Wit and the Campaign

THE ABSURD TIMES

Above: Is he still running for Senate?

Anyway, the Debate last night provided some genuine with, mostly by Obama, but some by the pundits. My favorite was by the MSNBC Pundit who was asked which of the two would win Missouri? As you know, it is the Sate of Harry Turman and Claire McKaskill but also Kit Bond and Jack Danforth (mainly known for dog food and helping Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court). The answer was that Obama would win Missouri, but Clinton would win "MIzzuruh." That is right on target! I know. Believe me, I know.

When asked if he'd be on a joint ticket with Hillary, Obama said "I'm sure she would be on anybody's 'short list'."

About experience: "It is not enough to be ready on day one; We need someone who is right on day one."

About the war: "Anyone who is so worried about Iran as a threat never should have invaded Iraq." (This one is a bit dangerous as it is exactly right.)

Well, there were others, but this suffices.

*ZNet | Asia*

*My Heart Bleeds For Pakistan *

*by Tariq Ali; The Independent; January 01, 2007*

Six hours before she was executed, Mary, Queen of Scots wrote to
her brother-in-law, Henry III of France: "...As for my son, I
commend him to you in so far as he deserves, for I cannot answer
for him." The year was 1587.

On 30 December 2007, a conclave of feudal potentates gathered in
the home of the slain Benazir Bhutto to hear her last will and
testament being read out and its contents subsequently announced
to the world media. Where Mary was tentative, her modern-day
equivalent left no room for doubt. She could certainly answer
for her son.

A triumvirate consisting of her husband, Asif Zardari (one of
the most venal and discredited politicians in the country and
still facing corruption charges in three European courts) and
two ciphers will run the party till Benazir's 19-year-old son,
Bilawal, comes of age. He will then become chairperson-for-life
and, no doubt, pass it on to his children. The fact that this is
now official does not make it any less grotesque. The Pakistan
People's Party is being treated as a family heirloom, a property
to be disposed of at the will of its leader.

Nothing more, nothing less. Poor Pakistan. Poor People's Party
supporters. Both deserve better than this disgusting, medieval
charade.

Benazir's last decision was in the same autocratic mode as its
predecessors, an approach that would cost her – tragically – her
own life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and
not agreed to the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf
or, even later, decided to boycott his parliamentary election
she might still have been alive. Her last gift to the country
does not augur well for its future.

How can Western-backed politicians be taken seriously if they
treat their party as a fiefdom and their supporters as serfs,
while their courtiers abroad mouth sycophantic niceties
concerning the young prince and his future.

That most of the PPP inner circle consists of spineless
timeservers leading frustrated and melancholy lives is no
excuse. All this could be transformed if inner-party democracy
was implemented. There is a tiny layer of incorruptible and
principled politicians inside the party, but they have been
sidelined. Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not
strength. Benazir was fond of comparing her family to the
Kennedys, but chose to ignore that the Democratic Party, despite
an addiction to big money, was not the instrument of any one family.

The issue of democracy is enormously important in a country that
has been governed by the military for over half of its life.
Pakistan is not a "failed state" in the sense of the Congo or
Rwanda. It is a dysfunctional state and has been in this
situation for almost four decades.

At the heart of this dysfunctionality is the domination by the
army and each period of military rule has made things worse. It
is this that has prevented political stability and the emergence
of stable institutions. Here the US bears direct responsibility,
since it has always regarded the military as the only
institution it can do business with and, unfortunately, still
does so. This is the rock that has focused choppy waters into a
headlong torrent.

The military's weaknesses are well known and have been amply
documented. But the politicians are not in a position to cast
stones. After all, Mr Musharraf did not pioneer the assault on
the judiciary so conveniently overlooked by the US Deputy
Secretary of State, John Negroponte, and the Foreign Secretary,
David Miliband. The first attack on the Supreme Court was
mounted by Nawaz Sharif's goons who physically assaulted judges
because they were angered by a decision that ran counter to
their master's interests when he was prime minister.

Some of us had hoped that, with her death, the People's Party
might start a new chapter. After all, one of its main leaders,
Aitzaz Ahsan, president of the Bar Association, played a heroic
role in the popular movement against the dismissal of the chief
justice. Mr Ahsan was arrested during the emergency and kept in
solitary confinement. He is still under house arrest in Lahore.
Had Benazir been capable of thinking beyond family and faction
she should have appointed him chairperson pending elections
within the party. No such luck.

The result almost certainly will be a split in the party sooner
rather than later. Mr Zardari was loathed by many activists and
held responsible for his wife's downfall. Once emotions have
subsided, the horror of the succession will hit the many
traditional PPP followers except for its most reactionary
segment: bandwagon careerists desperate to make a fortune.

All this could have been avoided, but the deadly angel who
guided her when she was alive was, alas, not too concerned with
democracy. And now he is in effect leader of the party.

Meanwhile there is a country in crisis. Having succeeded in
saving his own political skin by imposing a state of emergency,
Mr Musharraf still lacks legitimacy. Even a rigged election is
no longer possible on 8 January despite the stern admonitions of
President George Bush and his unconvincing Downing Street
adjutant. What is clear is that the official consensus on who
killed Benazir is breaking down, except on BBC television. It
has now been made public that, when Benazir asked the US for a
Karzai-style phalanx of privately contracted former US Marine
bodyguards, the suggestion was contemptuously rejected by the
Pakistan government, which saw it as a breach of sovereignty.

Now both Hillary Clinton and Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are pinning the
convict's badge on Mr Musharraf and not al-Qa'ida for the
murder, a sure sign that sections of the US establishment are
thinking of dumping the President.

Their problem is that, with Benazir dead, the only other
alternative for them is General Ashraf Kiyani, head of the army.
Nawaz Sharif is seen as a Saudi poodle and hence unreliable,
though, given the US-Saudi alliance, poor Mr Sharif is puzzled
as to why this should be the case. For his part, he is ready to
do Washiongton's bidding but would prefer the Saudi King rather
than Mr Musharraf to be the imperial message-boy.

A solution to the crisis is available. This would require Mr
Musharraf's replacement by a less contentious figure, an
all-party government of unity to prepare the basis for genuine
elections within six months, and the reinstatement of the sacked
Supreme Court judges to investigate Benazir's murder without
fear or favour. It would be a start.

*********************************************************************************************