Over at Soob, Curtis has a comment that highlights the race- and ancestry- based nature of Obama’s campaign. Most of it is as expected (essentially: Obama’s support from blacks is transnational). However, two quotes from an article by the niche newspaper Washington Informer has Curtis all abuzz. The relevant sections appear to be:
Former high-ranking Indian United Nations diplomat and columnist Shashi Tharoor was quoted in a recent TIME magazine article as saying that â€œAn Obama victory would fulfill everything the rest of the world has been told America could be, but hasnâ€™t quite been.â€
Obama is effectively the “Afro-Asian candidate” of the emerging developing world anchored by his family roots in Kenya, the economic hub of East Africa and Indonesia, the worldâ€™s largest Muslim country and the leading economy in the Association of South East Asian Nations.
From this poor foundation (an assertion by one Indian and the editorializing of the article itself), Curtis concludes “The “Africa” connection has been expanded to the “Asia” connection, or effect as you called it, following Obama’s success in the primary:.” After linking two the articles and posting an excerpt smaller than the one I did, Curtis concludes, “Etc. Etc.”
Obama’s race-based campaign is sickening enough without the nonsense he inspires among his supporters. Now, it may be the case that an Obama presidency campaign would be a net-positive for the United States in Asia. I find this unlikely: Asians are one of the groups most hostile to Barack Obama in the United States, and this is true among both foreign-born and American-born Asians. But Curtis does not bother to link to a single opinion poll, describe a single election, or even do anything except take the apparent endorsement of two men (Mr. Tharoor and Francis Kornegay) and conclude “etc. etc.”
Obama should reject and denounce his race-based supporters, out of concern for the United States. And Obama supporters should argue that anecdotes do not a valid argument make.
Courtesy of Catholicgauze, good news about replication of the Baghdad “walls” strategy in our nation’s capital:
Geographic Travels with Catholicgauze!: Geography of Denial of Movement
All this is an effort to finally bring order to some of the worst parts of the nationâ€™s capital. The plan has some recent precedents supporting it. Walls in Baghdad have managed to keep fighting neighboring ethnic groups separate. The walls, especially those keeping back Sadrâ€™s Mahdi Army, have been credited in lowering the level of violence. The Israeli government is building barriers between Israel-proper and the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The West Bank Wall is praised by some for preventing infiltration by suicide bombers.
The way denial of movement works is 1) it is harder for an outsider to enter another neighborhood and cause trouble (people usually do not wage violence near their homes) 2) law enforcement has greater ground knowledge of what is going on (it is much easier to control a smaller area than a larger area) and 3) increased police presences acts as a signal showing who is in control.
This is a good idea. The question then becomes which of the major candidates supports it? Obama’s record is a weak on urban COIN, so the question is: does Barack Obama support a ‘Surge’ in Washington?
I guess no.
Update: Fabius Maximus has more on this good news.
The Democratic Primary race is over, with South Dakota’s last-in-the-nation primary brining the fight to a close. Looking at the map is informative, as most of South Dakota’s neighbors already “voted” in caucuses. South Dakota went for Hillary by 11 points, in spite of an endorsement by former Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Most of South Dakota’s neighbors went for Obama.
This implies that Barack Obama’s support within the Democratic Party has seriously eroded since earlier this year (likely), that Barack Obama does better in caucuses than in elections where the old and the working can vote (likely), or both (also likely).
Obama now limps past the finish line, Obama’s all but certainly won the majority of Democratic delegates, while Clinton wins a pluraity of Democratic votes. Thus, November will likely see a race between John McCain and Barack Obama.
As someone who wants what good things for our country, it’s disturbing that Barack Obama is one step closer to becoming President. We already had Jimmy Carter, and he didnt’ work out. But as someone who wants what’s best for the Republican Party, I need to thank the Democratic party machine. They will chose the most racially and chronically divisive viable candidate, one who gives the Republicans the best shot of winning the Presidency and America the best shot at a divided government.
So to Democrats who supported Barack Obama: thank you. Just keep up the crazy talk (Obama will end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Obama doesn’t believe in war as a tool of policy; Obama will meet with hostile foreign leaders regardless of the circumstances, etc). I already know that Obama supports both sides of every policy (Obama will implement a Surge in Afghanistan; Obama will invade Pakistan, Obama will not meet with Iran unless his preconditions are met, etc). He just can do the most damage to himself if his supporters emphasizes the crazier sides he supports.