castro? check. hamas? check. chavez? check.
by Jon Chun
Published: June 11, 2008
So as I scan over the battlefield that is the Democratic primary season, in search of clues that would help explain how Obama was able to make his campaign stand out in the minds and hearts of America’s left, I can only find one true difference between the two candidates: Obama cornered the market for political endorsements from leaders of oppressive governments and terrorist organizations the world over.
Seriously, how could Clinton stand a chance when, one by one, bad guys all over the globe seemed to fall under Obama’s spell? She never had a prayer - and rightfully so. We’ve tried bombing our enemies, fighting them in the streets, threatening them with and then imposing embargos - and nothing seems to solve our foreign-policy woes. So Americans have rightfully demanded a new approach, a smoother approach. America wants a man who can induce man crushes amongst our enemies. And who better to woo governments and organizations bent on anti-Americanism than Grammy-Award-winning Barack Obama?
Just check out Barack’s long list of suiters and consider the oft repeated phrase, “If you can’t beat ‘em, tell them how much you’d love to talk to them.”
In response to Obama’s overtures, Fidel Castro has recently stated that Barack Obama is “the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency” and that he is a man of “great intelligence” who is a “talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race.” Let’s face it, any time your campaign gets the thumbs up from a man who is at the forefront of a revolution that has provided millions of islanders with poverty, political oppression and reason to flee the country in floating 1955 Chevys, it’s bound to give you a boost at the polls.
But as clutch as the Castro endorsement was, it pales - I mean pales - in comparison to the endorsement given by Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef, who stated, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections.” My only question for Mr. Yousef is, “Which elections?” Obviously, the first one would be the general election in the United States. But after November, what other elections are there? Is Hamas holding a primary also? If so, and if Mr. Yousef is pushing for Obama to join the ticket, I’m wondering if Obama would sign on given the following quotes from Hamas’ very own charter:
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
As good as that line is, it can’t touch this next gem: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it. Just as it obliterated others before it.”
Now don’t me wrong, I’m not saying that Obama is going to run the United States and Hamas. I mean, for heaven’s sake, the guy’s only got one term in the Senate under his belt. Though I’m certain that he’s capable of delivering awesome speeches and inflicting severe damage on the market system in America, I think Hamas would be asking too much of him to also provide the world with “The Final Solution” that has eluded nut-jobs, lunatics and psychopaths for generations. At this point, the whole idea of a joint Obama/Yousef ticket is pure speculation.
Back on the American Continent, Hugo Chavez stopped just short of an outright endorsement when he stated back in March, “Sometimes one says, ‘worse than Bush is impossible,’ but we don’t know… [because] McCain also seems to be a man of war.” Combine that slight on the Republican ticket with his “hope for the level of relations we had with ex-President Clinton” and wallah: Chavez wants an open dialog with U.S. and Obama is the only candidate who’s on the record with a promise to deliver. Ergo, Chavez is voting for Obama.
And thus, with the addition of Castro to the Obama camp, Barack has become the only candidate in American history to achieve the coveted endorsement trifecta of commies, terrorists and fascists. Personally, I’m extremely excited to see the realization of the changes everyone believes in - including Castro, Hamas and Chavez. No wonder the Democrats are coming out in record numbers. 2009 is going to be a blast!
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(15)
June 12th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Obama’s mass appeal to Democrats and voters across the political spectrum is unrelated to whatever appeal he may present to the listed foreign leaders. The rooster crows and then the sun rises but the rooster does not make the sun rise.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
It’s an amazing skill isn’t it. To be able to disagree with someone’s view points, and still have them like you as a person.
I disagree with a lot of my friends about a lot of things from politics to religion to sports, but we can still be friends, because while we disagree horrendously, we can still show respect for each other and manage to find some common ground where we do agree.
This is what narrow minded conservatives need to understand. Someone disagrees with you, and you think the only action is to stop talking to them, sanction them, or go to war.
We don’t have to give in to Iran or Cuba, we don’t have to negotiate with them in anyway. We just have to stop electing arrogant *** holes, and you’ll find that being willing to talk to these leaders, and understanding how to talk to them, will show the world that we’re the good guys in this fight. That alone will do more to win the war on Terror than anything else you could possibly imagine.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Abdullah? Check. Jintao? Check. Nazarbayev? Check. Aliyev? Check.
At least Chavez and the Hamas regime were, you know, elected. Get on with it…
June 13th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Chavez is a thug. If you don’t agree, just find your nearest Venezuelan and he/she will set you straight. Hamas is a known terrorist organization. Their funnist group activity is to lob missiles into civilian population centers. I don’t see how being popularly elected makes that better. Castro’s brother only recently has allowed Cubans to own cell phones and stay at ritzy hotels. How revolutionary of him.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I’m sorry, did I actually defend any of them? Or did I merely point out in my two line comment that the GOP actively pursues the recognition and acceptance of these leaders? Because that’s what I was going for and thought I’d achieved.
So your counter argument to my statement that the sitting administration fully endorses at least three vicious autocratic regimes and another that doesn’t really mind killing off its own citizens for the greater good is what again? Or would my local Venezuelan be able to decipher that for me too…
Well done.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:19 am
The fact is, both Republican and Democratic presidents have tried to get the approval and/or cooperate with evil tyrants and dictators from the old Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and others for a long time. I don’t know why they believe it is possible to find peace with evil men who don’t even honor the most basic and God-given human rights tot their own people, but they try over and over again. And it’s not just the United States. Many democratic societies over the years have tried to be on “good terms” with oppressive regimes under plans called things like “appeasement” and “detente.”
The only truly notable exceptions I can think of right now are Ronald Reagen, who called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and told them our international affairs with them would be based on their treatment of their citizens, and the current Bush who has vowed (whatever you want to argue about how bad he is for whatever reason) to fight terrorism until it is extinct. I shudder to think how many times we’d have to see our president shaking hands with tyrannical leaders if Obama was president. Goodbye freedom and a chance of future peace with the Middle East, for sure.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:20 am
If anyone cares to read a good book where this theory is expounded, I can point you to Natan Sharansky’s “The Case for Democracy.”
June 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Read it. My favorite line is the part where he says that a foreign government that won’t respect it’s own citizens rights, won’t respect American citizen’s rights.
Though Bush endorsed the book, I wish he would take a hint from its author and stop paying N Korea’s bribes. Our insistence on paying off foreign thugs just because they’re not commies or islamofascists or whatever has done alot more damage than we care to admit.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Obama is not a Commie, Facists or Terrorist and the loose association with the three mentioned categories is weak.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Yeah, thought I believe the Bush administration is doing a better job than most our presidents this century with placing pressure on Middle Eastern countries to improve the living conditions of their people and give them more basic rights, it would be nice if Bush acted on the principles he endorses as much as he preaches them.
I might be wrong, but I don’t see anyone seriously calling Obama any of those things, but if he’s going to consciously or unconsciously support and prop up nondemocraic societies like Iran, the PA, and Saudi Arabia, as America has done for half a century, what does it matter if he believes in fascism, communism, or terrorism? The point is, he (not to single him out, just he’s the case in point) is not fighting them, so he’s helping them.