Obama’s ascent to greatness

Obama’s stardom transcends national frontiers

by Etse Sikanku

There’s a very good argument that Barack Obama is well on his way to clinching the Democratic nomination.

Now I’m no mathematician but suppose the Florida and Michigan votes are disregarded and nothing dramatic happens to sway super delegates away from Obama, this may very well become reality. Should it materialize, the man who lost his first contest for a seat in the Illinois legislature may be turning history on its head.

There are many reasons why Obama’s success is iconic. He will become the Democratic Party’s first black nominee and potentially the nation’s first African American president. But even before his meteoric political ascent Barack had achieved other significant feats.
During his law school days at Harvard he became the first ever African American president of the Harvard Law Review.

When the people of Illinois sent him to Washington in 2004, he became only the third African American since reconstruction to be elected to the US senate.

Despite the media frenzy that has been associated with his run for the white house and his unusual personal story Obama has come up for criticisms from several quarters both home and abroad. Only a day after he announced his candidature, Australian Prime Minister John Howard aimed straight for him when he signaled that a victory for Obama will mean victory for Osama.

Howard said: "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."

Obama dismissed Howard’s criticism as empty rhetoric calling it ‘flattery’ before going on to say that: “… if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them up to Iraq."

Others such as Geraldine Ferraro believe that Obama is in the position he is because of his race. During the early part of his campaign before the brouhaha over Wright-gate, it was common to find right wing internet bloggers and Clinton supporters over reaching themselves to paint Obama as a Muslim.

Both Clinton herself and McCain have often said Obama’s campaign is being run on “empty promises” or “empty rhetoric”

But no one need doubt Obama’s abilities. There is no denying the fact that America has gone through some of its hardest years under the current president. Of all the candidates in the race I sincerely believe that Barack Obama is the one who can right the destructive abyss that this country has been plunged into.

Every single fight between Obama and Clinton has been about whom can best serve the needs of the American people and unify them. Looking at his campaign policies, his support for fair trade, his experience as a community organizer and his personal background Barrack Obama stands out as the best choice for America at this time. He opposed NAFTA which he has always maintained was “oversold” right from the beginning.

Overall he has a genuine concern for the hardworking people of this country which will inform his policies and actions as president. Internationally he’s more favorably viewed than any of the candidates with a city in Japan supporting his candidature whiles songs are being composed in other parts of the world such as Ghana and Kenya in his honor.

Such cordiality will help restore America’s reputation-which has been patently battered- on the international scene. Some Americans complain they don’t know much about him but his freshness and distance from Washington will make him a great agent of change.

By any measure, Clinton and McCain are clearly outstanding alternatives for president but what America does not have is time.

This country is in the middle of one of its worst economic, foreign policy and constitutional crisis. In politics time is everything. America cannot afford to wait.

I don’t for a moment think that Barack Obama is a prophetic messiah but this much I know: he’s the best suited to the lead the nation at such a time.

Sen. Obama's litmus test

by Etse Sikanku

One would have thought that, several months into the presidential campaign, questions about Barack Obama's blackness would have been settled, or at least ignored.

But it's now apparent that Obama's lack of total support among the black population has nothing to do with his abilities. Instead, an unthinking spectrum of the black population - both inward-looking and self-serving - has decided to subject him to this hapless color scrutiny.
The issue about Obama's blackness first came up in 2003 when he was running for Senate. Four years later, the topic is as virulent as ever.

Considering this country has never had a black president and the perception that past leadership have not done enough to address problems of African-Americans, it's easy to assume their support for Obama would have been automatic. Yet this has not been the case. Instead, many in the African-American community are more interested in subjecting Obama to a "how-black-are-you?" test.

In November 2006, African-American columnist Stanley Crouch threw the first blows before Obama even announced his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic ticket, saying, "He has not lived the life of a black American … If we end up with him as our first black president, he will have come into the White House through a side door - which might, at this point, be the only one open."

Comments like this are silly, immature and divisive. Why doesn't anyone ask if Bill Richardson is Hispanic enough, if Hillary Clinton is feminist enough or if John Edwards is handsome enough? Why hasn't anyone asked if Mitt Romney is religious enough or why Rudy Giuliani has marriage problems? Has anyone bothered to find out if Joe Biden is tall enough or whether Ron Paul is white enough?

Obama may not represent the black community the way 50 Cent does, but he shouldn't have to. Obama's trouble with the community is that he's biracial, has a direct connection with Africa, doesn't yell racism at every opportunity and will not make reparations a campaign theme. Because Obama is a Harvard-trained lawyer ready to break from the stereotypical African-American mold, he has been given a bad name by a community that should have been his most unyielding support base.

Should the reluctance of blacks to vote for Obama be seen as a display of political maturity or a reflection of their own small-mindedness? Is the reluctance of a black person with African-American parents to vote for another with non-African-American parents - but still black - any different from a white American refusing to vote for a black person? Do we call that racism too? Or is there another name for it? Is one's blackness determined by one's parentage, culture, color of skin, educational background, prison history, propensity for violence or something the rest of us don't know about?

Actually, when did race become such an issue in presidential politics?

To cast your vote based on the color of one's skin is as simple-minded as making a judgment of one's character based on the shape of his or her nose. In any case, who has bestowed on anyone the authority to determine the blackness of a human being? When did Al Sharpton's definition of blackness become a barometer for measuring race? What were people thinking when they called Bill Clinton the first black president? We should be worried, because the factors that gave Clinton that label are nothing to write home about: a huge appetite for sex and single parenthood.

Obama is the first black candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president, so isn't it ridiculous that a prowling mass of gullible ethnocentrists are pulling the trigger on his quest to make history?

The simple truth is that playing the race card is a great disservice to the future of America and the qualities of high achieving aspirants. Race is irrelevant. I hope that one day many more Americans will move beyond the clouds of trivial politics into the high plains of thought where ability, skill and relevant qualities are considered in making a judgment of one's suitability for the White House.

Perhaps the bickering about color reveals more about the pettiness that underpins our politics than about the candidates themselves. Let us judge them on their records. Let us judge them on their policies. Let us judge them on their message and the reason of it - not on the color or discolor of their skins.

Is the dream over for Obama?

Wright's sermons have dented Obama's presidential campaign

by Foxnews

Surrogates for Barack Obama on Sunday downplayed the significance of Obama’s relationship to a controversial pastor and suggested the discussion is a preoccupation from bigger issues in the Democrat presidential race.

“The fact of the matter is people would like to move on to other things,” said Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, characterizing remarks by Obama pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright as “outrageous,” but saying they are not relevant to Obama’s candidacy.

“He’s rejected it. He said no– he doesn’t have any association with it. He finds these comments outrageous,” Dodd, an Obama supporter and former presidential candidate, told “FOX News Sunday.” He added that “guilt by association is not typically American.”

But some political analysts say that comments by Wright could pose a major obstacle for Obama because unlike average Americans, politicians suffer from “guilt by association.”
“This is a man who he chose to be associated with. It’s not a family member.

He chose to be associated with Reverend Wright and saw advantage in it. And that’s why he exploited it up to a point when he realized, especially when he was announcing, that he couldn’t have Wright by his side for the announcement in Springfield and now seeks to somehow distance himself. But it speaks to his character, and it speaks to the judgment which is the basis on which Barack Obama has been running his campaign. So I think it could be a big problem,” said National Public Radio national correspondent and FOX News contributor Juan Williams.
It also could suggest an insincerity by Obama, said conservative syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

“This, I think, is a huge story because it contradicts the whole persona and appeal of Obama as a man who transcends race,” Krauthammer said. “I think it ought to be explored a lot more deeply.”

Out on the campaign trail on Saturday, Obama was dogged by questions about comments made by his spiritual leader of 20 years, whose quotes have been sprayed over the news in the last several days.

At a town-hall meeting in Indiana, Obama said he was not in the pews when Wright said, for example, the U.S. is run by “rich, white people” or that the U.S. created the AIDS virus to kill African Americans. The Illinois senator said he “completely rejects” the preacher’s controversial sermons, including one in which he said the United States was asking for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks because it had supported “state-sponsored terrorism” against black South Africans and Palestinians.

“Although I knew him and know him as somebody in my church that talked to me about Jesus and family and friendships but clearly, if all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked,” Obama said.

Obama who is new to disavowing himself from the remarks, told his audience that people should speak up forcefully against comments like Wright’s.

Meanwhile, Clinton supporters are refusing to jump on the opportunity to attack Obama for his slow response. “I mean, as you know, I prefer Senator Clinton for a whole lot of reasons, but I don’t cast aspersions on Senator Obama for what somebody else said,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Voters should “accept what Obama has said and move on,” said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.
The Clinton campaign may be following a well-known operating principle of politics, which is when an opponent is shooting himself in the foot, stand back and let him. According to the results of a new, four-day Rasmussen tracking poll out Sunday morning, Obama’s national lead has narrowed to just 3 points over Clinton.

“The Clinton campaign won’t touch this with a 10-foot poll, but they don’t have to. … It will dribble, dribble out for at least a few more days and in this Internet era there’s no limit to what you can” dredge up, said Democratic strategist Susan Estrich.

Estrich said plenty of more information will come up in the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania and North Carolina primaries.

“I don’t know, this guy didn’t give just two bad sermons, nobody … does the wrong thing just twice,” she said. “We all have to fill space for six weeks, this is how we’ll fill it.”

According to pollster, Scott Rasmussen, the recent controversy and prolonged fight between the Democrats is also turning out to be a gift for presumptive Republican presidential nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain, whose numbers are up.

That’s a fear Democrats are hoping won’t be realized as the discussion over race and sex issues distract from their overall message of defeating McCain.

“I think we have to lift ourselves out of all of that. Look, we’re talking about running for president of the United States. We’re talking about the leader of the free world. We’re talking about the hopes, the aspirations of the American people being placed — and not like any other job in the world, placed on this person.

And I think people are much more interested on the ideas, the vision, the judgment, the plans that people have. And that’s why people are drawn to both of these candidates,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week.” Pelosi has not yet stated her preference for the top of the party ticket.

Why Is Obama's Middle Name Taboo?

By Nathan Thornburgh

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.: that is the full name of the junior Senator from Illinois — neither a contrivance nor, at face value, a slur. But John McCain couldn't apologize quickly enough after Bill Cunningham, a conservative talk radio host, warmed up a Cincinnati rally with a few loaded references to "Barack Hussein Obama." Asked afterwards if it was appropriate to use the Senator's middle name, McCain said, "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."

The pundits were quick to applaud McCain's fatwa against the use of Hussein, and broadcasters began trying to report on the controversy without actually saying the name too much, dancing around the offending word as if they were doing a segment on The Vagina Monologues. In both cases, the word comes off as not quite illicit, but certainly a little taboo.

So who gets to say Hussein? At the Oscars, host Jon Stewart took innuendo about as far as it can go, saying that Barack Hussein Obama running today is like a 1940's candidate named Gaydolph Titler. But that reference, served up to a crowd that presumably swoons for Obama, got laughs. So maybe the H-word is more like the N-word: you can say it, but only if you are an initiate. Blacks can use the N-word; Obama supporters can use the H-word.

Obama's campaign thanked McCain's for his apology, claiming a victory for the high road. Fine. But McCain might also know that if middle names become fair game, John Sidney McCain III has his own liabilities. Recently, it has been the unmanly middle names that have caused their owners the most political trouble. In 2006, Jim Henry Webb hammered home the fact that his Virginia Senate opponent was actually George Felix Allen — a middle name that conjured up images of Felix Unger, or perhaps the real life Prince Felix of Luxemburg, either one a far cry from the tobacco-chewing good ole boy Allen styled himself as. In the last presidential election, both Bush and Kerry had middle names inherited from elite East Coast families. But Bush's middle name had much more swagger; you'll never see a TV show called Forbes, Texas Ranger.

Online, the onomastics are already in high gear. Lefty bloggers, in full Obama rapture, point out that Hussein means "beautiful". One conservative observer insinuated that Obama, as a Christian with a Muslim name, might be marked for death by even our allies in the Islamic world, if they think he converted from Islam (for the record, he was never Muslim). By that ornately twisted logic, though, one might add that it was the martyrdom of Hussein in the year 680, beheaded at Karbala in a clash with the caliphate, that gave rise to 1400 years or so of Sunni/Shi'a violence. So how on earth could Obama be a fair broker in Iraq?

The real problem is that if the right wants to start a whispering campaign about the name Hussein, Obama is only helping them. By cutting short the discussion, Obama is banishing his name to the voters' subconscious, where the dark opposites of hope — bigotry and fear — can turn the word over and over again in their minds until November.

The same day that Cunningham was dropping H-bombs on Cincinnati, Obama was at the Democratic debate in Cleveland, hastily accepting Hillary Clinton's assertion that she didn't order the leak of a picture of Obama wearing a turban in Kenya. "I think that's something we can set aside," he said.

It was a missed opportunity. He could have explained that he has nothing to hide. Explained why there's nothing wrong with him dressing in ceremonial clothes on official visits — like batik Bill in Indonesia in 1994 or headscarf Hillary in Eritrea in 1997. Maybe even explained why his middle name is Hussein — what his heritage means, and what it doesn't mean. In short, to reintroduce himself to those general election voters who are just starting to pay closer attention.

No matter what his advisers say, Obama wins nothing by shying away from his differences. After all, Obama is the candidate of change. He should take a cue from McCain's courage on Iraq. Say what you will about McCain, but he knows he's the war candidate. And though may have regretted saying it out loud, McCain clearly accepts that if voters don't buy his vision for the war, he'll lose. It's not too much risk for Obama to stake his campaign on voters' ability to rationally understand the difference between a Hawaii-born Christian and Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad.

The politics of political endorsements

Bill Clinton (R) embraces Congressman, John Lewis at the 35th anniversary of the march on Washington event at Union Chapel in Oak Bluffs, MA, when Clinton was President.

by Godwin Y. Agboka

Why do people endorse the candidature of those seeking political office? I mean what is the criterion (or criteria) for the endorsements from governors, celebrities, civil rights leaders, and members of congress, etc. Do people endorse based on some principle or due to the promise of some material benefit in the future?

I would think that someone endorses a candidate based on some shared principle(s) between the candidate and the endorser. Thus, if I believe in Universal Health Care I am likely to endorse a candidate who shares this principle, as much as I will endorse a candidate who is pro-life, if that is my position.

Civil rights leader, John Lewis is reported to have dropped his support for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in favor of Barack Obama. The Democratic congressman from Atlanta is the most prominent black leader to defect from Clinton's campaign in the face of near-majority black support for Obama in recent voting. He is also a super-delegate who gets a vote at this summer's national convention in Denver.

I am sure there will be other defections, if what I have heard has any merits. My questions are: what is it that Lewis saw, initially, in Hillary that is missing? Or, which of Hillary’s principles did he share that is no more on the candidate’s cards? I am sure these will remain rhetorical questions forever!

I am told that superdelegates are independent, and, so, are free to support candidates of their choice, but it is also probable that these superdelegates can change their positions if their constituencies support a candidate which they necessarily do not. That makes sense!

However, what signals are endorsers sending to Americans if they make a swift turn to other candidates, once the candidates they endorsed, initially, are not doing as well as they expected? What drives people to endorse: principle (policy issues) or some material benefits?

The text for this piece is set to American English.

Who won, who lost?

by Andrew Romano

Plain and simple, they saved the best for last. After all kinds of ridiculousness (remember the UFO question, anyone?) the last two Democrats standing sat down tonight for a substantive--dare we say wonktastic?--discussion of serious issues ranging from health care (16 minutes!) and NAFTA to Israel and Iraq. It's a cliche to say this, but I think the voters of Ohio and Texas were the "winners" tonight; while pundits and political junkies know much of this material already, I suspect that people in Cleveland and San Antonio and elsewhere actually learned something about where the candidates stand on the issues.

Did Clinton change the dynamic of the race--which, after 11 straight losses, isn't exactly working in her favor? No. But I didn't expect her to, and I'm not sure she could have. Yes, the New York senator made some mistakes. Early on, she complained about getting the first question time and time again, implying that the media is treating her unfairly. Whether or not that's true, it looked whiny, especially when she cited an SNL skit to belittle Obama. ("Ask Barack if he … needs another pillow.") And I can imagine some people carping about her inability to get the name of Putin's successor--Dmitri Medvedev--out of her mouth intact. ("Med-medvedova, whatever.") But by and large,

Clinton was as strong and substantial as ever. It was good to hear her admit that she wants a do-over on her Iraq vote, and I think she was smart to emphasize the fact that she's a "fighter" as early and often as possible. Along with reminding women voters of what her candidacy represents (and carefully casting herself as a victim, New Hampshire-style) it's probably her best remaining option. She made both points clearly and forcefully tonight.

That said, it would be hard not to acknowledge that Obama was at least as effective. As I wrote earlier, the policy focus actually benefited the Illinois senator. One of the most persistent criticisms of his campaign is that it's all style, no substance--so tonight's in-depth discussion gave voters a chance to see his wonky side, which is somewhat difficult to display at a 20,000-person stadium rally. He acquitted himself well. By claiming that she offers solutions, not just speeches, Clinton has set the bar pretty high for herself--she needs to show that she can outwonk Obama every chance she gets. Because that didn't happen tonight, he essentially neutralized her advantage on the "specifics" front. Plus his cool, deflective style--see: the difference between "denouncing on rejecting" Farrakhan's statements, the "turban photo" flap, "bombing" Pakistan, negative campaigning, etc.--served simultaneously to minimize Clinton's attacks and make her sound thin-skinned (which, as Noam Scheiber of TNR notes, is "the opposite of the battle-tested, Republican-slayer she purports to be.")

Take her dismissal of Obama's 2002 speech warning against war in Iraq. When she pointed out that his actual Senate votes--once he actually had to cast them--closely matched hers, Obama showed his skill for parrying. "Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out," he said. "The question is: Who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch?" Simply put, he's far more comfortable as the frontrunner than he ever was as an underdog.

So who won, and who lost (other than the voters)? In my humble opinion, nobody and nobody (although I have to give a shout-out to Tim Russert, who gets my award for best moderator of the season). That's bad news for Clinton, of course, and good news for Obama. But as a reader named Chris wrote near the end of the evening, "Can I say that I find both of these people incredibly impressive and inspirational? I'm very proud of both of them." As divisive as this primary election has been, after tonight I can imagine that many of his fellow Democrats would agree.

Obama: The American Dream

by Etse Sikanku

The good news about the upcoming presidential primaries is that they could present Americans with a chance to elect its first black President. Nearly 250 years after its establishment, Americans are still searching for their first non-white president. Barack Obama is the slick “political rock star,” challenging old norms and seeking to rewrite this country’s history.

Not surprisingly, the political system has mapped out a formula which has seen people from a certain class and race ascend to the White House. But with a woman, a black man, a Latino and a Mormon all front-runners for the presidency, 2008 could be a year of alterations for America.
It’s true that Barack Obama has little experience in Washington as a senator. It’s also true that some of his policies are particularly idealistic. Obama has been running a campaign admired for its style, vigor and inspiration, but is lacking in depth.

Shockingly enough Obama hasn’t earned the full endorsement of the black community and is not trusted by some core members of the democratic community. Others view Obama as too naïve and sincere for his own good, but his personal charm and electabilty credentials — buoyed by his community service, academic and professional background — are just about as appealing (if not more appealing) to a wide cross-section of Americans.

Obama has raised more money than democratic opponent Hilary Clinton, drawing in more than $34 million in the second quarter of 2007, outdoing Clinton’s $27 million. The freshman senator from Illinois seems to be Wall Street’s political sweetheart who has raked in $739,579 from top-investment banks, compared to Clinton's $424,545. Obama is reported to have almost twice as many donors as Clinton.

Consequently, this is a confirmation of America’s belief in Obama’s message. Clinton’s hopes of establishing early dominance in the democratic contest were quickly wiped by Obama’s stellar performance. More revealing about Obama’s donations are that most of them are small-dollar contributions from ordinary Americans who are dying for a change from politicians with corporate interests. Supporters are showing this quest by supporting a candidate they can identify with; that candidate is Obama.

Even more decisive than his ability to match Clinton in the contest to raise money, has been his ability to rival any of the leading democratic contenders in terms of ideas, personality and policy. This is the proof that Senator Obama is a good candidate, since no amount of money (no matter how large) can buy pristine knowledge, workable plans and the cordiality that attracts crowds to campaigns.

What is interesting about the primary race is that it has revealed the nuances of the electoral process in America. America is capitalism in action, but also a democracy on course. These are difficult times in the life of the American polity. To be sure the U.S. is a political institution which has some good intent. If we set aside its unilateral character, this country presents mankind’s best opportunity for self actualization.

Strategic interests have caused the U.S. to ignore the most pressing global issues. One clear example of this is the 1994 Rwandan genocide, during which the U.S., determined to pursue its plans in the Balkans, forced the United Nations not to send troops to Rwanda or even highlight the crisis. This was especially dreadful considering the fact that the ongoing war in Bosnia was in no way comparable to the “cleansing” of over 800,000 people during a hundred days in Rwanda.

The U.S. was swift to send NATO to bomb Serbia but slow to move in Rwanda. It is such acts of indiscretion that so often projects America as the enemy to pursue, thereby making it an unwarranted target for terrorists. Many consider terrorism the greatest thereat to America’s existence and America needs an amiable president who will erase such hateful global sentiments by presenting the U.S. as a worthy nation steeped in consensus building and ready to extend the spirit of camaraderie worldwide.

Obama is the candidate who is preaching neither the liberal nor the conservative message. He is propagating the neo-America crusade, the idyllic enterprise the U.S. was predicted to be.

The ambition originally pined for by the founding fathers — to make America the land of freedom, a symbol of international success and a model for the rest of the world to emulate — is inherently submerged in Obama’s persona which makes him the best person to lead the Democratic Party in the 2008 presidential election.

One of the best ways for the United States to ensure peace in the world is to guarantee peace at home. Obama’s charisma, depth of political experience, global appeal and progressive policies will get that and much more for America. Obama is the American dream.

Change is waiting to happen in America. The question is: will Americans accept it?

The Audacity of Hopelessness

by Frank Rich
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist

WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the

Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the

last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions — laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites — it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it: a commission for

infrastructure, a Financial Product Safety Commission, a Corporate Subsidy Commission, a Katrina/Rita Commission and, to deal with drought, a water summit.

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Bill Clinton

knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.

The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union,

derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.

If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With

11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.

The other persistent gripe among some Clinton supporters is that a hard-working older woman has been unjustly usurped by a cool young guy intrinsically favored by a sexist culture. Slate posted

a devilish video mash-up of the classic 1999 movie “Election”: Mrs. Clinton is reduced to a stand-in for Tracy Flick, the diligent candidate for high school president played by Reese Witherspoon, and Mr. Obama is implicitly cast as the mindless jock who upsets her by dint of his sheer, unearned popularity.

There is undoubtedly some truth to this, however demeaning it may be to both candidates, but in reality, the more consequential ur-text for the Clinton 2008 campaign may be another Hollywood classic, the Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy “Pat and Mike” of 1952. In that movie, the proto-feminist Hepburn plays a professional athlete who loses a tennis or golf championship every time her self-regarding fiancé turns up in the crowd, pulling her focus and undermining her confidence with his grandstanding presence.

In the 2008 real-life remake of “Pat and Mike,” it’s not the fiancé, of course, but the husband who has sabotaged the heroine. The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.

What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder.

An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts

in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.

On the campaign trail

For those who haven’t found it yet, here’s a blog by McCain’s daughter. Not connected with the campaign in any way but will be a good preview. So much for family values.
http://mccainblogette.com/docs/about/

Is Castro truly a hero of the left? Find out from Timesonline:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/02/in-an-extraordi.html

Obama’s negatives pile up. Here’s a bit of information that proves Barak Obama is just as human. The allegations, counter accusation and revelations. Call it dirt but it’s out there:
Obama mansion mistake: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece

Obama in Muslim turban:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080226/ap_on_el_pr/obama_photo

But his campaign says the photo circulating on the internet is smear: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html

A Minnesota man says he and Obama dealt with drugs and he gave the presidential aspirant a “blow job”. Another Clinton hoax or is this the big political killer gradually coming out? Find out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

And here's Obama's stance on gay issues, marriage, abortion in an interview with CBS:

Immigration-a humanist perspective

Dakar, SENEGAL: Yaye Bayam Diouf a sengalese mother grieves the death of her son, 20 May 2006 who perished whilst trying to migrate illegally on board a boat to the coast of spain, in her home in the 'Thiarroye sur mer' suburb of Dakar.

by Etse Sikanku

It was four years ago.

When Tutu lurched unto a plane en route to America, it was with mixed emotions. He was leaving a land he had known for all his life to the unknown. He was leaving his family, friends and a communal system that had shaped and defined his personality for as long as he could remember.

He will always console himself with thoughts of returning to the land of his birth-educated and well to do. Like many others he left without saying goodbye and still owing the landlord rent.Many years have passed since that fateful day.

The day of return is uncertain if ever at all.

There’s still unfinished business. In Africa life is hard, hot and hazy. But just as many others like him discovered, in America life is also hard, cold and foggy. It is a reality that generates serious and sober reflections amidst the whole sentimental and clouded debates over immigration. Why would people leave a land they deeply love and cherish? Like America, life in Africa is engaging, fearless and fun.

In his book doing Business in Africa Steve Shelley is detailed when he says of Africa “many expatriates claim greater professional challenges, more active social lives and a greater variety of leisure activities at more affordable prices than they can find in their home countries”.

So why do people move?

It is an issue that transcends the face valued arguments and daily struggles of immigrants; one that should generate a more thoughtful and humanistic view of the world.It is true that some make the journey overseas because of a desire for a different educational perspective; just like the many study abroad programmes in western universities. Other will move simply because of the geographic and international nature of their jobs; in the same way that we have westerners working in developing nations. Political, social and family considerations may prompt people to make a move abroad and this is not restricted to any particular race or continent.

Yet there are always those who through no fault of theirs have to move as a matter of survival. But don’t westerners also move away from their homes in order to keep ‘body and soul’ together? However the extents and degree to which this necessity exists varies from region to region.

In Africa life can get intoxicatingly squalid.

Last year media agencies reported that about 6000 Africans died or went missing on the sea journey to the infamous Canary Islands in search of opportunities in Europe. Faced with leaden starvation, implacable poverty and devastating hopelessness, contemplating death on the high oceans looks a better option than staying at home. In many African countries people cannot fish anymore because of depleting stocks mainly due to over fishing by massive European trawlers.

Farmers for instance have seen their stocks depleting considerably due to harsh and rigged rules of western agriculture. The daily hustle in the dust and mud becomes a desperate hung to life and all but puts the future in jeopardy.Indeed as the immigration debate heats up in western nations and as many take various stance on immigration reforms there is the need to realize that like anything else that happens in the natural world, the subject matter of immigration is human.

And who other than humans deserve the most to inhabit earth?The African society is inherently paternalistic meaning a man’s right to exist is judged by his ability or inability to provide food, clothing and shelter to his family.

What else is there to live for when a man cannot offer food to his hungry family?

It is at this point that many make the decision to undertake a horrendous path in optimism of prosperity. It’s an escape from nothingness which heralds the staggering, unspeakable and sometimes untold stories across the deserts and oceans of Africa and beyond. Gradually anxiety with life gives way to despair and then at that point any other choice but staying looks palatable.

Yes it is at this point in time in a man’s life that all the hard work with an 18 inch hoe is made meaningless by the 150 horse power tractor in Iowa. It is at this stage that people leave the scrubs and straw laden vegetations in search of hope. Many will bundle themselves in wooden Cayucos making the journey that often leaves some dead along the way. Those on board are not only vulnerable to hypothermis and dehydration but also to coast guards such as the Spanish guardia. The Mexicans will be harpooned by patrol teams on land and in the air- and very soon-the American version of the Berlin wall. Still others will risk journeys across the North African deserts where they could die from thirst or beatings from North African officials.

On the flip side of reality, the system is not helped either by leaders who have betrayed a trusting electorate. These group of inward looking, self serving political demagogues have plunged African nations into unassailable morass where pittance for human life is increasingly non existent. All in all immigration need not be a blood and thunder affair.

If western governments will address squarely the economic injustice that causes poverty around the world, if developing nations will recognize that sovereignty comes with challenges and responsibilities which must be overcome, then people will have no need to endanger their lives and those of their families.

For those already abroad, the burden of uncertainty that people like Tutu contemplate upon settling back home will be no more.

People may still move but more as a matter of choice.

We may not have control over the land of our birth but we should enjoy the luxury of choosing the land of our death with more definitiveness than the biological intercourse that leads to our birth.

Campaign goes on

Clinton’s unexpected graciousness could resurrect her White House hopes

by Etse Sikanku

I hate to break it to you but those who looked at yesterday’s debate as Clinton’s valedictory event should be revising their notes.

The CNN event has confirmed Clinton as the mistress of debate.

Put whatever spin you want on it but it’s quite clear Clinton had the edge. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it will change the contours of the democratic race but give her two more of this and the Obama movement will fade into oblivion.

She had her good and not so good times but she also had the best time as well. It wasn’t so much for her ability to speak out of her heart than her introduction of “faith” and “blessing” into her message.

I have been observing this race for some time now and here’s one clue for the tie break: the religious base.

It's no secret that the Democratic Party has had more trouble wooing the more religiously inclined voters than their Republican counterparts. Now whichever of the two contenders taps into this religious avalanche could add a much needed audience to their support base.

Obama could easily have done this. But once again he allowed Clinton to show the way.
I’m not sure if this is a coincidence but I read something very striking from the bible today from Romans 5:3-5

“…we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces
perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not
disappoint us….”

Obama’s life captures all the elements listed above: suffering, perseverance, character and hope. He could have explained to those who accuse his campaign of promising ‘false hope’ that this hope is rooted in suffering, perseverance and character and above all, “hope does not disappoint”. And it wouldn’t just be Obama saying it but the Holy Book.

Projecting himself as the Bible candidate will have seen Barak racing through the final contests with much less ease.

Clinton’s famous last response did more to her campaign than any political strategist could have done.

To his credit Obama expertly won over the audience with his dismissal of Clinton’s allegations of plagiarism and looked far more presidential but it was Clinton who dominated the decider.

Also Obama looked very confident and seemed to have taken control of the debate right from the start but he could not convert his status as the prohibitive nominee into a match winner.

If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination historians will turn back and look to this period of her campaign-just like her moment of ‘tearing up’ before the New Hampshire primary- as her astonishing break.

Obama's Greatest Challenge

Illinois Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (L) and Republican presidential hopeful Arizona Senator John McCain (R).

by Godwin Y. Agboka

It appears we will be lucky enough to watch history unfold in the United State of America. It looks more likely that a Democrat will win the race to the White House. Should that become probable, we will have the first woman or first African-American President of the US.

It is stunning, however, the manner Senator Barrack Obama has taken the Democratic race by storm. 10 wins in a row—since Super Tuesday—and still counting. He looks unstoppable now. He has ruggedly broken the aura of invincibility around Hillary Clinton, and provided tough answers to the question of electability.

I am not sure if the word ‘destiny’ makes any sense in politics, but that is how I describe Obama’s surge. As the days unfold he becomes increasingly popular, while his opponent, Hillary crashes to the pit of unpopular media analyses, scrutiny, and inevitable corpus of unpopularity. Obama’s movement is growing at a pace faster than a tsunami, and powerful than a whirlwind.

It appears, for the first time, in many decades, the expectations, among voters, are reaching boiling point—call it a crescendo. They need a change, a refrain that has been heightened by Obama’s campaign. Obama talks about hope, but Senator McCain and the Clintons believe that that hope is false. However, Obama believes that “there is nothing false about hope.” The man knows how to say the right thing at the right time.

The greatest challenge Obama faces, however, is how to meet these expectations of the American people, whom he is courting and winning by the minute with his message. Should he finally win the nomination, and, then, the general elections, to become President, will he be able to change the politics in the White House? Can he truly change America? Can he unite Americans?

Some say what Obama is doing is populism, and we all know what that (populism) can do.

A little bit more than enough is poison.

Clinton who has not won any election since Super Tuesday is under ‘super’ pressure

by Afeseh Ngwa Hilary

In toxicology, the basic principle is that the dose makes the poison-anything can be a poison-the dose differentiates the remedy from the poison.

This holds doubly true for confidence. Hillary Clinton set out on the race to the Democratic presidential nominee with an almost deriding hubris, with a confidence overdose which almost saw herself crowned before the race began. What a way to pick your own poison!!

Her current opponent who was the underdog is sailing through with enough, just enough confidence to keep him level headed and working hard to earn the nomination from the american people, not being presumptive, not counting victory until it has arrived.

With 10 straight back to back wins in primaries and caucuses, Obama is bursting the Clinton ego and injecting venomous doses of doubt into the veins of the Hillary campaign. While Obama has known streaks of victories and mounting momentum propelling him with unimaginable force, Hillary has known streaks of defeats, setbacks, confusion, and pressure in the inner circles of her campaign.

Many fine and precious stones are born under pressure, so let's see what is hatched out of the extant pressure in the Clinton camp. Meanwhile, Obama is etching in indelible ink for himself and for America beautiful pages in the annals of History. He is showing that when Courage is wedded to Hope many great new things can be born.

Let time sort this out.

The big 'MO'

Obamomentum

Barack Obama has passed a serious test of credentials at Wisconsin and now faces even sterner tests in the weeks ahead.

But Sen. Clinton is a formidable candidate. Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania will certainly present her with a fine opportunity to churn out her proverbial political gamesmanship. For now no one is counting the Clintons out and rightly so.

So what are the headlines saying?

Obama Takes Hawaii and Wisconsin in Decisive Fashion
McCain Easily Defeats Huckabee in Republican Race

Obama hammers Clinton

And what does this mean for the race? Some of the best political analysts crack down the electoral code:

Race is now Obama's to loose

Clinton Shifts Focus

Hillary under pressure

Also the big question on everyone’s mind now is: What should/will Hillary Clinton do? Find out here:

Clinton looks to Ohio,Texas

What Clinton must do

Finally, what happens to Obama?

Obama faces fire

As always send in your reactions and top links!

Obama, Clinton and super delegates

Former Vermont Governor and 2004 presidential hopeful Howard Dean is the chairman of the Democratic National Committee

by Etse Sikanku

The 2008 democratic primary is far from over.

After several contests in different states nationwide one would have thought a clear front runner would have emerged by now.

Whiles this story line could be applied to the Republican Party, it isn’t the same for the Democrats. Barack Obama currently leads Hilary Clinton in the delegate count 1,262 to 1,213 according to CNN’s election center. A candidate needs 2,025 to win the nomination.

Many political pundits have predicted that none of the candidates is likely to get to that number before the Democratic Convention in Denver. What this means is that superdelaegates are more than likely to determine the outcome of this contest.

However the questions that continues to bog many observers is whether it is fair to allow a group of so called super delegates to determine the outcome of a contest regardless the results of the popular vote.

While some have argued that the super delegates should go ahead and vote for whoever wins the popular vote others do not agree. They contend that this will make the existence of the super delegates null and void since they will only be parroting the views of the outcome of the contest.
The opposing view is that superdelagates should vote with their conscience.

It is amazing how these two views have been split on candidate-support lines. Most Obama supporters side with the position that calls for super delegates to vote according to the popular vote whiles most supporters of Clinton prefer delegates to vote according to their own will. This is because of the projection that Obama could win the popular vote whiles Clinton has the urge with the super delegates.

Some questions that have come up out of these two stands are: who determines the winner of the popular vote? Is it the person with the highest number of pledged delegates or the candidate who won the most votes? What about the unfair influence of Iowa and New Hampshire? There are also questions of a ‘civil war’ or pandemonium in the Democratic Party if someone other than the winner of the caucuses and primaries is selected as it is likely the voters will feel short changed.

It is amazing how winding the rules are. Why not go according to the simple majority system. In Ghana candidates have to win their party’s nomination by a certain percentage and the process is not as cumbersome as this. In the last delegates conference of the ruling New Patriotic Party (N.P.P) the winner of the contest did not meet the 50% plus requirement. However the second candidate conceded and that ended everything.

To avoid any feud in the party Clinton and Obama should work out a compromise else the wrangling that may come out of this contest will end up playing well for their opponents-the Republicans.

This is a situation no true blue wants to contemplate.

What are your predictions for today's primaries in Wisconsin? Can Obama continue his winning streak?

Saying my last prayers in class-On Vals day

Kazmierczak was gentle,quiet and bright

by Etse Sikanku

I have began to get used to the idea that anytime I step into a class at Iowa State University it could very well be my last.

This may sound weird but I’m not ashamed to say it--Ever since the Virginia Tech shooting incident I’ve dreamt more than a few times about a gun man storming into one of my classes and shooting everyone dead.

My trepidations have now been heightened by the recent shooting incident at Northern Illinois University on St. Valentine day. As to why the gunman- Steven Kazmierczak-chose such a day of love and romance to execute an act of monstrosity remains a mystery which no one is sure to solve. Can you imagine what the partners of those dead would be going through considering they might very well have scheduled a date for the evening?

The shooting incident on Thursday was the fourth at a US school within a week. On Feb. 8, a woman shot two fellow students to death before committing suicide at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge. In Memphis, Tenn., a 17-year-old stands accused of shooting and seriously wounding a fellow student Monday during a high school gym class, and the 15-year-old victim of a shooting at an Oxnard, Calif., junior high school has been declared brain dead.

Let’s face it people, there can never be any society which would be 100% security proof but the rampant nature of this shootings is too grave an issue to sweep over.

There is a reason this happens so often in the United States of America and not that many other places. When that menacing junior Cho Seung-Hui killed about 33 people at Virginia Tech, he was found to have been diagnosed of mental illness two years earlier. The package which he posted to NBC-dubbed a multimedia manifesto-had claims of neglect, solitude and accusations of suppression. In his own words Cho said “"you forced me into a corner"

That incident is one of the four deadliest shooting incidents in this country. This list includes the Columbine High School gunmen Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who killed 13 people and themselves on April 20, 1999, in Littleton, Colorado, the 1927 Bath School disaster and the 1966 University of Texas massacre. Since Cho’s diabolical act there have several more shooting incidents across the United States where energetic, strong and promising lives were cut short by errant shooters.

Isn’t it a mystery then that the authorities haven’t taken seriously the easy way in which guns are made available to anyone at all in the country? Take Cho and Kazmierczak for instance. It was so easy for them to purchase the items, with Kazmierczak purchasing his just a few days before the incident.

All you have to do is to pass simple processes such as a background check and provide a drivers license. Why should buying a weapon as deadly as a gun be as simple as or even easier than buying alcohol or travelling from one country to the other?

When people apply for visas to the United States for instance they are taken through rigorous background checks even if enough information has been gathered previously. Why should it be easier to purchase a gun than for animals-harmless as they are-to travel from one country to another?

But this is a society which is more disturbed by dog fights than suicidal killers remember.

The gun ownership, control and availability laws in this country are simply obnoxious and deserve a second look. Before our very eyes several promising lives have been lost. It is no understatement to say that an incident such as the ones which occurred at Northern Illinois or Virginia Tech could be repeated anywhere, any day and any of us could be the victims.

Maybe we should consider arming professors with guns in class. Maybe we should have military commandos sit in every class. Others may make arguments about the use of sharp alert and emergency response systems on our campuses.

How efficient is Iowa State’s emergency/alert system?

Or could the answer be traced to the solitary and individualistic way of life of Americans? Even here in ISU some of us have a story or two to tell about how disaffection with the hands off way of life here changed some people's life in a major way.

I meet and chat with a lot of international students and i can tell you i have never known of a more lonely or solitary life than the ones i've seen and heard out here.

Consequently each time I sit in class or any public event at Iowa State, I have decided to say my last prayers as often as possible just in case someone springs up and shoots me dead.

Farfetched you might say but sadly it’s the reality of the day.

A cold midwinter caucus

by Etse Sikanku


It was my first practical experience of any US election on such a massive scale.

It was a cold midwinter night but not particularly bone chilling as temperatures remained in the 20s and I comforted myself with the thought that it could have been worse.

Before the elections several candidates had visited campus to tout their policies in a bid to win many voters to their side. In the past months-as and when class schedules permitted- I had the opportunity to listen to John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Chris Dodd on their various visits to campus. After months of tumult it was now time for the people to make their voices heard.

Being an unrepentant news glutton my repeated appearances at several of the campaigns had been exciting, the intensity of the campaign process had been incredible but the caucus itself has been more than amazing. On the way to the Great Hall of the Memorial Union-where Democratic Precinct 22-was meeting there was an aura of unbounded enthusiasm blowing all over. It would be the first time I’d witnessed the much talked about Iowa Caucuses. Just a few years ago I’d only been reading about such an event from newspapers back home in Ghana but here I was in Ames, Iowa about to witness the much famed American presidential caucuses. It was a night of many uncertainties. Many commentators have called this the most unpredictable race in modern American politics. The results of this event would hold much sway especially for the ambitions of a probable female, black or Hispanic president.

Anyhow as a student from Dzita- a rural farming community and grandson of a Navrongo peasant farmer- both thousands and thousands of miles away from Ames observing the crafting and creation of history in the United States, I felt a sense of providence. The scene at the Great Hall was extremely crowded with enthusiastic voters and their families. Young children were hanging on to the clothes of their parents not wanting to be left out of this epoch making event. At the entrance party staff was busy registering participants with their ever present smiles-an unmistakable trademark of the proverbial Midwestern friendliness.

Also present were some observers most of them international students who came to have a personal experience. I met nice old gentlemen who had caucused ever since the first presidential caucus was held in 1972. He told me the event had gotten more and more interesting each passing year. He also said he was going to caucus for Sen. Clinton.

After taking care of party business the precinct captain called on representatives of the various candidates to make final convincing pitches. If cheers were any indication for predicting the turn out of the election, one wouldn’t be faulted for betting on an Obama win that night. His fans were vociferous, cheering and chanting as his representative made a last minute argument for him. What was interesting but quite embarrassing was that some of the candidates like Kucinich and Gravel had no one representing them.

However the turning point of the event came when the convener announced that all delegates could move to the corner of their preferred candidates. It was an interesting scene seeing a large mass of people moving eagerly to the spot of their various candidates. In a matter of second every candidate was stationed in the camp of their preferred candidate. There were about 220 people present. It was quite shocking to see that Hillary Clinton a long time front runner who had indeed been the recipient of a women’s achievement award in Ames unable to meet the quota for viability. John Edwards and Barack Obama by this time were the only viable candidates. Immediately people from the Obama camp starting convincing the Richardson camp to join them. However, the Richardson camp was quite convinced they would be viable since they needed just four or five more persons. They set out on a ‘cross carpeting adventure’ in order to get more candidates.

The Hillary camp was way too downcast and shocked by their unviability that it took a while for them to start ‘hunting’ for candidates. By this time the Obama and Edwards’s camp were neck deep in negotiations and alliance deals with the Dodd and Biden supporters. After all the friendly arguments and coaxing some people moved camp to Richardson, Edwards or Obama. At the end of the night Barack Obama won Precinct 22 by about 120 votes, Edwards followed with 49 and Bill Richardson was third with 35 votes. As was predicted by the polls, most of the ‘unviable’ candidates joined the Edwards camp but Obama managed to pull some over whiles Richardson got enough more to become viable. Things were not looking good for Senator Clinton and out of frustration I could see some of her supporters leave the hall totally.

It was the biggest upset of the evening for the New York Senator who had led polls statewide for a long time. In the end the caucus system is admirable though impracticable under certain circumstances and I’ve been wondering how long it will continue to prevail.

One other thought that crossed my mind was how replicable such a system would be in my native Ghana or other African countries. Against the backdrop that Kenya is currently engulfed in post election violence, it makes me wonder what exactly the problem in Africa is. Why can’t Africa practice electoral democracy as successfully as this? It is a question that needs constant deliberation across the continent. This is by any measure democracy in its most undiluted form-crisp and classic with a slight potential for getting creepy.

Nevertheless it is a process that supports the major ingredients for a democracy as tested as America’s. One in which conversation and dialogue precedes secrecy and divisiveness. It is such factors which may after all guarantee the survival of the system for a long time to come

Obama - is the world ready?

By Etse Sikanku



Let's face it: We live in a nation long considered to be the most powerful in the world. Decisions made by an American president affect millions across the globe. Pundits have been questioning whether America is ready for Obama. The question that should be asked is this: Is the world ready for Obama?

Some may deny the existence of an American hegemony. Like the respected political scientist, Samuel Huntington, they may argue what rather exists is a "uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers." However, the influence of whoever occupies the White House in international politics as chief executive of the American people is unquestioned.

Even before Obama announced his candidacy for election, he had already attracted attention, not only from America, but indeed from all over the world. Africa saw a connection through his father, so Kenyans claimed him as their own. Obama himself called the people of Kibera his "brothers and sisters." He is a political hero in Indonesia. The media across Europe have covered Obama extensively.

Indeed, it is thought the foreign media have never covered American elections with such intensity and so early in the race. At the Springfield rally, where he announced his candidacy, crews from Japan, England, Australia and other parts of the world were part of the 600 journalists - more than twice the number that covered Romney's announcement - at the Old State Capitol.

It is instructive for domestic issues such as the economy and health care to dominate electoral debates. Why else does the concept of national interest exist? However, considering the concrete implications U.S. policy has on billions of lives in different continents, it is quite inconceivable why issues as palpable and as rudimentary as fair trade and economic justice do not form part of the election check list. Americans must be as resolute and unwavering in demanding fair and less harmful policies toward developing countries from presidential candidates. For instance, despite all their work in the searing sun, peasants in Africa reap little or no profits from the work of their sore hands because of U.S. agricultural subsidies.

For all the whining over Obama's identity, the question to ponder is this: Will a black president be more favorable toward Third World countries? What do Africa and the developing world stand to benefit from a black president? Considering how popular Obama is in Europe, Africa and Asia, coupled with his naturally amiable persona and enhanced by his solid international background, will his presidency see the end of hatred toward America? Or will it compromise the nation's foreign and domestic policy goals? Obama may be a slick idealist, but he is also a brazen progressive. By putting him in the White House, the United States may very well produce its most-liked president since the reconstruction.

In the new international world order - where the only thing that binds leftists in Latin America, religious zealots in the Middle East and Arabian extremists together is anti-Americanism - it may be hard to measure how a candidate with the middle name "Hussein" will be received by the United States and rest of the world. Nevertheless, an American president with a more favorable outlook and appreciation of the ever-fluid and transient nature of global politics may just be the political jujitsu that could salvage the United States, rather than the most complex military artillery.

Barack Obama may only be a first-term senator with little Washington experience, but he understands that realism in American policy can be achieved without the risk of power politics. With his background and experiences, Obama is not a humanist per se, but he is not unreceptive to human interest policies, both at home and abroad, which will implicitly eliminate the need for animosity toward the United States.

In acknowledging that the power of the United States is finite, Barack Obama carves out as a foreign policy pragmatist, much different from neoconservatives who have a more straight-jacketed view of the world. Obama may not be a "foreign policy wonk" but will he be up to the task of providing the farsighted leadership that former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan had called for from America when he said, "The system still cries out for farsighted American leadership?"

Charisma and charm may not win wars, but military correctness won't either. What is incontrovertible is that until American voters consistently demand of beguiling politicians what fate awaits the developing world - and are resolute in these demands - seeds of poverty, oppression and injustice will continue to foment violence and antagonism toward the United States.

Failure of the electorate to demand action is unlikely to stem the tide of hardships, calumny and resentment in countries where unhonored promises and the deepening gap between rhetoric and practice are stark reminders of how asymmetrical the world is we live in. It's a real conundrum.