US Predators Provoke Pakistan by Michael Carmichael

by Michael Carmichael
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
March 26, 2009

Commenting to the New York Times about the rapidly deteriorating situation in Pakistan, Admiral Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, admitted, “No one that I have talked to has come up with a grand strategy for that area.”

Given the now official fact of a strategy vacuum for Pakistan as well as the smoldering carcass of US strategy in Afghanistan, the US has continued the Bush Era tactic of launching drone missile strikes against targets the CIA has identified as outposts of Al Qaeda. While the CIA claims that US Predator drones have killed a few of the multitude of ‘senior leaders’ of Al Qaeda, to date the result is far from impressive — for there is a steadily rising mountain of civilian corpses killed by unmanned missiles that is producing a searing political backlash in the nuclear-armed nation.

Continue reading

Towards An Even-handed Foreign Policy in the US Congress? Rep. Dennis Kucinich leads a new trend

Dandelion Salad

Updated: 1.28.09 added the list of Congress people who have spoken out; see “Thoughtful Statements” below

by Michael Carmichael
Global Research, January 26, 2009

According to astute observers — there is a new trend in Congress in favor of a more even-handed approach to foreign policy. The bipartisan group, Council for the National Interest hails Congressman Dennis Kucinich as the leader of the new trend.

The Council for the National Interest (CNI) was founded by former Congressman Paul Findley. CNI is a bipartisan group that supports a more balanced and even-handed US foreign policy in the Middle East.

For a host of reasons from the environment to foreign policy to healthcare to banking and economic reform, Dennis Kucinich is rightfully regarded as the leader of the progressive caucus in the US House of Representatives. In recent weeks, Kucinich led the opposition to the resolution backing Israel’s war against Gaza – H. Res. 34.

In a formal statement citing Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibits attacks on civilian populations, Kucinich called on Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to launch an independent United Nations enquiry into the recent Gaza War.

Continue reading

Obama’s Pivot by Michael Carmichael

Dandelion Salad

by Michael Carmichael
Global Research
June 23, 2008

In the closing minutes of his epic battle with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama unveiled a brilliant new tactic: he pivoted and ran against John McCain. Obama’s focus on McCain rather than his primary opponent gave him presidential stature that led to the collapse of Clinton’s last vestiges of political support. Led by Rahm Emanuel, a stalwart Clintonian factotum and grandee of the now obsolete DLC, the exodus from Clinton’s campaign recalled the whoosh of gas escaping from a hot air balloon over the Grand Canyon.

The morning after his victory in the final primary in Montana, Obama found himself in a totally new and much more dangerous political landscape at the opening of the next precarious phase of the marathon for the White House. Of course, there were the secret meetings between Obama and Clinton staffers and between him and Senator Clinton, but those were conciliatory and came after long and arduous clandestine negotiations between the two camps.

The starkest challenge facing Barack Obama on the morning after Montana came from a decidedly unfriendly and potentially hostile audience, the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). Much has been written in The Huffington Post, The Nation and elsewhere about the disappointment now coursing through Obama’s progressive base at the remarks he made before AIPAC. These appraisals are understandable. Obama appeared to lavish praise on an organization that has unflinchingly supported the failed foreign policy of George W. Bush. In this rush to judgment of Obama’s obeisance to AIPAC, the backstory is rarely considered, and the political dimension of his strategy to confront John McCain appears never to have been taken into serious account.

For months Barack Obama has been assailed via an insidious smear campaign as a closet Muslim fanatic on a secret mission programmed into his brain by Islamic manipulators hell-bent to manufacture a Manchurian candidate who will surrender America and her allies to the control of Osama Bin Laden and his murderous minions in Tora Bora, Peshawar and Kandahar. The anti-Obama campaign was not subtle. Underlings in the Clinton campaign aided and abetted by their fellow-travelers at the DLC and AIPAC fanned the flames of Islamophobia that linked Barack Obama to radical terrorists in turbans lurking in the shadows and scattered across the face of America from Manhattan to Montana. Headlines screamed out from front pages including those of the New York Times insinuated that Obama had a “Jewish problem.” While the disinformation campaign was absurd, because Obama enjoys the support of more than sixty per cent of America’s Jewish community, the irrational but resonant undercurrent of racism and Islamophobia was simplicity itself: Barack Hussein Obama, with his multicultural heritage and his unique embodiment of ethnic diversity could not be trusted in the White House.

Nowhere in America were these artificial fears more entrenched than among the membership of AIPAC a lobbying group that consists largely of the most orthodox and conservative thirty per cent of America’s Jewish community. AIPAC consistently supports Republican foreign policies and most Republican candidates, while a few of its wealthiest members help the organization hedge its bets by supporting a few token Democrats of the most conservative variety: neocons groomed by the DLC like Senator Joseph Lieberman and ‘centrists’ like Senator Hillary Clinton. In May one of the most philanthropic supporters of AIPAC, Haim Saban, was exposed when he allegedly attempted to offer Democratic super-delegates one million dollars each to support Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama. Many now believe that Saban predicated his support for Clinton on his personal fears and prejudice against her multicultural rival – Obama.

Congressman Rahm Emanuel was a faithful servant in the Clinton White House. An assertive and frequently abrasive character, Emanuel helped to enforce a strictly hawkish AIPAC line on every dimension of Middle East policy during the Clinton era. The leading advocate of genuine peace negotiations in Israel, Uri Avnery criticized the Clinton White House for surrounding the president with advisors vetted by AIPAC who worked to sabotage serious peace negotiations between the government of Israel and the Palestinians. While Emanuel is a member of the House of Representatives, Senator Joe Lieberman leads the AIPAC faction in the Senate. Today, AIPAC is a house divided. Emanuel supports Obama while Lieberman supports McCain, but many believe that they might just be hedging their bets.

The sage of Israel, Uri Avnery was among the first to excoriate Obama for breaking “all records for obsequiousness and fawning” before AIPAC. Avnery’s column was a stern rebuke that struck both Obama and AIPAC and emboldened others, among them Stephen Zunes, to publish their critiques in what became a cottage industry – an explosion of articles criticizing Obama for his AIPAC speech. Nowhere has this explosion of angst had more impact than in the Middle East where throngs of Palestinians and their millions of Muslim supporters huddled in hopes of a new American era led by a multicultural president with an appreciation for international law. As a direct result of his AIPAC speech, Obama’s stock is collapsing not only in the Middle East, but also around the globe.

The most egregious statement Obama made during his star-crossed speech to AIPAC involved the city of Jerusalem. Obama called for an era of peace in an “undivided” Jerusalem. Avnery reproached Obama for this remark, reminding him that Jerusalem had been the capital of Palestine, and there was no conceivable set of circumstances that could change that fact. After hearing the cries of those appalled by his mistake, Obama clarified his statement on Jerusalem with a refinement designed to reassure the Palestinians over the future of their beloved city. Obama’s clarification was revealing. In his clarification, Obama stated that he had meant that Jerusalem must not be divided by walls or barricades or check-points in a clear slap at current Israeli policy on the West Bank where the grotesque security wall has disfigured the landscape. But, Obama’s clarification came one day too late. A great deal of damage had already been done to Obama’s credibility in the Middle East. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbaas hastily said that Obama’s statement to AIPAC should be “totally rejected.”

But Obama’s AIPAC speech did not occur in a vacuum for there was a lengthy prelude that has yet to be taken into account by any serious observer. For starters, President George W. Bush, a man who has shamelessly conducted his presidency on the twin bases of his peculiar religious beliefs and the notion that what is good for his friends in the oil business is good for America, took the unprecedented step of criticizing Obama while Bush was visiting old friends scattered across the globe on his farewell tour. Nowhere was Bush’s attack on Obama so pointed as before the Israeli Knesset.

During Bush’s final official sojourn to Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert brought Bush to tears when he praised the lame duck president from the dais of the Knesset. Bush has been reduced to tears many times during his troubled presidency, but the tears he shed in the Knesset were those of an evangelical president devoted to his messianic vision of an apocalyptic theocracy. Rising to the occasion of his last presidential visit to Israel, Bush attacked Obama for offering what he described as policies that would lead to the deaths of Israelis and the destruction of the state of Israel through the appeasement of terrorists.

Upon learning of Bush’s broadside attack from the dais of the Knesset, Obama responded swiftly and decisively with a counter-attack in which he promised a new era of American diplomacy that would be predicated on peaceful, thoughtful, deliberate and, at times, tough negotiations in sharp contrast with the cowboy presidency of George Bush whereby America shoots first and asks questions later. The clash between Bush and Obama dominated the front pages in the weeks just before the end of the primary season on the 4th of June.

Shortly after Bush’s unprecedented attack on Obama from Israel, Senator Joe Lieberman made allusions to what he presented as ambiguities in Obama’s religious background fueling the smear campaign that the Democratic nominee for president just might be a closet Muslim. The case of Senator Lieberman is well known. A right-wing Democrat and neocon who is deeply conservative and orthodox in his religious piety, Senator Lieberman has emerged as probably America’s strongest supporter of the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain. It is a rarely mentioned fact that during Lieberman’s primary defeat by the progressive candidate Ned Lamont, Lieberman enjoyed the support of both the Clintons and Barack Obama who came to Connecticut to campaign for him when he was losing the confidence of his state’s Democratic voters. When Lieberman recently began to make allegations about Obama’s personal religious views, he went too far. Obama confronted Lieberman privately in the Senate. In a tense conversation that was witnessed by members of the Senate and broadly reported by the MSM, Obama made several emphatic points in his tete a tete with Lieberman. Observers presumed that Obama had taken umbrage at Lieberman’s betrayal of him, one of his few Senate supporters during his defeat to Lamont in 2006, but their discussion may well have gone deeper into new developments taking shape in the Middle East.

Last week, Europe’s most conservative broadsheet, The Daily Telegraph, reported that during the early days of June, Israel conducted military exercises in rehearsal for an imminent attack against Iran. The Bush-Cheney government has reportedly planned a devastating attack on Iran. Seymour Hersh published a series of authoritative papers in The New Yorker on such US plans to attack Iran. When Vice President Cheney made his last visit to the Middle East, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia announced that the Vice President had informed him of a forthcoming US attack on Iran. In the aftermath of Bush’s visit to Tel Aviv, Israeli media reported that the US would soon attack Iran.

There has been a massive internecine struggle between the Bush-Cheney White House and the Pentagon as well as other branches of government over the timing, the launch and the advisability of a US attack on Iran. John Bolton and Elliot Abrams are the leading proponents of an imminent US attack on Iran, while James Baker, Lee Hamilton and Robert Gates are deemed to be its leading opponents. Critics of the Iran attack fear repercussions across a blazing arc spanning Asia and especially in Iraq as well as explosive reprisals against the people of Israel and a massive surge in the price of oil at the gas pumps of America and the West that would drive the cost of a gas as high as ten dollars per gallon or even higher over night in the wake of a US attack on Iran. Propelled by a huge wave of speculation, the cost of petroleum is now at its all time peak and trending higher. There is no question at all about the source of the feverish speculation in oil for it is merely the product of greed driven by the belief that the US and or Israel will attack Iran in the run-up to the November election in a brazen attempt to reverse the political polarity of America – to improve the presidential ambitions of Senator John McCain.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mohamed El-Baradei is the head of United Nations investigations into the nuclear program of Iran. In a statement issued last week, Mohamed El-Baradei threatened to resign his critical post if Iran is attacked. El-Baradei’s threat is music to the ears of John Bolton and Joseph Lieberman, not to mention legions of neocons inhabiting government positions in the US and Israel. The absence of such an assiduous professional will depress the proponents of peace negotiations and nuclear disarmament especially in the Middle East. If El-Baradei is forced to resign by a unilateral US and or Israeli attack on Iran, it will send a green light for nuclear programs across a huge arc of the Middle East. From Pakistan on the east to Egypt and Turkey on the west, pressures will build for the dissemination of nuclear technology to the Islamic nations encircling Israel.

The Republicans’ political strategy is now perfectly clear. Aided and abetted by their fellow neocons in the US and Israel, Republican operatives ultimately under the command of Karl Rove are in the process of defining Barack Obama as a closet Muslim and the hand-picked presidential candidate of Iran. Soft on Iran, soft on Iraq and not to be trusted with national security, Obama will be attacked by the Republicans as unfit for the presidency. These arguments are designed to gain traction on the back of open hostilities in the Middle East and will crystallize during a US and or Israeli assault on Iran that could take place at any time from now until the day of the election.

In his remarks to AIPAC, Obama promised an aggressive pursuit of peace from the earliest days of his presidency, and he called for the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank. These were not popular points with his audience. In contrast, Senator John McCain promised AIPAC a broader war in the Middle East spilling over into Iran, but he did not stop there. McCain advocated a permanent occupation of Iraq and many other sites in the Middle East from Kurdistan to Kandahar. But that was not all. Quoting suspicious sources, McCain led his audience at AIPAC to believe that the unpopular president of Iran had called for a resumption of the Holocaust. Of course, McCain’s remarks were absurd. For years, McCain and many others have painted Ahmadinejad as a denier of the Holocaust. When he addressed AIPAC, McCain depicted Ahmadinejad as the proponent of a Holocaust that he has been demonized for denying. McCain’s little studied speech to AIPAC was littered with absurdities, but they were absurdities designed to appeal to the deepest fears palpitating in the hearts of that august chamber.

In contrast to McCain’s absurdist nightmares of a renewal of the Holocaust and promises of a pre-emptive war against Iran plus the eternal occupation of Iraq and a future engulfed in global war, terrorism and economic deprivation, Obama’s statement emphasizing diplomacy, peace negotiations and the return of land to Palestinians should be interpreted as a bold model of rationality placed before a rabidly hostile audience. The day Obama addressed AIPAC, former President Jimmy Carter who knows quite a lot about the case of Israel, Palestine and the Middle East endorsed Obama for president.

Twenty-six years ago, Israel launched an attack on Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facility at Osirak. Today, we await the news of Osirak II, the sequel that is to be filmed in Iran. An Israeli assault on Iran will ignite a new wave of terror in Iraq, Israel and America, and it will trigger a huge surge in the prices of crude oil and gas at the pump. While that scenario is the dream of John McCain, John Bolton, George Bush, Dick Cheney and zillions of frustrated neocons in the oil industry, it is a nightmare for the rest of us.

Barack Obama bears the huge burden of great expectations. The anticipation about Obama is not limited to the United States. Obama has become a focus for global hopes of a renewal of rationality in American government. In recent days, it has been made clear that Obama is considering a tour to foreign capitals before the Democratic National Convention in August. Obama’s global tour would provide the platform to articulate his vision of a new era of US foreign policy, and it would strengthen his credentials in foreign affairs.

Obama still has everything to play for, and the limelight is now falling directly on him. Obama can now hold fast to his message of hope and change, or he could abandon it and acquiesce to the absurdist nightmares of the neocons. Nothing that Obama has done to date, including his AIPAC address, suggests that he will morph into a neocon, but we eagerly await the next phase of his battle with the proponents of fear, war and their by-products: death and destruction.

© Copyright Michael Carmichael, Global Research, 2008

The url address of this article is:


The Coming Catastrophe? by David DeBatto

Inside USA: Noam Chomsky


Israel Lobby



Republicans Plan Double-Whammy by Michael Carmichael

Dandelion Salad

Note: Passover starts next month. ~ Lo

by Michael Carmichael
Global Research, March 21, 2008
The Planetary Movement

It has been a long Good Friday even though Easter arrives early this year. Today’s full moon coincides with yesterday’s vernal equinox to deliver a very early Passover and Easter.

This holiday weekend, elite political circles will be charged with talk of a Republican “Double Whammy,” the internal nomenclature for a top secret plan to deliver the White House to the hand-picked candidate of the Bush-Cheney junta.

While the media is filled with stories analyzing and dissecting the White House plans for war with Iran in the wake of the sacking of Admiral William Fallon, only a select few politicians and their minions will be privy to a plan that it is arresting in its boldness and predicated on the establishment of an ironclad pretext for the forthcoming US hard-power attack on the regime in Tehran.

Some Republican strategists have become apoplectic at the rise of Barack Obama. Sagacious Republicans now see Obama as the most dangerous threat their party has faced since the Great Depression, when FDR relieved them of power for the next twenty years.

Republicans have never been as motivated to maintain their weakening grasp on power as they are today. The new era of Republican ruthlessness launched in 2000, when James Baker and his cronies, John Roberts and John Bolton, engineered the legal coup d’etat to rescue their lost election and place the Bush-Cheney junta in power.

Karl Rove is deemed to be a mastermind of political strategy, but Rove’s presidential campaigns have both resulted in colossal failures. In 2000, Gore won the popular vote, a factor that tarnished the first Bush-Cheney administration with the taint of illegitimacy. In 2004, Rove’s plan led to what appeared to be a narrow margin for the re-election of a sitting president in time of war – in fact, it was the smallest proportional margin for a presidential re-election since 1828. It eventually became apparent that Rove and his Republican operatives had manipulated votes across the red and blue spectrum of states using a veritable cornucopia of tactics for rigging and fixing the outcome.

So where’s the Rovian beef? As Greg Palast informs us, Rove’s beef is there in several dubious achievements in which he has established himself as a master:

• the suppression of Democratic votes by racial discrimination;

• vote rigging via ‘spoiled’ paper ballots;

• purges of voter rolls of eligible voters with names similar to convicted felons and

• hacking elections via clandestine manipulation of electronic voting machines.

At this point in the current campaign, Democrats are still engaged in settling the matter of the presidential nomination. In actual point of fact, Barack Obama has won the nomination as Hillary Clinton cannot reasonably expect to overtake his lead in delegates in the remaining primaries. Neither can she hope that a majority of the superdelegates will violate the will of the primary voters and opt for her over Obama – after he has won the majority of delegates available in the primaries and the majority of their votes, as well.

In short, the Clinton campaign has actually morphed into some sort of political zombie, dead yet seemingly alive or half-alive and apparently undead according to the latest polls. The Time cover said it best. With a flattering picture of Hillary Clinton, the cover proclaims her, “The Fighter: How she came back and why it could be too late.”

The editors at Time were being polite with Senator Clinton; the arithmetic of her campaign is now clear. She is no longer a viable contender for the Democratic presidential nomination even though polls say she is now more popular than she was one month ago. Her Chief Strategist, Mark Penn, trumpets her marginal improvements over the last month reflecting her apparent victories in Texas and Ohio, as he would be expected to do.

But, the professional prognosis of Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects is entirely different from Penn’s rosy picture of his client’s faltering but apparent rejuvenation. It came too late. Obama has a palpable lead in the delegate count and the votes, and her lingering popularity is not capable of overwhelming his lead. Finally, her “victories” in Texas and Ohio were barely that – for they were won only through massive influxes of Republicans who voted for Clinton under command from Rush Limbaugh and his ventriloquist, Karl Rove.

The Republicans are more than well aware of the shape of the Democratic nomination. They were hoping and praying and manipulating to the best of their abilities for their chance to destroy Hillary Clinton. Now that Clinton’s viability has been eroded by the Democratic base itself, the Republicans are moving swiftly to Plan B – an insidious plot to shock and awe the body politic with a double blow to the psyche of America.

For several years, Seymour Hersh has elucidated the ominous plans of the Bush-Cheney junta to complete their conquest of the Middle East by attacking Iran. Iran is now in the grip of an enormous and extremely uncomfortable American vise. The US occupies both Afghanistan to Iran’s east and Iraq to her west. The rich oilfields of Iran are arrayed in a belt near her south-western coast just over the border from Basra on the west. And, there is an enormous US flotilla now stationed just off the coast of Iran in the Persian Gulf.

While the story of Bush and Cheney’s designs on Iran are well known to international audiences, most of America remains oblivious to the impending expansion of the unpopular war. Fewer still are aware of the political motivations now calculating the moves in the global game of chess. The players are not really Bush and Cheney on the one hand and Ahmadinejad and his mullahs on the other. The opposing forces are now the Republicans against the Democrats, for the stakes are quite simple: the presidency of America and the key factor in its bristling portfolio of power – Commander-in-Chief of America’s vast arsenal.

Karl Rove has a powerful force arrayed on the field: the Pentagon, Central Command and the White House with its lame duck presidency encompassing overall command and control of the US military and, therefore, foreign policy. On the other hand, the Democrats have little to oppose the massive bureaucratic power of the Republican forces: slender majorities in both the House and the Senate – where Democratic support for ending the war is fragmented by blocs of “Blue Dog” Democrats who faithfully follow every command they perceive from the Republicans in the White House.

In his perceptive paper, Guy Saperstein has proposed that the Democrats could respond to a Republican-dominated attack on Iran by assembling Congressional investigations that could subpoena Admiral William Fallon and other stalwart patriots in the US military who oppose a US attack on Iran. Saperstein’s suggestion is certainly a good one, and it has the added distinction of being the only one on the table. But, the truth remains as Saperstein points out, the Democrats do not have a viable Iran strategy, nor are they likely to settle upon one anytime soon for they are preoccupied with the struggle between Obama and Clinton for the nomination.

The geopolitical ramifications of a US attack on Iran will be grave. It will signal the end of America’s global domination as the sole superpower. A triumvirate of nations: China, Iran and Russia will arise to challenge the US for global supremacy launching a new cold war and its concomitant arms race. The next phase of geostrategic military rivalry will extend to the astronomically expensive region of outer space, where Donald Rumsfeld has already made the preliminary moves to establish US supremacy in an area that was supposed to be permanently disarmed by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The US aerospace industry will be pleased, and their profits will surge.

While that scenario is bad enough, it does, indeed, get worse. Much worse, as a matter of fact. A sagacious retired US military professional, Captain Eric May, has warned that a false-flag attack could trigger public panic and mobilize massive political backing for the next phase of neocon belligerence. Thanks to Seymour Hersh and others, we know that the next phase of neocon expansion of conflict is their well-planned launch of the Iran War.

That is the “Double Whammy” now enthralling top-level Republican strategists – a counterfeit attack on US soil (a typical false-flag operation modeled on Hitler’s burning of the Reichstag) followed swiftly by a shock and awe bombing campaign against Iran. At this point, there is no Democratic response on the drawing boards for such a crisis. It is obvious that the presidential nominee should lead the protest to expand the war. But, what will he or she do if there is a traumatic false-flag operation as Captain May proposes?

That opening move and the sequence of moves to follow are transparently obvious: both Clinton and Obama should lock arms and decry the total failure of Bush-Cheney and their neocon junta to protect Americans from the onslaught of terrorism. Congress should immediately convene to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney and simultaneous investigations of the latest act of “terrorism” and its predecessor: 9/11. All 9/11 files currently classified should be immediately opened to public scrutiny by the Congressional investigators.

If the Republicans make the mistake and open with the False Flag-Iran Gambit, the Democrats should be ready to repudiate it in unison. At this point in the political calendar, there is no clear indication that they will be able to do more than rubber stamp the next Republican moves to ensure that national security will determine the outcome of this November’s election. That is what Karl Rove predicts.

In several televised interviews, Karl Rove has predicted that national security will be the defining issue of the next election and that the Republican nominee will prevail over the Democrat. That is why the top-drawer Republicans are so enthralled with their marvelous new toy – the “Double Whammy.”


Survey finds McCain would defeat both Obama and Clinton in latest prospective General Election match-ups

The Shift to Hillary by Mark Penn

Why we want to keep Hillary alive by Rush Limbaugh

The Boston Globe / Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP: Seek to prolong bitter battle

Rush Limbaugh Explains Why He’s Urging Republicans in Texas and Ohio to Vote for Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday 2

The New Yorker / Annals of National Security – The Iran Plans by Seymour Hersh

Guy Saperstein, The Dems Need an Iran Strategy ASAP

The resignation of Admiral Fallon will provoke renewed fighting in Iraq

False Flag Prospects, 2008: Top 3 US Target Cities by Captain Eric H. May

The Shock and Awe of Bombing Iran: The Bush-Cheney Grand Finale of Destruction

Outer Space Treaty (1967)

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Michael Carmichael, The Planetary Movement, 2008
The url address of this article is:

U.S. Presidential Elections: Kucinich strengthens Obama by Michael Carmichael

Dandelion Salad

by Michael Carmichael
Global Research, January 2, 2008

In the mythology of political power, Iowa is frequently the sterile cemetery of those fading but recurrent dreams of a resurgent democracy in America. In that cold and pitiless graveyard that is a vast mausoleum for political progress, Dennis Kucinich struck a match and lit a candle for the future of America. Yesterday, in a terse but dramatic announcement, the man who has won every progressive poll in the past three months endorsed Senator Barack Obama as the valid agent of “change” and urged his loyal supporters to vote for the Senator from Illinois on their second ballots in the Iowa caucuses. (emphasis mine)

Coming as it does on the heels of a hellish onslaught against Senator Obama by a coordinated attack of his primary opponents: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton who is being guided by her husband, the former president William Jefferson Clinton, and their ally, former Senator John Edwards, Kucinich’s nod to Obama forges an alliance not unlike that in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. In the War of the Ring, the Rohirim under Erkenbrand and the riders of Rohan under the command of Theoden combined their powers at the battle of Helm’s Deep to face the massive onslaught of Saruman’s forces composed of Orcs, Uruk-Hai and Dunlendings. The Kucinich-Obama alliance of progressives and African-Americans is a potent combination of two groups at the core of Democratic political power.

Four years ago in Iowa, Kucinich endorsed John Edwards in a move that strengthened the former Senator at precisely the right moment for him to survive the fierce opposition he was facing in the early primaries. Kucinich’s progressive support in Iowa ultimately launched former Senator Edwards into the Vice Presidential nomination – and beyond.

This year, the forces of change have been muted in the Democratic campaign. In a cold calculation crafted by the Clintons and their devoted lackey, Edwards, Kucinich was deliberately excluded from the final presidential debate in Iowa because he had topped polls by: Democracy for America; Progressive Democrats of America and The Nation magazine – and he represented a fundamental threat to their ‘precious’ status quo. Last summer in Detroit, Senator Clinton and former Senator Edwards were caught off guard at a forum sponsored by the NAACP when their microphones recorded their covert plot to exclude Kucinich from formal presidential debates in what will always be referred to as: The Open Mike Scandal.

“We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group,” Edwards said, and Clinton agreed. “Our guys should talk,” Clinton said.

The “guys” to whom Senator Clinton was referring were: Mark Penn and Harrison Hickman, the leading pollsters for their campaigns. Kucinich branded their crude plot to exclude him from future presidential debates as a blatant attempt to “rig the presidential election.”

The alliance between Senator Clinton and former Senator Edwards has never been more apparent than in the past week in Iowa when they both launched syncopated and cleverly coordinated media bombardments designed to destroy Senator Obama. On the political playing fields of Iowa, the troops of both Senator Clinton and former Senator Edwards have long uttered what is nothing less than racist cant – stating blatantly and promiscuously that Senator Obama is “unelectable” – this season’s code for “black.”

The overwhelming superiority of Senator Hillary Clinton’s brazen thrust for power in a campaign guided by her husband and his massive reserves of Orcs and Dunlendings led by their very own Uruk Hai – otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council – has distorted the contest for the Democratic nomination from the outset. In the latest stages of the campaign, Senator Clinton’s forces have seen their vast superiority in numbers, funds and minions with boots on the ground dwindle to a microcosm of its former self in her salad days when she had commanded a lead that was deep into double digits. Now the situation is entirely different, and it is fluctuating wildly. Senator Clinton’s lead has now shriveled to single digits in Iowa – and it is deteriorating at a palpable rate – in what may be a historical diminuendo for the Clinton Dynasty.

Only a few minutes ago – America’s greatest pollster, John Zogby, published a pregnant update on the swiftly evolving dynamics of the Iowa caucuses:

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination tightened again over the last 24 hours, as Senator Hillary Clinton fell into a tie for the lead among likely caucus-goers with rival Barack Obama, and fellow Democrat John Edwards remained in a statistical dead heat just two points behind . . . Clinton dropped two points to 28% heading down the stretch, falling into a dead-even tie with Obama and holding just a two-point edge over Edwards, . . . When second-choice voters were included in the Democratic equation, all three top vote-getters were virtually deadlocked, creating as close a race for the party’s nomination as we have seen in modern history.

Yesterday, The Des Moines Register published their last pre-caucus poll. In previous years, the final Des Moines Register poll has been uncannily accurate. The headline read: “New Iowa Poll: Obama widens lead over Clinton.”

Tonight, in a political move that wreaks of personal desperation and political panic – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will broadcast a two minute advertisement titled, “Crossroads,” during the six o’clock newscasts in Iowa.

Senator Clinton’s usually fluent performance on television has been honed, but in her own production, “Crossroads,” she exhibits an uncharacteristic trace of woodeness and a colder than usual degree of pure political calculation – flaws that are obviously borne out of her rising fears of defeat. She blasts her un-named opponent, Senator Barack Obama, with the charge that he is only offering “band-aids” for America’s critical wounds. In another blatant swipe at Senator Obama, she states that she will be ready to start on “day one” implying that he is inexperienced.

One word that is totally absent from Senator Clinton’s desperate appeal in “Crossroads” is telling: that word is, “change.” So, there it is – now official and from the horse’s mouth as it were – in her own words, Senator Hillary Clinton is repudiating the desire of the American public for genuine political “change” – she is now self-anointed as the candidate of the status quo proposing technocratic tweaks as solutions for fundamental problems as disparate as “cowboy diplomacy” and the healthcare crisis. Her message is perfectly clear – if you want “change” do not expect to get it from Senator Hillary Clinton. She is after all the heiress to the throne of a political dynasty built upon the foundation of NAFTA, corporatism, corporate campaign contributions (read: pseudo-legal bribes) and a foreign policy that we know only too well, for who can forget her clarion calls for jingoistic belligerence in speeches she made on the Senate floor in the days, weeks and months preceding the bombing and occupation of Iraq.

In “Crossroads,” Senator Hillary Clinton is mimicking the late Richard Nixon who invented the unctuous television hard-sell with his now infamous “Checkers Speech” in 1952 after he was hit with charges of corporate bribery. In a maudlin and humiliating performance, Nixon contended that his wife, Pat, wore a Republican coat of cloth and that they had received a corporate bribe, a cocker spaniel named “Checkers” that he refused to give up.

When cornered, politicians seeking the White House will do desperate – even humiliating – things. That much has not changed in the fifty-five years between Nixon’s performance in “Checkers” and Clinton’s performance in “Crossroads.”

Michael Carmichael is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Michael Carmichael contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Michael Carmichael,, 2008
The url address of this article is:


Rock the Vote: To Iowans for Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, Paul & Gore by Brent Budowsky

Message from Dennis Kucinich 01/01/08 (video)

Who is Dennis Kucinich? (video)


Dennis Kucinich Can Win by Lo