Rajapaksa’s Triumph

A united but disparate opposition in Sri Lanka is unable to scuttle Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid for a second term.

An EPW Editorial.

Discouraging Developments in Sri Lanka

Rather than considering a progressive alternative to the two presidential candidates, incumbent Mahinda Rajapaksa and ex-army chief Sarath Fonseka, the major minority parties and their representatives have thrown their lot with either of the two candidates for short sighted reasons in upcoming presidential elections.

My post on the same in the Newsclick website.

Transition to Multiparty Democracy

There is widespread optimism as a pro-democracy activist is elected president in the Maldives.

After a prolonged 30-year rule by former president Abdul Gayoom, the Maldives elected prominent opposition leader Mohammad Nasheed (“Anni”) in the country’s first truly democratic presidential elections. Nasheed won the run-off presidential elections by capturing 54% of the votes.

Gayoom’s iron-fisted rule, marred by corruption, nepotism, cronyism, and stifling of any political dissent had remained unchallenged until these elections. Nasheed was at the receiving end of Gayoom’s actions against political dissidents in the country. An activist who had been sentenced to prison 23 times, was 18 months in solitary confinement and underwent torture in prison, Nasheed had founded his opposition party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) overseas in Sri Lanka only in 2003. This was in the aftermath of a civil demonstration in the capital Male against Gayoom, which resulted in riots and unrest.

Generous political help followed from international actors as Nasheed was given refuge in the United Kingdom, where he and his party colleagues built up support for their “cause” – ushering in genuine democracy in Maldives. After his return to the Maldives, Nasheed consolidated his support base by engaging in campaigning across the nation’s islands. Facing continual unrest due to anger against his rule, and relentless demonstrations for a democratic Maldives, Gayoom tried to use repressive measures to stem the discontent against his regime. But, adverse international opinion mounted after the international community’s involvement in tsunami relief in 2004.

All this pressure eventually forced Gayoom to accept a relatively peaceful transition to political pluralism which paved the way for the recognition of the MDP as an opposition party in 2005. Later, Gayoom had to allow the enactment of a new democratic constitution in August 2008 and schedule presidential elections in October 2008. Parliamentary elections are also slated for February 2009.

The new democratic constitution, for the first time, brought about a separation of powers in the Maldives, with the powers of the judiciary statutorily demarcated from those of the head of state. The constitution gives importance to the tenets of Islam which is the State religion, while at the same time guaranteeing a regime of rights and freedoms, apart from the separation of powers as between institutions such as the Majlis (parliament), the presidency and the judiciary. Under popular pressure, Gayoom’s otherwise autocratic political legacy gave way to permitting a transition to a constitutional, democratic republic.

Mohammad Nasheed inherits a Maldives whose economy has been relatively prosperous in terms of per capita income, largely due to high returns from tourism and foreign investment. But, this record is marred by high levels of inequality and youth unemployment buttressing crime. Nasheed’s immediate challenge remains mitigating the negative impact of the global financial crisis on the economy which is over-reliant on tourism and its associated sectors. He had campaigned on a platform of diversification of the economy beyond tourism and fishing, and this would be a priority task for his government. The other challenge that president Nasheed faces is the effect of global warming on the Maldives. Practically the entire population of the country, living in its chain of atolls, is threatened by the rise of sea water level.

The transition to multiparty democracy and the election of Mohammad Nasheed, a pro-democracy activist, to the post of president, one who has shown no rancour against his former tormentors and political rivals, should facilitate the task of addressing the many challenges facing the country.

Editorial written for the Economic and Political Weekly

Us versus them

Article written for the newspaper, "Mid-day"... Linked here. The nice cartoon courtesy the paper is also reproduced here. All credits to Mid-day.

Us versus them

How does the recently-concluded US electoral campaign compare to the on-going one in India?

Barack Obama's election as the 44th president of the United States marked a seminal moment in American politics. It was a symbolic victory for the historically traumatised African-American population in the United States to have one of their "own" elected to the highest executive post in their country.

The question that is much asked in India's chattering discussion circles in the media is whether there is going to be an Indian version of an Obama and an Obama-like victory based on the message of "change". Only the political systems and processes of the two democracies have so many contrasts as of today that it is too simplistic to expect a similar outcome in the upcoming Indian Lok Sabha elections as in the US presidential elections.

It is clear that the American public have risen above the latent expressions of fear and hate that have jaundiced their past, to move their country away from the woeful legacy of George W Bush and his neoconservative administration. It took an inspired campaign based on strong volunteer activity, networking technologies and innovative "messaging" for Obama to achieve the victory in the US electioneering system that is highly media-driven and which relies on portraying differences in "image" and "packaging of messages".

The socio-politico-economic situation in the USA compares well with what is going on in India today. There is a rejuvenation of hate for the "other", as terror attacks (in many urban centres) and communalism (in Orissa and Karnataka) has ravaged all corners of the country. The agrarian economy has been stagnant and farmers are still under duress, despite concessions by the government. The boom time in the services economy that lasted a few years threatens to come to a screeching halt, as India faces as much of a financial and economic downturn as the global economy. Long time wounds in India such as Kashmir are festering up again. Demands for statehood based on ethnic identity (Gorkhaland) and socio-economic discrimination (Telangana) have reared up again. Competitive regionalism and chauvinism have threatened to disrupt normal life in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and in Bihar.

The government of today is hard-pressed to address all these effectively, owing to a mixture of reasons from incompetence, misplaced priorities, leadership and sheer lack of will. Just like in the US, India will also go for elections soon, with the "hope" that the next elected dispensation will address the issues. Only four years ago, the people had given a mandate all across India against the NDA alliance for its handling of the agrarian crisis, growing inequality and support to communalism.

There is therefore a similarity with the American situation, but the contrasts between the political systems in these countries are stark. In a presidential system like the US, political differences get personalised and issues get subordinated to image and character of the candidates. There is also the preponderance of the two major parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, whose candidates crowd out other "third" party candidates in funding, media coverage and ballot access.

This was what precisely happened in the current presidential elections. The concurrent Congressional elections to the Senate and the House of Representatives were also influenced by the larger show of the Obama-John McCain fight, as the theme of "change" helped the Democratic Party win a majority of the Congressional seats over the Republican party.
In India however, the polity is not restricted to a two party system. India is a strongly federalised union of many states with deeper and wider, linguistic and identity differences than the US. The multiplicity of various parties, both regional and national therefore complicate the process of elections, with issues and factors at the national level having outcomes based on regional equations which depend on factors such as caste alliances. Thus, coalition politics rules the roost in this country as various parties converge upon bigger alliances. This has taken the shape of three broad entities: the UPA led by the Congress, the NDA led by the BJP and the Third Front including the Left and the BSP.

To a great extent thus, the Indian political system offers a higher number of choices for different constituencies; for peasants, the urban middle class, the dalits, the small landowners, the businessmen and the workers and of course the category of "castes". In the US however, the predominance of the two party system meant that voters had no choice but to choose the better of the two options or for some, the least worse off of them. For example, in economic policy; McCain and Obama differ on regulation of financial markets, but ended up favouring a taxpayer funded bailout of failed financial firms, restricting their solutions to the financial crisis to mere liquidity injection. In contrast, there is wider choice for the Indian voter in economic policies — for some parties support greater liberalisation and privatisation, some are dead opposed and some prefer a regulated approach. Except that being a third world country, not all Indians are aware about such differentiation in policy and merely vote on the basis of issues of identity — their caste, religion or regional pride.

Similar to the US, issues and agendas do converge into abstract qualities such as leadership; and no wonder, each alliance is keen to project its best face as the prime leader. And just as Barack Obama's win was seen as much as any African American's win, Mayawati of the BSP would want to win as the Dalit representative. But while Obama highlighted his personality and demeanour to win over support which transcended skin colour, Mayawati would have to pitch her party's slogan of "sarva-samaj" by stitching together a larger caste alliance.

Both democracies therefore have their strengths and their deficiencies, but the redeeming factor remains the voter. If in the US, Americans rose above their partisan divisions to vote Obama as the alternate to Bush's legacy, in India too, voters need to rise above mere "restrictive identities" to elect their representatives who are capable and offer value as policymakers and executives. Using Obama's words, the challenge is to achieve a "more perfect union" and there is no other means but the ballot box.

The writer works for the editorial board of Economic & Political Weekly

President Barack Hussein Obama

Obama's win through a impeccable presidential campaign heralds a significant moment in US history

Barack Hussein Obama is now the 44^th president of the United States of America. For the lone African American senator in the senate (he has merely served 4 years) with a composite ethnic and racial upbringing, a former community organiser and a constitutional law expert; being elected to the presidency is a major accomplishment. That Obama has achieved this victory representing the Democratic Party in a country that had racial segregation only forty years ago underlines the significance of his win for the nation.

Barack Obama was able to not only win the “electoral vote” decisively by capturing more than 350 of the 538 electoral college votes, he even carried nearly 53% of the popular vote, thus defeating his opponent from the Republican party, John McCain, resolutely. Obama's comprehensive triumph is reflected in the fact that he won in hitherto strong Republican states such as Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana, besides winning in the traditional battleground states such as Ohio and Florida and capturing states that voted for Bush in 2004 - Iowa, Nevada and Colorado.

The unpopularity of the George Bush regime, a recession like situation engulfing the nation's economy, the long drawn out military occupation of Iraq have all contributed to McCain's defeat, apart from the drubbing that his party received in the concurrent senatorial and congressional elections. As of November 5, the Democratic Party had a representative in the White House in Barack Obama, had a decisive majority in the Senate (with atleast 56 seats) and in the Congress. The widespread Democratic victory is an indication that the philosophy of unregulated “free market economics”, naked militarism, and the politics of fear that characterised Republican rule for the past eight years during the presidency of George W. Bush have been thoroughly rejected by the electorate.

It is not as if the Democratic Party had much to offer in the form of alternatives to the Republican philosophy or that Barack Obama had a substantial programme of “change”, even if he made it the theme of his campaign. On foreign policy, Obama's views were for the continuity of an unilateral course of action by the imperial United States against it's perceived threats – he merely had a problem with the diversion of the “war on terror” to Iraq and he has promised a change in “battlegrounds” to Afghanistan and even Pakistan.

On economic policy, he promised regulation of speculative financial activity, but no major course-change involving state intervention in reviving the economy beyond liquidity injection into capital markets, or anything beyond protectionism in reviving employment. But on some domestic issues such as healthcare, social security and energy policy, even Obama's centrist positions were enough to draw a contrast to the rabid market fundamentalism of his Republican counterpart. That he had a sound and pioneering understanding of the use of networking technology in garnering funds from many small donors on the internet, and had promised solutions in building energy alternatives to counter climate change were also great pluses. Barack Obama's ability to draw large numbers of the youth in the country transcending race and political partisanship, through clever marketing of his agenda of “change” was the hallmark of his year-long campaign.

The US presidential elections system consisting of long drawn out party primaries essentially featuring only the two major parties, followed by extensive campaigning leading up to the final polls, places a very high emphasis on formal aspects of candidature such as image and the correct packaging of an enduring message for the campaign. Obama was consistent in harping on the message of “change”, contrasting himself to the incumbent president and by linking John McCain to the failed presidency of George W. Bush. McCain on the other hand, tried initially to emphasise his experience, then reverted to “change” highlighting the “maverick character” of himself and his running mate, Sarah Palin, only to run into the deepening economic crisis with no specific ideas. This led his campaign to turn negative and to try to play upon the subliminal feelings of racism and the fear of the “other” in many Americans. That none of the “high voltage” accusations and the politics of fear could help McCain win, pointed out to how much American citizens had got tired with this phenomenon, yet another legacy of George W. Bush and his party's politics.

He might have achieved a significant victory, but Barack Obama's upcoming presidency faces tremendous challenges. He would preside over a new administration at a time when the US is widely hated across the world for the imperial excesses of the current regime. He will inherit and have to repair a trillion dollar deficit economy ravaged by war spending, debt and which faces a financial crisis nearly as severe as the Great Depression of the 1930s.

His packaged message of “change” was good enough to win an election by transcending partisan political differences expressed as the “conservative” versus “liberal” debates among ordinary Americans and by overcoming the politics of hate and fear. But only a substantive policy orientation- welfare and employment friendly economic policies, rejection of imperialism and unilateralism while strengthening cooperation and multilateralism in international affairs- will result in genuine and transcendent change in the US, attributed to president Barack Obama.

Upcoming editorial for the Economic and Political Weekly

Nader on President Obama

While it is indeed a majestic moment for United States to see an African-American to be elected as the president of the country, a progressive in the United States has her task cut out. How? and Why? This is why and how... Ralph Nader, Independent presidential candidate writes an open letter to "President-elect" Barack Obama:

Open letter to Senator Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words "hope and change," "change and hope" have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not "hope and change" but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity-- not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans.

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an "undivided Jerusalem," and opposed negotiations with Hamas-- the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored "direct negotiations with Hamas." Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote "Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state."

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League's 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe.

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: "There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President."

Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, "of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. ...Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see www.atfl.org for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli's assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its 'legitimate right to defend itself.'"

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government's assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on "the heart of a crowded refugee camp... with horrible bloodshed" in early 2008.

Israeli writer and peace advocate-- Uri Avnery-- described Obama's appearance before AIPAC as one that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama "is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future-- if and when he is elected president.," he said, adding, "Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people."

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents.

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama" (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled "Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque." None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans-- even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya.

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of a film about the Carter Center's post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on www.votenader.org). You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the "middle class" but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the "poor" in America.

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke "change" yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the "corporate supremacists." It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics-- opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)-- and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. "Hope" some say springs eternal." But not when "reality" consumes it daily.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

Obama: President? Not yet.

Only about four weeks are left for the presidential elections in the United States and from all indications, it looks like Barack Obama, the African-American senator from Illinois state is going to win the battle. The financial crisis that has afflicted capital, credit and property markets in the United States (and consequently in the rest of the world) is what that has tilted the balance of public opinion toward Obama. The Republican nominee John McCain seems to have been identified (and rightly so) with the eight year disastrous rule of George W. Bush, and this has pushed him more than 5 points behind Obama in many an opinion poll on the presidential elections. But no way is the battle over and no where is victory assured for Obama. This article explores the issues that are contributing to an Obama surge and those that could still derail his candidature.

Cartoon courtesy John Deering's Editorial Cartoons

The operation of subterranean racial feelings among many Americans is feared to be one of the reasons that could work against Obama, despite the resonance of his message with most Americans, who are slowly feeling the brunt of the extended financial crisis that has afflicted their economy. What is termed, the "Bradley effect" (wherein potential voters suggest that they prefer the African-American candidate in question, but eventually end up voting against her/him due to the racial factor), could undercut the possibility of a strong win for Obama. Or as has happened recently in executive elections in the US, substantial populations belonging to the impoverished African American background could just be dis-enfranchised for one reason or the other, a factor that could hinder Obama again.

Yet, what is going for Obama now is the fact that his message has such a resonance that is in particular drawing immense support from the younger sections of America. These sections having been brought up on race transcending cultural influences of sport and music have rejected the argument of race in large numbers even as Obama has tapped their support by relying on a fantastic campaign built solidly on new technology (the internet and mobile telephony), catchy and youthful phrasing of political messages and a reliance on viral networking and volunteering). This surge in the role of the young in American politics could offset the traditional emphasis on race that runs subliminally in America still.

The bad tanking of the American economy, an offshoot of irresponsible de-regulation and the failure of the neoliberal model has helped shore up the Obama message of change. Obama has not offered any radical alternative to the current system ( in contrast to a more progressive and steady message emphasised by long shot independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader), but simply the call for oversight and regulation of the financial hubs of American capitalism, plus a departure from the overly market reliant policies of the Republican administration in various sectors such as health and education, has been enough for Obama to steal a march over his Republican opponent, McCain. More and more Americans, worried about their savings and investments (in the case of the middle classes and the small entrepreneurs), about their jobs (in the case of the working classes) are rallying behind Obama and his message.

The McCain campaign's early response was to draw a line between its candidate 's experience as an American war hero, a patriotic senator who has served in the senate for years particularly as an expert on national security and foreign affairs and Obama's inexperience. Trying to emphasise Obama's relative inexperience as a US senator and therefore calling into question his ability to show leadership on issues such as foreign policy, was the first tactic by the McCain in its discredit Obama campaign. But Obama has largely held intact while facing these criticisms and has even enhanced his standing among voters over the issue of foreign policy by two ways.

One, he has played pretty much to the gallery on the issue of foreign policy. He realises that unrestrained nationalism is still the paramount impulse on various international matters in mainstream opinion in the US and he has never tried to articulate a progressive alternative to it. Be it his position on the Russian-Georgian affair, or the so called, "war on terror" or even the American strategy in west Asia and Latin America, Obama has kept his positions well and truly within the permits of mainstream American nationalism, no matter how dangerous to the world these stances are, from a progressive viewpoint. This is exemplified by his choice of the liberal imperialist Joe Biden as vice presidential nominee. Yet, this positioning of Barack Obama still draws a contrast to the recklessness of neoconservatism, something that drove the presidency of George Bush and is retained by the ultimate war-monger John McCain,. That public opinion on the US invasion of Iraq is negative and that Obama from day one of his executive political career has opposed the war, has helped him.

Secondly, the Obama march has been helped by a reckless mistake made by McCain: the choice of his running mate, Sarah Palin. Palin, the governor of Alaska was clearly chosen to please the social conservative base of the Republican party. With some really regressive views on a host of social and political issues such as the separation of the church and state, the issue of abortion, and even global warming, Palin plays right into the huge gallery of social conservatism and communal religious sections that abound America's rural areas and small towns and are staunch Republican supporters. Even as the conservative base has been revved up by the Palin choice, the sheer stupidity exhibited by the governor in issues such as foreign policy and international issues has come to become a severe undoing of the McCain message of experience in the same areas. Sarah Palin, among several gaffes, touted her foreign policy experience owing to the fact that she governed a state that bordered Russia and thats that! Her views on international diplomacy are as good as non-existent and she prides on being a reckless warmonger - witness her responses to questions on the Russian-Georgian affair or about the volatile situation in west Asia involving Israel and Iran.

Hence, on domestic and international issues cumulatively, Obama has managed to convince voters that he is a better choice than his rival. This has helped him make a dent in states that are traditional Republican voting hubs, such as North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia and others. Despite such good tidings for the Democrats, the overall expectation of an Obama victory is cautious. Why is this so?

The McCain campaign in its attempt to deflect the attention of Americans from issues such as the state of the economy and the disastrous state of his ticket has now relied upon the tried and tested weapon, that is sure to yield some kind of dividend: slander. Trying to "turn a page" over the economic issues (as a McCain aide put it discussing campaign strategy with the media), the McCain campaign is now using Sarah Palin as a weapon to fire in bullet after bullet about Obama's links with "terrorists" and "America-haters". The reference is to a former radical William Ayers who was part of an organisation named the "Weathermen" which placed bombs targetting public institutions (a la Bhagat Singh) to bring notice to opposition to the ruthless Vietnam War 40 years ago. Since then, after incarceration, Ayers built up his recent reputation as an expert on child education and by engaging in community service in the city of Chicago. The prominence of Ayers as a Chicago progressive and his links with community organisers in the city got him acquainted with Obama and this "association" is what that has brought into question by the Republican ticket, which has gone on to denounce Obama's "domestic terrorist links" and consequently his judgment. Obama has pointedly denounced Ayers' past and his methods and to call him an associate of Ayers when Obama was 8 years old during Ayers' days as a radical is surely a ridiculous argument, which has still been sustained by the Republican attack machine.

While this denouncing and slander of Obama has yet to gain a lot of traction in terms of shift of support (opinion polls still point to a stable Obama lead), the Republican attack machine ( so termed for the precedents such as the "Swiftboat attack" on John Kerry, the previous Democratic presidential candidate) has now used this as their primary ammunition in their war against Barack Obama's nomination. This attack could well enmesh itself into the subliminal territory of racial fear of the "African American", who is still not an atypical American for some who still harbour feelings for the other on the basis of skin colour in the country. This could well turn out to be a substantial roadblock in Obama's road to the presidency, or atleast so hope the Republican ticket. This roadblock therefore prevents any dispassionate (or otherwise) follower of American politics from making a prediction that "President Barack Obama" would be inaugurated on January 20th, 2009, presiding over a new United States of America.

Article published in The Post, Lahore

The dark Bailout

The funny thing about the American politicians, particularly the Republicans is the way they try to dumb down themselves to prove that they are good enough to be the highest representatives of their fellow countrymen ..i.e. by making themselves "familiar" with their constituents. How else could one explain the choice of this obvious moron, Sarah Palin as a vice-presidential candidate? eh? I mean.. ' I deserve to be VP, because I have foreign policy credentials...'.. Explain... "U see.. Alaska is close to Russia and I govern Alaska"... wow! Tina Fey gave a nice nice "no spin zone" to it. Or how the Yale/Ivy/Skulls & Bones/ Mgmt graduate George Bush could try to pose himself as the "guy whom most Americans would want to have beer with" and put on the dunce cap more often than not.

On second thoughts, I realise that this is pretty much true with other countries, including mine as well. After all, isn't my own president, Pratibha Patil the same lady who used to communicate with dead souls? Still, Palin beats everyone when it comes to nincompoopishness (as many pals of mine know..thats my favourite cuss word).

Still.. I hope there is some redemption or atleast a bailout of the Americans (and the world too!) from the disastrous presidency of the neocons and the socio-cons and the moron-cons. And who would bail them out? Barack-"senator mcCain is right"- Obama? Or is it this guy:



LOL :)