Johann Hari: Barack beware... they're out to get you
Obama needs to learn from Al Gore's mistake of being consensual amid a knife fight
Monday, 29 September 2008
In five weeks, I hope to look back on this column with a wry chuckle at my paranoia. If the system works, Barack Obama will take the White House. The two issues John McCain is most closely associated with – invading Iraq, and deregulating the economy – have produced history-snatching catastrophes in the eyes of 80 per cent of Americans. In the first debate, McCain revealed he had nothing to say except more of the same: aggression abroad, market fundamentalist ideology at home. So why am I worried?
Obama is only a few jittery points ahead in the polls, and he has yet to face an October Surprise. This is an old term in US politics, invented when, on the eve of the 1968 election, Lyndon Johnson announced a halt to the bombing of Vietnam. It was a desperate attempt to push the Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey, over the finish line – and it failed. But October Surprises need not come from the opposing party. They can come from anywhere.
The first and worst would be the reappearance of Osama Bin Laden. Just five days before the 2004 election, he released a video effectively endorsing John Kerry. He told Americans to imagine corpses crying: "Call to task those who have caused our death!" and said they should "return to what is right," rather than reward "the liar in the White House".
Why would he do this? Bin Laden's long-term strategy is to "provoke and bait". He explains to his supporters: "We conducted a war of attrition against Russia with jihad fighters for 10 years until they went bankrupt. We are continuing in the same policy – to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy." To achieve this, "all we have to do is send two mujahideen [to a remote, irrelevant area] and raise a piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qa'ida' in order to make the [US] generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses."
This is his goal, in his own words – to bleed America through irrational, wildly expensive wars that will tilt thousands more fanatical young men from Islamism to full-blown jihadism. So who would you want in the White House? The guy who will wean the US off Middle Eastern oil and the wars and tyrannies it supports to get it – or his opponent? Bin Laden is a monster, but he is not an imbecile. He knows that his endorsement is a kiss of death. The man he publicly praises is the man he wants to lose. Kerry failed to expose Bin Laden's trick; Obama must do it as soon as the tape hits the air.
Beyond this, there could be a 4 November surprise: the Republicans may try to steal the election. Again. They loudly claim to be concerned about voter fraud, even though a New York University study recently found that it "is more likely an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls". But in the name of this paltry risk, they are effectively stripping millions of people – overwhelmingly black and Democrats – of their vote.
Their first vote-stripping tactic is to require elaborate voter identification that black people disproportionately lack. For example, in Indiana – a crucial swing state – Republicans have passed a law requiring voters to bring an official government document bearing their photograph to the polling station. But a study by the University of Wisconsin found that 53 per cent of black adults didn't have a passport or driving licence, compared to 15 per cent of white people. So they can't vote unless they travel for hours (often without a car) to a sparse government registry and queue for half a day to get the correct documentation. The former political director of the Texas Republican Party, Royal Masset, explains: "Requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a drop-off in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 per cent to the Republican vote." Their second tactic is to strip the electoral rolls of black names. In almost all US states, criminals lose their vote for life. This is shocking in itself – it disenfranchises a quarter of all black men in Kentucky, for one. But many states have a sloppy process where they simply scrub anyone with the same name as a criminal off the list. So if there is a criminal called "Chris Wayne" in a county, every black man called "Chris Wayne" loses their vote. That's a lot of Democrats. In Florida in 2000, black voters made up 13 per cent of the electorate yet they were 26 per cent of the people wrongly disenfranchised.
When a judge ordered the release of the paperwork, he found out why. The team under Florida governor, Jeb Bush, had ordered that black criminal names had to go – but Hispanic names were not to be touched. Black Floridians overwhelmingly vote Democrat, while Hispanics lean towards the Republicans. The Bush team said this was "absolutely unintentional" and "a coincidence".
This time, the Republicans have added another group to strip from the rolls. James Carabelli, a Republican Party chairman in Michigan, says: "We have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses." These voters are supposed to register from their new addresses – but many are out of time, or too stressed to do it. So the Republicans have launched a national "voter challenge campaign" against honest people who have lost their homes. They know that 60 per cent of sub-prime mortgages went to black voters, and virtually everyone who lost their home is angry with the Republicans.
If these acts of electoral sabotage go ahead on November 4 and tilt the election to McCain, Obama needs to learn from Al Gore's mistake. As the recent HBO film Recount shows, Gore was consensual and statesmanlike – in the middle of a knife fight. He sent urbane professors to make his case, while the Republicans drummed up mobs that physically stopped the vote-counts in Palm Beach County while the clock ticked. If the need comes, Obama needs to call fraud by its real name – and fight.
I hope I'm being too cynical. I hope I'm wrong. But it would be wise to fasten your seatbelts: it's going to be a bumpy month.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
132 Comments
@Paolo,
Does anybody think it is strange that USA never comes to the aid of democracies in time of war?
_________________________________________
A truely stunning question.
Posted by turkey | 02.10.08, 01:08 GMT
Does anybody think it is strange that USA never comes to the aid of democracies in time of war? I am thinking of WW2 when UK and France were left to fight on their own ... USA only got involved after Japan attacked and Germany declared war on them. WW1 they were a bit on the slow side as well. Makes it seem like they back away from a fight if they can. Doesn't sound like they would be an ally we could depend on. Anyone agree or am I wrong on this?
Posted by paolo | 02.10.08, 00:31 GMT
Hari, I know you can't believe this but in 2000 when Gore was trying to get a few more votes to win the election, it had nothing to do with Republicans doing anything illegal. They ran the cards through the machines and Gore lost. They ran them again and Gore lost again. They then illegally started counting them by hand, but, according to the Florida statue t, you have to prove illegality happened in the voting to start hand counting.
So they were counting and Gore's lawyers were in court trying to prove something illegal happened. They had the best lawyers in the country and they couldn't convince a judge anything illegal happened. So they stopped the hand counting. The Florida Supreme Court said they could continue to hand count but that went against they're own law. The US Supreme Court told the Florida Sup. Court you cannot change the law after the election.
Bush won Hari. I challenge you to show any evidence that Bush did not win fair and square.
Posted by turkey | 01.10.08, 17:44 GMT
Miss Sonya,
The Soviet Union was a third world country with bombs. They didn't and don't even have close the economy of the USA.
The reason I comment on Hari so much is because Hari is the reason we have so much strife in politics. He doesn't just write about differences in ideas about public policy. He lies to get people to hate. He paints a picture of "Republicans drummed up mobs that physically stopped the vote-counts in Palm Beach County while the clock ticked". He said he saw it on a show. Now doesn't that make you almost afraid? Doesn't that make you think Americans are barbarians? Except it's a lie.
In this country you have the freedom to lie about anything you want. It's the same in your country.
Hari wants you to believe he's looking out for the little guy. But he's really a hawk manipulating the ignorant and emotionally vulnerable. He wants you to be scared, be it the Tories, Republicans, Christians, whoever is in his way of his vision of Utopia.
Posted by turkey | 01.10.08, 17:38 GMT
Outright lies in a Johann Hari article? Shocking! We all know crazy radicals like him could never ever lie.
Posted by Rob | 01.10.08, 17:12 GMT
That article is so full of outright lies it is insane. First off, most of the " poor black dems" they are saying do not have photo id's is a blatent. They have to have photo ids to apply for and receive public assistance. Food stamps. Which most would, if they are indeed "poor".
Secondly, the "scrubbing of names" for voting purposes is another outright lie. Before a name can be pulled from a voter record it is not only matched by name but also by social security number. It cannot be removed by federal law, unless both match.
Before you speak next time, spend a little time researching what your talking about. You might not look so stupid.
Posted by noliptoday | 01.10.08, 15:03 GMT
Mr. Hari, you are so RIGHT!!! I can't understand why so many Americans are so stupid, so ignorant, so gullible to not understand this.
Posted by Schog | 01.10.08, 08:23 GMT
I encourage everyone with a clear mind to recognize this nonsense and hate, and to back away from it.
This is a set up to influence more hate for America. If we all leave, they will not have any dogs to beat on.
God Bless America
Posted by Steve | 01.10.08, 08:22 GMT
There have been books written, movies made, television and radio programs aired about this subject. Congressman John Conyers continues to investigate these issues and people are not treating this as conspiracy anymore. Nonetheless, many of us are still writing letters to Washington asking when some more indictments might be coming. Norm Coleman (R-MN) wrote me back saying that he believed Pres. Bush to be "good and honest". I'm going to vote this fall saying "No, he's not".
Posted by jettekh | 01.10.08, 08:12 GMT
If this article is so wrong. How come the same people need to reply to it again and again mr Turkey, political jules and mr prime minister. I completely believe about Bin Laden. That is exactly what he was taught to do. We saw the fall of Russia due to economic reasons does our current economy look really different? Wake up!
Posted by sonya | 01.10.08, 08:06 GMT
132 Comments