That seemed to be theme on Day One. Michelle Obama essentially went on stage to say,” Hey, I’m just like you. We’re just like you.”

In other words, “You’re not afraid of us, are you America?”

When the O kids came out and joked it up with Dad on the Jumbotron for the TV audience, why the Obamas were just like new Jeffersons. Or the Cosbys. Just with a tad more political ambition. Dontcha love them?

Or not.

One of the open questions between now and November is how America’s racism will find cover in other excuses to not vote for Obama. Can America embrace the first real opportunity to send a person of color to the White House?

No one likes to be so direct about it, but the concern is there. How racist will America be this election?

At the APIA Vote Gala reception at the Denver Marriott, I bumped into Norm Mineta, the former Sec. of Commerce under Clinton, as well as the former Sec. of Transportation under Bush II.

Mineta was one of the first and most ardent Obama supporters. And he mentioned how racism could play a role.

He talked about the so-called “Bradley Effect,” where in 1982 Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African American running for governor had an 8 point lead in the polls, then lost by a 2 point margin to Republican George Deukmejian.

Voters obviously lied to pollsters and said they could vote for a black man. But then they couldn’t pull the right trigger when it counted.

Mineta said he knows of at least one Caucasian woman, a lifelong Democrat, who has admitted she’d have a hard time going through and voting for a black man.

“And I thought, in this day and age, people are still saying that,” Mineta said.

I asked him if he thought Asian Americans might be prone to the “Bradley Effect.”

“I think there was black/yellow conflict,” Mineta said. “But I don’t think it really exists today.I think we’re past it. We’ve worked too closely with the Hispanic and African-American communities. APIs aren’t that large, just 4 percent of the population. We have to worked collectively with others.”

Mineta was hopeful that Asian Americans who are still on the fence would come around, and not let race get in the way of backing the man he feels could lead America to a better future.

One supporter who spoke at the APIA Vote gala was Sen. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) who was one of the strongest Hillary supporters even though the Hawaii primary went to Obama by a landslide. Back then, Inouye wasn’t giving up and was saying he’d take the fight to the convention.

The venerable APIA politico and war hero was in Denver on Monday, with a new perspective.

“Let’s face,” said Inouye to the API crowd. “I was hoping and hoping that someday before I go I would be at a convention when we would nominate a member of the minority as president.”

The crowd clapped loudly.

“This is a nation of diversity,” Inouye said. “And I hope people of U.S. can set aside the emotions of the past and look forward to a greater nation of great people . I’m ready to work with everyone, and I know that you are. So let’s workfor Barack Obama.”

The crowd cheered as I stood by Mineta. The Secretary brought two fingers to his mouth to let out a loud whistle of approval.

***

Today Asian Americans will be at the convention podium. Congressman Mike Honda will talk about Asian American political power. California Controller John Chiang is scheduled if the legislative budget emergency doesn’t take precedence. Catch it if you can. It will be our moment.

Later tonight, Hillary Clinton will speak.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, it will be bittersweet. She’s not dying like Teddy Kennedy. But I predict there will be some tears. Still, don’t be swayed. The leading politcos in the community are saying it’s time to get on board, not just for party unity– but for the sake of the country.

Enter the Asia Society, an institution with at least a bit more Asia-savvy than Cohen. In a poll conducted of Asian leaders and intellectuals, Barack Obama comfortably outstripped McCain for reasons as easily understood in Europe as in Asia. As the Indian newspaper editor and writer MJ Akbar said, “Obama represents the American dream, the future… and it would be a sad day indeed were Americans to choose the past over the future.” Predictably, Indonesian thinkers saw great merit in how Obama would remake the image of America in the eyes of the Muslim world, in part because Obama first learned of tolerance and diversity in Indonesia. Japanese foreign policy expert Kunihiko Miyake believed that Obama represents “a change in the way America sees itself… and I think it's a positive thing and many Japanese agree with me.” Filipina scholar Carolina Hernandez highlighted Obama's charismatic appeal to Asia's millions of young, internet-savvy America observers. Even the supposedly Republican-friendly Indian IT industry is “rooting for Obama”.

To understand “Asia” is not to reduce the continent and its people to the motivations of its states. Cohen - and watery pundits of his ilk - are all too eager to build their columns from empty paradigms. In this case, Asia is “statist” while Europe is “post-statist”. Chinese and Indian foreign ministers may trumpet national sovereignty while European leaders press for integration. But do their statements necessarily reflect greater public opinion? The collapse of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland suggests otherwise.

Cohen often writes with subtlety about Europe. He should have the grace and the sense to extend the same sophistication to Asia.

Filipinos have called the delay a great injustice. The Rescission Act of 1946 singled out Filipino veterans for the denial of full veterans benefits, while soldiers of 66 other US allied countries, who were similarly inducted into the service of the United States during World War II, were granted full veterans status.

Now, more than 60 years later the controversial bill was passed last week and was well received by many surviving veterans and their families. However, it also left many wondering “Why now?” and most importantly … “What now?”

The Pinoy says he feels the bill has come 62 years too late and may have only been supported by Senator Hillary Clinton to try to get as much positive light to her presidential campaign as possible.

“The new bill is only but a small victory for Filipino war veterans, who have bravely fought alongside American soldiers in World War II.

“Recognition for the valor of Filipinos who fought for the defense of the United States and the Philippines during World War II came 62 years too late. The beneficiaries – a small band of venerable citizens – are falling in numbers as age, disease and death decimate their ranks.

“It would not be surprising if President Bush vetoes the bill if it passes the House and the lawmakers agree on an omnibus model. Washington reports say the White House has opposed the measure, believing the little money it provides is better spent on America’s adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“There is little to cheer about the Senate gesture. Of course the bill passed by a wide margin. And Filipinos (and Americans of Filipino descent) have confirmed anew they could count on Senators Daniel Inouye, Hillary Clinton and others who know how to recognize a debt and how to fulfill a promise.”

The White House and Republican opponents of the bill have already pointed out that such a pension would be added to one already afforded these veterans by their own government. No lawmaker wants to be accused of opposing federal aid to veterans, especially in an election year. Senators on both sides bandied that accusation and sparred over which veterans are most deserving of US aid at this time in history. Democrats said the aid is long overdue to these Filipino veterans who fought alongside Americans during World War II, with Sen Clinton issuing a statement that the passing of the bill was long overdue.

“I sought justice on behalf of Filipino veterans, who may finally have access to the benefits that have been unfairly withheld from them for over six decades,” Sen Clinton said in her statement Saturday (May 3, 2008).

The White House statement did not include a veto threat, but named several concerns the administration has with the bill. Chief among them is that the bill would give the Filipino veterans an annual pension higher than the average annual income in that country. The average American veteran pensioner living in the US, meanwhile, receives payouts of less than one-third of the average US family income, the administration had said.

Filipino bloggers, however, fear that it might be the tight race between Senators Clinton and Barak Obama that may be drawing attention to the legislation.

Taro Head, whose late grandfather was one of the thousands that fought in World War II, said she may even agree with the White House and some Republicans that money may be well spent elsewhere.

“What I'm trying to say here is, maybe - just maybe - this whole thing is just coming a little too late. That maybe - just maybe - I am agreeing with the White House and some Republicans that money may be well spent elsewhere. Unless maybe - just maybe - benefits could also go to whomever the war veterans left behind. But then MAYBE - just even possibly - that could also take another 60 years to materialize. It took that long for this bill to be passed, why not another 60 for it to take effect? Then seriously, no money will be lost.

“The Democrats (ie Hillary Clinton) say the aid is long overdue to these Filipino veterans who fought alongside Americans during World War II. I totally agree. But seriously Hillary… don't give my fellow Filipinos and their families more false hope just for the sake of winning more votes in the ‘08 elections.

“Honestly, there aren't that many of the 18,000 Filipino WWII veterans left alive. Many waited long and hard for this to materialize and a lot were buried with that hope to support their still struggling families with whatever benefits “promised” to them by America.”

To those wondering… Senator Barack Obama was absent from the legislative vote, says Danny Aranza, a Filipino blogger based in Guam, who thinks that Sen Clinton should be praised for backing the bill. He noted the differences between Senators Clinton and Obama as they campaigned in Guam last week.

“Obama has opened an office in Guam with paid full-time staff and is running an aggressive paid advertisement campaign based on a lot of promises. Clinton's presence here is more grass-roots oriented.

”This contrast between Obama's talk and Clinton's actions was aptly demonstrated just last week when the Senate passed the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. The Act, which would provide pensions to Filipino veterans of World War II, passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 1.

”Prior to voting on final passage of the bill, the Senate debated an amendment to remove a provision providing a limited pension for Filipino World War II veterans residing in the Philippines. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 56 to 41.

”In both votes, Clinton stood up and fought on behalf of justice for the Filipino veterans, whose equal right to full US veterans' benefits was unfairly withheld from them for more than 60 years.

“Clinton voted against the restrictive amendment and for final passage of the original bill finally giving Filipino WWII veterans full veterans' benefits.

”Sen Obama, notably, was absent from both votes.”

Cocoy826 said that the most recent bill is one of many that the war veterans have been fighting to acquire since the end of World War II.

“In recent decades, the veterans have also fought for and won burial benefits, supplemental income, health care, pharmaceuticals and nursing homes. But lately, the passage of the pension bill for veterans has been an issue.

“Another bill also being pushed for approval, along with these benefits, is the Family Reunification Bill, which veterans could use to expedite the immigration process for family members still remaining in the Philippines.

“For some veterans, they would rather have this than the pension.”

The Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act is a bill to exempt children of Filipino World War II veterans from the numerical limitations on US immigration visas.

Obama has opened an office in Guam with paid full-time staff and is running an aggressive paid advertisement campaign based on a lot of promises.

Clinton's presence here is more grass-roots oriented, with her local campaign headed by dedicated volunteers like Rena Borja and Taling Taitano, who are energized by Clinton's long experience with Guam's issues and the concrete things she has already accomplished for the people of Guam.

This contrast between Obama's talk and Clinton's actions was aptly demonstrated just last week when the Senate passed the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. The Act, which would provide pensions to Filipino veterans of World War II, passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 1.

Prior to voting on final passage of the bill, the Senate debated an amendment to remove a provision providing a limited pension for Filipino World War II veterans residing in the Philippines. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 56 to 41.

In both votes, Clinton stood up and fought on behalf of justice for the Filipino veterans, whose equal right to full U.S. veterans' benefits was unfairly withheld from them for more than 60 years. This injustice originated with the 1946 Rescission Act, which singled out Filipino veterans for the denial of full veterans benefits, while soldiers of 66 other U.S. allied countries, who were similarly inducted into the service of the United States during World War II, were granted full veterans status.

Clinton voted against the restrictive amendment and for final passage of the original bill finally giving Filipino WWII veterans full veterans' benefits.

Sen. Obama, notably, was absent from both votes.

There is a significant Filipino-American community on Guam, many of whom have family members who will benefit from the Filipino veterans equity bill. I am one of them.

My uncle was a Philippine Scout during World War II. He came to Guam under a family petition from my mother. He worked as a janitor in the Tumon hotels and was naturalized in Guam under the initial law giving Filipino veterans U.S. citizenship in 1992.

Now in his 80s, my uncle has returned to the Philippines to be with his children and grandchildren. He is one of about 18,000 surviving Filipino veterans still waiting for the veterans' benefits America promised over 60 years ago.

Many veterans have died waiting for a promise unfulfilled. Those who are still alive, like my uncle, are in their 80s and 90s. There were 20,000 surviving Filipino veterans a year ago; the latest estimate is that there are only 18,000 left. If it were up to Sen.Obama, the waiting would continue.

Correcting historic injustices from World War II has additional and unique resonance for the people of Guam. Hillary strongly supports the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, which recognizes the sacrifices of the people of Guam who demonstrated steadfast loyalty to our country despite extraordinary hardships and suffering during the Japanese occupation.

As demonstrated by the recent vote on Filipino veterans' benefits, when Hillary Clinton says she's going to do something, she does it. She deserves Guam's support on May 3.

This time, the New York senator is blaming the current administration of President George Bush for the closure of a magnet manufacturing plant in working-class Indiana and the sale of its smart bomb-compatible parts to militarist China.

But she appears to be hoodwinking voters in the Hoosier State by not disclosing – or, to use her own words over the Bosnia sniper tale, by “mispoking” – that the sale was actually first brokered during the former administration of her own husband, then President Bill Clinton.

“George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t,” Hillary said after the camera shows the empty plant in Valparaiso, Indiana and its former workers. “American workers should build America’s defense.”

Her second campaign commercial in Indiana blamed Bush for the move to China of the Indiana plant Magnequench, which made magnets for smart bombs, as the firm moved its equipment to the communist state in 2003. But the sale of the company to a Chinese consortium was approved in 1995, during the Bill Clinton administration.

The Hillary Clinton campaign issued a rebuttal to a similar story published in the McClatchy website, but the same webpage said the first sentence in the Hillary camp rebuttal is factually inaccurate.

McClatchy said its story did not say that the Clinton administration had approved the move of the Indiana factory to China, but accurately reported that the Clinton administration had approved the sale of the Indiana factory to a Chinese-American consortium, and that years later the Chinese bought out the American partners and moved the factory work to China.

The consortium included San Huan New Materials and Hi-Tech Co., a company that the Chinese Academy of Sciences owns; Onfem Holdings, a company that the Chinese State Nonferrous Metals Industry Administration controls; Soros Fund Management, the firm of businessman George Soros; and The Sextant Group, the firm of businessman Archibald Cox Jr.

In 1988, Congress gave the president authority to block foreign acquisitions that could threaten national security. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency panel that reviews foreign acquisitions, approved the Magnequench sale in 1995.

The panel had justification to object but did not recommend that the president block or suspend the transaction, an analysis by the Congressional Research Service showed. A spokesman for the Treasury Department, where the committee is housed, said investigations by the committee are not public so she can’t comment on the case.

Hillary Clinton spokesman Jonathan Swain said the 1995 deal was approved because the company promised to keep production in the U.S. When that didn’t happen, Swain said, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Merrillville, asked the Bush administration in 2003 to review the old approval or take steps to block the relocation to China.

The lawmakers argued that moving production raised concerns about maintaining a significant source of domestic production of rare-earth magnets as 80 percent of the magnets for the Pentagon’s precision-guided missiles were made in the Valparaiso plant.

Swain said Bayh and Visclosky did not get a response. But three years later, Congress responded to public outrage when the federal government approved allowing U.S. seaports to be managed by a United Arab Emirates-controlled company.

The next year, Congress passed legislation overhauling the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment. Changes included requiring full-scale investigations of national security implications of bids by state-owned companies. The Chinese firms that bought Magnequench were partly owned by the Chinese government.

The Bush administration made its own change in late 2006, according to the Congressional Research Service. The administration now allows the committee to reopen a previously approved deal if it believes the buyer has not complied with the terms.

Clinton, who has spoken about the Magnequench sale on the campaign trail in Indiana and Pennsylvania, says there should be periodic public reviews of the committee’s decisions to make sure they are not harming national security interests.

INDIANAPOLIS – Hillary Clinton loves to tell the story about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.

It’s a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.

If she were president, Clinton says, she’d fight to protect those jobs. It’s just the kind of talk that’s helping her win support from working-class Democrats worried about their jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country’s security.

What Clinton never includes in the oft-repeated tale is the role that prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company or that the sale was approved by her husband’s administration.

In response, the Hillary Clinton campaign said that Bill Clinton’s administration had gotten assurances at the time it approved the deal that production would remain inside the United States, and that the shift of jobs to China didn’t occur until under the Bush administration.

“Hillary Clinton must have been hoping we Hoosiers have short memories,” Ed Dixon of Valparaiso said in a letter to a local newspaper after a recent Clinton visit. “Her husband was president at the time and allowed this to happen.”

“They would have us believe Bush was behind this sale,” added Fred Sliger of Valparaiso in another letter, “when in fact the Clinton administration rubber-stamped this along with the sale of numerous other high-tech secrets to the Chinese. … . Let’s get the facts straight.”

In an interview, Sliger amplified his view. “She blamed President Bush. I blame him, too, but she neglects to mention that it all started when her husband was in office,” said Sliger, a mechanic at Valparaiso University.

“They say those jobs went out the back door on Bush’s watch. They wouldn’t have gone out the back door if President Clinton hadn’t left the front door propped open. I blame everybody. I want the blame to go around.” Dixon also elaborated in an interview. “She brought it up at a town hall meeting here,” said Dixon, a computer network administrator from Valparaiso and a Barack Obama supporter.

“She tried to use us for propaganda. I thought, wait a minute. The plant may have moved in 2003, but it was sold in 1995. It was her husband who actually approved the sale of the company. We don’t forget. What, we’re not supposed to remember what happened a few years ago?”

Told that the Chinese buyers had assured the U.S. government that they wouldn’t move the jobs or work out of the country, Dixon said that President Clinton should have been more skeptical. “Clinton should have stepped in and said no, he should have said, ‘No, I can’t guarantee that they won’t move after my presidency.’”

Here’s how Clinton tells it in a recent television ad she aired in Indiana.

“Right here, over 200 Hoosiers built parts that guided our military’s smart bombs to their targets,” the New York senator says.

“They were good jobs, but now they’re gone to China. And now America’s defense relies on Chinese spare parts. George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t. As your president, I will fight to keep good jobs here and to turn this economy around. I’m Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message because American workers should build America’s defense.”

Here’s how she told it a few weeks ago at a union meeting in Washington.

“A Chinese company bought the company, called Magnequench, and they wanted to move the jobs to China. The people in Indiana protested, did everything they could to convince the Bush administration that this was a terrible mistake. Couldn’t even get a hearing,” she said.

“The jobs went to China, but so did the technology. And now the United States military has to buy the magnets we need for the smart bombs we invented from China,” she said as the union members booed.

Here’s the complete story.

In 1995, General Motors decided to sell the Indiana-based Magnequench to a Chinese-American consortium. The consortium included:

San Huan New Materials and Hi-Tech Co, a company owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Onfem Holdings, a company controlled by the State Nonferrous Metals Industry Administration in the Peoples Republic of China;
Soros Fund Management, headed by George Soros; and
The Sextant Group, founded by Archibald Cox Jr.
Soros, of course, is the wealthy investor who has contributed vast sums to Democratic candidates and liberal causes. He’s given more than $250,000 to Democratic campaign committees, tens of thousands to individual Democratic candidates and about $2.5 million to the liberal group Moveon.org, according to Federal Election Commission records.

He’s also contributed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and to Obama’s Senate and presidential campaigns. He contributed to Republican Sen. John McCain’s first presidential campaign, in 1999, when McCain was running against Bush for the Republican nomination.

Because Magnequench made magnets for smart bombs, the sale to a group that included foreign owners required approval under a 1988 law.

After a 30-day review, the Clinton administration’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes representatives of the Pentagon, approved the sale in 1995. The buyers reportedly promised to keep manufacturing in the U.S.

Yet in 1998, they started building a plant in China, close to the source of the raw materials used in the magnets. The company reorganized in 1999, buying out Soros as well as Onfem Holdings.

In 2000, Magnequench bought a magnet factory in Valparaiso, the same year it started operations at its China plant. In 2001, it closed its original plant in Anderson, Ind.

And in 2003, it decided to close the Valparaiso plant, laying off its 225 workers. Indiana politicians asked the Bush administration to intervene.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., said the move would leave the U.S. without a significant domestic source of rare-earth magnets used in smart bombs. The Valparaiso plant made about 80 percent of the magnets bought by the Pentagon, they said.

The Bush administration didn’t block the move.

Yet the Hillary Clinton campaign said she doesn’t mention the role her husband played in the sale because it wasn’t relevant.

“In 1995, when this group bought Magnequench, there were assurances made that production would stay in the United States,” said Clinton campaign spokesman Jonathan Swain.

“The important thing is that in 1995, there was no indication that this production would leave the United States. Based on the information at the time this was reviewed, there was no indication that there was some risk to national security because these jobs would stay in the United States.”

Asked why the administration wasn’t concerned when the Chinese operators opened a factory in China, he said the real problem arose during the Bush administration when U.S. production was shut down.

Swain also noted that security was less of an issue in 1995 because the country had other producers of the magnets. By 2003, it did not.

Quick historical background: The Philippines was a Commonwealth under American protection at the outbreak of World War II. At the start of the war, around 200,000 Filipinos joined the US Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE), and fought alongside the American armed forces under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Filipinos continued fighting a guerrilla war after the fall of Bataan (recently commemorated last April 9).

As Senator Daniel Inouye stated in his testimony before the Senate:

The United States Armed Forces of the Far East fought to reclaim control, not only of the Philippine Islands, but also of the entire Western Pacific. During this crucial effort to oust our wartime enemy from United States territory, Filipinos fought under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Filipinos were in the front lines of the battle of Corregidor, fought at Bataan, walked in what became known as the Bataan Death March, and were held and tortured as prisoners of war. These men remained loyal to the United States during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. They fought valiantly for the allies in the Pacific, waging a guerrilla war against the Japanese and helping to delay the Japanese advance across the Pacific.

At the start of the war, President Franklin Roosevelt promised that the Filipinos fighting for the Americans would receive the same veteran benefits as those of US vets. However, in 1946, Congress passed the Rescission Act, which basically reneged on that promise by stating that the service of Filipinos “shall not be deemed to be or to have been service in the military or national forces of the United States or any component thereof or any law of the United States conferring rights, privileges or benefits.”

It appears that we are not the only one with a short historical memory. The Americans appear to be afflicted as well, having waited more than six decades to correct this wrong that their government in 1946 committed. Now, most veterans, around 18,000 of them, are in their 80s and 90s, and, since the measure still has to be signed into law, more of them will die before they receive justice.

There are some, such as Republican Senator Richard Burr, who don't believe that the Filipinos deserve anything, that the veterans from the more recent wars which the U.S. started deserve more. One blogger called the bill an “abomination” and an “outrage” and proof of the Democrats' evildoings in Congress. He goes on to write that “Filipinos were fighting for their country, not ours.”

Such is the measure of gratitude accorded to our veterans by a country that got them into the war to begin with.

Having been to Corregidor, and having stood at the foot of Mt. Samat in Bataan, where the Bataan memorial cross stands as a reminder to Filipino and American valor, I have a profound and deep respect for our countrymen who fought and died during that most trying of times. I hope that their bravery will never be forgotten.

It is remarkable in that we Filipinos don’t really have much to cheer about the US as a whole. As our former colonial ruler, the US is quite terrible. I could not fail but compare the way other countries treat their former colonies - with generous aid/development programs, special status to immigrants from these countries, etc. The British Commonwealth has quite a broad set of continuing beneficial links between Britain and its former colonies. Filipinos, in fact, get very warm treatment in Spain (our other former colonizer) - in the way Filipinos living in Spain are given various benefits for being nationals of a former colony. But the US? it treats the Philippines like shit - no respect at all. Even now, six decades after World War II, the US refuses to acknowledge Filipino soldiers who served in the US army then. And when US soldiers commit crimes (rape, murder) in the Philippines, they don’t get turned over to Philippine authorities. [this is in contrast to US soldiers in Japan, who end up immediately in Japanese custody] And the US is amiss in many of its economic and military commitments to the Philippines.

In a sense, it would not be too wide off the mark for us to say - to hell with America, we don’t want to have anything to do with it!

But Filipinos continue to follow the US election process with keen attention. Why?

It is an excellent spectator sport.
The US election is interesting to Filipinos precisely because we won’t feel the immediate effect of the result. It is exciting, especially with the way the media covers it. It is also very Filipino to “bet” on these kinds of contests, often quite literally. I remember that a South Korean basketball player once commented that he felt at home in the Philippines, even when his team is playing against the Philippine team. The reason, he said, was that “whenever we play, one half of the spectators are cheering for us”.

Filipino-Americans.
There are millions of Fil-Ams , and these people naturally influence their Philippine-based relatives. I learned that when you know somebody from a certain country, you tend to get interested in developments in that country. When something big happens in the Philippines (e.g. a natural disaster, etc) my neighbors, colleagues at work, etc talk to me about it - it turned out that they had paid more attention to Philippine news because they knew me, a Filipino. It’s the same for me, also. For instance, if there is a heat wave in New York, I could not help but think of my friends who live there. So, why not think about an election that involves many of our friends and relatives in the US?

The elections do affect our relatives and friends in the US. I don’t have exact figures, but I’m sure that a lot of Fil-Ams served and are serving in Iraq, and hundreds of FilAms have died or got injured during this war. So, the issue of whether or not the Iraq war continues is concrete for Fil-Ams.

US economic policies affect the Philippines.
The Philippine economy is very much affected with what happens in the US. The US dollar drops in value vis-a-vis the peso, and Filipino exporters feel it in declining sales. If the next US president clamps down on the trend to outsourcing, the entire call center industry will have a problem. And of course, if the US limits the hiring of foreign nurses; many people in the Philippines will be affected.

But whom should we cheer for?

As with most things, it depends.

McCain wants to keep the US in Iraq till well into the future. If McCain wins, more FilAms will die in that war.
But on the other hand - McCain is an ardent believer in open markets and free trade. I don’t expect him to want to cut down on outsourcing or hiring foreign nurses.

Both Obama and Clinton want to get the troops out of Iraq. I am inclined to think this is a good idea, and not only because of FilAm lives which this would save.
At the same time, they are both making protectionist noises. This is disturbing, especially if the Philippine economy will likely suffer from the US shutting doors to the world.

In terms of choosing between Obama and Clinton, I think the choice is a matter of taste. Clinton is “the devil you know”, in the sense that though she may not sound too inspiring, we know that she will manage the country reasonably well. Also, her life has been too public for too long - so I don’t think she is prone to having nasty scandals when she becomes president.

Obama, however, is “the devil you don’t know”. While there is a chance that he will remain clean, and manage the country well; there is nothing to really hold on to regarding this man. For all we know, Obama has closets full of skeletons. He is a “loose cannon”- we don’t know what he stands for, except that he says he will change things. Really.
However, as an “athlete” in this spectator sport - Obama is great. He makes good television.

It could be useful to try to compare the US candidates with Philippine presidents.

Obama reminds me of Magsaysay. Both had a privileged upbringing, but succeeded in repackaging themselves as being one with the “common man”. Magsaysay was a great speaker; but as president, he pursued policies that only made things more difficult for his successors (e.g. his mass transfer of Central Luzon farmers to Mindanao). And Magsaysay had a lot of corruption scandals (which were not exposed, because he died before opponents had a chance to do so).

Clinton for me, would be Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Both are members of the political elite, with links to former presidents who did well in their times. (Bill Clinton, and Diosdado Macapagal were good presidents). Both opt for technocratic, in-system solutions for the country’s problems. And if you ask me, I don’t think they would be judged as bad presidents, when everything is over.

As for McCain, his Philippine counterpart has to be Marcos. Both lay claim to being some kind of military hero; but didn’t spend too much time in the military. Their political message is generally based in the past; of wanting to make the country great again. Both of them wanted to be president enough to be tempted to change political party - which incidentally, Marcos did (from Liberal to Nacionalista) . Both opted for the military solution to the country’s problems (Marcos’ declared Martial Law, McCain supported the Bush Iraq policy) One big difference (maybe) is that McCain is not really corrupt, while Marcos beat all records re this.

So, if you were to cheer for a candidate, which one would you choose: Marcos, GMA or Magsaysay?

Michelle Obama, wife of Democrat front runner Barack Obama, shocked a lot of
people over the weekend when she said this: ‘For the first time in my adult
lifetime I am proud of my country.'

Wow! That takes my breath away.

Mrs. Obama is 44 years old, so for over roughly 24 years of ‘adulthood,' taking
her at her word, she has never been proud of our nation.

Is there a theme here? You may remember that last year Senator Obama said he
refused to wear a flag lapel pin because it represented a 'substitute for true
patriotism.' And what precisely is true patriotism? According to Senator Barack
Hussein Obama, it is opposing the war in Iraq.

Apparently nothing America did from 1982 to 2008 caused her heart to swell with
pride. Not our successful effort to defeat Soviet communism and liberate
millions of people in Eastern Europe? Not our relief efforts
around the world, through which we spent billions to help the downtrodden?

Not anything? When she learned with all the rest of us how her fellow citizens
on United Flight 93 bravely fought back against jihadist
hijackers and prevented another disaster on September 11th, did she not fill up
with pride? As Americans of all races and classes rallied together in defense of
our nation in the aftermath of September 11th, did
her spirit not jump with love for her homeland? Apparently not.

The Obamas are living examples of the American Dream. Both Michelle Obama and
her husband have Ivy League degrees. They make a joint income of over One
Million Dollars a year. They live lives that most ordinary Americans can only
dream of. Yet, Mrs. Obama, who wants to be First Lady, has been unable to find
the pride in America that millions of ordinary Americans feel every day.

Sadly, her attitude is not rare among leftwing American elites. We are
‘educating' millions of Americans to be Globalists first and foremost, and we
are doing precious little about educating our children to be proud and Unashamed
Americans.

The Obamas are flying high politically right now, but I don't believe many
Americans will want to cast their votes this November for a couple so out of
touch with traditional
American values.

‘For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,' Michelle
Obama…..'What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of
the politics of America,' Barack Obama

HOWEVER, nowhere in there does she leave space for, allude to, or specify a
reference to American politics. She's a Princeton and Harvard educated lawyer,
and she can't specify between her country and its politics???

ALSO, ‘Why Is Michelle Obama's Princeton Thesis *Restricted* until November
5th'?

1985 Princeton senior Thesis entitled: ‘Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black
Community,'

Princeton University Senior Theses Full Record

TITLE: Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community [Restricted until
November 5, 2008] (96 pages).
AUTHOR: Michelle LaVaughn Robinson (1985), Sociology Department
ADVISOR: Not available
LOCATED AT: Mudd Library.

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama lamented that white professors and classmates
always saw her as ‘Black first and a student second.' She had surveyed alumni
to see whether they sacrificed their commitment to other blacks on the altar of
success, and foresaw for herself an uneasy future: ‘further integration and/or
assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant'…

As Michelle Obama wrote in her thesis introduction, ‘My experiences at Princeton
has made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness' than ever before. I have found that
at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors
and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong'…

Michelle Obama was guided in her choice of thesis topic by a consuming concern
that her success might compromise her black identity. As she wrote in her
conclusion: ‘I wondered whether or not my education at Princeton would affect my
identification with the Black community. I hoped that these findings would help
me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with Whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that Black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.'…

Michelle Obama's fears of losing touch with her roots without ever being
embraced into the mainstream led her to promise, in her thesis
introduction, ‘to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community.'

Her thesis is the ONLY one on the 449-result long list *restricted until a
specific date: November 5th*. What's the significance of November 5th? Well,
it's a Wednesday. Oh, and it's the day after the General Election!!!!!!

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Mr. Tony, Nice article po.

I read somewhere that Al Gore is being tapped to run for US Presidency. The Democrats will sort of have a “failure of nomination” as Barrack & Hillary would each be unable to obtain the necessary majority of delegates.

A super delegates’ convention would then ensue and declare Al Gore official candidate in an effort to heal the rifts in the party and mainly to prevent a possible loss at the polls if either of current protagonists make it as official candidate How’s that for an Al Gore US Presidency. Best regards,

Nards Sapon, (by email), April 01, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Tony, One by one Hillary Clinton's friends abandoned her like passengers on the Titanic and jumped into the smooth-sailing Obama flotilla – John Kerry, Christopher Dodds and Ted Kennedy. The media, too, was ready to write her obituary and bury her.

Well, thanks to Ohio. Hillary is alive and well and back on the campaign trails. If Mark Twain were alive today, he would say that the news of Hillary Clinton's demise was greatly exaggerated. Hillary is another comeback kid.

Barack Obama burst upon the national scene like a rock star, dazzling everyone with his brilliant oratory. He even swept Caroline Kennedy off her feet, who endorsed and compared him to her own father.

But Obama is no Jack Kennedy. Kennedy was an authentic WWII hero before he ran for Congress. Kennedy's eloquence and charisma inspired young people to serve in the government and gave them hope. The nagging question about Obama is: What has he done for America to earn the right to run for the presidency?

Soaring oratory can inspire and give hope like many television evangelists do. But unfortunately, we are electing a president, not a preacher. Hot air can inflate a balloon and make it soar to the stratosphere, but sooner or later it has to to come down.

He promises to bring the country together. We have had a candidate like that, but the moment he was elected, George W. Bush became a most divisive president. We have been there before and we don't want to go there again. Obama has become a more polarizing figure than Hillary. The country is now divided along racial lines. Not an auspicious start for a uniter.

He belittles Hillary's experience and implies that he has better judgment. What he probably possesses is the forgivable brashness of youth.

Virgilio I. Gonzales, (by email), California, April 01, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Mr. Abaya, Your article was as informative as it was entertaining. Yes, indeed, just when the dumb and ugly Americans finally have a Presidential candidate who is authentic and exciting, the special interests who control media and finance will do everything in their power to stop him from winning in November.

Even in Barack Obama's own front yard, the Democratic Party, sinister forces are out to foil his bid for the Presidency. Hillary Clinton's obstinacy in pursuing the Democratic Presidential nomination to the bitter end reveals more than just sheer grit and determination. Hillary knows that her numbers for winning the nomination just don't add up. Yet she angrily pursues her candidacy, despite warnings that the resulting acrimony will only hurt the eventual Democratic nominee, who will mostly likely be Obama.

It was Hillary's campaign that brought up Obama's middle name, Hussein. And Hillary brings up Jeremiah Wright, Obama's controversial pastor, every chance she gets to. It is no mere coincidence that Hillary Clinton is a senator from New York, the seat of power of the American Jewish lobby.

While the youth and a significant portion of the minorities, with the exception of Asians and Latinos, may be enamored of Obama, American Jews are aghast. Obama has proclaimed that he will use more diplomacy, and less force, if he becomes President. Obama has renounced the arrogant unilateralism in American neo-conservative foreign policy. He has telegraphed his willingness to listen more to the third world.

What Jews fear most is that Obama will not be as willing a puppet of the Jewish lobby as past American Presidents. It is also no coincidence that the most prominent U.S. Jewish politician, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut who ran as Al Gore's V.P. in the 2000 Democratic ticket, now accompanies John McCain in his campaign sorties. The message is very clear: Jewish sentiment is against Obama.

In U.S. politics, the tail wags the dog. Jewish sentiment outweighs all other considerations. Jewish money is a big factor. Most banks and financial institutions in the U.S. are controlled by Jews. Media and entertainment is also controlled by Jews. So they also have a control on public opinion.

It will be extremely difficult for someone who is not trusted by the Jewish lobby to eventually become President of the U.S.A. They will do everything in their power to thwart someone like Obama. I do not know if assassination is part of the scenario. But I would not rule that out, especially if that were among the last options left.
Very truly yours,

Juan Deiparine, (by email), Toril, Davao City, April 01, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Good observations.

However, I would not vote for Hillary or Obama because they are both of the same ilk. During this primary season, I feel the Press orchestrated the selection of candidates and left much of the country disenfranchised. I have no clear candidate to vote for if I am to vote my convictions. The idea of moderate conservatives and conservative liberals has muddied the waters. Perhaps if our traditional system of Checks and Balances

is used correctly, we could survive any of the candidates. But as it stands there is no choice for me.

Shelah Bellis Hockman, (by email), Owosso, Michigan, April 01, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Mr. Abaya, You have drawn the most accurate picture of the coming election that I have read to date. Obviously, you have a firm hand on what is happening here, and yes, I agree with most of what you say will happen. IF there is an election, events will be manipulated in the last weeks to put McCain in the White house. If that happens, we will continue down the road to our ruin. China and Europe will become the world leaders.

With all of the problems the Philippines is having, I hope your country can stay above the fray and continue to grow and become stronger. I am moving there in two months to retire and enjoy the Filipino culture and your beautiful country. I am only concerned for the future of my family and where my country is heading. Thanks again for your opinions and your view of the Philippines. Sincerely,

Bill Tritt, (by email), Philadelphia, PA, April 01, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Tony, Your analogy or perception of Obama understandably is based on the delicately prepared news releases of the Obama camp and media's favorable articles always seemingly heralding their darling candidate .

These are well scripted, well designed and fully choreographed releases like a Broadway show. Why? Simply to avoid the race card. Any candidate either Democrat or Republican playing the race card would be making a fatal mistake. The Obama camp is on guard and ready to attack anytime an invasion occurs.

Clearly I find this as the big deception and frankly he does not get my vote. No, he is no JFK either. He may talk of the proverbial change (and what are these changes?) but has not been forthright just what they are. He may be polished and may appear to be a new voice on the political block but JFK has served the military as a hero and this country with honor.

I am a patriot at heart and MCcain who has served this country honorably without hate gets my vote. He is a real hero and all indication based on his records as a senator has a bipartisan approach and typically reaches across the aisle necessary to pass a bill.

America's Whites built this country through hard work. For many of us who live and work in America we see hard working Americans every day. They are the most fair and benevolent people.on this earth. They will lay their lives on the line to defend oppressed people and economically deprived countries.

Unfortunately there is anti government, anti democracy, anti religion, anti good, and anti freedom that permeate the world order at this time.

Obama will not be elected president not by assassination but by association, deception and revelation of myriads of skeletons he is hiding in his closet. Jeremiah Wright is only the beginning. This week is the release of a liberal form he filled out 12 years before As electors read more of skeletons coming out of his closet of the unmasking of the real Obama will occur.

For two blacks who have been privileged to graduate in prestigious universities as a result of the Affirmative Action program why are they very angry cads rather than grateful? For Michelle to spout the unforgivable phrase “for the first time I love America” should have Martin Luther King squirming in his grave.

America has matured and has come a long way since I set foot in this beautiful country over half a century ago. The prospect of a black president is a testament to this country's character. As a soldier I saw those for colored and for whites only signs which put me in a dilemma not being either. If there is racism is caused by the people themselves.

Speaking for our people, we Filipinos do not suffer from blatant discriminatory racism because we play our cards right. We are responsible, respect the laws, work hard, pay our taxes and are not a burden to society.

Good to talk to you, Tony, even though I disagree. Thanks, buddy.

Oscar Apostol, (by email), Roseville, CA, April 01, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Couldn't agree with you more. I dislike Hillary - more so when she started to hit Obama below the belt in one of her campaigns.

If Obama wins - and I do hope so - he will revolutionize America inside and out. I just hope that he does not end up assassinated. That would be most terrible.

Nicole Paterno, (by email), April 01, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Tony, Back in January, I also wrote (in my BusinessWorld column) that White America will vote against Barack Obama this coming November. My reasoning is not as profound as yours. I simply contend that Obama will lose simply because he is black. Here is an excerpt of that article.

Oscar Lagman, (by email), April 01, 2008

The polls will continue to show that Obama is a strong candidate, but I will not be surprised if on the day of the Democratic convention he is erased from the equation. But if the liberal and progressive Democrats do chose him as their standard bearer, I foresee White America voting against him.

This belief is born not of any scientific survey but of my own exposure to White Americans. I studied and worked in San Francisco, worked in New York, and many years later studied, though briefly, in Kansas City. Those cities are representative of the West Coast, East Coast, and the Midwest. I dare say that White Americans, and they still make the overwhelming majority of the American population, are not ready to have a black man lead what McCain calls “the greatest nation in history.” The founding fathers of that nation may have declared that all men are created equal but many of them really had in mind “white men” only. There was great disagreement among them about the institution of slavery. An early draft of the declaration of independence denounced the slave trade but the line was eventually deleted.

Many white Americans still could not accept black people as equals 100 years after slavery was abolished. The emerging Black Power in 1966 had to put pressure on Corporate America to hire Negroes, the term in use until the early 1970s. John F. Forbes, the big San Francisco CPA firm I was working for in 1967, hired one to be able to tell the growing number of Negro associations, “Lay off us, we got one.”

When I moved to New York in the summer of 1968 to work at J. Walter Thompson, the biggest advertising agency then, there was only one Negro in the entire account group. He had to be an Ivy Leaguer, a graduate of Dartmouth College. Today, a rule had to be set to give African Americans an equal chance of becoming head coach of a professional football team. The Rooney Rule of the National Football League requires Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to also interview one African American as possible replacement for the retiring Joe Gibbs.*****

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Tony, Shame on you, this time. You'd rather punish the victim than the criminal. Hillary tried to hold on to what remains with her family, as most of our Filipina wives would– look at the Phil. politicians. How many of their wives EVEN accepted the children of their unfaithful husbands? Is it really easier to beat a woman than to beat a man (someone your size)?

It's about time for people to say– look at how Hillary came out with better than sanity after having been abused/victimized.

Many of us still think Obama would make a good VP for Hillary. There are such naivete that could result in disaster for the American people if Obama prematurely heads the country.

Aurora Riel, (by email), Mufreesboro, North Carolina, April 01, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Tony, Hilary stands a better chance of becoming a president than Obama against McCain. If only for that reason I would vote for Hilary if I were an American and a Democrat.. Love your column…

George Sison, (by email), April 01, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Mr Abaya, I am very surprized at your very partisan political writings showing so much admiration, adulation to Barack Obama. I am a naturalized U.S. citizen of Filipino blood that I owe much of what I have become by migrating to America I learned to respect and to love so much. Like many others, I wish for the United States to continue on as a respectable World leader in areas of military power and economic influence; thus I hope for its President to be a person I can be proud of.

Having stated that, I can not and will not vote for Barack Obama who (just to name some) identifies himself with extreme elements of society with the likes of Farrakhan and Rev Wright (kind of people who blame much of society's woes and world problems upon the United States), and who even feels offended when his own middle name of Hussein is spoken or written as part of his full name.

I admit he is a gifted eloquent talker and speaker, but eloquence is but a speckle in the galaxy of attributes and things that make up the total person and a great leader. If indeed he and his surrogates and followers feel unfairly offended by including his middle name in political — and all partisan and official — discourse, why can't he go to the court system and officially change his name to delete “Hussein” as a middle name? Otherwise, if elected his name will remain in the annals of American history as Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States — surely, an undreamable, extremely negating revolution in American history.

Pacifico Talens, (by email), Virginia Beach, Virginia, April 02, 2008

US Navy (Retired)

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Mr Abaya, How about this scenario:

Barack Obama will be president of the United States, but he will be manipulated by the usual suspects into striking a deal with the OPEC. He would be tasked with keeping the petrodollars glued to the sphere of influence of the USD, rather than the euro.

In my opinion, Saddam Hussein gave the US sufficient reason to launch an invasion of Iraq when he tied Iraq's petrodollar to the euro, and made a bundle of euros for the Iraqis, albeit causing the US dollar to fall. And that's only Iraq. There are other Muslim countries with a lot of money to spend, that are watching on the sidelines.

In such a ballgame, McCain, who can't deal with OPEC in a way that Obama can, is reduced to a war-monger, and Hillary a wimp.

Willy Calinawan, (by email), Pasig City, April 02, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Sir, It's been a while since my last reaction to your works which I find very enlightening and informative. I was swamped with work but I do find the time to read what you forward. You are quite right in saying that it seemed impossible predominantly white Americans would allow a non-white to be elected to the White House. But then, who can really ascertain the outcome of the elections in November? Maybe the Americans will surprise the world for a change.

Grace Santos, (by email), April 02, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Tony, I am an avid fan of Barack Obama and I can appreciate and comprehend the trajectory of your well crafted analysis. If Obama is assassinated before the US elections on November or during the early years of Obama Presidency, then America would be thrown into a long violent fermentation for months or even years. This would be a shocking and repugnant scenario, if and when Obama is eliminated as convincingly foretold by some international writers. If Obama survives it all, it would usher the dawn of a second Camelot era in the United States. Obama's victory would be the single greatest positive event that would happen amidst the ever evolving global environment.

Vic del Fierro Jr, (by email), April 02, 2008.

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Americans are not ready for a black President, period. All this hoopla over a vaporous candidate who just happens to be colored will evaporate once the real campaign gets underway as November closes in. You cannot win on an empty mantra of “hope” and “change” and fool people all of the time. And you can't always exploit the white man's guilt over slavery (every time he's criticized his supporters scream racism, yeah, right!). If I were an American citizen I would vote for Hillary. I can sympathize with her seeing how similar she is to PGMA. She also just happens to be a substantive type but is wrapped in a layer of dislike by people who are superficially dismissive and contemptuous of her strong personality.

An Obama presidency is too radical to contemplate. If it materializes I can only imagine what people would realize once the post-election euphoria vanishes and the hard questions and situations take center stage. What will he do?

RR, pervahgus@gmail.com, April 02, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

NOTE: Because of lack of space, this post may be truncated in acabaya.blogspot.com. It appears or will appear complete in www.tapatt.org.

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Hi Tony.. As for me, I have reservations for Obama as the US president and I
dont want to explain why. As for Hilary, I think that the way she handled President Bill Clinton's sexcapade at those times was laudable.

The fact that she stood by her husband is a testament and sign that
their marriage may not be perfect, but theirs was strong Until now, they are still together.

I think Bill right now has forgiven himself of the past sins he
committed and has turned on a new leaf. Yun ang maganda…I go for Hillary.

Mike Delgado, (by email), April 02, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Tony, Americans do not vote because a presidential candidate is articulate, academically superior, or physcially endowed in contrast to Filipino voters. Americans vote and choose thier presidents on issues. The key issues that concern American voters in the 2008 presidential election are the economy, Iraq, health care, immigration, etc. The perception that a candidate could lead trumps experience in choosing the next US president. More importantly, American voters vote either for a liberal or or for a conservative presidential candidate. Obana is perceived as a liberal because of his views on abortion, gay marriages, illegal immigrant rights, medical marijuana usage, stem cell research, etc. In the 2008 presidential election, voters are divided because this is the first time a woman is a candidate and a black candidate with a Muslim name is running for the White House. Because USA is still a country of white people, the whites will still prevail.

Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, (by email), New York City, April 02, 2008

(What issue were the high-minded Americans voting on in 2000 and 2004 - who’s the dumber of the two candidates? ACA)

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Acabaya, Just a quick reaction. The word “authentic” visionary is too generous to Obama, and unkind to previous presidentiables since JFK, like Bobby Kennedy and others.”Platitadinous” slogans are not a monopoly of Hilary and Obama. They all do it. As to visionary, Hilary should be credited with her original idea of universal health care, which she fought for and will continue to fight for, despite the lobby of unsurance companies. Hilary is ambitious. Are you saying Obama is not.

Overall, your analysis about race and muslim overtones are quite right. They will surface
when Obama gets the nomination. That's also my gut feel. But when you write this during these primary season, in effect, you are saying the obvious. Who is more electable. That is saying a lot to the undecideds.

Jobo Elizes, (by email), April 02, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

A nice article about the present presidential campaign coming from a non-voter with good analysis of the foibles of each candidate. You however concentrated more on the two Democratic candidates and hardly defined McCain's qualifications. You detailed your aversion to Clinton and characterized Obama's demeanor and predilection and yet chose him for being an authentic visionary. Therein lies the problem, those who like Obama seem to favor him on faith and the little amount of exposure and scrutiny that he has been subjected to at this point. Nowhere in his resume do we see that he has taken a difficult public endeavor that will have a significant impact in the whole nation.

Even as we hear Obama being billed as a young and upcoming senator from Illinois and the media seem to expound on his freshness and polish we seem to overlook as I had, that he is already 46 years old. Young for a president, but where has he been all these years. The faithful will of course point to his academic accomplishments and his speech during the 2004 Democratic nomination. They are admirable for sure, but hardly enough to praise him as the second coming of Kennedy. People seem to forget so easily, that the much maligned Bush came to the white house largely because of his ability to achieve a working relationship with the other party in Texas as a Governor. With much fanfare he started to do just that, inviting every Washington politicians in his breakfast meetings. We knew what happened next.

Obama as a UNITER. While Obama talks like an accomplished preacher pointing out everybody's shortcomings, and rarely including any substantive weakness of his own, he has not shown, in his meager resume, any attempt to breach the gap between the two parties. Is it any wonder that he chose to endure the ranting of his own pastor for twenty years when he could have easily walked the aisle and crossed the pews to have a heart to heart talk with Rev. Wright during all these years. Does he share those sentiments eloquently expressed by his pastor? or is it a part of the change he is proposing?

H. M. Cruz, MD, (by email), April 04, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Mr. Antonio Abaya, British novelist Doris Lessing and your fearless forecast of Obama's possible assassination is farfetched. All popular public figures are of course in danger of getting murdered by any psychotic fringe, bigoted messianic neo-cons, etc… Now that you and Doris Lessing mentioned it, possibly the Secret Service will fortify their protection as impregnable as Fort Knox.

The chances of Obama's getting elected to the presidency is still doubtful though. As of date, Hillary is delivering a good fight which every talking heads are predicting will be determined in the convention itself.

The latest ugly fissures of the Obama and Clinton camps, hence fracturing the Democratic party right in the middle, will surface the one unlikely person who could unite and heal the split. Hopefully, his sudden appearance would set the demoralised party on fire. I am referring to Al Gore who at present is above and well beyond the dirty and mudslinging primary conflicts. Having recently received the untarnished honor of Novel Prize spousing a popular global initiative of saving manking from its folly,

Al Gore is the only person in the right place, right time and position of winning the final autumn leg of national presidential campaign. If Hillary and Obama's actual and super-delegates deadlocked, the Al Gore alternative is very conceivable. Delegates who would break the tie will nominate Al Gore in a heartbeat to unite the party. Both Hillary and Obama have no choice but to reluctantly “release” their commited delegates for the sake of Democratic Party victory. Strange as it may seems, this scenario is already being floated around, as long as presidential contention has no decisive frontrunner, both may be handing the nomination to Al Gore.

Mark Enriquez, (by email), Pomona, CA, April 04, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

No doubt about it, the Obama/Clinton contest in the US has captured the world’s attention because of the singular novelty of there being either a black or female president heading the world’s most powerful nation.

But let me discuss what seems a widespread dislike of Hillary whom you term “plastic and predictable.” Obviously, in the Pinoy context, she’s seen as just another trapo -– someone who obviously knows the ropes and claims to want to make a contribution when she’s seen as just hungry for power. She’s not admired for being a “policy wonk” who’s immersed herself in the issues — since that’s seen as men’s domain. Obviously it’s fine for men to crave power, but ambitious intellectual women are often viewed with distaste — not just by men who feel threatened, but by women who feel inferior. She’s relentlessly accused of being over-ambitious, cold and calculating, hence a bitch. But one hardly ever hears men called bastards because they’re ambitious and calculating.

It’s apparently more natural for male politicians to be aggressive, while females are supposed to be soft, nurturing, not too intelligent and all the rest of the feminine nonsense. Folks generally feel sorry for men like New York Governor Elliot Spitzer for having sinned, and the wives are expected to stand stoically by such transgressors — because, after all, boys will be boys. But when girls want to be boys, (i.e. tough and hard-working), people look askance at them because it ain’t natural.

I think Hillary’s standing by Bill during the sex scandal can, in some ways, be compared with the Nixon pardon by Gerald Ford. If she had raised cain at the time and stormed out of the White House with Chelsea, it would have caused more than a hiccough in the US body politic. Ford’s reason for his pardon was to spare the country from the trauma of having a thoroughly disgraced leader.

Certainly Barack Obama is a fresh breeze with his fine inspirational rhetoric, and perhaps his lack of experience will be mitigated by the fact that he’ll be surrounded with seasoned experts who will provide wise counsel.

But, as you say (because of what you believe is continuing American racism in Middle America), it’s more likely he’ll be assassinated. So the probability of an old white man like John McCain ending up being president is a likelier scenario.

Like most male pundits, you overlook one thing which the feminists have been pointing out. There’s a strong streak of misogyny in the US – and around the world (particularly in Muslim countries, as we all know). To back up this contention, Shirley Chisholm, the black lady who ran for president back in the 1970s, attributes her defeat not to her race but her gender. When one considers the numbers of women killed and maimed daily in domestic and other types of violence worldwide, one needn’t wonder why the prospect of having women lead men doesn’t sit very well with the latter. Too many men still prefer their women in the kitchen and the bedroom and out of politics. It’s only in enlightened nations as in Scandinavia and New Zealand where one finds true equality between the sexes.

Meanwhile the US, which was once viewed as the beacon of democracy, stumbles along with its religious hang-ups, racist proclivities, aggressive tendencies and misogynist leanings, squandering much of the world’s admiration.

Just as you say you’d vote for Obama if you were American, I’d choose Hillary, not because she’s a woman, but because I believe she’s eminently qualigied. She has said if she’s elected, she’ll appoint Bill as roving ambassador. That would be the kind Christian thing to do. And though I admire his achievements while in office and his good works today, I think she should divorce him to show she’ll stand for no nonsense, not just at home but abroad. That’s the kind of tough upright stance needed in this troubled planet — besides a truce in the war between the sexes.

Isabel Escoda, (by email), Hong Kong, April 04, 2008

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dear Antonio, When I turn on the TV all I hear is negative words. The news stations keep telling you that we're down and out. But that's plainly not true. I'm on the trail every day for Hillary and the crowds are bigger than ever before, and let me tell you - they are excited!

I wanted to show you a video from a recent event with Hillary in North Carolina - you can see for yourself Hillary's packed events and enthusiastic supporters.

Click here to watch the video.

Sincerely,

Terry McAuliffe, (by email), April 06, 2008
Chairman, Hillary Clinton for President

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Yo, Tony! Thank you for your always excellent essays. Just three things. First, that the Obama family — the white mother Ann Dunham, wife Kathleen (You mean Michelle. ACA), and Barack himself — may be angry is understandable. They've lived through that injustice which the great majority of white America have inflicted on their people, and yes, ours, too, and other minorities. They have seen the moral corruption of many of its bigoted leaders and citizens in perpetuating racism in a country that has unilaterally appointed itself to supposedly bring liberty, equality, fair play, and democracy around the world, but who would otherwise still be revulsed if their daughter dated a black man, or a black, Muslim or Indian family moved next door, or as has been recently theorized, the despicable assassination of a president while black (a new twist on “driving while black”). All the while squandering hundreds of billions abroad and neglecting the rights, freedom and well-being of not just blacks and browns but also poor whites as well right here at home.

And yet despite all this hypocrisy the Obamas most peacefully and most successfully transcended what I could only imagine to them must have been a most degrading and deep hurt as born-and-bred Americans whose roots in America go back centuries deep but are still looked down upon and hated only for the color of their skin. And, at once most laughably and sadly, by that God's gift to humanity — some of our very own Pinoy brethren.

That Kathleen (Michelle) Obama is not swelling with pride over this kind of America is not shocking in the same way that it is not alarming that we as Pinoys are not beaming with pride over a most corrupt Philippines with its most greedy and shameless bunch of leaders. Woe to them who question the Obamas' love for America, for we are all like the father of the prodical son; he might not have been proud of his son, but he still loved him, and would still do right by him and would do anything that is right for him, and he did. And that's what I expect of patriot Obama to do when he is president of my beloved United States.

Second, that an oppressed people bravely, frankly, loudly and rightfully voicing out the racism and injustices of America is necessary. It is certainly not hateful nor is it at all this so-called “reverse racism” either. In fact, it is most healthy, for such rhetoric has pressured America since its birth to move forward toward the right direction, albeit ever so slowly, the way we all hope your voice, Tony, and those courageous others speaking out for a better Philippines will move our beloved Bayang Api to the same direction as well.

Indeed, despite persistent white racism, in just 40 years since the Civil Rights Act blacks and other minorities have come a long way, the Obamas being a shining example, a great American story, no, a universal human story we as human beings should all be proud of. In the meantime, white racism has nothing to fear from its own creation this “reverse racism” which is nothing but a clever term these racists themselves coined to make their victims to shut up, to keep them “in their place”, and to pretend that all is well in America that after all is still an experiment in progress with still plenty of work to be done.

There is no moral or practical equivalence whatsoever between white racism, which has power, money and guns behind it, and, certainly over the centuries, have been used unsparingly, violently, and without compunction, and “reverse racism” which at best is nothing more but an honest accusatory finger pointing, or at worst, a mere wagging forefinger in a rightful venting out of anger by the underdog underclass at those sins of hate, racism, and injustice of the powers-that-be. Nope, it is neither the middle finger nor a clenched fist directed against the white sinners. It is raised non-violently in the same spirit as Dr. King's only to redress America's wrongs. And now these bigoted whites with their real and potent racism backed with power cleverly want to invert everything and impute their own grievous sins of racial and religious bigotry on the powerless disadvantaged to make themselves appear to be the poor victims of this “reverse racism”?

Third, I'd like to share with you and your most spirited readers the following:

The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

Louie Fernandez, (by email), New Jersey, April 06, 2008

(I agree with most of the points you raised, Louie. But I’m afraid most of White America may not. If Obama and Hillary wind up in a dead heat, the Al Gore scenario may unfold. The question will be: whom will he choose for his VP? ACA)

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

(Forwarded to Tapatt by Joe. S , jysta66b@yahoo.com)

Michelle Obama’s Militant Racism Revealed

In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on ‘crime and hatred'. Moreover, she stated that whites in America were ‘ineradicably racist'. The 1985 thesis, titled ‘Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community' was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.

Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to ‘Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first…' However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, ‘If those ‘Whites at Princeton' really saw Michelle as one who always would ‘be Black first,' it seems that she gave them that impression'.

Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms 'separationist' and ‘integrationist' when describing the views of black people.

Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a 'separationist' view of race.

‘By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.'

Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her ‘further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.'

Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder.

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but she elevates black over white in her world.

Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning:

‘There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost. ‘

What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first lady that will elevate black over white in America?

The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration.

‘Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.'

The conclusion of her thesis is alarming.

Michelle Obama's poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. ‘I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.'

Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.

Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.

The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism.

This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.

Michelle Obama's intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern.

Now maybe she's changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America. Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will. But it shouldn't.

FYI:

I am not a supporter of any of the candidates for president. In fact, they all leave a bad taste in my mouth. However, I am definitely sick of the main stream media (MSM) feeding us all this crap about Obama being an agent of change.

Has anyone stopped to think what kind of change; really?

I suggest we all remember the message in the novel Animal Farm by George Orwell. If you are not familiar with the novel, I highly recommend reading it.

Obama is an authentic visionary, unseen in American presidential politics since John F. Kennedy in the 1960s. Hillary is just another politician mouthing platitudinous slogans.

Even her uniqueness as the first serious female contender for the American presidency is tarnished by her apparent resignation to and tolerance of her husband Bill’s open and scandalous womanizing, even within the White House itself while she was present in it.

In my book, a crusading woman politician, confronted with the peccadilloes of her husband, would have castrated him then and there, politically or otherwise. But, of course, Hillary did nothing of that sort because she needed to stay in the White House and present a false business-as-usual demeanor for the sake of her future run for the presidency.

At this point in the campaign, Obama has pulled comfortably ahead of Hillary and is no longer threatened by any last minute surge in the Clinton campaign. My forecast is not even fearless, that Obama will win the nomination of the Democratic Party in June.

Having said that, however, I do not think Obama will be the next president of the United States of America.

The British novelist Doris Lessing, winner of the 2007 Nobel Prize for Literature, predicted in an interview with a Swedish newspaper last February 9, that if Obama were to be elected president, he would be assassinated.

Two months before Ms. Lessing made her prediction, I had told members of my family, as well as two American friends of mine, that Obama might be assassinated even before he wins the election on November 4.

Despite the spread of social liberalism, the US retains much of its white supremacist fringe, and anti-black sentiments continue to boil beneath the surface, manifesting itself even in the course of the current presidential campaign.

The ready availability of guns and a modern history of high-profile political assassination unsurpassed anywhere except in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, mean that several would-be assassins in Idaho or Alabama or wherever are even now seriously plotting their dastardly deed. Ominously, this month marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King.

But even if Obama were to survive assassination, as I hope he does, events are being, or will soon be, manipulated to significantly reduce his chances of winning the elections in November. And the central point of this manipulation will be Iraq and the war against Radical Islam.

Already we are seeing subtle and not-so-subtle hints of this manipulation. Anti-Obama propaganda repeatedly refers to his middle name: Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. The idea is to subliminally associate Barack with the certified despot and genocidal murderer Saddam Hussein, to defeat whom thousands of Americans have died and tens of thousands of others have been wounded.

This crude propaganda may not work with the liberals in the East and West Coasts, but for the unsophisticated local yokels and rednecks in Middle America, who make up the majority of the voting population, this would have resonance.

Especially if it were made part of a wider campaign along the same bigoted lines, as it undoubtedly will be. Such as the repetition ad infinitum of that YouTiube clip of his minister of choice for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, screaming out his anti-White America diatribes that would make Fidel Castro sound like a Sunday school preacher moralizing about addiction to bingo. .

Wright’s “Not God bless America! But God damn America!” screamed out loud with bristling hatred and wild-eyed conviction……and not a word of protest or reproach from Barack during those 20 years, will be capitalized on and repeated ad nauseam by Barack’s many detractors of all stripes, including white supremacists and Christian Evangelicals, not just by the Republicans, as November 4 approaches.

Barack’s rationale that he could not disown Jeremiah Wright any more than he could disown his (white) maternal grandmother somehow rings hollow. Attention may be focused on his (white) mother as the central influence in his life, especially during those 20 years when Jeremiah Wright’s anti-White America diatribes may have seemed the acceptable conventional wisdom to an angry young (black) man and his angry young (white) mother.

That his (white) mother, Ann Dunham, from Kansas married first a black Muslim from Kenya (Barack’s father), then another Muslim from Indonesia, seems to suggest a deep-seated anger against White America for its enduring racism, which anger may have found reinforcement, for both mother and son, in the reverse racism of Jeremiah Wright.

Before he entered state, then national, politics and thus had to meld into the mainstream, Barack was not only an angry young man with an angry young mother, he also had an angry young wife in Michelle Robinson, who was a Law graduate from Princeton, as Barack was from Columbia.

Curiously, Michelle’e senior thesis – “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” – has been “temporarily withdrawn” from the Princeton Library until November 5, the day after the elections. It must contain some sharp criticisms of White America that have been deemed, by Obama campaign managers, to be counter-productive to his presidential fortunes, for it to be embargoed until the day after.

In a recent interview, Michelle Obama said that “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before. I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus, as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second…..”

My sense is that this resentful feeling of separateness from the white majority permeated the Obama household - (white) mother, son and daughter-in-law – from which they sought and found refuge in the reverse racism of Jeremiah Wright. In the present contest, Jeremiah Wright is an embarrassment, but he may have been an integral part of the Obama upbringing..

So the issue of race is a major component in the Obama candidacy to a far greater extent than has been admitted or is apparent. But even more potentially damaging to him would be Iraq and the war against Radical Islam.

Even my favorite American commentators have not taken notice of an announcement by the Defense Department last February 11 that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and five other detainees in Guantanamo would soon be tried by a military commission.

For those who do not know, or may have forgotten, who KSM is, he was the al-Qaeda top gun who was the operational brains of several al-Qaeda initiatives including the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September11, 2001, one of the most devastating terrorist attacks ever anywhere, certainly the most humiliating setback suffered by the Americans on their own soil, at so little cost to the attackers..

This means that in the weeks and months leading to the November 4 elections, 9/11 will be relived with all the pain and anguish and anger and frustration that the Americans suffered seven years ago, and the calls for revenge and justice on the perpetrators, now on trial, will reach fever pitch as US media go on a feeding frenzy that may even overshadow, or be made to overshadow, the presidential campaign..

In such a hysterical environment, Barack’s (and Hillary’s) liberal calls for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 16 months will likely be drowned out by orchestrated and real calls for a more vigorous prosecution of the war, even if it means opening a second front in Iran.

The recent resignation of Adm. William Fallon as C-in-C of Central Command, supposedly because he refused to endorse a war on Iran, means that war is in the cards as well.

So is a more relentless pursuit of Osama bin Laden and company in their mountain redoubts along the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. In the past four months, using unmanned Predator aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles, the CIA was able to kill the no. 4 man in al-Qaeda’s order of battle, plus another senior commander.

If Osama or his deputy, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zwahri, is killed or captured in the weeks leading to November 4, while KSM and his five confederates are being tried for 9/11, Obama’s 16-month withdrawal plan would lose much of its liberal appeal and many independent voters would swing towards John McCain’s unabashed embrace of George W’s war on Radical Islam, as long as it shows early signs of success, especially in Pakistan, where the cost in American lives would be minimal.

In the present calculus, a hard core 30-32 percent of American public opinion has solidly and consistently supported the Iraq war. These are mostly Christian Evangelicals who see war in the Middle East as fulfillment of biblical prophecies in the Book of Revelations, according to which most Jews in Israel would be killed, except for 144,000 males who will convert to Christianity, which will be the signal for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

With 30 to 32 percent of American voters already predisposed by religious beliefs to support the War on Radical Islam, the needed balance of 19 to 25 percent would not be difficult to harvest from among independent voters if my scenario outlined above were to simultaneously materialize in the weeks leading to November 4: er…black propaganda on Obama’s connection to Jeremiah Wright, the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his five 9/11 confederates, and the killing or capture of Osama and//or Ayman in Pakistan. Grating as it may be, George W may yet have the last triumphal laugh.

One recalls that in the last week of the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry and George W. Bush were tied in a dead heat in most surveys, with four percent of the voters still undecided.

It was during this stalemate that Osama bin Laden chose to make a sudden appearance on US television, ominously calling for more attacks on the Americans. One week later, George W went on to win the popular vote, by 3.7 percent. (See my article Osama Spooked the US, of Nov. 03, 2004)

In 2008, Osama could spook Obama just by getting killed or captured. And for those who think that he is too old at 71, McCain takes along his 95-year old mother in his campaign sorties, just to show voters that he has the longevity gene. O Mama!. *****

Reactions to tonyabaya@gmail.com. Other articles at www.tapatt.org and in acabaya.blogdspot.com.

With this in mind, bloggers in the Philippines say they can’t help but compare US politics with events happening at home. To them, there are just too many similarities, including the fact that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and President George W Bush are both children of former presidents. But when it comes to who should be the next US president, Filipinos seem to be have taken a “let’s sit back and just observe” attitude.

Filipino Christian blogger, writer and songwriter Ganns Deen wrote in his blog (GMA Should Finish Her Term) that the Philippines could still learn a lot from the American elections.

“Allow me to steal a line from US Senator Barack Obama, who has struck a chord with many Americans on the basis of his ‘politics of change’. Obama has built his campaign on the ‘audacity of hope’. His is ‘a politics of common sense, of common purpose, of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

“If (Filipinos) cannot trust our politicians to put the nation first, to share in our sacrifice, and to use common sense in their day-to-day business (i.e. not rob us blind) so we can all share in the resulting prosperity, then we ourselves would do well to ensure we the people do not put these so-called public servants in power.
“A public servant whose heart is in the right place will not tolerate corruption. Period.

“So what does this bode for the USA in light of the impending economic recession? Regardless of what happens come the end of 2008, America will have a president who will do her/his darndest to bring Republicans and Democrats together to forge an alliance of hope. President Barack Obama, President Hillary Rodham Clinton, or President John McCain will usher in an era of change and hope; undoing most of the damage wrought by the years of sheer lunacy under the leadership of George Bush the Younger.”

Deen shared that Obama was doing the US a favor by running for president even going further by calling the candidate “a breath of fresh air” who has challenged Washington’s “stuffy closed-door image”.

“Regardless of whether or not he wins, he - and Hillary - have galvanized the United States primaries, sending waves through America that this is going to be a whole new ball game, a brand new road, something historic is in the making here. Obama’s agenda of hope, his meteoric rise to the top of American politics, and his feel-good rhetoric may not be the most practical in the world, but it speaks to America. He’s made Hillary work doubly hard for her victories; he’s challenged Washington’s stuffy closed-door image; he’s a breath of fresh air. I don’t doubt his sincerity for making America a better place; I wish I could say the same for Filipino politicians. I wish I could paint a rosier picture for Philippine politics.”

Ben Pimentel, whose site Kuwento Kuwento is one of the leading Filipino blogs around, once joked that Filipinos would love for Obama to win the race to the White House because he looked ‘Pinoy’ (slang for Filipino). However, he takes on a more serious note in his latest entry where he said that Filipinos may not want Obama as president simply because he’s black.

“My wife Mara and I have been ecstatic about the idea of Barack Obama as the first person of color to become president of the United States. But she sadly pointed out something recently: Chances are that many Filipinos will not vote for a black person. I hope she’s wrong. But there’s a basis for her concern.

”Take the results of the California Democratic primary which was won by Hillary Clinton. Obama won decisively among whites and African Americans. But Clinton won overwhelmingly among Latinos voters by a 2-to-1 margin. And, in the biggest surprise of the contest, she also won even more convincingly, 3 to 1, among Asians.

”Where did this resentment come from? The past has some answers. Historically, blacks and Asians have been pitted against each other. After the Civil War, newspapers and public officials portrayed immigrant Chinese workers as more obedient and industrious than the newly freed blacks whom they replaced on plantations in the South.”

But according to Deebs Neebs, Filipinos should bask in the glory of Obama – because if he can do it, then maybe one day an Asian American can run for president, too.

“Gobama, Obamaniac, Barak the Vote knows no borders. All children of the earth bask equally in his glow. Oo pwedeng tayo! (Yes maybe one day we can run, too!) Or something like that. Pinoys go gaga over Obama.”

The Obama-Clinton campaigns have caught the attention of Ang Peregrino, who wishes that similar campaigns were held in the Philippines.

“I hope Filipino candidates would really begin to challenge the sensibilities and intelligence of people and not just do the safe sloganeering, dance-and-sing type of ads.

“The ads really do reflect on the constituency they're trying to reach. So that the ads may actually be a real reflection of Philippine society and how politicians (or at least their spin doctors) perceive the electorate. Sometimes, their ads insult the intelligence of Filipinos. And yet I continue to hope against hope that I would get to see real issues being tackled in political ads instead of just focusing on the person or the “celebrity” of the politician.”

For Julia Aquino it is the “bickering” of Obama and Clinton that has caught her attention and how McCain, after securing the Republican nod, can now just sit back and watch the two fight over the Democratic nomination.

“As time goes by, even the closest couples sometimes struggle to find new things to talk about. So it was no surprise that during their 20th and final debate, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama struggled to say anything that supporters haven't already heard them say many, many times during their daily stump speeches and 19 other showdowns.

“Barack Obama gives as good as he gets, and says there's no whining in politics. The night began with a tense exchange in which Clinton accused Obama of dirty tricks over a mailing she said he's distributed in Ohio that she said mischaracterized her healthcare plan and stance on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Obama shot back with an assertion that, “I have endured over the course of this campaign repeatedly negative mailing from Senator Clinton in Iowa, in Nevada and other places suggesting that I want to leave 15 million people out [of my healthcare plan] … Senator Clinton — [or] her campaign, at least — has constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robo-calls, flyers, television ads, radio calls, and we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of this campaigns.”

”The biggest difference between them on the issue they say is the most important one, healthcare, is … well, we're still not sure Obama admitted that 95 percent of his and Clinton's healthcare plans are the same, so the bitter back-and-forth over how many people would be left behind in Obama's plan, or who many would be forced to pay for a plan under Clinton, was kind of pointless.

“Neither of them is willing to kick NAFTA to the curb on Day One, or commit to re-invade Iraq if things fall apart after our pull troops out When Russert asked Clinton and Obama to commit to pulling out of the North American Free Trade Agreement within six months of taking office, both said they would put Mexico and Canada on notice, but pledged to renegotiate the treaty, not scrap it. Both also were noncommittal about sending American troops back to Iraq if the situation deteriorates after US troops pull out under their presidencies.”