The Primaries(2) (March-May 2008)

Custom Search

2 March 2008

In Praise of Barack Obama: 7 Heartwarming Reasons to Vote For Him

Forget all the other serious reasons you have for wanting Barack obama to be the Democratic nominee. None of that heavy stuff today. Let's go to the heart of the issue why the guy is so popular - from a ladies point of view, of course. And, if you are still hesitant, and undecided, these essential, but heartwarming little assets should woo you into submission. In my opinion, there are seven crucial things that do it for me about the man in question, and they are the following:

7. His little kids are soooo cute. They make you want to hug them and warm to them. In fact, though very brainy, his family comes across as a real, genuine ordinary family, without airs or graces, just one of the local neighbourhood. That is quite an advantage to have: to be able to cultivate the 'ordinary' look without even trying.

6. He looks so young, and is cast as 'young' by the media, yet he is quite 'old' by young people's standard. Man, the guy is 47 years old. That is really old in youth perspective. He's nearly 50...the big 5 0. But he looks so boyish and cute, as though he is going to play a prank on you any minute, the kids have taken him to heart. They mistakenly believe he is one of them. Amazing.

5. He has a lovely, captivating smile. Have you seen the way that smile just reaches out and grabs you by the throat? You feel you want to smile right back and just keep on smiling!

4. He is very good at fighting his own corner, quite easily a man of principles, ready to stand up for his own views and sticks to them too. He is so different from the mould, it would be fun to see what he really does in office. He already look and act so presidential. he just need to go through the door now.

3. He has a great sense of humour. I am still laughing at his suggestion of appointing Mitt Romney as 'Secretary for Looking Good' in his 'cabinet'. It was so apt. I can just see Mitt Romney preening himself before the mirror in his office every day with that sleek patted hair and exhorting everyone earnestly to 'look good, folks'. Go, dude!

2. He is awesome with words. Man, this guy can sweep you off your feet with winning words of wisdom. No wonder he has left his opponents well behind in a crumpled heap with his ability to galvanise and touch others with words. What did they say about the pen being mightier than the sword? He is the living embodiment of it. To touch others with simple words must be an awesome ability to have, like a pied piper with words.

And of course, now the top the secret reason why Iike him. Does it have anything to do with his policies, politics, or passions like that? Noooooo, of course not. It is because:

1. He is absolutely scrumptious...ladies eye-candy, by far! Do you see the sweet way even Hillary looks at him in his presence? Woweeee! Swooning hearts all the way to the White House. What did they say about being tall, dark and handsome? Positively scrummy, if I might say so...

Well, that's my seven and I am sticking to them :o)

Definition of oligarchy: "a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution".

Is democracy now at risk?

Hillary Clinton might feel flushed with some success at her wins in Texas and Ohio. She pulled it off in a marginal way and congratulations are certainly due to her. If nothing else, she has saved face and recovered some credibility today, and that is also important for such a feisty and determined lady. But she must have learnt a huge lesson in humility after going on about winning her two 'firewall' states, only to discover that they might have had some 'fire' but they certainly didn't provide the protective 'wall' around her, so they weren't too secure after all.

That would have been a huge wake-up call for her. But the race is far from over because an energised Obama, still leading in delegates, despite her win, and with even more to prove now, could be lethal in the remaining rounds. The thinness of her wins suggests that the rookie is learning all the time, eating into her defences, her confidence, her hopes and her opportunity, changing her predictions indelibly with every new win. By re-emerging in the race, Hillary has shown her mettle but has now prolonged it even more. The question now is what the public will do about that. They have only two choices with the Democrats here: to elect Barack Obama for the change they desperately need and to show what is possible with an entirely new force or to sleepwalk into an oligarchy by electing Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

America used to have a new or repeat president every four years. Whatever was written in its Constitution about the legal process, that was the de facto reality. It ran smoothly for 42 presidents. There was only one father and son who became presidents - JOHN ADAMS (1797-1801) and JOHN QUINCY ADAMS(1825-1829) - and their respective terms in office were a respectable 24 years apart, a whole generational divide, so one didn't notice the effect too much. Even the ROOSEVELTS, Theodore and Franklin (5th cousins) at the turn of the 20th century, had a 24 year gap between them too. A decent enough time span to allow three other presidents into place and prevent unbridled ambition from getting into the way of the constitution. More important, first ladies gracefully decorated the White House with their beauty and behind-the-scenes brains, where possible, but were more figurative than transparent in their presence. However, the Clintons and the Bushes will change all that with a new oligarchy, if Hillary Clinton wins.

Let's do the math, as Americans would say. George H.W. Bush began the Bush family's term in office in 1989 for four years followed by Bill Clinton who served his full eight years. That should have been the end of the matter and a new president sworn in. However, George W. Bush followed his father and is now completing his own eight year term. By the time he leaves office, we would have had 20 years of Bush and Clinton already. In the meantime, Hillary and Bill Clinton found a wonderful way to keep the Clintons in power and extend their term beyond all other presidents, by doing what no first lady has ever done: run for office too. This canny entrenchment into the White House, should she win, regardless of the length of her term in office, could see Jeb Bush back into the saddle to take over from his brother in four or eight years time. By the time he finishes his term, Chelsea Clinton or even Jena Bush should be about ready to take up the mantle of power and cement the Clinton/Bush oligarchy, all this in a supposed democracy. And we haven't even allowed for any First Lady/Gentleman throwing their hats in too! We would be looking at up to 40 years, at least, in this new power structure based purely on two families. This scenario is not so difficult to happen when power hungry people begin to bend the rules in their own favour, and at any cost.

Is this what Americans really want? A kind of presidency dictated by birth? That is usually associated with a monarchy and Americans have always emphasised their contempt for a monarchical system of power, without competition and openness, regardless of how much they might respect Britain's royal family! The trouble with oligarchies that are allowed to develop on such a scale is that the families involved begin to believe they have the 'right' to such power and to curtail other people's right to get it too, by fair means or foul. Worse still, the pattern is then difficult to break once it begins because it is easier to maintain something than to initiate it. From an oligarchy it is a short walk with eyes wide open into the nightmare of a dictatorship. So, is that what is in store with a Clinton win?

That is entirely up to the American voters and the kind of future they desire for their country: whether it is one based on a democracy, where each family has its turn and finishes with dignity, respect and a clear legacy, while making way for others, or a greedy, burgeoning oligarchy controlled by two families for the rest of the century and beyond. In that respect, the 2008 elections could be more of a turning point in American history than many people could even dream of, but only they have the power to decide the outcome.

Within the first three months of coming on Newsvine, I did something rather rash, indeed. With very little knowledge of the key players on the Vine, I made a bet with one of its political heavyweights in a moment of folly. He had commented eloquently and forcefully on one of my articles, explaining why Barack stood no chance, and I was impressed with his opinion. But I was also fired up and inspired by Obama himself and there was no stopping me. Armed with nothing more than my intuition - nada, zero, zilch in political data, especially as an outsider Brit - and feeling heady with the audacity of hope, I immediately took him on.

Feeling ready for a fight, I bet him £1, two of his dollars, that Barack would win. He gladly accepted it. His premise being that a Republican minority candidate might get there first but not a Democrat minority. Was I phased by his knowledge, his logic or his obvious experience? No hope in hell of that. I knew damn-all about American politics, but my intuition is awesome. It seldom fails me and that is one thing many men can't really understand about women and their intuitions; especially the ones who trust logic and facts to instincts, and particularly when past data is sparse. That's where I come into my own with a vengeance.

I have a genius understanding of what makes people tick, what changes them, what makes them happy or sad, and what makes them act in certain ways, which was gained from the University of Life. Like a gifted musician, my understanding of, and empathy with, people have been inexplicable, yet sometimes amazing, beyond my own comprehension, considering that I have never had any formal training in that field apart from my early sociology degree. But I accept that gift with grace and gratitude.

Yes, I did have a great education all round, finishing off at one of the world's best universities, but that was but a drop in the ocean of my people experience I have acquired since. I seem to spot the people trends long before others are aware of them, something that helped my last business to be very successful. So I had no hesitation in challenging Bill. He might have been a colossal Newsvine Goliath against my puny little David, but that fired me up even more. Nevertheless, I took a big gulp for support and wondered whether I had taken leave of my senses. It was like an American betting me against who our next Prime Minister would be without knowing the background as I would.

However, I am more certain than ever now that Obama will take Iowa and go on to sweep the rest of the states. I have never said it would be easy, and I have few facts to back up my powerful instincts, but when people are ready for a change, nothing will be allowed to get in the way. He might not have experience but he has two things the other candidates lack: the ability to let people see what is possible and his awesome leadership qualities as a newcomer to the national scene. I also believe in simple fate, and Barack is the one rising to his destiny at the moment. No powers on earth will stop him if that moment has arrived.

In fact, certain singular acts become definitive turning points in our lives and, in my opinion, Obama's turning point came in December. He crossed the threshold from mere candidate to president with one simple video: The Obama's Christmas message, rated 4 stars by his viewers. A warm, inviting and engaging dialogue. One could see them as the First Family right there. The guy was being political without giving a single political message. All he talked about was family values and unity at Christmas but they looked tremendous - just like a president and his family.

Compare that to Hillary's, which was voted only 2 stars by her viewers. She carried on her usual political, cold, detached jargon without a thought for her supporters. Not even a thank you, to them. That one Obama broadcast, at such a sensitive time of the year, would have changed an awful lot of doubters who could identify with what he had to say about the family at such an important time. The viewer comments were amazing. Sometimes it is the simplest things which move mountains and that video will be remembered for a long time.

I never thought I would be betting an American against something happening in his own country. But I stand by this one, and it will be the sweetest $2 I would have earned in my writing career. I cannot wait until Obama gets the nomination to collect my winnings. And if you happen to be rich, sir, dinner in New York, at Times Square, to make the presentation, would do nicely, thank you. :o)

People can never move away from the issue of race because people are more agitated by differences than similarities. Race will always raise its head in America, or any place where people are trying to deny nature and human behaviour, trying to pretend certain attitudes don't exist, but always coming unstuck in the process.

Moving beyond physical traits to look at the issues might be a very laudable am but that assumes we are all at the same position in time, with the same understanding, same level of education, same aspirations and, above all, the same perception and perspectives. Sadly, we are not, so people will not behave to expectations. There will always be a difference of approach to those 'issues' mentioned. Some people will treat them as priority first and some will treat race as their priority first, depending on what matters to them most in their lives. It is human nature to be diverse.

People can accommodate race, if they really wish to, but as a major emotional difference in our lives, it will always rise to the forefront, especially with people who cannot deal with it positively. In the 2008 elections, many white people are trying to accommodate the race issue now by voting for someone they might not have voted for before. But they are also likely to blame any failure on Barack's part in office on his colour rather than his competence, as a kind of 'proof' that 'his kind' of people weren't 'suitable' in the first place.

That's why race will always be lurking in the background for people who feel uncomfortable dealing with it. Obama seems to be the one who, for the first time ever, MAY be able to drive that issue from the foreground into the background. But it won't be easy for him to do that, simply because other people with their agendas of keeping him out of office are likely to keep race in the foreground, even if he wished to ignore it. So, it should be interesting to see what happens then.

Human beings are distinctly divided into skin types for whatever reason the Maker saw fit. It obviously serves a purpose to prevent us being clones of each other and long live that little difference. People who feel uncomfortable with race try to ignore it or blame it for all kinds of things, but it is no different to the colour of our eyes, for example. It simply needs to be acknowledged and accepted and not ignored.

In this election, some black people are being asked to give an explanation as to why they might switch to Obama? There isn't any. Just as how whites have supported the other white presidents for years while pretending that they have only gone for them because of their 'merit'. Of course, it is comfortable to believe that the candidates being white and male had nothing to do with it. But the only difference between whites supporting all the other 43 presidents and blacks supporting Obama is that whites see it as automatic, they are proud to do so and have no angst about it, while blacks appear to be seeking approval for supporting their own kind.

The day we stop treating race as an extraordinary thing which we cannot take into our stride, that's the day we will come to terms with dealing with something which is an essential part of us, something which needs to be acknowledged like gender and then set aside to enjoy the other attributes of the person. Not ignored like some taboo subject which has nothing to do with our identities. That is why, unlike the UK, Americans seem to have these constant and futile debates on race as an issue, when it is an integral part of us which will always influence our actions, one way or the other.

There has been a lot of comments about Barack Obama's Kenyan roots and how he might treat that country, perhaps in a favourable light, if he gets into office because of his links there. Many people say that they would not vote for him for that reason. Some people seem anxious and fretful about that connection to Africa but do not seem unduly worried about his European connection, though that perspective is not considered to be racist!

Labelling a person does not guarantee the best president when the label fits. It should be all about the character himself and what he is capable of achieving, despite any particular label. Obama's mother is of Irish descent, but there are not too many people being quick to make associations with that. Once again, the perception appears to be: being white is all right but anything black should be suspect. Very dangerous and biased grounds for not supporting someone.

Notice how many times people have linked the word terrorist with his name in the same sentence, and keep harping on his middle name, Hussein. Yet the white candidates have not been treated in a similar manner. This is all part of the fear of difference. Fear of a black person is never far away so that many people see nothing wrong in linking Obama to his Kenyan roots while his white roots are deliberately ignored, the most blatant form of racism. But both cultures are equal parts of him. They make up his identity and dictate his view of the world. As a mixed person myself, I can say that Obama can no more concentrate on being black than being white, though he is free to choose which identity feels most comfortable to him.

That is probably why he is so much for unity. Straddling both races as he does, I would think his personal experience of needless racism, where he would have attracted it from both sides, hasn't been very pretty. Fear is a paralysing thing which has kept racism alive and well in America. Until the media and other power brokers can see beyond that, they will always be selling their country short while missing opportunities on the basis of colour.

Hillary Clinton's team thought it was being very clever using some sleeping children in her Red Telephone advert to awaken feelings of insecurity around Barack Obama's inexperience. Used extensively in her last campaign, and attributed by many people as helping her to win three states, the advert unashamedly played on the fears of viewers around the protection of their family and the need for their trust in strong leadership. However, when one is digging a grave for one's opponent, it is also very prudent to dig one for one's self too.

It so happens that one of those blissfully sleeping children has grown a lot since her photo was taken 8 years ago and is not only a staunch Barack Obama supporter, but was even a precinct captain recently. She is not too pleased about being used to promote Hillary when she doesn't believe anything the advert is saying and is shouting loudly and clearly from the rooftops about it. She admits to being very surprised to see herself in the advert, especially for the opposition, and is rather annoyed about it. The advert might have offered security for the public but it is proving pretty insecure for Hillary now!

Oh dear. Talk about another own goal!

You can see the advert and indignant young lady here on King5 News video. Naturally, Barack's camp is lapping up the new publicity and having a great time making much of this unexpected good fortune!

How can a candidate get it so wrong as to manage three own goals in a row? If she was playing football (soccer to you guys!), her team would have lost miserably by now. Regardless of here stated 'experience', if she cannot even play her own game satisfactorily, on the most basic level, how is she going to play the bigger one in the White House?

For almost a year, Hillary led Barack in the nomination campaign, being streets ahead of him in percentage support and voter popularity. She was lofty in her position at the head of the Democratic candidates' queue and it was like nothing could touch her. And then, since November, it has all begun to unravel in an unforeseen and horrible way.

She has tried all kinds of tricks -clean and dirty - to regain her position and authority in the race, but they just seem to be backfiring, turning into spectacular own goals which must seem a mystery to her by now.

Own Goal No. 1: She hoped the picture of Barack Obama in a tribal dress would associate him with Muslims and, of course, terrorists, in the minds of the voters. But she deliberately failed to see that graciously accepting a gift from another country, when they think highly of you to bestow it, is the act of a true statesman, regardless of whom the gift is from, and especially when you are a guest in their country. So that picture didn't work. In fact, I think it made Barack seem rather cute.

Own Goal No.2: She hoped the Red Phone advert would give her added credibility and cement the notion of her capability and experience for leadership to the voters. But she forgot to check a tiny detail in the advert and got more than she bargained for, especially when one of those sleeping kids woke up to bite her: one who had grown into an Obama supporter and was not too pleased to be appearing to condone the Clinton message. It has backfired, big time!

Own Goal No.3: Floating the notion that Barack Obama could be her Vice President AFTER constantly claiming how inexperienced he was for office, and despite her trailing behind him on all fronts in the election. What madness was that? She should have kept her head high and resigned gracefully, or carried on fighting with all her might until it seemed feasible to stop. Now she has damaged her own credibility even more with her delusional offer of VP to someone who is already lining up to be the president. Worst of all for her, it presented him with the opportunity to publicly refuse it too, with confidence and style. That's the biggest rub for her now. Her sign of desperation is so bad, she is actually showing her desire for power to be in the White House rather than what is best for her party and the country and even her supporters are beginning to take notice.

Could the idea of floating that Vice Presidency, one which wasn't hers to offer anyway, be the undoing of her best intentions? That was definitely third time unlucky for Hillary Clinton. Will history show this to be the defining moment when she lost the plot, changed voter perceptions and lost the nomination altogether?

That offer came from a loser on her last hurrah, not a winner. Otherwise she would not have made it until her nomination was secure and she could examine her options in a cool and authoritative way. That was not a clever move on her part. Not at all. One thing her campaign has shown is that she has totally underestimated this virtual unknown man, Barack Obama, who is proving more than a match for her, one who is already acting cool, calm and unruffled - in fact, just like a future president of the USA.

This letter was sent to me today in an email by a friend. It was released by the US Embassy in Nairobi. Barack Obama had been on a radio programme in the country and was thanking them for having him on, while addressing the Kenyan people. I have attached the actual link from the Embassy: PDF Letter, but have also copied the contents below.

There is also part of a note from the diplomat who sent the letter (whose name is withheld) giving some background information on the situation and this follows here:

"....I must now turn to Kenya, where a seemingly similar conflict recently erupted between the Kikuyu tribe and the Luo tribe. It's based on many factors, the most significant one of which is poverty. Again the outside world has a false impression. This is not based on tribalism. This is the rich turning the poor against each other. This happened in the very middle of the rush for the primaries in the USA, and very few presidential candidates would do anything about it. Especially someone like Barack, who has already been wildly flamed for his ties to Africa. It's not in his interest to talk about Kenya with regards to his ability to deal with foreign policy. But Barack watched, paid close attention, figured out everything that was going on, and then did this:

STATEMENT TO KENYA'S CAPITAL FM
Barack Obama
January 28, 2008

Thank you for having me on your show this morning.

I have been following the situation in Kenya closely, and I am deeply concerned by the news and photographs I have seen. I want you to know that my thoughts and prayers – and those of my family – are with all of the victims of the violence, and with all Kenyans who have been displaced from their homes.

Urgent action must be taken to stop this spiral of violence, and to help resolve the current political crisis.

Kenya has long been known as a multi-ethnic society. The steps you have taken toward multi-party democracy in recent years have set a proud example for east Africa.

I have personally been touched by your generous, democratic spirit through my ties to my own family, and during my travels to Kenya –most recently as a United States Senator in 2006. This Kenyan spirit rises above ethnic groups or political parties, and was on display in Kenya's recent election, when you turned out to vote in record numbers, and in a peaceful and orderly way.

But recent troubling events in Kenya bear no resemblance to the Kenya I know and carry with me. The senseless and tragic violence poses an urgent and dangerous threat to Kenyans, Kenyan democracy, and stability and economic development in a vital region.

Most troubling are new indications that the violence is being organized, planned and coordinated.

Clearly, Kenya has reached a defining moment. There is no doubt that there were serious flaws in the vote tabulation. There is also no doubt that actions taken by both sides in the aftermath of the election have deepened the political impasse.

Now is not the time to throw Kenyan democracy and national unity away. Now is the time for all parties to renounce violence.

Now is the time for Kenya's leaders to rise above party affiliation and past divisions for the sake of peace. President Kibaki, Raila Odinga, and all of Kenya's leaders – political, civic, business, and religious -- have a responsibility to calm tensions, to come together unconditionally, and to pursue a political process to address peacefully the controversies that divide them.

This crisis and terrible violence must end. A negotiated solution must be peaceful and political, and should take account of past failures and prevent future conflict.

The rule of law and the rights of the Kenyan people – including freedom of the media and the freedom of peaceful assembly – must be restored. The opposition must turn away from the path of mass protest and violence in seeking participation in government.

Recent efforts by African Eminent Persons, like Kofi Annan, have yielded very modest progress, and there is no reason President Kibaki and Mr. Odinga should refuse to sit down unconditionally. To refuse to do so ignores the will of Kenyans and the urging of the united international community. While only Kenyans can resolve this crisis, I urge you to welcome the assistance of your concerned friends in working through this difficult time.

The deep frustrations that are felt on allsides of the Kenyan divide are understandable. There is no doubt that much more work remains to be done for Kenya to become a more equitable and democratic society.

But Kenya has come too far to throw away decades of progress in a storm of violence and political unrest. We must not look back years from now and wonder how and why things were permitted to go so horribly wrong. Kenya, its African friends, and the United States must now be determined pursuers of peace – and this determined pursuit must start today with individual Kenyans refusing to resort to violence, and Kenyan leaders accepting their responsibility to turn away from confrontation by coming together.

Kenya's long democratic journey has at times been difficult. But at critical moments, Kenyans have chosen unity and progress over division and disaster. The way forward is not through violence. To all of Kenya's people, I urge you to renounce the violence that is tearing your great country apart and deepening suffering. I urge you to follow a path of peace.

The diplomat continues: "At first glance this is a mere statement to a radio station, but it is so relevant and pertinent that, as a Kenya-lover myself, I found myself in tears after reading it. Barack was on the phone with both leaders, urging them to negotiate, before Kofi Annan took over. Barack reached out to the people of Kenya. And he did this quietly, while running a huge campaign. He is now getting no credit for it because it is such a sensitive topic. This was an entirely unselfish move on his part, done in the middle of a time when he was extremely busy, and his campaign has gained nothing from it - and yet it meant the world to the people of Kenya, who admire him and very nearly revere him."

Thank you, lady, for this amazing letter, because I usually find that those who shout loudest are the weakest in substance. Personally, I would much rather have a man in power who can display such quiet authority, empathy and true leadership in a crisis, regardless of his lack of training, and the demands on his time, than one who shouts from the rooftops about their 'experience' while doing very little in action.

I personally found this unexpected letter particularly moving, affirming and inspiring.

One of the advantages of not being in the middle of an unfolding drama, but seated thousands of miles away in the serenity, peace and comfort of one's flat (apartment), is that one misses the trivial noises-off that might engulf many narrow minded individuals seeking scapegoats, while the more important elements rise above it all to stand with greater clarity and cohesion.

Thankfully, I have not seen any of the television sensationalism, the different talking-heads taking sides, the brickbats being thrown at Obama and his campaign, the self-righteous accusations of the White community or the politically venomous aftermath by the political Right seeming to gain advantage from Obama's discomfiture. Missing all that keeps one's head firmly focused and allows one to see what others might fail to see. Instead, I have read every article and comment on Newsvine relating to it, while I ponder the issues. I wanted to see what my fellow Viners were saying, and I wasn't disappointed. In fact, I felt terribly sad by all the uncharitable comments being thrown back and forth between political groups, particularly by many White Viners who purport to be above such racism themselves. I do not claim to be qualified to speak for Americans and their pain in all this, but what I would like to think this article represents is a different view. Some things leap out at me in the furore and I have made three observations here which might be useful:

1. If, as I have read, the good Reverend has been saying all these inflammatory things for over a year, why are his words suddenly such hot news and so important? Why weren't they relevant then? Why weren't they given due attention before? Were they less racist/inflammatory then than they would be now? Why are so many people prepared to use them as beating sticks for Obama? Is there an agenda behind their release to give them sudden spotlight?

2. America continues to live in denial (sigh) about its own deep racism. Always lurking below the surface like a smouldering volcano on all sides, at times like these it is easy to see the racism from the majority community spurting out uncontrollably in order to supposedly counteract Black racism. But one doesn't fight fire with fire. Only water can put out a fire, otherwise everyone merely gets consumed by the flames they have diligently fanned.

These three viewpoints express clearly where society itself stands, regarding being Black in America:

A. (from White writer, Michael Tomasky in the Guardian) These experiences taught me to think of the black church as a kind of release valve for African-Americans. During the rest of the week, they're in white America, and they have to behave according to our rules. Above all or at least most else, they can't seem like angry black people and expect to get job promotions and so forth. But if you're black, you must have some degree of anger about life in the United States, and it has to get out somewhere. I've always felt the churches played that role.

I should hasten to add that that isn't the only or even the major role black churches play in parishioners' lives. The sweet, begloved and behatted old ladies I've met at black churches are just like the sweet, begloved and behatted old ladies at the Episcopal church of my youth, and gorgeous little children marched off to Sunday school just as the less-than-gorgeous I once did. So black churches play the normal role that all churches play, and of course a very constructive social-justice role.

B. (from Black writer, Raymond Leon Roker in the Huffington Post) Find me a people that have been systematically disenfranchised, underrepresented, shut out, since time memorial? And then find me evidence of total civility and political correctness in that community? It doesn't exist. So, if the rules are that in order for us to play in your game — the ascent to POTUS — we have to cleanse ourselves of all evidence of our fight to even get to this point, then we will lose. We're not ready for prime time if that means we have no controversial Jeremiah Wright's still visible to mainstream America. Obama's pariah pastor is emblematic of the vitriol that is still part of the black dialogue in some ways. But most importantly, it is not what Obama has been preaching from his time as a community leader and throughout his entire political career. So why force him to answer for it?

Blacks have not been a part of the national political discussion until very recent memory, and only a handful of blacks have ever held a state office in our history. So where has this left our nascent national political craft? Well, for starters, we don't have the 200 plus years of learning the delicate waltz known as pandering or kowtowing. We haven't perfected the skill of dancing around our relationship to questionable supporters (find me a president that didn't have these albatrosses), strange bedfellows and fair weather friends. We have the unique American experience — along with our Hispanic, Asian and other rising political power-holder brethren — of having to internalize our strange native politics. Because to show you our true feelings — like in the case of Jeremiah Wright — would be to scare the living crap out of you. We haven't had a national dress rehearsal in which to work these things out. And frankly, we didn't really think this was going to be our year.

C. (from a commentator in the Guardian) Interesting that Jeremiah Wright is described as a "black nationalist radical" after all the blather about "Obama isn't black, he's mixed race". Dr. Wright is lighter in skin tone than Obama - there's obviously plenty of race-mixing in his background. But then nobody ever describes scary black people as anything but black, even when they're "damn near white" like Rev. Wright.

3. Those three comments show the basic racism that still resides both in the Black and White communities, for whatever reason. Blacks have not had the benefit of political participation and progress that Whites have enjoyed since the birth of America, a process which they were at first barred from by their White masters/peers and afterwards were continually excluded from down the years though the White selection and voting processes (hence why only White males have been presidents of America). That anger at continued exclusion down the years will come out some ways, whether appropriate or not, until a sense of real justice is felt.

It seems that America is in a massive state of change to which part of it is highly resistant at the moment. For the very first time, the last bastion of White supremacy and power is about to collapse with a thud: the office of the President of the United States of America. Suddenly it is open to a woman and a Black person, and it is like a massive sense of loss, of bereavement at past inequities reaching the end of their days. Those who prefer the status quo would wish to scream and kick at any change by dredging up what they can to keep a Black person out of the White House. By forcing him to take responsibility for the words of someone else, even when he has condemned them. It gives his accusers the ammunition they seek to destroy his efforts to achieve that goal of change.

Worst still, others who are fearful too, join in the melee with their own brand of subtle vitriolic racism posing as censure in an effort to project their anxieties, insecurity and outright racism onto others they believe deserve it. In the meantime, they miss the supreme irony that in their rush to condemn one misguided man with an audience, in their own racist and sanctimonious way, in order to keep another good, honest and sincere man from the opportunity of breaking that final racist barrier, they show themselves to be no better than than Jeremiah Wright. They are simply doing it in a more covert and malicious way.

One thing that has become clear in this debacle. The presence of Barack Obama is forcing all America to confront its own racism. Whether the resistance to him and the change he wishes to bring carries him on a wave to the White House or stops him in his tracks will be decided by the strength of that residual racism people are still denying. American society of the 21st century, both Black and White, will either embrace a different kind of mindset that removes such racial barriers and is infinitely more inclusive, or they will keep it in place by their actions. And Black America will certainly not forgive White America for derailing his campaign with someone else's words!

The best way forward is to put the Rev Wright's words in the past where they belong and keep focused on the election. Barack cannot do anything about his mentor's sermons now, but he can do a lot to unite America if he gets into power. Furthermore, there is only one way Barack Obama can prove who he really is: that is to be given the opportunity to do so by the will of the people, and not be deprived of his moment, or be damned, by the handy expediency of other people's racism. The world is watching to see what happens.

The furore around Barack Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright, especially the indignant vitriolic cries about him being 'guilty by association' was a most interesting turn of events. But it was like a boil waiting to be lanced because of the unwitting burdens that Americans now lay on the slim shoulders of the man himself, Barack Obama.

The fascination with this candidate has almost become obsessive for some people mainly because he has defied all odds to be in the race, and is growing in stature every day. And while people in denial pretend that his colour doesn't or shouldn't matter, it is actually down to his race why he is in the pickle that he is now.

To understand his dilemma, one has to look at it from two race perspectives: Black and White.

The Black Perspective
For Black Americans, Barack Obama has presented them with a remarkable roller coaster journey of curiosity, denial, hope, possibility, belief, acceptance and now anxiety. At first, there was the mere curiosity that Barack could dare to throw his hat into the ring, a virtual unknown, when more famous people with greater credentials had stumbled. Not a hope in hell, they were saying to themselves. America has only ever had White presidents. How can a Black man get past all those perceived prejudices, voting traditions, party political lines, partisan labels and the money needed to be a serious contender? They hissed their teeth in derision and carried on past him, while watching his progress guardedly, with one eye closed, and some hopeless fascination. They admired his guts but they would still vote for Hillary or someone else, and they said so - loudly. Then as the money came in they slowly opened the other eye. Mmmm...Perhaps we are missing something here, they thought. Other people believed in him enough to back him. Now the hope began to hover around them, changing their resistance. However, Hillary Clinton was streaking ahead, garnering all the percentages effortlessly for the most of the year, despite Barack making slow inroads into her support. They were still not convinced, pointing to him trailing behind Hillary as evidence of their fears.

Then he did the unthinkable and unexpected: He won Iowa against all odds. There was nervous dancing in the streets, as more money poured in and Black belief soared. By the time he won South Carolina, most of the diehards had changed their tune. He was now accepted and perceived to be totally electable. Joy of joys, they had someone who could actually get the nomination, especially as Whites were clearly supporting him too. He could build bridges and bridge social chasms and the real battle with Hillary began. Money simply poured in from the public tap in February to its highest level of donations.

But with such acceptance of glory came the natural anxiety. Now everything he did was examined, scrutinised and analysed because the expectations were now changed. From a no-hope curiosity figure, he was being introduced everywhere as The Next President of The United States of America. They could see him in the White House already and panic attacks began in case he was derailed or killed. They wanted his success so much to happen in their lifetime, to see a Black person in the seat of power, to show Blacks could reach the highest pinnacle in the land. Those expectations of success, of him saying the right things and doing the right things began to take effect. They so much wanted him to be perfect, so that racists didn't have a chance against him; this knight in shining armour that would unite America as the next president. They wished they could win it for him. Ultra sensitive to every criticism by the opposition, they are now fretting and worrying, pouting and praying, that their man gets through, but only fairly and squarely, of course. Hence the indignant reaction around the Wright affair in case Barack is derailed through someone else's behaviour.

The White Perspective
For White Americans willing to even think of Obama's presence in the race, the journey started in a different mindset. It began with denial first, then possibility, hope, belief, acceptance and now anxiety too. With America's history of choosing candidates and president, Barack, with his seeming 'inexperience', had not a hope in hell of winning in their eyes. Mere words did not win elections. One had to have something more substantial and, being up against a formidable, determined contender like Hillary Clinton meant any little chance he had rapidly changed to 'no chance' as the year went on. White Americans chuckled to themselves in quiet smugness at his audacity. They knew the traditional score: only White made presidents. No need to worry. They would simply wait for him to fall flat and get out of the race. They had both eyes closed. There was nothing to really see there.

But then the White youths became engaged, seeing his potential, and the idea of real change from the status quo began to take effect. white America opened one eye in surprise. That denial slowly changed to seeing the possibilities, followed by real hope as he picked up wins and support and finally acceptance of him as a genuine contender after Super Tuesday. This man was somehow different. One couldn't write him off at all. He had a certain something that would make him the first Black president. But for him to do that, he had to fulfill their expectations too. Both eyes were now open in admiration. He had to be just the perfect Black guy to represent them. That meant no suspect history, no dubious past, no unacceptable thoughts or unacceptable friends and no 'racial' biases.

Along the way he became a saint and had to remain a saint, unlike the other White candidates, to merit the position. If they were going to support his fight for president, he had to play by their rules. However, no matter how much they accepted the possibility that he was good enough to get the presidency, the doubts kept lingering as to his suitability so they had to dig around him to see how much he measured up to the impossible ideal of sainthood they had now bestowed upon him. Unlike other White candidates, he had to keep denying he was a Muslim, not be seen to wear any kind of foreign clothes, prove his whiteness/blackness, and emphasise he was no terrorist with any terrorist links etc. The only thing left he has yet to be accused of is not being human! Their desire for him to win too has blown up their own anxiety around how he 'merits' it, in ways they are not asking other White candidates to prove such merit.

After a year in the hot seat, Barack is now firmly in the middle of the American population being bombarded with separate anxieties from both sections of his society: one section hopes he gets the position and can hold on to it in style and capability, especially as he is Black, and the other side hopes that he 'proves' he has earned it, even if it means judging him guilty of other people's acts and deeds, because he is Black. Obama has raised his own threshold of credibility so much, every supporter, White and Black, wants him to win but according to their own expectations. A very difficult thing to fulfil. In fact, without realising it, Barack Obama crossed a psychological threshold of full acceptance for White America when he spoke in Indiana recently. Outside the venue were some White protesters holding placards relating to the Wright debacle. Usually, to elect or reject any nominee, one simply votes ones displeasure at the ballot box. No other action is necessary. No need to protest. But it is a measure of the rapid rise of Barack and the esteem in which he is held that he is now perceived to have more power than he actually has.

The irony they missed, is that protests are usually done against people in power, the ones with the title, authority and power to change things, those already in office and able to act, not vulnerable contenders fighting for nominations. While they protested, Barack was inside signing books, talking to people, looking unaffected and suitably ........presidential.

Americans are fascinated with Barack Obama because he fits no mould that has gone before, nothing about him can be predicted, he has defied all expectations so far, Black peers feel proud of him, White supporters actually like and respect him and he just might pull it off the way he is going.

In fact, could those protesters know what we don't about who the next president of America will be?

When I watched the 'famous' speech on March 18th, and read the numerous comments on Newsvine, most of them very positive about his delivery and its impact, something else ran through my mind with the clarity of a bell ringing nearby. Before I mention what it is, I need to step back a bit and look at my work with relationships. In all my articles on people living together, I have tried to hammer home one very important point: You never know the measure of your partner/date until there is a crisis because all couples live a kind of pretence in the early days to impress one another. That is why months or years afterwards, when things go pear-shaped, people are surprised about the person they were living with because they probably never saw that kind of behaviour displayed before.

Of course not. If we showed our real selves from the first meeting, very few relationships would get off the ground. But to attract bees, we need honey, and so most people will display their sweetest characteristics until there is a crisis, when they will either show courage, cowardice or venom, and that is what happened with the relationship with Barack and his public.

Up until 'that' speech, we saw only one side of Barack Obama: the visionary who wants the opportunity to put his dreams into action: the fighter who keeps coming back, even when he has been written off in the race; the astute politician who desperately wants to get votes; the action man who cannot wait to get inside the White House to implement his own ideas: the moral crusader who abhors corporate power and influence and wants to lessen their hold on government and the 'rock-star' personality with the easy approach to the task. What we hadn't yet seen was Barack Obama reacting to a crisis. And boy, were we in for a surprise?

Forget 3 a.m calls, forget 'experience', forget lack of policies. Obama executed himself superbly in that crisis during the past week. He took all the flak from the media, said exactly what he wanted to say about the Wright affair, refused to condemn his friend, though he condemned his words and actions (quite rightly too because people can always change their actions!) and then came out fighting with an amazing speech that left no doubt where he stood, where he wished to take the American people and how he would lead them. A speech that clearly left his opponents floundering, given in front of a presidential backdrop that screamed potential, capability, credibility and great authority.

Barack Obama passed the last hurdle of acceptance with that healing speech. He proved he could take the reins in a crisis with an unflinching and fearless air of calm, dignity and sincerity, and that is what true leadership is all about. Not making suitable noises when everything is fine but sticking one's head above the parapet for one's beliefs, regardless of the awful consequences which might ensue. He knew that speech could make or break him, especially his refusal to condemn Wright personally, but he made it regardless of the possible reaction, which shows a man of integrity, loyalty and love. Not just someone after the vote.

For many Viners who were moved, stirred, shaken and galvanised by the sheer audacity and empowerment of his performance and the empathy it carried, the words just poured out in eulogy, beautiful, appreciative words that moved us all. So many comments pointed to a change of heart about him. One White guy said simply: He has slowly changed my opinion. He's my hero now. That was the general feeling. A willingness to let the past week go and to begin the rebuilding process, and very few people can inspire others to do that in one heartfelt speech. However, simplicity is always best and Stolte-Sawa (a Viner) summed up all their feelings in one simple but passionate line: That is my president. Suddenly I felt a twinge of jealousy being so far away and not being able to claim, That's MY president too, because what a hell of a man he is, regardless of what his detractors might feel.

The two lessons I took away from that historical delivery, the one that successfully lanced a horrible racial boil that was getting bigger in this election, were these: 1. America has its man for a crisis. This man will not shirk his task or responsibility. He is ready to be the next president.

2. America needs to go forward in UNITY now, together as a nation, without the the racial divide, in mutual respect and appreciation.

Those who would want to ignore that message must know what kind of alternative agenda or expectation they now have for their country because a country divided against itself is going nowhere pretty fast.

No politician is perfect, which is what many fearful people desire, tending to judge him more harshly than his White rivals. However, whatever his shortcomings, and there must be a few somewhere, Barack Obama is proving daily that he is not short on leadership or handling a major crisis. And, with the current parlous state of America's economy and world reputation, true leadership seems to be sorely lacking just now. But it depends on the kind of leadership the voters desire to take them forward on the next stage of their journey, because, whatever he did yesterday, no matter how powerful his words were, only the voters can give life to those words and bring that dream of unity to reality.

Minorities might boast about their 'heritage' just now simply because they have not had much of a heritage in public life to boast about down the years. This is the first time someone like themselves (Barack Obama) have had the opportunity to reach the highest office in the land. It is perfectly natural to take pride in that, and it will continue that way until black presidents become as usual as white ones, then race will cease to become any kind of issue in elections. White people might not 'boast' about their heritage publicly, but they make sure it continues intact and remains as the dominant force through mutual support, deliberate career and lifestyle exclusions and covert racism.

Obviously, if Barack Obama wins, he will 'dethrone' Bill Clinton, who was regarded as the first 'black' president. Yet that dubious title merely stoked up the perceived inferiority of blacks to a great degree. Translated, it is actually saying that, as there was no hope of a black person becoming president, and Clinton also looked out for black people, then he was the first 'black' president. It also cements the idea that a black person could never hold such high office so someone white has to be the black president by proxy. In a sense, blacks were being patronised by the Clintons.

But the saddest thing for minorities are the black folks who happily repeat that label with some pride, not seeing the inferior message it carries! Anyone who really cared about black people would not be boasting about, or taking pride in, being their 'black president'. He would be working with them to get equal representation for everyone.

Race has been used to make decisions from the dawn of America, except that the beneficiaries of these decisions have always been white, and that seems to be accepted. An interesting aspect of such biased decisions is that the constant election of white presidents have not been considered to be 'divisive', or Anti-American, but the minute a black perspective comes into play, then everyone begins to worry about the focus on race.

The current American election cannot ignore race otherwise that would assume everyone in the country is at the same position in time, with the same understanding, same level of education, same aspirations and, above all, the same perception and perspectives. Sadly, they are not, so people will not behave to expectations. There will always be a difference in approach to those key 'issues' like race. Some people will treat economy, war and health, for example, as priority and some will treat race as their first priority, depending on what matters to them, and has affected them, most in their lives. It is human nature to be diverse.

People can accommodate race, if they really wish to, but as a major emotional difference in our lives, it will always rise to the forefront, especially with people who cannot deal with it positively. Many white people are trying to accommodate the race issue now by voting for someone black they might not have voted for before. But they are also likely to blame any failure on his part in office on his colour rather than his competence, as a kind of 'proof' that such people weren't 'suitable' in the first place.

The real litmus test for each of us who might not be used to dealing with minorities, is whether we are prepared at any time to accept someone by their own preferred definition, when it comes to colour, or perceive them in racist ways to match our prejudices. Perception is the biggest social definition of who we are and wish to be. With racism an inherent part of any mixed society, black being seen as negative and white being all right, any mixed person will be doubly exposed to that covert racism, in one form or another, whether they like it or not, simply through the biased perception of others and their fear of difference.

For example, there has been a deliberate association of Barack Obama with fearful images of terrorists to frighten the public and change their perception of him. That is very racist. It leaves one to ask: Is racism so entrenched in the country that anyone could find it not the least bit biased and inappropriate? Obama is not a cartoon figure. He is running for the country's highest office and deserves the same respect that is accorded to his opponents. Anything less is unacceptable in such an important election. yet, it's not the racists and bigots of this world which cause the most havoc. It's the silence of the majority which condones their actions. In view of one TV station's actions in putting images of Bin Laden alongside Obama's when they were discussing him, that silence is deafening.

What bothers me more are those who seem certain of what Barack is going to do while in office when he has never been president and has no precedence in such a position. Their closed, fearful minds won't even allow him to prove himself while they use their own cloudy crystal balls for comfort. We cannot like everyone in politics, and no one has to like Obama. But basic protocol and respect says that he is given the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is before he is judged and pilloried out of the campaign!

Human beings are distinctly divided into skin types for whatever reason our Maker saw fit. It obviously serves a purpose to prevent us being clones of each other and long live that little difference. People who feel uncomfortable with race try to ignore it or blame it for all kinds of things, but it is no different to the colour of our eyes, for example. It simply needs to be acknowledged and accepted and not ignored. We can afford not to notice colour when it is suitably detached from us, and presents no threat, but it is remarkable how quickly colour comes to the forefront with much fear when we are suddenly faced with it on a personal level that affects our lives or our family.

One can never move away from the issue of race because people are more agitated by differences than similarities. Race will always raise its head in America, or any place where people are trying to deny nature and human behaviour and trying to pretend certain attitudes don't exist. But every aspect of us makes us into what we are, whether it is colour, gender, religion etc. No aspect of difference can be ignored at any time, but we should move beyond it to seek similarities.

Currently, many black people are being asked to give an explanation as to why they might switch to Obama. There isn't any. Why shouldn't black people feel pride in the first ever black candidate to have a chance at winning? Race and gender will be an issue in all future elections until women and black people are as common in the White House as white presidents have been. Then they will be accepted as 'the norm'. Until then, the way people get used to new situations and deal with them (slowly moving from fear to acceptance) will have to run its natural course, whether others like it or not.

Just as how whites have supported the other white presidents for years, while largely pretending that they have only gone for them because of their 'merit', black people will react in the same way initially. The only difference between whites supporting all the other 43 presidents and blacks supporting Obama is that whites see it as automatic, they have a tradition of doing it, they are proud to do so and have no angst about it, while blacks appear to seek approval for supporting their own kind.

This is a different kind of election to what has gone before and so new angles will be played on both sides. There doesn't seem to be a problem with women telling other women to vote for Hillary Clinton because she is also a woman. Yet, as New Hampshire showed, white people simply vote their candidate in, even when they openly said they preferred Obama. A significant example that people will always vote for their own kind first (whether male, female, black, white), rightly or wrongly, until they see a reason to vote for others, and only education, different aspirations or the lemming effect will change their actions.

So, racism is not about supporting one's race. Supporting our own kind is perfectly normal. It is when we try to deny that right to others, through personal fears and insecurity, that it becomes biased, racist and unfair. Furthermore, there is nothing 'politically correct' about the need for genuine justice. Usually that awful term is thrown around by insecure people with the power to keep the status quo intact and primarily for their own benefit.

Bill Richardson could not have had an easy decision, and that must be the understatement of the century! Imagine owing so much to a friend, yet having to turn your back on her in her hour of need simply because the need of a country is greater than the need of one person seeking personal power. Bill Richardson owed his career and rise in office to the Clintons. He has been close friends with them, shared their joys, aspirations and their pain. They have also wooed him intensely over the past few months to get his endorsement. They must have thought it was a foregone conclusion, in the bag, especially last year when Hillary was leading. Now they are likening him to 'Judas' who betrayed his friend at Easter.

But having listened to Richardson's endorsement speech of Barack Obama, which is nothing short of brilliant, I hope Richardson himself will stand again for president. What a wonderful leader he will make too. Fearless, uncompromising and shrewd. Any man who is able to resist what must have been the most enormous pressures on his judgement, credibility, friendship and fortunes during the past month must be one hell of a man. He could have taken the less stressed route in a 'pay back' endorsement of Senator Clinton. That would have been much easier. But he thought about it long and hard, delved deep down to focus on his own principles, and said he was swayed by THAT speech Obama gave recently. He praised it as "an example of courageous, thoughtful, and inspiring leadership", which indeed it was, and said Obama would be an "outstanding Commander-in-Chief".

Bill Richardson's amazing endorsement speech moved me all the way here in England in such a way that one could not fathom, especially as I have listened to other endorsement speeches like Caroline Kennedy's, and have not been affected by them so much. This one stood out on its own because Richardson would have lost a lot by supporting Obama, perhaps in friends, opportunities and kudos. Yet he was willing to sacrifice all that for his own belief that America needed more than the Clintons would be offering again. Of course he would also gain by association with Obama, but I would like to believe that it was a secondary concern to this man. He did not shirk from the right decision that had to be made and his own sincerity shone through. It must have been such a relief for him to get it out in the open.

In view of a recent article about Hispanics not wanting to vote for a Black man, Richardson's decision could offer the greatest healing process between the two communities. And that's the real magnitude of this tremendous decision. He would have helped to begin the unity of America that Obama is pledged to nurture by bringing Blacks and Hispanics much closer together in a mutual sense of purpose and history making.

Bravo, Sir, I do salute you.

The rising cost of the Iraq war has been measured mainly in money and life but when one brings it down to a personal level, the costs are immeasurable. In 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, I was seeing a wonderful fella who made a tremendous difference to my life. I also remembered that day, in particular, because that was the only time one of our discussions had become so fierce, that even though I had just completed a 100 mile journey to see him, I felt so aggrieved at his stance on the war, I wanted to turn right round and head back home. I remember feeling really bad for a couple of hours – and it was not a nice feeling – until we kissed and made up.

The argument was very simple: he was strongly for the invasion and I was intensely against it, both entrenched in our own views as to why it would succeed or fail. He felt his viewpoint was 'logical' while mine was too 'emotional'. My opposition was from two viewpoints: culture and sovereignity. USA knew little about the language, perspectives and real aspirations of the people it was supposed to be 'defending', the essence of a given culture. Unprepared and arrogant in its approach, narrow in its use of diplomacy and the military, the gung-ho approach before the invasion had bothered me greatly. Secondly, I held the sovereignity of a country sacred. Like one's home, no one should come into it to tell us how to run it, no matter how well meaning they are. They can educate us about it, or help us in other ways to see alternative methods of running that household, but, to me, they had no right replacing the leader of any country, unless they helped the natives to do it themselves, and in a detached way. Those were my two main concerns and they were correct, because America completely underestimated the resistance.

My guy took a different tack. He felt I wasn't seeing the 'long-term' picture. Mesmerised by America's fire power, he saw them streaming in, bombing the baddies to oblivion, removing Saddam Hussain painlessly, which would also remove all the problems the locals faced and, hey presto, within 'two or three years' the population would be much better off. The infrastructure would be a vast improvement (he kept stressing that), the services would be dramatically improved, the economy would be booming, the locals would be eternally grateful (he seemed certain), America could then leave and all would be well.

The more he said that, the more distressed I felt. If I were missing the long-term view, he was certainly dismissing the short term pain that I could foresee. I guess we represented the division of Britain at the time on a smaller scale! But even I could not have envisaged the number of people who were going to pay with their lives to justify America's 'war' with Iraq, because no one had reckoned on the awful effects of a country without Saddam's dictatorial hand to keep the factions in place. For my guy, America and Britain had the 'right' to go into another country if it were misbehaving, especially having WMDs, for the stability of our world. I was not convinced and wondered whether our views clashed because of the different genders.

Adding up the costs
Now, five years on, the true cost of that war becomes apparent when we look at the statistics coming out of that country, the ever rising numbers that are getting difficult to comprehend. The problem of looking at life in statistical form is that it becomes cold and detached from reality. It is not easy to have much sympathy for, or understanding of, anything which carries long meaningless figures and no relevance to one's life. Such huge figures relating to human loss never seem to apply to us when we are not personally involved, so they need to be broken down into the stark reality.

As of writing now, apparently $622 billion dollars have been spent on Iraq by America. It means, in simple terms, and purely by my crude reckoning:

$341,000,000 gushing out like a money well, every day over the past 5 years that you woke up;
$14,225,000 during every single hour that you were having lunch, in a meeting or watching a TV programme;
$237,080 every minute that you have been blessed with since the war began;
$3,950 every second that is ticking by relentlessly.

The website also adds that:
$4,681 has been spent by every single household
$1,721 by every person in America

Add to that the cost of other services being deprived of that money, like health, education, youth, correctional and justice concerns. Add also the lives of the soldiers, 2 per day, every day during that time, the thousands of soldiers wounded, and the post-traumatic stress to follow. Add to that the sheer pain of every family who have lost that soldier wondering what he/she was fighting for, especially in view of the ongoing developments with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, numbers that are even worse than Saddam's tally. Add also the anxiety of current families, dreading that knock on the door wondering if it will be their turn for the really bad news and the terrible loss. Add the fact that the world has become far less safe because of that war and the hidden billions spent on security in each country, just to prevent further atrocities and to feel 'safe'. Billions that could have been spent improving the lives of the needy. Add again the constant anxiety around terrorist activities which were not there five years ago that now haunt us each day, and also the lives already cut short, careers stilled and dreams crushed by such terrible events that have happened. And I could go on and on, because the list is positively endless.

However, the true and rising cost of the Iraq war, that indelible and inescapable fact, might be appreciated more if you note that, by the time you have finished reading this article, another $1,185,400 would have been spent on it – $993 for every word. Dollars relentlessly adding up with no end in sight, not to mention the constant human anxiety, especially for ordinary Americans, as to what the ultimate cost will be.

Barack Obama, against all odds, is slowly cementing his hold on the nomination for the Democratic presidential candidate. A year ago when he started, the pundits were excited by his presence, the first African American with a real chance at the top spot who dared to hope with such little 'experience'. But they knew best. Many would have chuckled to themselves rather smugly at this seeming no-hoper taking on the giant presence of the Clintons, their cronies and their reputation. In fact, if one followed Hillary's campaign closely, by September of 2007, it seemed to be a done deal for her nomination. They seemed sure. But the problem with trying to be fortune tellers without the crystal ball is that something always goes awry.

Regardless of the predictions, Obama has calmly stuck with it, displaying a determination, vision, organisation and stickability which has defied all the learned politicos every step of the way. Now it seems that he might even be about to overturn Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania, which was entirely in her favour a few weeks ago. But this would be surprising only to those without the intuition to see what this man represents and why he will be the next president. Where the pundits have gone terribly wrong is that they have depended on three things in this race, while missing the only other thing that really mattered. But tradition seldom has all the answers. One has to always allow for that tiny element of surprise in life.

First of all, they relied too much on past statistics and trends to dictate the state of this election. Of course, no other election in American history had the benefit of the Internet to the extent this one has done. With Barack's deliberate courting of the grassroots support and keenness to build a base from which people could feel a sense of inclusion and ownership of his campaign, it was bound to be a different kind of contest. While Clinton relied on her old funding streams, like the big interest groups, and same old pronouncements from the same old pundits, Obama was quietly nurturing that base which now stands at 1.3 million members on his website. It does not take much knowledge of math to work out that each person giving just $40 per month for every month of the campaign would be $52 million dollars in the bag each month, AND without even going near exceeding the limit for contributions per person!

Facts and Logic
Second, these great pundits kept harping on about his 'lack of experience', deliberately ignoring what he was capable of in preference to what they perceived was missing. The trouble with that approach is that the more the critics pointed out his 'faults' and inadequacies, the more the people saw what THEY wanted to see and ensured his momentum. You see, they had the crystal ball: their intuition and foresight, which were working very well. They could clearly see the results of the 'experienced' politicians around them; the parlous state of America at this moment, both in dollar level and world reputation, and its increasing vulnerability to terrorism, thanks to the 'experienced' ones in power. Anything, it seems, was better than what they are having now.

Third, armed with all their knowledge and expertise, these experts depended on logic to give them the answers: the logic of past results, the logic of experience and qualifications, the logic of saying the right things about the economy, health and immgration, for example. But logic wasn't working this time round. In fact, logic is so untrendy now, so passé, it hardly matters anymore. Barack Obama and his progress have been defying all kinds of logic and the pundits couldn't explain it. Especially when they expected him to be flawless to deserve that presidential mantle and he wasn't. He was just an ordinary man who was running rings around their logic, statistics and undeniable 'facts', and the longer he stays in the race, the more he is proving them wrong.

It seems that the only other thing which truly matters in this election is public intuition, something the pundits missed entirely, or initially smirked at. Every now and then, like Elvis Presley, Martin Luther King, Princess Diana, and now Barack Obama, the public selects someone intuitively and subconsciously that they want to honour and worship. Someone they wish to focus all their aspirations, dreams, love and affection on as hope for better things - that Chosen One. For whatever reason, their choice is difficult to fathom, other than the favoured person being in the right place at the right time, though that special person also has to have something essential which draws people to them and galvanises that hero worship. With Presley it was his singing talent and looks; with King it was vision and empathy, with Diana it was her beauty and ordinariness, no doubt. But with Barack Obama it is his simplicity, vision and leadership attributes. His genuine desire for change.

He might prove to be the worst president in history, or probably the best, but right now, our instincts say 'Go' and that is really what matters: the power of collective consciousness to bring dreams to reality and go against the 'facts'. The people are ready for real guidance and empowerment now and with one powerful statement, 'Yes we Can', Barack Obama is both empowering the masses behind him and providing that much needed vehicle for the exciting journey to the White House.

There has been a furore around the comment of Barack Obama about embittered small town people who "cling to guns or religion". Apart from the fact that it is a stereotype which would apply only to some people, the whole shebang has proved, yet again, how difficult politicians seem to have it in America in trying to express themselves while telling it like it is. No one is allowed to say anything remotely negative about the country or how the people behave. That is off limits. Yet only through self examination and acknowedgement of areas in need of new actions and remedies, new views and new intentions, does one actually get change. No change comes through closing one's eyes to the reality.

I remember years ago politicians in the UK would say something, whatever it was, and unless it was entirely controversial, like Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech, the media would reverentially report it. Some journalists might question it, with due respect, of course, but they were usually satisfied with the responses. Politicians felt free to say their minds, felt free to promote their ideas and to win over people to their sides in their own unique ways, and felt free to be themselves.

In the last two decades that limited freedom of expression in politics has given way to stifled expressions, to naked fear of saying anything in case it upsets anyone - especially as the list of specialist groups and people who might be upset grows daily. The media now picks at their every word, twist it to suit whatever perception and evidence they wish to find relating to perceived loyalties, and then hang the politicians out to dry. But that is a very counter-productive action because, if we want 'truth' from our politicians, it cannot be our idea of the truth. It has to be theirs. If we want them to be 'open and honest', then they have to be allowed to be open and honest according to their perceptions of honesty and openness, not ours, and if we really want answers to pressing social problems, then it has to be their answers, according to their thoughts on the issue, not ours or the media's.

New Puppets and Robots
The saddest result of all this nitpicking of politicians' words is that they soon learn to say exactly what the public and the media want to hear - bland, predictable tried and tested solutions, with nothing new on the table - until they get into office and have the power to be themselves and do what they like. In effect, we get exactly what we create: politicians who mask their real selves until they get into the job. Which is why we have the example of George Bush in place - hardly like the man most people expected him to be in his actions, and the people have been paying that price with Iraq, to say the least.

It really depends on what the public and the media want from their politicians. Whether they want a free thinking person who sometimes say the wrong things in order to get at the real truth to remedy it, or they desire a puppet/robot, who comes out with exactly what they want to hear but who is unable to give the very change being sought. Barack Obama is a new recruit to the business of being president. He will make a lot of gaffes before he sets foot in the White House because – surprise, surprise – he is a fallible being like everyone of us. Yes, he actually is, no matter how much our expectations might want him to be a god. So expect more of the same over the next few months as he finds his feet, assesses the situation for himself and gets into stride. But if every single word he utters is going to be dissected by those who don't want him to win, by those who have specific agendas, and used as ammunition against him, America will be the loser because it will simply get more of the same.

Personally, I would rather have a politician who is totally honest, gaffes and all, one I can read like a book, whether I agree with him or not; one whom I can have the measure of before he gets into office, than to be paying the price later for someone who keeps his mouth shut in the campaign, who says exactly what we want to hear, who soothes our ears with predictable blandness, then unleashes the real person with a vengeance when he gets behind that Oval desk.

Jeremiah Wright made a speech recently, as well as answer questions put to him by the National Press Club. The actual content of his speech and replies to any questions are irrelevant in this article. It does not matter how good or bad his input was, one thing is clear at this stage. If he is any kind of friend to Barack Obama, he should just shut up publicly for a while and let the dust settle.

I am not advocating muzzling of anyone. I am not trying to deny anyone their free speech. No doubt, quite a few people got a better measure of the man in his latest speech because he was praised by a few commentators in Racists Can't Read or Wright. So the merits of whatever he said is not the main point here. What is more important is that Jeremiah Wright came to national prominence because of Barack Obama. He might have been well known in some circles already, but nationally he was relatively unknown. Obama is a new guy on the block running for president, desperately trying to change things in his own way. Headstrong Jeremiah Wright appears to do things in his own way too, which many people view as divisive, at odds with the 'unity' approach that Obama daily espouses. The press has spotted a fissure between the two men, an anomaly in their association of differing messages, and is hoping to milk that as much as possible in the campaign. It means that everything Wright says at this sensitive time, when the two main contenders for the Democratic nomination are in a fierce battle, will be quoted, requoted and dissected ad nauseam. Free speech or not, the only effect of Jeremiah Wright's words at these crucial moments will be to take the attention away from Obama when he really needs it.

As an unknown quantity to many Americans, Barack Obama is still trying to win over many hearts and minds. Sensible people, who have minds of their own, and who will not follow the lemming instinct, will be able to sort Barack from Wright in their own clear way and make their decisions. But the majority of people in our world are followers, they are not leaders with independent minds. Thus they are likely to be influenced as much by the 'good' people as by the 'bad' ones with their agendas. Barack needs that uninterrupted opportunity to get those key messages to the waverers, to discuss the real issues which are bothering voters and to allow people to make up their minds for themselves. When Wright keeps hogging the limelight with unhelpful speeches which detract from Obama's message, it really is not good. In fact, it shows a selfish person who is only thinking of himself at this important time. One who is intent on challenging Obama in a public spectacle which serves mainly to distract Obama from the task at hand and alienate even more people.

It really is time for Jeremiah Wright to slink back into the background and stop the pronouncements. That's the only way to deprive the press of its oxygen on that front and allow Barack Obama to stand by his own message, or fall by the wayside, uninterrupted, as his rivals are currently doing without anyone else impeding their journey. Whether he accepts it or not, Jeremiah Wright is getting in the way of Barack Obama's message, taking up media time and attention which Obama should be getting. If Wright genuinely wants him to be the nominee then the time for his silence is now.

One of the strangest comments coming out of a politician of any ilk was said by Hillary Clinton last weekend in reply to why she was still in the presidential race. One would have expected her to say something like: because she wished to see it through to the end, or because she wanted to start what she had finished or that nothing was over until the fat lady sings. There were just so many choices available to justify her remaining presence in an all but concluded battle. But this lady ignored them all and, instead, subconsciously gave us an insight into how ambition can rob us of a soul when the chips are down.

Her comment to The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D., was: "You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

To many people, she appeared to be waiting for a tragedy which might involve her opponent, a very good reason for hanging on so that she would then benefit. At least that was how it was perceived by many people and perception rules our lives. She wants Barack out of the race so much, the man who had defied all the odds to wrest her 'certain' victory away from her, she herself appeared to think the unthinkable: that something might befall him at the eleventh hour, which would then make her the automatic choice for the nomination.

What makes me wonder about the suitability of Hillary Clinton for any office, let alone president of the United States, is that what she blithely uttered publicly to the country is the kind of thought one might think but dare not speak, especially as Kennedy's son is still alive and the loss of his father must still be very painful to him, then to be reminded of it in such a cavalier and insensitive way. What kind of leader who cares about her country would even think of such a reason for hanging on regardless? Even if you wish what happened to Kennedy on your worst enemy, you would not voice it aloud, for a variety of ethical and moral reasons. This lady is seeming so disturbed by her continuing losses in a race she believes is justly hers, that the thought of giving in fairly and squarely seems furthest from her mind. Wishing Barack Obama away instead seems to be more suitable so that she does not have to suffer the ignominy of her impending colossal defeat.

Hillary Clinton, the modern version of Shakespeare's Lady Macbeth, who seems prepared to enter the realms of unsavoury politics to achieve her burning ambition, is now giving an entirely different version of the Senator many people know and admire. Even if an assassination was possible, it is not the sort of thing you would immediately think about unless you have a measure of desperation about your situation and secretly hope for equally desperate measures to rescue you.

In view of her open and very surprising statement, one has to ask the question: Would Hillary herself have encouraged such an assassination in any way to fulfil her consuming ambition to be in the White House?