Tomorrow Sen. Obama will be making his first address on Israel.  I hope he takes the opportunity to lead.  While we all know there will be tough rhetoric on Iran, it doesn't have to be an implicit threat of nuclear war.  Likewise, while we all know the statements, "Israel has a right to defend itself" will be uttered when discussing Hezbollah, Syria and Palestine, it doesn't have to be an implicit acquiescence that an Obama administration will look the other way if Israel bombs civilians.  Most politicians have taken pandering on the Middle East to an art forum; even at the expense of American, Israeli and Palestinian lives.  Rather than lead and really discuss the difficult issues that divide all sides in the conflict, they take the easy route and alienate Arab moderates, while branding an entire people as terrorists.

Outside of the political world, it is mainstream among most Americans that we want Israel to be safe and Jews to be able to move beyond the fear that history has created.  It is also mainstream that American foreign policy should always put America first and that we should be leaders in the global community.  While Bush is a failure on foreign policy, nothing has been shown by Congress in terms of leadership on the Middle East.  To talk Palestine and the peace process makes one persona non grata on Capitol Hill.  Pandering is all that occurs among our elected officials when it comes to Israel and its neighbors.  Will Obama's "politics of hope" go beyond this?  

Rather than bring Israelis and their neighbors together to find a comprehensive peace, our government has shown a willingness to only go so far as their political donors and action committees allow them.  Will a President Obama go beyond this?  Will he be willing and able to  say to the Israelis to stop the settlements and sit down with the Palestinians?  As his pro-Israel rhetoric heats up, will he, once elected, have the credibility  in both the international community and, most importantly, the Middle East to be able to bring the needed compromise from Arab leaders?  To tell Hamas to put down there weapons "a new politics of hope" has arrived?  Will they trust him?

Sen. Obama is running as a post-partisan.  Noble goal for domestic politics.  My question to his campaign is whether he will run as a sincere peace maker, who is not only beyond the partisan tit-for-tat, but also beyond the pandering that clouds foreign policy judgments.  I hope he will be.  The Senator inspires a younger generation and encourages us to believe that America can be something more.  On Friday, we will see what a President Obama view of the Middle East looks like.  I hope I can be inspired once again.  

http://www.vanityfair.com./politics/feat ures/2007/02/mccain200702?currentPage=1

This article was a pretty extensive review of John McCain and ventured into character flaws that might hurt him in 08.  It is well worth the read.  

After reading it, I am kind of impressed by the man, but disappointed in the politician.  It really is filled with times when McCain is a leader and other times where he openly admits he is pandering and doesn't believe what he says.  The pandering, of course, which continues to increase as he seeks the 08 nod.  He even admits his personal struggle, but unfortunately still continues to pander.  Commenting on having to unwillingly read a written statement to the press regarding his negative comments on the confederate flag during the South Carolina primary in 2000, McCain said, in reference to his wink and nod to the press, "I wanted them to think me still an honest man, who simply had to cut a corner a little here and there so that I could go on to be an honest president."  

By his own definitions of what it means to be a leader, he seems to fall short.  Sad.

More below...

25,000 Americans trapped in Lebanon.

Democrats sit quietly.

Hezbollah and Hamas kidnap Israeli soldiers.

Democrats sit quietly.

Israel goes ballistic and bombs Lebanon and Gaza twenty years back.

Democrats sit quietly.

The world is waiting for American leadership.  Americans, regardless of their allegiances (unfortunately there are mostly tables for Pro-Israel, Anti-Israel, but none for pro-peace and resolving this conflict) await any sign of leadership.

Democrats sit quietly.

War has broken in the Middle East.  Innocent lives from all parties will be lost.  The President is out of touch and out to lunch.  

Democrats sit quietly.

Would FDR, JFK, RFK, Truman or Woodrow Wilson sit back and neither say nor do nothing?  Would they prefer to offer no third way solutions in order to ensure that donors and lobbies won't be upset?  

I won't hold my breath on hearing what the current crop of Democrats have to say.  The past two weeks have shown what they plan to do in times when new ideas and leadership are most needed.

History doesn't look kindly on those who fail to lead.  If you believe in humanity, then there is a solution.  It will not be an Israeli solution, nor will it be a Palestinian solution, but it will be a human solution.  Leaders are needed in hopes darkest hours.

Democrats sit quietly.  The flames of war continue to ravage the Middle East.

The 2006 election holds great potential for the party.  As Senators line up and take their position on the Connecticut primary and make promises to campaign for Holy Joe, one has to wonder why they are spending time in Connecticut campaigning for an incumbent in a safe seat.  We have close races all around the country, yet our electeds are spending their time and money campaigning in a party primary.  

In Virginia and Tennessee for instance, I am sure that the Ford and Webb campaigns could use some of these Dems fundraising prowess.  Likewise, if those involved are too liberal (Boxer, Biden, etc) for some of the competitive Southern races, then candidates could use their help in near blue states (Ohio), solid blue states (California, Michigan, Minnesota), or red states where seats are in play and liberal is not such a toxic term (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Montana).  Granted, the November election is months away and there is little focus on many of these races until after Labor Day.  It would be a huge shot in the arm for Senate, House and Gubernatorial candidates to have party leaders fundraising and burning the shoe leather for the sake of the party's future.  Instead, our leaders are spending time campaigning for a relic of the party's past.

It's sad to see that the priority of DC Democrats is to keep their friends in power and settle scores with the grassroots, rather than campaign in races that could tip the balance of the House, Senate, or Governor's mansions.  Personally, I am dissappointed that Sen. Boxer will be spending any time in Connecticut rather than campaigning for Angelides or any of the Congressional candidates in California seeking to defeat incumbents (Pombo, Bilarby, etc.).  Though she may only be in Connecticut for a weekend, thats one weekend too many when the races in her home state are close.

Today, the House of Representatives will vote on HR 4681, the "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006."  This bill threatens to exacerbate the growing humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories and reverse decades of US-led efforts towards peace.  Isolating the Palestinian people and the NGOs working on the ground for peace will weaken Israel's security, damage our interests, and punish the wrong people.  

There is broad agreement in Congress that direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), now under Hamas control, should be prohibited unless it renounces terror, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and embraces the Roadmap.  There is also a broad consensus  for encouraging the withholding of direct aid by US allies.  That is not what H.R. 4681 is about.

This bill will severely constrain efforts to preserve support for institutions and activities essential to the emergence of a future Palestinian state that rejects terrorism and the destruction of Israel, and accepts co-existence and democracy.  Inexplicably, H.R. 4681 targets non-governmental organizations (NGOs), essentially banning U.S. support for their work.  

In addition to appropriately blocking direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, the bill would prohibit all assistance to the Palestinian people, other than narrowly-defined categories of humanitarian aid (excluding, for example, education and economic development).  The Presidential waiver is narrowly restricted, limited to situations involving U.S. national security interests.  Even then, it would impose onerous certification requirements whereby the State Department would be required - on a case-by-case basis - to consult with and report to Congress on why assistance is needed 25 days in advance of obligating funding.  Forcing the Administration to jump through these hoops for each separate assistance project would inevitably curtail the amount and effectiveness of funding provided to NGOs working on the ground to promote peaceful reconciliation and build the capacity of Palestinian civil society.  

The bill would also restrict diplomacy with moderate Palestinians by prohibiting visas and travel for all members of the PA and the Palestinian Libertation Organization (PLO), including those with no connection to Hamas.  This overly strict provision would prevent the U.S. from fully engaging moderate leaders, like President Mahmoud Abbas, who support peace with Israel.

The State Department opposes the bill in its current form, arguing that the restrictions are onerous and unnecessary.  Several leading pro-Israel organizations have registered their opposition to the bill, including the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and Americans for Peace Now.  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes the bill, as does Churches for Middle East Peace, a coalition representing 21 mainstream Christian denominations and organizations.  Also compelling is the lack of any endorsement from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or his administration.  

Polls show that a majority of Americans are disatisfied with the performance of the President and Congress.  While Democrats are viewed more favorably, the opinions of the public are not overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats.  In essence, the Democrats are the lessor of two evils.  Any visit to your favorite blogs confirms the sentiment.  The progressive movement should play into this negative attitude the public has toward politicians and hammer a "throw the bums out" approach by voters this fall.

If every incumbent politician from both parties were to lose this November, the Democrats would have the majority in Congress.  Likewise, we would win in some of the critical states that haven't seen a Democratic governor as of late (CA, NY, MA, OH).  The risk in promoting a movement toward voting out all electeds in reality is minimal, since Democrats would benefit with high turnover.  At same time, there is the added reward that entrenched Democrat incumbants, who are the bain of the party (for instance, Joe Lieberman), would be thrown out of office.

Now, I think we can all agree that we all would prefer new leadership and are working diligently on campaigns to bring in new electeds.  The difference in this approach, though, is that people don't trust either party and may be willing to listen to neutral sources advocating pink slips for all of our electeds, rather than those who appear to have partisan interests.  To do this, we should invade the airwaves, editorials and online message boards with calls to throw the bums out in 2006.

The main talking point among activists should be an impassioned plea to bring in some new leadership to the Capitol and our state houses because the old ones are stained with corruption and are inept.  To justify this, we can look no further than the fact that the House will only convene 90 days this year while more and more Americans are seeking additional employment just to be able to pay their bills.

While I think the culture of corruption has a nice ring when criticizing Republicans, we must also be aware of the fact that, for many voters, they don't see the current batch of Dems as being all that great either.  Therefore, we must be cognizant of the weaknesses of our electeds and respond accordingly.  

If we can foster a stronger surge in anti-incumbent sentiments then I believe progressives and Democrats win.  It is about time that corrupt conservatives (whether there is a D or R next to their name) leave the halls of Congress so the business of the American public can be done.  

As last week showed us, the divisions over immigration reform run deep.  While there are issues that need to be discussed about border patrol and the use of illegal immigrants to drive down wages, there is a serious human rights issue at stake and unfortunately, the rhetoric of hate and racism has steered its ugly head into the immigration debate.  The current debate is a racially charged assault on hardworking people.  It's not about the law.  The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want this debate steered by hate or have the debate be about what this country should ideally stand for and the best way to ensure that America still stands for opportunity.

At some point, all of our families came over to this country with a dream and hope for something better.  We are all lucky to be where we are today because of the sacrifices these immigrants made.  Immigrants have helped craft the mosaic that is America.  They have added to our culture and are a part of the ever-evolving definition of what it is to be an American.

We cannot let the immigration debate die and only have the echos of hate remain.  There must be a continued voice emphasizing the values this community brings and the critical role they play in our everyday lives.  Immigrants have built our past.  We must not forget this.  

Let your voice be head this week.  Please stand with our immigrant past and future.

This week the Senate Judiciary Committee is marking up Sen. Specter's immigration reform proposal.  I have noticed little discussion on this site of the policy and political implications of this reform effort.  Hopefully this will begin a thread on what is the best approach to handling immigration.

There is a divide in this country between supporting legalization of the millions of Americans already working here and criminalizing these people.  If it were as easy as saying they broke the law and should be punished, then you would be ignoring the complexity of immigration.  

People come here for a variety of reasons, but mainly it for opportunity.  They are recruited by businesses, mainly the agricultural sector, but also many small businesses and the wealthy who seek cheap domestic labor.  They do the jobs that most Americans would prefer not to do.  

They are also recruited by the American dream.  In most countries around the world, the opportunities we often take for granted are not available.  Building a wall, criminalizing the act, or using racially charged rhetoric will not serve to stop people from pursuing the American dream.  

We need a debate on what is the root cause of why people immigrate and what policy decisions need to be made to ensure people choose legal alternatives or stay at home.  Maybe its a matter of reviewing current immigration quotas and actually enabling people to come here legally or it is a matter of shifting our trade policies to promote stronger economies and governments in Latin America in order to give people a reason to stay in their country of origin.  

Solely discussing immigration in terms of legal and illegal does nothing to calm the flood of immigration.  Calling them criminals and trying to deport everyone here is logistically impossible and will only serve to drain our already limited resources.  Businesses will continue to have an incentive to bring in illegal immigrants so long as the labor is cheap and the overhead prices remain high for hiring US workers.  People from other countries will choose to come here so long as the Latin regional politics and economy remain chaotic, impoverished and offer little opportunity for upward mobility.    

Hopefully our party will take a stand and actually delve into more than just rhetoric and look at the root causes of immigration and take multi-pronged approaches.  Politically this issue is a minefield.  Should we seek to appease the growing Latino community and businesses dependent on these laborers?  Or should we appease the nationalistic sentiments by the anti-immigration forces?  We can't please everyone, but hopefully our electeds will have the courage to promote policy decisions that promote America's core values and take a broader perspective on the realities on the ground.