Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Dear Senator Obama (ovvero, ecco chi è Obama, ecco chi ha vinto davvero)

Dear Senator Obama:
In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words "hope and
change," "change and hope" have been your trademark declarations. Yet
there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political
character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not "hope
and change" but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo. 
Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented
contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most
interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a
Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his
Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the
$700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests
investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state
Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign
record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling,
corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any
comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the
bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you
are their man?
To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character,
courage, integrity-- not expediency, accommodation and short-range
opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate
defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S.
Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which
bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization
and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and
their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman
summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation
magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of
Jewish-Americans.
You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the
Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a
detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of
Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful
resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with
the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to
the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the
Democratic Party, you supported an "undivided Jerusalem," and opposed
negotiations with Hamas-- the elected government in Gaza. Once again,
you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll
by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored
"direct negotiations with Hamas." Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is
what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace
with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote "Anti-semitism
today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state."
During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes
of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to
Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the
brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal,
cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United
Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during
the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400
Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that
decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab
League's 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the
1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations
between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap
politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much
shock and little awe.
David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip
succinctly: "There was almost a willful display of indifference to the
fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a
candidate, but not as a President."
Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not
utter a single criticism of Israel, "of its relentless settlement and
wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions
of Palestinians. ...Even the Bush administration recently criticized
Israeli's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see
www.atfl.org
 for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli's assault on
Lebanon as an exercise of its 'legitimate right to defend itself.'"
In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized
the Israeli government's assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks
on "the heart of a crowded refugee camp... with horrible bloodshed" in
early 2008.
Israeli writer and peace advocate-- Uri Avnery-- described Obama's
appearance before AIPAC as one that "broke all records for
obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama "is prepared to sacrifice
the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital
interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to
find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama
has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future-- if
and when he is elected president.," he said, adding, "Of one thing I am
certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad
for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the
world and bad for the Palestinian people."
A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you
turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to
send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited
numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque
in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington
D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a
frightened major religious group of innocents.
Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008
titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama" (by Andrea Elliott),
citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all
walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the
American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune
published an article by Roger Cohen titled "Why Obama Should Visit a
Mosque." None of these comments and reports change your political
bigotry against Muslim-Americans-- even though your father was a Muslim
from Kenya.
Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even
the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of
the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking
at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former
presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.
Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but
his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid
Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to
sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy
Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a
stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of
a film about the Carter Center's post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack
Obama!
But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of
American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt
Gonzalez, on 
www.votenader.org
). You have turned your back on the
100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans,
and Latinos. You always mention helping the "middle class" but you omit,
repeatedly, mention of the "poor" in America.
Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented
upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that
spoke "change" yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration
power of the "corporate supremacists." It must be about shifting the
power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over
by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and
abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor,
consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It
must be a White House that is transforming of American politics--
opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary
approaches)-- and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be
heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil
liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.
Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly
stands. "Hope" some say springs eternal." But not when "reality"
consumes it daily.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2083-Between-Hope-and-Reality.html#extended
T.

puoi andare a protestare davanti l'ambasciata statunitense.
-- 
"La rivista - allo stato delle cose - sarebbe forse piu' in linea se
alla nomenclatura "Famiglia Cristiana" aggiungesse: allineata  o
sintonia  con Unita', Repubblica, Espresso, Riformista"
                                              [Luigino Ferrari]