What do a 29-year-old “strong conservative” Canadian, a 22-year-old “Sudanese thinker,” and an Irish-American poet from New Jersey have in common?

In the wake of the third and final U.S. presidential debate, the triumvirate form an unlikely bond and agree that Republican candidate John McCain has a lot going for him and that the election will ultimately come down to ideology.

Let's start in Ontario, Canada with the opening sentence from The Strong Conservative indicating Barack Obama is a socialist and ought to be compared to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German revolutionary Karl Marx.

Obama's health care plan was as complicated as nuclear fusion, I have no idea who gets what or how much, except the government basically runs it. That's all I need to know.

Most important, Obama can now be known as America's Robin Hood. Taxpayers can sleep peacefully knowing that Obamessiah will happily redistribute wealth in America in an unbiased and benevolent fashion. First on the list: Acorn, followed by the now unemployed former works from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Jaime Gorelick and Frank Raines.

Skipping ahead, we read:

The more I see Obama however, the more nervous he makes me. This guy has no clue about the economy, no clue about foreign policy, and a history that no one really knows about. His entire life is veiled in secrecy and misdirection and he can't point to one single accomplishment in his life. It is frightening to think that Obama is so close to the Presidency, a man who wants to gut the military, retreat in the face of terrorists, and impose a socialistic ideology on America.

Powerful stuff from America's northern neighbor. If you're reading along, what do you think so far? This commentary goes contrary to the heart of most of Voices without Votes‘ bloggers, right? Post a comment below.

But first, we fly across the pond to sub-Saharan Africa and catch up with Drima, an Afro-Arab Sudanese Muslim and millennial blogger who states up front in The Sudanese Thinker that until recently, he never heard of Obama who he called “a no name.”

Drima backed McCain from day one and elaborates about Obama at the debate:

I liked how he sailed through McCain’s attack and question about Ayers calmly and rather eloquently like it was no big deal. On the other hand, I loved how McCain looked into the camera and started talking directly to “Joe.”

It was kinda funny, but I liked his emphasis on the importance of smaller government. His performance in this debate was better than the previous one which is ironic, since the format of the previous debate is supposed to be McCain’s favorite - town halls. During the first debate, he was the winner though.

Hmm. Drima admits a love for McCain but thinks Obama had a better start. Keep reading:

…after watching the two candidates hit each other back and forth, I’m coming out in favor of Obama but with my nose squeezed tightly.

Thing is, when the race began, I was backing McCain. I wanted to see him win. Moreover, I wanted to see Hillary [Clinton] and Rudy [Giuliani] lose, lose, lose.

Like the Canadian blogger above, you won't find many non-Americans in the blogosphere indicating a favoritism toward the Republican candidate. But here's where Drima, if presented the opportunity, wouldn't vote for McCain:

I like McCain, and I don’t have the kind of hatred many on the left have towards him, but ultimately, I believe his choice for VP was terrible. It served him well but only in the short-term. Moreover, I’m tired of seeing the lack of pressure being exerted by Elephants on Sudan to implement the CPA and settle the Darfur conflict.

If you click the above link for “The Sudanese Thinker,” you can read more of Drima's thoughts about Obama and Darfur and how McCain lacks the ideological perspective.

Which brings us back to the United States and to Michael Lally, an Irish-American blogger who agrees Obama won the debate but my focus in this summary is on the third thought of a political diatribe where Lally portrays the different sides of the U.S. political scene.

He begins:

Liberals, by definition, are humanists. They believe in equal rights, solving problems with reason and compromise, intellectual curiosity and openness, etc.

Moderates, by definition, believe in a balance, a middle way, a repudiation of ideology in favor of practicality and, obviously, moderation.

Independents can have varied beliefs, but again, they do not succumb to the ideology of either major party, though they may adhere to another ideology (libertarianism e.g.), and have never had the power of controlling any branch of our government so have no history of schemes and tactics to maintain power.

True conservatives, of which there are few these days, believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, personal responsibility, and generally in ideals that have been better represented by Democrats in the past several decades than Republicans (e.g. the most fiscally responsible administration in most of our lifetimes was Clinton’s, the least fiscally responsible were Reagan’s and the present one).

Rightwing Republicans, so-called neo-conservatives, the ones who have been dominant in the Republican Party since Reagan, and on the rise since Nixon, and entrenched in the past eight years in all branches of government (it continues to be one of their big lies that the Congress is controlled by Democrats for the past two years, when they know that because of the almost even split in the Senate, the Democrats cannot override Republicans in Congress to get bills passed the Bush administration objects to, etc.) have demonstrated clearly they are only interested in power.

Lally continues on a rant about Roe v. Wade, former Presidents Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy, and brings the conversation back to Obama:

While the most thoughtful Republicans lately have been saying they intend to vote for Obama, or at least accept that an Obama victory might be for the best and they’ll regroup and come back in four years or in the mid term Congressional elections, the more strident rightwing Republicans have been making it clear an Obama victory will be a victory for terrorism, socialism, communism and gangsterism, all legitimate targets, in their minds, for vigilantism.

Let’s hope they’re too busy dealing with their own financial problems to actually do anything extreme. But I do not put it past them.

You've read a variety of ideas here. Can you see why I picked these out as my favorites of the day? Ultimately, blogging is about ideologies and these blog posts speak to the heart of the matter. Thoughts? Post a comment below!

I liked how he sailed through McCain’s attack and question about Ayers calmly and rather eloquently like it was no big deal. On the other hand, I loved how McCain looked into the camera and started talking directly to “Joe.”

It was kinda funny, but I liked his emphasis on the importance of smaller government. His performance in this debate was better than the previous one which is ironic, since the format of the previous debate is supposed to be McCain’s favorite - town halls. During the first debate, he was the winner though.

Overall after watching the two candidates hit each other back and forth, I’m coming out in favor of Obama but with my nose squeezed tightly.

Thing is, when the race began, I was backing McCain. I wanted to see him win. Moreover, I wanted to see Hillary and Rudy lose, lose, lose.

Thank goodness them two did.

Obama was a no-name so I didn’t even pay attention to him. But then his phenomenal rise began, and the rest is history.

I like McCain, and I don’t have the kind of hatred many on the left have towards him, but ultimately, I believe his choice for VP was terrible. It served him well but only in the short-term. Moreover, I’m tired of seeing the lack of pressure being exerted by Elephants on Sudan to implement the CPA and settle the Darfur conflict.

Darfur is an issue which is more important to liberals since conservatives are more concerned with Iran and the War on Terror, (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing). Not only that, but Biden has switched his interventionist position on Darfur too to something more acceptable. On top of that Obama is staunchly in favor of Net Neutrality. McCain isn’t strongly so, which isn’t so nice.

Am I comfortable with my choice?

No, but one needs to be made, regardless of the big question marks.

And the big question marks that remain aren’t over Iraq or Afghanistan.

They’re over Iran, Pakistan…

… and the current US economic crisis!

interview the most certain act in the fight against AIDS is to maintain monogamous relationships. The advice was seen as seen as ironic coming from a former President who was impeached by the House of Representatives (and later acquitted by the Senate) for perjury and obstruction of justice involving an extra-marital affair he was having with a 22-year-old White House intern.

Speaking of politics, the former President later failed to admit that Barack Obama was ready for the highest office of the United States. This has fueled reports that Clinton is still angry over Obama defeating Hillary Clinton to become the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States.

Win or lose, Obama will find himself most often compared to Bill Clinton, the country’s last Democratic President. In Israel, Aron’s Israel Peace Weblog noticed something familiar when Obama recently sat down for an interview with the conservative paper, the Jerusalem Post.

No one in my quadrant of the political spectrum is ever going to be elected President. So my key criteria for a “good” President are: compassion, worldliness, intelligence and political savvy. Obama seems to have all of these in abundance. Although I don't agree with many of the details of his positions, the more I hear him speak the more impressed I am. He is the savviest and most intelligent politician the Democratic party has produced since Bill Clinton, and I mean that as a compliment. He may not be super progressive, but he seems to be on the correct side of the fence on all important issues. And the more I see him, the more I feel he has the same human empathy and care for people that Clinton did.

Finally, Clinton’s policies against Osama bin Laden have again made waves. Saisi Duni, from Kenya, reports that a new book by the journalist Lawrence Wright claims that the U.S. military strikes to hoping to cripple the Al-Qaeda network in east Africa after the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had the opposite effect.

The Clinton administration’s failure to strike back effectively in 1998 helped make it possible for al Qaeda to carry out the massive attacks on New York and Washington three years later, says the book titled The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Wright describes as “ineffectual” the US retaliation for the August 7, 1998, bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Less than two weeks later, 13 cruise missiles were fired at a factory in Khartoum that the United States believed was being used to develop poison gas for use by al Qaeda. Simultaneously, 66 cruise missiles were launched from US warships in the Arabian Sea. Their targets were al Qaeda training camps near Khost in eastern Afghanistan. The twin missile attacks were given the code name “Operation Infinite Reach.”


• Official Website
• Lost and found from Yahoo! ! Sports

Writing on Sudanese forum Brbr Net, Abu Al Derdiri [Ar] says that Al Basheer's arrest warrant fulfils Libyan leader Muammar Al Gaddafi's prediction that the US will hunt down Arab rulers to fulfil its expansionist plans in the region. He says:

يبدو أن تحذير الزعيم الليبي معمر القذافي خلال القمة العربية الأخيرة في دمشق من أن أمريكا ستطارد الزعماء العرب واحدا تلو الآخر بعد إعدام الرئيس العراقي الراحل صدام حسين، بدأ يجد آذانا صاغية على أرض الواقع ، حيث فوجيء العرب والعالم في 14 يوليو 2008 باتهام المدعي العام للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية لويس مورينو أوكامبو للرئيس السوداني عمر البشير بارتكاب جرائم حرب وجرائم ضد الإنسانية وإبادة جماعية في دارفور ، مطالبا المحكمة باعتقاله .
هذا القرار اعتبره كثيرون بأنه سياسي مائة بالمائة ويؤكد أن الولايات المتحدة قررت استخدام سلاح المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لإسقاط نظام البشير الذي طالما حال دون تحقيق مخططات المحافظين الجدد وإسرائيل في تقسيم السودان والاستيلاء على ثرواته الهائلة وخاصة المعدنية والغذائية والمائية منها .

It seems that Libyan Leader Muammer Al Gaddafi's warning during the last Arab League Summit in Damascus that the United States will be hunting down Arab leaders one after the other after the hanging of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is ringing true. Arabs and the world were surprised on July 14, 2008, of an accusation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo against Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, and called upon the court to arrest him. A lot considered this ruling as political, stressing that the United States has decided to use the weapon of the ICC to overthrow Al Bashir's rule, which has so far not been achieved despite the plotting of the Neo-cons and Israel, who want to carve up Sudan and steal its extensive resources, especially minerals, food and water.

Al Derdiri goes on to say that the ICC has no jurisdiction on Sudan, which does not recognise the ICC and insists that singling out Al Bashir is a ploy to pave the way for the trial of other Arab leaders. He adds:

ولذا سرعان ما ركزت واشنطن على استخدام صلاحيات المحكمة لتأديب “الحكام المارقين” بعيدا عن الحروب وفيتو مجلس الأمن ، وهو ما ظهر بوضوح في حالة الرئيس السوداني ، وهنا يتساءل البعض : هل يشكل القرار سابقة لمحاكمة مسئولين عرب آخرين ، وماذا يفعل السودان لمواجهته؟ .

Washington is concentrating its efforts on using the powers of the court to discipline ‘rogue rulers' away from wars and the Security Council's Veto. This is evident in the case against the Sudanese president. Some of you may ask: Will this ruling set a precedence for the trial of other Arab officials and what will Sudan do to confront it?

Al Derdiri then draws parallels between Sudan and Iraq, and writes:

ورغم أنه بات من المؤكد أن واشنطن تسير قدما في مخطط تقسيم السودان سواء كان ذلك عبر اتفاقية السلام التي تضمن انفصال الجنوب أو من خلال إشعال أزمة دارفور، إلا أن العرب لم يقوموا حتى الآن بخطوات جدية لإنقاذ السودان من المصير الذي وصل إليه العراق.

It has become evident that Washington is continuing with its plans to divide Sudan, whether this is achieved through a peace agreement which guarantees the separation of the South or through fanning the flames over the Darfur crisis. However, Arabs are yet to take serious steps to save Sudan from Iraq's destiny.

He further calls on Arabs and the African Union to move fast - and push the international community to protect the immunity of presidents and the sovereignty of states:

فالرئيس السوداني بات في قبضة المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لأن قراراتها غير قابلة للإلغاء ولا تسقط بالتقادم ، ويبدو أن هذا هو الثمن الذي كان لابد أن يدفعه العرب من وجهة نظر بوش للتغطية على فشله في العراق وأفغانستان ولبنان ولرفع أسهم المرشح الجمهوري جون ماكين في انتخابات الرئاسة الأمريكية المقبلة .
ولذا لا مناص من تكثيف التحرك العربي والإفريقي في الأمم المتحدة لدفع مجلس الأمن لمطالبة المحكمة بتأجيل تنفيذ قرار اعتقال البشير ، بالإضافة إلى ضرورة تحرك الجامعة العربية والاتحاد الإفريقي سريعا لإصدار فتوى من المحكمة الجنائية الدولية حول حصانة الرؤساء لضمان عدم استخدامها كسلاح سياسي لخدمة مخططات واشنطن ، وباعتبار هذا الأمر يضر بمبدأ أساسي في القانون الدولي وهو مبدأ السيادة.

The Sudanese President is now in the clasp of the ICC, whose decisions are irrevocable and this seems to be the price Arabs have to pay, in the opinion of Bush, to cover for his failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and improve the fortunes of the Republican nominee John McCain in the upcoming US elections. Arabs and Africans should now intensify their pressure at the United Nations, to force the Security Council to demand from the Court to delay the decision to arrest Al Bashir. The Arab League and the African Union should also move fast and extract an order from the ICC on the immunity of Presidents, in order for this tactic not to be used as a political weapon in the hands of Washington. Such decisions harm a fundamental clause in international law - and that is the issue of sovereignty.

In conclusion, he asks:

وبعد ذلك ، يبقى التساؤل الملح ” أي من الحكام العرب ستستهدفه واشنطن بعد صدام والبشير ؟ ” ، هذا ما ستجيب عنه الأيام المقبلة .

And after all this, there remains a pressing questions: Who of the Arab leaders will be targeted by Washington after Saddam and Al Bashir? We will know the answer to this question in the near future.

Also on Global Voices Online:
Bahrain: Omar Al Bashir and the Cross-Eyed Justice

Writing on Sudanese forum Brbr Net, Abu Al Derdiri [Ar] says that Al Basheer's arrest warrant fulfils Libyan leader Muammar Al Gaddafi's prediction that the US will hunt down Arab rulers to fulfil its expansionist plans in the region. He says:

يبدو أن تحذير الزعيم الليبي معمر القذافي خلال القمة العربية الأخيرة في دمشق من أن أمريكا ستطارد الزعماء العرب واحدا تلو الآخر بعد إعدام الرئيس العراقي الراحل صدام حسين، بدأ يجد آذانا صاغية على أرض الواقع ، حيث فوجيء العرب والعالم في 14 يوليو 2008 باتهام المدعي العام للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية لويس مورينو أوكامبو للرئيس السوداني عمر البشير بارتكاب جرائم حرب وجرائم ضد الإنسانية وإبادة جماعية في دارفور ، مطالبا المحكمة باعتقاله .
هذا القرار اعتبره كثيرون بأنه سياسي مائة بالمائة ويؤكد أن الولايات المتحدة قررت استخدام سلاح المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لإسقاط نظام البشير الذي طالما حال دون تحقيق مخططات المحافظين الجدد وإسرائيل في تقسيم السودان والاستيلاء على ثرواته الهائلة وخاصة المعدنية والغذائية والمائية منها .

It seems that Libyan Leader Muammer Al Gaddafi's warning during the last Arab League Summit in Damascus that the United States will be hunting down Arab leaders one after the other after the hanging of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is ringing true. Arabs and the world were surprised on July 14, 2008, of an accusation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo against Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, and called upon the court to arrest him. A lot considered this ruling as political, stressing that the United States has decided to use the weapon of the ICC to overthrow Al Bashir's rule, which has so far not been achieved despite the plotting of the Neo-cons and Israel, who want to carve up Sudan and steal its extensive resources, especially minerals, food and water.

Al Derdiri goes on to say that the ICC has no jurisdiction on Sudan, which does not recognise the ICC and insists that singling out Al Bashir is a ploy to pave the way for the trial of other Arab leaders. He adds:

ولذا سرعان ما ركزت واشنطن على استخدام صلاحيات المحكمة لتأديب “الحكام المارقين” بعيدا عن الحروب وفيتو مجلس الأمن ، وهو ما ظهر بوضوح في حالة الرئيس السوداني ، وهنا يتساءل البعض : هل يشكل القرار سابقة لمحاكمة مسئولين عرب آخرين ، وماذا يفعل السودان لمواجهته؟ .

Washington is concentrating its efforts on using the powers of the court to discipline ‘rogue rulers' away from wars and the Security Council's Veto. This is evident in the case against the Sudanese president. Some of you may ask: Will this ruling set a precedence for the trial of other Arab officials and what will Sudan do to confront it?

Al Derdiri then draws parallels between Sudan and Iraq, and writes:

ورغم أنه بات من المؤكد أن واشنطن تسير قدما في مخطط تقسيم السودان سواء كان ذلك عبر اتفاقية السلام التي تضمن انفصال الجنوب أو من خلال إشعال أزمة دارفور، إلا أن العرب لم يقوموا حتى الآن بخطوات جدية لإنقاذ السودان من المصير الذي وصل إليه العراق.

It has become evident that Washington is continuing with its plans to divide Sudan, whether this is achieved through a peace agreement which guarantees the separation of the South or through fanning the flames over the Darfur crisis. However, Arabs are yet to take serious steps to save Sudan from Iraq's destiny.

He further calls on Arabs and the African Union to move fast - and push the international community to protect the immunity of presidents and the sovereignty of states:

فالرئيس السوداني بات في قبضة المحكمة الجنائية الدولية لأن قراراتها غير قابلة للإلغاء ولا تسقط بالتقادم ، ويبدو أن هذا هو الثمن الذي كان لابد أن يدفعه العرب من وجهة نظر بوش للتغطية على فشله في العراق وأفغانستان ولبنان ولرفع أسهم المرشح الجمهوري جون ماكين في انتخابات الرئاسة الأمريكية المقبلة .
ولذا لا مناص من تكثيف التحرك العربي والإفريقي في الأمم المتحدة لدفع مجلس الأمن لمطالبة المحكمة بتأجيل تنفيذ قرار اعتقال البشير ، بالإضافة إلى ضرورة تحرك الجامعة العربية والاتحاد الإفريقي سريعا لإصدار فتوى من المحكمة الجنائية الدولية حول حصانة الرؤساء لضمان عدم استخدامها كسلاح سياسي لخدمة مخططات واشنطن ، وباعتبار هذا الأمر يضر بمبدأ أساسي في القانون الدولي وهو مبدأ السيادة.

The Sudanese President is now in the clasp of the ICC, whose decisions are irrevocable and this seems to be the price Arabs have to pay, in the opinion of Bush, to cover for his failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and improve the fortunes of the Republican nominee John McCain in the upcoming US elections. Arabs and Africans should now intensify their pressure at the United Nations, to force the Security Council to demand from the Court to delay the decision to arrest Al Bashir. The Arab League and the African Union should also move fast and extract an order from the ICC on the immunity of Presidents, in order for this tactic not to be used as a political weapon in the hands of Washington. Such decisions harm a fundamental clause in international law - and that is the issue of sovereignty.

In conclusion, he asks:

وبعد ذلك ، يبقى التساؤل الملح ” أي من الحكام العرب ستستهدفه واشنطن بعد صدام والبشير ؟ ” ، هذا ما ستجيب عنه الأيام المقبلة .

And after all this, there remains a pressing questions: Who of the Arab leaders will be targeted by Washington after Saddam and Al Bashir? We will know the answer to this question in the near future.

Also on Global Voices Online:
Bahrain: Omar Al Bashir and the Cross-Eyed Justice

Foliofn Investments launched in May of this year help customers automatically screen out companies on the Genocide Intervention Network’s “highest offenders” list of firms that operate or trade in Sudan and thereby, according to the network, share complicity in marginalizing portions of the country’s local population.

On the web.

Will from Palestinian blog Kabobfest sarcastically writes:

His trip undermines the American/Israeli policy of negating the Palestinian elections after years of demanding them. It causes ripples in their brilliant peace-forwarding vision of ignoring half the Palestinians, the same half in charge of Gaza.

Will continues:

What will this nutty ex-Nobel prize winner suggest next? We include Syria and Iran in regional peace talks? Ha!

The Sudanese Thinker, from Sudan, says Carter's trip to the Middle East:

… is based on well-meaning intentions but is ultimately flawed thanks to the “super religious, no-comprise” mindset of the people he wants to talk to. I emphasize the “well-meaning intentions” part because Jimmy’s characterization as someone evil and anti-Semitic is something I disagree with. I understand that the title of his notorious book is provocative but that doesn’t mean he is what he’s accused of. After all, it was Carter who negotiated the peace deal between Egypt and Israel.

He further adds:

I don’t think Carter gets that Hamas - like al-Qaeda - isn’t a typical rational enemy. They’re religious right-wing radicals hellbent on regaining back what they perceive to be “the land of Islam.” This is why I doubt Hamas can ever agree to a true and long-lasting peace. But hey, I give Jimmy credit for at least trying. Plus, you never know. He might actually be able to convince Hamas to release Gilad Shalit.

From Israel, Aussie Dave writes:

He might be foolish and decrepit, but Jimmy Carter also happens to be an ex President of the United States. So when he decides to meet up with a terrorist group dedicated to Israel’s destruction, said terrorist group feels legitimized.

He also concludes:

I have to agree with Shimon Peres on this one. Carter has caused great damage to Israel and the peace process, and continues to do so.

Rabbi Yohana closely examines Carter's stances on Tibet and Darfur. Turning his attention to the Middle East, the blogger explains:

Today, Carter roams around Israel, visits Sderot, gets rebuffed by Israel’s leaders, and ignored by the Shin Bet. Any goodwill created when they inked the Peace deal with Egypt nearly 30 years ago has evaporated. I just have one suggestion for the Israelis - pay up. For a mere 5 million of so, Carter could “re-examine” his views on the subject. He could “have a new understanding” and become more of an ally. We could get a ghost writer from the Shalem Center to whip together a new book too.

As it says in Pirkei Avot, “K’ne l’cha chaver”, “acquire for yourself a friend.” It will do Israel a lot more good to support Jimmy Carter with backsheesh, than to rebuff him.

Still in Israel, Batya questions Carter's impartiality and says:

Former US President Jimmy Carter sees the world through distorted lenses. Yes, that's the nicest way I can describe him.
He blames Israel for everything.

But Carter has a still managed to garner the support of a new fan in the Middle East. Egyptian blogger Zeinobia tells us how much she loves the former US president, saying:

Seriously I love this man more and more. This man seems from the few people who know the true meaning of Peace Negotiations , the true meaning of Peace negotiations in my humble point of view is to sit down with everyone involved in the fight or the conflict even those bloody ones and to listen to them in order to reach to point of agreement.

I really respected him for his daring decision to have a direct channel with Hamas and Syria as primary parties in the conflict of the middle east regardless of what is said , regardless of what the American , Israeli and Egyptian Media are saying , this is what it should be for the sake of everyone in the Middle East if we truly want a just unbiased Peace.

The US presidential election is seen by many in France as a chance to reassess this relationship and find a common ground. One Frenchman in China explains on link TV why this election matters so much to the rest of the world.

The Facebook group called Les socialistes avec Obama concurs. The group lists the reasons why it is important for the French left wing to support Obama:

• Redonner une vision aux Etat-Unis en étant un exemple en rétablissant le multilatéralisme car l'union fait la force.
• Être plus interventionniste (Congo, Darfour et Liberia)
• Améliorer la sécurité sanitaire mondiale
• Plan pour arrêter la guerre en Irak.
• Un système de sécurité social plus performant et protecteur
• Combattre la pauvreté en mettant en place des formations pour ceux qui sont sans emploi, assurer la liberté de syndicalisation, aide aux plus pauvres pour trouver des crédits d'investissement dans une entreprise, création d'incubateur d'entreprises”

-Give a new vision of the US by giving an example of multilateralism. There is strength in unity.
-More intervention in Congo, Darfur and Liberia.
-Improve Global Health care.
-A withdrawal plan for the Iraq war.
-A social security system that is more effective.
-Fighting poverty by training the unemployed, the freedom to unionize, aid the poorest obtaining investing credits in their companies and create business incubators.

However, Not everyone in the group thinks that Obama reflects the value of the French left-wing:

Jean-Arnaud Coste says:

” Vous êtes vraiment d'une naïveté déconcertante pour croire qu'Obama est de gauche, c'est dingue…
Il est certes peut être moins à droite que Mc Cain mais il est bien plus à droite que Sarkozy par exemple . Donc voir des socialistes soutenir Obama c'est vraiment absurde…Comme si la gauche ça existait aux Etats-Unis.”

Your naivety is really disconcerting, to think that Obama is left-wing, it’s crazy. He is certainly less to the right the McCain but he is more to the right of Sarkozy for example. So to see socialists support Obama is truly absurd…As if there was a true “left” in the US.

To which Michel Attia replied:

“il y a une très grande différence entre l'unilatéralisme de Bush et le multilatéralisme des Démocrates »

There is a major difference between the unilateralism of Bush and the multilateralism of the Democrats.

Arthur Mitteau adds:

“Que Barack répare l'édifice des relations entre les EU et le monde, ce sera déjà gigantesque »

If Barack can repair the front door of the relation between the US and the world, it would already be a gigantic achievement.

- Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 - April 4, 1968)

dump your thoughts in the comments section. I have my answer and facts but I’d like to hear you out before I publish my choice and concerns in a long upcoming article. I may include some of your comments.

Another way of rephrasing the question could be, which is better for Sudan, America intervening militarily in Darfur or not? In other words, would you like to see this very possible scenario play out or not?

The results of this year’s US elections can and will have a huge impact on the future direction of Sudan. I hope you’re not apathetic.

Americans and other readers, you’re more than welcome to join in.

本文执笔者并不是奥巴马的拥趸。事实上，如果是全世界选美国总统，中国选区的选举人票大概会投向希拉里或者麦凯恩。和路透中文网某美国专栏作者判断的不同，我们认为中国人支持奥巴马的可能性很小，更谈不上“应该”两字。

虽然希拉里在选战中，也在严厉批评中国贸易，但正是她丈夫克林顿打开了中国加入世贸的大门、亲手制定了北美自由贸易协定，而希拉里本人也因和印度外包产业的关系被对手攻击成“旁遮普邦参议员”。在席卷全球的反全球化浪潮中，看不到中国人的身影，实在是因为无论是中国政府，还是民间自由力量，都深深从这个新全球游戏中获益。全球化带来的市场化理念、资讯自由实践，以及作为全球负责任的社区成员的荣誉感，也让这个有两千年专制传统的中国，开始不再抵触世界标准，和前辈相比，全球化中的中国青年一代，有了更多的享有世界标准自由的机会。从这个意义上，克林顿王朝，对于知恩图报的中国人来说，并不是什么负面的组合。

即便是麦凯恩这个共和党老兵，中国人在接受上也没有障碍。由于中国在中东地区，无论是经济利益和战略利益上，都没有欧美俄的那种相关性，因此方便地保持中立是明智选择。美国布什政府的伊拉克战争，虽然遭到很多国家人民的反对，也遭到美国人民逐步厌倦，但从始至终，也和中国的相关性不大。中国的外交观念，在告别毛泽东时期的革命战略观之后，一直保持了地缘政治的现实主义谨慎，恪守作为地区大国的本分，不过度抵抗美国的实际超级霸权，而是保持“负责任的利益相关者”义务。在布什共和党政府执政期间，中国国家利益和民族利益，并没有受到美国政策导致的损害，相反，很多学者认为，伊战牵制了美国国力，让中国可以在朝鲜问题上有所帮助，加强了中美的战略同情。而台湾问题上，布什政府对台独的明确反对，甚至超过了克林顿民主党政府的对中承诺。

麦凯恩是反共的越战老兵，他一定会加强对中国政府人权方面的攻击。但在批评中成长，长远看对中国也不是什么坏事情。斯皮尔伯格因苏丹对北京奥运的批评，虽然在中国人眼中，实在是莫名其妙，这说明中国在具备全球化影响力的今天还是不太具备全球化的心态，不过当中国政府决定就此不断对苏丹政府施压之后，不能不说斯皮尔伯格的批评，也客观上促进了中国观念进步。相反，麦凯恩在贸易上，可以算是正宗的共和党人，拥抱自由贸易，希望取消中美贸易配额，这样的新鹰派总统，中国完全可以接受。

民调越来越证实了这样一种趋势，奥巴马不但肯定会击垮希拉里，而且可能在11月的大选中战胜麦凯恩，写下新传奇，成为美国历史上第一个黑人总统。无论这给美国人民和世界其他地区人民带来什么，给中国带来的却是变化莫测。

首先是奥巴马一直以来对全球化贸易的反对。他反对中国贸易，认为中国不但对美国输出有毒产品，更是夺走了美国的工作。他反对印度外包，因此攻击希拉里。在他几乎确定党内胜选、毫无必要再骗选票的现在，抛出重新制定北美自由贸易条款的议题，让富裕邻国加拿大都感到惊诧。如果说全球化有几个肯定的赢家的话，显然美国是属于第一阵营的，赢家反对全球化贸易，不但是一种战略上的逻辑错乱，更是未来中美利益摩擦的主要来源。虽然完全可能在他当选之后，不得不延续旧政府的贸易政策，但这等于是巨大的跳票，奥巴马如何面对奥巴马神话的压力，现在还看不出端倪。

其次是寄托了美国人各种变化心理投射的奥巴马，必然会在全球外交上有所改变，虽然亚洲地区不会是首要改变的目标，但大国游戏规则一定会受到影响，而这种改变对于身在其中的中国意味着什么，还未可知。更严重的是，中国善于应对的美国，从克林顿到布什，都是战略清晰的美国。这样，中国也可以放心地战略清晰，大国之间才可以产生基本信任，求同存异，台海局面的缓解，就是和这种清晰以及信任有相当的关系。

但奥巴马从本性上就是一个战略模糊的高手，并不以原则底线清晰见长。这和他以一混血非洲裔美国人身份在主流社会成长的经历有关——他善于不得罪任何本身相互敌对的利益团体。在美国的政治框架下，总统和总统人马（行政当局），直接控制外交、外贸和战争政策。因此，奥巴马的美国，可能是中国极不熟悉的美国，也可能是世界极不熟悉的美国。当克林顿总统说，贸易和政治要分开的时候，中国人应该相信这就代表了未来长期的中美贸易蜜月；当布什总统说，不支持台湾独立的时候，中国人也有信心说这代表了此届美国政府在台海问题上不变的立场，甚至会到直接从华府国务院批评陈总统的地步。但未来的奥巴马总统说A的时候，我们是不是要看看，他在其他场合也说了B，其实他心里想的是C，但做出来的确是D？

作为中国人，我们在为美国人民取得黑人总统的历史进步叫好的同时，更关心中华民族的自身利益。民主在本质上是民族共同体的内部共识，他人的民主成就，不必然让我们受益。我们始终认为，中美关系，对中国人的繁荣幸福和民主发展，至关重要。在这个意义上，我们会谨慎地去观察这场发生在美利坚土地上的历史性选举。