Burma experts and observers predict that both incoming Obama-Biden administration and democrat-controlled congress are likely to maintain current Burma policies in general, based upon the candidates’ past statements/comments, and bipartisan supports given to Burma resolutions in congress. Thus, the democracy campaigners and lobbyists for Burma residing in Washington will still have easy access to sympathetic ears in both White House as well as in the congress.

Many exile Burmese democratic oppositions and activists had expressed their appreciations to current President Bush and particularly, the First Lady Laura Bush for their high profile support for Burma, and particularly calling for the release of its pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. And their staged visit made to Thailand meeting with pro-democracy activists residing along border areas, on their way to Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics.

Recently released prominent Burmese opposition leader, U Win Tin, urged the President-elect Obama to extend his ‘change’ mantra to his impoverished country, help pressure the current military government to honor the results of 1990 elections that his party had won in landslide.

And further on, he also cautioned the incoming US administration not to make compromise with current military leaders, and asked for continuation of current economic sanctions and proactive pressures on Burma. However, the effectiveness of such sanctions had been a long running debate between pro-sanction democratic activists and pro-engagement lobbyists of both Burmese and expatriates alike.

Although Burma issue will not be listed as top of priority for incoming Obama administration foreign policy, nevertheless, it will get proper attention due to its high moral ground on democratic principles stated in his first election victory speech.

Hence, Burma will still be under the administration’s foreign policy radar screen, with the help of DC based Burma campaigners and lobbyists pushing the same old strategies that so far have failed to produce any positive results of either to remove the regime from the power or pressu- -red them to engage with democratic oppositions for genuine national reconciliation process.

What remains to be seen is, whether the new US administration would follow current Burma policy labeled as ‘an old wine in the new bottle’ or pursue alternative policies be marked as ‘a new wine in a new bottle’?

Abdul Kargo, who is an American of Russian/Sierra Leonean descent, writes in his blog T’ings ‘n Times about McCain’s ad showcasing Obama as a “celebrity candidate.” He states that the ad is hypocritical of McCain, who had a cameo in Wedding Crashers, and that being a “celebrity” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. He further addresses how the Republican candidate compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears:

Why compare the presumptive Democratic nominee to a pair of celebutantes? It’s really quite simple. First off, we can be sure that education or educatedness—or whatever other qualities might prepare someone to lead a country—do not rank very high on the list of qualities people love in Paris or Britney. This is not to imply that Britney and Paris are unintelligent or uneducated. The point is only that these women are beloved not for their being qualified to lead the country. The Obama comparison thus implies that Obama, like Britney and Paris, is popular—because of his looks or some other quality—but not for his ability to lead. Ergo: Barack Obama is very popular but he’s not ready to lead.

Therefore, if Obama is a celebrity – he falls more in line with the entertainment industry. Kargo then analyzes this subject of Black people in the entertainment industry:

Black athletes, actors, and musicians have attained tremendous fame and secured professions for themselves by entertaining the American public. In my view, these accomplishments should be seen as a testament to the resilience of Black people in this country. Alas! No good deed goes unpunished so the Black community is repaid with binary stereotypes that place intelligence and athleticism/artistry/musical talent at opposite ends of a spectrum. “Sure,” the argument goes, “Black people are good entertainers but they’re not so smart. This is why there are so few Black directors, quarterbacks, or music executives.” In other words, talent and intelligence become mutually exclusive categories.

Kargo’s idea of mutually exclusive categories brings upon another issue: did McCain and Obama (or even Hilary Clinton, a few months ago) become potential candidates because of certain traits they possess – say another type of “mutually exclusive categories”?

Aung Kyaw, a Burmese-American college student, writes in her blog, a brain workout, that only those that qualify for the Christian “category” will ever have a chance for presidency.

Americans care oh-so-much about the religious preferences of McCain and Obama. For me, religion doesn’t matter. I think religion has little to do with how well someone performs as president. It’s irrelevant. In fact, it makes people do crazy things, like cut federal spending on stem cell research, especially when the stem cells are just thrown away instead of being put to scientific use.

In the last paragraph of her post, Kyaw writes:

Presidential campaigns are about being as narrow-minded as possible.

There does come a point when a Government’s sovereignty becomes less important than the welfare of its citizens. Has this one reached that tipping point?