If you want to know the latest political advice from Palestinian group blog KABOBfest on whether to vote for Democratic candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, the answer is clear: Don't vote.

Suggesting Arab Americans not vote on November 4, QuiQui writes:

How about we hear not one. single. word. of complaint for the next four years from those who are about to vote the trash in next Tuesday to replace the garbage they voted in eight years ago?

Arab Americans were asked vote for George W. Bush in 2000 in swing states like Florida by the same people now asking that Arab Americans living in swing states vote for Obama.

How about the Arab American leadership like those from the Arab American Institute stop trying to lead.

How about Arab Americans sit this one out. How about Arab Americans not vote. That way, this time, you can have every right to complain when Obama or McCain screw everything up.

How about, instead of the call to play ping-pong between Republicans and Democrats every four years, we hear calls to spend our energies on imagining and living under genuine democracy. Ways that do not rely on “leaders” to partake in the impossibility of “representation.” Ways that encourage us to do politics every day — not once every two or four years.

Electoral politics is not politics, yet we allow it to the be beginning and the end of our democracy oligarchy. Asking that everyone participate in this system is not going to change it any. On the contrary, it only legitimizes it and renders it our only thinkable solution.

Canadian blogger Darryl Wolk disagrees, though questions whether people are tired of Obamamania.

Darryl is glad the U.S. election nears to a close:

In 5 days, I will no longer be writing about the US election after blogging about it since 2006. It has been a historic primary. An African-American candidate for President. Two prominent women Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton taking center stage and breaking down barriers for women. A slate of political all stars running in both primaries that included Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Joe Biden. We have seen endorsements, debates, speeches, a revolutionary internet campaign and a presidential election that really started following the last mid-term race in 2006. Millions have been raised and spent. The campaigning is basically over. The focus now for both sides must be getting out the vote on the ground, particularily in the swing states. This campaign has been exciting and turnout is going to be extremely high.

How do Wolk and Canadians feel about McCain and Obama?

Read on:

John McCain says he is running on change and that he is different from Bush. His policies are the same and his campaign has been nothing but mudslinging and negative attacks. Obama wants to build America up while McCain is focused on tearing Obama down. His low road attacks are not based in truth and his polling numbers show that Americans have rejected the recycled “liberal”, “tax and spend”, “socialist” and “weak on national security” labels that have been used in past campaigns. I have not seen one person comment about how George W. Bush has done a good job or has been a great president. People on the right and left are united in calling Bush one of the worst presidents in United States history. Unfortunately, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. It is time for real change.

Barack Obama has been tested during these past two years. He has made an immediate impact in the senate dealing with arms control and ethics. He has experience in the state legislature. His campaign has been about unity and moving America forward. He offers the change that Americans and the world are demanding. His platform (or the video last night) shows that many of his policies are no different than what Conservatives are offering in Canada. Unlike McCain, we know exactly where we stands. He is running on the economy, an area McCain admits he is not up to speed on.

As for the future, will Sarah Palin run for the presidency in 2012? Thomas Ash of British-American project openUSA ponders that intellectual question over several paragraphs, with the following conclusion and an assumption about next week's victory:

Assuming McCain loses, she is bound to attract some of the blame. Her popularity in Alaska shows signs of decreasing from its (very high) initial base, and events there may yet damage her. She will face formidable opponents, possibly including a better-funded Mike Huckabee and a re-energised Mitt Romney (whose former staffers have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, according to the American Spectator). And, awkward though it is to say so, her looks - which constitute a significant part of her appeal for some people - will begin to fade as she goes from 44 to 48.

Should Arab Americans stay away from the polls?

Will Obama occupy the White House?

And will maverick and hot mama Palin lose her looks by 2012?

Thoughts?

Oh for the old days of entertainment, which is what American political conventions have become.

It is not about issues any longer. It’s about how great you sound delivering your speech. How you “spin” the issues to draw on the emotional strings of the American people, who, despite all the promises made over the years by candidates, face the same old challenges.

Neither party nor candidate this time around is any better than the other. But something must be said about a Republican convention in which our emotions, taut by a down-spiraling economy and dollar, up rising price of oil, gasoline and milk, and neighborhoods quickly filling up with bank-foreclosed homes, are exploited for political gain.

What is it about a Republican Party that can honor a man for not surrendering to torture, while it advocates the use of torture without a pang or of moral conscience against suspects denied their human rights or the ability to respond to false charges against them?

What is it about a Republican Party that can celebrate the military service of their candidate and castigate the lack of service of his Democratic opponent? And yet, for the past four years, remain shamefully silent on the factual record of a president who cowardly hid from the Vietnam War to work on his father’s friend’s election campaigns?

What is it about a Republican Party that can claim that it freed the slaves and then in the same breath unleash vicious hate-mongering against an entire religion?

How does a Republican Party declare its fortitude to stand up and pursue the war in Iraq while avoiding the real challenge of tracking down Osama Bin Laden, the real terrorist, in his enclaves in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

The Republican National Convention rolled past the drama of Hurricane Gustav, which threatened to remind Americans how an uncaring and war-consumed Bush abandoned the needs of hundreds of thousands of people besieged by Katrina?

And then the convention finally picked up speed last night, two days later, with some powerful and inspiring words from Mike Huckabee, who delivered the spirit of the Republican conservative principles impeccably and with some class, although he could have better summarized in fewer words his “classroom desk” story.

Of course, why should the Republican Party rely solely on “class” to represent itself when an election is at stake? The next person to goose-step his way to the podium was the American demagogue, Rudy Giuliani.

To a tyrant like Giuliani, terrorism is not a movement of fanaticism. It is a religion. And using religion, Giuliani can mine the fear and the hate that comes from fear to strengthen his popularity like no other person in the world has before him, except during the 1930s in Europe’s dark era of “the Triumph of Will.”

Giuliani’s hate-filled speech and vicious attacks against religions and races brought to mind an ugly image from an unspeakable era when the world learned the passioned articulate ignorant could overcome reason and fact. Many a demagogue has tried to master the world using emotionally packed phrases, words and hate-mongering, hypnotizing an entire nation to commit unspeakable acts.

Frightening.

Fortunately, Palin is no pansy and neither is she a trooper of the Giuliani storm. Although Giuliani’s vitriol was a hard act to follow, she managed to refocus the theme from his hate-mongering diatribe to a more issue-focused assault on Obama.

While Giuliani used hate, Palin used the humor of a TV comedian with her biting sarcasm, offering memorable punchlines like, “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?” she asked with comic punchline pause: “Lipstick.”

Palin was good. She has the charisma McCain lacks. She hit all the points about Obama’s weaknesses in her speech, with impact:

“And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

“But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

“This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.”

But then she fell upon her principle to embrace the war in Iraq, pretending as many Republicans do that Iraq had something to do with al-Qaeda and terrorism and Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, if Iraq is tied to al-Qaeda, it is much thanks to President Bush who turned the once-anti-Islamic enclave for a pro-American tyrant, Saddam Hussein, into a new and more powerful battleground for America’s enemies.
Palin would never admit this because her son, like many blinded by lies and emotion, is on his way to fight in Iraq, too.

But the Iraq war was a mistake. The Iraq war has made America less safe. The Iraq war has emboldened al-Qaeda and the enemies of America. The Iraq war has helped to destroy our economy while making Dick Cheney’s Halliburton more wealthy.

And that withdrawing from Iraq immediately and abandoning Bush’s lies about the necessity to win, and refocusing instead all of our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, non-oil producing countries where Osama Bin Laden still reigns supreme, is the direction this country needs to take.

–Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com

In all, the night was somewhat less charged than the previous; the night that featured Governor Sarah Palin saw speeches from Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and the Alaskan Governor herself. Last night featured a handful of moderately important senators and governors, but the speech by Cindy McCain who would be first lady sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. It nearly put me to sleep. Mrs. McCain clutched the microphone tightly with both hands and read her speech awkwardly from teleprompters telling the audience about her warm feelings about her husband. McCain ran in 2000 and had an extended run, obviously in this primary season, yet Cindy McCain is still not ready for prime time.

John McCain’s speech was direct and outlined his case for President. His record of military service and sacrifice for country is incomparable, he says, to that of the “community organizer” from Chicago.

For some time, I was confused by the McCain campaign’s lack of ability, or want, to match Barack Obama’s brilliant and attention-gathering campaign. Why was McCain not responding directly with massive rallies, trans-Atlantic trips, and buzz-generating speeches? Was it a factor of the campaign’s failure to reach voters? Perhaps. But, I think that the McCain campaign may have had a strategy of letting Obama’s star burn bright while they would sustain and build their campaign reliably and with a moderate tone. Why would they do this? I think that John McCain’s campaign did this purposefully to allow the election to become a referendum on Obama. If Obama got more attention, the question would be “is this the change we’re looking for and do we take a chance on him”. The difference in experience between Obama and McCain is striking and therefore when the ballot question has been defined, McCain is able to step in to answer the specific question they intended to shape on Barack Obama.

In my opinion, the most effective lines from McCain’s speech were:

“I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else’s. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn’t my own man anymore. I was my country’s.

“I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.”

The speech ended using a method that caused a crescendo of applause for the Senator:

“I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your President. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach.”

crowd rises to their feet and applauds.

“Fight with me.”

louder

“Fight with me.”

almost literally says “louder”

“Fight for what’s right for our country.”

“Fight” is an action word that evokes a call to action and a sense that McCain and the crowd are doing this together.

“Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.”

Each “fight for” line enunciates values important to Republicans and to those who can put McCain over the top in November and elect him President in November.

“Fight for our children’s future.”

“Fight for justice and opportunity for all.”

“Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.”

“Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America”

Fight, now stand up. Literally stand up. Cheering louder.

“Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight.”

Elections are about engagement for participating in making a change that one can believe in. Each “stand up” emphasized with pause to get the crowd to get even louder and build excitement.

“Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.”

Message of unity and common purpose in order to act together to elect McCain.

“Thank you, and God Bless you.”

Here are some of my photos from McCain’s speech last night:

Being a non-partisan international observer of the process was still quite exciting. Americans do these events and speeches like nobody else. Barack Obama addressed a stadium of 80,000 in Denver and both racked in millions of viewers. McCain, however, had a slight edge in TV viewership.

5:58pm — Call to order
8:14pm — Mitt Romney
8:34pm — Mike Huckabee
9:04pm — Rudy Giuliani
9:20pm — Gov. Linda Lingle
9:37pm — Gov. Sarah Palin

According to Canadian Darryl Wolk McCain should pick the current Secretary of State Rice. He argues:

McCain is a maverick and often defies his own party, but after gaining some ground at the recent faith discussions, picking (Tom) Ridge or (Joe) Lieberman could be very risky. I would say odds are increasing for Huckabee or a candidate like Gingrich who are more likely to be accepted by the base. I still strongly think McCain's best option is Ms. Rice.

In this term's hotly contested elections, Wolk explains:

McCain could be in a strong position to name a quality VP choice and go into the Republican convention with strong momentum leading into what will be the crunch time of this campaign. Despite the unpopularity of the Republican Party, McCain has hung in there in terms of polls against “the biggest celebrity in the world”. The fact that he is close to the margin of error and still very competitive in swing states means that this presidential race is still too close to call.

Wolk also lists all the likely candidates, who include Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, Sarah Palin, Joe Lieberman, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Tom Ridge, to name a few.

Weighing Rice's cons and pros, the blogger says:

Pro - I would argue the strongest chance for a female President in the near future. Seen as a moderate within the Bush administration. Great credentials and experience in foreign affairs. Young and African American. Probably the highest profile pick available.
Con - Tarnished by George W. Bush and his record. Seen as a failure by some as Secretary of State.

A Political Glimpse from Ireland announces that McCain has already selected Governor Romney as his running mate. The blogger notes:

I personally don’t think this is a bad choice considering Senator Obama is favored in most polls for handling the economy better than Senator McCain. A few frequent commentors on this blog have argued whether VP’s actually make the difference in an election however I think it comes down to perception… if people believe a VP Romney will be right there by McCain side’s advocating economic policies to fix the current economic recession then maybe McCain is the right person to vote for?

Of the former, Gaza Strip: The Untold Story says:

Finally, we Palestinians and Arab Americans have to look over this race to the White House wisely. We have two choices now. Barack Obama who is slightly supporting the Palestinians and their promising state. In the other side, we have one of the biggest new Bushes, John McCain, whose stances are more extreme than Bush and all the new conservatives in the US. One of McCain’ s advisors said a couple of weeks ago that Palestinians should go to Jordan and establish their own country. Thus, McCain is so dangerous for us and his ideas are so malicious. So, let’s pick the less worse of the two…Let’s endorse Obama.

Referencing Obama's upcoming visit to the West Bank, Window into Palestine remarked:

It happened once to Jimmy Carter,

who visited the West Bank ,

and look what happened to him !!

Carter became an honest US politician.!!

The New Yorker cover art featuring Obama and his wife, Michelle, as flag-burning militants was an even hotter topic this week. KABOBfest parodied the story with a headline that read “Obama Campaign Outraged By KABOBfest, Attacks Cover As Tasteless, Offensive” and an image featuring Obama with, among other things, horns and a swastika. The blogger quipped:

Barack Obama's campaign decried Monday a satirical cartoon on the cover of KABOBfest showing the Democratic presidential hopeful wearing Islamic turban, a suicide-bomb vest, sporting a Bin-Laden beard, swastika, and Lucifer’s horns.

The influential blog defended its cover, titled “Say no to Obama,” as a critique of politics of fear and unfounded allegations during the campaign that have attempted to paint Obama, who is Christian, as a closet radical Muslim

Desertpeace sincerely questioned the cover art, saying:

Satire or racism?
Politics of fear?
Islamophobia?
All of the above??
Just what message is the covertoon of the New Yorker magazine trying to convey? Listen HERE to what talk show hosts had to say….. needless to say, the above questions remain unanswered.

In response to an earlier post by Desertpeace in which the blogger decries the cover art as offensive, adamdenker says:

Get a life! They are defending Obama and attacking the bigotries and prejudices that the right-wing hold! THEY AREN’T ATTACKING OBAMA! They are attacking prejudice! Why can’t you see this? Or do you WANT to be offended?

Another commenter, scarlett, responds:

They aren’t attacking prejudice. Would it have been more offensive if the picture had shown Obama with oversized lips, eating a slice of watermelon?

…

No — they chose the one they could get away with in this age of Islamophobia — painting him as a closet Muslim. If the picture had been one of a redneck/KKK type imagining President Obama in that manner, perhaps they could have passed it off as satire.

But what makes both candidates so compelling - particularly in comparison to their predecessors - is that neither are really products of their respective party establishments. As Anne Applebaum points out in the Daily Telegraph, Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee won the support of the "bases" of the Democrat and Republican parties - "blue-collar" whites in the blue corner and conservatives in the red corner. Applebaum suggests that McCain and Obama appeal principally to "unpredictable centrists" and represent an unprecedented a-partisan shift in American politics.

Yet the candidates didn't simply navigate away from their party's "bases" into fresh, politically uncharted territory. The earth has moved beneath the parties' feet. Obama and McCain were wise to spot this change, but it is a transformation they have noticed, not made.  Read the rest of this post...

read more

Among such sites is Who the World Wants, which aims polls non-Americans, giving them the choice between selecting Republican Party candidate John McCain or Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama.

“This website is intended to finding out who the world outside the United States of America wants as a President for your country. Please, if you are a United States Citizen, DO NOT VOTE (you get to vote for real),” says the announcement on the site.

So far, the results show Obama as a global favourite, with 1,032 votes in his favour, against McCain's 685 global fans.

Another site sharing a similar idea is Who Would the World Elect? On this site, Republican Ron Paul is the forerunner, with close to 67,000 votes from around the world. Obama is a far second with 21,000 votes while former Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton is a third, with around 6,800 votes. The site, which has so far seen 118,332 votes cast, also has a listing of where the votes came from, and for whom.

From Afghanistan, for instance, eight people have had their say as follows:

3 votes for Ron Paul
3 votes for Hillary Clinton
2 votes for Barack Obama

Australia too favours Ron Paul, with 1,267 votes for him. The other results are as follows:

710 votes for Barack Obama
176 votes for Hillary Clinton
97 votes for Dennis Kucinich
72 votes for Mike Gravel
28 votes for John Edwards
27 votes for Rudy Giuliani
13 votes for John McCain
11 votes for Fred Thompson
8 votes for Mitt Romney
5 votes for Chris Dodd
4 votes for Joe Biden
4 votes for Mike Huckabee
4 votes for Bill Richardson
3 votes for Sam Brownback
3 votes for Tom Tancredo
2 votes for Duncan Hunter
2 votes for Ralph Nader

For a full listing of how people in other countries have voted, click here.

What if we all voted? is yet another site, operating on the same principle. The site describes itself as:

a simple poll* of who the world would vote for in the upcoming US presidential election… if they could.

Obama leads the polls on this site and the full results can be found here.

It is looking more and more like Mike Huckabee could be selected as John McCain’s running mate. Other possibilities seem to include Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Condi Rice, Joe Lieberman, Charlie Crist (Florida), Tom Palenty (Minnesota), Sarah Palin (Alaska) and several other lesser known candidates. McCain is seen as strong on national security but has a problem with his social conservative base and also his economic credibility. It will be interesting to see what he attempts to shore up with his VP selection.

-Darryl

Source: Huckabee Tops McCain VP List

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:46 AM Article Font Size

Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is at the top of the list of John McCain’s possible running mates, according to a top McCain fundraiser with ties to his inner circle. Economic conservatives are likely to oppose the choice of Huckabee as McCain’s vice presidential candidate, given the populist tone of his campaign and his tax record as governor of Arkansas. But in his “Capital Commerce” column for U.S. News & World Report, James Pethokoukis points to the fundraiser’s disclosure and cites several factors that could make Huckabee a strong asset for McCain. For one thing, the former Baptist minister is a great campaigner who could garner support in the South among social conservatives and at the same time appeal to working-class voters in the crucial states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Huckabee would also appeal to many more voters on a “he cares about me” level than millionaire investor and possible vice presidential choice Mitt Romney, especially given all the turmoil on Wall Street this year. Finally, even economic conservatives who might hesitate to back Huckabee would certainly favor him over the threat of Obamanomics and higher taxes across the board.

Obama only made one campaign stop in West Virginia, instead concentrating on November’s general election against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. However, the size of Clinton’s victory led some analysts to believe that the her campaign for the Democratic nomination is far from finished. “This race isn't over yet. Neither of us has the total delegates it takes to win,” Clinton told supporters. “I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign until everyone has had a chance to make their voices heard.”

MSNBC affirms that Obama has 1,880 delegates while Clinton's has earned 1,718, with six more delegates to be awarded in West Virginia. With five state primaries remaining before June 3, Obama needs 145 delegates to reach the 2,025 line needed to clinch the nomination. Stop me if you’ve heard this before: Thus, both candidates must rely on the support of more than 800 Superdelegates – party insiders and elected officials – to secure the Democratic nomination. It is believed Obama has a lead in Superdelegates.

It was just one week ago that it seemed Obama’s nomination was all but a foregone conclusion. After West Virginia, however, bloggers, like most others, are torn on what Clinton’s victory means to the future of the Democratic nomination. According to the Gay Patriot, “the internet home for the American gay conservative,” Clinton’s victory should mean a lot for Democrats: Just because political pundits claim an Obama candidacy doesn’t mean it to be true. On the other hand, Mash from Bangladesh but living in the U.S., points out in Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying that voter turnout in West Virginia was much lower than expected, thus lessening the blow of Clinton’s victory. The EU-Post predicts Clinton’s large victory should be a worrying sign for Obama, who still cannot attract blue-collar voters and the support of lower-income Americans.

Andrew Malcolm, blogging at the Los Angeles Times, reminds us that the Republican race is still ongoing, even though McCain is assured the nomination. The big loser in West Virginia was Ron Paul, McCain’s last remaining Republican challenger, who garnered only five percent of the vote. He was beaten by Mike Huckabee, who pulled out of the race weeks ago. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, two well-funded Republicans no longer campaigning for President, nearly beat Paul.

Looking over national polling data, Jeff Weintraub, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and University of Haifa in Israel, points out that Clinton is more popular among Jewish voters than Obama; however, the Illinois Senator outpolls Republican John McCain.

For some bloggers, calls continue for Clinton to drop out of the race in show of unity. In Contextual Musings, David, a Arab-American academic with “Eurocentric yet Asian inspired tendencies,” compares Clinton’s victory speech to Bush’s attempt after the 2000 presidential election to claim a mandate when he lost the popular and the Supreme Court handed him a victory. In Politics Across the Pond, Crain calls on Clinton fans to united behind Obama and to focus on John McCain and the November election.

The View from the Other Side, a South African living in Silicon Valley, California, takes conservative Christians to task for ignoring the issues and their “despicable” and “unchristian” attacks on Obama.

Looking forward, Joe Joseph from The Times in London, declares that if Obama is beaten by McCain this fall, Hillary should be a frontrunner for 2012, when she’ll be 64. Jonathan Steele in Comment is Free in the Guardian argues that Obama’s ideas about the Middle East are simply “business as usual” to really provide the revolution in U.S. foreign policy he’s promised. The Angry African, who’s been through a real electoral revolution in South Africa, reminds doom saying Americans that come November it won’t be the end of the world, no matter who wins the U.S. Presidency.