Although most media outlets would rather wait until at least the polls in California close at 8PM Pacific Time (about an hour from now), I am ready to declare that Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the U.S. tonight.

Obama with 200 projected electoral votes currently, including Ohio and Pennsylvania, will add California (55), Oregon (5), and Washington (11), in about an hour and pass 270 required to win.

He might even win as many as 300 electoral votes by the end of the count, especially if he wins Florida, and Virginia, two of the ‘too close to call' states.

The turnout was heavy. I voted today; waited about 25 minutes, which wasn't that bad, considering California had several propositions on the ballot that are hotly contested, including Proposition 8 which would overturn the recent court decision in California that allows same sex marriage. Then again, this is the O.C.

Now what puzzles us a little is that, according to The Economist, Obama apparently is more popular in Azerbaijan and Turkey. Is that really the case? Obama has been very outspoken about recognizing the Armenian genocide, and enjoys full support by the Armenian caucus, a sizable group of American legislators (apparently nearly one third of all legislators belong to it). So pronounced is this issue, that it has been described by The Atlantic as “McCain's Armenia problem”). So does that matter for comparing candidates?

For more depth, let's turn to Gallup World Poll (and we will be writing more about some of their impressive work in the region soon).

While Gallup has no data on Armenia and Azerbaijan, they have asked this question in Turkey and Georgia. And here lies one clue: in Turkey, 22% are pro-Obama, 8% pro-McCain. But 70% say they don't know, or refuse to answer. In Turkey, at least, the popularity of Obama, is based on the majority not having made up its mind yet. If Obama is elected, some delicate questions need to be resolved. See, again, the Atlantic article on this.

The data is, as far as we know, pre-conflict, collected in July, therefore the Georgian preferences may not be up to date: 15% Obama, 23% McCain, 62% Don't Knows/Refuse. So here, the race is pretty far away, too. Compare with the most extreme pro-Obama country, the Netherlands: 74% Obama, 10% McCain, 16% Don't Knows/Refuse.

Does the election matter to the world? Go to the Gallup website, and their nifty online data presentation, to find out more.

Speaking during a Sunday morning public affairs program, Powell, Secretary of State during President George W. Bush’s first term, called Obama “a transformational figure” who would reach out in a more diverse, inclusive way across the United States.

Most bloggers stayed away from making political prognostications of the endorsement. Instead, many investigated the social aspects of a one-time favorite for the GOP nomination to cross party lines and support a Democrat.

Dennis Jones, Jamaican-born economist writes in his blog, Living in Barbados, that it was the negative aspects of McCain’s campaign — like attempting to tie Obama to 1960s domestic terrorist Bill Ayers — that pushed Powell towards the Democratic candidate.

Powell also touched on negative reasons: he was “concerned about the negative direction McCain's campaign has taken recently”; that the U.S. has “managed to convey to the world that we are more unilateral than we really are”; that the Republican Party had moved more to the right than he liked; that the McCain campaign was seemingly “narrower and narrower” and “exclusive” (citing the feeble and over-the-top attempts to suggest that Obama is associating with terrorists). He was also concerned about the judgement shown in choosing Governor Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate: “I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.”

Yet, the issue of race in America is not only a problem for the McCain campaign or the rest of the Republican party. He continues:

[Commentator] Tom Brokaw showed what is really a problem with America's attitude to race–amazing distrust of black people–by asking that Powell deal with the suggestion that his endorsement was because Obama was black. Powell rebutted by saying that he would have endorsed months ago had that been the case. It's extraordinary to get major political figures crossing party lines. But would anyone have suggested that a major woman politician endorsing Senator Hillary Clinton was because the two of them were women?

Manuel A. Tellechea at the Review of Cuban-American Blogs admits that he judges politicians by their positions on Fidel Castro. With Powell's politics, he was not surprised by the endorsement.

In 2001 when Colin Powell declared before a House hearing that “Castro has done good things for his people,” I knew immediately that he was an enemy of the Cuban people; and when, in 2006, Powell proclaimed on a trip to Brazil that “Cuba is no longer a major threat to Latin America,” I knew that all the dominoes would be allowed to fall in the region before the Bush administration noticed that it had two dozen Cubas on its hands.

It's no surprise to me, then, that Colin Powell would endorse Barack Obama, who's just as unconcerned as Powell is about the Castro regime's threat to the region and to its own people; but who, unlike Powell, can carry their shared beliefs to their logical conclusion — negotiations without prior conditions and complete capitulation to the tyrant.

In the Middle East, bloggers focused on Powell’s criticism of members of the Republican party who have attempted to brand Obama a Muslim.

From Kuwait, Q80Economics points out that “it is really sad that being an Arab or a Muslim came to be an insult.”

That is thanks to extremism and terrorism that tarnished the reputation of all Arabs and Muslims. It is not enough to just fight terrorism after it happens. Extremism is growing strong in our society and within the political system. It is time to stand up for our freedom and salvage our reputation before extremists turn the country into a Taliban state.

The Palestinian blogger Haitham Saddah points out that while Powell can in part be blamed for the war in Iraq, he may be fighting for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

With all my personal reservation over Gen. Colin Powell’s history and relation to Middle East wars and suffering; his recent stand against his party’s racism is brave.
Today in ‘Meet the Press‘ at MSNBC, he spoke up for all Muslims and fair minded-Americans and definitely let-down his own party and washed his hands from the republicans rhetoric.

Talk Turkey, who admires Colin Powell, reminds readers that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said both candidates were qualified to be President. Nonetheless, Talk Turkey returns to the rumors of Obama being a Muslim:

During the interview, regarding the ‘outcry' whether Obama is a Muslim, Powell noted that although Obama is a Christian, the following question should be asked instead, “What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?” For that comment I commend him. Why shouldn't a Muslim child born and raised in the U.S. not be able to dream today that she could one day be the President of the U.S.?

Finally, from Thailand, Jotman points out:

Powell was right to endorse Obama. And he was right to criticize the McCain campaign for not reminding people that it would not be a bad thing if Obama was either Muslim or Arab.

With world economies increasingly tied together — and global stock markets waiting in baited breath for what happens in the United States — political leaders like Britain’s Gordon Brown have begun promising tighter regulations to protect tax payers from continuing to shore up financial institutions who take on so many risky loans. Bloggers from around the world have begun their analysis on the political and economic maneuverings.

We’ll start with the big picture stuff first. Palestinian Pundit argues when the reigning political class can’t face up to the scale of this crisis, it's time to find a new system. Perhaps there’s a bearded guy in the British Museum Reading Room as we speak.

Financial meltdown spells the end of the free market model. It is a gift for any leader prepared to advance a new agenda.

In a post with an eerily similar argument, Russian-American writer Laurence Jarvik quotes a piece slamming the Ivy-league elite in the United States. Is he slyly saying this government bailout should be viewed as a class issue?

The Reference Frame, a blog from Lubos Moti, from Pilsen in the Czech Republic feels that most U.S. politicians lacked the stomach to let these companies die their natural deaths. Rational markets aside, however, the pols acted like most people would.

The U.S. administration could in principle be more sensible - at least in isolated cases - and it seems that it is the case right now. The markets started to behave like if we lived in another Great Depression - and we're technically far from anything like the recession (the last U.S. GDP growth was 3.3% annualized): they seem to be as mad as hysterical women in the asylum or as global warming alarmists. And it's just good that someone is trying to stop them…

If companies like AIG had been allowed to go bankrupt, it would be cleaner from a market perspective but it could have influenced many other innocent players. Maybe, the U.S. economy could be the first one to face serious problems. And we could say that other economies won because they were stronger. Well, I understand that Paulson et al. wouldn't like this outcome and they have the right to do something about it. In this sense, Paulson behaves as a skillful manager of a huge company (the U.S.) and big financial institutions are branches of his company.

These interventions probably help the global economy, too, at least in the short-time and medium-time perspective. In 20 years, the interventions they are just doing may have slightly negative consequences but they may protect us from five bad years etc. which could be more important than what happens in 2028. These guys have already allowed Lehman Brothers to die - which means that they allowed the laissez faire principles to be more healthily destructive than during any other previous administration. So I am not going to criticize the U.S. administration for the newest “socialist” bailouts because others would have to be criticized as well.

From Rae Ann, a comment:

…it's just very frustrating when those big companies, who really don't have much to do with my own life other than their ripple-effects, get saved despite their terrible management. It would really be much more fair to seize the millions of dollars of assets of their crooked bosses (and we can be sure that all their assets were not only in the ‘value of stocks') than to use taxpayer money. We've been forced into investing in something that we don't want, but you can be sure that we'll never ever see any dividend checks for our trouble. Yes, I understand that such a thing as AIG would cause market collapse if it didn't get saved, but I still don't like having to pay for it.

Talk Turkey, a blogger born in Instanbul now living in southern California, takes us on a history tour of the Savings & Loan Crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s. The good news:
Taxpayers eventually made their money back. Read ahead for the bad news.

When the Government invested in solving the S&L crisis in the recent past, the people actually made money, based on the net gains some years later. And this one is sure to follow the same path. In the end, the taxpayers whose money is being used to instill confidence and stability in the markets will profit in the long run.

But here's the danger . . .

The current crisis involving financial institutions cannot really be measured in terms of any leveraging of the illiquidity. There are no tangible assets, so to speak, on this one. The cash standard may backfire on those who hold it too long.

And in the past, the banks and financial institutions, as well as the corporate giants, had a say in how the Government acted, based on their self-interest. But the tide has turned. The Government will now dictate how the banks should behave. While this sounds like a great win for the people, it might be a way for the Government to rid the banks off its back to accomplish its higher calling, only to be followed by not sharing the spoils with the public. Hence, the powerful police state that I've been trying to warn everyone about for the past few years.

Let’s get to the political implications of this. (It is an election year, remember?) Jewish blogger Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olam takes John McCain to task for claiming to “clean up Wall Street.”

How, pray is John going to fulfill his promise “never to put America in this position again?”  Is he an economic Svengali who will simply will Wall Street to health and prevent another bout of this malady??  And how does he propose to “clean up” Wall Street?  He and his Republican brothers have done nothing to address similar previous economic implosions and corporate malfeasance in the past seven years.  Why should anyone trust that McCain would know what the hell he was doing in addressing a crisis of this magnitude?  And keep in mind all this happened on George Bush’s watch.  Given McCain’s closeness to Bush, what would the former do differently??

Wall Street faces the greatest crisis perhaps since the 1929 Crash and John McCain can’t move off his stump speech and acknowledge the crisis. He can’t rise to the occasion because he and his campaign have political arterial sclerosis. Partly it’s his age I have no doubt. And partly it’s the kind of campaign he’s decided to run.

And, for Obama:

All of which provides Obama a golden opportunity. He and his advisors should come up with the equivalent of an domestic economic Marshall Plan. Something that will show the American people that he is engaged with the moment. That he understands the true danger we face. And that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda pale in comparison to this economic danger. Obama needs to show gravitas in the face of McCain’s cluelessness.

From Israel to New York City, Sultan Knish points out in a prescient two-week-old post that businessmen and their money have long been flocking to the Obama campaign, which is never a good sign.

In America business leaders pumped huge sums into Obama's campaign in the hopes of creating a tame non-threatening America that would be positively perceived overseas.

Of course promoting liberal candidates also means higher taxes, but that is less of an issue for corporations which are increasingly bypassing their home countries maintaining less and less infrastructure and funds there anyway. It is small to mid size businesses, their competitors, who bear the brunt of high taxes, not the multinationals whose creative accounting and lobbying insures they will come out on top anyway. And if they don't, the lobbying will assure them a government bailout.

Carpetblogger, an American who lives in Turkey but was travelling in Yemen, writes:

Sitting in the lobby of the Burj al Salam hotel about an hour ago,we heard two explosions, but thought little about them. They were close enough to shake the windows a little. About 30 minutes later, reports started coming in that the US Embassy was under attack. Current reports on Yemeni TV say that there was an intial car bomb followed by some shooting. Injuries are reported. Right now, reports attribute the attacks to Al Qaeda, which has been increasingly active in the country. The US Embassy is located near the Sheraton hotel. Reports confirm that it was the Embassy and not the compound.

Her next report says:

Local news is reporting that the embassy is being evacuated by helicopter. I just watched a helicopter head out there. Have photos, no time to load.

From Saudi Arabia, American Stilettos in the Sand rules out Yemen as a ‘good holiday destination' following the attack. She writes:

Not that we were considering heading to Yemen in the near future, but… This means that for SURE we won't be considering Yemen as a vacation destination. Ever. It is not the first time this year that the Westerners have been targeted. And, after reading this article in Gulfnews, I just think it would be best for us to consider
other more inviting countries to head to for short vacations.

Jane Novak, writing at Armies of Liberation has more on the attack here. She adds:

Notably, Yemen is the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden and the U.S. Embassy has previously been targeted for attacks […]

The last time we heard from Yemeni Islamic Jihad was last month when they claimed credit for a suicide car bombing in Hadramout, and threatened a future attack in the capital.

Novak, who covers Yemen in her blog, also lists previous suicide car bombings in the country:

September 2006 synchronized attacks on oil facilities in Marib and Hadramout

July 2007 car bombing at tourist facility in Marib killed eight Spanish tourists

July 2008 car bombing a police station in Sayoun Hadrmaout, one killed and 18 wounded

Early in 2008, mortar attacks were launched in Sana’a against western targets including the US embassy, Italian embassy and a western housing complex. After the July 2008 suicide bombing killed one policeman and injured 18 in Sayoun in the southeastern province of Hadramout, authorities rounded up over fifty suspected militants including AAIA leader Khalid Abdul Nabi and Saudi Muhammad bin Nayif al-Qahtani. After the arrests, Yemen announced that it had thwarted an attack in Saudi Arabia targeting oil industries. For history and analysis of al-Qaeda in Yemen, check my al-Qaeda category.

The blogosphere reacted swiftly to the news. Czech blogger the reference frame thinks McCain's choice of Palin improves his prospects:

Sarah Palin (44), the governor of Alaska, and her life surely look fascinating and she will probably make McCain's GOP ticket much stronger (and certainly much younger! McCain is 72 today) but some of her attitudes make it slightly less clear what is she doing in the Republican Party (besides whistleblowing). ;-)

The Cuban author of
Babalu Blog is clearly pleased with McCain's choice. Referring to Palin, she says:

She is a conservative Republican, pro-life, a free-trade capitalist, an NRA member. Oh, and she's a woman, if you missed that.

This should re-define the Obama's CHANGE slogan. The Republicans have a little change of their own up their sleeves, huh?

Russian blogger Laurence Jarvik wonders about the role gender will play in the election, saying:

At least McCain picked a fresh face…although how many Democratic women would cross party lines to vote for Sarah Palin is unclear. Ironic that Obama seems to be targeting the bitter white working class clinging to their guns, while McCain appears to be going after feminists.

Meanwhile, Turkish blogger talkturkey is annoyed that Palin's nomination has raised the gender card again:

Palin is a Governor, with executive branch experience, and brings a non-legislative approach to the race, since all three remaining males are Senators. But I am not sure if having a white female (and a virtual unknown) is going to persuade white women (possibly Hillary supporters — or whatever is left of them) to vote Republican instead of a man. Since it will still be a man at the top job . . .

In Kuwait, Teach the Masses is more interested in the example Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have set for young women:

So history will be made: for the first time either a) a black American will be in the white house as president or b) a woman as Vice president.

All in all this is a good lesson for the girls in our schools- they have seen through Hillary Clinton and now Sarah Palin what a woman with an education can do.

Finally, Egyptian Chronicles reminds us of the fact that no matter what happens, this year's election is making history:

She was the surprise of the day and the evidence that this race of the American elections 2008 is one of the most interesting races ever. All People expected after the huge of celebration of Obama in the NDC and choosing a foreign policies vet like Joe Biden as his Vice that the race was over and the republicans got nothing new to offer , even the expectations on who would McCain’s vice were not interesting.

Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin is the youngest Governor of Alaska. Now we have two people from the non-continental USA on the tickets vying for the White House. Obama (from Hawaii) and Palin (from Alaska).

Palin is a Governor, with executive branch experience, and brings a non-legislative approach to the race, since all three remaining males are Senators. But I am not sure if having a white female (and a virtual unknown) is going to persuade white women (possibly Hillary supporters — or whatever is left of them) to vote Republican instead of a man. Since it will still be a man at the top job . . .

I would've preferred Romney. But McCain was afraid of the same thing Obama was not. The upstaging issue . . . But why was Tom Ridge overlooked?

For the first time in the U.S., and 146 years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation declaring the end of slavery in America (at least in the literal sense of the word), a black man (from the same state of Illinois as Lincoln) is halfway there to be the next resident of the White House. It's about time!

This country's amazing ability to self correct, no matter how long and tedious the process, is incredibly deserving of praise, and one of the reasons why I love being an American. My only wish is that other nations, among them some very proud ones, including the country of my birth, can take note and follow suit. Making it right is not an admission of defeat, it's a celebration of justice and greatness.

She is a Chicago-born, Harvard-educated lawyer.
Her first real date with Barack Obama was to see Spike Lee’s movie “Do the Right Thing.”
The magazine Vanity Fair recently rated her one of the best dressed women in the world, joining “French first lady Carla Bruni, Kate Middleton, Sarah Jessica Parker, Tilda Swinton, Daniel Craig and Angelina Jolie.”
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, she said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.”

That’s about it. On the first night of Democratic Convention, Michelle Obama spoke to a packed Pepsi Center and helped fill us in on her world and her thinking.

One may ask: Why should we focus so much on a candidate’s wife? The answer to that question, in some minds, is easy.

First, spouses are important. They say a lot about how a person perceives him or herself and what characteristics they look for. It was Joe Klein, a columnist for Time Magazine, who told BBC reporters before Michelle Obama's speech that choosing a wife is likely a person’s most important decision, and we can actually rate Barack Obama’s decision by watching how Michelle handles herself. Viewing spouses on the big stage is so important that earlier this summer, the blog Turkey Talk proposed that prospective first ladies should also debate just so we get a better feel of their traits.

Secondly, instead of focusing solely on policy briefs and platforms, election watchers should be investigating the little things that candidates do, for these are the windows that shed more light on their prospective presidency. Don’t just look at the issues surrounding Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, but also observe Obama’s reasons (and methods) for choosing the Delaware Senator.

Which brings us to the question: What did Michelle Obama tell us about the prospect of having an Obama White House?

In his blog, Ray Hartley, the editor of The Times in Johannesburg, South Africa, believes that Michelle Obama’s speech “signals an inward-looking Obama presidency.”

Michelle Obama’s opening speech at the Democratic Convention was a masterpiece of rhetoric aimed at rousing Americans into believing that Barack Obama would rescue them from debt better than John McCain. It was very much a speech in the “family values” tradition - which is to be expected from a spouse - which suggests to me that foreign policy on Iraq will not be as big an issue as the economy.

However, there is one problem with this.


Which, in turn, means that Africa will fall off the radar in an Obama presidency.

From Kenya, the Godfather atAbantu EFX was more than moved by the family references in Michelle Obama’s speech.

Mentioning Hillary Clinton's sacrifices on the American people, Michelle tickled emotions and a thunderous acclaim which maybe did its magic at pacifying perceived ‘bad blood' between her husband Barrack and the Clinton's.

And when Powerful Barrack joined in via satellite from Kansas city, to congratulate his wife, the convention hall seemed to be overtaken by familial emotions when the Obama's and their children played put a loving family setup in front of millions of people around the world.
While watching the whole show though the night, far, far away from the United States, I have never been so taken over by such political grandeur like the Democrats did of me last night. This is going to be a contest to watch.

However, an anonymous commenter argues that no matter how moving the speech, it was politically irrelevant to most Americans.

no amount of rehearsed speeches from the otherwise politically irrelevant wife will move the americans. entertainment yes, votes no!!! even comedians and music stars attract bigger crowds so nothing to move any american.

just continue dreaming like all kenyans…we do not elect blacks to white house..not yet!!!

Not so fast, argues Jewish blogger (and social entrepreneur) Daniel Lubetzky. The speech should provide Americans a different view of Michelle and her commitment to her country.

Her speech should shatter any sown doubts about her patriotism, & her commitment to what is great about America & the American dream. More important, seeing the family interact with such natural warmth should highlight their commonality with all Americans and hopefully uproot vestiges of race-based suspicion.

For VivirLatino, it was Ted Kennedy — and not Michelle Obama — who stole the night.

…Ted has lived a live of accomplishments that can not be compared to any other politician (though Nancy Pelosi likes to think she can). He has revolutionized the power the Senate holds and he has flourished into the best politician in the Kennedy family tree. No matter what obstacle is thrown his way (George Bush) he can tackle it face on and recently that was seen with his cancer. When I watched the beautiful video tribute before his speech I began to cry. The fact that he came to Denver when it was advised of him not to because of his health really states what kind of man he is. His speech was eloquent and passionate with the right amount of force. He stole the night away…yes that include you Michelle Obama.

As members of the mainstream press pointed out that Michelle tried to “ground Sen. Barack Obama in the working class,” at least one blogger said that’s the whole problem with his candidacy. The root of the issue lies with the democratic party, which is too rooted in anti-establishment, blue-collar roots, says the wocha, from Kenya, notes:

i shake my head in disaapointment as i watch the democratic party muddle their presidential asspirations. i often say they are too democratic for their own good. it doesn't help that the democratic party's presumptive nominee is thumbing his nose at corporate america. big business is a staple in the white house and for this reason, 44 will be none other than john mccain.

Bloggers of all stripes have moved passed their initial gut reactions on the freshly minted Democratic ticket and have started to formulate more solid opinions based on fact. That’s what covering politics is all about, isn’t it?

“On the surface, Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential running mate strikes me as pretty uninspired,” writes Tim Dunlop from Australia. “It’s hard to imagine that it wins him an extra vote come November, though I think that sometimes the ability of a running mate to do that for any candidate is overstated.”

He continues:

Not that I think Biden is a bad choice per se; in fact, I don’t really think there is anyone better from the list of those whose names cropped up over the last few months. I certainly don’t think Hillary was ever a serious option. He is a fairly personable guy, even if he, rightly, has a reputation for talking to much. He is a regular on US political programs and has developed a solid presence in that medium, a bit of go-to guy for the cable shows looking for an articulate criticism of Bush policy.

Does “articulate critic of Bush policy” translate into “attack dog”? For Sultan Knish and the stories behind the news from Israel, that answer is an emphatic yes. However, there is one caveat.

One interpretation is that Biden is there to launch the dirty attacks on McCain that Obama doesn't want to dirty himself with. This is plausible considering that Obama's dirty campaigns have been fought by lawyers, people who worked for his campaign… But considering that Biden turned a simple question about what law school he went to into an extended rant about how high his IQ is, setting him loose as an attack dog is a plan that's right up there with sending a pyromaniac to light a torch.

I'm sure that Biden will serve as an attack dog, I'm also sure that he'll do most of the damage to his own side, delivering verbal broadsides that roll like grenades back into Obama's tent.

With Obama’s choice, the Jewish blogger DovBear wonders where the hope mantra went:

I don't see how you can talk credibly about change, and youth, and so forth when your running mate is a grizzled, old career Washington insider…

Then there is the experience gap. Does highlighting Biden’s three decades of Senate experience call attention to Obama’s inexperience? Batya from Shiloh Musings in Israel points out filling the VP spot with an experienced poltico appears to be a pattern in American politics when the lead role goes to a newcomer.

• John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson
• Bush and Cheney

Those two quickly came to mind.

I just wonder if anyone really believed that Obama would get the nomination so easily. The man really has no experience, no track record. Sort of frightening.

Then there are Biden's scandals and gaffes: His plagarism, his missed votes in the Senate, the famous foot-in-mouth disease. “So to recap,” opinesNorth Coast Voices in Australia. “Joe Biden is your typical candidate.”


He massages his personal history by ‘borrowing' the words and personal anecdotes of another, where possible avoids mentioning the real extent of his income, rewrites political history, turns up in the Senate when he wants to and generally tries to throw his weight around.

In other words - a 26-year political job horse who now relies on a wing and a prayer to get by in the U.S. Congress.
Definitely not the statesman with sound judgment praised by Obama in Springfield - more like the usual pitcher of warm spit.

A choice which offers little hope of change to the rest of the world.

But let’s leave Biden the man, or Biden the politician on the stump for a moment, and investigate where Biden has made his name: foreign policy. In this category we have a passel of posts that could easily be titled: Joe, what have you done for me lately?

From Erkan’s Field Diary, Biden may well bring an anti-Turkey stance to the White House.

An anti-Turkish vice president according to Hürriyet. He is known to defend Armenian, Greek, Cyprus lobby theses. But Foreign Policy experts state that Turkey is already changing is foreign policy attitudes and there won't much new tension btw Turkey and US….

Biden is also a “prime Serb hater and Albanian Muslim lobbyist” for sponsoring the 1999 resolution for the U.S. to bomb Serbia and, later, recognizing the Kosovo State, according to this 2007 post from Byzantine Blog that was recently reprinted in the German blog Allah’s Willing Executioners.

Iraq Pundit worries about Biden’s and Obama’s “total disregard for the Iraqi people.”

All along, Biden has made it clear that he sees Iraqis as nothing more than savages bent on killing one another. His solution is to divide the country to stop the beasts from murdering the other beasts. He can argue all he wants that President Bush and John McCain are not nearly as smart as Biden is, but at least they will not abandon the Iraqis.

A “100% Palestinian” blogger writing in Sabbah Blog, claims that Israel must be happy with Obama’s pick.

The guy (Obama) is ignorant and naive when it comes to cases such as Israeli occupation of Palestine. And now he picks a guy who proudly says “I’m a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist!” So, what are you expecting from Obama if he’s in office? (not that the other puppet is better).

Joe Biden chairs the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, a post that Obama hopes will compensate for his own lack of experience in the global realm. Obama “safe choice” will also help him win the most important part of all USA elections, AIPAC support - the Zionist Lobby.

One good piece of news coming out of the choice of Biden: He is big fan of the Amtrak train line, Dove’s Eye View informs us. For those who have tried to ride the rails in the U.S., that is not a bad thing at all.

For the first time in a long time, both of the presidential candidates are senators.

More later on Biden, no doubt selected for his foreign policy expertise…

Biden on Turkey:
SENATORS BIDEN, BOXER, MENENDEZ FORCE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO DISTANCE UNITED STATES FROM TURKEY’S GENOCIDE DENIAL POLICY (July 29, 2008)

“Chairman Biden, and Senators Boxer, Menendez, and Ben Cardin (all Democrats) spoke forcefully about the necessity for proper U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide…”

It's too early to tell now what. And I for one, am not a one issue voter. As a Libertarian, I would defend the rights of a Hindu if it's a matter of choosing between siding with a Muslim who wants to sacrifice a cow in public versus the Hindu's desire to not be subjected to seeing it happen on his street. And similarly, I would vote for a Greek-American versus his Turkish counterpart, if the Greek one tends to favor more of the issues and the platform I care for.

I even like Biden, especially after he got all those hair plugs . . .

… but Biden comes across as an arrogant SOB whenever I've seen him chair his committee and ask questions of witnesses whose very presence he dislikes, obviously always playing to the cameras . . . he's not someone who takes a back seat very easily . . . and he may overshadow the ticket . . .

Who's Hillary? . . . Now it's McCain's turn . . . maybe he'll pick a female . . .

A few miles from where I live is the 20,000 member Saddleback mega church. And tonight, its pastor Rev. Rick Warren is interviewing both senators Obama and McCain. The format is that each will spend about 60 minutes on stage alone with Rev. Warren (I would've preferred all three to be on the stage at the same time, but I am sure that was opposed by both parties), and that they will get the same questions asked. And Rev. Warren assured us that Sen. McCain will be in a ‘cone of silence,' while Sen. Obama gets to go first, thanks to a coin flip.

“We got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other,” said the good reverend who claims to be friends with both senators.

CNN televised the entire two-hour event live. And McCain won Round-1!

Some highlights included Obama's admission that Jesus Christ died for his sins, that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, but that he would not support a constitutional amendment with that definition, evil does exist and that we should confront it but with an approach of humility, would not have nominated Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, and if you're making $150,000 a year or less as a family you'd be considered middle class or poor, depending on the region (to which Rev. Warren responded, “in this region you'd be poor”). But in my opinion, did not eloquently answer the question as to why he wants to be President, other than repeat the same mantra of politics and Washington is so broken, and that he has the “ability to build bridges across partisan lines, racial, regional lines, to get people to work on some common sense solutions to critical issues.” We all know what happened the last time a candidate promised reaching across partisan lines.

Obamamccaintogether McCain then came onto the stage and the two candidates briefly exchanged pleasantries. In fact, Obama told McCain to “go get'em.”

McCain's greatest line might have been “serve a cause greater than your self-interest.” Or “by a strange coincidence, I was not elected Miss Congeniality again to the U.S. Senate,” when he responded to the party loyalty versus America's best interest question.

McCain's responses included the fact that religion and prayer played a very important part during his captive years in Vietnam, a baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception, marriage is between one man and one woman, and as a federalist, states should make their own decisions, until and unless a federal court decided that one state had to observe what another state decided, he would not favor a constitutional amendment to enforce the definition of marriage (of course both candidates reinstated their allegiance to the recognition of union between same sex couples and that they too are entitled to the same rights as married couples), evil should be defeated, radical Islamic extremism must be dealt with, with all due respect would not have nominated Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens, because he thinks they legislate from the bench and not adhere to the Constitution, believes in choice in competition when it comes to schools — public versus private, and school vouchers, etc., some of the richest people he's ever known in his life “are the most unhappy,” ‘rich' should be defined “by a home, a good job, an education, and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one we inherited,” doesn't want to take money from the rich, instead wants everyone to be rich — keep taxes low and not raise them, increase revenue, and cut spending.

McCain made the most anti-Russia statement I've heard to date as it relates to killing of innocent people, human rights abuses against Georgia, and others in that region and democracy. As to why he wants to be President, McCain believes America's best days are ahead of us, that he'll be the President of every American, and he'll always put America first.

Round-1 goes to McCain, hands down, in my opinion . . .

Watch Larry King Live on CNN Monday night as he interviews Reverend Warren.