The Algerian Parliament wants to change the current articles of the presidential terms ,according to the constitution the President in Algeria stays only for two successive terms ,they want to change so that President Abd El-Aziz Bouteflika can stay for another third term !!

Bouteflika’s second term will finish in 2009 and so he wants to stay in the rule regardless of the fact that he should have left after his hospitalisation from couple years ago and the rumours that he was treated from Cancer.

This is the difference between Us and the U.S ,from the reasons why McCain did not win was his old age and his medical conditions , the Americans won’t risk having an old president who can die and leave them with inexperienced vie president like Palin.

But our Presidents want to rule us till the grave without any Vice Presidents !!

I respect Bouteflika very much for his history in the Algerian Independence war but enough is enough , why he wants to continue especially  with health and the fact that his country with all the threats surrounding it from terrorism and conflicts with neighbours needs a younger democratic president !!

But what can I say !!??This is an Arab country in the end.

I wish that the Algerian people refuse this amendment and fight it as much as they can

I am interested in good relations between the United States and Russia. But in the 21st century nations don’t invade other nations.

John McCain, 13 August, 2008, Birmingham, Michigan.

Yes, yes they do.

John McCain, despite his Republican affiliation, and Barack Obama have at least one thing in common. They are diametrally different from the man one of them will eventually replace when it comes to the principles they would use in relations to the Maghreb region. Over the past eight years, the Bush administration’s interest vis-à-vis the Maghreb was essentially two sided. Energy and security took over all past considerations. By focusing on these two issues, the White House decided to forget about what the Americans have done for decades in their foreign policy drive: human rights, democratic reforms and economic progress, areas that are likely to be resuscitated while maintaining the oil and security factors intact.

Although many analysts argued that recent American policy toward the Maghreb was meant to chip away European influence on the region, this assessment is farther from the truth and accepting it would be giving far too much credit for the White House and the State Department. I would argue that an American policy toward the Maghreb simply does not exist. In fact, the declining influence of Europe, although returning with a vengeance more recently, was simply the result of Europeans own disengagement from the Maghreb. The Americans have simply squandered the opportunity to fill the vacuum left by the Europeans as they implemented stringent protectionist and anti-immigration policies.

The American political engagement in the region was rather rhetorical with no real impact whatsoever. During the Clinton administration, the idea of a single and unified trading block within the Maghreb has made some headway. Senior administration officials like Stuart Eizenstat, the former U.S. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs have driven their initiatives to attempt to convince Maghreb nations to form a viable economic block, and they were equipped with some incentives. With such an economic grouping, the United States could have a much wider influence and could engineer a final divorce between the Maghreb and Europe, in particular France. The American policy included promises of free trade and a defense alliance with closer integration of Maghreb’s military into NATO in exchange for structural reforms that would cement a pro-American regional grouping. Perfect plan in an imperfect world? Except that the Americans did not have the ability to follow through and did not commit the finances, in face of a growing aggressive Europe Union that was quickly anchoring individual Maghreb countries into the EU’s economy. The final stab to the Clinton-era plan was the take over of the White House by the Republicans who had to deal with unprecedented terrorist attacks on their country, with little appetite on the details as the Eizenstat initiative of the late 1990s was replaced with an inefficient American Program for North Africa.

While they made very little progress toward the creation of a unified regional block in the Maghreb, the Americans focused their attention nearly exclusively on petroleum and security. So much so that the old foe Libya became near ally and certainly not a member of the axis of evil. In the oil sector, Algeria and Libya have been the focus on substantial American investment, essentially buying exploration rights and production licenses. In this case, more credit is to be given to the oil corporations with their strong relations with North African governments rather than the Washington bureaucracy. Even the rapprochement with Libya was heavily brokered by the oil lobby, which saw its competitiveness slip away if nothing was done on the political front. Washington’s openness to the Libyan regime was not just driven by well-thought political motives, but pressure from American oil companies was even more important.

On the security front, further rapprochement with Algeria was critical. That country has decades of experience dealing with an insurgency that has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. The Americans had a direct interest in insuring that some security capability is established in the vast Sahel region. This initiative is essentially one that has come from the Pentagon and not much from the White House or the State Department.

Apart from these two strategic areas of interest, very little has been invested in the region. The exception may be a symbolic free-trade agreement with Morocco, which is providing good opportunities for select Moroccan exports but needs proof of long term sustainability. Political engagement has been reduced to security discussions. Economic engagement has been reduced to exploration acreage and production rights. Educational exchanges have been reduced to their minimum and the movement of people between the two extremely restricted by security fears.

The over simplification of the U.S. engagement in the region over the past eight years is likely to take a shot in the arm with President Bush leaving office. His replacement is expected to have a much more comprehensive foreign policy position that would incorporate classic American diplomatic elements that have been used by U.S. diplomats pre-9/11. Even if the Republican John McCain takes office, he is likely to expand the criteria of foreign relations beyond security and oil. His decades of experience make him a different man than President Bush. His awareness of a wider and more encompassing global environment beyond security and oil will be critical in reshaping a better approach to U.S.- North Africa relations.

Senator Obama’s political positions are likely to also challenge the state of affairs regarding U.S. engagement in the Maghreb. His positions on human rights, democracy, free trade, and others mean that there will not be “business as usual.”

For the North African governments the honeymoon may be over. Not only accountability on human issues, economic reforms and democracy are likely to return to the agenda, but some of the gains, perceived to have been achieved, such as the Morocco-US free trade agreement could be revisited in favor of American workers. Whatever the outcome of the November 2008 American elections, North Africa’s capitals should brace for substantial changes in the way Washington will engage with them in the next decade.

Prolific blogger The Moor Next Door takes issue with Rubin's stance:

Having followed Turkey for the last two years somewhat closely (I make a conscious effort to listen to Turks in Boston and to look at Turkish newspapers and websites in my daily rotation around the web and the library), I view the series of events he describes somewhat differently, and I view the role of the AK as less inherently pernicious than he seems to. I do not care to get into the nitty gritty, partially because it would not accomplish much (and trying to dignifying such a weak comparison between Erdogan and Putin would be as silly as drawing one), but even more so because there is one bit that I think is more relevant than the rest of the article.

Quoting a portion of Rubin's article that suggests Erdogan is widening the gap between Islam and the West by encouraging anti-American and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, the blogger then says:

The first thing that comes to mind is the degree to which Erdogan’s role in the growth of Turkish anti-Americanism is exaggerated here, and especially considering that Rubin leaves any semblance of a causal factor absent. There is a myriad of reasons that Turks so especially dislike or disagree with America, chief among them being the perception that the United States has not taken Turkish national interests seriously when dealing with Iraq or Iran and particularly the Kurds. There are other seemingly minor transgressions that in the context of Turkey’s hypersensitive nationalism become much more offensive in Turkish eyes, such as the Armenian genocide business that became so popular in Washington and around the EU last year and the years before. This is to say nothing of the widely held view that the invasion of Iraq has exacerbated Turkey’s battle with Kurdish militants and that the United States is conspiring with the Kurds against Turkey.

Since 2003, Turkish opinions of the United States have rapidly declined. This has been correlated with the rise and consolidation of the AK in Turkey. But this does not mean that these sentiments are the result of the rise and consolidation of the AK. Indeed the data and anecdotal accounts seem to show that AK supporters and their opponents do not disagree in their views of Americans; anti-Americanism is strong throughout the body politic and has roots in issues that are common to most Turks.

The blogger then changes the subject to the Turkish (and Middle Eastern) perception of presidential candidate Barack Obama. Referring to a passage from The Observer, in which a reporter hears from ordinary Turks about Obama, the blogger expounds on the subject of Obama's race:

The reporter, like many, focuses on Obama’s blackness as an asset outside of the United States. It is not quite PC to ask whether or not it would be a hindrance. My view is that, when one gets to a certain level of power, his color does not matter whatsoever. He will be treated with respect by heads of state, though there may be some gaffes on the part of European or Asian leaders.

It is interesting, though, to ask, just for asking’s sake, whether or not Turks, Syrians, Egyptians, or other peoples in the Muslim world would elect someone like Barack Obama. My guess is that they would not. (The status of blacks in Middle Eastern countries, in everyday life and even folk traditions lead me to this conclusion.) This also makes me skeptical as to the extent to which Obama’s “face” could dissuade people in the region from becoming or remaining anti-American. There is an exceptional amount of severe contempt that many Levantines hold for black people (and other dark skinned people), that many Westerners, especially Americans, entirely miss. I do not know for sure where it comes from on the whole. Part of it is surely the identification of blackness with social and racial inferiority, the result of the fact that blacks and most dark-skinned Arabs have slave ancestry (Arabs have very little sympathy for the descendants of slaves, especially from what African-Americans who have been to the Gulf have told me, and my own understanding of the way that most Arabs view black people). Being black is not as much an asset in the Muslim world as it is in American white liberal circles. What is an asset for Obama in these places is more that he is a winner and that he is black. Arabs like rags to riches stories and the idea of overcoming societal hindrances. It is a fairly common theme in classical Arab-Islamic literature.

In response to this last section, alle comments:

Interesting point, and you’re right that no one has asked the obvious, if Obama’s background could be a hindrance as much as help.

(Arabs have very little sympathy for the descendants of slaves, especially from what African-Americans who have been to the Gulf have told me, and my own understanding of the way that most Arabs view black people)

I don’t disagree with you about racial prejudice in the Arab world, but it needs to be differentiated between regions. The Gulf is probably at an extreme end, given that slavery persisted until the 1970s there, and was very white-on-black. In the Saharan countries, you also had slavery until very recently (in some areas still), but there it was less skin color than bloodline, even if they generally coincide. And it’s not just a side effect of slavery: consider the Janissaries, of Greek or Albanian descent, whose descendants may enjoy very high status (and also be “whiter” than most Arabs where they live).

Rather than bridge the gap between Islam and the West, he has widened it by encouraging the most virulent anti-American and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. According to the Pew Global Attitudes survey, Turkey is now the world’s most anti-American country.

The first thing that comes to mind is the degree to which Erdogan’s role in the growth of Turkish anti-Americanism is exaggerated here, and especially considering that Rubin leaves any semblance of a causal factor absent. There is a myriad of reasons that Turks so especially dislike or disagree with America, chief among them being the perception that the United States has not taken Turkish national interests seriously when dealing with Iraq or Iran and particularly the Kurds. There are other seemingly minor transgressions that in the context of Turkey’s hypersensitive nationalism become much more offensive in Turkish eyes, such as the Armenian genocide business that became so popular in Washington and around the EU last year and the years before. This is to say nothing of the widely held view that the invasion of Iraq has exacerbated Turkey’s battle with Kurdish militants and that the United States is conspiring with the Kurds against Turkey.

Since 2003, Turkish opinions of the United States have rapidly declined. This has been correlated with the rise and consolidation of the AK in Turkey. But this does not mean that these sentiments are the result of the rise and consolidation of the AK. Indeed the data and anecdotal accounts seem to show that AK supporters and their opponents do not disagree in their views of Americans; anti-Americanism is strong throughout the body politic and has roots in issues that are common to most Turks.

Given America’s overwhelming dominance in the world, it is not hard to believe that a country perpetually paranoid of its neighbors and friends (partially the result of an ethnically chauvinistic national cult and a quest for mission and identity in the post-Cold War era) would project conspiracy theories and hostilities onto a country that is seen as being dismissive of their regional and national priorities. And while politicians have not done much to assuage anti-Americanism — it is popular in AK circles as well as Kemalist ones — I think these sentiments would likely exist under any other government in Turkey at this point in history.

This brings up another distant topic though: could Barack Obama improve America’s relationship with the Muslim world? Would his face alone, as Andrew Sullivan believes, be enough to patch things up with the people of a country like Turkey? My initial instinct is to say No, and I stand by Reza Aslan’s op-ed several months ago on this topic: re-branding America is not enough. The Observer begged the question in January.

One Turkish shop owner smiled when I mentioned Obama. “The mixed guy? Oh, right. And he has some Muslim name. Right, Hussein. Well, it wouldn’t change my opinion of America, but maybe it would for other people!” he said brightly. “But you know he wouldn’t really make the policies anyway, so it doesn’t matter.”

“Wait, who makes the policies?” I said.

“The petroleum companies. That’s what they tell us, anyway.” (“Leftist” arguments blithely discredited on American television sound perfectly humdrum in Turkey.) The shopkeeper also thought it was nice that Obama hadn’t supported the war in Iraq, but pointed out that was probably just because Obama was a Democrat and those who started the war had been Republicans.

“Obama wouldn’t change their opinions of the U.S.—that would be childish,” said one Turkish man, a professional in his 30’s. “But they might feel less aggressively than they do now.”

The reporter, like many, focuses on Obama’s blackness as an asset outside of the United States. It is not quite PC to ask whether or not it would be a hindrance. My view is that, when one gets to a certain level of power, his color does not matter whatsoever. He will be treated with respect by heads of state, though there may be some gaffes on the part of European or Asian leaders.

It is interesting, though, to ask, just for asking’s sake, whether or not Turks, Syrians, Egyptians, or other peoples in the Muslim world would elect someone like Barack Obama. My guess is that they would not. (The status of blacks in Middle Eastern countries, in everyday life and even folk traditions lead me to this conclusion.) This also makes me skeptical as to the extent to which Obama’s “face” could dissuade people in the region from becoming or remaining anti-American. There is an exceptional amount of severe contempt that many Levantines hold for black people (and other dark skinned people), that many Westerners, especially Americans, entirely miss. I do not know for sure where it comes from on the whole. Part of it is surely the identification of blackness with social and racial inferiority, the result of the fact that blacks and most dark-skinned Arabs have slave ancestry (Arabs have very little sympathy for the descendants of slaves, especially from what African-Americans who have been to the Gulf have told me, and my own understanding of the way that most Arabs view black people). Being black is not as much an asset in the Muslim world as it is in American white liberal circles. What is an asset for Obama in these places is more that he is a winner and that he is black. Arabs like rags to riches stories and the idea of overcoming societal hindrances. It is a fairly common theme in classical Arab-Islamic literature.

In any event, Arab sympathy for Obama comes from this tradition of rooting for an eventually triumphant underdog. Many Arabs think his views on Palestine will be tempered by his experience as a black man, though I believe this to be false (as I have said before, black American politicians have not been more kind to the Arabs than white ones have). Arab Americans believe that his experience as a black man will make them more sensitive to unjust racial profiling and less disposed towards confrontation in the Middle East. In recent months, though, he has been silent or against the grain on Arab issues. Civil liberties seem to have been forgotten as the campaign has become more centered on the economy, and to a lesser extent foreign policy. His speech to AIPAC seems to have shown just as much swagger as all the others, but he has nevertheless attempted to salvage the pragmatic image that many held of him, especially on Middle Eastern issues. So much for re-branding.

Addendum: “Obama’s Pie,” voices Arab frustration with Obama’s AIPAC speech, running through what could be a major problem for a candidate who raises such high hopes:

Obama made his mind up when he confirmed that is “the true friend of Israel,” and when he expressed his “satisfaction with the ties that cannot be destroyed between the US and Israel.” With these remarks, he shredded the theories of some of his Arab and other supporters who expected that the Democratic candidate would return to his African roots and the principles of his ancestors who had suffered from injustice and fought persecution.

[. . .]

Arabs, of course, were angry at these statements by Obama who was speaking before AIPAC and not in a mosque, among members of the Arab community in the US, to an Arab leader or in an Arab country.

Did we really expect anything different from a contestant in the American presidential race hosted by the largest pro-Israel group in the US? Why should Obama or any other candidate try to earn favors with Arabs if the only thing they bring with them is a loss? Why would the man sell out Israel when he knows that he stands in front of those who support it and when he is seeking their support?

What have Arab leaders, tycoons or organizations done to win over a candidate for the US presidency and prompt him to use a different type of rhetoric, one that supports the Arabs and condemns Israeli injustice? Arabs have done nothing. As usual, they were stunned and surprised as usual before issuing condemnations and decrying their lost hope, and the candidate who sold out.

This sense of disappointment seems to be the perpetual fate of Arab American voters. The disillusionment that his presidential policies could bring about might be even stronger than it would be otherwise (if he were, say, a Kennedy or the like) because there is a sense that he was supposed to have a deeper sympathy, he was supposed to try to bridge the gap, he was historic and charismatic: voters have projected their grandest feelings onto him, and to have those smashed is rather traumatic and disconcerting. In 2000, they were hoodwinked by George Bush who promised to put an end to the use of secret evidence and racial profiling. In 2004 they were too divided to be a decisive grouping. 2008 may offer more of the same, even with transformative candidates running.

I will be working on a critique of this piece at Salon by Anne Applebaum, in which she argues that Obama’s presidency “could begin to change European, Arab, and Asian attitudes about race.” Really?

It lies first with the feckless international community. The United Nations has passed resolutions demanding an end to Iranian nuclear enrichment. Iran ignores them. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 forbids the rearmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran rearmed them without consequence. Fault also lies with the terrified but nearly immobile Sunni world. It lies, too, with the axis of the avaricious.

The U.S. and Europe try to organize economic sanctions against Iran, but the oil-rich Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed in Indonesia, and Iran signed a pipeline deal with India. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security group headed by Russia and China, granted Iran observer status, while denying the U.S. the same status in 2005.

This is the problem with multipolarity. When everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. A rich rogue nation can flout the will of a disparate majority.

“The Reality Situation in Facing Iran,” David Brooks, The New York Times, 30 May, 2008.

Quick, unedited, uncut thoughts, not wholly or even directly related to the passage above:

1. On the “terrified but nearly immobile Sunni world”: The Sunni world, at least those portions which are allied with the United States and receive armaments and other assistance from her, is immobile mainly because it is the policy of the United States to assure that Arab states cannot be more powerful than Israel (this is called maintaining the quantitative advantage). Countries that ought to be military powers in a real sense, by virtue of geography or their natural resources and cultural importance, are not. There is no Arab piece in the Middle Eastern balance of power, only Israeli, Iranian, American, and perhaps Turkish ones. That policy reassures Israel and Turkey, and makes Americans comfortable; but it makes it easier for Iran to intimidate and interfere with allied countries in the region.

2. On the fact that Iran has been allowed to engage in economic schemes with its neighbors and given a place in various international fora, especially those being constructed by southern powers and by Russia and China: This is perhaps an illustration of the fact that the extent to which Iran is seen as a “threat” is not shared across the international community. Clearly India sees Iran as less of a threat than Israel, the United States and the EU do; China and Russia while obviously concerned with the problems around proliferation seem less worried about Iran’s ideological leanings and support for terrorism than their Western counterparts (it should also be mentioned that the SIO, in which Brooks seems dissapointed for allowing Iran and observer seat over the US, is meant as a means of checking American influence in Central Asia; offering Iran observer status, though, is an attempt at offering it a place within the international system in hopes that such inclusion will moderate its foreign policy, a strategy, while different from Washington’s, is working towards the same ultimate goal as US/EU efforts). And countries that share a similar world view with Iran, in the post-colonial sense (not the Islamist or Shia one), seem to be skeptical of Western intentions. This seems to point in the direction of two possibilities: (1) the Iranian threat is being exaggerated by Western powers and (2) that the other powers who take the opposite view for reasons of national interest and politics are misconceiving the situation and along with it their own national interests in regard to the region and Iran. The latter is clearly preferred by Mr. Brooks.

3. On the multi polar problem: The problem is not so much that a “rogue nation” (this is not a concept favored by most of the world, it should be remembered; it is used only by the United States, and signifies uncooperative behavior in regards to international norms especially when these norms are being used as instruments of US policy) can “flout the will” of the majority. While a multi polar system, by nature of its more diffuse nature of its power arrangements, allows fewer opportunities for the consolidation of the will of a single actor (by means of its own behavior or by proxy), it also allows for a different mode of calculating the national interest. In a unipolar system, those states who allowed their policy to stray from the one advocated by the Hegemon on issues that are given priority would be rogue states (at least as far as the United States would be concerned), and would risk being treated as such by the Hegemon. A binary options set arises, and the more beneficial one is to move along with the Unipower. It is easier for states to weigh the pros and cons of various policy options, especially when it comes to material gain. This is why it is looked on so favorably by poorer countries and more powerful states who feel that their national interest is left out of American calculations. If take the first possibility mentioned at the end of “2,” — that the US has exaggeration the Iranian threat in the world perspective — we would reckon that multi polarity also leads to a greater degree of prioritization of world affairs, especially as less liberal regimes, more concerned with sovereignty than the triumph of the individual and unbridled markets, press their agenda more forcefully, because it is these regimes that make up the majority of the world’s states. There are more such states, by sheer numbers, by population, and by representation in international fora, than those seeking to actively and constantly press the American and EU line on Iran. There are, in their estimation, more important matters around development, respect for sovereignty, and furthering cooperation amongst themselves. While the UN’s verdicts on Iran’s conduct are very clear, the fact that most countries agree on them does not mean that most countries prioritize them in the same manner. This is becoming more consequential as the world does become more multi polar. Indian, South African, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, or Indonesian interests do not all included the Iranian nuclear issue at the top of the international agenda, no matter how dear a matter it may be in Tel Aviv or Brussels. This is further to say, that in a multi polar world, what is the geo-strategic importance of Lebanon, a puny country of but 3 million people that exports or produces little of value to the outside world, will fall much lower on the totem pole than it does in a unipolar system in which Euro-American interests define much of the agenda. The same might be said of the Palestinian issue, or any variety of small regional conflicts that do not especially affect the world outside of those countries that are or who have made themselves directly or indirectly involved. The perception in a multi polar system, especially as the world’s emerging illiberal powers (though not undemocratic ones, think India, South Africa, or certain Latin American states) become more equivalent at the regional and global levels, will end up being that cooperation should be most emphatic on issues global in nature as opposed to more narrow ones that interest only the historically super wealthy. The continuity of what are generally Western values, particularly things such as the high value of the idea of humanitarian intervention or forcing compliance with international norms, depends on whether those Western states (on the Security Council and in the various world financial fora) who enjoy the monopoly of global influence are willing to allow the emerging democratic and not so democratic states, whose global strategies are not entirely formulated yet, to participate in the current international outlets more actively and with greater purpose. This is why Security Council reform and the modification of the agency procedures in the global financial and aid architecture is so important now.

Hillary also has bully characteristics. But most of all she is a whiner. The fact is that she rose to the top on her husband’s heels, and that is one of the reasons that the young in her party, the blacks in her party, the idealistic in her party rejected her. They had not risen to the top ever. So, she figured, she had survived these two decades of indignity and, lo and behold, come these upstarts and demean her labors. I suppose there are lots of folk who like her: there are, after all, all those men and women who have willingly been tricked into pretending that there is something more she can do to seize the nomination when all of her options were closed weeks ago. And if not that: coerce Obama into making Mrs. Clinton his vice presidential partner. I don’t even know if there are polls suggesting this.

Marty Peretz, “The Spine” blog.

It’s a fundamentally bold, hopeful brand of politics. And I think it’s no coincidence that that theme’s been at the center of his campaign. Relative to Clinton, you see two people with similar policy agendas. But Clinton comes from a school of politics that says liberalism can’t really win on the questions of war and peace, identity and authenticity, crime and punishment. It says that we live in a fundamentally conservative nation, and that the savvy progressive politician kind of burrows in and tries to make the best of a bad situation. It’s an attitude very much borne of the brutally difficult experience of organizing for McGovern in Texas and running for governor in Arkansas at the height of Reaganism. Relative to McCain, Obama thinks it’s possible to accomplish things in the world. He thinks the United States faces a lot of serious international challenges, but doesn’t see them as primarily driven by menacing and implacable foes. Obama thinks that a combination of visionary leadership and shrewd bargaining can greatly improve our ability to tackle key priorities without any great expenditure of our resources.

Matthew Yglesias, “The Audacity of Hope“

Il est vrai qu’il arrive à point nommé. La classe dirigeante est largement discréditée. La société américaine est de plus en plus multiraciale : la moitié des 7millions d’Américains qui se déclarent métis ont moins de 18ans (selon le recensement de 2000). Et comme le rappelle parfois Barack Obama, les Etats-Unis ne seront plus en 2050 un pays majoritairement blanc.

Barack Obama arrive au bon moment, et avec un profil différent : même s’il ne parle pas de langues étrangères (sauf l’indonésien), il est le premier candidat “global”. Sur les chemins de campagne, il a parfois été rejoint par les membres de sa famille recomposée à l’échelle planétaire. On a vu Auma Obama, sa demi-sœur, qui fait du travail social à Nairobi, au Kenya. Elle est la fille qu’eut Barack Obama Senior, le père du candidat, avec sa première femme. Ou Maya Soetoro-Ng, son autre demi-sœur, née du remariage de sa mère avec un homme d’affaires indonésien. Maya est professeur à Hawaï, où Barack a été élevé par ses grands parents, et où 21% des habitants se déclarent “Hapa” –“moitié moitié”– c’est-à-dire issus de mariages mixtes.

[. . .]

Contrairement à Hillary Clinton, qui a souvent évoqué la “dimension historique” des primaires 2008 –une femme et un africain-américain prétendant à la nomination du parti–, Barack Obama met rarement cette dimension en avant. En remportant la nomination du parti, il n’est pas moins entré dans l’Histoire. De son vivant, la génération qui a dû conquérir le droit de partager avec les Blancs les salles de café ou les sièges d’autobus, aura vu un Noir choisi par des millions de Blancs pour les représenter dans la compétition pour la Maison Blanche.

Quand Barack est né, en 1961 à Honolulu, les mariages mixtes étaient interdits dans 16Etats. Le voilà aux portes de la Maison Blanche. “Notre pays ne sera plus jamais le même, écrit le blogueur Oakland Kid sur le site Daily Kos. C’est au monde entier que nous parlons maintenant avec une voix nouvelle. Quelque part au paradis, Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson et Walt Whitman doivent sourire.” Inconnu il y a quatre ans, candidat à la présidentielle à 46ans, Barack Obama arbore une absence complète de fébrilité. Sa biographie est déjà écrite, rédigée à l’âge de 33ans, alors qu’il sortait de la faculté de droit de Harvard où il avait été élu à la présidence de la prestigieuse Law Review. Derrière son ascension et son apparente facilité, se cache une organisation disciplinée, fondée sur un premier cercle, celui des amis de Chicago, Juifs et Noirs progressistes, typique de la ville. A son état-major, le candidat n’a donné qu’une consigne : pas de drames.

Corine Lesnes, “Barack Obama, un destin américain,” Le Monde.

“The spirit of the times is for Obama — even if less so in Asia, Africa and Latin America than in western Europe. But an optical illusion may be influencing our mood — notably the comforting picture that it is not America but George W. Bush that is the problem. Out goes the ‘cowboy,’ in comes Change and Hope, and we can love America again.”

Josef Joffe of Die Zeit, quoted in “Foreign Reaction to Obama’s Claim is Favorable,” New York Times.

But his insistence that he can bridge the nation’s ideological chasms without resort to partisan warfare leaves some with the nagging sense that he makes it sound too easy, and that his full measure as a politician has yet to be taken.

He has stumbled and fumbled more than once. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton confounded him, pushing him back on his heels, his irritation too apparent. He falls in love with his words and perhaps his celebrity, acknowledging after Texas that he had become too dependent on arena politics and too aloof in smaller settings.

“Barack Obama: Calm in the Swirl of History,” The New York Times.

Perhaps it is unfair to suggest that Senator Obama opposed IRGC designation before he supported it. In the context, however, of the candidate’s flip-flopping on personal negotiations with terrorist state leaders, however, the audience at AIPAC might ask why Senator Obama has pivoted from opposition to “Lieberman-Kyl” to support for the IRGC designation his audience demands. Is this really change they can believe in?

Danielle Pletka, “Obama’s Pander Pivot,” The Weekly Standard.

And yet, Mr Obama will not want to make the offer if there is a chance that she will actually accept. Expect a complicated dance between the two in coming days. She probably would not bring to his ticket what it needs. He campaigned on “change”, whereas she lived in the White House for eight years in the 1990s. He rose to prominence partly for his early and clear opposition to the war in Iraq, which she voted for. And there is the delicate but unavoidable fact that Americans may be skittish about breaking both the colour and sex barrier at the same time.

“Obama’s victory,” The Economist.

I have to wonder, what exactly is Obama referring to when he suggests that McCain is denying Obama’s accomplishments? My sense is that McCain generally offers a pretty generous assessments of Obama’s many impressive qualities. As to Obama’s accomplishments, are there any in particular that McCain ought to highlight? I realize that this sounds like I’m poking fun, but I’m genuinely curious.

Reihan Salam, The American Scene.

For Senator Obama the risk is dog-whistle politics that attempt to highlight his exotic heritage. The debate about why he does not wear a flag pin or rumours that he took the oath of office on the Koran when he was sworn into the US Senate are cases in point.

In his victory speech he vowed that he would not demonise his political rivals or “use religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon”.

The second half of the presidential campaign is going to be much more robust, and it will be instructive to see if Senator Obama can stick by his principles of rising above bitter and divisive partisan politics.

“Hail the great black hope: now for the white votes,” The Sydney Morning Herald (I should say that this title is very Australian sounding to me for some reason).

“I’ve always been a person of possibilities,” said Sweet Fairley, a former president of the Jackson branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “For me, the first thing I thought about is, ‘From slavery to the presidency.’”

[. . .]

“We are in such distress that we’re already in the hole,” said Hampton, 77, of Jackson. “Problems in the country are larger than a single nominee.”

“Leaders savor Obama victory,” Jackson Citizen Patriot.

In winning the nomination, Obama has left many African Americans elated but at the same time fearful that their own preoccupations might derail the candidate in a general election, said William Jelani Cobb, author of books about contemporary black culture.

“Black Americans are treading on thin ice, moving very delicately. This (Obama’s) opportunity is frail and fragile (and many say) let’s make sure that nothing happens to ruin it,” said Cobb, a professor of history at Atlanta’s Spelman College.

“Blacks savor Obama win, fear disappointment,” Reuters.

Comparate nunc, Quirites, cum illorum superbia me hominem novum. Quae illi audire et legere solent, eorum partem vidi, alia egomet gessi; quae illi litteris, ea ego militando didici. Nunc vos existumate facta an dicta pluris sint. Contemnunt novitatem meam, ego illorum ignaviam; mihi fortuna, illis probra obiectantur. Quamquam ego naturam unam et communem omnium existumo, sed fortissumum quemque generosissumum. Ac si iam ex patribus Albini aut Bestiae quaeri posset, mene an illos ex se gigni maluerint, quid responsuros creditis, nisi sese liberos quam optumos voluisse? [They despise me as an upstart; I them as do-nothings. They taunt me with my humble birth; I them with their disgraceful behavior. I consider all men equal in birth and noble only in relation to their bravery. If the ancestors of Albinus or Bestia could be asked whom they would prefer for a descendant, myself or them [the nobility], what would they say that they wished for their sons to be the best men possible?]

Quod si iure me despiciunt, faciant item maioribus suis, quibus, uti mihi, ex virtute nobilitas coepit. Invident honori meo; ergo invideant labori, innocentiae, periculis etiam meis, quoniam per haec illum cepi. Verum homines corrupti superbia ita aetatem agunt, quasi vostros honores contemnant; ita hos petunt, quasi honeste vixerint. Ne illi falsi sunt, qui divorsissumas res pariter expectant, ignaviae voluptatem et praemia virtutis. Atque etiam, cum apud vos aut in senatu verba faciunt, pleraque oratione maiores suos extollunt, eorum fortia facta memorando clariores sese putant. Quod contra est. Nam quanto vita illorum praeclarior, tanto horum socordia flagitiosior. Et profecto ita se res habet: maiorum gloria posteris quasi lumen est, neque bona neque mala eorum in occulto patitur. Huiusce rei ego inopiam fateor, Quirites, verum, id quod multo praeclarius est, meamet facta mihi dicere licet. Nunc videte quam iniqui sint. Quod ex aliena virtute sibi arrogant, id mihi ex mea non concedunt, scilicet quia imagines non habeo et quia mihi nova nobilitas est, quam certe peperisse melius est quam acceptam corrupisse.

Equidem ego non ignoro, si iam mihi respondere velint, abunde illis facundam et compositam orationem fore. Sed in vostro maxumo benificio cum omnibus locis me Nam me quidem ex animi mei sententia nulla oratio laedere potest. Quippe vera necesse est bene praedicent, falsa vita moresque mei superant. Sed quoniam vostra consilia accusantur, qui mihi summum honorem et maxumum negotium imposuistis, etiam atque etiam reputat num eorum paenitendum sit. Non possum fidei causa imagines neque triumphos aut consulatus maiorum meorum ostentare, at, si res postulet, hastas, vexillum, phaleras, alia militaria dona, praeterea cicatrices advorso corpore. Hae sunt meae imagines, haec nobilitas, non hereditate relicta, ut illa illis, sed quae ego meis plurumis laboribus et periculis quaesivi. vosque maledictis lacerent, non placuit reticere, ne quis modestiam in conscientiam duceret.

Non sunt composita verba mea; parvi id facio. Ipsa se virtus satis ostendit. Illis artificio opus est, ut turpia facta oratione tegant. Neque litteras Graecas didici; parum placebat eas discere, quippe quae ad virtutem doctoribus nihil profuerant. At illa multo optuma rei publicae doctus sum: hostem ferire, praesidia agitare, nihil metuere nisi turpem famam, hiemem et aestatem iuxta pati, humi requiescere, eodem tempore inopiam et laborem tolerare. His ego praeceptis milites hortabor, neque illos arte colam, me opulenter, neque gloriam meam laborem illorum faciam. Hoc est utile, hoc civile imperium. Namque cum tute per mollitiem agas, exercitum supplicio cogere, id est dominum, non imperatorem esse. Haec atque talia maiores vostri faciundo seque remque publicam celebravere. Quis nobilitas freta, ipsa dissimilis moribus, nos illorum aemulos contemnit, et omnis honores non ex merito, sed quasi debitos a vobis repetit.

Ceterum homines superbissumi procul errant. Maiores eorum omnia quae licebat illis reliquere: divitias, imagines, memoriam sui praeclaram; virtutem non reliquere, neque poterant; ea sola neque datur dono neque accipitur. Sordidum me et incultis moribus aiunt, quia parum scite convivium exorno neque histrionem ullum neque pluris preti cocum quam vilicum habeo. Quae mihi lubet confiteri, Quirites. Nam ex parente meo et ex aliis sanctis viris ita accepi: munditias mulieribus, laborem viris convenire, omnibusque bonis oportere plus gloriae quam divitiarum esse; arma, non supellectilem decori esse.

Quin ergo, quod iuvat, quod carum aestumant, id semper faciant: ament, potent; ubi adulescentiam habuere ibi senectutem agant, in conviviis, dediti ventri et turpissumae parti corporis. Sudorem, pulverem et alia talia relinquant nobis, quibus illa epulis iucundiora sunt. Verum non ita est. Nam ubi se flagitiis dedecoravere turpissumi viri, bonorum praemia ereptum eunt. Ita iniustissume luxuria et ignavia pessumae artes, illis qui coluere eas nihil officiunt, rei publicae innoxiae cladi sunt.

From Bellum Iugurthinum (The Jugurthine War), Sallust (see here for a less than ideal translation; this speech by Marius is also called “On being accused of a low origin“). There are elements of Obama, McCain, and Mrs. Clinton in Marius’s speech.

“God willing, I would like Mr. Obama to be the first black African to be president of the United States,” said William Ochieng, who was among a crowd in Kisumu toasting Obama with a brew called Senator Keg — nicknamed “Obama” beer since the U.S. senator’s presidential campaign took off.

At the Uncle Sam barbershop in Nairobi, Kamau Gichamba said he has high hopes for Obama.

“I’m very happy about his win. He is a Kenyan!” said Gichamba, 37, as he cropped a customer’s hair. “If Obama becomes president, the world will become a safer place. He will not stoke wars like (President) Bush.”

“Kenyans’ hopes are high after Obama seals nomination,” AP.

The world’s great age begins anew,
The golden years return,
The earth doth like a snake renew
Her winter weeds outworn;
Heaven smiles, and faiths and empires gleam,
Like wrecks of a dissolving dream.

[. . .]
O cease! must hate and death return?
Cease! must men kill and die?
Cease! drain not its dregs the urn
Of bitter prophecy!
The world is weary of the past–
O might it die or rest at last!

From “Hellas,” by Percy Bysshe Shelley.

A cursory glance at the foreign blogosphere would seem to indicate that Obama is the favored candidate abroad. Today's rejoicing in the blogosphere only serves to back up that hypothesis, with bloggers celebrating Obama's potential nomination.

From South Africa, The Times blogger Ray Hartley expresses some concern over an Obama presidency:

Obama spoke of restoring the US to a position of leadership in the free world and the world will no doubt applaud this re-orientation.
But I can’t help feeling that this massive shift in resources from a failed foreign policy to domestic issues might, ironically, see the US become more insular under an Obama presidency.
In order to win over middle America, Obama is going to have to look inwards and back up his promise of “Change we can believe in” with a better life for those battered by the economy.

American student Exuberant Rationality explains Obama's global popularity:

Yes, Barrack Obama is the candidate of choice for the rest of the world. This isn't too surprising, given that he has family living on nearly every continent and his willingness to have open dialogue with everyone, including “enemies.

An African-American blogger, Homeland Colors, recognizes the role of race in Obama's global popularity:

Around the world people of color are rejoicing. They are celebrating, not because Obama is himself the leader they are looking for, but because he shows that one can be born of any race or ethnic group and make something of oneself. For the last four centuries, one had to be of pure European descent to gain certain positions. That era may be over.

Blogger Tane of New Zealand's The Standard puts it simply:

Thank God that’s over.

The first comment on the post stands out:

OK, I am a right of center leaning person but I for one am extremely heartened by the fact that an African American only one generation removed from a hut in a kenyan village is now vying for the most powerful position in the US.

That he could not only be a candidate, but a viable candidate with a real chance of securing the top job, speaks of an optimism that is sadly lacking in the world today.

I don’t know enough about the specifics of the man, but his charisma is self evident.

Eleven-year-old Canadian The World of Isaac shares a brief thought:

Hillary Clinton still says though that she will not make an immediate decision on what course her campaign is going to take. Who knows what that means as Obama has already won!?

Moroccan Laila Lalami encourages readers to rejoice at this historic event:

For those of you who are not won over to the young senator from Illinois, let me just say that there'll be plenty of time to be skeptical. But for now why not enjoy this historic day? One hundred and forty five years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and forty five years after “I Have a Dream,” an African American has become his party's nominee for the presidency of the United States. That is reason to rejoice.

Last but certainly not least, prolific blogger The Moor Next Door shares a smattering of opinions from news and blog sources on his own blog, with the introduction:

After talking with various people and looking over several reactions to Barack Obama’s realization of the Democratic presidential nomination (as well as Mrs. Clinton’s shamelessly arrogant speech), I have decided to post a few of the ones I agree with or find interesting, along with some older statements that I think might be appropriate to the feeling of the occasion (one of which is clearly from the view of his supporters; the other is more ambiguous, and could come from his, Mrs. Clinton’s or John McCain’s supporters.)

Desperate to get attention for her cause to seat Florida and Michigan delegates, Hillary Clinton compared the plight of Zimbabweans in their recent fraudulent election to the uncounted votes of Michigan and Florida voters saying it is wrong when “people go through the motions of an election only to have them discarded and disregarded.”
“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe,” Clinton explained. “Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people,” Clinton told the crowd of senior citizens at a retirement community in south Florida.

“So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote. It is the single most important, privilege and right any of us have, because in that ballot box we are all equal. You’re equal to a billionaire. You’re equal to the president, every single one of us.”

The Michigan primary vaguely reminded me of a Soviet-era election, with only the leader’s name on the ballot. Allow me to roll my eyes. Comments like this one make me want to buy into the argument that Barack Obama will offer Americans a more genuinely empathetic insight into the developing world. It is clear that Mrs. Clinton cannot.

Obama's religion has been the topic of articles and chain e-mails since he announced his candidacy for president, so it comes as little surprise that the subject has now made it to the New York Times.

Tikun Olam is disappointed in the paper:

How an editor judges this to be of interest to the readers of the Times is beyond me. This is an example of editorial lunacy. Why would you take a trashy rumor published in a David Horowitz shmate and transfer it to the N.Y. Times? I feel dirty just reading it there.

The blogger also makes the following point:

Of course, no Islamist has ever uttered a word about Obama’s alleged apostasy let alone advocated killing him nor does Luttwak claim as such. In fact, the McCain campaign has pounced on an endorsement from a Hamas spokesperson (so much for Islamists wanting to kill Obama). So the only morons propounding this line of reasoning are neocons who seek to plant the idea in Americans’ minds that Obama is a Muslim.

From Israel, Rootless Cosmopolitan is amazed by Luttwak's comments:

Some people will stop at nothing to stop Barack Obama. Earlier in his campaign, desparate opponents suggested that voting for Obama was a bad idea because he was too much of a Muslim. Well, we all saw how well that worked. But Edward Luttwak seems to have come up with a truly unique reason for Americans to avoid making Barak Obama their president — Obama isn’t Muslim enough!

Algerian blogger The Moor Next Door isn't surprised that the Times accepted the op-ed, and remarks on the paper's history of poor reporting on Arabs and Muslims:

The NYT seems to have developed a habit of idiotic reporting and opining on Muslims, Arabs, and their affairs; perpetually tinged with bigotry, condescension, and xenophobia; see their coverage of Geert, Hirsi Ali, Syrian immigrants, Rezko, and incidences of racialism or bias against Muslims which are not taken seriously by its writers. Matt Yglesias asks “I'm no expert on Islamic law, but if this were any kind of real issue, shouldn't The New York Times be able to locate an actual Muslim who sees things this way?” The NYT doesn't consider Muslim opinion relevant; it rarely asks actual Muslims about topics that pertain to their votes, views, religion, or culture; only white reporters and “experts” are objective enough to cover such topics. At least that's how it seems to play out.

Mexican blogger From Xico is also ashamed by the Times piece, and shares writings debunking the myths surrounding Obama's religion:

Several writers have shredded this assertion completely and effectively. Obama is not, by Islamic law an apostate. None I think has done it better than Juan Cole, a distinguished professor at the University of Michigan with particular expertise in the Middle East. You can read his response here.

One of the interesting points he makes is that neither his religion nor his sex have much to do with whom Middle Easterners favor: Pakistan favors Clinton, apparently.

If you have friends who still manage to believe that Barak is somehow a Muslim or ex-Muslim, show them this Juan Cole post.

Finally, Israeli blogger, Gershom Gorenberg also disagrees with the claims made by Luttwak:

Even for those practiced at believing six impossible things before breakfast , it can be hard to accept that Barack Obama is a Muslim, a follower of a controversial black pastor , and a Marxist too. Edward Luttwak proposed this neat solution : Obama is really an apostate Muslim, subject to the death penalty in Islam. So he will actually be more hated in the Muslim world, and in more danger, than the president who invaded Iraq for no purpose that has withstood historical scrutiny.Ali Ateraz provides a valuable guide to why this thesis contradicts Islamic law and Islamic social realities in a half-dozen different ways.But don’t expect the Obama-as-Muslim smear to vanish; it will merely change shape, as the phantasmagoric fears produced by bigotry always do. For precedents, see under Jewish communist-banker-Zionist-cosmopolitans.

Third, people that appear to be Muslims, but don’t follow Islam and choose another religion, are permitted under Islamic law to leave Islam without penalty. A major case in Malaysia recently handed down — a woman who was Muslim for some time in order to marry an Iranian was permitted to go back to Buddhism — is an example. Obama, unlike the Malaysian woman, didn’t even make a profession of faith to Islam, so it makes even less sense for him to be considered an apostate.

Fourth, Islamic law recognizes abandonment by the biological father. Obama’s Kenyan father abandoned Obama. As such, any religious imprimatur he may have had over Obama — which is already a stretch since the man was an atheist — is null and void. In such a situation, Obama’s mother’s religion is controlling. She was not Muslim. Even if someone makes the argument from patriarchy: that Obama’s paternal grandparents were his rightful guardians, that would fail since they also constructively abandoned him.

I think the instructive case that we should look towards is that of Carlos Menem, former president of Argentina. Born to Muslim Syrian-Argentine parents, Menem converted to Catholicism in order to run for president. His first wife, also of Syrian descent, remained Muslim. Menem traveled to Syria and other Muslim majority countries without incident, and even married a Muslim woman after he had converted out of the faith. There are questions about the authenticity of his Catholicism. But in Luttwak’s world this would be cause for the complication of the security planning of state visits by President Menem to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Mr. Menem’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it did, no doubt, when he won the Casa Rosada. Right? Wrong.

*[ The NYT seems to have developed a habit of idiotic reporting and opining on Muslims, Arabs, and their affairs; perpetually tinged with bigotry, condescension, and xenophobia; see their coverage of Geert, Hirsi Ali, Syrian immigrants, Rezko, and incidences of racialism or bias against Muslims which are not taken seriously by its writers. Matt Yglesias asks “I'm no expert on Islamic law, but if this were any kind of real issue, shouldn't The New York Times be able to locate an actual Muslim who sees things this way?” The NYT doesn't consider Muslim opinion relevant; it rarely asks actual Muslims about topics that pertain to their votes, views, religion, or culture; only white reporters and “experts” are objective enough to cover such topics. At least that's how it seems to play out. ]

Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy

“We’ve tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community,” Mr. Fareed said. “If it’s not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are.”

“McCain pressed on Islamic terror label,” The Washington Times, 21 April, 2008.

This raises a few issues. As I see it, terrorists are a special class of criminal and should be referred to as such. I have my own issues with ISNA, but Fareed raises an important point on the issue of “Islamic terrorism.” This phrase is composed with several intentions. The ones that are most immediately apparent are, for the campaigner, the fact that it clearly differenciates the “enemy” from “us” and helps to produce an emotional reaction of fear on the part of voters, which better serves Republicans. Further, “knowing” thy enemy, whether or not this knowledge is correct or not, makes a candidate appear more certain and more prepared for leadership, as this gives the impression that he or she knows what direction they would like to take the campaign in (rightly or wrongly).

For specialists, as I have mentioned before, using the term “Islamic terrorism” sustains their relevance. Conceptualizing the “War on Terror” as a war between America (and/or “Western civilization”) and “Islamic” terrorists, or extremists, or whatever offers an existential threat, an epic battle that “has been going on since” before the Crusades and is continuing on today. In such a struggle, the role of the Arabist, Iranicist, or South Asianist is forever relevant. The Near East specialist is invaluable for a people at war with an “Islamic” enemy. Heightened relevance yielded heightened government grants and donations to major research institutions, think tanks and university area studies programs. It pays for galas of exquisite quality and audiences with the nation’s most influential eyes and ears. It raises the prestige of bookworms, and inflates the egos or men with multiple degrees in medieval philosophy and poetics.

There are two questions this topic raises, for me. Firstly, what is so special about “Islamic” terrorism? Terrorism is a problem on all continents. It takes multiple forms and is used as a tactic by many non-Muslim organizations and peoples. For example, since 1975 there have been something on the order of 145 terrorist attacks targeting American interests in Greece. Of the 500 terrorist attacks in the EU in 2006, 424 were by Basque or Corsican separatists. September 11 focuses most Americans on Islamist terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, but if Mr. McCain wants to continue to wage the “Global War on Terrorism” (which in itself is a rather odd idea; why have not guerrilla groups declared a “Global War on Frontal Assaults”?), it makes no sense to make the enemy “Islamic” terrorism alone. This deceives other governments with terrorist problems that are not Islamic into believing that their struggles will be backed up by the United States. And what of narco-terrorism whose major flash points are much closer to the American hinterland than those of the “Islamic” threat?

The second question deals with this quote, which has manifested itself in the statements of many politicians and scholars who use the label in recent years.

“Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda represent a perverted strain of Islam at odds with the great many peaceful Muslims who practice their great faith peacefully,” Mr. Schmidt said. “But the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is.” [Emphasis added.]

The sincerity of this statement is questionable, if even existent. However, my question is this: If bin Ladenism represents a “perverted strain of Islam,” how is this Islamic? To pervert is variously defined as to lead astray morally, to lead into mental error or false judgment, to misconstrue or misinterpret, to turn to an improper use, to cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good, and most interestingly:

“to turn someone aside from a right religious belief to a false or erroneous one,” from O.Fr. pervertir, from L. pervertere “corrupt, turn the wrong way, turn about,” from per- “away” + vertere “to turn” (see versus). The noun is 1661, from the verb. Replaced native froward, which embodies the same image. The noun is attested from 1661, “one who has forsaken a doctrine or system regarded as true, apostate;” psychological sense of “one who has a perversion of the sexual instinct” is attested from 1897 (Havelock Ellis), originally esp. of homosexuals. Perv, short for sexual pervert (n.), is first recorded 1944.

A perversion of something Islamic is not Islamic. Many scholars, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, and so forth, describe “bin Ladenism” and other forms of Islamism as “perversions” of Islam, but then backpedal and label these as forms of “extremism” or “radicalism,” which implies that they are rather the opposite of perversions. That bin Ladinism is “extreme” Islam means that it must be an especially rigorous Islam, that it is still Islamic. It thus implies that it is a valid set of Islamic beliefs practiced especially hard, and deviates from the norm. Bin Ladinism cannot be both perverted and extreme or radical simultaneously. It is either un-Islamic or it is drastic Islam that is not especially favored by most Muslims. It cannot be both.

“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules.”

This is the typical stereotype that media and politicians peddle to the actual working class. Living in an Ivory Tower world, such people are somehow convinced that the average man is more affected by show-offs, than discrimination or lack of work. In fact, when one of the candidates stops and recognizes how dependent the current American system has made working class people on their jobs - to the extent that work is connected to dignity - he is the one that is smeared.

“Working Class Elitists,” Ali Eteraz, The Huffington Post, 7 May, 2008.

There is much truth in Eteraz’s posting. I would argue, though, that Hillary is not part of the problem simply because embraces this false dichotomy. Rather, she is a part of the problem because she is desperately selfish (or ambitious) and embraces anything that holds a remote possibility of offering her victory. The “working class” talk is a mere symptom of her campaigning style, which has led her embrace more than subtle bigotry, first against Senator Obama’s supposed Muslim leanings and then his racial background. The real crime here is shamelessness.

“The view from afar,” The Economist, 5 April, 2008.

While I do not believe that, should Senator Obama become president, the magic surrounding his candidacy would survive very long after he took office (and it becomes clear that American policy in the region is not changing in any meaningful way), it is obvious that in the polls, and anecdotally (to my ears), that he is the candidate of choice for many Arabs and Muslims.

I want to address the issue raised by Republican and Clintonian strategists about his religious background. On the right it is fashionable* to posit (and on the Clintonian side to wink and smirk while passing along the email) that, because according to Islamic tradition Senator Obama was “born” Muslim (as are all individuals born to Muslim fathers), he committed apostasy upon “discovering” his Christian faith (in effect, converting). The penalty in most Islamic states (including America’s major Arab allies) for apostasy is death. Daniel Pipes likes to investiagate whether or not the Senator ever practiced Islam, which if true, could be damaging to him in the general election should he become the Democratic nominee, and verifies the claim that Obama is an “apostate”. Such claims, if raised loudly enough, could potentially be campaign and life threatening. Pipes and others who raise this issue do so under the guise that it is politically relevant for reasons of national security; as the apostate president, there is a potential death sentence on his head, and he might have difficulty while making state visits to countries such as Saudi Arabia, or even Egypt.

But none of this seems to be of any concern to Arabs or Muslims. American Muslims are enthusiastic about his candidacy and tend to ignore questions about his religious identity. “It doesn’t matter,” is a common refrain. A forty-something Pakistani immigrant who supports the Senator put it this way: “He is an adult, and he has had enough time to make his own decisions. If he grew up ignorant of religion, how can he be faulted for it?” No Islamic authorities have issued fatwas condemning him to death or calling for Muslims to boycott him. While some Muslims are uncomfortable with the way he has skirted identifying himself with his father’s Islamic heritage or how he has gone through great pains to disassociate himself from Arab and Muslim causes (some of which he had originally supported), there is a growing sense that Obama is the only candidate whose ear is open to Arab or Muslim voices.

And among those who have doubts about Obama, the issue of his alleged apostasy doesn’t come up. When the matter is brought to the fore, it is usually in response to the claim that the Senator’s background would tremendously improve America’s standing in the Muslim world, and even then as a larger critique, usually along foreign policy or economic lines.

Whether or not Obama’s popularity will be sustainable as president is not a function of his previous or present religious preferences. It is rather a function of the kind of policies he executes and the manner in which he does so. George W. Bush was widely popular among American Arabs and Muslims in 2000, having made promises not entirely dissimilar to some of those made by Senator Obama on the issues of civil rights and racial profiling. Not a year into his term he had squandered most of the good will he had earned within the community by invading Iraq and allowing various civil rights violations to sweep the nation. If he becomes the next president, Barack Obama, like other charismatic U.S. presidents, will be defined by his conduct in office and his star power, not his religion. John F. Kennedy is remembered as the country’s first Catholic president; but he is more notable for the Cuban missile crisis and his glamorously promiscuous lifestyle than his Papist convictions. Richard M. Nixon, a Quaker, is remembered neither for his pacificism nor his humility, but for his cunning and corruption. And Barack Obama will be remembered for his handling (or mishandling) of the Iraq War, his winning smile, and perhaps his impact on race relations.**

*[ Though not exactly politically correct, as seen in some of the responses to Iowa Congressman Steve King's remarks. Among more cartoonish, though still popular, elements of the blogosphere it is especially keen to hurl insults at Obama's background even the accusation that he has “Arab” blood. ]

**[ Whether his impact on race relations will be positive or negative is highly debatable (It could give Americans the illusion that their racial problems are over, especially among the upper middle and upper classes, from which Obama draws much of his support, and lead to the tabling of many important issues related to race and minorities. At the same time, it could give more prominence to issues facing non-black minorities such as Hispanics, Asians, etc. who are often ignored or overshadowed by black issues. The result in either case would not be favorable for black Americans. The notion that his presidency will bring unity across the racial spectrum is largely a white delusion and is tremendously superficial, serving to ally feelings of white guilt. It further ignores the rest of American race relations beyond blacks and whites. ). Nevertheless, the encyclopedic introduction to the first black president of the racially infatuated United States will likely read something like this: “Barack Hussein Obama was the forty-fourth president of the United States. He was the first African-American to be elected president of the United States . . .” ]