Barack Hossein Obama

[Rasputin]

Obama was asked two nights ago, in the debate in Ohio, about Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of his campaign. He replied that he denounced the endorsement. He was then asked if he had rejected it. Obama replied that he doesn’t think there is a difference in the two. Tim Russert kept pushing it, “yeah you denounced it but do you reject it?”

Obama- Well, I don’t see why I have to reject it, I have already said that I denounce it…

Russert- Yes, but you must reject it.

Hillary- Hey, hey, heyyyyyy…I’ll reject it. I’ll reject anything and everything you want me just to look good and strong. What is it I’m rejecting?

Russert- What Farrakhan has said about the Jews.

Hillary- Ohhh, if it was bad then I sure as hell would reject it without thinking.

Russert- So, Senator Obama after finally being cornered into rejecting Louis Farrakhan, will you sending him a nasty letter and calling him an *** hole?

Obama- Ahhh, mmmm, well, I don’t know if that would be necessary nor appropriate for a US senator to do.

Russert- Oh, my God, you won’t call him a nasty *** poop head? The person who said all those things about the Jews? In fact I think he may have started couple of the furnaces in Auschwitz.

Obama- I….don’t….think Farrakhan actually set any….

Hillary- Oh yeah he did. Those people helped me so much in NY…I mean I have bagels for life.

Russert- Easy toots.

Russert- Ok Mr. Obama, will you at least crap in a bag, set it on fire, put it in Farrakhan’s door step, ring the bell, and run?

Obama- Oh my Lord, no I would not.

Hillary- I’ll do it, Lord knows I could use a good BM!

Ok, maybe it didn’t happen quite like this, but what the hell? When does it end? How far does a candidate have to go to prove his/her loyalty to any special group? And yes, Israel is much of a special group as any. The guy, Farrakhan, is goofy. He’s well on the other end of normalcy, especially when it comes to saying things. But why doesn’t denouncing him and his endorsement enough when it comes to the Jewish community?

There were no questions, nor has there been any questions, in any debate, EVER about oil companies, insurance companies, Israeli lobbyists, or in fact any specific special interest groups.

No candidate has ever had it as a part of his/her thought process to ask about Israel and its nuclear capabilities. No narrator has ever brought up the questions about Palestinian treatment in the hands of occupiers in their land for over 60 years. But delay saying “reject” for more than a few seconds when it comes to a political goof ball like Farrakhan’s support for your campaign and they’re all over you.

Ever since the first Bush, if not Ragan, we’ve seen American presidents wearing the head covering, Yamaka, when they visit Israel. Will the same president wear the Muslim counter part of Yamaka, when visiting any Muslim state?

Barak Obama wore the traditional Somalian outfit when he went to that country and he is Osama’s twin brother. If he would have gone to Israel and sported a Yamaka, he’d be a shoe in to the White House.

I understand, completely, denouncement of those who deny the Holocaust or don’t recognize the statehood of Israel. I cannot stand bigots, racists, and ignorant asses who use adjectives and words to describe a nationality or religion, but to chase a guy and make him say uncle, c’mon.

In the meanwhile, I would love the Iranian government to tell Israel, “you show yours, and I’ll show you mine”, when it comes to nuclear capabilities.

[Rasputin]

In eloquent speeches presidential candidate Obama has made copious promises, understandably to attract voters. He talks about “change,” without really spelling out change from what to what. It just sounds good: “change.” A great sound bite, indeed. Change is exciting, while status quo is viewed as stagnant and boring. It is all part of the political game of telling people what they want to hear, getting elected, and worrying about delivering later.

The electorates are both short on memory and long on forgiving. So, the farce of empty high-sounding promises fills the air at campaign times. But there are instances that a promise during vote-gathering can later haunt the person. This may indeed be the case with at least one of Barack Hussein Obama’s promises.

Obama boasted that he would embark on a personal diplomacy to solve our foreign policy problems with countries such as Syria and Iran. He said that he would meet their leaders without any preconditions to settle our disputes. Doesn’t that sound like change, a real change of great relief to us all? Never mind the fact that he has about zero experience in foreign policy matters, he is foolish enough to aim to negotiate with the ever-conniving Assad of Syria and masters of deceptions such as the Mullahs of Iran.

Okay Obama, don’t claim that no one warned you. If you get elected President and you receive an invitation from your fellow Muslim brother Ahmadinejad to make good on your promise and visit him in Tehran for a tête-à-tête, don’t you do it. BBC’s recent report ought to be enough for you to recant your foolish and naïve promise:

“The European Union has criticized the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam...Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia or “Islamic - law.” But the changes would for the first time bring the punishment into the criminal code. An EU statement expressed deep concern about what it calls the ongoing deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. It singled out Section Five of the draft penal code currently before the Iranian parliament, imposing the death penalty for apostasy. In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law. If the draft is approved by parliament, the sentence will be formalized in the country's criminal code.”

Who is an apostate according to the legislation? Anyone in the world, not just Iranians, born to a Muslim parent; also, any convert to Islam who leaves it. Only one parent needs to be a Muslim at the time of conception for Islam to own that child for life. Islam is Ummehist. Islam doesn’t recognize nationalities and national boundaries. And these Islamist zealots are very serious and have no sense of humor. Some say they have no sense at all, and they may be right. What they certainly have is a thirst for blood, particularly for the blood of infidels and apostates.

My advice, Obama: Elected President or not, don’t you hazard a trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, don’t you go anywhere near where the crazed Islamists can get their hands on you. You don’t even rate a fatwa from one of the many bloodthirsty crafty Ayatollahs or Moftis, asking for your head. Your fate is already sealed. You are on automatic, so to speak-- a person who was given the gift of Islam and who ungratefully turned his back to the one and only faith of Allah, so the Muslims believe. The punishment for this kind of betrayal is prescribed as haad (most severe), meaning death.

You may protest that you are free to choose your religion and that you have chosen to be Christian. Nothing doing! You are stamped as Muslim at conception because your father was Muslim. Further, you have been doubly-stamped by your middle name Hussein. Muslims name their sons Hussein in honor of one of Islam’s most revered saints. Hence, the Muslims want what is theirs and you either repent and return to the fold or prepare yourself for the ultimate punishment: Death.

The only time that these inveterate liar killers of Allah mean what they say is when they threaten violence and killing. So, please be careful. Stay close to home where a whole platoon of Secret Service at the taxpayers’ expense is shielding you from the thugs who would be just too happy to slash your throat while they joyously scream: Allah is the greatest.

[Rasputin]

CASPER, Wyo. - Sen. Barack Obama captured the Wyoming Democratic caucuses Saturday, seizing a bit of momentum in the close, hard-fought race with rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party's presidential nomination.



Obama generally has outperformed Clinton in caucuses, which reward organization and voter passion more than do primaries. The Illinois senator has now won 13 caucuses to Clinton's three.

Obama has also shown strength in the Mountain West, winning Idaho, Utah, Colorado and now Wyoming. The two split Nevada, with Clinton winning the popular vote and Obama more delegates.

But Clinton threw some effort into Wyoming, perhaps hoping for an upset that would yield few delegates but considerable buzz and momentum. The New York senator campaigned Friday in Cheyenne and Casper. Former President Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, also campaigned this week in the sprawling and lightly populated state.

Obama campaigned in Casper and Laramie on Friday, but spent part of his time dealing with the fallout from an aide's harsh words about Clinton and suggestions that Obama wouldn't move as quickly to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq if elected. In Casper, Obama said Clinton had no standing to challenge his position on the war because she had voted to authorize it in 2002.

Clinton, buoyed by big wins in Ohio and Texas last Tuesday, said she faced an uphill fight in Wyoming. Her campaign also holds out little hope for Tuesday's primary in Mississippi, which has a large black population.

Obama had 61 percent, or 5,378 votes, to Clinton's 38 percent, or 3,312 votes, with all 23 Wyoming counties reporting.

Obama won seven delegates and Clinton won five. In the overall race for the nomination, Obama led 1,578-1,468, according to the latest tally by The Associated Press. It will take 2,025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the Wyoming victory speaks to the candidate's strength in the West, and that Obama is better suited to help down-ticket Democrats even in states that traditionally vote Republican in the general election.

"I think it's evidence that Senator Obama is going to be able to put more states in play because of his strength with independent voters," Plouffe said.

Clinton's campaign took heart in their ability to pick up more delegates.

"We are thrilled with this near-split in delegates and are grateful to the people of Wyoming for their support," said campaign manager Maggie Williams. "Although the Obama campaign predicted victory in Wyoming weeks ago, we worked hard to present Senator Clintons vision to the caucus-goers and we thank them for turning out today."

Both candidates were looking ahead to the bigger prize — delegate-rich Pennsylvania on April 22.

From the first caucuses of the day, it became clear the state's Democrats were showing up in large numbers. In 2004, a mere 675 people statewide took part in the caucuses.

In Sweetwater County, more than 500 people crowded into a high school auditorium and another 500 were lined up to get inside.

"I'm worried about where we're going to put them all. But I guess everybody's got the same problem," said Joyce Corcoran, a local party official. "So far we're OK. But man, they keep coming."

Party officials struggled with how to handle the overflow crowds. The start of the Converse County caucus was delayed due to long lines.

In Cheyenne, scores of late arrivers were turned away when party officials stopped allowing people to get in line at 11 a.m. EST. A party worker stood at the end of the line with a sign reading, "End of the line. Caucus rules require the voter registration process to be closed at this time."

State party spokesman Bill Luckett said they were obligated to follow its rules as well as those of the Democratic National Committee regarding caucus procedures.

"Everybody knew the registration began over an hour before the caucus was called to order. We've done everything we could to accommodate people in the long lines," Luckett said.

After initially accepting provisional ballots from about 20 people who remained behind at the caucus site, party officials said they and both campaigns had decided not to count those votes. John Millin, state party chair, said doing so would have been unfair to those who had left after being turned away.

In Casper, home of the state party's headquarters, hundreds were lined up at the site of the Natrona County caucus. The location was a hotel meeting room with a capacity of 500. Some 7,700 registered Democrats live in the county.

"We'll have to put 'em in the grass after a while," said Bob Warburton, a local party official.

About 59,000 registered Democrats are eligible to participate in Wyoming's caucuses.

Only in the last few weeks have the campaigns stepped up their presence in Wyoming, opening offices and calling voters and sending mailers.

Although a win in Wyoming may not persuade many superdelegates, it will be one more prize for the candidates as they make their case for the nomination.

Clinton has hinted recently that if she wins the nomination she would consider sharing the ticket with Obama. But in an interview Friday in Wyoming with KTVQ-TV, a CBS affiliate based in Billings, Mont., Obama shied away from that possibility.

"Well, you know, I think it's premature. You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate — you know, I'm running for president," Obama told the television station. "We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count.

"What I am really focused on right now, because all that stuff is premature, is winning this nomination and changing the country. I think that's what people here are concerned about."

[Rasputin]

پیروزی اوباما در انتخابات مقدماتی می سی سی پی


آقای اوباما از نظر سهم خود در هیات های نمایندگی حزب دموکرات از خانم کلینتون جلوتر است
شمارش اولیه آرا در ایالت می سی سی پی در جنوب ایالات متحده بیانگر پیروزی باراک اوباما در انتخابات مقدماتی حزب دموکرات است.
در ادامه مبارزات مقدماتی داوطلبان دموکرات نامزدی ریاست جمهوری آمریکا، باراک اوباما و هیلاری کلینتون روز سه شنبه برای به دست آوردن سی و سه کرسی نمایندگی ایالت می سی سی پی در هیات های اعزامی به گردهمایی بزرگ حزب دموکرات در ماه اوت رقابت کردند.

این سی و سه کرسی، بر اساس میزان آرای به دست آمده بین آقای اوباما و خانم کلینتون تقسیم خواهد شد.

هیات های نمایندگی اعزامی به گردهمایی که در پایان ماه اوت برگزار می شود، انتخاب نامزد ریاست جمهوری این حزب را بر عهده دارند.

آقای اوباما بدون احتساب آرای می سی سی پی، در رقابت های قبلی موفق به کسب نزدیک به 1600 کرسی از هیات های نمایندگی اعزامی به این گردهمایی شده است. این رقم برای خانم کلینتون 1470 کرسی است. هر یک از آن ها برای به دست آوردن نامزدی حزب دموکرات به 2025 کرسی نمایندگی نیاز دارد.

سناتور جان مک کین سه شنبه گذشته موفق شد با به دست آوردن حد نصاب لازم برای کسب نامزدی حزب جمهوریخواه، به طور بالقوه در رقابت های نامزدی این حزب موفق شود. او قرار است در گردهمایی ملی حزب جمهوریخواه در اوایل ماه سپتامبر به طور رسمی به عنوان نامزد این حزب معرفی شود.

شکاف نژادی

بر اساس نظرسنجی انجام شده به وسیله خبرگزاری آسوشیتدپرس، از هر ده آمریکایی آفریقایی تبار در می سی سی پی، نه نفر به آقای اوباما رای داده اند. نیمی از دموکرات های واجد شرایط رای دادن در این ایالت سیاه پوست هستند.


خانم کلینتون از سخنان جرالدین فرارو ابراز تاسف کرده است

از سوی دیگر، خانم کلینتون موفق شده است دو سوم آرای سفیدپوستان را در می سی سی پی به دست آورد.

آقای اوباما در حالی در می سی سی پی به پیروزی می رسد که در 24 ساعت گذشته موضوع رنگ پوست او به یکی از مهم ترین اخبار رقابت های مقدماتی دموکرات ها تبدیل شده بود.

سخنان جرالدین فرارو، از حامیان مالی خانم کلینتون و نامزد معاونت ریاست جمهوری حزب دموکرات در انتخابات سال 1984 در مصاحبه با یک روزنامه، اعتراض بسیاری از طرفداران آقای اوباما را به همراه داشته است.

خانم فرارو در سخنانی گفته بود: "اگر اوباما سفیدپوست بود، به موقعیت فعلی (در رقابت های انتخاباتی) نمی رسید."

باراک اوباما این سخنان را ناپسند دانسته است. هیلاری کلینتون هم در پی اعتراض طرفداران آقای اوباما، از سخنان خانم فرارو ابراز تاسف کرد و عدم موافقت خود را با آن اعلام کرد.

مرحله بعدی انتخابات مقدماتی حزب دموکرات در بیست و دوم آوریل در ایالت پنسیلوانیا برگزار می شود.

هیات نمایندگی حزب دموکرات در پنسیلوانیا 158 کرسی دارد که این بر اهمیت رقابت ها در این ایالت افزوده است.

[Rasputin]

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama expanded his fragile lead in delegates over rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday, picking up nine delegates as Iowa activists took the next step in picking delegates to the national convention.

ADVERTISEMENT

Email:
ZIP / Postal Code:




More than half the 14 delegates allocated to John Edwards on the basis of caucus night projections switched Saturday to Obama.

Iowa Democratic Party officials said that with all of the delegates picked, Obama claimed 52 percent of the delegates elected at county conventions on Saturday, compared with 32 percent for Clinton. Some of the delegates picked at Saturday's conventions were sticking with Edwards, even though he's dropped from the race since Iowa held its caucuses in January.

Democratic Party projections said the results mean Obama increased by nine the number of delegates he collects from the state, getting a total of 25 compared with 14 for Clinton and six for Edwards.

Twelve automatic delegates bring the state's total to 57. Obama has been endorsed by four of those and Clinton three, with the remainder uncommitted.

Also Saturday, California's Democratic Party finalized the delegate counts from its Feb. 5 primary. Clinton picked up two more pledged delegates, raising her state total to 204; Obama gained five, raising his figure to 166.

Counting Saturday's new figures from Iowa and California, an Associated Press delegate tally showed Obama with 1,617 delegates and Clinton with 1,498.

Obama won Iowa's precinct caucuses in January with 39 percent of the vote, with Edwards narrowly edging Clinton to finish second. Projections on caucus night showed Obama getting 16 delegates, compared with 15 for Clinton and 14 for Edwards.

"It means the Obama people are very organized," said Iowa Democratic Chairman Scott Brennan. "They have been working very hard for these conventions."

Brennan said turnout was heavy, with more than 13,000 activists showing up at conventions in the state's 99 counties.

"Today, Iowa Democrats again turned out in large numbers to reject the failed Bush-McCain campaign and its policies," said Brennan.

Edwards finished second in the state's leadoff precinct caucuses on Jan. 3, but those caucuses are only the first step in a complicated process of picking the state's 45 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August.

The next step in that process was Saturday with selection of delegates to congressional district and state conventions. Party officials said the results Saturday marked the election of 2,173 of the 2,500 delegates who will go to those convention.

The epic presidential race between Clinton and Obama has been reshaped since Iowa's caucuses, but is no less intense with every delegate carrying weight.

"Every single one counts and that's why we've been here organizing," said Teresa Vilmain, a field organizer for Clinton.

"We've filled all of our slots," said Gordon Fischer, a former Iowa Democratic chairman who is organizing for Obama.

Rob Tully, a Des Moines lawyer and prominent Edwards backer, sent an e-mail to supporters urging them to remain neutral, but there was clear movement to Obama when the results were tallied.

"Barack Obama stands for a lot of the same things that John Edwards stood for," said Ro Foege, a state legislator from Mount Vernon who switched to the Obama camp.

The county conventions are traditionally sleepy gatherings where party leaders have trouble gathering a quorum to conduct business, largely because the party usually has a nominee by this point. With the race still up for grabs, activists jammed school gymnasiums, auditoriums and meeting halls across the state.

Former Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Clinton backer, spoke to more than 1,200 delegates jammed into a suburban high school gym.

"The reality is we are united on one thing today, we are Democrats, we are proud Democrats and we are going to elect a Democratic president," said Vilsack, who dropped his own bid for the nomination even before the voting began. "Let us pledge that we will unite behind our nominee — be it he or she."

[Rasputin]

The U.S. is a global power, and it can remain powerful basically through fair mutual relationships with other nations. While we influence many events in the world, our economic prosperity is also partially rooted in other nations, and in the age of globalization American interests ultimately cannot be protected by militarization of foreign policy. In global relations, America has helped the people of some nations to achieve better lives, but at the same time it has also recognized and supported some of the most brutal regimes in the world. In recent years, because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the U.S. has lost much of its credibility as an advocate of human rights and democracy.

With the end of the cold war and the demise of the former Soviet Union, a great hope arose that America would move toward its “better half”—humanistic and democratic—at both the domestic and global levels. Yet, U.S. actions in the past few years have once again displayed the dark side of American foreign policy. In this presidential election, the world anxiously wishes to see America’s “better self.” The unprecedented popular excitement and participation during the current primary season shows that the American people are hoping for a deep and genuine change, and so it is important to ask which candidate most closely meets the fundamental needs of the time.

Republican Senator John McCain wants to continue the current foreign policy, which is characterized by militarization of world politics and economics. Like President Bush, his main issue for energizing the voters is creating fear and portraying himself as an iron fist and the only candidate who will use military muscle to stop foreign terrorists—as if President Bush hasn’t already tried that in vain. Uniting the nation based on foreign threat has already cost this country thousands of lives and billions of dollars with no result, and it has created more hostility against the U.S. and definitely less security for American interests around the world. Why should we continue on an obviously failed path? The era of military empire expired long ago, and economic empire has been replaced by a world of multi-polar and regional powers in the past two decades.

Either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, if elected as the first female or African American president, will turn the page in the history of our nation and begin a new chapter. However, neither race nor gender is the main question of this election. The main issues are the related factors of the economy and the war in Iraq. Other concerns such as health care, immigration, and security are linked to these issues. Also, in this election America needs to elect a president who will drastically change the negative image of the country. Hillary Clinton, though a very articulate and knowledgeable candidate, cannot represent a genuine change because she supported the war and has not distanced herself from the Bush administration’s militarization policy. She also did not disassociate herself from Senator Joseph Lieberman, who shares more views with John McCain than with the Democratic Party.

Our nation desperately needs a president whose image and merits can heal the deep wounds created by the lies, secrecy, demagoguery, lobbyist scandals, and deceptions that pushed us into a costly war and created a disastrous economic situation while favoring particular interest groups and the ultra wealthy.

We need a leader whose image and policy can repair the damage done by the Abu Ghraib scandal in eyes of Muslims and Arabs; a president who can show consolidation with these nations to regain the lost trust in the international community. Such a crucial and humanistic gesture, which President Bush has failed to exercise, would make the withdrawal of our military forces from Iraq smoother, and the world would respond favorably to a leadership in the White House that reduces religious tension between Christians and Muslims , which is a major threat in our time. Other nations want to see an America that, when it acts as a policeman in the world, acts fairly.

The world does not want to see another leader in the White House whose goal is to show how tough we are by using military muscle against other nations. We have tried that and failed, and almost the entire world warned us ahead of time of our error by refusing to give a United Nations sanction to the invasion of Iraq. Our militaristic mentality has done serious damage to our interests in the world and definitely cannot resolve the serious, multi-dimensional global problems that we face. Instead of imposing democracy in other countries with military force, we need to show our authoritarian allies the advantages of democracy and help the people in hostile countries to establish the social and cultural fabrics of democratic society.

Barack Obama, with unique characteristics that intersect with these imperatives, meets the needs of our time better than anyone else. Obama in the White House would help the world to see the better half of America, a democratic and humanistic America.

[Rasputin]

Barack Obama conceded to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Pennsylvanian Democratic Primary last week. Though hardly a surprise to those eagerly following the campaign trail, some might have succumbed to wishful thinking, hoping Obama might be able to ride the wave of past momentum and bring a long drawn out and fatigued contest to a resolution. Alas, for Senator Obama and his avid supporters it was not meant to be, as his rival the junior Senator from New York and former First Lady was thrown a desperately needed life-preserver by the registered Democrats of Pennsylvania.

As an outsider looking in, it’s often difficult to assess what exactly Americans on the ground are thinking and feeling about the ups and downs of the campaign thus far waged, as our perceptions are inescapably mediated by the coverage of CNN, BBC World Service, Fox News, Al-Jazeera and the op-ed pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. We’re susceptible to clichés and stereotypes, just as Americans are so often criticized vis-à-vis their misconceptions and ill-informed opinions regarding Iranians, Islam and the politics of the Middle East.

There has been a constant in the Obama-Clinton race, which has never ceased to bubble beneath the surface, and that is the politics of identity. Though never really absent from the political fray, it was almost inevitable that a stand-off between a woman and African-American for the Democratic Party nomination would spark one of the most heart-wrenching investigations into the meaning of American identity in decades and perhaps one of unprecedented proportions in the run up to a presidential election.1

Obama is an interesting figure for a number of reasons, but foremost among them is that his mixed heritage has forced him to struggle and exhaustively grapple with his identity without succumbing to the temptation to occlude one aspect of himself at the expense of the many other influences which go to make up the man. Obama doesn’t simply conform to the well-trodden tale of a minority who grew up ‘in a white man’s world and made good’, but rather an individual who has crafted and melded the disparate influences and histories that go to make up the American experience into a coherent narrative. And it is in this respect that he has coexisted as both an example of what is best and most damning in American history. Still, his experience is hardly unique; scores of sons and daughters born to immigrants have been compelled to grapple with who they were and how they see themselves in the tapestry of modern American life. The crude answer, is that Obama, unlike his predecessors, has garnered so much attention because he’s a ‘black man’ running for president.

Born to a Harvard-educated Kenyan economist and a white American mother hailing from Kansas, Obama passed most of his childhood and adolescent years in Honolulu and from the ages of six to ten, lived in Jakarta with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. Obama’s cumulative experience and exposure beyond the borders of the land he calls home clearly shaped and molded his formative years, while simultaneously fostering a profound investment in what he regards as the very best traditions and ideals America has to offer and the values he takes such a vision to essentially entail. It is in this respect that he can be regarded as patriotic without being provincial, a trait rarely glimpsed amongst politicians. In the course of his campaign this duality has played the part of both blessing and curse and yet remains undeniable. It also stands as a testament to Obama’s shrewd understanding of the contradictions and complexities which lie at the heart of ‘America’ and the myriad things in the course of its relatively short history it has come to signify. His A More Perfect Union speech of March 18th was just one example of this intricate existential negotiation upon which he has obviously spent considerable time dwelling:

“I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.”2

It’s true, where else is such a tale possible? Obama’s plural heritage has forced him to understand both the terrible history of racism, slavery and genocide in America while at the same time witnessing and struggling toward that history’s transcendence at rare and cherished moments as exemplified and embodied in iconic figures like Abraham Lincoln, Fredrick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Tubman and John F. Kennedy. Many have been quick to make exaggerated and grandiose comparisons and have indeed forgotten in their heady delirium that Obama has yet to even win the Democratic nomination let alone the presidency.

Obama is not the prophet of a post-racial America – whether such a thing is possible or even desirable is a question his campaign has arguably neglected. What it has stressed by contrast, is the importance of a moratorium of sorts regarding the politics of race and the pressing need to work together on those issues which bind Americans together irrespective of racial identity. He states unequivocally that ‘I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally.’3 Such a message has struck a chord with vast numbers of people and reignited a certain degree of optimism willing to for the time being let racial politics fall by the wayside in order to surmount the deep-seated animosity and adversarial attitude responsible for stymieing so many domestic policy initiatives.

Even Vanity Fair’s Christopher Hitchens, a fierce opponent of identity politics, has conceded Obama has refused to bow to calls that he identify with a particular community, as opposed to the broader American polity.4 Obama’s best-selling The Audacity of Hope is itself strident in putting forth his ambition to divest the political process of its stultifying dogma which he regards as no longer germane to the contemporary predicament which Americans face. It’s ‘doctrinaire thinking and stark partisanship’ he claims ‘that have turned Americans off of politics.’5 That being said Obama’s voting record was ranked as more liberal than some 86% of his Senate colleagues in 2006. Whether that is a laudable or lamentable is in the last instance for the voters to decide.


There’s an adage which says that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold, so perhaps it’s no surprise that the Obama campaign has aroused a remarkable welter of opinions and views not only within the US, but around the world. On Facebook – a now well-established global social network – one can become an Obama fan and follow the progress of his campaign with updates and video feeds of his speeches – and at a cursory glance one can espy not only US citizens, but a veritable pastiche of nationalities encompassing Paraguayans, Cubans, Russians, Georgians, Turks, Egyptians, Kenyans, Brits, French, Spaniards, Ghanaians, Indians and many more besides. At my last count Obama had some 793,252 fans to Clinton’s relatively modest 150, 949. Perhaps the one thing Obama’s recent loss proves is that Facebook is deeply flawed as a barometer of US public opinion, since those of us whom engage in brief exchanges of levity and vampire and zombie attacks online can hardly be said to be the same blue collar voters whom continue to be recalcitrant to ‘Obamania’.


Obama’s opponents on various occasions have attempted to paint him as a passing fad whose lofty words and charismatic appeal like the legendary melodious tones of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, once managed to cajole and coax the young and youthful at heart, but whose ‘rhetoric’ is just that, and ultimately lacking in substance and that ever-vague term ‘political realism’. In short, it’s alleged he’s peddling pipe dreams in a game of politics which is inherently dirty, cynical and predatory.

At the opening of the contest to become the Democratic presidential nominee, Clinton as the supposedly ‘inevitable’ victor regularly came under fire and her record under serious scrutiny. But as the momentum of Obama’s campaign picked up speed and undercut the hitherto conventional wisdom that Clinton was the presumptive nominee, Obama has come in for a barrage of criticism and now countless attempts to pigeonhole him as the representative of a narrow group defined by either race, economic status or a limited section of the Democratic party. In some quarters he has been portrayed as a ‘black candidate’, or more recently a ‘liberal elitist’. Obama has also been the subject of persistent Internet rumors suggesting he is a Muslim, was educated at a madrassah in Indonesia and took the oath of office using a Quran. Obama did spend part of his childhood in Indonesia but attended Catholic and public schools there. He took the oath of office on a Bible. Unfortunately Obama has been virtually inaudible in his condemnation of the use of ‘Muslim’ as a pejorative and disparaging term which has in recent month formed part of an orchestrated ‘smear campaign’, to which his Democratic rival has very much been party.6

[Rasputin]

The Jeremiah A. Wright affair, as well as Obama’s comments more recently in which he claimed that in the face of political apathy and economic frustration, some Pennsylvanian voters sought solace in those touchstones, which most deeply shape their lives such as religion and firearms, have provided his opponents with additional fodder for the purpose of defining him as either this or that. In the last couple of months both the GOP and the Clinton campaign have surreptitiously segued from propagating Obama’s past and present affiliations, to impugning the latter’s ‘patriotic credentials’. This chain of events found its denouement in the heavily criticized ABC debate between Obama and Clinton in which Obama was questioned by a Pennsylvania resident on whether he bore a grudge against the American flag because he failed to sport the stars and stripes on his lapel.


The fact however, whether you like or loathe the man and what he stands for, is that he is undoubtedly one of America’s sons, and in lieu of an ‘exotic’ curiosity, encapsulates the best and worst of the American experience of both oppression and liberation, and a history pregnant with centuries of struggle in the name of a message which purports to be universal in its scope: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The question of whether Obama is sufficiently ‘patriotic’ or even ‘American’ must surely be seen as little more than a malicious potshot and attempt to appeal to voters’ most parochial and intolerant instincts. The real question is whether Obama will be able to live up to the expectations and bright-eyed optimism he has evoked in his supporters, and whether his eloquence had been masking chutzpah all along, and on this count only time will tell.

[Rasputin]

It deeply saddens me that two women from my native country of Iran have chosen to degrade feminism. Under the misconception that their gender will shield their hatred and deception, Manda Zand-Ervin & Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi hope that even with flawed logic they can dissuade you from seeking dialogue with Iran. Sir, I reach out to you not as a woman, but as one humanitarian to another with a common goal: the imperative for peace.

I have to wonder if these hyphenated women and others like them who so loosely use the term ‘appeasement’ are sufficiently familiar with history, or is this a mindless repetition of a word ill-understood? Perhaps these two ought to seek education and reject propaganda.

More importantly, they should realize that as citizens of the United States they should remain hyphenated in name only and not in loyalty. President Wilson had much foresight when he proposed “ an “infallible test” for the hyphenated American so that in spite of maintaining affections for the old country, when voting or fighting, the heart and mind are centered around America.” These hyphenated women have the audacity not only to insult you, Mr. Senator, for they imply that you are proposing policies to win the election, but they have the impudence to suggest that even though they think these policies are what Americans want, should be changed to please Iranians and Iranians in exile.

Obviously there are several issues amiss here. They are not loyal to their adopted country, America; they believe that you should give priority to Iranians and not Americans, yet in an accusatory tone, they have used the world “appeasement”, probably unaware of history; and they misinform you about the true sentiments of Iranians.

While they like to grossly exaggerate the crimes against the Iranians by the regime, they neglect to mention that the 8-year Iran-Iraq war was provoked, and Iran was the victim. No doubt there is oppression in Iran, but given that the country is under constant threat and it is facing treachery so blatant as witnessed by the letter addressed to you by these two, is it any wonder that those who truly seek to reform the system fall victim to suspicion?

Senator Obama, I am truly amazed that these two hyphenated women insult you incessantly. My respect for your intelligence and dignity will not allow me to do likewise. I think that with the exception of a very a few Iranians who have sold their soul along with their country, given Mr. Bush’ policies, no other Iranian would think that America has much moral authority left. Far more importantly, Iranians would never concede that America “mirrors the true character of the once great Persian Empire” as these ladies falsely state.

The regime, regardless of its shortcomings, has negotiated in good faith with various American administrations. While Mrs. Albright made a half-hearted apology to the proud people of Iran for aborting their democracy in 1953 with the CIA-backed coup and installing the oppressive Shah, in return for which she allowed pistachios to be exported, Iran was making every effort to negotiate with the United State in good faith. Iran has even indirectly approached the Bush Administration to negotiate, and it has been the administration, according to recent revelations, which solely and single-handedly has squandered at least four excellent opportunities to make peace with Iran.

The first three have been well chronicled by Flynt L. Leverett (New York Times) of the Brookings Institute who was in the administration until 2003. The last one was a letter addressed to Mr. Bush by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that proposed direct negotiations with Washington on the nuclear program. As the former US secretary of state, Dr. Henry Kissinger opined (Washington Post) the Iranian letter was significant since it was “the first direct approach by an Iranian to a US. President in more than 25 years may also have intentions beyond the tactical and propagandistic.”


In addition, at no time did Iran violate its international obligations under the NPT – and it has not done so to this date. As signatory to the NPT, the Safeguard Agreements do not demand that Iran notify the IAEA of construction sites, however, 180 days prior to the introduction of uranium processing equipment, Iran is obligated to notify the IAEA of the installation of such equipment. Those who claim that Iran was pursuing nuclear technology in secret are grossly uninformed propagandists. Iran sought several bids from various countries seeking assistance with its nuclear plant.

These women would also have you believe that it was Iran that violated treaties, attempting to hide from you, a lawyer and a senator, that in spite of the 1955 Treaty of Amity signed between the United States and Iran, which due to its 2/3 majority approval was signed into the constitution, sanctions have been imposed in Iran. That the Algiers Accord, a bi-lateral treaty signed in 1981 between the United States and Iran has been violated and continues to be violated to this day by the U.S.

These two hyphenated women allege that Iran has ‘openly admitted to exporting its kind of rule’ outside its borders, giving Syria and Lebanon as examples. It is hard to imagine how theocratic Shia Iran has fashioned secular Syria with 74% Sunni Muslim after itself. Nor is it apprehensible to fathom how Lebanon, the country that America is so proud of having achieved a ‘young democracy’ can be under the influence of the regime the two women seek to destroy at the expense of the rest of the nation.

These propagandists even defy what was captured on television by claiming that those who held a candle light vigil for the victims of September 11 were punished. One must surely wonder where these women were at the time, or more pertinently, who is their informant given that although they have claim to stand for ‘Alliance for Women of Iran’, they regularly participate at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a neoconservative think-tank given to warmongering. A panel in which Mandana Zand-Ervin participated was destroying the integrity of Iran by dividing it into minority groups. [See AEI event: The Unknown Iran, Another Case for Federalism?]


Senator Obama, the hyphenated ladies propose that you “declare Iran a Gender Apartheid country”. This is most peculiar given that prior to the 1979 revolution Iranians were effectively living in a caste system; hidden from the world, and denied many opportunities they have today. While there are indeed many discriminatory laws against women, they have been changing gradually. The significant advantage is that all the accomplishments have been made as a result of feminist movement in the broader coalition of the democracy movement. This means that not only are women, shoulder to shoulder with men, full participants in the movement, but that the changes are irreversible due to them being the result of a struggle, not bestowed by the Shah.

While during the Shah’s regime the chador was a hindrance to a woman’s progress, in today’s Iran those same women enter universities. In fact, 63% of all university students are women. A full 45% of the work force is women. Moreover, the leadership board of the largest university students union, Office for Consolidation of Unity, has women members. Both the reformist and conservative political groups have women in leadership posts. Women vote and sit in parliament. They choose their own husbands and those who do not are victims of their social status, not the Islamic rule. It took decades for the women in America to earn the right to vote, yet Iran boasts of 13 members of parliament. It sent a female vice president to the world economic forum – Davos.

According to the United Nations figures, the illiteracy rate has been reduced from 52.5 per cent in 1976 to just 6.2 per cent, at the last count in 2002. Indeed, it would be odd for Iran to be declared gender apartheid, as these women wish it. They say that life is a self-reflection. How these two women hate.

Dear Senator Obama, these contrary women who are bent on propagating misinformation without the aptitude to convince are appealing to a leader by saying: “A nation is made up of people, not its leaders.” Sir, I like to believe what is said about a leader: ‘a good leader is not the person who does things right, but the person who finds the right things to do.’ Senator Obama, it is not just America that is looking to you to find the right thing to do, but the world. This is why contrary to what these hyphenated women allege, your comments have been welcomed world-over by those who have a heart and an appetite for peace. Peace can only come about if we talk and we listen.

It is my firm belief that the majority of Iranians wish to renew their relationship with the Americans and have a dialogue established between the two countries. It is only normal to seek out and heal old wounds and renew friendships – to be otherwise is not normal. I ask that you not be swayed by those who seek to betray their roots and the country which has so generously adopted them. I do not appeal to you as a woman for I know that under your leadership there will be no partiality. Partiality is generally supplemented by prejudice, and I know that has no place in leadership.

I was born in Iran and raised in many countries, but I have chosen to settle here. I believe that together we can make a difference. Yes, We Can!

Respectfully,

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Public Diplomacy Program
USC Annenberg for Communication/USC School of International Relations
Los Angeles, California

[Rasputin]

اوباما: برای جلوگیری از دستیابی ایران به سلاح اتمی هرکاری می کنم



باراک اوباما که خود را نامزد نهائی حزب دموکرات در انتخابات آتی ریاست جمهوری ایالات متحده اعلام کرده، طی سخنرانی در کمیته امورعمومی اسرائیل در آمریکا (ایپک) گفت که اگر به ریاست جمهوری برگزیده شود، هر آنچه از دستش برآید خواهد کرد تا ایران به سلاح اتمی دست نیابد.
وی در این سخنرانی که در مهمترین لابی هوادار اسرائیل در آمریکا ایراد شد، واژه "هرچه" را در عبارت "هر چه از دستم برآید برای جلوگیری از دستیابی ایران به سلاح اتمی می کنم" سه بار تکرار کرد و مورد تأکید قرار داد.

سخنان او با کف زدن و تشویق حضار همراه شد.

با پایان یافتن روند رقابتهای باراک اوباما و هیلاری کلینتون برای احراز نامزدی حزب دموکرات در انتخابات ریاست جمهوری، آقای اوباما نسبت به رقیب خود حمایت انجمنهای انتخاباتی بیشتری را در این حزب کسب کرده و رسماً خود را نامزد نهائی دموکراتها اعلام کرده است.

اما هیلاری کلینتون هنوز شکست در برابر رقیب خود را نپذیرفته و به رقابت ادامه می دهد.

پس از سخنرانی باراک اوباما در ایپک، هیلاری کلینتون پشت تریپون رفت و برای حاضران سخنرانی کرد.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Obama: Iran isolation
Obama: "Iranian regime author of its own isolation"

Excerpts from Sen. Obama's speech yesterday at the about his future policies towards Iran's regime at an event organized by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat

YouTube - Barack Obama at AIPAC

[林一海]

Say no to the 2008 Beijing Olympics!

Bomb the Iranian mullahs.


China Arms the Rogues | Middle East Quarterly

[Rasputin]

سناتور باراك اوباما چندي پيش در يك نشست خصوصي با جمعي از سرمايه داران و تجار ايراني مقيم آمريكا شركت كرد.

به گزارش عصر ايران (asriran.com) شبكه خبري اي.بي.سي آمريكا گزارش داد: "نامزد دموكرات انتخابات رياست جمهوري در نشستي به منظور جمع آوري پول براي ستاد انتخاباتي خود با تعدادي از ايرانيان ساكن آمريكا ديدار كرد."

اين نشست خارج از برنامه هاي عمومي اوباما و بدون حضور رسانه ها در روز 13 جولاي در كاليفرنيا برگزار شد

در اين ديدار 15 دقيقه اي كه حدود يك هفته مانده به سفر اوباما به خاورميانه صورت گرفت، نامزد دموكرات انتخابات آمريكا درباره لزوم بكارگيري شيوه هاي جديد براي تعامل با ايران و ساير نقاط جهان صحبت كرد.

براساس اين گزارش هرچند برگزاري چنين نشست هاي خصوصي با «اعانه دهندگان پولدار» موضوع عادي به شمار مي رود اما تعيين شرط ابتدايي جمع آوري مقدار مشخصي پول براي برپايي اين رويداد غيرمعمول بود.

اين گزارش مي افزايد: "يكي از تاجران برجسته ايراني در كاليفرنيا پيش از برپايي اين نشست در يك ايميل فراخوان خطاب به چند ايراني اعلام كرد: ستاد انتخاباتي اوباما وعده داده به شرط جمع آوري 250 هزار دلار كمك نقدي توسط ايراني ها حاضر به برگزاري نشستي با آنهاست."

«مشايدي»، مديرعامل ايراني شركت «هاي – تك» STEC در كاليفرنيا بعدا با تصحيح اشتباه خود اعتراف كرد:" اوباما بدون توجه به مقدار پول جمع آوري شده توسط اعانه دهندگان ايراني، آنها را به ملاقات مي پذيرد."

به گفته وي تاجران ايراني در نهايت موفق به جمع آوري 180 هزار تا 220 هزار دلار اعانه براي ستاد انتخاباتي اوباما شدند اما نامزد دموكرات بدون توجه به اين مساله ايراني ها را به حضور پذيرفت.
وي افزود: "يك ميليون ايراني در كاليفرنيا زندگي مي كنند و پيش از اين ما هرگز با هيچ سياستمداري ديدار نكرده بوديم."

اين تاجر ايراني درباره محتواي ديدار كوتاه با اوباما خاطرنشان كرد: "سناتور اوباما آمد، سلام داد، چند دقيقه اي براي ما صحبت كرد و درباره اين مساله گفت كه وي مي خواهد با ايران گفت و گو كند."

اين ايراني ساكن شهر «ارنج كانتري» در كاليفرنيا افزود: "به خاطر آنكه غالب ساكنان «ارنج كانتري»، جمهوريخواه هستند، لذا وي بسيار علاقه مند بود تا ارتباط نزديك تري بين ايراني – آمريكايي هاي دموكرات با نامزد دموكرات ها برقرار كند."