Barack Obama - a Chance and a Challenge

I would never ever call myself a 'prophet', but some have used the word 'prophetic' recently with regards to my analysis of and comments on the US presidential election campaign.

Well, to make this quite clear: I have neither a 'sixth sense' nor any special insider connections to the political parties in the USA and their activists. All I did at the begin of the year was to look at the situation, the people involved (at that time there were still 26 different individuals seeking the nomination in either the Democratic or the Republican Party) and then I analysed their potential chances of being elected, first inside their own party, and then in November by the US voters.

In entries from January 4th, January 9th and February 1st I predicted - correctly, as it turned out - that this year's presidential election would be contested by Senator Barack Obama (right) for the Democrats and Senator John McCain (below left) for the Republicans.

Despite strong initial support for Senator Hillary Clinton, especially from Irish Americans and from a lot of groups and institutions here in Ireland, I could not see her being successful in the quest for the White House. Right from the start her campaign was too arrogant, aggressive and simplistic. The message that came across was basically: I was already in the White House for eight years as a wife, so now I am entitled to another eight years there as President.

Well, if the USA would like to install a hereditary system of government, they could do so openly and through legislation. But doing it through the back door is neither fair nor clever. Actually, had Hillary Clinton been nominated and won the election in November, the USA would have had a spell of 24 (and perhaps even 28) years under the rule of either a member of the Bush family or the Clinton family. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind in 1776.

In fact, in the more than two centuries the USA had an elected President, George W. Bush is only the second case of a President's son being elected President as well. (The first was John Quincy Adams, the 6th President and son of the 2nd President John Adams.)

Hillary Clinton also failed to realise that her support for the illegal war against Iraq and the still ongoing and equally illegal occupation of this country by US troops was a huge negative burden for her campaign. She and her advisers made further a crucial mistake by underestimating the potential of Barack Obama, in particular his great appeal to young people and ordinary citizens who are fed-up with the Bush administration and the right-wing Republicans.

So it was clear for me from the outset that only Barack Obama could be a true alternative to the current administration. Even though I have neither a vote nor any influence in the USA, I did support his candidacy from day one. And I am glad that, despite all attempts by Bill and Hillary Clinton to throw political mud at him, the junior Senator from Illinois has now taken the first and very important hurdle and received the official nomination of his party.

It will now depend on the maturity and common sense of the American people if he can go all the way to Washington and become the 44th President of the USA. Personally I hope he will, as he is - in my opinion - at present the only person in US politics who could stop the rapid decline of the USA in political as well as economical terms. And he is also the only one who could - with at least some chance of success - try to repair the extremely damaged image his country has now in the world, thanks to eight years of arrogance, ignorance, blunder, crimes and war crimes under George W. Bush and his cronies.

For both the USA and the rest of the world a President Obama would be a chance as well as a great challenge. Without drastic changes of policy, attitude and behaviour the USA are doomed to complete failure, which would subsequently - and probably quite speedily - lead to a collapse of the USA as we know her. The example of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire stands as a clear writing on the walls of the White House already...

A few days ago US police and FBI discovered a plot by right-wing extremists to assassinate Senator Obama. I sincerely hope that the United States have learned the lessons of the past 45 years and are now able to prevent such crime and tragedy. With the murder of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and his brother Robert in 1968 the USA took large steps back into the Dark Ages. Subsequently the country fell into the hands of the crook Richard Nixon, the cynical war monger (and ex-CIA boss) George H. W. Bush and then - most tragically - into the lap of the by far worst leader the USA ever had: George W. Bush, a lazy and uneducated criminal and war criminal who came to power through a coup d'etat and destroyed all trust and credibility the United States had left in the world.

Should Barack Obama be murdered like the Kennedy brothers, the USA would rightfully be seen as a nest of vipers and killers by all the world. So I really hope that the vast security apparatus for which the US tax payers spend billions of Dollars every year, will do its job properly this time.

However, I do not expect miracles from a President Obama. Should he win in November and get to the White House, he will still be an American politician, bound into a long-established system of powers and vested interests. No-one, regardless how ambitious or alternative he might be, is able to change the whole system completely.
President John F. Kennedy - ably assisted by his brother Robert (then Attorney General), Dean Rusk (Secretary of State) and Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense) - made honest attempts and managed to achieve quite a lot, before he was murdered by the forces of reaction.

Barack Obama would run into the same political mine fields and barriers that vested interests in Washington have created around the White House. Those obstacles are well guarded, no matter who is President. However, if anyone at this point in time could make a difference and bring back some degree of dignity to US politics, it would be Barack H. Obama.

With his choice of Senator Joseph "Joe" Biden (right) for the position of Vice President he made a shrewd move. It not only brought vast amounts of tradional Hillary Clinton supporters into the Obama camp, it also bolstered the campaign substantially where it was weak: in the areas of foreign and defence policies.
Joe Biden, a solid and sincere working-class American of Irish stock, is probably the most senior and most experienced US politician in these areas. Being also a man who does not shy back from an argument, he is the ideal match for Barack Obama, whose strength is more the bigger picture and the principal direction of politics.

In my analysis in January I suggested John Edwards as a possible running mate for Obama, and I still think that this combination would also have been a very powerful Democratic ticket. But in the selection of Joe Biden the Obama campaign has gone even further than they would have with a selection of John Edwards. I do hope that the majority of US voters will see the light and elect Obama and Biden in November. If not, no "God bless America" and no shoring-up of the vast damage done to the ship of state by the current administration, will help to save the USA.

As things are, we are currently witnessing once again history in the making. The future of the USA and with that the future of the civilised world will be decided within the next ten weeks. So, watch this space and keep watching the USA.

The Emerald Islander


P.S. There is one thing I find very strange in regard to the reporting about Barack Obama. Many journalists speak of him as the potentially "first black President of the USA". This is not a correct description, as Senator Obama is of mixed race, the son of a black Kenyan father and a white American mother from Kansas. So why is he then always called "black"? What is wrong with being of mixed ethnic background?
By calling Barack Obama "black" the people who do it ignore completely his white mother, who brought him up alone after his father had left the USA.
In US 'politically correct' public speak the word black is no longer used (except by black people) and instead the currently fashionable version is 'African-American'. In Barack Obama's case this is probably the most correct description, since he is indeed the child of an African father and an American mother.

The Field is narrowing

There are still ten months to go until the US presidential election in November, but the field of potential candidates is narrowing fast.
After the Republican Primary in Florida earlier this week two further candidates of the GOP (the "Grand Old Party", as the Republicans tend to call themselves) decided to quit. They were former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. Both had been beaten by the Florida voters decisively and decided they would not spend any more money on a contest they cannot win.

This gives now Senator John McCain of Arizona, a former naval officer, war hero and POW in North Vietnam, the chance to secure a nomination even before the national convention. Clearly the front runner now (as I predicted already three weeks ago), McCain has impressed many with his sincerity and independence, as he is one of very few Republicans who had the guts to stand up against the current administration with critical remarks - and get away with it. However, the question is if after eight years of blunder and ignorance from Bush and his cronies the American people want another Republican in the White House.

More likely is that they are yearning for a major change, and looking for the delivery of that to the Democratic party, where the race has now come down to a head- to-head contest between two junior Senators: Hillary Clinton from New York and Barack Obama from Illinois.
After the Democratic Primary in Florida, which will not have any influence on the selection, as their delegates have been banned over a row with the national leadership, former Senator John Edwards, running mate of John Kerry in 2004, dropped out of the race, after New Mexico's governor Bill Richardson, a former Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton, had quit already earlier.
This leaves now only the two front runners Clinton and Obama standing. So if the Democrats - as expected by many - will win the election, they will also make history, with putting either the first woman or the first coloured man into the White House.

On the Republican side the only man who could still hamper McCain's further progress is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who is still polling quite strongly and came second in both South Carolina and Florida. Since he has accumulated quite a large fighting fund, he might still hang on for a while longer. But the question is: Would American voters be happy to send a Mormon into the White House...? It is not impossible, but quite doubtful.
Most likely "Super Tuesday" - this year held on February 5th - will clear the field even more. In 24 states all over the USA primaries and caucuses of both major parties will bring the decision a good bit closer to a nomination. Should Romney do badly in this massive test, he will fall by the wayside and leave the road open for McCain.

In the Democratic Party the contest will go right to the wire, as neither of the two remaining front runners is likely to quit at any time before the nomination convention. It will not have an easy task, and the selection of the running mate will be as crucial as the name of the main candidate itself. In this regard John Edwards should have a good change to be selected as vice-presidential candidate again. An Obama/Edwards ticket could have a real chance to win the elections and set the USA on a new course of reform, repair and repentance.

The Emerald Islander

Women in Politics

Hillary Clinton stated today that her show of emotion was "a deciding factor in her sweeping to victory" in the New Hampshire Primary. She admitted in a TV interview that the rare show of her feelings, when tears welled in her eyes after being asked a personal question, helped sway many voters, especially women.
Basking in the glory of defeating Barack Obama and confounding predictions that her presidential campaign was over after her defeat in the Iowa caucuses, the former First Lady said she hoped her tearful moment proved her sincerity.

I do not share Mrs. Clinton's view. Being the cold, controlled and manipulating person she is - and has been for a long time - it is much more likely that her tearful moment in New Hampshire was as much a calculated performance (which seems to have achieved the desired result) as all her other speeches, actions and public appearances have been.

There is no doubt that politics does often create emotional moments, and it is also a fact that by nature women tend to be more emotional than men. But it is rarely seen that an otherwise cool and composed politician breaks out in tears during a public session. Had this politician been a man, it would have had a negative effect, as the public perception would have been of a moment of weakness and losing control over himself. Men are not supposed to do that, especially when in high public office or aspiring to such.
But when a female politician starts weeping in public, it seems to earn her some sympathy, most of all from other women, who assume that it must be horrible for a woman to be in politics and that all is much harder for a female candidate. There is no business like show business...

Personally I do not appreciate weeping politicians, regardless of their sex, party or position. To be a leader is a difficult job with huge responsibilities, and one looks for strength, character and exemplary behaviour in such a person, not for streams of tears. And if crying is really all a leader (or one aspiring to become one) has to offer to the public, it is clear that this person is certainly not suited for the position.

But Mrs. Clinton did not only disappoint me with her New Hampshire tears. What I find much more disturbing is her triumphalist behaviour after she narrowly won the state, only 2% ahead of Barack Obama. Had she won with a margin of 10% or more, I could tolerate the way she went over the top in her victory celebration.

Having studied Psychology and being an avid observer of public figures and their body language, I am frankly shocked by Hillary Clinton's hysteria after the first modest win she gained in a very small state at the beginning of the Primary season.
This photo of her was taken in New Hampshire and carried today by a number of newspapers, including the British "Daily Mail" where I saw it first. By itself it says a lot more than words can do. One does not need to be a psychologist to recognise the expression of the proverbial "mad woman in the attic"... (but no President would have such an expression)
If there is still some common sense and decency left in the American voters, then this picture of Hillary should be a warning and make sure that she is not elected President.

For the benefit of those who don't know me personally I should say that I have nothing against women, and that I hold them actually in high esteem. This even extends to women in politics, as in my opinion the input of both men and women is needed to cover all aspects of a nation and in this way create a fair and balanced system of government.

However, when one looks at the track records of women who were not only involved in politics, but rose to high public offices, the result is rather disappointing and somewhat discourageing.
Of the women who hold or held significant government positions in the USA in recent times the only one that stands out as a positive example is Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1981 to 1985. Even though originally a Democrat and supporter of the campaigns of Humphrey and McGovern, she accepted when President Ronald Reagan offered her the job.
Even some Republicans admit that Condoleezza Rice is by far the worst Secretary of State the USA have had in modern times, and the least qualified and suited for the position.
The first woman in charge of the State Department, Madeleine Albright, was only marginally better and for most of her period in office more the "token woman" than a real maker of great policy and shaker of diplomatic matters. She was, however, a lot more energetic and determined than former US Attorney General Janet Reno.
The greatest blunder in recent US history is also down to a woman, as it was Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, who handed the unelected George W. Bush the keys to the White House by casting her vote in his favour and thus creating the 5:4 Supreme Court decision by which Bush was declared the 43rd President.

Outside the USA women have actually been active in politics a lot longer and often much more than in America. It would be too complex to name and review them all, but let me give you just a few significant examples:
- Sirimavo Bandaranaike, three times Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and the world's first ever female Prime Minister, was directly responsible for creating the deep political rift between the majority Singhalese and the minority Tamil communities in Sri Lanka, which lead in 1983 to the country's civil war (that still continues today, even though now on a lower level of violence).
- Indira Gandhi, four times Prime Minister of India, was the least fair and democratic of India's Prime Ministers, creating much division and unrest in the sub-continent, especially among the minority communities (which led eventually to her assassination by her own body guard).
- Golda Meir, Israel's first - and so far only - female Prime Minister is often portrayed as a dear elderly lady and a mother figure of the Jewish nation. The reality was quite different from that image. Golda Meir personally sanctioned numerous acts of aggression against individuals and countries, including the clandestine vendetta campaign against Palestinian intellectuals (several of which were murdered by Israeli agents in Europe) in 1972. But more significant is that she always put the interests of her Mapai (Labour) party ahead of national interests. This led to a series of bad mistakes, the most serious of which nearly lost Israel the Yom-Kippur-War of 1973 (and could well have meant the end of the State of Israel).
- Margaret Thatcher is probably the best-known female politician, and many still refer to her with some reverence as the "Iron Lady". There is no doubt that she was tough and determined, and certainly a woman of conviction and exceptional courage. But she was also an arch-capitalist and enemy of the common people, and during her time as British Prime Minister (1979-1990) she systematically destroyed the natural social and economical structure of Britain's society. In a cynical comment on her ideology she even coined the phrase: "There is no such thing as society." (The fall-out of her policies still hampers Britain today and fills her prisons with thousands of uneducated criminals, hopeless drug addicts and up-rooted drifters with no perspective...)

Only one of the world's current female leaders has so far made a very positive impact in her own country as well as in world politics. She is Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand since 1999 (and the second woman to hold this office).

The jury on Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor (Prime Minister) of Germany since November 2005, is still out. Although she has surprised some observers with a number of tough decisions, she lacks charisma, inspiration and other natural leadership qualities.

Sadly there are also outright failures among the world's female leaders, some of which are by now almost forgotten. They include the former Prime Ministers Edith Cresson (France), Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo (Portugal), Hanna Suchocka (Poland), Milka Planinc (Yugoslavia), Kazimiera Danute Prunskiene and Irena Degutiene (Lithuania), Tansu Ciller (Turkey), Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wazed (Bangla Desh), Beatriz Merino Lucero (Peru), Elisabeth Domitien (Central African Republic), Portia Simpson-Miller (Jamaica) and Claudette Werleigh (Haiti).
The wooden spoon for the worst performance of a female Prime Minister, however, must go to Kim Campbell, the first - and so far only - female leader of Canada. Having been previously the first female Minister for Defence, she succeeded Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister on June 25th, 1993. Feeling strong and confident, she soon called general elections for November 5th of the same year, during which her Conservative Party - in power since 1984 - was wiped out. All but two MPs lost their seats - including Ms. Campbell - and the Canadian Conservative Party disappeared into political oblivion.

Here in Ireland we have mixed experience with female politicians. In 1990 the independent human rights lawyer Mary Robinson, a clear outsider, was elected Ireland's first female President. During her seven years' tenure she changed the climate of domestic Irish politics forever, in fact so much that no political party even dared to nominate a man as her successor. She also had great influence internationally and became the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights after stepping down as President in 1997.
Subsequently Mary McAleese was elected as her successor, and she is still President of Ireland (now in her second seven-year term, to which she was elected unopposed). It was the first time in history that an elected female head of state was succeeded by another woman.
On the other hand we also have the worst Minister for Health one could imagine. She is Mary Harney and was for a long time also (the first female) Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister), as well as Minister for Enterprise and Employment.

It is quite obvious that the sex of a person does not give any advantage or disadvantage for the holding of high political office. However, on an overall scale, the number of women who had a negative impact in politics clearly outnumbers those who made positive contributions. There are many reasons for that, but one is certainly that the structure of most political systems is more geared for male thinking and attitudes than for female intuition and emotions. It would be a mistake to see anything wrong in that, but equally there is no reason for standing still either.

Women can and do have important roles in all walks of life, and politics should be no exception. But the manipulative use of specifically female emotions for electoral purposes - as done by Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire - will neither earn respect, nor is it a guarantee of success (even if it has worked in New Hampshire). Only true skills, commitment and the ability to take responsibilities of the highest order make a real leader. I did have my reservations about Hillary Clinton before, but in New Hampshire she has demonstrated for me that she is not of the right mindset to lead a great nation, and in connection with it the Western world.

The Emerald Islander

Not much Hope for America

When I listened this morning to the reports coming from New Hampshire, I was quite astonished to hear what Hillary Clinton had to say. After winning this semi-open (which allows anyone to vote, not just registered party members) Primary of the Democrats by a narrow margin of two percent over her nearest party rival Barack Obama, she gave a speech that sounded as if she had just been elected President, or at least won the nomination of her party. What she did win in fact were nine delegates from New Hampshire to the national nomination convention, bound to vote for her. Not more and not less.

I cannot say that I was surprised, having observed her campaign (as well as all the others) now for quite some time. There is an air of superiority and arrogance in Mrs. Clinton's approach to politics, an attitude that implies she might be the only suitable person for the Presidency, simply because she has lived in the White House before. If that would be a fair criteria, thousands of US citizens would qualify, from presidential advisers to cooks, gardeners and chamber maids, many of which spent a lot longer in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than Mrs. Clinton.
If she were a Catholic or Christian Fundamentalist, she might as well claim a "God-given right" to follow in her husband's footsteps. The whole idea of people succeeding their fathers, husbands or other close relatives in high public office is not democratic at all. Hereditary succession, even though occasionally to be found in republics, is usually the practice in monarchies (and often with quite negative effects).

It is no secret that I am a Republican, in the general and especially Irish meaning of the word. If I were an American, I could not call myself that and would be most likely independent, with a slight leaning towards the Democrats. So when I look at the 13 remaining candidates for the US Presidency (six Democrats and seven Republicans), I think I can do this fair and unbiased and see every single one with the same critical scrutiny.
And what I see - on both sides - is not encouraging and does not offer much hope for the USA, her people and subsequently the whole world, which is much effected by anything that happens in the United States.

Having been in charge of the White House now for seven years, as well as in control of the House and Senate for six of them, the Republicans are in a right mess, entirely created by themselves and especially by George W. Bush and his inner circle of right-wing capitalists, war mongers and bible bashers.
The defence budget and the national debt are at a record high, as the administration spends money on their wars and other military projects as if there was no tomorrow. And for them - the Bush clan and its extremist supporters - there probably isn't. Even many Republicans are now very critical of the dangerous policies that have turned most of America's supporters (myself included) against the USA. In fact, there was no room for compromise, as Bush made it quite clear that one could only be "with us (his administration) or against us".
Given a choice that narrow, many chose to refuse the USA any further support and sympathy, especially when it became clear that under the Bush regime the one remaining super power on this planet would break every international law in the book, start illegal wars and invade and occupy far-away foreign countries that had never committed a single hostile act against the USA.
Even more disgusting and unacceptable is the creation of illegal detention centres and secret prisons abroad, where thousands of people were - and still are - held captive for years, without any charge, without any evidence against them, and without access to a lawyer! Alongside the administration sanctioned the use of torture on a massive scale, and - cowardly as Bush and his henchmen are - made sure that it was never done on official US territory, so they could pretend it did not happen at all. However, the facts are well known now and indisputable, and all this has backfired massively on Bush and destroyed the trust and confidence billions of people on the globe once had in the USA as a free and fair country.

With Bush having served two terms and Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney not standing for the Presidency (probably because he knows himself that he would have absolutely no chance of getting elected) the field is wide open. Looking at the candidates that seek the nomination of the Republican Party, one has to wonder how serious the Republicans are in their wish to carry on with the responsibility for their nation. Only one - Senator John McCain of Arizona - is a serious candidate with competence and ability, but he is also the oldest contender in the field. In case of him being elected, he would be the oldest ever man to become President, even beating the record so far held by Ronald Reagan.
This might not be negative at all, as it will need an experienced leader to sort out the mess Bush created and win back trust from the American people as well as countries and people abroad.
All things being equal, for me McCain is certainly the one person most qualified to be President, out of the 13 candidates still running on both sides.
However, being a Republican he would not only inherit Bush's mess, but also be forced to treat matters more lenient and even defend many of the failures the current administration made in every possible field of politics. This could lead to even more distrust and further deterioration of America's reputation in the world.

The other six potential candidates running for the Republican nomination have in my opinion no realistic chance, and some could make things even worse than they are now already. Even the theoretical thought of a Mormon (Mitt Romney) or a fanatical creationist who "loves shooting things" (Mike Huckabee) in the White House and having control of the massively inflated US military power - including the nuclear options - sends cold shivers down my spine.
Rudy Guliani, a former Mayor of New York City and a cold and calculating opportunist, is not a man to be trusted with anything. He is best remembered for "9/11" and his harsh policies of "zero tolerance" against the petty criminals, poor and homeless of New York, but that alone is no qualification for the Presidency. Any mayor in office would have done what he did under the circumstances of "9/11", and his "zero tolerance" campaign actually created as many problems as it solved. Subsequently more than four million people (of the more than 18 million who populate the New York metro area) are now living below the official poverty line and depend on regular food hand-outs.
Since leaving office in New York Guliani tries to show himself as a "liberal conservative", but not in a very convincing way. Many voters will rightfully wonder how "liberal" a man could be after making his name with the slogan of "zero tolerance". (They might also remember that George W. Bush ran during his first presidential campaign with the slogan "compassionate conservatism", and we all know what he did since...)

The remaining three - Congressman Duncan Hunter from California, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas and Fred Thompson, a professional actor and former Senator from Tennessee - are not likely to win any significant support and will drop out of the race sooner or later. Neither of them has a large enough political and financial base, and that is eventually the crucial factor in US politics.
Four previous Republican contenders - Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson - did already quit before the start of the Primary season.

Given the crimes and massive mistakes of the Bush administration, many Americans (including Republicans) as well as foreign observers expect and wish that the next US President should be a Democrat. Those with hope for a better future see that only a drastic change at the top of the political system could bring a real change, and cynics think that it will be better to let Democrats deal with the mess and chaos of the Bush administration than burden another Republican with it.
Therefore the attention of the world's media is currently more on the Democratic Party and its remaining six contenders. (Two other Democrats - Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut - have already dropped out after the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd.)

Of the six still running Hillary Clinton, Senator for New York, is clearly the favourite. Not for political achievements or experience, but mainly for three other reasons: She is the publically best-known of all candidates, she has collected the largest amount of money for her campaign (so far more than $ 90 million) and she is clearly the most determined of them all. She is also in many quarters seen as a true Liberal, and a significant portion of US women would like the idea to have her as the first ever female President.
However, the former First Lady carries a lot of baggage and it remains to be seen if that could become a factor during the campaign. One of the most serious details is that she actually voted for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that she has not moved much away from this obvious mistake. It will depend on how much the disastrous war still matters to the American voters.
Further obstacles in Mrs. Clinton's path to power are her undisputed coldness and arrogance, a lack of true compassion and her attitude that she "knows best" and is "most experienced". That could in fact be her Achilles heel, since her actual experience in practical politics is limited to her term as the Junior Senator from New York. Being married to a President brings undoubtedly a lot of benefits, insights and interesting encounters, but it is no substitute for responsibility and holding high office.
In fact, her only venture into real politics during her husband's administration - her attempt to reform the hopeless and completely unfair US health system - ended in disaster and chaos. Not surprisingly, she has so far nor even mentioned this shambolic episode of her career and one wonders how long it will take until one of her opponents does.

Second favourite among the Democrats, and the only one of all candidates who offers real hope and a new approach to US politics, is Senator Barack Obama from Illinois. The son of a Kenyan father and white American mother would - if elected - be the first non-white President and as such the natural carrier of hopes and aspirations for America's poor and deprived people (many of which are black). However, there seems to be a tendency that he receives so far not as much support from these quarters than one might have expected. Obama is also the first non-white politician who does deliberately not play the race card himself (as it was done in previous years and campaigns by black Democrats like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others). He is in fact the first coloured candidate fully and easily acceptable to white Americans (as his decisive win in the 95% white state of Iowa has shown), while a large segment of the black population supports Hillary Clinton, mainly out of loyalty to her husband.
If I had a vote in the USA, it would clearly go to Mr. Obama. If there is any chance for the USA to recover from the catastrophic Bush years within the foreseeable future, it will need a man of vision, courage and new ideas. Among the 13 remaining candidates on both sides Barack Obama is the only one with such qualities, reminding one in more than one way of John F. Kennedy in his presidential campaign. And like Kennedy he has the ability to reach many of the young and unconventional Americans who have long given up on the established parties and traditional politicians. This could work well in his favour, and personally I hope it does.
What could be held against Obama is his lack of experience, especially when it comes to foreign policies. However - despite Hillary Clinton's forceful speeches - when it comes to practical and hands-on experience in politics, Barack Obama has more on his CV than the former First Lady.
As Obama is also the first leading US politician with open sympathies for the Palestinians, it is to be expected that he will not do very well in New York and other areas with a strong Jewish community. As New York is also Mrs. Clinton's current home turf, she will certainly make good use of the situation. But whatever she might throw into Obama's way, the fact remains that she is "yesterday's woman", representing old and worn-out ideas, while he is "tomorrow's man".

The third contender, and surely the "dark horse" in the Democratic stable, is John Edwards, a former Senator from North Carolina, who was John Kerry's running-mate in the Presidential Election of 2004. Energetic, handsome and a "man of the people" with great public rapport, he should not be written off, even though he currently trails Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in third place. In matters of political experience he outshines both of them, and he has a strong and solid support base of white voters, especially in the Southern states. As things stand for now, he has the best chances to be nominated again as the running-mate (for the Vice Presidency), with either Clinton or Obama as the main nominee. Should, however, Hillary Clinton fail to muster the amount of support she expects, John Edwards might well have a chance to pick up many of her delegates and secure a nomination, with Barack Obama as running-mate.

So far barely noticed by the pundits is outsider Bill Richardson, currently the Governor of New Mexico. Of all Democratic candidates he is by far the politically most experienced, having been a Congressman, US Ambassador to the United Nations and US Energy Secretary. Despite such an impressive service record, his public profile is rather low, which will dampen his chances for the first prize. But having collected so far more than $ 18 million (a fifth of Hillary Clinton's funds) in campaign contributions, he might have enough financial stamina to keep going all the way, with a chance to become either running-mate or - in case of a Democratic win in November - to take a senior position in the new administration.

With a new Democrat in the White House there might also be interesting appointments for the remaining two also-rans, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska and Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. In the long and strenuous march through the Primaries, however, they will not find much support from voters.

As much as commentators emphasize the New Hampshire Primary, it is far too early to make a clear prediction for either of the parties. Nevertheless it appears that John McCain might carry on from where he left off in 2000 (when he also won New Hampshire, but was then pushed out of the race by massive corporate donations to the Bush campaign). Mitt Romney's funds (of now $ 63 million - twice as much as McCain's) make him a serious contender by force, but is remains to be seen if America is ready for a Mormon in the White House. Lack of support for Romney could benefit Rudy Guiliani, who collected $ 47 million in campaign funds, but has not yet spent much of it. If his unorthodox strategy of completely ignoring certain states will eventually pay off - well, only time can tell.

In the Democratic Party the contest is clearly between Senators Clinton and Obama. After Iowa and New Hampshire they stand at a one-all draw, with Michigan to come next in a week's time.
I am still astonished how much Mrs. Clinton praised herself last night after winning in the New Hampshire Primary with 39%, while Obama received "only" 37%. What few people realised and not one commentator mentioned is the fact that this result is only a win by percentage. What really matters in the Primaries is the number of delegates a candidate takes from each state to the nomination convention. And on that count Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama drew in New Hampshire, each receiving the support of nine delegates (with the remaining four going to John Edwards).

On the long and winding road ahead anything is possible with two such strong and determined candidates, and this year promises at least to be one of the more colourful and interesting on the often quaint and dreary plains of US politics. However, I cannot see much hope for the future of America (and the world) unless Barack Obama becomes the 44th President of the USA.

The Emerald Islander