OH dear, what has happened to the knight on the white horse?
This week, many of Barack Obama’s admirers were shocked. Up to now, it had been believed that the huge sums of money flowing into the coffers of his campaign came from anonymous citizens, each sending a check for $100 or $200.
Now, alas, it has been disclosed that a large part of those millions actually came from big donors — the very same huge corporations, their CEOs and lobbyists, who have corrupted the democratic process in previous contests.
Obama had promised to put an end to the old, dirty corporate funding-for-influence system. Now it appears that he participates in this corrupt system himself.
What a disappointment.
Obama did indeed receive many donations from ordinary citizens, and that is a positive sign. But if he had refused to accept contribution from the large donors, who are necessarily self-interested donors, he might as well have given up his candidacy. He would have been drowned by the flood of his opponent’s poisoned TV ads, without the capability to reciprocate.
Obama is a real politician. He is not a knight on a white horse. He is, at best, a knight on a gray horse. It is difficult to guess how big the difference between a President Barack Obama and a President John McCain would be. But after eight years of President Obama, the Supreme Court would look vastly different than would be the case if McCain is elected president. Therefore, “they are all not the same.” There is a difference. So if some of the illusions of the black wunderkind’s adulators have been shattered and everybody has been returned to the real world — they had better make their decision at the ballot box in a realistic way.
In this respect there exists an interesting similarity between the American campaign and the Israeli one. If some speak there of McObama, one can speak here of Molivni.
Tzipi Livni is running against Shaul Mofaz for the leadership of the Kadima party and almost certainly for the prime minister’s job after the departure of Ehud Olmert.
WHAT is the difference between the two? Mofaz has a lot of experience. Livni has hardly any. But it is hard to say which is worse.
Mofaz has been chief of staff of the IDF, minister of defense, minister of transportation. In all these jobs he has distinguished himself only in one respect: That he did not distinguish himself. In all of them he was mediocre or less. As against the rich “experience” of Mofaz, the lack of experience of Livni stands out. If Mofaz is a page covered in second-rate text, Livni is an almost blank sheet of paper.
She first came to notice as somebody who climbed on Sharon’s wagon at a very early stage, a fact that testifies to her sharp political senses. She has held several junior positions, and at long last reached the Foreign Office. The job of foreign minister in Israel, as in other countries, is a very desirable one: One just cannot fail. One is often in the limelight, one gets photographed in impressive international settings, one receives important foreign guests, and few people realize that foreign policy is made by the head of the government — the president (in the US and France) or the prime minister (in Britain and Israel).
Once every few days Livni meets with Abu Ala, the Palestinian representative, to tread the water of the fictitious negotiations. After more than a year, not a single article of the absurd putative “shelf agreement” has been settled. At this pace, peace can be expected in a century or two.
Where do Mofaz and Livni stand with regard to national policy? There is no doubt about Mofaz: He is a quintessential militarist, a man of the right in every respect, obsequious to the Orthodox religious establishment, toadying to the settlers. His election would mean, at the least, a total freeze of policy and the accelerated expansion of the settlements. In short: Permanent war. About Livni nobody knows what she really thinks: Lately she has tried to outflank Olmert — sometimes on the right, sometimes even on the left. Like almost every foreign minister, she now radiates moderation. That comes with the office. But not so very long ago she was talking about the “Oslo criminals”, meaning Yitzhak Rabin and his partners. Now she talks about “two nation-states” and draws the picture of a Jewish demographic state. All these are nowadays safe and tried slogans. As prime minister, she can surprise us in any direction. Impossible to know in advance.
Some might say: We know Mofaz, so we shall not vote for him. Livni we don’t know yet. So let’s give her a chance. Between the two, Livni may be preferable.
All the polls show that Livni has a very great lead over Mofaz as far as the general public is concerned, and a good chance to win the Knesset elections. But Mofaz has a great advantage in the Kadima primaries, owing to the voting blocks acquired from contractors. He promises to set up a rightist-nationalist-religious coalition in the present Knesset, so that there will be no need for general elections until 2010.
So what about peace? The occupation? Economic policy? Social problems? Education? Health care? Who gives a damn?
