The next US President

Obama and the Jews

Ron Kampeas said:

The Canadian Jewish News January 4, 2007

Ask about Barack Obama's natural constituencies, and you might hear that he's the first black with a viable shot at the White House; or about his Kenyan father and his childhood in Indonesia; or the youthfulness of his followers; or the millions of Oprah junkies swooning over his candidacy. What you might not hear is that the Illinois senator, who made history Thursday by winning the Democratic caucus in Iowa, has made Jewish leaders an early stop at every stage in his political career.

In his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, he sought the backing of Alan Solow, a top Chicago lawyer. Eight years later, running for the U.S. Senate -- long before he became the shoo-in, when he was running in a Democratic field packed with a dozen candidates, including some Jews -- one of his first meetings was with Robert Schrayer,a top Jewish philanthropist in Chicago.

When he launched his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in late 2006, he named as his fund-raising chief Alan Solomont, the Boston Jewish philanthropist who helped shepherd Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to the Democratic candidacy in 2004. And he chose a gathering of the pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, last March to deliver his presidential candidacy's first foreign policy speech.

"Some of my earliest and most ardent supporters came from the Jewish community in Chicago," Obama told JTA in 2004, after his keynote speech galvanized the Democratic convention in Boston. Three years later, addressing the National Jewish Democratic Council's candidate's forum, he made the same point when he was asked about his ties with Arab Americans and Muslim Americans in Chicago.

"My support within in the Jewish community has been much more significant than my support within the Muslim community," Obama said at the April forum, adding: "I welcome and seek the support of the Muslim and Arab communities." His Jewish followers are fervent, distributing "Obama '08" yarmulkes early in his campaign.

His rock-star status as well as the relationships Obama has built in the community have helped avoided murmurings about his otherwise notable divergences from pro-Israel orthodoxies. In his AIPAC speech, for example, Obama favored diplomacy as a means of confronting Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. "While we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons," he said.

AIPAC does not oppose diplomacy in engaging Iran, but dislikes it as an emphasis, believing that talks could buy the Iranian regime bomb-making time. But his words did not stop the Chicago hotel ballroom packed with 800 AIPAC members from cheering Obama on. A few weeks later, Obama drew more rubberneckers than any other candidate attending AIPAC's policy forum in Washington -- drawing away onlookers from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) although she outpolls Obama among Jewish voters. No one winced when he said that Palestinian needs must be considered in working out a peace deal, although that's hardly standard AIPAC pep talk.

He made the same point at the NJDC event.

"It is in the interests of Israel to establish peace in the Middle East," he said. "It cannot be done at the price of compromising Israel’s security, and the United States government and an Obama presidency cannot ask Israel to take risks with respect to its security. But it can ask Israel to say that it is still possible for us to allow more than just this status quo of fear, terror, division. That can’t be our long-term aspiration."

Early in his campaign, he handily killed an Israel-related controversy in its early stages. At a chat he had said that "no one has suffered more than the Palestinians." Blame the leadership was what he meant, he later explained: "What I said was, nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region," Obama said during an MSNBC debate.

Obama tempers his deviations from pro-Israel orthodoxy by going an extra mile in areas where he agrees with groups such as AIPAC. He has led the effort in the Senate to pass legislation that would assist U.S. states that choose to divest from Iran. His top Middle East adviser is Dennis Ross, who had the job during the Clinton administration and who has since principally blamed the Palestinian leadership for the failure of the Oslo peace process.

And in recent speeches, Obama tweaked his pro-Israel rhetoric to echo the recent drive by the Israeli government and pro-Israel groups to insist on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

"I think everyone knows what the basic outlines of an agreement would look like," he said in a speech redistributed by his campaign. "It would mean that the Palestinians would have to reinterpret the notion of right of return in a way that would preserve Israel as a Jewish state. It might involve compensation and other concessions from the Israelis, but ultimately Israel is not going to give up its state."

On domestic issues, Obama is savvy about Jewish social justice commitments, and is on a first name basis with two of the top Jewish religious lobbyists in Washington -- Rabbi David Saperstein of the Reform movement and Nathan Diament, who represents the Orthodox Union. But that connection is not enough to supplant Clinton among Jewish voters. In a recent American Jewish Committee poll, his favorable rating was 38 percent, while hers was 53 percent.

Clinton also has most of the Jewish congressional delegation backing her. Her years as first lady and as senator have made her a more familiar presence among Jews. Public policy groups are likelier to favor her uncompromising approach to pushing universal health care, as opposed to Obama's appeal to build consensus on the issue. Obama's appeal is in his broader vision, according to Solomont.

"This election will be about change: a change in government and the way politics is conducted," he told JTA last May. "There is a connection between gridlock and the smallness of our politics."

Click to expand...

Well what will happen next? Who will benefit from Obama being a Democrat candidate?

"No one has suffered more than the Palestinians." Was obama flip flopping? I wonder?

Obama karibu anamtupilia mbali shemeji yetu Mama Clinton kwenye kinyang'anyiro cha delegates wa Democrats kutoka huko New Hampshire.

Soma hapa

Obama ...One point!!!...Spend your time Thinking about Kenya.....

Hillary Clinton also contributed to the flap by making a comment that
some interpreted as giving President Lyndon B. Johnson more credit
than the Rev. Martin Luther King for civil rights laws.



?

Yes..You are a Good Mother but This Time is for Obama..You Have More Job To Do...!!Hope you know wha I mean...

Struggle for the African-American vote



Public smiles, but in private,
there is a simmering mutual dislike

Kevin Connolly said:

Elijah Nesbitt is old enough to remember the horrors of the past, but he is starting to believe that he has lived long enough to see hope in the future.
Elijah is a black South Carolinian who thinks deeply about his politics - exactly the kind of voter, in fact, who is at the centre of this week's struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama for the state's African-American vote. He can recall his grandfather taking him down to a polling station as a young child on the day in 1960 when the old man voted for the smiling young Democratic contender, John F Kennedy.

A white mob was lying in wait outside: the racist supremacists of the Old South were losing their battle to prevent black people from registering to vote, by using a mixture of intimidation and bureaucratic obstructionism. Trying to frighten an elderly man and his young grandchildren was a desperate last resort.

Struggle for rights

Elijah told me what happened: "I remember having to hide under the floorboards of my grand-daddy's car with blankets over us, because we were afraid that people was coming around and shaking the car, trying to break into the car and saying racial slurs at you."



Obama with singer Usher Raymond
and actress Kerry Washington

But Mr Nesbitt senior somehow managed to vote. John F Kennedy, that doomed hope for the future was elected, and the early 60s gradually saw civil rights legislation transform the legal rights of America's black population. It didn't succeed in transforming their economic horizons, but that is a matter for another day.

The legacy of the bitterness of that struggle for rights is to be found in the sensitivity that surrounds any issue of race in modern American politics. Consider the reaction when Mrs Clinton made this observation about the work of Martin Luther King, the civil rights leader who was assassinated 40 years ago this year.
She said: "He worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed because the dream couldn't be realised until finally it was legally permissible."

Allegations

You could read that as something of a self-serving statement of the obvious: a reminder of the usefulness of having a long-time Washington insider with their hands on the levers of power.



A row erupted recently over
Mrs Clintons comments about civil rights

But many African-Americans heard the remark differently. Some interpreted it as showing a straightforward lack of respect for Dr King. Many more saw it as a well-thought out tactic; an attempt to lure Mr Obama onto the poisonous ground of racial politics, and to frustrate his efforts to run as a candidate offering change to black and white voters alike. A post-identity politician, in the jargon of the moment.

The row was only one factor in the steady poisoning of relations between the Obama and Clinton camps, which culminated in the ill-humoured opening act of the latest Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Each raked up allegations about the other's past, and they did it in a way that made clear that a simmering mutual dislike is no longer simply simmering. So when, during the second half of the debate, that racial issue was raised directly, you could sense the tension in the room.

Difficult race issue

One of the moderators asked Mr Obama what he thought of the often-quoted remark that, because of his affinity for African-American issues, it could be argued that Bill Clinton was America's first black president.



Bill Clinton campaigns for his wife
in South Carolina

Mr Obama chose to deal with the issue deftly. He paused and said thoughtfully: "I would have to investigate more Bill's dancing abilities, you know, and some of this other stuff before I accurately judge whether he was in fact a brother."

It was a brilliantly-judged remark (Mr Obama has good comic timing) and one that no white politician would have dared to make. The truth is that the race issue is a difficult one to judge for both the Democratic front-runners. Mr Obama can assume he will probably get a majority of the African-American Democrat vote - but he wants to be seen as a candidate for all Democrats. There's that post-identity thing again.

Hillary has the same problem. She needs the votes of women, but can't win with women's votes alone. So both need to send out the kind of signals that reinforce their core vote, without alienating other potential supporters. And, of course, neither can be sure how African-American women in South Carolina will vote at the weekend. In a tight race, they could well decide who wins this crucial "first in the South state".

Change

When I asked a young African-American woman outside the conference venue in Myrtle Beach which possibility excited her more between the prospect of the first black president, and the first woman in the White House she said: "For real change, it has to be a black woman running."

Campaign 2008 already promises so much change that to her, at least, greater change in the future already seems inevitable. A third or so of South Carolina's population of around four million is African-American. Most are Democrats, so their votes will be crucial at the weekend.

I will leave the last word to Elijah Nesbitt, who has lived through such extraordinary change in his lifetime - and who, by the way, fought for his country on two combat tours of Vietnam.
He told me directly he didn't know who would win the Democrat nomination, or the presidency, but he said this election could be as important as the one that Jack Kennedy won all those years ago, because the promise of change is once again in the air.
As he put it: "If we elect a woman president or a minority, then every minority can see hope that it's not so much to share jobs but share power and that is what this election is about, it's about the change in power."

Click to expand...

Voting leo usiku kwa EA time tusubiri nani atakuwa mshindi huko uswahilini. Obama akishinda itamuongezea nguvu lakini akibwagwa hapa naona mchezo utakuwa ndio mwisho wake.

Victory in largest state is biggest prize as Clinton takes most big states

Clinton Leads In Delegates; Obama Wins 13 States

Can Hillary Clinton still win?

By Molly Levinson said:

The more things change, the more they stay the same. After a slew of primary and caucus victories for Barack Obama - who has been out-organising Hillary Clinton's machine, and getting months of media adulation - he has been suddenly stopped short of coronation. Mrs Clinton won in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, and once again, the race is on.

Even more importantly, it seems for the first time in a long time that her message of experience and getting things done may outweigh his call for change. Yet despite Mrs Clinton's burst of momentum, and Obama's success, it is impossible for either one to secure the 2,025 delegates that would give them the Democratic nomination with pledged delegates alone.

Both need the support of many of the 796 super-delegates - the elected officials and party dignitaries who have special voting rights in the nominating process - to get the nomination.

So, despite months of glee over big turnouts and voter enthusiasm, the hand-wringing has begun anew in the Democratic Party over how to get to a nominee.

Obama's upper hand

There are two mathematical realities that matter to both campaigns.

First, winning delegates does not necessarily mean winning the popular vote. Mrs Clinton's victories in a pile of big states including New York, New Jersey, California, Texas, Ohio and Massachusetts have kept her within striking distance of taking the popular vote from Obama

Second, no matter how well Mrs Clinton does in the remaining state contests, come June - at the end of the primary and caucus season - Mr Obama will have more pledged delegates than she will Mr Obama also has a clear upper hand with super-delegates so long as he has the majority of pledged delegates and the majority of the popular vote.

Harrison Hickman, a prominent Democratic pollster and advisor to John Edwards, has a theory for the reason behind the reluctance among super-delegates to veer away from the candidate with the pledged delegate lead. He calls it "Gore Guilt". He says that Democratic voters felt so bruised by the 2000 election - in which former Vice President Al Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for lost Florida votes that could have made him president - that they are reluctant to allow the nomination to be decided by a cabal of elected officials and party dignitaries voting in accordance with their own personal beliefs.

Yet it is precisely this argument that Mrs Clinton will have in her corner if she can win the popular vote.
If Mr Obama is forced to argue that he has more delegates while Mrs Clinton has more votes, his position is dramatically weakened, especially given the history of the very party that was forced to put up with the Bush administration for eight years, despite Mr Gore winning a clear majority of votes in 2000.

Recent polling confirms this. A 6 March Rasmussen poll shows that 57% of Americans think the candidate with the most votes should win the Democratic nomination. Only 26% of Americans think the candidate with the most delegates ought to win.

No room for error

Along those lines, Mrs Clinton's path to the nomination depends on accomplishing three things. First, Mrs Clinton must win the popular vote so that she can present her majority as a reason for super-delegates to get behind her Second, Mrs Clinton must also lessen the gap between her number of pledged delegates and Mr Obama's. Mr Obama already has one more caucus victory this week: Wyoming, which he won by a large margin on Saturday. He is also favoured in the upcoming contests in Mississippi and North Carolina. Mrs Clinton must win decisively in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico. Florida and Michigan, two states which have been disqualified from the process for breaking with party rules, also hang in the balance
Finally, Mrs Clinton must prove resoundingly that she is the more electable of the two candidates in a general election and would be a better president. She must combat Mr Obama's claim to the mantle of change and at the same time emphasise her credentials to prove that she is best able to beat John McCain
Super-delegates do not have to vote until the end of August, at the Democratic Convention in Denver.

Six months is plenty of time to build an unbeatable argument for super-delegate support - but there is little room for error and almost no room for losses.

Click to expand...

It seems the only people who play their cards correctly are the Republicans, another 4 yrs will be good for them. They can sit back and plan the Democrats now.

Dean: Super-delegates Should Pick By July 1

(CBS/AP) said:

March 28, 2008
Democratic Party chief Howard Dean said in an interview with CBS News' The Early Show that he wants all Democratic superdelegates to make their choice before July 1 to avoid a contested convention. Superdelegates are the nearly 800 party and elected officials who can support whomever they choose at the Democratic National Convention, regardless of what happens in the primaries.

"There's 800 of them and 450 of them have already said who they're for," Dean told co-anchor Harry Smith. "I'd like the other 350 to say who they're on between now and the 1st of July so we don't have to take this into convention." (Watch the video of Dean's interview.)

Dean also tried to tone down the ill will that is growing among supporters of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I think the candidates have got to understand that they have an obligation to our country to unify," he said. "Somebody's going to lose this race with 49.8% of the vote. And that person has got to pull their supporters in behind the nominee." Dean also talked with The Associated Press, saying the charges and countercharges between Clinton and Obama have gotten too personal at times. He declined to say how they have crossed the line, but he said he's made it clear privately when it has happened.

"You do not want to demoralize the base of the Democratic Party by having the Democrats attack each other," he said Thursday during the interview in his office at Democratic National Committee headquarters. "Let the media and the Republicans and the talking heads on cable television attack and carry on, fulminate at the mouth. The supporters should keep their mouths shut about this stuff on both sides because that is harmful to the potential victory of a Democrat."

"Because in the end this is not about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it's about our country," Dean said on the The Early Show. "I want to make sure this campaign stays on the high ground." "There is no point in waiting," he said. The Democratic political organization "is as good or better as the Republicans', and we haven't been able to say that for about 30 years. But that all doesn't make any difference if people are really disenchanted or demoralized by a convention that's really ugly and nasty."

Dean, the former governor of Vermont and 2004 presidential candidate, said he knows his critics say he should take a bigger leadership role in resolving some of these disputes. But he said that's not his role. Rather, he thinks of himself as a referee who enforces the rules in a close basketball game. "Somebody is going to lose," Dean said. "My job is to make sure the person who loses feels like they have been treated fairly so that their supporters will support the winner."

Dean said the massive numbers of people showing up to participate in Democratic nominating contests across the country gives him encouragement that the eventual nominee will be well positioned to win the White House. He said it is good for the candidates to debate controversies like the incendiary sermons by Obama's pastor and Clinton's different accounts of danger on a trip to Bosnia as first lady. If Democrats didn't deal with them now, he said Republicans will surely make use of them in the fall.

Dean also reflected the concerns of many Democrats who worry about Obama and Clinton tearing each other down. "What I don't want to do is have the Democrats make a stupid mistake in April and then be sorry they said that in October and end up with some more right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court," he said.

Dean's supporters say he's working behind the scenes to resolve some of the issues. He's been consulting with party stalwarts about how to wrap up the nomination quickly after the voting ends in June, including former Vice President Al Gore, former presidential candidate John Edwards, former Sen. George Mitchell, former president Jimmy Carter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, civil rights activist Jesse Jackson and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.

"There'll be some nasty fights if it goes to convention, and people will walk out," Dean said. "But I've also been talking to a fairly significant number of, by and large, nonaligned people about how we might resolve this." Dean said he will not encourage any delegate to vote one way or another. "I am going to stand up for the rules, and I know I'm doing the right thing most of the time because I've got both Clinton people and Obama people mad at me," he said.

For instance, while Obama's campaign has been encouraging superdelegates to support the candidate with the most pledged delegates - which almost certainly will be Obama - Dean says the rules don't require that and superdelegates are free to chose who they want. On the other side, Clinton has been arguing lately that even pledged delegates - awarded to a candidate based on the outcome of state contests - aren't bound to vote for that candidate at the convention. Dean called that "a very technical argument."

"You aren't going to get pledged delegates to move unless something really shocking happens," he said. And he thinks it unlikely the superdelegates would support a candidate who did not have the most pledged delegates. Dean also said the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at the convention. But he won't force a resolution because he said there's nothing the Obama and Clinton campaigns can support at this point.

"You bring both sides together and say, `Don't you think it's time that the two campaigns made a deal on how we're going to do this?"' Dean said. "Let me just say that the campaigns believe that kind of a deal is premature right now."

Click to expand...

Two months and counting we will know who will represent the Democrats to challenge John macCain to the White house. Now comes this issue of super delegates oh my god .... ....... Americans, something cooking I wonder? Some more CHADS are missing.................

Just who is Barrack Obama? A Man at Home in the World

Newsweek said:

Obama says he knows the globe better than his rivals. Does he know it too well?

He was just a college kid, vagabonding around the world. But Barack Obama says the weeks he spent traveling through Pakistan in 1981 shaped the views that he still holds today—and that he would bring into the White House. Obama remembers most vividly the desperation and hopelessness—"essentially a feudal life"—he witnessed in the countryside surrounding Karachi, a city that is today a hotbed of jihadist activity. At the tender age of 20, Obama suggested, he was already beginning to understand more about what ailed Muslim societies—what generated terrorism and fratricidal conflicts—than George W. Bush or John McCain do today. "Both as a consequence of living in Indonesia and traveling in Pakistan, having friends in college who were Muslim, I was very clear about the history of Shia-Sunni antagonism"—which is one reason why, as an Illinois state senator 21 years later, he opposed the war in Iraq, Obama told NEWSWEEK last week. "This notion that somehow we were going to be able to create a functioning democracy and reconcile century-old conflicts, I always thought was a bunch of happy talk from this administration."

Obama's taken a lot of hits over his alleged foreign-policy inexperience—most notoriously from fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, who suggested in a TV ad last month that he was the wrong man to answer the phone at 3 a.m. during a crisis. But last week Obama signaled that he'd had enough of these attacks. Not only did he not lack experience, Obama cockily told a fund-raising crowd in San Francisco, but "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

If Obama wins the nomination and faces McCain, this will be a critical test of his candidacy: can he change the terms of the debate so that the traditional measures of foreign-policy experience don't apply? Because the kind of experience he talks about so confidently is not what one typically associates with a presidential résumé. It's not Ike leading the Allied Armies into Europe; it's not JFK saving his shipmates aboard PT-109; it's not George H.W. Bush running the CIA and serving as veep for eight years. (Or, for that matter, John McCain flying combat missions and getting shot down in Vietnam.) Nor was Obama alluding to his mastery of the Moscow Treaty on nukes or the subtleties of Mideast peace talks—though many of his Senate colleagues are impressed with his growing expertise in those areas.

Instead, it is the kind of bottom-up experience that comes from growing up in the muddy lanes of Jakarta, in a plain concrete house at No. 16 Haji Ramli Street. There Obama played hide-and-seek in the local mosque, dueled with bamboo sticks and learned dirty words in Indonesian. Friends and teachers recall his being picked on for his height and dark skin, but say that even amid an alien culture he was a leader and a peacemaker in the schoolyard. He always wanted the job of organizing the other kids into a line before class, says Fermina Katarina Sinaga Suhanda, his third-grade teacher, who had to urge him to take turns. "He always wants to be No. 1, to be at the front. Psychologically, he wants to be in charge," she says.

It's a long way from homeroom monitor to commander in chief, of course. But it was in Jakarta that Obama came to appreciate both the powerlessness of his native companions and the status that came from having a white American mother, Ann, who worked for the U.S. Embassy. "He was at an age when you first begin to see what's going on," says Ben Rhodes, one of his speechwriters. "And what he saw was that America had something other people wanted. Here he is in a majority Muslim country, in a poor neighborhood. And … he has this tie to America that affords him an immediate opportunity that no one else has." Both Obama's Kenyan father—who abandoned the family—and his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, were eager to penetrate that Western world. They never fully succeeded, and Obama knew it.

That experience, aides say, turned Obama into both someone who identifies with those less fortunate abroad—and a true-blue patriot. "He understands he's gotten where he is based on the fact that we have a system that opens up opportunity to smart and talented people," says retired Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak, a top Obama adviser. McPeak, Rhodes and others claim that Obama's upbringing gives him deeper insight into how to win the "hearts and minds" so crucial to success in Iraq, and in the global struggle against Islamic extremism. "Obama's experience living abroad gives him a sense of that grass-roots life, which is so important in shaping why a terrorist is a terrorist," says Tony Lake, Bill Clinton's former national-security adviser, who now is a top Obama adviser.

Obama strikes this theme in speech after speech. In San Francisco last week he derided the typical "codel" (congressional delegation) trip in which "you go from the airport to the embassy … then you go home." Obama will often refer sarcastically to the view a U.S. senator gets from a helicopter zooming over another benighted country. "You see thousands of desperate faces, but you only see them from a distance," he said in a speech last August. Al Qaeda's new recruits come from just those communities, and the key to success for America in the global sphere, he added, is to win over "that child looking up at the helicopter [who] must see America and feel hope." He knows this because he was that child once, Obama says.

This supposedly unique sense of empathy, however, could easily remind some people of Bill Clinton's propensity for "feeling their pain"—and it opens Obama up to charges of naiveté. "It is a danger," says biographer David Mendell, the Chicago Tribune reporter who wrote "Obama: From Promise to Power." "He believes that he can turn anybody to his side. His former Senate campaign manager says Obama thinks he can go into a room full of skinheads and come out with all their votes. But some people just aren't going to be won over." Obama was harshly criticized after he declared, during a debate last year, that he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without setting preconditions. The Bush administration and McCain have declared they would not do so at least until Tehran stops enriching uranium, and even Clinton has criticized Obama's stance. The candidate still insists that a major power like Iran must be engaged. But he's now careful to inject a note of realism into his position, telling NEWSWEEK last week that "it wouldn't make sense for us to negotiate or even have discussions with Iran probably when they are in the midst of a political season." (Iran's presidential elections are in 2009.)

Even some Dems who'd favor him in any contest against McCain also worry that Obama is overplaying his experience. "I don't know whether he's drinking his own Kool-Aid," says a former senior member of the Clinton administration who is not backing either Democratic candidate but would talk only on condition of anonymity because of his private-sector job. "I'm all for talking to the Cubans, or to the Iranians. I'm just not sure he's the guy to do it. The biggest administrative job he ever had was collecting articles for the Harvard Law Review."

It's true that one thing Obama's multicultural upbringing has left him with is enormous self-confidence. He seems to feel at home everywhere, in every kind of crowd.

Obama advisers say that background has given him a feel for what the other side in a negotiation will accept, which helps him to bridge divides. One aide recalls that during a discussion with Palestinian university students in 2006, he told them they have "legitimate aspirations" for statehood, but had to set aside dreams of destroying Israel or splitting the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Obama also shows a pragmatic willingness to find a modus vivendi—as he demonstrated when he asked Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker at hearings last week how much of an Iranian and Qaeda presence in Iraq was acceptable. Former representative Lee Hamilton, another supporter, says Obama's ability to engage with opposing points of view is critical at a time of declining American influence. "We're the world's biggest power, we have all this economic, military and technological power, but we cannot bend the world to our will. This means you have to have a president who's going to be a good listener."

Yet both Clinton and McCain have offered similar bromides about approaching the world more humbly post-Bush. Obama's camp may be on more solid ground when they argue that his fresh global perspective allows him to question traditional foreign-policy thinking. They note that when he joined the Senate in early 2005, one of the first things he did was call Republican Richard Lugar out of the blue and ask to work with him on preventing the spread of loose nukes. (The two combined on the Lugar-Obama law, which seeks to destroy and intercept conventional and nuclear weapons and WMD materials.) In last week's interview, Obama attacked the central premise of McCain's campaign, that "Islamic extremism" is the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century. "I think he's missing the forest for the trees," Obama said. "I think the defining challenge for us is to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of those who might be tempted to use them … Then we can handle the terrorists."

Touting his worldliness remains politically risky for Obama. Americans, as they have been for 200 years, are suspicious of foreign influence—recall that some mocked John Kerry because he spoke French. Obama's sensitivity to foreign grievances is likely to become a talking point for the GOP, which will question his priorities as commander in chief. Former JFK adviser Newton Minow says Obama reminds him of a young Kennedy. But Minow is wary of the fate of Adlai Stevenson, the Illinois governor and Democratic nominee in 1952 and '56 who, like Obama, was seen as brilliant and eloquent but a little too … exotic. "I remember after Adlai lost, he said to me: 'I could have carried England and France'," Minow jokes. The more Obama-mania sweeps countries around the world, the more suspicious his background becomes to some Americans.

Obama's supporters say it's slanderous to suggest that he wouldn't have his priorities straight as president. "I've never met a person anywhere in and out of public life who is more focused on America and its interests," says McPeak. Adds Sarah Sewall of Harvard, Obama's counterinsurgency adviser: "He's really clear about this. He says the first thing I'm supposed to do is keep Americans safe. All these people who would imply that [he's not tough enough] are the same people who jumped all over him about his comments about Pakistan and bombing." (Obama was criticized for being too aggressive when he declared last August, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will.") Obama, who has called for two extra U.S. Army brigades to be deployed to Afghanistan, says that in places like Pakistan, America must do both—win over the people by supporting democracy and hit the terrorists harder.

His supporters know that's a fine line, though. "He's not saying, 'Gee, I should go talk with Al Qaeda and I can persuade bin Laden not to go to war with us.' He's saying 'I'll move in two brigades and if the Pakistanis don't get him, I will'," says former Navy secretary Richard Danzig, another top adviser. "This is not a soft position." At the same time, Danzig admits, "the feeling that there is a common humanity," even with adversaries, "is deep in his own personal experience and his DNA. And there's always the risk that you don't quite get [the balance] right."

Click to expand...

The only question remaining is the votes of the super delegates, whom will they prefer..............

McCain accused of accepting improper donations from Rothschilds

Daniel Nasaw – Guardian April 29, 2008

A US campaign watchdog has accused presumptive Republican president nominee John McCain of violating election laws by accepting campaign contributions from two prominent Londoners.

At issue is a fundraising luncheon held in March at London's Spencer House, during McCain's swing through the United Kingdom. An invitation to the event lists Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild as hosts, and indicates the event was made possible with their "kind permission".

Judicial Watch, a Washington organisation instrumental in the March release of Hillary Clinton's White House schedules, has asked US election monitors to investigate whether the Rothschilds improperly sponsored the fundraiser. US political campaigns are forbidden from accepting contributions from foreign nationals.

"The question is whether or not the Rothschilds paid for the event, the venue, the catering, or any other related costs," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

Tickets to the event cost $1,000 to $2,300, and the luncheon dress code was "lounge suits," the Washington Post reported in March. The McCain campaign did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Judicial Watch also complained to the US election authority, the federal election commission, about Elton John's involvement in Clinton's campaign. The group alleged the British rocker broke US campaign laws by performing at a fundraiser for the New York senator. The Clinton campaign argued US law allowed the British musician to volunteer his time and solicit Americans for contributions.

The federal election commission is unlikely to act soon on the group's McCain complaint. It is currently short-handed, a result of a political squabble between the Democratic-led senate and the Bush administration, and lacks a quorum to take action.

Click to expand...

Website Comment – April 29, 2008

The Rothschilds operate in modern politics exactly as their forebearers did in previous wars: they back both sides. Thus ensuring that whoever wins they've backed a winner.

So while on the one hand, Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild are reported to have hosted a fundraising event for McCain at London's Spencer House in March; on the other Sir Evelyn Rothschild and his wife are reported to be on good terms with Hilary Clinton.

But just to make sure they have the next U.S. election entirely sewn up, the Rothschild's North American allies the Rockefellers are reported to be backing Barack Obama, through their minion and general fixer Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Thus ensuring that whoever ends up sitting in the Oval Office will be in the pocket of the Global Oligarchs; ready to do their bidding rather that that of the American people.

Click to expand...

Interesting ..............

Michelle Obama: Barack has hit boiling point

Barack Obama is struggling to contain his anger and frustration over the constant barrage of questions about his character and judgment, his wife has revealed. Michelle Obama lifted the lid on the irritation felt by the leading Democrat candidate for the White House at the way anti-American outbursts by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, have dogged his campaign.

He is said to be itching to turn all his fire on John McCain, the Republican candidate, who is benefiting most from Mr Obama's protracted tussle with Hillary Clinton. ................................

Click to expand...

Yaani hadi hapo walipofikia, nafikiri hata Clinton machine ishajua kuwa wameola...sasa hata sijui huyu mama anang'ang'ania nini...kama anapiga mkwala ili awekwe kwenye Dream Ticket, then she needs to chill out a little bit. Lakini hiyo White House itakuwa na kasheshe, kasheshe sio ya big O na HRC, bali itakuwa big O na mzee mwenyewe Bill. Na wakati huohuo kuna Michelle, yule bibie hataki mchezo nae kabisaaa, ile ni type ya wale wenyewe wanawaita Mississippi behind Whoopin. Yangu macho; isije ikaja kuliki tu watu wamechapana mikono...Nitacheka sana!

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama may still be hard at it on the campaign trail, but their money people are already talking about how to put the vitriol of the past 18 months behind them.





Obama waves to supporters at a town hall-style meeting in Roseburg, Ore., Saturday.

While

John McCain's Promise to the World–‘You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet Folks'
May 16, 2008

Mark Glenn said:

Americans and others around the world–weary from the ‘war on terror' and beginning to recognize that the present debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan are just the tip of the planned iceberg to come–may be holding out hopes that things will change with the upcoming presidential elections in the US. In some respects they are right–things will change, but only in the sense that they will go from ‘run-of-the-mill' horrible to ‘exceptionally' horrible, and particularly if John McCain is elected. With the election of George Bush in 2000 the world was given Afghanistan and Iraq, but with the election of Maddog McCain it will be Iran, Syria, and–even more worrisome–Russia.

The proof that the son of Admiral McCain (appointed as overseer of the cover-up of Israel's murderous attack on the USS Liberty in 1967) will not only ‘follow the course' but will widen the road to Armageddon to include even more bloodshed and world-wide instability is a no-brainer. He has made it clear–both by his actions as a US Senator and on the current campaign trail–that he will do whatever is required of him by his Zionist masters in getting elected to the highest office in the world. He stated clearly that America will be in Iraq for the next 100 years and said unequivocally that there will be ‘more wars' under his watch. When asked about his plans for Iran while stumping for the American vote, he mockingly spoke about the destruction of millions of innocent lives by mimicking the old Beach Boys' song with his own version of ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb…bomb, bomb Iran'. He has lately become cozy with Pastor Rod Parsley whom he calls his ‘spiritual guide' and a ‘moral compass' for America.

Parsley, in the same screeching and hollering tones that have come to typify his internationally-televised sermons had the following to say concerning the clash of civilizations between the Christian and Muslim worlds–
‘Islam is an anti-Christ religion…America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed…America has historically understood herself to be a bastion against Islam in the world…I do not believe our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam…'

Parsley, seemingly destined to replace the aging (and soon-to-drop-dead-from-weight-induced-heart-failure) John Hagee as the new voice of Christian Zionist mania ended his comments with ‘We were built for the battle!!! We were created for the conflict!!! We get off on warfare!!!'

In other words, Parsley, the man whom John ‘Son of Cain' McCain considers his moral advisor has interpreted the Book Of Revelations and the Apocalypse therein to mean that America's reason for existence is fighting Israel's never-ending wars against the world's 1.5 billion Muslims spread out in dozens of countries at a time when America is all but bankrupt.

Now however–as if a protracted war against the Islamic world weren't enough–there is a new twist to the madness that truly portends the worst for all mankind, which is no less than potential conflict with a nuclear armed, nationalist-minded and increasingly-assertive Russia. Besides the statements coming out of McCain himself–namely that Russia should be excluded from the G8, that Putin is nothing more than a KGB thug and other verbal daggers meant to taunt and threaten Russia, there are McCain's campaign advisors to consider. There is Max Boot who lauds McCain as the candidate who would ‘scare the snot out of our enemies' and whose ‘bellicose aura' would result in other countries being ‘more afraid to mess with him than with other occupants of the Oval Office' including–if it can be believed, George Bush himself. Robert Kagan, one of the ayatollahs of the Project for the New American Century (basic blueprint for worldwide American warmongering and domination) has made pushing for confrontation against Russia his favorite calling card. James Woolsley, former CIA director (who also sits on the same Jewish Institute For National Security Affairs investigated several times by the FBI for Israeli espionage and who has called for the release of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard from prison) has never met a war he did not like, including any future conflict with Russia. Besides these individuals, there is Bill Kristol to consider, son of one of the godfathers of the Neocon movement and himself co-founder and chairman of Project for a New American Century, and, last but certainly not least, there is John Bolton, former Bush-appointed ambassador to the UN who salivates so much at the prospect of war against Iran and Syria that he should wear a bib in public.

All of the aforementioned men, including McCain himself, have publicly supported Bush's move to station US missiles in countries bordering Russia, a move viewed so threatening that Putin warned that countries allowing themselves to be used as American proxies would have nuclear weapons aimed at them. Those who doubt it is within the Neocon schedule to bring about war with a nuclear-armed Russia should keep in mind Israel's motto of ‘never forget'. What's at stake here is the settling of old scores. Israel was founded by the very same Trotskyite Marxists forced to flee the Soviet Union upon Stalin‘s takeover of power, the same Stalin who was so much an enemy of Trotsky that he had him killed by an icepick-wielding assassin in Mexico.

For decades following their fall from power in Russia, these same internationalist Zionists dreamed of the day Russia and her vast natural resources would fall back into their hands like ripened fruit. With the ‘fall' of communism, the election of Boris Yeltsin as president and the ‘privatizing' of Russia's various state-run businesses into the hands of the now-infamous ‘oligarchs' it seemed as though Israel had reacquired what she had lost decades earlier–an economic foothold in Russia that would afford the Jewish state an opportunity of siphoning off vast amounts of wealth. With the election of Putin, the re-nationalizing of the aforementioned ‘privatized' ventures and the flight of the oligarchs (mainly to Israel) all of that changed. Now, Israel and her supporters seem to be hell-bent upon using the military might of the United States in trying to bring to heel a Russia equally hell-bent upon surviving in the dangerous jungle of Neocon mayhem.

The reader should also keep in mind other factors as well. Israel intends to become–not just a world power, but the world power. The irrational, megalomaniacal, unstable and messianic-minded individuals who dragged her forth from her 2,000 year old grave have spoken openly of making Jerusalem the capitol of the world in line with the Old Testament idea that the Jews are God's chosen people and that Gentiles were created for the purpose of serving them. How does Israel then achieve such an exalted position in terms of world power if there are competing powers such as the US and Russia? The answer is easy–have them wipe each other out. Those who doubt such a thing would be possible should keep in mind the 1967 war between Israel and the Arab nations surrounding her when the US came within minutes of launching a nuclear strike against Soviet-allied Egypt in what was code-named Operation Cyanide, the purpose of which was to drive the Soviets out of the Middle East permanently.

There is no doubt the Soviet Union would have launched a counter-strike against American assets, resulting in an escalation and finally to all-out war between the two nuclear superpowers. As one Old Testament prophet once quipped, ‘a leopard does not change its spots,' and just as Israel was willing to sit by and allow the US and Russia to go to war then, so too is she willing to orchestrate a nuclear Armageddon that would result in two at least nominally Christian countries being wiped off the map.

During the Clinton years, patriotic Americans never envisioned a presidency as bad as that of Bill and Hillary. Someone suggesting that one day in the future Americans would look back on the Clinton years as the good old days (relatively speaking) would have been laughed out of town. Much to their chagrin however, this is exactly what has taken place after 8 years of George Bush and his wars for Israel. By the same token, now if someone were to suggest that America will one day look back on the George Bush years with longing, such as person would be treated to the same ridicule, and yet, with a McCain presidency, that is more than likely what is to come.

In a recent interview, McCain–the same would-be president who wrote a glowing endorsement of the book by Jay Cristol exculpating Israel's slaughter of 34 Americans serving aboard the USS Liberty–said "There's going to be other wars. I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars…' Judging by his comments and the company he keeps one is forced to conclude that indeed the Manchurian Candidate speaks from his heart, and that those ‘other wars' he promises may include not only the war to end all wars, but the war to end all life on earth. Put in less fancy terms, ‘you ain't seen nothin' yet folks.'

Click to expand...

Will the super delegates for the Democrats be wise?

MacCain Vs Obama - Mccain wins


MacCain Vs Clinton - Clinton wins

Kazi Kwelikweli......

I'm just interested to see OBAMA wins but whomever wins it will not be a great deal to me.
I think its time to start thinking in our own way:
- what will happen if MUGABE wins?
- What will happen if Pemba stick to their stand?
- Gosh, what will happen if DARUSO's (Dar es Salaam University Student Organasation ) election (after vote of no confidence) is once again "kuingiliwa"?
and so on and so on?

Hillary concedes Oregon defeat


Will it be McCain Vs Obama .....................?

Choices at the cookout

Justin Webb said:

We are told John McCain's blood pressure - I assume this is when his famous temper is not raised - is a perfectly respectable 134 over 84. But his good cholesterol is 42 - below the recommended 60. He's had skin cancer - which we already knew - but nothing appears imminently to threaten the life of the man who, if he were elected in November, would be the oldest first-term president in American history.

All of this completely misses the point of course that it's not what he's got that concerns people - it's what he might get in the next four or eight years. The polls consistently suggest that John McCain's age is a handicap - it worries people. It need not be fatal to his presidential chances but the issue has to be managed - it cannot be dismissed. Which is why a barbecue in the gorgeous red rock setting of Sedona, Arizona is causing much interest this weekend - the cookout is at John McCain's home, and among the guests are three men who are being talked of as vice-presidential candidates: Florida Governor Charlie Crist, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and former Massachusetts Governor and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

It has a slight air of those weekends they used to run in Britain for prospective senior civil servants to make sure that a brilliant mind was allied to an ability to hold a knife and fork properly. So if Charlie Crist is a closet vegan or Bobby Jindal cannot hold a plate and talk at the same time, or if Mitt Romney's just so unbearably unctuous that McCain wants to kill him - this is the weekend their vice-presidential chances evaporate.

Incidentally Crist looks to me to be a bit too clean-cut for McCain's tastes, Jindal is a 36-year-old Indian American whizz kid but is would surely look like an adopted son - giving the ticket an oddness that the Republicans might care to avoid.

That leaves Romney. He knows about the economy, indeed he supported it single-handed with his personal expenditure during his presidential bid, and he appeals to many on the right of the party - he is handsome and youngish. BUT McCain and he do not appear to like each other - in fact rather the opposite. Does that matter?

This weekend could be important - my sense is that if McCain and Romney look up at the cloudless Arizona sky and think big thoughts, they might just decide to try to make a go of it. Perhaps Romney will do the washing up...

Click to expand...

The vice president of USA in contention ................What the hell with these Americans................... they wonder.....................