SUCH is the underlying suspicion and fear of Arabs and Islam in the US that if this paper or any voice of Arab opinion were to state a clear preference for either of the candidates in the US election, it would do them no good. It is especially so for Barack Obama, who has been subject to a crude smear campaign of which the Nazis would have been proud, suggesting that he is a secret radical Muslim and therefore soft on Al-Qaeda and terrorism. It is encouraging that so many ordinary Americans have seen through the sewer politics of those spreading this filth and support him all the more strongly because of it. Nonetheless, given that many Americans are still undecided about who to vote for and that others will change their minds, possibly many times, between now and election day on Nov. 4, it is not difficult to see the damage that could be done with deliberately suggestive headlines such as “Saudis want Obama as president”.
That said, it is appalling that Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential contender, should have accused Sen. Obama of associating with terrorists. This time, the smear is not about Muslims but left-wing firebrands opposed to the Vietnam War in the 1960s. Based on his having served on a charity board, which included a professor, who had been a member of a group involved in a series of bombings in the early 1970s but who has denounced the bombings, the attack is both dishonest and inept. It is dishonest because serving on a committee or organization does not mean endorsement of the other members’ views. Can Sarah Palin guarantee that she has not sat on a committee, attended a dinner or shaken hands with felons, fraudsters or people with political ideas very different to her own? Rare is the politician who has not. It is inept because while the attempt to blacken Sen. Obama’s character may go down well with the far right who is never going to vote Democrat anyway, it will alienate ordinary Americans whose votes the Republicans need. It shows how desperate she and the McCain campaign have become as their ratings slip.
There is much to criticize Sen. Obama for — aloofness, a refusal to spell out what change means in particular — but at least he is dealing with real issues, not scraping around the bottom of the barrels for muck to throw at his opponents. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that he is any softer on terrorism than President Bush or Sen. McCain.
Palin’s attack cannot be dismissed as just another gaffe, to join those made in a number of interviews since being chosen by McCain as his running mate, and which have done so much to strip away the initial euphoria and hype at her selection. It is far worse. She has descended into the political gutter. Such ineptness and malevolence bring into question her suitability to take on the role “a heartbeat away from the presidency”. Of course, there have been inept vice-presidential candidates before; it has not prevented them gaining office. But this malevolence is something else. The extent to which many American politicians will try to smear their opponents is shocking although it perhaps flows inevitably from having a political system so dependent on one person — unlike in Europe or India where politics is in the hands of parties and parliaments which, from time to time, can be quite ruthless in removing prime ministers if they are considered incompetent or a liability (as the UK’s Gordon Brown may yet discover). But despite the US system focusing on personalities more than policies and despite the viciousness that can result, Palin’s nastiness will do her no good. She may have emerged unscathed from the vice-presidential debate with Sen. Biden. But with this one crude attack she has shown herself to be wholly different to ordinary, caring and unjudgmental Americans. That will play out in votes lost to the Democrats.
