I was on my way to the gym this afternoon, when I spotted a forwarded e-mail in my inbox with this article.  The e-mail got me so steamed that I couldn’t leave the house and spent the next hour writing a response.  I’ve included it here:

“First off, if you’d read my article yesterday, you’d know that you should always be wary of forwarded e-mail messages.  Now as to as the content of this particular fear-mongering e-mail, here is my response:

I am thrilled that Hamas and Iran and Gaddafi want Barack Obama to be president.  I am thrilled that dangerous Middle Eastern groups see Obama as a potential friend.  This gives us much better leverage in dealing with these groups.  Why?  Several reasons.

1. Problematic Islamic groups are more likely to make concessions or make peace with Obama as a negotiator.  They think he’ll give them the best deal, so they’ll work with him.  It is in their interest to act nice while he’s in office rather than risk dealing with a Republican president whom they distrust.  This gives Obama leverage that McCain will lack.  Now, do you honestly think Obama is going to sell out Israel’s security or our own?  No.  He’s not stupid.  He’s going to work hard for peace and stability according to American terms.  The evil thing about articles like the one you forwarded is that they imply he would do otherwise.  These articles stop short of actually making this accusation because there is NO support for it, but they do everything to imply it, usually with guilt-by-association and flawed enemy-of-my-enemy logic.  Here’s the thing: once you remove this false implication, the “Obama is bad for Israel” naysayers have nothing to stand on.  If he’s not about to sell out Israel or America, then what exactly is this article trying to say?  That he’d be open to the idea of a divided Jerusalem when negotiating peace?  Shouldn’t any U.S. president be open to that option?

2. Obama will weaken terrorist organizations by denying them a recruiting tool.  George W. Bush was Al Qaeda’s dream president. Their goal with 9-11?  It was to provoke an American over-reaction that they could use to grow in strength.  Bin Laden has said as much. Did it work?  You betcha.  GWB played right into Al Qaeda’s hands. Rather than a strategic response that brought the world together united against extremism, he over-reached by invading Iraq, demagoguing about Axes of Evil, and generally being an arrogant bastard.  Islamic extremists (much like Fox news — but that’s another argument) thrive on fear and hate.  They need it to survive.  GWB was so hated by them that he became their dream recruitment tool. Now … if we hand these guys the president they think they want (Obama), what will happen?  Suddenly, recruitment goes down.  How can you stoke the fires of hatred when the U.S. President (a.k.a. “bad guy numero uno”) is suddenly someone you don’t hate as much?
Don’t fool yourself into thinking extremism can be eradicated by dropping the right bomb.  Kill one terrorist and his two brothers join the fight the next day.  It’s about hate*.  Obama can take a little wind out of that sail  McCain, by contrast, has as much or more bluster than GWB, and will fill his role as recruiter-in-chief quite nicely.
(* it’s not just about hate; it’s also about unemployment/poverty/hunger/and lack of economic opportunity, all of which lead citizens to, yes, hate)

3.  Aren’t you appalled by the idea of letting the preferences of our enemies determine who we elect to lead our country?  I am.

4.  Guess who else wants Barack Obama to win this election?  It’s not just dangerous Middle Eastern countries.  It is MOST countries!  Most of the world has figured out what we are too dense to figure out in our own country: that it’s time for a steady, Democratic president who is more prone to diplomacy than bluster.  The rest of the world has watched appalled as GWB has fueled the fires of radicalism and driven our economy into the toilet .  The rest of the world realizes the importance of the U.S. restoring their image internationally.  When Bill Clinton was president, he was one of the most popular leaders in the Middle East and the world.  That was a good thing.  Bush is reviled. That’s a bad thing.  The world loves Obama.  That’s a reason to vote for him.  Not against him.

I hope my ranting did a little to reassure you that a Barack Obama presidency is something to be welcomed and not feared.  I believe strongly that if we let fear drive our decisions, we will only have more things to fear.  That is the history of war and violence.  Fear (both founded and unfounded) is always to blame when man strikes out against his brother.  You may think “hope” is a wishy washy concept, but a candidate who operates from a place of hope is more apt to produce peaceful results than one who operates from a place of fear.

If you find any of what I’ve written to be the least bit persuasive, I hope you’ll forward these words with the same energy you forwarded the ones below.

Happy voting.

Bill