feared (obviously the same applies for Muslims of all ethnic backgrounds). This can be and should be done through policy changes domestically as well as abroad, and ultimately the media needs to drive the message home. Thoughtful rhetoric and verbal flourishes notwithstanding, another anti-extremism spiel will only make matters worse. Of course he should address terrorism, but the primary focus of any message should be promoting tolerance, on both sides.

This is not just about Islam but the general diversity of the American community. To create "a relationship of mutual respect and partnership" we need to foster understanding and mutual self-accountability; arrogance is not the answer. Barack Obama isn't campaigning anymore. Clearly, those expecting his 'true colors' to shine once he takes office are likely in for an unpleasant reality check.

DEFINITELY NOT "POST-RACIAL" (WHATEVER THAT MEANS)

What does it mean to be post-racial?! I don't remember ever hearing the term before it was used to describe Barack Obama and his candidacy. Whatever it signifies, it's a concept that seems somewhat disturbing. Like Junius, the portrayal of Obama as someone who transcends race is something I have found intriguing and mildly upsetting. I felt the same way about how his campaign was depicted. Afterall, they used the race card to their advantage - it was cleverly disguised as change.

There was absolutely nothing post-racial about Obama's campaign, and try as they might to convince impressionable Americans otherwise, there is nothing post-racial about the man himself. He never framed himself as a Black candidate (unlike Clinton who repeatedly stressed her gender), but he didn't need to - that's already how he was seen by everyone. I'm not implying that people could not see past his race, simply that there is no denying the man is Black (even if he is half white).

While I enjoyed reading Marie Arana's piece, I was not convinced by her argument - this country cannot and should not move past race, at least not while some variation of the one-drop rule still applies; doing so would be like pretending all related problems don't exist. I could relate more to the piece Krissah Williams Thompson wrote on the subject, one most Americans are also sure to relate with on some level.

"Post-racialism is relatively easy to understand in a standing-room-only sports arena or at a campaign rally, and it will probably be evident at Obama's inauguration celebrations, where people of all different backgrounds will stand together and cheer. But post-racialism outside that political pageantry gets more complicated. It means the loss of so much that I cherish about who I am and where I come from. Is a colorblind America really what we are striving for? Isn't the point to live lives that are open to differences but still celebrate our unique cultural heritages, family traditions and religions?"

We come in all shades and we observe different traditions that should be embraced all around. Unfortunately, for the time being, hate still abounds. A color blind America would simply be a blind America. We need to confront racism in all its guises, not ignore it or step over it. A Black (non-White) president will help achieve that, but we still have a long way to go. I won't recite the laundry list of racial problems plaguing the US, past or present, but it's hard to deny the beast is still in our midst.

Like many of those Ms Williams interviewed, I too worried that racism would keep Obama outside of the White House. His victory does not make such concerns any less valid - while the number of blatant racists in this country may be relatively low, there are still a large number who have no desire to hide their hatred; some might even act on it.

Towards the end of the campaign, much attention was given to an Al Jazeera English report at a Sarah Palin rally in Ohio where ignorant people made one racist comment after another. Such minds may not represent the majority of Americans, but there are more than enough of them scattered around the country to keep the rest of us on our toes.

Race (at least the way it's perceived by most Americans) was a deciding factor in Obama being elected president. Many people felt compelled to vote for him because he was Black. It wouldn't surprise me if by voting for him, some White people thought they were absolving themselves of any racist tendencies they posses. In a country like the United States where Black people were still disenfranchised 40 years ago, when Barack said he was about change, it resonated loudly by virtue of his ethnicity and name. Change was an easy sell... and a little money didn't hurt either.

There is something about Obama's story that appeals to people of all races - he lived the American dream. He is the son of an immigrant father who wasn't around for long; he worked hard and ended up as the people's choice for president. Maybe he wouldn't have won if he had been a descendant of slaves with a typical American name, but there's not much benefit in such thinking. His victory is indeed one for all Americans, Black, White and everything in between. I'm happiest for the racists who will have no choice but to become used to the idea that their president is not White.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where things are oversimplified - race and racism are no exception. People are black, white, conservative, liberal, Christian or something else. It's easy to use labels, even when their meaning is vague or disputed. Maybe one day we can overcome racial barriers (by accepting one another), but for now, we have elected a Black president. Let's hope he doesn't disappoint too much. 

BAD MOVE!

I've never been a fan of Hillary Clinton's. So it's little wonder that I was almost equally upset by her nomination for Secretary of State as I was pleased by Barack Obama's election as President. I was thrilled when he defeated her in the primaries and I was hoping she'd relegate herself permanently to the Senate and focus her efforts there (i.e. no more worrying about her trying to be president). So much for all that! Not only will she be working closely with a man she seems to look down upon, but despite what she says, she can now angle for her next presidential bid from the comfort of the State Department. Surely being the top diplomat under a historic presidency can't hurt her too much. Sadly, however, I think it hurts the rest of us.

She is not a likable person - not at all. For someone who will be representing the US abroad, that's not a good thing, at least not if we hope to regain respect in the eyes of the world. She is arrogant and exudes an air of baseless self-entitlement. That's not the type of representative this country needs at this point in time. In fact, she embodies one of the worst American stereotypes: an air of selfish infallibility - case in point, her comments on Iran back in May. Even Condi would be better than her.

But my dislike for Hillary aside, I seriously cannot think of one good reason to have her serving in that capcity. Her supporters and Obamaniacs rush to her defense to say that she is a 'strong' and intelligent woman who knows her way around Washington and has (limited) experience abroad. All that is fine and well, but I know at least a dozen others personally who share those same attributes and are equally undeserving of being US Secretary of State. Of course, her biggest advantage remains her last name (the one she got from Bill). If Obama wanted someone shrewd with an assertive personality there must have been others he could have chosen. However, by selecting Clinton he seems intent on solidifying his support within the Democratic party, particularly with the die-hard Hillary supporters who still haven't gotten over her defeat in the primaries; he didn't need to do that, but it was a good move from the Democrats' perspective. More importantly, he has made clear that he is willing to work with his biggest rivals and trust them to do their jobs. I have a bad feeling that his trust in Hillary Clinton is misplaced. At some point, she will probably feel compelled to do things her way.

Much has been said of the team of rivals that Barack Obama is putting together. They are considered such because of their history in Washington (change?), their egos and their strong personalities. The logic is that by having dynamic individuals around him who aren't afraid to make their positions known, Obama will be privy to better advice. There is considerable validity in that argument, but as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, my gut tells me that she is so hell-bent on being president that she will be more a thorn in his side than anything else. She did not seem at ease up on that stage - there was a look in her eye that suggested she wasn't exactly in her element. Afterall, she wants to be the boss, not his helper. (At the very least, she wants to shine.)

As uncomfortable as I am having an Israeli as the White House Chief of Staff (swearing allegiance to any other country would be unacceptable), in my eyes, Clinton has been the worst pick so far. Of course, there is something disconcerting about Obama's choices of economic leaders, considering they played a part in bringing about the current financial crisis. His selection for Attorney General, while aesthetically noteworthy, is also a remnant of the Clinton years. Keeping Robert Gates around makes sense, but there's not much change in that either. The only change I see so far is a willingness to make unusual picks by virtue off their stature. With the exception of Clinton, everyone else seems relatively qualified to do their job. The problem is that they are mostly more of the same. Who's to say that picking someone unheard of couldn't turn out better than making a deal with an 'experienced' Washington insider?

Our president-elect isn't so far off - four years ago most people had no clue who he was. Since setting off on the road to the White House he has promised to do things differently. However, there are no indications that we will be seeing any new faces in his cabinet. I understand the desire to bring aboard experienced (known) people, and in a two-party system it's not surprising that such choices are limited. Will there be any independents in Obama's administration as he promised? Obviously not in the big chairs. 

One's memory should span more eight years; whether we realize it or not, the decision makers - with the exceptions of the President and Secretary of State - are the same we have come to love (or hate). While I may be reasonably cool with Obama, I'm obviously not happy about Clinton... for several reasons. We'll see what happens, but as much as it pains me and as much as I'd like to believe otherwise, it seems I'll be watching her just as closely as him from now on.

POST-RACIAL?

One claim that is often repeated about Barack Obama’s candidacy is that it marked the birth of a “post-racial” America, unhampered by the painful legacy of slavery and segregation. This is repeated by commentators who believe it is true, as well as those who use it as a straw man in taking pot shots at America’s shortcomings in race relations.

I’ve always had a problem with this. There is nothing “post racial” about the 2008 election. While it ultimately culminated in the election of a nonwhite president, racial issues presented hurdles throughout the primary and general election campaigns that would likely have been insurmountable to other candidates. What is remarkable to me about Obama’s election is that he was judged by the content of his character, in spite of having a skin color that was a barrier to such judgment for too many Americans, even now. This is not to say that America is a racist country, or that the election of Barack Obama is not transformative – it is. But it does not somehow mean that we are “past race,” as some people might be comfortable claiming.

Marie Arana discussed the race issue in yesterday’s Washington Post, and she made no such claim. Her column was of the second variety discussed above – she lamented our failure to achieve “post-racial” status and criticized the conception of Obama as a “black” man:

Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black.

We call him that -- he calls himself that -- because we use dated language and logic. After more than 300 years and much difficult history, we hew to the old racist rule: Part-black is all black. Fifty percent equals a hundred. There's no in-between.

That was my reaction when I read these words on the front page of this newspaper the day after the election: "Obama Makes History: U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President."

The phrase was repeated in much the same form by one media organization after another. It's as if we have one foot in the future and another still mired in the Old South. We are racially sophisticated enough to elect a non-white president, and we are so racially backward that we insist on calling him black. Progress has outpaced vocabulary.

To me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people, Barack Obama is not our first black president. He is our first biracial, bicultural president. He is more than the personification of African American achievement. He is a bridge between races, a living symbol of tolerance, a signal that strict racial categories must go.

I understand where Arana is coming from. As a biracial person, she has a great deal invested personally in Obama’s victory, and she can be proud of it. But that doesn’t mean that African Americans can’t claim Obama’s victory as something particularly special. After all, Obama identifies as black. Just because Arana doesn’t identify more with one race in which they have roots doesn’t mean other similarly situated people can’t. Her failure to recognize this strikes me as an ironic form of ethnocentrism: the fact that identifying with a particular race has not been important to her seems to exclude the possibility that it could carry meaning for anyone else.

Worse, her harping on the failure of America to become “post-racial” reeks of the sociological tendency to reject racial distinctions instinctively. It leads people to long for a culture where race is not only eliminated as a barrier, but also eliminated as a defining characteristic. This is a tragic way to look at the world, because it longs for a result that never can (or should) be achieved. Race is, and always has been, a defining characteristic of humanity. It may divide us, but it also provides an opportunity to enrich us: racial difference can be used to encourage people, even from childhood, to look past the surface and be more tolerant and thoughtful in judging each other.

Barack Obama may be biracial, but he has chosen to be a member of black culture. And whether we like it or not, separate cultures (black, white, Asian Latino, Arab-American, etc.) still exist in our country. We should not look at a black man and feel the need to ignore his cultural identity just for the sake of “getting past race.” Race is not something to get past – it is a fact of life to be accepted and cherished. We should not hang our hopes on the day when all the races blend together - barring a horrific genocide or a shameful reversion to nativism, this simply won’t happen. What we should hope and pray for is a country where, despite our cultural differences, we judge each other by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. The election of Barack Obama is, of course, an encouraging step in that direction, and not just because of his own background. In his comments on race (particularly in his "A More Perfect Union" speech from March 2008), I see someone who is unafraid to confront the reality of race in America and build a country that is united in building a better world because of its differences, not because it has shunned those differences.