Foreign Policy

For Our Virginia Readers: Election Guide

Virginia continues to be a key state in setting the political tone in America. I have believed since 2004 that Virginia is a state that can be slowly turned blue. The elections of 2005 and 2006 support my belief. This year the trend continues as we may well easily win the VA Senate race, and Barack Obama is consistently well ahead of McCain in this once safe-red state. But the House races also interest me, both because of our chances of winning a few, but also because the Dem candidates seem to be a particularly good bunch. I think we have a shot at winning VA-11, VA-10 and VA-2, and, with a little more effort, maybe even VA-5. And in each case the Democratic Candidate offers experience that America definitely needs after 8 years of Bush mismanagement. Let me give you a rundown of these four candidates. For all of them you can help by donating through my Virginia Act Blue Site or by volunteering through their websites.


mole333's picture

| | | | | | | |


Joe Biden cracks me up.

OMFG!

This is why I love this man. When he minces with words, he totally cracks or shocks people up.

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.


liza's picture

| | | | | |


What is it to be a true conservative, from one of their horses mouths


I got this video clip via Andrew Sullivan via Memeorandum. Two things immediately jump out of this video.

1. What the Southern Avenger says here is in line with what a lot of liberals and progressives have been saying for the last eight years : That people like George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin are extremists and not conservatives at all.

2. Exactly because the argument of this video is that true conservatives are against the war, I find interesting that Andrew Sullivan doesn't waste time to call out the author a paleo-conservative. And yet, if you go to the guys' website ... paleoconservative is the last word to come to my mind.

What do you think?


liza's picture

| | | | | | |


Rudy Giuliani: No Policy on Palestine

Rudy Giuliani has, in essence, announced a lack of policy regarding Palestine. Rudy has decided to emulate the early Bush policy of ignoring Palestine as a legitimate player in the game of Middle East politics, a policy that failed miserably, aiding the rise of Hamas.

From Salon.com:

Outlining his foreign policy views in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Giuliani said "too much emphasis" has been placed on brokering negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians -- an apparent swipe at President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who have been pushing both sides for final status negotiations despite Hamas's takeover of Gaza in June.

"It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism," the former New York City mayor said.

"Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel," Giuliani said...

Interestingly, when Bush first took over the Presidency, he too ignored the United State's role in brokering negotiations between Israel and Palestine, allowing the situation between Israel and Palestine to spiral into violence and chaos. This helped the rise of Hamas, a true terrorist regime.


mole333's picture

| | |


US Foreign Policy: Complete Failure

I recently wrote about the very strong possibility that Zimbabwe is well on its way to complete collapse, which would almost certainly mean tragedy as bad or worse than we saw in Rwanda, Cambodia and Bosnia and are currently seeing in Darfur.

But, turns out that, according to an analysis published in Foreign Policy magazine, Zimbabwe is not at the top of the list of failed states...at least not yet. Perhaps not surprisingly the Sudan leads the list as the most unstable nation on earth. Neglect by the international community is cited as part of the reason for the situation in both the Sudan and Zimbabwe. But for two states among the top ten failed states, neglect is not the problem. Iraq is number two and Afghanistan is number 8. Interestingly our ally, Pakistan at number 12, does slightly worse than North Korea, which comes in at number 13.

The rankings take into account 12 factors, including economy, human rights, refugees, etc.

No one would look at North Korea or Zimbabwe and see them as anything but failed or failing states. Dictatorship by a corrupt and self-serving leadership is ruining these, and other, nations in a very predictable way. And the crises in Somalia and Sudan, for example, are clearly crises that could have been dealt with better had the international community done something before things got this bad. In the case of Somalia are best opportunity was early in the Clinton Administration where we had secured most of the nation. But a single petty strongman shooting down a single helicopter, spooked Republicans in Congress who proceeded to insist that we cut and run from Somalia. We left, allowing the nation to collapse into such chaos that Islamic Fundamentalists (with al-Qaeda links) and Ethiopia became the competing chances for some semblance stability.


mole333's picture

| | | | | |


BIll Richardson Succeeds in North Korea: THIS is why we need a man like him

Interestingly, Democrats are already starting to take over the job of President. Bush can't get anything done when it comes to North Korea. But in no time, Bill Richardson goes over there and negotiates a deal.

For those who only knows Richardson as a governor, keep in mind that he has diplomatic credentials: he has been US Ambassador to the UN under Clinton (back when we actually were respected in the world) and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times for his diplomatic efforts.

So, when Bush sent him to negotiate with North Korea it was an almost unprecedented event in the Bush administration: a good idea. Richardson was supposedly going to negotiate the return of the remains of a US serviceman. Honestly that always sounded a bit odd. The fanfare was too much for that. Turns out he was negotiating getting inspectors back in. From KOBTV in New Mexico:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s visit to North Korea appears to be yielding unexpected fruit.

Richardson, part of a bipartisan delegation dispatched to North Korea to return remains of U.S. MIAs, appears to have secured a concession from the communist state on its developing nuclear weapons program.


mole333's picture

| | | | | |


Bush does one thing right: Bill Richardson going to North Korea

No...despite what it seems, we have not become the Bill Richardson blog. But each of us in our own way have started to take notice of the man. Edwards and Richardson seem the best of the candidates...except for the money issue.

Bill Richardson has great diplomatic experience and his skills as a negotiator have gotten him nominated for the Nobel Peace prize some four times. So this is a guy who should be used when there is a delicate diplomatic situation (and when our BEST diplomat, Nobel Prize WINNER Jimmy Carter, is unavailable).

And our usually dense President appears to have noticed that Richardson is a diplomatic resource worth using. Bill Richardson has been tapped by Bush to lead a delegation to North Korea to negotiate the return of the remains of missing US servicemen.

Best of luck Bill!


mole333's picture

| | |


VIDEO - Bill Richardson rocks a crowd of NYCers



THE DAILY GOTHAM PRESENTS: Bill Richardson

March is an insane month for the amount of political events you can go to. The proof is in the amount of political heavy hitters DL21C was able to wrangle during that month : Jon Kerry, Wesley Clark, John Tester, John Edwards, Bill Richardson. It is also an insane month for the amount of technology and media conferences you can get invited to, the most important (at least for me) being SXSW --but there's eTech and IDPI as well.

I missed almost all the events involving presidential candidates because of the amount of conferences I was involved in during the month of March. Once I was done with my last one, ARC's national conference on "Facing Race", I was free to enjoy a candidate or two by the end of the month. I wasn't able to make it to the John Edwards event (I was having some fun at a party with Nancy Pelosi).

So 3/26 was Bill Richardson's lucky number.


liza's picture

| | | | | | | | | |


Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Buy it!


Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Google Ads

The Big Dialog


Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 643 guests online.

Online users

Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Words to live by

I of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what?


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify