The polls opened at 7 am. There were people who had been in line since around 6 am. Some of the poll workers said that people came over at 5 am. I was there at quarter past seven and the whole thing took less than an hour with half an hour of wait outside.

Unzipped, another Armenian now resident in the U.K., was inspired and cautiously optimistic.

They proved that impossible is possible in America. They proved that ‘American dream’ exists […]

[…]

Expectations are so high of him that chances to get disappointed are very high too. Beginning of new era, or so I hope.

Political scientist Artashes Boyajian echoes the sentiment of the Obama campaign motto and also compares the scenes of Obama's supporters converging on his campaign headquarters in Chicago to demonstrations held in Armenia in the last dying years of the former Soviet Union.

Let this be a victory of intelligence over arrogance, of responsibility over recklessness, of decency over shameful fear-mongering!!!!

The world needs a positive and respectful attitude from America, for a change. “Change we can believe in!” :):):)

Local blogger Pigh [RU] takes a different position. Ironically, his blogger name translated into English means elephant, symbol of the Republican Party.

Friends, why is it that you’re taking Obama’s election with such joy? What, do we all care for the rebirth of powerful America?”

The brave-little-soldier Mccain and silly Palin would quickly bring the “global stronghold of democracy” to its logical end. Our Armenians, instead, are so joyful! So joyful! All our office looks like at Easter holidays. And don’t hope that Obama will deliver his campaign pledge and recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Another resident blogger, Uzogh [RU], is more positive.

One thing I can see from Obama’s stance is - morality. He tries to show (and personally, I am convinced in it), that he cares about all the values, which are important for all the people, regardless of their being black, white or whatever. You can call all this - dirty PR and hold me for a naive romantic. Well, I guess we’ll have to live and see for ourselves.

American-Armenian Notes From Hairenik reflects on the consensus of opinion shared by most Armenians wherever they might live. However, the blogger shares Pigh's view that campaign promises to recognize the Armenian Genocide will not be fulfilled.

It comes as no surpise that Armenian-Americans who supported Obama–most likely the vast majority of them although there's probably no way to say for sure–are ecstatic about his being elected as president. He has made several promises to the Armenian-American community, most notably to recognize the Armenian Genocide. In a press release issued by his campaign Obama for America it clearly states his dedication to recognition.

[…]

Even if he does not live up to this promise, it would not be his fault. He would not be the only president to refrain from doing so–in recent memory both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said similar things as campaign pledges. The US State Department policy has always been one favoring Turkey's interests, and Armenian Genocide recognition has never been one of them.

A podcast in Armenian summarizing these reactions can also be downloaded here.

From it:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

He also said that: “I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistribute change through the structure of the court.”

Note the words he uses. “Redistributive change.”

Change you can believe in.

Red State worded it quite well: “The erudition of the opinions Obama expressed do not make them any less radical.”

Listen to it:

The most fascinating thing about this entire episode and these revelations is that Americans will vote for Obama nonetheless. This means they may either support redistribution of wealth, which means that America experts such as myself will have to review their previously held assumptions, or simply do not believe that Obama actually wants to do what he has said his goal to be on numerous occasions.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Fascinating is that the source, Wolf, says that the dirt on this story was dug up by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They planned to put the story out there before the Democratic Convention, but failed to find enough hard evidence.

‘Wolf’ says that they have found witnesses who confirmed the stories privately, but not publicly yet.

Three news ‘entities’ are sitting on the story, Wolf said, at least one of them ready to go public soon; but not before, but after the elections. The reasons for them not sharing the story now, Wolf said, is two fold:

1. They don’t want to influence the outcome of the elections (also because they support Obama)

2. The most important reason, in Wolf’s eyes at least: they want to make money. What sells better and over a longer period; a candidate had an affair, or a sitting president or president-elect had? The second one of course.

At this moment we cannot possibly know whether Obama did indeed cheat on his wife Michelle. It could very well be that he did not do any such thing, and that the rumors are just that; empty, vicious rumors. When that becomes clear, those who said he did cheat, will be held accountable.

However, when something like this becomes increasingly important in the new media, it’s our duty to report it, whether we personally like it or not. Additionally, if the story is correct, it will cause a tremendous political earthquake.

What is clear is that this subject is not going away any time soon and, considering the sources - the conservative bloggers touting this story have been quite reliable, albeit biased and partisan, in the past - could play a role after November 4.

As for my personal opinion: it’s certainly worth reporting, both the rumor and if the story is proven correct / a major news organization runs with it, but it is insane that private relationships can cost someone elections and political support. Personal relationships have nothing to do with how good someone will govern; in fact, some of the greatest men and political leaders in history were serial cheaters.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

We were extremely excited to be doing this again. I love it that today we live in a world where with just a few clicks you can connect yourself with people and hear their views or express your own without having to worry about the geographical limitations.

For the third teleconference (we did this previously here and here), we spoke with students from York Central High, Pennsylvania. They were studying about the Middle East in their Global Studies course and wanted to know from us as people (rather than simply relying on the media) what we think/feel about certain issues.

This time we had the following people present:

Amira from Bahrain, Eva from Israel, Sameh from Gaza, Palestine, Mohammad from Jordan, and myself. Together we did our best to answer the questions by high school students from York Central High, covering all of these topics:

Amongst a few other things!

We hope that you will enjoy this podcast. I apologize for the quality, but we had little control over that.

Listen to the podcast here.

By various estimates, there are about 1.5 million to 2 million American Muslim voters, including several hundred thousand Pakistanis, in the United States. There is a significant concentration of Muslim vote in Florida and Michigan. If, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, Obama gets the lion's share of the Muslim American vote, then he could win the presidency by a thin margin of Muslim votes.

Is an Obama win good for Muslim-Americans or Pakistani-Americans? To answer this question, let's look at the first debate between McCain and Obama. Pakistan and Afghanistan figured prominently in the US presidential debate 2008 between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. Here's the relevant transcript on the subject:

LEHRER: Afghanistan, lead — a new — a new lead question. Now, having resolved Iraq, we'll move to Afghanistan.

And it goes to you, Senator Obama, and it's a — it picks up on a point that's already been made. Do you think more troops — more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?

OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.

And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.

We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place — al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.

And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.

So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.

And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front — that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though. It's not just more troops.

We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai.

No. 2, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.

No. 3, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.

And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.

LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: First of all, I won't repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.

And the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can't ignore those lessons of history.

Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you're going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you'd better be prepared to pull the trigger.

I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I'm not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

We've got to get the support of the people of — of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.

Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.

Now, the new president of Pakistan, Zardari, has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.

I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes.

And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.

And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it's going to be tough. They've intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.

And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don't want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.

So we've got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I'm confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops — and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.

So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.

OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.

And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.

Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.

And, John, I — you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.

And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, “Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator.”

And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.

That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

MCCAIN: I — I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.

From this debate transcript and prior statements, it is clear that Sen McCain is far more knowledgeable about Pakistan than Senator Obama. Mr. McCain has also repeatedly stressed diplomacy and close working relationship with Pakistan and demonstrated his commitment by his actions such as several visits and phone conversations with Pakistani leadership recently and in the past. On the other hand, Mr. Obama has made aggressive statements about Pakistan without making serious effort to understand the issues faced by Pakistanis in FATA.

Beyond the debate specific to Pakistan policy, the most oft-repeated phrase by Senator McCain was “I don’t think Sen Obama understands”, while Obama repeated “I agree with John” more often than any other phrase. Just these two phrases capture the essence of the tone of the debate on foreign policy.

First, Stephen Harper gets surprised by Geri Hall from 22 minutes as the “single female voter” and now this.

I just received an email from Mashline.com promoting a song they put together called “I’ve got a crush on Harper” by “Mashline Girl”.

It’s in the same vein as Obama Girl’s “I’ve got a crush on Obama“.

Only the audio is available now, but they’ve promised a video.

Click here to listen to “I’ve got a crush on Harper”.

Intro - Bush admin as a regime, rather than administration. He goes on to describe the some of the personalities involved, the mis-management of the Iraq project, and the illegitimacy of the foundation of Bush govt on 2000 election.

The latest edition of Shire Network News is up: Podcast goes to the Wall.

The feature interview is with Anne Franklin of Clintons for McCain. She says they want Barak Obama to lose this election, in order to clear the way for Hillary Clinton next time. They’re working overtime to defeat Obama in November.

Of interest to Israellycool readers, however is my blog news piece on Obama’s trip to the wall and the “stolen” or more accurately, cynically published prayer. Obama was a little bit to “me me me”. Something that Pamela at Atlas Shrugs jumped on.

Here’s part of what I said on the show:

But let us not forget Obama at the Western Wall (or Ha- Kotel to give it it’s Hebrew name). You may well have seen Obama trying to insert a note in the Wall and know that later, the very same note turned up, published in full in the Ma’ariv newspaper in Israel. Obama prayed for me, me, me….. more me’s than a thing with lots of me’s in it.

It’s now been confirmed by A Ma’ariv spokesman in the Jerusalem Post that “Barack Obama’s note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put in the Kotel, a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.” The paper added that is was “pleased” with its “journalistic accomplishment.”

One of the most important central lessons of Judaism is to move away from personal fulfillment and toward what one can do for others. Judaism doesn’t regulate rights for the self, it lays down obligations toward others. One doesn’t live to make oneself happy: one lives to attain happiness through performing good deeds that make others happy. Jews say prayers for sick relatives or friends, and ask friends to do the same: they never say pray for me.

Obviously, Barack is not a Jew. Obviously Jesus was. I’m just saying.

That particular note of BHO’s so supremely violates all concepts of Jewish prayer its no wonder the Kotel kept pushing the thing back out at him. When I watched the video I could just hear the voice of G-d (or the New York Times editor): “NOW WRITE THAT AGAIN BUT PRAY FOR OTHERS!”

The podcast, which can be found here, focuses on political participation from the community and their views on the two main candidates. An excerpt:

If you would've asked me this about 10 or 15 years ago, I would've said the involvement would be low to minimal to zero. Now, the community has brought itself out on all different levels, be it on the federal level with the national election, be it on the city level with our next mayoral election, be it on the city council level both here in Beverly Hills and the City of Los Angeles. On a national level, I see it going both ways - the Persian Jewish community likes McCain because of his obvious stance on national security, which is something that's very important to us. Some are very turned off by that and the fact that he says we might stay in Iraq for 100 years…there's definitely a cost and a loss of life component of that. But uh…some are also turned on by the fact that he wants to go invade Iran - there are a lot of people who still live here who have a lot of sentiment toward Iran, you know, I don't blame people….The younger generation, they go with Obama and the democratic party. It's not just about change but it's about something new. And uh, that Barack Obama brings to the table. I really see a divide among the generations.

Those interviewed in the podcast also discussed economics as it relates to political preference, as well as a bit of history surrounding Persian Jewish participation in politics.

The accompanying article makes further note of the generation gap in the Persian Jewish community, as well as why Persian Jews are unlikely to support Obama:

Iran is indeed an issue during the election this year and it is particularly important for local Iranian Jews because the majority of them have suffered at the hands of Iran’s regime during or after the 1979 revolution. Obama’s calls to negotiate with Iran’s current regime does not sit well with older Iranian American Jews because many had their assets confiscated by the regime or were terrorized by the regime. So they do not want to see the Iranian Ayatollahs rewarded by any American administration’s welcoming gestures that will legitimize their rule in Iran. Some of Obama’s foreign policy advisers are also former Carter administration advisers who older Iranian Jews and other Iranian Americans blame for helping to bring the current Islamic fundamentalist regime to power in Iran nearly 30 years ago.

Any errors in transcription are the author's own

Take a listen:

Tori was an active author at Mideast Youth for a long time and you may read her previous posts here (under a pseudonym.)

Share This

Take a listen:

Share This