The Osterley Times

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

'It really is psychological torture'

As British MP's prepare today to vote on whether or not to allow police to detain terrorist suspects for 42 days without charge, the Guardian have today published an interview with a 23 year old student held for a mere six days as a terrorist suspect.

"A minute goes like an hour and an hour like a day inside a cell … You lose all concept of day or night. There are no emotions: you can't cry, you can't laugh…

"Six days felt like six years. I dread to think what 42 days would feel like: 28 days is harsh enough … the idea of 42 days is phenomenal."

He came to the attention of the authorities when he clicked on an al-Qaida document online while researching his dissertation, which focused on the difference between various military organisations. The document was an edited version of the al-Qaida training manual, downloaded from a US government website.

So he was looking at a document which originated from a US government website and even looking at this document was enough to lead to his arrest. Why? Because he is a Muslim:

"They were quizzed by police for five hours … they said to my personal tutor that if this had been a young, blond, Swedish PhD student, then this would never have happened. The investigating officers were making these statements when I was detention."

So, he read this document and then emailed it to a friend who had access to a printer. On May 14 he met this friend for a coffee. He tells what happened next.

"After the coffee I put my stuff down and walked into the gents. As soon as I walked in, there were three policemen behind me saying 'Don't move! Don't Move! Who are you?' And I was like, 'I'm a student. Who are you?'

"They said: 'Well, we are police officers looking for someone who matches your description.'''

Shortly afterwards, they arrested him under section 41 of the Terrorism Act for the alleged commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism; Hisham Yezza had been arrested 10 minutes beforehand.

When Rizwaan reached the police station, the second floor had been entirely sealed off. It was, he said, like some form of solitary confinement.

"The restricted access made me feel like a real criminal. It felt like I was in the seventies - the lights were off and there was one table; all the cells were empty. I thought, 'What the hell is going on here?'"

For the first 48 hours, he was told nothing, but was placed under 24-hour surveillance.

''They watched everything you did and wrote it down. I would read a book and they would write down what I was reading. They would follow me when I had a shower and stand right there. You couldn't take one step out of the cell without someone following you. They would stop and do random searches of the cell. It was so humiliating

"Day six was the hardest. Knowing your life depends on a decision that someone else takes ... when you have done something with the most clean-hearted intention. It really is psychological torture.''

While he was under arrest his home, his car and his computer were all searched; the police made sure he was aware of this to increase the pressure upon him. And then, without warning he was released.

On the sixth day, without realising his freedom was imminent, he was told by a female police officer that the document he had looked at was deemed illegitimate for research purposes by the university, and if he ever looked at it again he could face further detention. He believed he was about to be charged.

He said: "It was breaking … absolutely terrifying, I was sitting there thinking, 'God, am I ever going to get out of here?'"

When told he was to be released without charge, he walked into the room to speak with his solicitor.

"I was shaking so violently I fell to the floor. I went back to the room and just cried and cried … Somehow, I had managed to get my emotions back.''

I can't imagine what it must be like to think that one might be detained for years when one has committed no crime. And yet that must be what this young man thought. After all, if they have arrested you and detained you when you have done nothing wrong, why wouldn't you think that they could take this injustice to the next level and actually jail you for having done nothing wrong?

Today Gordon Brown is attempting to raise the number of days that suspects can be held without charge to 42. There are rumoured to be almost 40 Labour MP's lined up to vote against him. If 36 vote against him, this will be enough to make his bill fail to pass in the Commons.

I am always pessimistic enough to believe that MP's will wilt at the final moment, but I really hope that the 40 hold their nerve.

Brown has not given one good reason as to why MP's should give police this draconian increase in their powers, and - lacking a good reason - this bill should be rejected.

Click title for full article.

Bush voices regret for macho rhetoric in run-up to Iraq war

The moron has come to Europe for his final visit. And he's trying so very hard to convince us that we have all got him wrong and that he was "a man of peace" all along.

George Bush has expressed regret that his rhetoric in the run-up to the war in Iraq may have created the impression that he was a warmonger.

"I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric," Bush told the Times as he flew across the Atlantic on Air Force One.

The phrases he used to win support for the war such as "bring 'em on" and "dead or alive" he said, "indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace."

But that impression, he insisted, was far from the truth.

"One of the untold stories of Iraq is that we explored the diplomacy a lot," he said. "We all wanted to solve this 'disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences' in a diplomatic fashion. After all, I went to the United Nations security council."

I love the way that Bush holds up the fact that he even deigned to go to the Security Council as proof that he entertained the notion of a diplomatic solution to the Iraq dilemma.

Firstly, Blair had to bend his arm to get him to the UN as Dick Cheney was insisting that the UN was defunct and that the US did not need " a permission slip" to go to war with anyone. Secondly, what Bush actually asked of the UN was that it declare war on Saddam or he was going to do it without them.

So this great diplomatic rush to the UN was actually nothing of the sort. Bush went to the UN to ask for permission to invade, and when he didn't get it, he decided to invade anyway. Those are simply the facts. Bush now seeks Brownie points for even consulting the UN in the first place, despite the fact that he approached it only for permission to invade.

The consequences of his actions, regarding how America is viewed around the world, are indisputable; with every opinion poll pointing to a dramatic surge of disapproval for the US's actions.

Bush, however, disputes even this fact.

Bush, who met the German chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday on a tour that will take in Rome, Paris and London, also disputed the notion that the war had harmed the image of the US abroad.

"I don't buy into that theory," he said. "America is a force for good. America is a force for liberty. America is a force to fight disease. We've got the largest HIV/Aids initiative in the history of the world. We've got a malaria initiative that's saving babies."

What does one say about a President who won't accept that the Iraq war has damaged the image of his nation across the globe? He can, rightly, raise his Aids initiative and his malaria campaign as signs of the positive things his regime has done, but this is far outweighed by the hundreds of thousands of people killed and the millions displaced by a war which was fought for a lie.

It is only because of the horrendous timidity of the Democratic Party that Bush and Cheney have not been impeached, as they are far more deserving of it than even Nixon ever was.

Nixon covered up a petty crime, Bush and Cheney misled their nation into war, causing misery for millions of people.

So he is wasting his time trying to convince Europe that we have misunderstood him and that he was a "man of peace" all along. He's a war criminal as far as I am concerned, and my greatest regret is that the fact he is an American president will prevent from ever having to account for what he did at the Hague.

For in any world where international law truly held sway, that is where he would belong.

Click title for full article.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Why some Hillary supporters can't forgive Obama.

Don't get me wrong. There are many Hillary supporters who have now come round and taken Hillary's advice that they, as Democrats, should do the right thing and support Barack Obama. Even Taylor Marsh has now said she will fight for a Democratic victory.

However, every so often I come across a quote from a bitter Clinton supporter that highlights the sense of entitlement that underscored Hillary's entire campaign and is the source of much of her supporters continual rage.

I read this on No Quarter:

I will never forgive Obama for taking Hillary’s turn, her “time!” This great woman has worked her whole life, for 40 years, as a champion of all people, to improve lives, to defend the rights of all of us. She asked this country if we would honor her request to continue to work for us as our President. And 18 MILLION of us said, YES!
If Obama would have waited, our country would have been assured Democratic Presidents for at least 16 years! He could have learned from Hillary how to put the lives of the citizens of our country first rather than follow his ego-centered desire for power.

Where does one even begin to deal with a mindset as skewered as that? Hillary asks that the nation "honours her request" to serve as president, whilst Obama follows "his ego-centred desire for power" which robs Hillary of "her turn" - "her time".

Everything which we ever argued about the baffling sense of entitlement which permeated - and eventually poisoned - the entire Clinton campaign is perfectly illustrated in those few sentences.

It was "her time" and Obama has selfishly spoiled the party. That's democracy according to some of Hillary's more bitter supporters.

Unbelievable.

Click title to read the entire thing.

Obama talks economics.

This is why Obama will win in November, by exposing the utter bankruptcy of Republican economic policies. As he points out here, Bush has simply spent the last eight years promoting what amounts to Reagan "trickle down" economics, which demands that more money should be given to the richest members of American society in the hope that some trickles down to the poorest.

As Obama points out, McCain's economic plans are nothing less than a "full throated endorsement of George Bush's policies".

He also calls Bush's administration "the most fiscally irresponsible" in history. And McCain is running - for reasons only he understands - on Bush's economic record. It's simply suicidal.

As Obama shows here, he will imply take this guy apart.

Here are some of his best lines:

Obama mocked his rival presidential contender for confessing to limited knowledge about the economy, and for reversing his initial opposition to multi-billion-dollar tax cuts rammed through by Bush. [...]
"[McCain] calls himself a fiscal conservative and on the campaign trail he's a passionate critic of government spending," Obama said in Raleigh at the launch of a two-week campaign swing devoted to the economy.
"And yet he has no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and a permanent occupation of Iraq -- policies that have left our children with a mountain of debt," he said.
Obama said that despite mounting home foreclosures nationwide, Bush had warned against political interference in the property market.
"Now, Senator McCain wants to turn Bush's policy of 'too little, too late' into a policy of 'even less, even later'," he said.

Only on Fox News....

....would this be referred to as a "terrorist fist jab".

GOP Insiders Worry About McCain's Chances

McCain has promised that this election will not be a negative one.

However, he's already running the ad to the left, portraying Obama as a friend of America's enemies, and other GOP operatives are calling for a negative campaign as the only hope the Republicans have of avoiding Obama destroying McCain come November.

"I think we've got a world of problems," said one Republican strategist with extensive experience in presidential campaigns. He said this came home to him with a thud when he watched Obama and McCain give speeches last Tuesday, with the Democrat speaking before "20,000 screaming fans, while John McCain looked every bit of his 72 years" in a speech televised from New Orleans. This Republican cited the liberal blogger Atrios' description of McCain's speech with a green backdrop that made McCain "look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad."

For McCain to stand a chance of winning, the operative contended, the campaign, the Republican National Committee, or an independent group will have to finance sustained negative ads developing a broad assault on Obama's credibility as a national leader at a time of terrorist threat. McCain, however, has gone out of his way to aggressively discourage such activity, the operative pointed out, which, he argued, may kill McCain's chances.

Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution points out McCain's problems:

"McCain continues to embrace Bush policies on the most important issues, relying on a reputation for independence and moderation that could be lost in the heat of battle with Obama and the Democrats.... At the end of this long interlude, the only rationale for his election that has emerged is that Obama cannot be trusted to lead the country at a time of great danger because he is too inexperienced, naïve, liberal, elitist, and out of touch with American values. 'Elect me because the other guy is worse.' Not much of an argument in the face of gale-force winds blowing against the Republican Party."

So this advert, which implies Obama is a friend of America's enemies, might just be the first in a long line of negative ads from McCain.

As Tom Mann has pointed out, McCain has given very few reasons as to why someone should positively want to elect him as president, so we can expect a deluge of reasons as to why people should not elect Obama.

And, as someone who has flip flopped on almost every issue one can think of, it should come as no surprise to anyone when McCain flip flops on negative campaigning and starts outright negative attacks on Obama.

This latest ad is simply the first in what I feel sure will be a long line of such attacks.

The difference between the two candidates couldn't be more stark as both speeches on the night Obama finally secured the Democratic nomination made abundantly clear. Obama inspires and electrifies crowds of over 20,000 people, while McCain speaks at what could be mistaken for a meeting at the local building society.

If it is McCain's plan to have "a campaign that is more akin to a discussion among friends than a bitter clash of ideological rivals" then he will lose. He simply lacks the charisma to take Obama on head to head.

So let's watch how long it takes him to flip flop on negative campaigning.

Click title for full article.

John McCain vs. John McCain

McCain has had to flip flop to such an incredible degree in order to please the far right wing base that he has simply become an open goal for satirists.

Here, he doesn't even recognise his own words when they are read out to him.

He contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

He's even voted to allow the US to torture people, having been a victim of torture himself.

After parading around as the righteous opponent of torture, McCain nonetheless endorsed and voted for the MCA, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage. That law pretends to compel compliance with the Conventions, while simultaneously vesting the President with the power to violate them -- precisely the power that the President is invoking here to proclaim that we have the right to use these methods.

Monday, June 09, 2008

McCain thinks Putin is the President of Germany

McCain is a foreign policy "expert" as the press keep telling us. That's why any mistake he makes between Shia, Sunni and al Qaeda can be dismissed as a slip of the tongue. He's an "expert", so he doesn't make "mistakes".

So, explain this:

That's quite a slip of the tongue...

Fox Ambushes Bill Moyers

Bill O'Reilly producer, Porter Barry, ambushes PBS Bill Moyers to ask him to appear on O'Reilly's show.

It doesn't go well for him. Moyers takes his argument to pieces. Other journalists then round on Barry and let him know what it's like to have journalists carry out an "attack piece" on you.

It's a further example of how little what O'Reilly does has to do with journalism.

Mugabe's brutality to force election victory is revealed

The Zimbabwean army and police have set up torture camps where the seek to "re-educate" voters into voting for Mugabe, according to a new report from Human Rights Watch.

A 40-page report issued today by Human Rights Watch contains comprehensive and graphic witness accounts of the reign of terror being conducted behind a wall of secrecy in sealed-off areas to punish the Zimbabwean electorate for voting for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. The result of the 29 March election forced President Mugabe into a humiliating run-off, scheduled for 27 June, against his challenger Morgan Tsvangirai for the first time in his 28-year rule.

The authors, who interviewed more than 70 witnesses to the violence, identify senior military officials and police officers who were "inciting and organising" the fightback, confirming the army's role in orchestrating the brutality after a senior Western diplomat said that the country was now being run by a military "junta" grouped in the Joint Operations Command. The JOC is run by the defence forces chief but also includes the heads of the police, prisons service and intelligence. Many of the camps at which MDC supporters, or perceived opposition supporters, are beaten and mutilated are located on army bases.

The harassment campaign is officially known as "Operation Makavhoterapapi", meaning "where did you put your vote," according to locals. The army is providing known "war veterans" and Zanu-PF supporters with guns, transportation and the bases where the abuses are carried out.

Mugabe is the strangest little tinpot dictator of them all. He could simply declare martial law and announce that he is the leader, but he actually wants the people of Zimbabwe to vote for him, even if he has to beat them into doing so.

I was listening yesterday to Radio 4's Any Answers when a caller asked why Mugabe wasn't arrested when he attended the UN meeting in Rome recently for crimes against humanity and I did find myself nodding along as the caller made his case.

And the fact that he was then allowed to make a speech, condemning sanctions as being part of a British conspiracy to ruin Zimbabwe's economy, bordered on the surreal. With inflation in Zimbabwe running at 160,000% Mugabe needs no help in ruining his economy.

And while Mugabe was conducting this farce in Rome, things were heating up back home:

The report says that 36 people have been killed and 2,000 have been beaten or tortured since the first round of the presidential election on 29 March, in which according to the official result Mr Tsvangirai obtained 47.9 per cent against Mr Mugabe's 43.2 per cent.

In a chilling threat to villagers in Karoi, Mashonaland West province, soldiers handed out bullets to villagers and told them: "If you vote for MDC in the presidential run-off election, you have seen the bullets, we have enough for each one of you, so beware."

Ringleaders are said to include Police Assistant Commissioner Martin Kwainona of the presidential guard, who has been accused of inciting, leading and perpetrating violence in Mount Darwin, Mashonaland Central. The Mashonaland provinces are strongholds of the ruling Zanu-PF party where the MDC made significant inroads in the election.

Mr Kwainona threatened people at a meeting at a school in Mount Darwin on 18 April, saying: "All MDC members in Mount Darwin must be made to disappear, we are busy training our youths to do just that".

Another alleged culprit is an air force commander, Bramwell Kachairo. "He is the one leading the violence," said one witness in Mashonaland East. Another said: "I have seen him beating people in the area. He is very dangerous."

Human Rights Watch says the abuse is the worst it has seen in an election campaign in Zimbabwe, a country where state-orchestrated political violence has a grim record of impunity.

According to Human Rights Watch, more than 3,000 people have fled their homes as a result of the violence. Since the official results were released on 2 June, the Mugabe regime has launched an all-out attack on opposition supporters, confiscating ID cards, in a kind of electoral cleansing campaign. More than 100 electoral officials have been arrested and MDC activists have been killed.

And all the while, Mbeki and other African leaders continue to treat Mugabe as a respected politician. This is the same Mbeki who insisted before the recent election that Mugabe would stand down if defeated. And, even when Mugabe refused to do so, Mbeki continues to defend him. Nor does Mbeki feel that United Nations monitors will be needed to observe the run-off of Zimbabwe's presidential poll.

The foreign observers handpicked by the Mugabe regime to monitor the first round, he said, were perfectly capable of performing this function a second time around. He implied that anyone who thought differently was a racist.

It is now racist to say that Mugabe can't be trusted to run a fair election. Racism must be much more prevalent than any of us previously believed then.

Click title for full article.

Economy at forefront as Obama takes fight to McCain heartland

No longer having to concern himself with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is heading into McCain's heartland to argue that he is better suited to sort out America's ailing economy than his Republican rival.

The focus on the economy signals that he has identified American voters' fears over job losses and rising prices as the key potential battleground in November. A spate of bad news at the weekend underlined what the Obama campaign will portray as Republican mishandling of economic affairs. The unemployment rate, now at 5.5%, saw its largest monthly rise in more than 20 years, while oil rose to a record $139 a barrel and the dollar fell against other major currencies.

For reasons I will never understand, McCain has decided to fight defending the economic record of Bush's government, and has gone as far as to say he thinks the economy has done well under George Bush. Why he would want to do this is simply baffling.

I have always thought that, if it came down to Obama and McCain, that Obama would trounce him come November. I am pleased to see that Obama is already prepared to mount an aggressive foray into the Republican heartland, and is obviously going for a landslide.

Senior Obama aides made clear that they intend to campaign vigorously in all 50 states, not just on the handful of hotly contested races that determined the outcome of the last two presidential elections. Obama has an in-built advantage over McCain, in that the gruelling primary contest with Clinton has bequeathed him a nationwide network of fundraisers and campaign organisers on the ground.

"We're going to be playing a lot more offence than they are," Obama's campaign manger, David Plouffe, told the Washington Post. Moves to bring experienced campaigners into the team have already begun. The New York Times reported that Patti Solis Doyle, who ran Clinton's campaign until she was ousted in February, will be the first of many Clinton aides to be taken on board.

Obama will need to secure all the 19 states and Washington DC carried by John Kerry in 2004 and then win at least an extra 18 electoral college votes to take him to the magical 270 needed to take the White House. Top of the list of targets is likely to be Ohio, which Kerry lost by only 119,000 votes and which commands 20 electoral college votes.

Much is being made of the fact that Obama lost Ohio by 10% to Hillary Clinton, but I still feel that the choice between McCain and Obama is very different than the choice between Clinton and Obama. And the fact that the Democratic turnout was so much higher throughout the primaries than the Republican one must bode well for any Democrat come November.

Some silly Hillary supporters have said that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama, but I imagine they are very much in the minority. And, as Hillary has recently called on all of her supporters to back Obama, one can only hope that the number who desert the party will be small.

And even those Hillary Democrats who don't want Obama seem positively enthusiastic when compared with the reaction of the Republican base to John McCain. The truth is that they have never trusted him, and don't see him as one of their own, which is why he is flip flopping like a loon trying to convince them that he is just as irrational as they are.

But he's not, and we all know it. The kind of lunacy that fuels the bile and hatred which makes Michelle Malkin tick can't be faked. And that's McCain's problem.

He's not only being forced to pretend that he's an extreme right winger, but he's having to pretend that he supports things which we all know, in his heart of hearts, that he doesn't.

That insincerity, that lie, should be enough to cost him the election.

And, from the way Obama is making headway into McCain territory, I suspect Obama knows this too.

Click title for full article.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

McCain: I'm just like Obama!

Who would have believed that the first candidate to put out an anti-war advert would be John McCain? I mean, who could have foreseen hypocrisy on that scale?

The man who has sung, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and vowed to remain in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary, now is anxious to let Americans know that he was a POW - 'cos he never overplays that card - and that he hates war.

This is the final proof that McCain is being shown the figures from the polling guys and that those figures are telling him that Americans don't want what he is selling. So John, shameless to the end, is now going to pretend that he's selling something else.

For instance, his website used to say this:

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shiite militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country.

But that's now been erased as John builds a brand new McCain for November. Now he not only tries to sound like Barack Obama but he's gone out and blatantly stolen Obama's "Change we can believe in" slogan and replaced it with "A leader we can believe in".

He's even revamped his site using the exact same colours that Obama's site employs.

How can anyone take this guy seriously?

He's against giving a date for leaving Iraq, then he gives one. He thinks Bush's tax cuts are immoral, then he approves of them. He condemns certain Christian preachers as "agents of intolerance" then he welcomes their endorsement. He didn't want Roe v. Wade overturned and now he does want it overturned. He was opposed to the United States torturing people, until he voted to allow torture.

It's already become obvious that McCain has had to take a huge lurch to the right in the hope of getting the votes of some of the US's most deranged voters, but someone's obviously told him that the policies he is promoting are also political poison so he's now putting out adverts which imply that he is the Democratic candidate in this election and he's the guy you should vote for if you disapprove of war.

The man, who voted with George Bush 95% of the time in the last year, wants the American public to know that he's just like Barack Obama.

I honestly think McCain is the most shameful political opportunist I have witnessed in my lifetime. In order to please the Michelle Malkin wing of his party, he has been prepared to abandon every principled position that he ever held, and certainly any position which could have earned him the reputation of "Maverick".

However, he now lacks the courage to even run on the positions that he signals to his own base - and implies that he is a person who hates war.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think John McCain is a bad person, I think he's representing a mindset which has been proven by the actions of the Bush regime to be immoral, wrong and counter productive.

The very fact that McCain now sells himself as some kind of Democrat-lite tells me that John McCain knows this as well as I do.

He's literally going to say and do anything to try and get elected. Expect the Obama "pound" between McCain and his wife any day now.

UPDATE:

Oh, McCain is like the gift that just keeps on giving. Now he approves of Bush's illegal wiretapping.

Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator’s views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power.

There is nothing, literally nothing, which this man says that you cannot expect to be withdrawn at any time. He believes in nothing other than being elected. And he will say anything to make that happen.

One Shining Moment: The Democratic Primary Race

Young Turks have made a video of the highlights of the battle to be the Democratic presidential nominee.

It's a reminder of just what the last fifteen months have been like.

Clinton shows winning way in defeat

In the end, she showed the grace that she had hidden throughout her campaign. In the end, she shined and proved what a formidable political tour de force she actually is. In the end, she gave her total commitment to the election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.

It was what The Guardian have called "an astonishing moment of political theatre, ripe with symbolism and the passing of a generational torch in Democratic politics". For we witnessed no less than that.

I've bemoaned many times the snide comments she has made about her Democratic rival, but - in conceding - her support for him could not be more forthcoming.

Clinton admonished any of her fans who were even thinking of letting their defeat turn them off voting for Obama: 'Please don't go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from looking forward. Life is too short, time is too precious and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been.'

She even went as far as to use Obama's own campaign phrase to emphasise the positivity of the American people in the face of adversity by declaring, "Yes we can!"

But Clinton betrayed little sense of inner turmoil at her new-found position as an also-ran. As soon as she took the stage, almost drowned out by cries of 'Hillary! Hillary!', she remarked she had not expected to find herself here. 'This is not exactly the party I planned, but I sure do love the company,' she joked.

But Clinton's 'company' is now crucial to Obama's success. She has generated huge support among working class white people and women, where Obama is weak. Her enthusiastic endorsement of him will surely persuade many not to jump ship to Republican candidate John McCain. Her words will particularly resonate with women. In all the amazement at Obama's success, it has often been forgotten how remarkable Clinton's achievement was in breaking down the 'glass ceiling' of US politics. In becoming the first woman to come within a whisper of being a Democratic presidential nominee, she shattered barriers on behalf of her sex, proving she is a giant of American politics in her own right, not just as a former First Lady.

Having started this campaign very happy to see her and Bill re-enter the White House, and having grown increasingly bitter as she threw the kitchen sink at her Democratic rival, I am happy to say that she left the stage with great grace, that her endorsement could not have been more fulsome, and that her supporters have been left in no doubt as to what their candidate wants them to do. She wants them to vote for Barack Obama.

We could ask for no more.

Cick title for full article.

Saturday, June 07, 2008

The Obama Pound

I noticed this at the time but never understood it's significance.

Obama told NBC's Brian Williams Wednesday night he is proud of that magical moment.

"It captures what I love about my wife, which is that there is a reverence about her and a sense that for all the hoopla that I'm her husband and sometimes we'll do silly things.

"She's proud of me and she gives me some credit once in a while, when I actually pull some things off."

The affectionate 11-second exchange before Obama claimed victory as the Democratic presidential nominee Tuesday emphasized Obama's youth and ability to transcend the stereotyped political gestures of campaigns past, experts said.

"I would imagine to a young voter, this was another sign that these people are one of us," said psychologist Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain: The Role Of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."

"People saw their willingness to display their affection in the way they really do - at home, or in private moments."

McCain's Lobbyist Friends

As Obama has now insisted that the DNC imitate his political campaign and refuse to take money from lobbyists, the Democrats are able to have a critical look at just how many lobbyists are part of McCain's team and the regimes and causes which they have represented.

From a recent DNC press release:

While Senator McCain talks about transparency and accountability on the campaign trail, back home in Washington he and the lobbyists in his inner circle refuse to apply those same standards to his own campaign,” said DNC Communications Director Karen Finney. “Senator Obama and the Democratic Party have promised to change the way business is done in Washington and are taking real steps to ensure that the American people’s priorities dominate the agenda in Washington. If Senator McCain is serious about his call to clean up Washington, he should join us. Otherwise, Senator McCain is once again showing why he is the wrong choice for America’s future.

Israeli threat to attack Iran over nuclear weapons.

Shaul Mofaz, one of Olmert's deputies, has said that Israel will attack Iran "if it continues to develop nuclear weapons" and he has hinted that any such attack would be co-ordinated with the US.

"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it," he told the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot. "The UN sanctions are ineffective."

This is the most explicit threat yet of a possible attack on Iran and it comes after a week of talks between Israel and the US on the subject of Iran which have been described as "intense". What horrifies me is the completely casual way in which international law is cast aside as an irrelevance and the UN is simply dismissed as "ineffective".

The UN came into being to prevent the world from ever again experiencing the scourge of world wars. It is imperfect, it is sometimes infuriating, but it is infinitely preferable to the alternative.

Neo-cons and Likud-like thinkers in Israel (and lets face it, they are one and the same) seem eager to cast aside international law, or at the very least act as if they are somehow not bound by it.

And, as long as someone like Bush remains in the White House, Israel will be allowed to act with impunity here.

What worries me, as the Bush presidency limps towards the end of it's dreadful time in office, is that these comments are co-ordinated with the White House. Unable to attack Iran themselves, Bush appears to have given permission for Israel to act as a proxy.

Leaving aside the fact that there is no proof whatsoever that Iran has any intention of building a nuclear bomb - and that Israel is known to possess such weapons whilst refusing to sign the NNPT - we really are dealing with stunning hypocrisy if Israel are now to be the country to ensure that the NNPT is upheld.

What next? Will the US bomb China to prevent the death penalty?

What's important here is that the Bush administration have given the Israelis permission to issue these threats. Unable to muster support in the US for such an attack, Bush is now giving others the nod that they are free to do so if they so wish.

As his time in office drags to a close, Bush may yet be at his most dangerous. The writing is on the wall for these neo-con monsters, they suspect that McCain is not going to win, and my worry is that this might make them feel they have little to lose by doing their worst now.

Click title for full article.

Mugabe turns the screw on opposition

Mugabe is turning the screws further in his battle to steal Zimbabwe's next election.

The Zimbabwean government yesterday banned the opposition presidential candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, from holding political rallies three weeks ahead of his run-off election against Robert Mugabe.

The police told Tsvangirai of the ban, ostensibly over concerns for his safety, when he was arrested for a second time this week while trying to campaign. But the move appears to reflect a growing concern in Mugabe's camp that its strategy of violence, intimidation and nationalist appeals will not be sufficient to ensure victory in the June 27 vote after Tsvangirai won the first round in March but fell just short of an outright majority.

He's not even trying to be subtle, he's simply bludgeoning his way to the presidency. It simply horrifies me that, in the twenty first century, he can get away with this while the rest of the world stands around impotently. I understand why Britain and other European nations are reluctant to play into his narrative that colonialism and British interference are behind all of Zimbabwe's problems, but I am simply horrified that Mbeki is so silent when South Africa could have a real effect on the events unfurling in Zimbabwe today. Mbeki may be angered by the responsibility which he now finds on his shoulders, and which he never requested, but it is a responsibility that comes with the office he ran for.

He is in a unique position to have influence over events in Zimbabwe and it a stain on his time in office that he has always backed Mugabe rather than the wishes of the Zimbabwean electorate.

And he has done so, not for any high moral standpoint, he has done so because it is easier to do so.

The ban on opposition rallies came a day after the government barred international aid agencies, including the United Nations, from working in Zimbabwe for the duration of the election campaign.

The US described the restrictions as further evidence that Mugabe wants to control food distribution to use it as a political weapon to blackmail Zimbabweans into voting for him.

But aid workers said they believed it is also an attempt to prevent them from witnessing the escalating state-sponsored attacks on the opposition Movement for Democratic Change and its supporters in rural areas. The MDC says more than 60 of its activists and supporters have been murdered by pro-Mugabe militias or security forces and thousands more have been severely beaten.

So he's banning any international organisations from working in Zimbabwe during the elections, giving him free reign to do as he pleases.

Zanu-PF was clearly shocked after the first round of elections at the inroads Tsvangirai made into the ruling party's former strongholds, particularly in Mashonaland. The MDC leader had campaigned heavily in rural areas for the first time because of the relative lack of violence compared to other recent elections.

Mugabe has evidently fallen back on violence once again but in banning foreign aid agencies, and detaining British and American diplomats on Thursday, the authorities evidently do not want outside witnesses. On Thursday, foreign aid organisations were ordered to suspend field work indefinitely. Mugabe this week accused NGOs of acting as a front for western support for the MDC.

The UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said the ban would severely hamper assistance to millions of people. "These restrictions are also coming at a time when food security in Zimbabwe is deteriorating, leaving an increasing number of people vulnerable," Elisabeth Byrs, a spokeswoman for OCHA, told the Associated Press.

Two British aid agencies affected by the ban, Save the Children and Christian Aid, condemned it. Christian Aid described the restrictions as certain to have an "extremely detrimental effect" and "frightening".

In a country where people already suffer from food shortages brought about by Mugabe's own stupid plan to have unqualified people take over white farms, and with inflation running at what is estimated to be 165,000%, it is hard to think of a more incompetent leader on Earth than Robert Mugabe. And yet we will now stand aside and watch as he bans opposition rallies and uses food as a weapon to bludgeon the Zimbabwean people into voting for more of his disastrous policies.

The United States have, at last, started attempts to sideline Mbeki but it may all be too little, too late.

It's enough to make one despair.

Click title for full article.

Friday, June 06, 2008

Obama In Heated Conversation With Lieberman

The Huffington Post are reporting that Barack Obama took Joe Lieberman aside for "a heated conversation" on the floor of the Senate:

Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.
While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.

Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.

Obama loyalists were quick to express their frustration with Lieberman's decision and warned that if he continues to take a lead role in attacking Obama it could complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus.

He was perhaps angered at Lieberman's latest salvo insinuating that Obama is not pro-Israel enough and that Obama is displaying a blame-America-first mentality by stating that the Iraq war strengthened Iran.

"I appreciate many of the very good intentions to Israel and Israeli security that Senator Obama expressed today," said Lieberman. "I thought in the speech there was a disconnect between things Senator Obama said today, particularly in regard to Iran, and things he has said or done earlier either in the campaign or the Senate."

The crux of Lieberman's argument, however, was that Obama was putting the blame for Iran's rise in the Middle East on America's doorstep, pushing the argument that the Iraq war had strengthened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's standing in the region and left Israel less secure.

"If Israel is in danger today it is not because of US foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way," he said. "It is not because of what we have done in Iraq. It is because Iran is a fanatical, terrorist, expansionist state and has a leader and a leadership that constantly threatens to extinguish the state of Israel."

Firstly, Iran has never invaded any other nation, so quite where Lieberman gets the charge that Iran is "expansionist" is simply beyond me.

Secondly, whilst it is undeniable that the US has "been strongly supportive of Israel in every way", it does not naturally follow that any action the US takes automatically helps Israel, even if that was the original intention.

And from the days of the Iran-Iraq war Kissinger made it quite clear that the US wished that both sides could lose because they, in effect, cancelled each other out. By removing Saddam from power, and bringing chaos to Iraq, Bush strengthened Iran's power in the region. That was an inevitable consequence of the invasion that any 14 year old history student could have foreseen, so it's ludicrous for Lieberman to be implying that it is a blame-America-first mentality to state what is simply an obvious truth.

The US removed Iran's worst enemy from the stage, the man who had invaded their country.

What mindset does Lieberman have if he believes that this did not strengthen Iran?

Plonker...

Click title for full article.

Iraq Intelligence Report Phase 2: Bush Administration Lied About Pre-Invasion Intelligence.

Hard to believe I know but intelligence reports just released have actual proof that Bush and Co. lied to lead the US into it's first ever unprovoked war.

And it should be noted that this report also undermines claims made by McCain regarding the Iraq war.

And, as Clarke rightly points out, these people cannot simply be allowed back into polite society after lying to enable a war that has caused the death of over 4,000 American soldiers. There has to be some form of censure unless they admit error and ask for forgiveness.

Johann Hari: If you really want to understand what this race is about, look at the two candidates' fathers.

Johann Hari has a really interesting article in today's Independent which insists that, if you want to know who Obama and McCain really are, then you must look at their relationship with their fathers. Both men grew up with absent fathers and both men wrote books about the subject but Hari, playing amateur psychologist, finds very interesting differences in the conclusions that both men came to.

At first glance, these slabs of non-fiction – Dreams From My Father by Obama, and Faith of My Fathers by McCain – are strikingly similar. They both tell the autobiographical story of an insecure young man who flails around for an identity, and finds it by chasing the ghost of his absent father to a dangerous place far beyond the United States. Yet Obama ended up writing a complex story of colonised people – while McCain wrote a simple celebration of the coloniser.

Obama senior was a Kenyan goatherd who watched his own father brutalised by British occupiers for the crime of being "uppity." When an aide worker recognised that Obama's father was bright, he arranged for his transfer to study in the United States. There Barack Obama Snr met Obama's mother, Ann Durham, a poor white girl from Kansas, married her, had a baby, and deserted both when the young Obama was two years old, abandoning them in Hawaii.

This had a profound effect on the young Obama:

As he grew up, Obama writes: "I was engaged in a fitful interior struggle. I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant." He tried turning himself into "a caricature of black male adolescence." He tried living as a community organiser in Chicago. And – when his father died in a car crash – he tried to find it in Africa, by chasing his memory. But he discovered a father who had failed. Obama Snr. had left children strewn across the world. He had been blacklisted from the Kenyan government for speaking out against corruption; he sank into the bottle, and isolation.

It was in the slums of Kenya that Barack the son realised he was an American, tied inexorably to his country's freedoms and failings. There was no contradiction. He thought of his grandmothers – one watching her home burned down by colonisers, another hurrying at 6.30am to catch the bus to work in a bank in Hawaii – and understood: "They all asked the same thing of me, these grandmothers of mine."

Hari points out that the lessons Obama learns are what it is like to be a victim of colonialism, whereas the lesson McCain learns from his father is that colonialism is the only way to keep the natives in their place.

McCain also had an absent father, but his family were military royalty, and his father's absence was caused by serving his country at sea. McCain was taught to view his father's absence very differently from Obama. He writes, "you are taught to consider their absence not as a deprivation, but as an honour."

McCain also learns to have pride in the fact that he is descended from such noble stock. He writes:

"For two centuries, the men of my family were raised to go to war as officers in America's armed services." He writes of his "pride" in being descended from "the distinguished conqueror" Charlemagne.

The difference in the lessons the two men learned could not be more stark:

While Obama's father and grandfather were being whipped and detained without charge, McCain was being taught to revere the people doing it. He writes of his father: "He was a great admirer of the British Empire, crediting it with keeping 'a relative measure of peace' in the world for 'someplace in the neighbourhood of two hundred years.'" This is a view his son holds to this day – as we can see from the fact that his foreign policy adviser, Niall Ferguson, calls for the US to pick up where Britain left off. He describes his own childhood in the wreckage of Obama's Snr's Kenya as "a magical time" where "scarcely anything had changed since the days of White Mischief".

When McCain returned from his capture in Vietnam his father thought the lesson to be learned from the Vietnam war was that the US had not fought hard enough, that is should have bombed and killed even more people than it did. It appears to be a mindset that the son shares as he is still angered by what he sees as the "utterly illogical restraints on the use of American power". I suppose this is the same "utterly illogical restraint on the use of American power" which insists that it would not be wise to attack Iran as McCain seems so keen on doing.

So it is obvious that both these men learned very different things from the experience of having an absent father. Obama learned the horror of being occupied and colonised by another people, whilst McCain learnt that colonialism was sometimes the only way to ensure 'a relative measure of peace'.

Perhaps this is why both men look at Iraq and see very different things. And it's why Obama wants to withdraw and McCain would be happy to stay there for a hundred years.

Obama sees an occupied people resisting their occupiers, McCain sees a need to impose American will on recalcitrant natives.

I know which of those two mindsets I would like to see in the White House.

Click title for Hari's article. It's well worth reading.

Obama puts own stamp on party.

Barack Obama has hit the ground running as the Democratic presidential nominee by having a secret meeting with Hillary Clinton and also immediately insisting to the central party that they will, in future, abide by the same rules on accepting money from lobbyists as his own campaign.

The meeting with Hillary appears to have been designed to get her to back off from her public stance that she wants to be his Vice President, certainly that's the impression one gets from the noises now emanating from Hillary.

On Tuesday Mrs Clinton said she would be "open" to the idea of being Mr Obama's running mate.
But a statement from the Clinton campaign on Thursday said: "While Senator Clinton has made clear throughout this process that she will do whatever she can to elect a Democrat to the White House, she is not seeking the vice presidency."
It adds: "The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

So the message has certainly been received by Hillary, this is now Barack Obama's party and not the party of the Clinton's. And he also laid down the rulebook for the party itself.

Under the new rules, the Democratic National Committee, which raises central funds for the presidential campaign, will take on board Obama's existing ban on donations from lobbyists who do business with the government as well as from political action committees - private interest groups set up to raise money in order to influence the outcome of elections.

Apart from highlighting Obama's determination to be a decisive party leader, the imposition of tighter funding rules allows him a clear line of attack against his opponent, John McCain. The Republican has been beset with troubles over lobbying, despite his reputation as a scourge of special interests having initiated legislation in 2002 to clean up political campaign finance. McCain's advisers are prominent lobbyists. The senator for Arizona was forced to dismiss several after his campaign was criticised for employing two aides from a firm that has worked on behalf of the Burmese regime.

The other in-built benefit of moving quickly on campaign funding is that it will cost Obama very little. He has already established a phenomenal money-raising machine, largely through small donations achieved through the internet.

The Obama campaign has raised $272m (£136m).

Obama has already established the best campaign funding machine in the history of political fundraising, by asking what is being reported as over 1.25 million people to donate small amounts. A staggering 94% of the money Obama raised was from donations of less than $200.

This is what gave him the financial clout to take on the Clinton campaign machine, tied - as it was - to traditional means of raising finance; which usually meant going to large donors with one's cap in one's hand.

Obama has changed the process for ever and I feel sure that all future campaigns will study what he has done and emulate it.

He has cut the lobbyists out of the picture - and removed their influence from his administration - by putting the electorate in charge of financing his campaign, and by insisting, that to be an Obama supporter, it is not enough to have his bumper sticker on your car, you must actually do something; donate money, make phone calls, volunteer. It is this insistence that people get involved which has energised the young voters who have flocked to his campaign, the feeling that they are not passive witnesses to history but that they are actually it's players. They have an active role in bringing about change.

Obama already has an astonishing 750,000 people willing to volunteer for him between now an election day. That's an astonishing change in the democratic process all by itself.

This is why people like McCain and Clinton were so wrong when they dismissed this guy as someone trading in "just words". It showed their utter naivety at what Obama was actually doing. He's not kidding when he talks of a new kind of politics, and nothing is more indicative of this than his means of raising campaign funds and his way of actively involving the electorate in the process. Nay, his demanding that they actively become involved. One of his campaign tricks has been to ask the audience to hold up their mobile phones and to punch in a five digit text number sending their contact details to the Obama campaign team. Then, with people already hyped up from having seen him in person, his campaign team quickly contact these people and ask them to actively become involved.

This is all part of Obama's way of energising and changing the political landscape.

McCain doesn't know what he's up against. He is facing a tornado which I feel certain is going to blow him away.

Click title for full article.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Obama Versus McCain.

I've already posted Fox's distressed reaction to the difference between the speeches given on the same night by the two candidates for the forthcoming election. But when you look at them side by side like this, which is how McCain planned for them to be viewed, this contest should be a non-starter. Obama should win by a landslide. He inspires, he reminds you of what is possible:

You can't help but think that, although McCain has a wonderful past, he offers absolutely nothing for the future. And that's what's elections should be about. Not what you've done, but what you are going to do:

As Bush famously said, "Bring it on!"

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

President Bush is attempting to negotiate an accord with Iraq which will guarantee a permanent US presence in Iraq, where the US would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law.

President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

Bush and his right wing nutters have always said that victory in Iraq would be signaled by an American withdrawal leaving behind a secure democratic Iraq. Bush can't simply declare victory whilst leaving thousands of troops permanently in the country. And to even attempt to do so just before a presidential election in which both Hillary and Barack have made it known that they would withdraw troops is shocking political maneuvering on Bush's part.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Everything that has been wrong with the Bush presidency is inherent in this proposed agreement, which would force a government - reliant on the US for it's very survival- to push forward an agenda which they do not believe in.

It also undermines how dishonest the Bush administration have been regarding their long term plans for Iraq and the region. And the man pushing this outrageous deal from behind a curtain is, of course, Dick Cheney.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

This immoral deal is simply further proof of the insanity which lies behind the neo-con world view. For all their talk of promoting democracy what they really promote is American dominance simply because the US has the military power to dominate.

This deal would be rejected, I think, by the majority of Americans never mind the number of Iraqis who would object to it. But I suppose Dick Cheney would simply mutter, "So?" when told of everyone's objections.

The current neo-con loons occupying the White House really do seem to believe that they have been elected as dictators until the next election and that the will of the people is utterly irrelevant outside of an election cycle.

This is a timely reminder of why McCain cannot be allowed to become President and carry out a third Bush term.

For years the neo-cons have bemoaned everyone else's lack of vision to use American military power the way they thought it should be employed. For the last seven years they have had their way and the results have been disastrous. Hundreds of thousands of people have needlessly lost their lives, American influence in the world is at an all time low, and we now find that they want to endlessly occupy a Middle Eastern country.

They are the most extreme people who have ever occupied the White House and America should punish the Republican party for ever allowing such people to lead them. And make no mistake, John McCain offers no break from this insane way of thinking, he simply offers more of the same.

The world wants America back. And only Obama can give us that.

And, when we hear insane proposals like this one, yesterday wouldn't be soon enough for it to happen.

Click title for full article.

Who he?

I have no respect at all for President Bush and regard his entire presidency as a catastrophic failure.

However, every so often I read something which brings me up short and has me thinking, "Even Bush couldn't be that dumb and out of touch, could he?"

This is the perfect example:

”Jan Schakowsky told me about a recent visit she had made to the White House with a congressional delegation. On her way out, she said, President Bush noticed her ‘Obama’ button. ‘He jumped back, almost literally,’ she said. ‘And I knew what he was thinking. So I reassured him it was Obama, with a 'b.' And I explained who he was. The President said, 'Well, I don't know him.' So I just said, 'You will.' " (New Yorker, 5/31/2004)

Well, he sure knows him now. As the man who is going to undo all the damage which Bush has inflicted not just on the US, but on the entire planet.

Click title for source.

McCain Speech Leaves Fox Speechless

The challenge McCain faces from Obama is best expressed here by many Republican supporters. McCain's oratory skills are simply shocking. He delivered this speech in front of hundreds of supporters whilst Obama whipped up a crowd of twenty thousand. And even Fox News appear to agree that McCain gave "one of the worst speeches" heard in years.

Elections are not speech making contests, but Presidents should be leaders and one of the ways to lead is to inspire people with your vision. McCain, in this case, fell woefully short, whilst Obama's speech on the same night was inspiring, graceful and memorable.

In an election that is all about "change", McCain has simply no chance.