Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Obama should win the war of ideas – By Ghulam Muhammed

January 27, 2009

Tuesday, January 27, 2009


Obama should win the war of ideas


By Ghulam Muhammed


Newly elected US President’s first TV interview was to an Arabic channel, Al Arabia, apparently in his opening to Muslim world. The interview was re-telecast on CNN. Obama agreed with interviewer Hisham Melham, that in Muslim world, US was respected as it did not have a colonizing past. However, he said, it only within the span of last twenty to thirty years that US has been seen as antagonist to Arab and Muslim world.


It is at this point of argument that Obama should have further tried to analyse why this change came over. It is too early or too undiplomatic for him at his stage to pin-point the source of this estrangement, this disenchantment, but until and unless he realises and publicly frames his foreign politics initiatives countering the source of this estrangement, he will be belying the promise of change that brought him to world’s most powerful office. This singular source of America‘s estrangement with the world at large is Jewish neo-con’s exploitation of America‘s armed might to further Israel‘s convoluted ideas of security and expansion. Israel has been carved and supported by the US, partly as a military outpost in the heart of Muslim world; however, the way Israel has evolved and impacting US foreign policies, it is more like the case of tail wagging the dog.


Jews have found a weak spot in American people. They had cultivated brawn, but neglected brains. The vacuum is filled by a small minority of Jews, specializing in ideating the Americas, especially in the field of use of power.


Right from the days of the beginning of the Second World War, when the US was reluctant to break its isolated security existence, secured by world’s two great oceans, Atlantic to the East and Pacific to the West, Jews have been conspiring to drag the US into war for their own ‘noble’ cause of survival in the midst of anti-Semites of Europe. Nobody can deny, that US was blessed with peace while Europe was constantly embroiled in wars and human sufferings. In fact, US came into existence in its new avatar, mainly to escape the war torn history of European nations, bleeding each other at various legitimate and/or illegitimate pretext. It was the Jews, who were expert at propaganda and fear-mongering that changed the very ethos of the US. In the field of ideas and conspiracies, US people were laggards. They had stuck out to what their forefathers had sanctified in their constitution, the Bill of rights. Jews relentlessly worked to claim monopoly of supplying ideas and conspiracies to the brainless Americans. In fact, the Jewish thinkers and activists were so powerful and overwhelming in propounding their ideas and conspiracies, that US like President Bush, had nowhere to go other than following their dictats.


It is in this context, that US was singularly exploited by the Jews to form a prejudiced and biased opinion about the Muslim world, where an ongoing struggle was going on against the Israelis who were working day and night through endless initiatives of  confrontation with their neighbours in order to expand and secure their ‘greater Israel’ Zionist agenda.


The American Jews,  which can be identified at least partially as ‘Israeli lobby’, had forced US administration to put ‘clash of civilizations’ and ‘war against Islam’ —  neatly camouflaged as ‘war against terror’ as their first order of business. They proposed howAmerica‘s brute power can be profitably used to take over nations in the Middle East. The bait was the oil resources some of them possessed. They had chalked out a series of wars on their potential ‘enemies’ – Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan. This was to take upAmerica‘s half century in the service of Israeli interests, en-noblised as the greatest service to humanity by world’s lone super power.


9/11 was their masterstroke. The earliest American people come to terms with the glaring facts of the ghastly assault on their sense on invincibility, as the game-plan of Jewish-Israeli agents, infiltrating gullible disgruntled elements in Muslim world, the sooner they will be able to come to grip with their own destiny. Americans must realise that they are losing in a war of ideas to the Jewish/Zionist lobbyists. With the inauguration of Obama, there is an opening that a new beginning could be made to shake away the shackles of convoluted thinking imposed on American psyche by the Zionists and let them start thinking independently and freely, to bring in the change that Obama has so repeatedly promised.


That change should start with deliberate and conscious thwarting of all devilish moves that American Jewry and their compatriots in Israel make to subjugate America to their will. Obama is human, and if he cannot tackle Emanuel Rheum who can humiliate him in front of others in White House, by countering him in a weird show of camaraderie with the Chief, it is difficult to figure out, how he can break the stranglehold of the Jews around him. However, he must realise that the American people by giving him such a robust support across so many diving lines, have in fact revolted against the Jewish-Israeli lobby that had made the Bush administration the most hellish experience that American people and the world at large were forced to endure.


Obama wants to be friends with everybody. To an extant, that is a good public relations gambit. But he will have to have an enemy against which he can marshal his forces and unify his ranks. If he looks around and has courage of his conviction, he should legitimately make Israel and Jewish lobby his enemy number one. He may not get a second term, but even in his first term he should move fast to place ideas in motion, that would be difficult to dismantle in future. He should organise a think tank, that debars Jews and Israel from its thinking agenda and let it come out with alternatives, that go back to the earthy set of fundamentals and rule of law that founders of America had propounded and which had been thoroughly dismantled by the Jewish thinkers and conspirators. If America has to gain the goodwill and trust of the people within its boundaries and of the people around the world, he must junk Bush junkies who had chewed the world with their narrow parochial hidebound ideas of ruling the world, for the Jews and by the Jews to the exclusion of all ‘zombies’ that they are determined to make the rest of the world.


The Muslim world is now in disarray but has a king’s ransom of ideas as how to make the world a peaceful paradise through diplomacy rather than through brute force. All human lives are sacrosanct. If Obama as he has broadly hinted over and over again, succeeds in bridling his cronies and friends from the other side that are famously known for their hawkish arrogant ways, and boldly uses the office of his presidency for wider good of the nation and the world, he is sure to redeem his own dream of stepping in the shoes of US President Abraham Lincoln.



Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Comments posted on New York Times website article by Bob Herbert: More than Chrisma

January 24, 2009
Comments posted on New York Times website article by Bob Herbert: More than Chrisma


More Than CharismaBack to Article »

I’ve seen charismatic politicians come and go like sunrises and sunsets over the years. There was something more that was making people go ga-ga over Barack Obama. Something deeper.

Share your thoughts.


All Comments – Oldest First

SHOW:                          Oldest First                                               Newest First                                               Readers’ Recommendations                                               Editors’ Selections                                               Replies                     

There are no comments in this view.

Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.
January 24th, 2009 2:37 pm
It was long a coming. The way WASP had chewed up the very foundation of a great nation, by their chicanery, their corruption, their unbridled arrogance, their skewed notions of greed as the essence of their capitalist utopia, their pathological sadistic warmongering instinct nurtured by a whole brainwashed society, US desperately needed change. Obama just being not from the old chip of the block, was clearly the answer to everybody’s prayers. Any other WASP could not have achieved so much just by being on the ticket. Obama correctly promised change. Now he has to be extra conscious that those that he had picked from the old background, will not hijack and frustrate his dream to remake America. He must collect resignation of each and every member of his team and let them know that he means business. Any lobbying for the old vested interests and his team members should be shown the door.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai— Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai, India





More Than Charisma

Published: January 23, 2009


Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

On a rainy October night in 2006, I took a cab to the John F. Kennedy library here to conduct a very public interview. As we pulled up, the driver asked, “Who’s on the program?”

“Barack Obama,” I said.

“Oh,” he replied, “our next president.”

I mentioned this to then-Senator Obama during the program and he got a good laugh out of it. He hadn’t yet announced that he was running. The capacity crowd in the auditorium was clear about what it wanted. It cheered every mention of a possible run. Obama-mania was already well under way, and it would only grow.

I was back at the library this week to interview Gwen Ifill about her new book, “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,” and I wondered aloud about this continuing love affair with all things Obama — the feverish excitement, the widespread joy and pride, and the remarkable surge of hope in an otherwise downbeat, if not depressing, period.

Where was all this coming from? What was it about?

Yes, as everyone agrees, Mr. Obama is handsome, fit, smart, and a great speaker. As Ms. Ifill noted in her book, “Voters are attracted to youth, vitality and change.”

And Americans tend to get giddy over winners, especially underdogs who take the measure of a foe thought to be impregnable — in this case, the mighty forces carefully assembled over several years by the Clintons.

And it’s not just the president himself who looks good. Even the shameless purveyors of fantasy at central casting would blush at the thought of crafting a family as picture perfect as the Obamas. So, yes, there is an awful lot to like about the Obama phenomenon.

But I’ve seen charismatic politicians and pretty families come and go like sunrises and sunsets over the years. There was something more that was making people go ga-ga over Obama. Something deeper.

We’ve been watching that something this week, and it’s called leadership. Mr. Obama has been feeding the almost desperate hunger in this country for mature leadership, for someone who is not reckless and clownish, shortsighted and self-absorbed.

However you feel about his policies, and there are people grumbling on the right and on the left, Mr. Obama has signaled loudly and clearly that the era of irresponsible behavior in public office is over.

No more crazy wars. No more torture, and no more throwing people in prison without even the semblance of due process. No more napping while critical problems like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global warming, and economic inequality in the United States grow steadily worse.

“We remain a young nation,” Mr. Obama said in his Inaugural Address, “but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.”

On Wednesday, his first full day in office, the president took steps to make the federal government more transparent, signaling immediately that the country would move away from the toxic levels of secrecy that marked the Bush years.

“Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” he said. It was a commitment to responsible behavior, and a challenge to the public to hold the Obama administration accountable. It reminded me of the wonderful line written into a federal appeals court ruling in 2002 by Judge Damon Keith:

“Democracies die behind closed doors.”

This has been the Obama way, to set a responsible example and then to call on others to follow his mature lead. In Iowa, after his victory in the Democratic caucuses a year ago, he promised to be “a president who will be honest about the choices and challenges we face, who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”

In a cynical age, the inclination is to dismiss this stuff as so much political rhetoric. But Mr. Obama carries himself in a way that suggests he means what he says, which gives him great credibility when he urges Americans to work hard and make sacrifices, not just for themselves and their families but for the common good — and when he tells black audiences that young men need to hitch up their trousers and behave themselves, and that families need to turn off the TV so the kids can do their homework.

Or when he says of the many serious challenges facing the nation, as he did in his Inaugural Address: “They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.”

The bond is growing between the nation and its new young leader. Let’s hope it’s a mature romance that weathers the long haul.

Why Barack Obama won – By Richard Lister, BBC News Washington

November 6, 2008






By Richard Lister 
BBC News, Washington




Two years ago, Barack Obama was barely a blip on America‘s political radar.


But, with a brilliant, disciplined campaign, a vast amount of money and a favourable political climate, the junior senator from Illinois has risen to the most powerful job in the world.


His campaign will be a template for those seeking to replace him.


It was, even Republican strategists admit, a technically perfect ground campaign.


The money was key.


Mr Obama realised during the primary contest that he had developed an extremely broad donor base, which he could keep going back to for money.


So, he rejected federal funding for his campaign and the financial limits that came with it.

Army of helpers


With the help of Facebook founder Chris Hughes – who devised an innovative internet fundraising system – the campaign eventually attracted more than three million donors. They donated about $650m (£403m) – more than both presidential contenders in 2004 combined.



Mr Obama had the money for four times as many campaign offices as Mr McCain and a vast army of campaign staff and volunteers. They developed and exploited a vast database of information about potential donors and voters in every key state.


Everyone who visited the Obama website was asked to sign up to get more information. Everyone who did so was asked to contribute, or volunteer. If they did, they received several follow-up calls and messages asking for more money, or more assistance.


That fundraising ground campaign left him well equipped for the air war.


TV advertising is the life-blood of a campaign which has to span some 3.5m square miles (9m sq km) and 300 million people, and Mr Obama had no problem buying airtime.


Masterful operation


In some swing states in the final weeks of the campaign, he was outspending Mr McCain by a ratio of four to one. His team again tapped into the internet, targeting ads at those online.


They even bought ad-space embedded in video games. Mr Obama could afford to campaign in Republican strongholds and force Mr McCain to spread his limited resources ever thinner, sucking his resources away from swing states.


At the same time the campaign was masterful at getting out the vote. It ran a huge registration drive for likely Democrats – adding more than 300,000 people to the voter rolls in Florida alone.


Realising that so many new voters could overwhelm polling places on voting day, the campaign made early voting a priority in states where it is allowed. More people cast their votes before election day this year than ever before – more than 29 million in 30 states, according to preliminary data.


All of this worked of course because of Barack Obama’s appeal as a candidate. He is a superb orator who can work a crowd in the Bill Clinton tradition.


His image was wholesome; a self-made family man with one house, one car – and one family. It was a contrast to John McCain who divorced the wife who waited for him through the Vietnam war, married an heiress and couldn’t remember how many houses he had.


Anti-Bush candidate


Mr Obama was able to connect more deeply with more diverse voting blocks. He struck a chord with younger voters, won over Hispanic and Jewish voters who had been Republicans in the past, and of course got out the black vote like no president before him.


Mr Obama’s single, consistent message of change was appealing when almost nine out of 10 Americans believed their country was “on the wrong track”.


He could easily position himself as the anti-Bush candidate in a way Mr McCain struggled to do. President Bush had lower approval ratings than the disgraced Richard Nixon, and Mr Obama’s relentless campaign message was that John McCain had voted with him 90% of the time.


The polls suggested more people trusted Mr Obama to fix the economy and when the financial crisis struck he was best placed to take political advantage of it.


His persistent focus on how to help those most impoverished by eight years of George Bush’s leadership seemed a better fit for the times; a sharp contrast to the kind of tax cuts which were now a central plank of the McCain campaign and would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.


Difference a strength


Ultimately, even Mr McCain’s great political strength as a war hero with decades of foreign experience was eclipsed.


Mr Obama’s selection of the veteran foreign policy expert, Senator Joe Biden, as his running mate helped close the experience gap.


He insisted too that judgement was more important than experience and over the course of the campaign the political consensus seemed to shift to his ideas.


Mr Obama called for a withdrawal timeline in Iraq, defending Afghanistan‘s borders by launching raids inside Pakistan when required and talking to America‘s enemies.


Slowly and quietly even the Bush Administration came to accept those ideas, while John McCain seemed ever more isolated as he continued to reject them.


Barack Obama said he didn’t “look like other Presidents on the dollar bill”.


Although that was a reference to his colour, he was different in so many ways to the established political aristocracy, that in a year when Americans were craving something new, his differences turned out to be his part of his strength. 


US elections: An Indian Perspective By Amaresh Misra

November 4, 2008

US elections: An Indian Perspective 


                                                          By Amaresh Misra




          As America goes to vote on 4th November 2008, a hitherto unseen specter is haunting the historic Obama-McCain stand-off; till now, electoral Pundits have relied basically on the traditional theory of both the Democratic and the Republican Party possessing roughly a 37%-37% base vote ― and then the 20-26% Independent voter deciding the final outcome.


The Independent mantra however is questionable ― it gives too much power to spin doctors on either side of the political divide and to the idea that voters in the middle can be swayed almost exclusively by a media blitzkrieg or some zany twists, like the nomination of Sarah Palin.


Laws of political science inform that the notion of the Independent voter cannot exist in a political vacuum. There has to be some magnetic pull, emerging from the base vote category, which can trigger the decisive slide of the Independent voter towards the winning side: in this scenario, it is unlikely that the phenomenon of hockey moms or even Wal-Mart moms, or any other Independent category, voting any which way independently will decide the next American President.


Similar is the case with the impact the current Wall Street collapse; growing economic problems shifted media focus away from Sarah Palin; there was an uneasy question mark over the fundamentals of supply side Reagan-economics and the economic philosophy America should adopt for the 21st century. But, historically, economic uncertainty, unless it is of the Great Depression type with a figure like Roosevelt stimulating a class polarization, leads to less, not more voter participation in the electoral process; moreover, voters tend to vote both right and left in such an atmosphere.


 To understand the invisible specter that seems to haunt the American electoral fight, one may have to look towards India, a country where regular elections since 1952 have thrown up what is known as a `base assertion’ ― as  opposed to the `Independent voter assertion’ ― theory.


While America has a Presidential system, Indian democracy has a Parliamentary system; but electoral trend behavior in democracies has shown a wide level of similarity.


In India, from 1952 and roughly till the late 1980s, the Congress Party was able to win elections after elections because of the assertion of a single bloc: the minority-Muslim voter. Fighting on a socialist plank, Congress always formed a coalition of social forces and got the vote of the vast majority of India‘s poor. Yet within that coalition, it was the assertion of the minority-Muslim vote in successive constituencies that provided the resources and the atmospherics for the non-Muslim poor to assert as well.


A quick look Congress’ electoral graph over the years reveals a startling pattern: the party suffered significant defeats whenever, within the pro-Congress coalition, the minority-Muslim vote dipped by as little as 2-3%; thus in the 1967 General elections, the Congress lost more than 100 seats; in the 1977 General elections, when minority-Muslim support dipped by 10%, the Congress party was for a moment wiped off from the Indian electoral scene.


By the early 1990s, following a series of anti-minority-Muslim measures, most importantly the decision by a sitting Congress Prime Minister Narsimha Rao (who wanted to attract Hindu votes to the party) to allow the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, a town in the province of Uttar Pradesh (UP), the party lost the minority-Muslim support for the first time over an extended period. Consequently, throughout the 1990s, the Congress was relegated to an unthinkable third position, as the Hindu Nationalist Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and a new secular and Left leaning anti-Congress front of regional parties slugged it out in the electoral arena.


Thus was born the phenomenon of regional secularism, wherein in UP and Bihar, two of India’s most populous states, backward caste, anti-Congress, anti-BJP Hindu leaders stormed to power, mainly on Muslim support. In both UP and Bihar Muslims formed roughly 15% of the total population. But their unprecedented electoral group-base assertion swayed the Independent voter completely in the favor of regional secularists.


A similar phenomenon accompanied the rise of Mayawati, the Dalit leader in UP, in the 1990s; Dalits, or the lowest of the low caste, comprise 22% of UP’s population; earlier, they used to vote for the Congress; but then, their vote was not part of a singular group assertion. Mayawati was able to triumph because the Dalits decided to jettison the Congress and identify with her totally.


In the American elections, the most obvious and simple aspect― the African American black vote in Obama’s favor― may well prove to be the most relevant in the final count. True, the black vote has traditionally been with the Democratic Party; and often, black assertion was not enough for a Democratic Party victory. But it has to be seen and analyzed as to how many times black assertion was base assertion― it seems that the three times when black assertion was base assertion, with Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton, the Democratic Party made history.


In the 2000 and 2004 American elections, Bush was able to defeat the Democrats, because somewhere along black assertion did not approximate in intensity to base assertion. On the other hand, the Christian Right, perhaps for the first time, asserted as a base for Republicans. Interestingly, the white vote, like the Hindu vote in India as such can never form a base assertion vote― it has been seen that in democracies, majority communities are too fragmented along class, regional or ethnic lines, to comprise a base assertion vote. The assertive minority vote has been decisive― and yet, ironically, it has remained so far the least recognized element of pre-election calculations.


In America, black assertion in Obama’s favor, is leading also to a pro-Democratic swing of Hispanic and white working class voters, much more than this otherwise would have been even in an economic crisis situation. In fact, the economic crisis has led blacks, the worst hit, to assert more as a group― few will recognize this at the end, but on 4th November 2008, America‘s 12% minority blacks will play the determining role in choosing the next President of their country.