Darfur at the Vice Presidential Debate: The Good, the Bad, and Why it Matters

by Michelle . · 2008-10-07 19:05:00 UTC
Topics:

Last week's vice presidential debate included refreshingly strong language on Darfur. Both candidates agreed on the need for a no-fly zone over Darfur, and Senator Biden proposed possible NATO intervention and called on the U.S. to lead the push for a full deployment of UNAMID. (The Sudanese foreign ministry is less than thrilled.)

However, Governor Palin's remarks about her support for Sudan divestment legislation quickly came under fire after the debate. In fact, public records show that a representative of her administration testified against a divestment bill in a committee hearing:

"The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination," testified Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner.

Alaska Representative Les Gara, a co-sponsor of divestment legislation in 2006, said that Palin's support came much later.

But at least she's publicly throwing her support behind the legislation now. Why the change? One can only assume, but I think it's safe to say that it's now popular to be anti-genocide.

So be anti-genocide. All of the cool kids are doing it.

Michelle . has been involved in various activist endeavors, including the Teach Against Genocide pilot campaigns.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Ban Ki-moon Raps for Jay-Z
NEXT STORY:
Campaign about Apple Factories in China Gains Wide and Diverse Support

COMMENTS (0)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.