Barack Obama, Naderite

A presidential election ends in a bitterly contested result, and Barack Obama offers this analysis:

"It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place...the difference...in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised."

It's like 2000 all over again!

ADDING: There are a few key differences, though:

• The right-wing scumbag who's claiming victory may actually have won the election.
• Peevish Mousavi voters aren't whining that Mehdi Karroubi was nothing but a spoiler who threw the election to Ahmadinejad.
• Iranians are rioting in the streets to demand their rights, whereas their American counterparts signed numerous online petitions and even made a phone call or two.

Comments

[Catherine]

A presidential election ends in a bitterly contested result, and Barack Obama offers this analysis:
"It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place...the difference...in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised."

Meaning, "Don't worry, we can still bomb the shit out of them."

I've been hoping that this situation will protect Iran from US/Israel bomes, at least for a time. What do you think, John?

[John Caruso]

Good question. As you say, I imagine it will help in the short run (while the current drama is playing out). Even Israel is circumspect enough to realize how badly airstrikes now would damage them politically.

But in the long run, if Ahmadinejad assumes office (as seems likely), this will only make the propaganda that much stronger: he's a dictator who stole an "election" to cement his iron grip on power, the Iranian people are yearning for us to free them from his clutches, etc. So on the whole I'd say it's anywhere from neutral to bad.

[Christopher Wing]

I rioted, but nobody joined in. And then the people at Starbucks beat me up for almost breaking their window.

[Thomas Daulton]

Matt Bors beat you to the latter joke, I'm afraid.

http://www.mattbors.com/archives/530.html

[Thomas Daulton]

D'ohhh!! And then Ted Rall talks with Matt and adds his 2-cents today:

http://www.rall.com/2009/06/cartoon-for-june-18-2009.html

This is the frustrating thing about America. Enough of us see what's happening, and talk about it, that the rest of us really have no excuse for our apathy. Yet in the end the apathy always wins out, here. Sic transit gloria.

[Thomas Daulton]

...could also be argued, though, that scores of millions of us (around the world) took to the streets in February of 2003. And then the Republican Administration just ignored us and did what it felt like doing, with the full complicity of the Democrats. They have negated and marginalized all resistance, even millions of us -- they know it, and we know it.

[SteveB]

Iranians are rioting in the streets to demand their rights, whereas their American counterparts signed numerous online petitions and even made a phone call or two.

Apparently, you've forgotten about these guys.

[Bill Jones]

what do you think the U.S. response to a movement that actually threatened change would be?

[John Caruso]

Christopher: Keep at it! Especially in Starbucks.

Bill: Good question. As violent as Iran's initially, no doubt, though I wonder what would happen if a movement here became truly massive.

Thomas: By that standard the Iranians should have come out to protest for one day, decided the mullahs had negated and marginalized all resistance, and then given up. For the next decade or so.

The problem with the protests here wasn't that they were ignored—it's that they weren't continued (and escalated). I'm not saying success would have been guaranteed by continuing, of course, but failure was certainly guaranteed by giving up.

[Duncan]

I think you're being very unfair to Ahmadinejad! Sure, he's not perfect, but I'm sure his virtues outweigh his defects. Give him time, he's playing eleven-dimensional chess with his opponents, and he can't say what he really means, because people aren't ready for it. Besides, you don't want Bush back, do you?

[SteveB]

The problem with the protests here wasn't that they were ignored—it's that they weren't continued (and escalated). I'm not saying success would have been guaranteed by continuing, of course, but failure was certainly guaranteed by giving up.

But isn't a key difference that the Iranians have, in Moussavi, a candidate who hasn't already conceded defeat? It's hard to go to the wall in support of a "losing" candidate who's already announced that he's accepted his loss, and has even acted to suppress dissenting voices in his capacity as President of the Senate. I'm willing to admit I don't have the courage of the average Iranian, if we can also agree that Al Gore doesn't have the courage of the average earthworm.

[John Caruso]

Actually I was responding to Thomas's point about the Iraq war protests.

...Al Gore doesn't have the courage of the average earthworm.

You're certainly not going to get any argument from me on that.