The New Hampshire Blues

Our New Year's resolution: we'll get better than this once-a-week thing, give you more frequent updates and broadened 'coverage.' For now, let's deal with the ridiculous theatrics of electoral politics in America.

Uncharacteristically for Alex Cockburn, this piece he coauthored with Jeffrey St Clair is seriously fucking boring and poorly written, but is as good a place as any to start engaging with the Iowa/New Hampshire caucus/primary nonsense. Looking to characterize Obama as somehow separate from the Democratic party 'elite'--to us, though, he may not be a former First Lady, but he is sure as shit among the cream of the party crop--Cockburn/St Clair spend most of their time attesting to Obama's ability to expand the American electorate, particularly among young voters. We can't argue that this isn't, ultimately, a positive effect, but in this video for The Guardian Ken Silverstein points out something that has been bugging us for months now: what is it about him, aside from, say, his name, that makes Obama so opposed to the democratic mainstream? Yes, he's smart and charismatic, and he is clearly, for many Americans, a figure for change--but what no one seems to be asking is what does that change represent for Obama himself? We'd also like to call your attention to two articles that try to answer that question: one is on his outlook regarding a long-standing blindspot for both the Democratic and Republican parties. The other is about his assertion that American military intervention in Pakistan should not be taken off the table is being used as justification for such action by the Bush administration. (See, also, Aijaz Ahmad on this possibility, and on recent developments in Pakistan in general.)

But Cockburn and St Clair's embarrassing leniency with the other victor in the Iowa caucus, Mike Huckabee, is perhaps a worse offense. Citing Huckabee's 'tolerance' towards immigrants (something he shares, of course, with George W Bush) and 'compassion' against convicted criminals, they ignore Huckabee's noted rejection of the scientific theory of evolution, as well as his declared intent to seek a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which are just two of his most terrifying positions. Cockburn has recently been softly defending Huckabee's candidacy, shrugging off complaints from the Left that his outspoken evangelism may prove just a bit problematic as mere 'bigotry' or misguided 'hee-haws'.

Huckabee, taking after the Israelis, is on the record: supporting a border wall between the US and Mexico and no amnesty for illegal immigrants; insisting that his faith 'defines' his life; maintaining that America must support Israel as 'the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East', with no mention whatsoever of the Palestinians under occupation; that the war in Iraq is part of a 'generational' and 'ideological' struggle against terrorism, that a timeline for withdrawal is not in US interests (with the corollary that withdrawal would result in a humanitarian catastrophe for Iraqis, as if this didn't already exist); that Fidel Castro is indeed the Bogeyman; that the Second Amendment is a backbone of American democracy; that progressive taxation is, in effect, economic discrimination against the rich; claiming that the US is engaged in a 'world war' with radical Islam (hence going further than even George Bush was willing to) and must as such engage 'moderates' in the Middle East and South Asia. We'll stop there but you're welcome to check mikehuckabee.com for more information.

Alexander Cockburn: quit defending Huckabee as representative of some sort of new-fangled 'populism'. You're too smart to be so completely blindsided.

Oh, and Hillary, for all her tears, is most certainly going down.