Liebe Leute, mal wieder ein Posting auf deutsch.
Seit einiger Zeit wächst diese Online-Gruppe, langsam, aber recht kontinuierlich - und immer mehr Leute scheinen tatsächliche Deutsche oder aus Deutschland zu sein. Damit stellt ich die Frage: was können wir tun, um den Tsunami der Hoffnung in den USA zu unterstützen bzw. auch Strukturen für Veränderung von unten in der BRD zu schaffen?
Zunächst thematisch: nach Absprache mit BIRDALONE, die hier das International Relations Forum leitet, wäre der effektivste Punkt, an dem wir Obamas Glaubwürdigkeit unterstützen können, die Ökologie. Hier wird es eine echte Konkurrenz gegen McCain geben, der durchaus einen für Republikaner-Verhältnisse beachtlichen Rekord in Öko-Fragen vorweisen kann. Wir sollten hier also überlegen, wie wir namhafte Unterstützter aus Deutschland sammeln können, die sich unter ökologischen Gesichtspunkten für Barack aussprechen.
Dann wäre die Frage, ob und wie wir uns hier koordinieren wollen. Gut, klar, online hier bei Obama Deutschland, im Blog etc. - aber wir können auch überlegen ein Strategietreffen anzuleiern, oder diverse Aktionen in der Öffentlichkeit zu machen.
Schließlich wäre für mich spannend und wichtig, die Berichterstattung der deutschen Medien zu analysieren, gegebenfalls aber auch einzugreifen.
Das mal als Input von meiner Seite
Lasst hören, was Ihr Euch vorstellen könnt.
florian
I think it would be necessary and very good for Barack to issue a statement celebrating the Californian courts' decision for Gay Marriage. Following up our success with NARAL it could be critical to broaden or LGBT-support - and apart from that, this is such a huge success for Gays and Lesbians that Barack really should speak out and take part in our celebrations.
as time goes by ...
even Gabor Steingart, US-correspondent for Europe's best selling news magazine "Der Spiegel" (Germany), has now understood, that the winner is: Barack Obama. This is a serious problem for Steingart, reliably parotting every Clintonian and/or MSM attack against Barack since months. Now he writes:
"The human right to be wrong was much taken advantage of during this primary season, sometimes from this columns' author (=Steingart himself), as well. <Everybody dreaming about the first black president, has to wake up. It may hopefully happen one day. But not now.> was written here after the New Hampshire and Nevada primaries. The title of the column read: <The end of the Obama revolution<"
So much for Steingart about Steingart. What is less than a sufficient self criticism for months of misrepresenting a movement of Millions, seems too much for Steingart already. In this weeks column: "US-Media's self betrayel" he immediatly goes on to criticize his collegues in the US.
Now I am sure, most people on this blog will have lots of good reasons to critizise the US-american MSM. However, isn't it a bit cheap for Steingart, to blame the US-Media for everything he has been doing himself? Suddenly he critizised "Distractions" having had the upper hand over facts in the media coverage. Wasn't Steingart, too, marvelling about Obama being too black or not black enough, and all to happy to exploit the Wright case or Michelle's alleged lack of patriotism to beat the drum for Hillary?
Suddenly the same Gabor Steingart asks for the real issues, the economy, iraq, justice and social security. And while he finds loads of reasons to blame his US-Collegues, he somehow must have totally forgotten to re-read his own columns of the past months...
Obama's victory is sweet for us. But right now, in these days of triumph, we should be careful to reject false friends. John Edwards is a true friend and a principled man. But to view one time bitter opponents changing sides so swiftly - it isn't always a very uplifting view. They will be tomorrows traitors, just wait and see.
We need honest people for honest change, people with conviction.
Stardust, germany
"Der Spiegel" playing the Race-Card
News from our special friend Gabor Steingart, heading German newsmagazines "Der Spiegel" US-Office. After Steingart claimed the "Obama Revolution" being over after New Hampshire, he now writes about "Obama - The Inevitable". However, the narrative he lays out is not as supportive to Barack as it may sound.
Not Irak, not the economy, not the disgust with Bush/Cheney - no, race has been detected by Steingart as "this elections' central and decisive factor", invoking, of course, this ominious "Bradley-effect", showing for sure, that white Americans would reject a black candidate at all times eternal.
However, this article in Germanies best selling magazine may tell you more about Steingart's racial unease, than it does about the reality of Obama's campaign and the US in 2008. Steingart writes:
"The questions, asked by white working Americans may not be politically correct, but politically relevant: Is Obama an American with black skin, or a black man with an American passport? Is he an Alien or does he just alienate? Is he part of the total or part of a part?"
I would like to question Mr. Steingart: Is it just "white working Americans" or yourself asking this questions? Are these really relevant political issues or manufactured political distractions? is it just ignorance or racial bias?
I surely think, it is our job in Germany and an important one for the global Obama community, to critizise and reject such coverage of Obama's effort, and our own.
from Germany
stardust
30 : 15 steht es nach Staaten. 9 weitere Vorwahlen schließen die Schlacht um die Nominierung der Demokraten im Mai und Juni ab. Die Wahlen in Guam am 3. Mai sollten dabei nicht unterschätzt werden. Hier wird die Schlussphase eingeläutet, und während ein Sieg Obamas eher Pflicht ist, könnte ein Sieg Clintons sich als ausgesprochen gefährlich erweisen.
Wir sind weit gekommen, bisher. Wir haben eine exzellente Ausgangsposition.
Aber jetzt gilt es!
Dear Friends!
Following a proposal for an Obama petition in German language, that reach me yesterday, I would like to offer my services to the campaign - happy, if my enthusiasm can develope a more practical edge...
Hopefully, this can be the beginning of an Obama Translation Office English - German and a more effective operation for the campaign in Germany (and elsewhere...).
People interested in managing a coordinated intervention in the German public discourse together, Obama supporters having an idea, what material would make sense to have in German language, people interested in setting up a German Obama Homepage etc. - contact me directly or post to the Group "Obama Deutschland / Germany"
Get it started wordwide
stardust,
germany
German news magazine "Der Spiegel" is a best selling political weekly and historically has played a decisive role in shaping the discourse on the US in post-war (west-) Germany. Somewhat vacilliating between steadfast trans-atlanticism in the Cold War and notions of cultural anti-Americanism, "Der Spiegel" was making a sharp turn since 9/11, shifting towards a sensationalist coverage of the muslim world laden with racist undertones and supporting all hawkish answers to the fanning flames of conflict in the Middle East.
What now does "Der Spiegel" say about Barack Obama?
First, it was hardly an issue to be taken seriously. "Der Spiegel" was parroting the Hillary camps' myth of inevitability and totally underestimated the potential dynamics an Obama candidacy could unleash.
Visibly shocked after Iowa, "Der Spiegel" correspondent Gabor Steingart cheered out after New Hampshire "The End of the Obama revolution", ridiculing the whole Obama campaign as an ill conceived, premature undertaking. For "Der Spiegel" game was over for Obama.
It took six or seven Obama victories in a string, to see a palace revolt taking place in "Der Spiegel"s US-editorial. Marc Pitzke and others pushed back against Gabor Steingart and suddenly "Der Spiegel" came out with a cover story "Obama - The Messiah Factor" indulging in Obamas' charisma, describing his campaigning power in the internet, comparing him to JFK (yaaaawn) etc.
So, what do we see since from Germany's best selling and least grasping news magazine?
- A four page interview with John McCain.
- One more end-of-Obama-hype attempt by Gabor Steingart during the crisis around Jeremiah Wright, analysing Obama would now be "too black" to ever be able to win.
- One more turn in the other direction by Marc Pitzke, after Mississippi.
- and once more the end-of-Obama last week, because it turned out (who would have doubted that?) that the Obama campaign also took money from rich people and some bundlers and companies, which, "Der Spiegel" thinks, is likely to undercut the grassroots dynamics of the campaign.
All in all, "Der Spiegel" is fully at a loss to grasp what is going on in the United States... and so are most commentarors. While the enthusiasm for Obama has even reached the 76year old, east German grandma next door in my house, they still marvel on, how much of the same Obama finally would mean. Reality check, you know...
I hope this was of some interest
YES WE CAN
Alex Okrent's thread about Obama's fantastic open letter to the LGBT-comunity has been hijacked by homophobia!! Please go there, post comments and retake this thread!!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS
Here is, what I would essentially read as an endorsement (though still a somewhat sceptical one) of Barack Obama by leading International-Relations-Theorist Immanuel Wallerstein:
Commentary No. 228, Mar. 1, 2008
"What Can He Change?"
It now seems highly probable, although not yet certain, that Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president. And it seems highly probable that he would win a contest with John McCain. It also seems almost certain that the Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives will be enlarged. Thus, it seems that Obama would enter office with a relatively strong mandate from the voters.
If one asks how Obama, who entered the race some six months ago as a young and unlikely victor, has been able to achieve this, the answer seems clear. He has emphasized the theme of "change" and this theme seems to have resonated with the voters, including many who have not voted before. Of course, change is an ambiguous term, and its meaning varies according to those who embrace it. But it seems that the theme of "change" responds to a high degree of discomfort in the United States with the present overall situation in the country and the world. The two zones of maximum discomfort are the war in Iraq and the state of the economy.
What a majority of voters seems to be saying is that they think the war in Iraq is a quagmire, and that it was a mistake to have invaded the country. As for the economy, the voters seem to be saying that their actual standard of living has been going down and they are very afraid that it will go down still further. So, basically, they are rejecting the main lines of argument of the Bush regime, and are blaming it in large part for their discomforts. What specific changes the voters want seems less clear, but they want something.
Obama has a second appeal beyond embracing the theme of change. It is a question of style. He says he is willing to talk with anyone - with presumed unfriendly forces internationally, with presumed allies internationally, and with persons from all political factions internally. This contrasts with Bush's repeated insistence that there are all kinds of groups with whom the United States should never "negotiate."
There is a second kind of stylistic appeal of Obama. He says, over and over, "Yes, we can!" This is a theme borrowed from the legendary leader of Hispanic farm workers, Cesar Chavez, whose slogan was "!Sí, se puede!" This theme appeals particularly to all those who have felt marginalized in the U.S. political system, and who find this theme one that empowers them.
So, now that Obama seems so near to becoming president, there has begun to be considerable discussion in the press, on the internet, and in public debate about what kinds of changes Obama actually intends to undertake. This seems to me the wrong question. The real question is what kind of changes Obama can make, a quite different question.
Obama's record is that of a liberal Democrat who opposed the Iraq war and whose mode of action has always been left-of-center, sometimes forcefully, sometimes very prudently. He certainly intends to bring a different style to the White House. How radically different a policy he intends to implement is far less clear. But even supposing that he is more politically radical than he seems to be on the surface, the question still remains, what can he do? Presidents of the United States can undoubtedly affect policy in important ways - George W. Bush has proved that - but they are also prisoners of their office. It is therefore worth reviewing what are the options in foreign policy, in economic policy, and in that looser arena we might call cultural policy.
In foreign policy, the most immediate and overwhelming issue is the Middle East - not only vis-à-vis Iraq, but also vis-à-vis Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel/Palestine. Bush has worked hard to bind the hands of his successor. But Bush has made the error of thinking that U.S. policy in the Middle East is primarily in the hands of the U.S. government. I do not think this is true any longer. There is a whirlwind of forces in this region that are far beyond the limited power of the United States government to channel their directions.
Anti-American nationalism is slowly but surely gathering enormous steam in Iraq. The Taliban are creeping back into de facto power in Afghanistan, and threatening as a by-product to disrupt the functioning of NATO as an international force. In Pakistan, it seems that the United States is reduced to praying quietly that its ever less popular friend, Pervez Musharraf, can weather the storm. The Iranians have decided that they can simply defy the United States without incurring any real danger. And both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are on ever-shakier ground, internally and internationally. Condoleezza Rice is largely being ignored by everyone. Will Obama's Secretary of State be treated differently?
If the whirlwind undoes U.S. policies in the region, then even if U.S. forces are withdrawn from Iraq, will it follow that western Europe, Russia, China, and Latin America will actually move closer to the United States, even if they will appreciate Obama's friendlier and more intelligent style? The underlying geopolitical trends are against the United States. Obama can do better than Bush, but how much better?
The story is not too different when we look at the state of the U.S. economy. No doubt, a Democratic administration will have a different policy on taxation, on health care, on the environment. And probably the poorer 80% of the population will be better off. But the manufacturing jobs are not going to return, even if the United States scuttles its neoliberal trade pacts. In this arena, too, there is a whirlwind, one that is perhaps even more powerful than the geopolitical whirlwind in the Middle East, and the United States does not control its unfolding.
That leaves one arena in which Obama may have some leeway, what I called loosely the cultural arena. His campaign has been mobilizing a popular force that is both gaining strength and autonomy. It is that of people saying "yes, we can." Obama may have been of help in igniting the force, but it is becoming a self-driven force that will now have much impact on what he does as president. In a broad sense, it is a force that will be pushing him, as president, to the left, both directly and via its impact on members of Congress.
It is very difficult to say exactly where this force would push Obama. But its impact may turn out to be comparable to that of the so-called religious right on Republican party policies in the last thirty years. Martin Luther King, Jr. said "I have a dream." The dream was of a different United States with different priorities and far more egalitarian mores. If this next period leads to even a partial realization of such a dream, it will of course have a long-term impact on the role the United States plays, and wishes to play, in the world-system. It will have a long-term impact on the kind of economic structures the United States maintains for itself and the world maintains for itself.
Change is indeed possible, and potentially a very positive change. It all depends far less on Obama than on the rest of us. But Obama might, only might, give us the space in which the "we" of "yes, we can" can push him and the United States.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
After reading "The Audacity of Hope" I would like to take up the opportunity here to discuss Obamas' foreign policy in the light of IR-Theory debates.
Now, most of us will probably agree that the kind of trenched warfare going on in IR-Theory between (Neo-)Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, Neo-Cantian... has been less than helpful at times, to accurately interprete the world we live in.
However, from Obama's chapter on "The World beyond our borders" it is evident that he is not just making proposals based on his certainly broad life experience, but follows a theoretically fully informed (dis-)course. To start with, Obama clearly is no Neo-Realist, I would argue, as "soft factors" like mentality, religion, history and ideas matter a great deal to him, diplomacy is an instrument of central importance to his foreign political approach and language and culture in general are held in high esteem, also related to global issues at hand.
I would like to ask, what other people think about this chapter in Obama's book, or what they else know or guess about Barack's IR-theoretical background and inspirations.
Thanks for reading this
Florian, from Germany
(1) The Clowns' Army
Early june 07:
I just came out of university of Cologne. where I had written a final test for my MA about "The radicalization of warfare in the final years of the American Civil War". I wrote the obvious, I guess, the importance of the railroads, but also about the importance of cultural factors, the contradictory character of Union soldiers' attitude towards slaves etc.
After the test (which one me an A+), I entered my car with three friends and we headed North, to the German coast. There we took part in a week long protest against the G8-Summit in a place called "Heiligendamm".
Now: on day 1 everything happened what happens always - a demo in a city, the cops provoking, some black clothed militants throwing stones, the cops answering with tear gas and water cannons...
However, the next days, our movement totally broke free from the ritualized and rather predictable tactics. Creativity won its case. And one vital instrument to do this was our CLOWNS' ARMY.
The "Clowns' Army" consisted of up to 80 Clowns, who were dressed in military camouflage, but had red noses, flowers or so. They very constantly moving in between the Cops and Protesters, whenever tensions flared up. These Clowns were no referees of course, but clearly on our side. They would march behind and around the cops, parodzing their stern faces and stiff movements, they would sing or dance away riot cops and just generally were beautifully effective in crossing tactics of escalation and confrontation.
Some cops started hating our Clowns. But many thought: these people really are much more fun than the G8... WE CHANGED OUR MINDSET - and so we were able to break open old lines of controntation, and change some of their mindsets, too. The Clowns played a very smart psychological game, but did so with real human spirit, open hearts and inspiration. Sometimes the Clowns managed to creep behind the masks of a young officer, but obviously nasty things like peppersprayed Clowns occured as well.
Be that as it may: I just want to bring one example out of the movement in Europe, how we try to break free from some of the old ways and create a space of freedom and action, by freeing ourselves from old patterns of action, and old enemy pictures.
Also, it may be a good point to start this blog on Strategy and Tactics to assert that fun and humour are very much part of any successfull campaign.
From Germany:
Commander Shree Stardust
