By PETER MWAURA

Why Brazilians have to wait longer to get their Obama

Writing from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on October 28, the Daily Nation’s Elias Makori reported that Kenya’s President Kibaki [Pdf Document] was due to visit the country and Venezuela to strengthen trade ties between Kenya and Latin America.

If and when our President (Mwai Kibaki of Kenya) visits him, President Luiz Inacio da Silva of Brazil is expected to talk about his country’s prowess in such things as agribusiness, generic drugs, sugar plantations and biofuels, to say nothing of coffee and football.

This will not be mere big talk. Brazil is the leading economic power in South America, and the fifth largest country in the world. It is more than three times the size of Sudan, Africa’s largest country, and nearly 15 times the size of Kenya. It has more blacks than any other country in the world, except Nigeria.

Brazil is a worthy trading and political partner for Kenya, and President Kibaki’s visit will be a smart move.

During their table talk, da Silva is likely to tell President Kibaki that it is Brazil, not the US, that was the first white-dominated country to have a black president in 1909. His name was Nilo Pecanha.

But he will not concern himself with the details of that historic first, such as the fact that Pecanha obtained the post by accident when he was the vice-president. He took over when President Affonso Penna died in June 1909 after ruling for only about a year.

In the tête-à-tête, da Silva will probably give the old line about racial democracy and harmony in his country. Brazilians have successfully used the line for years.

In the 1950s, the United Nations commissioned a series of studies on Brazil in an attempt to learn how the country achieved its “racial democracy” when other societies such as the US were experiencing strife in race relations.

But statistics show that the racial democracy in Brazil is a myth.

Skin pigmentation is still used to delineate social hierarchy. Black Brazilians — they are the majority — are discriminated against at every sphere of life. They suffer, among other ills, little access to education, landlessness, high infant mortality, discrimination in employment and police brutality.

As a result, many Brazilians of obvious African descent who want to better their socio-economic lives have to “whiten” themselves. The much-vaunted racial democracy only operates to exclude non-Whites.

Da Silva is also unlikely to tell President Kibaki that his country was built on African slave labour, and that Brazil should pay reparations for nearly 400 years of unpaid African labour.

Not surprisingly, Brazil was the last country in the world to abolish slavery in 1888.

In the more than three centuries of Portuguese colonisation, Brazil imported 4 million slaves to work for about 700,000 Portuguese settlers. Brazil was arguably the largest slave economy in human history.

Without the cheap African labour, the country would have stagnated economically. As early as April 1843, politician Bernado Pereira de Vasconcelos told the Brazilian senate: “Africa is civilising America”.

Another Brazilian politician, Cunha Matos, believed that the country would still be populated by Indians living under barbarous conditions if Africans did not come to bolster the Portuguese settlers. Brazil was just a claw-hold until the importation of large numbers of Africans.

But da Silva will not tell his Kenyan guest that the very continued existence of the Portuguese settlers in Brazil depended on the African slaves.

Slavery in Brazil

There are many other home truths, mostly rooted in Brazilian history, folklore and culture, that da Silva is unlikely to talk about.

For example, he is unlikely to talk about the Afro-Brazilian women, who have been a part of Brazilian popular culture for centuries.

During the slave era, the sexy mulata (a person of mixed African and European descent) was the female with whom white Brazilian boys were expected to have their first sexual experience, according to famed Brazilian writer-cum-anthropologist Gilberto Freyre.

And as another writer puts it, one of the results of the use of the black female for satisfaction was that Brazil exploded in a spree of miscegenation and racial mixture the extent of which is probably unknown in history.

Certainly, President da Silva will avoid using the old Brazilian expression, e um Africa (It’s an Africa).

Brazilians use the expression to describe anything that is difficult to overcome — a feat. The expression conjures up old images of the “Dark Continent”.

Da Silva may fear that the expression will offend his African guest. In Brazil, old stereotypes about Africa are very much alive.

This is why African-Brazilians will have to wait for a very long time before they have their own Obama.

——————————————————–

References:

1. Brazil and the Yankee Way of Being Black — In Brazil, race and class interact to create a highly stratified society where most people of color are poor, and most middle class and wealthy are “white.” To view this situation through the US lens of racial categories and racial purity is not only intellectual dishonesty, but smacks of colonialism.

2. History of slavery — The history of slavery uncovers many different forms of human exploitation across many cultures throughout history. Slavery, generally defined, refers to the “systematic exploitation of labor” traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution.

3. Why Obama is Black, not White.

Popularity: 2% [?]

EUROPE

By John Lichfield

After eight years of a Bush administration which divided, ignored or patronised Europe, EU leaders are bubbling with excitement at the prospect of a more creative, transatlantic partnership with President-elect Barack Obama.

The European Commission president, Jose-Manuel Barroso spoke of a “new deal” between the US and the EU, to shape the global agenda from trade to human rights to climate change. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, said: “At a time when we all face immense challenges, your election will inspire immense new hope in France, in Europe and in the entire world.”

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said, pointedly, that she that she looked forward to a “closer and more trusting cooperation between the United States and Europe.”

Others warned, however, that, once the gloss wore off, an Obama presidency was likely to bump against fundamental differences of interest between Europe and the US on issues ranging from trade, to climate change and how to handle a more assertive or belligerent Russia.

There was also a notable difference of tone yesterday in the reactions of those countries dismissed by the Bush administration as “Old Europe” and the reactions of some of the former Soviet bloc countries, which had aligned themselves with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld worldview.

Obama’s triumph was received ecstatically in Germany and above all in France, where over 90 per cent of people had told pollsters that they wanted a Democratic victory. John McCain’s defeat was seen as a crushing disavowal of the conservative and neo-conservative forces which orchestrated a bullying campaign of denigration of all things French after Paris had actively opposed the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

In Poland and the Czech Republic, the reaction was more muted. The Polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, said that he hoped the future President Obama would ignore Democratic Party misgivings and push ahead with the Bush administration’s plans for an anti-missile defence and radar shield based in Poland and the Czech Republic. The shield – angrily opposed by Moscow - is likely to become a key litmus test of future US and European dealings with Russia.

FRANCE

By John Lichfield in Paris

In no other western country was a Barack Obama victory more anxiously awaited than in France. More than 90 per cent of French people – more than 90 per cent of the parliamentary deputies in President Nicolas Sarkozy’s centre-right party – had told pollsters that they preferred Obama to John McCain.

The Democrat’s sweeping victory was seen in France as an opportunity to create a more cooperative – and more equal – relationship between Europe and the United States, on issues ranging from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the global financial crisis and climate change.

More than that, Obama’s triumph was seen as a crushing disavowal of the conservative and neo-conservative forces which orchestrated a bullying campaign of denigration of all things French after Paris had actively opposed the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

“Where George W. Bush pronounced, bulldozed and failed, Barack Obama will listen, cooperate and then decide,” said Alain Duhamel, one of France’s wisest political commentators.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has annoyed many French people – including some in his own camp – by ingratiating himself with the formerly frog-bashing Bush administration since his election 17 months ago. Even he, however, has scarcely hidden his preference for Obama in recent weeks.

In a glowing congratulatory letter yesterday, M. Sarkozy addressed to “Dear Barak (sic),” the president said that Mr Obama’s “brilliant victory” and “exceptional campaign” had demonstrated to the world the continuing strength of American democracy.

“At a time when we all face immense challenges, your election will inspire immense new hope in France, in Europe and in the entire world,” President Sarkozy said.

Francçis Hollande, the leader of the main opposition party, the Parti Socialiste, paid tribute to the “audacity and courage” of the American people for electing a “man of progress” despite the “colour of his skin“.

He warned, however, that President Obama would govern in what he saw to be America’s best interest. Despite the global excitement, Obama could not, and would not, be a “president of the world“.

French diplomats issued similar words of caution in private. An Obama presidency, they said, should create a more equal and more cooperative transatlantic relationship. Once the gloss wore off, they warned, American interests would reassert themselves on such potential transatlantic flash-points as trade, global warming and relations with Russia.

IRAQ

By Patrick Cockburn

It became clear during the presidential election that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain had much idea of what was happening in Iraq. During the early stages of the campaign the two men were divided over the question of an American military withdrawal.

Mr Obama was only in the race because he had opposed the invasion in 2003. Mr McCain claimed the war could still be won.

This debate is now out of date, though nobody in the US has paid much attention to this in recent months because of the economic crisis. The Iraqi government is confidently demanding that the US withdraw its combat troops from the cities at the end of June 2009 and from Iraq entirely at the end of 2011. The timing of the pullout is not very different from Mr Obama’s plan to withdraw over sixteen months.

The danger is that the new Democratic administration will be paralysed by fear that it will be accused of selling out Iraq just when victory was in sight. Mr Obama may also be tempted to appoint tired old foreign policy veterans of the Clinton administration, regardless of their previous lack of achievement in the Middle East, in a bid to reassure the powers that be in Washington that he plans no radical changes.

Iraqis, with the exception of the Kurds, will in general be overjoyed to see the back of President Bush. There is nothing new in this. Polls in Iraq have always shown that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was popular outside the Sunni community but the US military occupation was never accepted. The Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is now portraying the stalled Status

of Forces Agreement with the US as a way of ending the occupation. It will be easier for Mr Obama than Mr Bush to make the necessary concessions, many of them cosmetic, to get the measure past the Iraqi parliament.

There is another area in which an Obama administration could make vital changes in policy. The two main allies of the present Iraqi government are Washington and Tehran, yet Mr Bush deluded himself that Iranian influence in Baghdad could be minimized. From the beginning his occupation of Iraq was undermined by his foolish portrayal of the invasion of Iraq as a staging post on the way to overthrowing the Iranian and Syrian governments.

Not surprisingly they made sure the occupation never stabilized. Once this self-destructive policy of confrontation is reversed and the US talks seriously to them then one of the main sources of instability in Iraq will disappear.

MIDDLE EAST

By Donald Macintyre

Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert yesterday warmly congratulated Barack Obama for his “historic and impressive” victory. And certainly strenuous efforts have been made by Obama allies to reassure Israelis that they will in the words this week of Martin Indyk, Bill Clinton’s one time ambassador to Tel Aviv, have a “true friend” in the new White House.

Much will depend on what you mean by friend. Given that Israel is facing an election of its own which could return the right under Benjamin Netanyahu to power, it is hard to forget Mr Obama’s own remark, during the Ohio primary, that you didn’t have to sign up to every policy of Likud—Mr Netanyahu’s party—to be a friend of Israel.

The Israeli right has –surely correctly–feared that the new President, will not be the kind of friend who can make a Knesset speech, as his predecessor did earlier this year, which utterly fails even to exhort Israel to make concessions for peace.

The left has hoped that he will be the kind of candid friend who pushes Israel towards the agreed end to the occupation which they hope he believes is in its own –and America’s–interests.

Some in the middle—and in the Israeli establishment—actually see the Obama victory as a positive on Iran despite worries about his willingness to engage with Tehran, on the grounds that he has a much better chance of building an international coalition to stop it building nuclear weapons. Their fear is rather that domestic preoccupations — notably economic — will stop him prioritising the Middle East, including a deal with Syria, which would require the US at the table.

Bush has left more of an Israeli-Palestinian process, however flawed, than Clinton did after the collapse of Camp David. It is beset with problems including the control of Gaza by Hamas, whom Obama has said he won’t talk to unless they transform their stance. And many Palestinians, their hopes raised and dashed so often before, are anyway sceptical if an Obama presidency will make much difference. But Ghassan Khatib, the moderate Palestinian intellectual and former minister said yesterday by defusing the Iran crisis Mr Obama could create a markedly better atmosphere in the region, including for progress in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Their hope will be that he will at least fulfil his promise this year to make—in stark contrast to Bush and several other presidents—to make the Middle East a first term priority.

PAKISTAN

By Andrew Buncombe

Pakistan is the crucible of south Asia whose stability is key to containing the spread of Islamic militancy. More than a year ago, Obama angered Pakistan by voicing his support for airstrikes against al-Qa’ida militants inside the country on the border with Afghanistan and even the deployment of troops if Islamabad “cannot or will not act” against them. His promise to “take out” militants in the tribal areas was not well received.

In reality, the Pakistan government would have worked with the administration of whichever candidate had won. The policies of Mr Obama and Mr McCain were little different in regard to targeting militants in the tribal areas. Both men have also stressed the importance of the military operation in Afghanistan. Mr Obama said he will send an additional 7,000 US troops.

Pakistan’s prime minister congratulated Mr Obama, saying he hoped he would promote peace and stability. “I hope that under your dynamic leadership, the United States will continue to be a source of global peace and new ideas for humanity,” said Yousuf Gilani.

While some commentators in Pakistan have pointed out that “Democrats traditionally support India while Republicans favour Pakistan,” few are expecting a radical shift in US policy. “It’s not going to make much difference,” said Dr Rasul Baksh Rais, of the Lahore University of Management Sciences. “The US will continue its policy in Afghanistan. As far as this is concerned there seems to be consensus.”

More recently the now president-elect had talked of India and Pakistan finding a solution to the Kashmir problem. He said Pakistan needed to concentrate on dealing with militants, rather than the perceived threat from India. Many thought it was commonsense, but some in India believed he was proposing a US involvement in the issue, even raising the prospect of former president Bill Clinton being dispatched as a special envoy.

Unsurprisingly, in both India and Pakistan Obama has captured the imagination of younger people. While Indian culture traditionally respects its elders - and elects leaders who might look decidedly antique almost anywhere else - in India his campaign has received celebrity-style coverage in the run-up to the election. For a part of the world that for some long lived under foreign, white, ruled, the election of a non-White president by the world’s most powerful democracy clearly has resonance.

In a message to Mr Obama, India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, said: “Your extraordinary journey to the White House will inspire people not only in your country but also around the world.”

AFRICA

By Daniel Howden in Nairobi

Barack Obama’s victory was greeted with such enthusiasm across the largest and poorest continent on earth that it seemed at times to be an African, not an American election. It is here that the people he invoked “huddled around radios in forgotten corners of the world,” are to be found.

However, Africa was almost invisible in the candidate’s position papers, with references to Sudan, Aids and aid all largely indistinguishable from those of John McCain.

He is feted as a symbol, as a communicator and as an agent of change, and many suspect his greatest impact is likely to be limited to the first of those three.

In Kenya, the land of his father’s birth, expectations and reality clash most obviously. The country already enjoys a serious aid budget and the continent’s largest US diplomatic presence, change is unlikely.

Liberia’s president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a close ally of Washington, welcomed his election but said that Africans should not expect anything dramatic, especially while the US has its own economic crisis.

Not everyone moved to dampen expectations though. South Africa’s president Kgalema Motlanthe said: “We express the hope that poverty and under-development in Africa, which remains a challenge for humanity, will indeed continue to receive a greater attention of the focus of the new administration.”

The one area likely to be addressed in some form is Sudan. Darfur, and before it the plight of Christians in South Sudan, has captured the attention of the American public and by extension its politicians.

There is a perception that Democrats have taken a softer approach to the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum.

LATIN AMERICA

By Paul Scheltus in Buenos Aires

Latin Americans are hoping for more carrot and less stick from President Obama than under his predecessor, President Bush. Immigration will be top of the agenda for most governments. Legalising the estimated 15 million illegal workers in the US and introducing a temporary worker programme, as well as secure borders are a priority for all Latin American nations, according to former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda.

In Buenos Aires yesterday morning young people from several Latin American nations echoed that theme. “It was time for a change,” said 24-year old Nacho Giretti. “I hope that from now on the treatment of immigrants in the United States will be more humane.” Under President Obama, relations with Cuba are expected to change. Obama has said he will ease travel restriction and allow unlimited remittances to be sent. Those signs were welcomed by dissidents and party officials in Cuba alike.

Pending free trade agreements, drug trafficking and energy policy are just some of many regional issues that need urgent attention. All require that President Obama “extend a hand” to Latin America, as he has promised he will.

CHINA

By Clifford Coonan

Although China is not a democracy and is run as a single-party state by the Communist Party, there has been keen interest in the election among the Chinese.Beijingers enthusiastically welcomed the election of Barack Obama as a victory for an attractive young candidate who would boost US-Chinese relations and resolve the global financial crisis.

“Obama is great. This election has really changed the history of America and racism in America. Obama can handle the economy better than Bush, he is more open to new things and also he won’t start a war somewhere,” said Hu Feimin, 26, a secretary from Anhui province.

The Beijing leadership is anxious to ensure change in the world’s most powerful country does not harm the interests of China, an emerging superpower.

“America has changed colour, it’s good. Now I hope to see practical progress in future relations between China and America,” said Liu Chenbing, 32, an engineer from Shanxi province. “What I hope for most is that America can do something good for unification with Taiwan and that the American financial crisis can be dealt with quickly and effectively,” he said.

President George Bush is popular here, but state media ran resoundingly positive coverage of Obama’s win, suggesting the official view on Obama is this is a president the Chinese leadership can do business with. State broadcaster CCTV hailed his Confucian qualities of filial piety and his strong family values.

Pundits hailed the incoming president as a positive symbol of change of the US.

“In the last 30 years, the relationship between China and the USA has come a long way. I believe the new government will continue to strengthen the cooperation between China and the U.S.A.,” said Tao Wenzhao, an American Studies researcher at the influential Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Shen Tianhong, 25, who works at a property management company, was surprised by the result.

“I thought white people dominated America and the presidency. But it’s a good decision,” she said.

“This is better for the world. And Obama can handle the American financial crisis more quickly, so that is good for China,” said Ms Shen.

Zou Qinyue, manager of a Sichuan restaurant, was focused on the economic aspect.

“Black or white, he must have something special to become president. I hope the economy stabilises, because then the global economy will stablise.”

Some young people learned what they know about US politics from watching US TV shows.

“The funny thing is that in “24,” there is a black president also. A black president can do good in his presidency, just like David Palmer,” said university student Zhu Ming.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Naturally, the U.S. financial crisis will decrease the relative moral and material weight of American leadership. The irresponsibility of large banking institutions, the probably criminal behavior of very important companies in the stock market, and the continued negligence of the government show that today in the U.S. unscrupulous behavior in the economic arena is not an isolated phenomenon.

This is serious, given that the U.S. is not only the most important nation in the planet, it is, as well, a sort of role model to the rest of the world. With what moral authority can the U.S. government fight against international corruption, defend transparency and preach the virtues of globalization after this shameful spectacle? There is no doubt but that this crisis will severely affect America’s ability to influence the rest of the world. — Carlos Alberto Montaner [ READ MORE ]

Popularity: 7% [?]

Ronald Wilson Reagan assumed office at the age of 69, served two terms, and left office in 1988 at the age of 77. Shortly after he left office he was “diagnosed” with Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s disease (AD), is the most common form of dementia a.k.a. senility. It is an incurable, degenerative, and terminal disease, generally diagnosed in people over 65 years of age.

The earliest observable symptoms are often mistakenly thought to be “age-related” concerns, or manifestations of stress. In the early stages, the most commonly recognized symptom is memory loss, such as difficulty in remembering recently learned facts. As the disease advances, symptoms include confusion, irritability and aggression, mood swings, language breakdown, long-term memory loss, and the general withdrawal of the sufferer as their senses decline. Gradually, bodily functions are lost, ultimately leading to death.

Did Ronald Reagan have this disease while he was President?

When Reagan disclosed in November 1994 that he had Alzheimer’s disease, many people could not help suspecting that the illness had begun to rob him of memory while he was in the White House. Throughout his years in Washington, Mr. Reagan had been portrayed by many pundits and political opponents as absent-minded, inattentive, incurious, even lazy. And his Presidency was marked by a succession of very public mental stumbles — most notably his dismal performance in the first debate of the 1984 campaign, and his confused and forgetful accounting of his role in the Iran-contra affair — during which the Reagan dictatorship funded of CIA death squads to safeguard the corporate thievery by US multinational companies in Latin American countries. | Ronald Reagan Videos |

Were his doctors playing “Hide and Seek” for him? ……[ read more ]

Dr. Louis A. Gottschalk, a prominent neurologist and psychiatrist believes that Ronald Reagan was indeed starting to display early signs of Alzheimer’s Disease as the time of the presidential debates between candidates Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan in 1984.

A close look at McCain during this election cycle clearly reveals that there is definitely something wrong with his thought processes, very similar to Reagan’s, probably worse. He is having difficulty in expressing simple ideas and thoughts, sometimes stumbling in a dazed and confused stupor — He mis-pronounces, forgets and mix up facts and names, in some instances he fiddles with hands for extended periods of time before “gaffing” an answer.

McCain Dazed and Confused

McCain’s widely documented bouts of anger over the years could be attributed to PTSS (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome) — after the beatings he suffered at the hands of the VietCong. Anger as we all know always affects decision making — in a negative manner. In McCain’s case — judgement about issues such as war, and the use of nuclear weapons, etc.

McCain’s tendency to blame everything on adversaries (read Obama), the “blatant lies” and innuendo is alarming. When asked why he has been hurling lies like a “Goat-Herder” in the middle of nowhere in Africa, McCain’s only answer has always been — “Its a tough campaign.”

Author Lloyd Richmond, Ph.D., on “Psychological Honesty,”… says: “Even a pathological liar carries deep in his heart a desire for goodness and honesty and yet, because of painful emotional wounds, believes that the world never has, and never will, recognize his pain. And so, to hide that pain from himself, he uses all the lies he can concoct to hurl at the world as he runs in fear from his own goodness.”

Joe Klein of Time Magazine says: “Almost every politician stretches the truth….but McCain’s lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent’s character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth.” Klein adds: “Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored “comprehensive” sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.)” …[ Read More ]

Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal Editorial page, a Republican, asks: “Is John McCain Stupid?” [Read More]

Henninger talks with Kelsey Hubbard about McCain’s strategy

Paul Abrams, writing for the Huffington Post demands: “McCain, has a greater obligation, putting “country first,” to have an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) because he chose Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat, or degeneration or metastasis away from the Presidency,”…..to provide assurance that, for now at least, he has no brain metastases, due his frequent bouts with melanoma, which is a cancer that can spread widely in the body to almost any organ, including brain, lung, bone and liver.

McCain is Risky

Reagan the Serial Liar who made Americans feel good about themselves, was not only ill informed but probably partially senile most of his second term. His denial of knowledge of the details Contra Scandal may have been sincere — for the “semi-senile” president was being manipulated by the criminal war-profiteering cabal surrounding him.

Some have suggested that The Iran-contra affair was actually a gun-running, drug smuggling operation run out of Mena, Arkansas, under the direction of Vice President Bush (SNR), leader of the The Criminal “High Cabal.”

These things were happening under the nose of a “semi-senile” president Reagan.

It is the same Cabal that surrounds the current puppet president — George W. Bush, who is not senile but is equally decrepit, due to his inability to grasp complex issues — instead dangerously and recklessly hiding behind GOD, to camouflage poor reasoning, and an in-adequate intellectual capacity needed to conduct domestic and world affairs.

McCain is not as dumb as George Bush, but as senility sets in — and if he is elected president, with the present global economic and military turmoil, the rate of “aging” will quadruple — and he may even die in office. With Alzheimer’s and Melanoma eating into his “Cold-War” brain, “Maverick” McCain would turn out to be costlier to the United States than George Bush.

Bush’s eight years of ignorance and outright stupidity MUST not be replaced by four years “senility.”

A “half-brain dead” McCain is likely to become a puppet of the Neo-Con Cabal — which, right now, is very busy trying to sneak into a possible McCain administration hidden behind Sarah Palin’s skirt!

And, his choice of Sarah Palin as his running-mate does not help things at all. At a time when America is facing very serious domestic and international constraints, the choice of Palin, who so far has distinguished herself only as a “Feisty” cheerleader borders on insanity — further evidence that McCain cannot think clearly and/or he is just another charlatan, practising “quackery” or something similar, to trick the American people — the SANE one’s at least — and not, the “Energized” “Conservative Base” — The most ignorant and racist quadrant of America, who have never hesitated in supporting and glorifying willful ignorance, in order to advance their agenda of intolerance.

References:

1. Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama….George F. Will, Syndicated ‘Conservative‘ Columnist. | READ MORE |

2. War Profiteering and the Concentration of Income and Wealth in America — Escalating Military Spending. By Prof. Ismael Hossein-Zadeh

Popularity: 7% [?]