Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
 
 
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
24 December 2013 Tuesday
 
 
Today's Zaman
 
 
 
 
Diplomacy 25 April 2008, Friday 0 0
0
ALİ H. ASLAN
[email protected]
ALİ H. ASLAN

Tested by time

The US presidential election saga continued with another episode in the Democratic Party primaries in Pennsylvania won decisively by Senator Hillary Clinton.
That doesn't give us a clear idea of the endgame though, since numerical and financial prospects overall still give a slight edge to Senator Barack Obama for the foreseeable future. Yes, exhaustive and increasingly negative inner party rivalry hurts the Democratic Party and gives an advantage to Republican candidate Senator John McCain. However, the prolonged process has been most useful for US democracy since the American people are getting to know and test their possible future leaders better, especially on the Democratic side.

The longer the race is, the more skeletons we observe coming out of the closet. Thanks to tapes that appeared all of the sudden, the American people just recently learned that Obama's favorite pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, has many politically incorrect positions on issues like US policy vis-à-vis Israel. Another explosive issue came out of secret recordings of an originally off-the-record San Francisco meeting where Obama suggested that small town people in America's heartland "cling to guns and religion" when they become "bitter."

Religion, guns and Israel -- no presidential candidate can remain unscathed in this political culture if he or she leaves the safe mainstream road on any of those issues, let alone all of them. Only time will tell what will happen to Obama, especially if he grabs his party's nomination.  

Time will also help us learn how far Madame Clinton can go in resorting to nasty political tactics when confronted with a tough challenge. The New York Times editorial page was furious with the hometown senator due to her vicious campaign against Obama in Pennsylvania. In the meantime, Clinton was also caught misleading the American public with claims that she had to run from a sniper attack in Bosnia. Being first lady of a president impeached under charges of perjury due to extra-marital affairs with Monica Lewinsky, one would have hoped that Clinton had become more careful about her own integrity. Again, time will tell how all this will play out into the larger game.

Time is useful in getting more clarification on the foreign policy positions of the presidential hopefuls as well. The next president's foreign policy will largely be defined by how to deal with Iran, which doesn't seem to want to give in on nuclear issues, Iraq and the Palestinian question. So let's take that as our main example. Given his harsh rhetoric and military background, it looks like McCain will not pursue a very different policy than the current Bush administration on Iran. It's no accident that he is surrounded by so many neocons. However, it is more interesting to watch the Iran dynamics when it comes to Democratic candidates, especially Clinton.

Although Clinton is one of the most hawkish Democratic senators on Iran, over time her tone has come closer and closer to McCain's. Clinton told ABC television on Tuesday that she wanted the Iranians to know that "if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacks Israel]. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." She later clarified her comments about totally obliterating Iran as an attempt to return the United States to Cold War style deterrence. But her bolder tone is obvious; part of the reason for this might be the fact that her campaign falls short of competing with Obama financially and she wants to draw more attention from donors who are very concerned about the plight of Israel. Plus, tough talk can buy some of the votes she desperately needs to narrow Obama's relatively safe delegate lead.

Obama may be less militaristic than Clinton, but his position on Iran is essentially not that different from Clinton's, as last week's televised debate confirmed. Both leaders lent great support to Israel and conveyed their dedication to dealing with Iran effectively. Obama's main difference is that he uses softer language and he is open to direct dialogue with top Iranian leaders whereas Clinton only approves of lower level engagement at first.

It should be noted that the Wright controversy pushed Obama toward a more Israel lobby-friendly and Islamophobic rhetoric. On March 18, he was describing Wright's view as one which sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam." Under immense pressure, he had to distance himself from his spiritual mentor and his Kenyan father's religion. Some pro-Israel circles have been instrumental in highlighting Obama's middle name, Hussain, and spreading the rumors that he practiced Islam -- a deadly sin for any US presidential candidate for the time being.

Politicians are best tested when confronted with real pressure. And it is better that such tests come before they are elected. A prolonged contest among Democrats is good in this sense. I look forward to learning more about the character and ideas of the candidates. Too bad we can't do this as effectively with Senator McCain yet.

Columnists Previous articles of the columnist
...
Bloggers