Power and greatness

Character is tested in crisis. One arrives at power and greatness after many tests, after a long cataclysmic journey. Hillary Clinton is my hero because she has emerged as the true leader, real leader capable of filling the leadership vacuum present in America for many years. She has got the power! She has got the character and strength to withstand all those challenges awaiting this country, this century. I respected her even more when she stood up to the podium and claimed what has never been claimed by an American woman. I respected her even more when she refused to drop out of the race that was tilting towards her opponent and is still not over. She refused to waver. She refused to be weak on the face of constant bombardment, sexism, bias, hypocrisy. She has arrived at greatness...

None of her opponents and no one among today's political elites have the greatness, the power, the character, the strength of this woman! We want, we need a leader like her! If we, Americans, do not bestow her with the ultimate leadership role, we will lose for many generations to come...

Join us in support for Hillary Clinton!

Three-party race?

The road to the White House has turned into a three-party race. Or at least that is the impression. Working class/lower middle class-- for Hillary Clinton. The elites/academia/professionals-- for Barack Obama. The rich and military-- for John McCain.

Democrat vs. Republican is not the point any longer. First, John McCain is not a traditional Republican. His record suggests pseudo-Republican ideology. At the very least he is a moderate Republican.
Hillary Clinton is a centrist, with a deep commitment to the middle class, specifically with a lifelong passion for health care reform. Even with her working-class platform, she is a centrist. The Republican whining that she is a 'socialist' is so off the point and totally ludicrous.

As for Barack Obama, he has issues that I cannot reconcile with. While he is running a pretty liberal platform, he often sounds like Reagan. In his quest to raise above partisan politics and refresh the ideological/dogmatic stalemate of our politics, he loses his identity and is lost in his own voice. In his quest to 'unify' and bring people together, he turns into a chameleon who changes his/her mind to please everyone at a given time. Or he simply tries to have a 'sophisticated' approach to everything, for example, to Affirmative Action. Too sophisticated! At a difficult moment, when a decision has to be made, you have to side with one theory over the other. I simply cannot get a straight answer from him on any issue. Sometimes he just looks like a law professor, using a Socratic method to confuse and berate a student. I do not think an ordinary individual is up for the Socratic method from a politician. It also looks a bit arrogant...

Three-party race? Pseudo-Republican, centrist, pseudo-Democrat... Huh...

Color and color-blind

I have talked a lot about race... Just to continue musing on this hot topic nowadays. When you stand up and say loudly, 'I am black,' you will draw a line between you and me. And if I stand up and say, 'I am white,' I will definitely offend all non-whites. So, standing up and claiming 'white' is entirely unacceptable. I think, it works the other way too. I think, not only whites can discriminate, but also blacks can. It is 'reverse racism', in my opinion. Some may say there is a distinction between minorities and the white Caucasian majority. Minorities tend to cling to their community for 'security' and point of reference. Armenians have their community, the Jewish have theirs, the blacks theirs, the Latinos theirs, and so on... The majority does not have to do that by sheer numbers and the absence of the need to cling to someething. They are not as insecure as the minorities. But I want to stress to you that discrimination is not confined to the white Caucasians. Everyone is capable of discriminating. And I assert that the first step in that direction is standing up and drawing a line between oneself and others. Of course, identity is an issue here. You are what you are and denying that or trying to 'hide' it is simply not possible. But asserting one's identity should not come at the expense of alienation and line-drawing. For example, if I stand up and constantly say, 'I am Russian-Armenian', I will basically separate myself from mainstream Americans, I think. Instead what I do psychologically, I say to myself, 'I am a human being generally and specifically I am an American with a different ethnic background.' That works very nicely for me. In these multiple layers of identity, you psychologically posture yourself in the larger group, not separate from the rest. For example, I really do not like the Armenian cultural tendency in America to raise children 'culturally pure' and as true Armenians. I will ask you this question, does being an American exclude you from also being Jewish, Armenian, Russian? No.

But going back to race. Historically, the most oppressed and disadvantaged group in America is blacks. History defined much of their present today. Lingering anger, insecurity, frustration and distrust against whites in general. Of course, this is by no means true of everyone. I am talking in generalities. While whites have learned their lesson-- that discrimination is immoral and will have legal consequences-- blacks have not forgotten the past... Certainly there is still subtle discrimination and African-Americans fill a large percentage of the poverty ranks... But all I want to say is this, discrimination is a highly psychological and irrational process and begins from that first step of line-drawing. My answer to this is to stop focusing on race. While 'color-blind' mentality also does not work because it is disingenuous and artificial, there are ways of avoiding this concept of line-drawing. For example, I do not like when in employment applications they still ask for your race (optional)... That should be completely eliminated. Race should stop being a factor in public sphere and people's lives. While cognizant of history, we need to move towards a future that eliminates that first step in the link of discrimination...

Race is only one of the many attributes of a human being and should not take precedence over others. I would also suggest that attributes can be meaningful and meaningless and race is one of the most meaningless ones.

Now you can understand why certain things in this contest between Obama and Hillary Clinton were really discomforting to me. For example, 89% of blacks voting for Obama, while whites evenly dividing their vote between the two...

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

On this day, March 4, 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. In his platform he had promised a 'new deal for the American people' and pledged to help the 'little guy' in the streets. The time had come to give relief to the "forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid" and stop bailing out "the large banks and corporations." (A. James Reichley, 'The Life of the Parties'). During the first 'hundred days' of his Presidency Roosevelt proposed and Congress enacted the first measures that would lay a foundation of the New Liberalism, the so-called New Deal. These included restructuring of the national banking system, authorizing federal subsidies to agriculture, regulation of the securities industry, authorization of a big public power and conservation project, establishment of the National Recovery Administration.

The right-wing criticism was fierce. One of his opponents said, "I will take off my coat and fight to the end against any candidate who persists in any demagogic appeal to the masses of the working people of this country to destroy themselves by setting the class against class and rich against poor!" The socialist flame engulfing Europe brought a lot of concerns to the Americans and seeded many doubts in their minds about whether capitalism was working. While Roosevelt was attacked as a 'socialist', it was not a valid criticism. It was precisely thanks to Roosevelt that the free market system survived in the United States. But the New Deal was focused on regulating the free market and interjecting the government between the working people and big business to build the middle-class and restore the equilibrium.

Roosevelt was the torch-bearer of the new liberal philosophy that today makes up the Democratic Party. Both Obama and Hillary have been loyal to these principles. But I hope that the American people will see the real power of Hillary Clinton to bring about the change that America needs so desperately! Vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for President!

'Hot seat' for women?

It is absolutely unacceptable how the media is treating Hillary Clinton. Debate after a debate I watch her being grilled, disrespected, interrupted, not allowed to finish. They are simply obnoxious to her. Even the Bush administration, responsible for all the crisis in this country, is not being treated like that. She is put in a 'hot seat' and frankly, Obama is enjoying cushions. You can search in this entire country and will find only a few other individuals as accomplished as Hillary Clinton. Yet she gets zero respect. What happened to the manners of these so-called 'gentlemen'? After all, a lady is sitting before them and not just an ordinary lady, but a First Lady of one of the most successful Presidents of this country! This is a woman whose name can righteously be placed in the list with the most accomplished American figures and as a President she would also find her place among Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy. I think, at the very least she deserves some courteous treatment...

Is this sexism? You bet it is. Of course, they are afraid to attack Obama for fear of being named 'racist' and raising the unified anger of the African-American community. They have decided that it is worse to be called racist than sexist. Even in the news I hear deplorable comments about sexism being somehow more politically acceptable than racism. Since when did that happen? To me, discimination is discrimination, no matter what is the basis. All types are equally reprehensible. It is breaking my heart to see such blatant sexism in our society!

My question is this, is it a 'democracy' when the media and the elites have already unofficially decided that Obama should be the next President and are pushing that agenda at all costs. How are people going to vote when all they see in the newspapers is bad 'vibe' about Hillary and ecstacy for Obama?! If your definition of democracy means poisoning people into compliance with your agenda with the help of the TV box, your definition is not mine. Let them treat these two candidates equally and with equal respect and courtesy and then whoever wins, it is earned. I think this whole process and this entire contest is ridiculous, not real and unfair... It is a comedy, a farce!

The same will happen in November elections. Only that time the media and the elites will eulogize John McCain and will push their agenda on you. The same thing happened in 2000, 2004...

Failed vision

It is really pathetic to listen to the Republican presidential candidates. With all due respect, I fear they all have some sort of amnesia or basically play dumb to the American people. While Bush’s rating is the lowest imaginable, they push the same agenda of the Bush administration. Regarding the Iraq war, their message is the same, 'we won’t leave until we win.' They are feeding us with the recent temporary ‘success.’ First, we are not winning the war on Iraq. Turn off the TV and get online to read some European or other sources on what is really happening in Iraq—constant sectarian violence and insecurity. To suggest that because there has been some reduction of casualties, we are winning the war, is simply ridiculous. Second, contrary to the assertion of McCain, the American presence in Iraq is very much about casualties. He is stressing that it is the American casualties, not the American presence that we should worry the most about. How can he say that when the target of the extremists is the American soldier on the ground?!

While I agree with the Democrats that leaving without good planning and some sort of safety net for the friendly Iraqi government is wrong, Republicans are dead wrong in their vision on Iraq. I think they will lose the election with that message.

Second, again and again, these people are talking about permanent tax cuts for the few in the face of economic stagnation and poverty. How do they intend to finance their plans in Iraq when they do not want to get some revenues for the government by raising the taxes for the rich? Continue borrowing from China? They talk about cutting the spending of the federal government, but definitely not in the military, since they want to continue the catastrophic war. So, all they are saying, we will bankrupt this nation by a 100 year long commitment in the Middle Eastern mess without changing this administration’s failed policies and we will continue driving the middle class into poverty by cutting the federal government’s ability to do something. So, spending in defense will continue, tax cuts for the rich will continue, the deficit will continue, and the federal government will continue its impotent existence giving in to ‘states’ rights’. How honest are they when they claim Democrats are about 'big government' when their military defense spending exceeds any proportions proposed by Democrats. You need to understand that currently most of the federal money goes into defense and the Iraq war. So, their argument for reducing spending and continuing the war is fiction.

They are worried about the recession and praise the values of free markets and business without realizing that we are in recession precisely because of free unregulated market and predatory business acts. Shouldn’t they read more about how FDR took the country out of the Great Depression essentially by semi-socialist policies?

All they talk about is how Lincoln and Reagan were great Presidents without really understanding why. First, none of them has understood that Lincoln was really not a Republican. We all know of the great shift in American politics at the end of the 19th century. The Democrats of the South during the Civil War in fact became the Republicans of today and the Republicans of the Union are the Democrats of today. So, to suggest that Lincoln was Republican is simply nonsensical. He was Republican only in the name. While Reagan was a Republican, by the end of his Presidency, the economy was beginning to get into a recession.

A lot of people simply cannot understand that today Republicans have a failed vision on most issues affecting this country. How do they hope to win these elections—by misinformation, skewed reality and appealing to conservative ideals that dominate in many states and many portions of our society. In these elections, conservative or liberal, all should vote for Democrats because while Democrats can be conservative, Republicans never try to be liberal. I also would like to suggest that conservative versus liberal dichotomy does not perfectly coincide with the Democrat-Republican division.

My point is that even if you are conservative, you have to vote for Democrats if you want change from Bush.

2008 elections

Why the 2008 elections are so important for the US? People talk a lot about the economy, oil crisis, big business, jobs, the middle-class... They talk a lot about the health care, incompetence and broken machine in Washington. Of course, they also talk a lot about the war in Iraq. But, while important, these are little pieces of a mozaic, little tidbits of a larger picture that we should not forget to look at. These elections are about the identity of America, its place in the world as a nation. It is about the definition of democracy. It is about how the US can continue defending itself as a nation against perceived and real enemies without shedding human rights, without reneging on the promise of democracy, without resorting to hypocrisy in its relations with other nations in the world. It is also about the ability to co-exist with others in the world and not impose values on other peoples around the globe. Patriotic Americans much too often cross the line from benevolent patriotism to xenophobic nationalism, which has given its deplorable fruits in these last years. We do not have to be the most prosperous nation in the world when the rest of the world is enmeshed in poverty. We can learn from other nations in things they have done better than us. We do not have to be the 'strongest' nation militarily and intimidate others, wiping out all those who disagree with us. Can we be an example? Can we be a leader? Sure. But only if we uphold the deep values that have been at the core of this country from the beginning.

So, when you are listening to all the media stories, about all the imperfections of all candidates, search and find the big picture, do some heart-searching when voting.

(Find out more here about the Bush Administration's actions in the war on terror.)

Race, gender, etc.

We have seen how the race between Hillary and Obama has aroused major debates over race and gender (of course, a debate that never really ends in America). But I have got a major problem with what is happening and the way people approach these issues. First, for the record, if Hillary was not qualified, I would not vote for her just because she is a woman. I seriously believe that she is the most qualified out of all the candidates to get this job (although I have to be careful here and clarify that ultimately if Obama wins the nomination, I will 'endorse' him with both hands). I respect Hillary more because she is not using the 'gender' card as much as Obama is using the 'race' card. At the rally where I was, she was asked the question about whether she feels the pressure being the first 'woman' candidate for President. She spent literally two minutes on the issue and ended with a quick note that she is not running for President because she is a woman, but because she is qualified. I think, Obama on the other hand, is spending more time on race, which may seem a bit self-serving. On the other hand, given the deplorable situation with the civil rights in this country, this issue must be raised somehow.

Second, I think people look at race and gender formalistically. I think disadvantage is a substantive, qualitative issue and should never be viewed from a formalistic, categorical perspective. I always ask people, who is more disadvantaged-- a rich black woman or a white male who is homeless in the street? A white female who is an immigrant, learning to speak English, and has to overcome a host of barriers, or a black female who was born and raised in the US in a middle-class family?

Do I believe that there is still discrimination against blacks in this country? Oh yes. Just check the numbers of blacks holding white-collar jobs. Do I believe that there is still discrimination against women and other minorities in this country? Oh yes. But I still also believe that discrimination and disadvantage need substantive evaluation. That is why, I have some problems with Affirmative Action. Although I still do think, there should be some degree of it, quotas are ridiculous. I think that people should work hard to earn everything and should not use their class, race, gender or religion, or ethnicity to get ahead.

I can give you my example. My family moved to this country in 1996, when by the way Clinton was getting reelected. From the day I set my foot on this ground, I faced and had to fight many, many challenges. I was blessed because I have a supportive family. I was also blessed to have met some wonderful people, most of whom were my professors, who encouraged, supported, inspired me. I owe to these people for the rest of my life. But I worked hard, triple times more than most people of my age, and never asked for things that I thought I did not earn yet. I deprived myself of little pleasures of this life and sacrificed at every step of it. It took me a lot of nerve and patience. When I made mistakes, I was hard on myself and committed to never making them again. Even today, I have to be patient with those people who assume that just because I speak with an accent, my English is perhaps not good enough.

While I have compassion for those who do not put this much effort into it or those who are less lucky, who have less supportive families, I still think that people who are lazy do not deserve to stand up and shout that they are being discriminated on some basis or that they were disadvantaged. There is opportunity in America for virtually everyone if you only work hard to earn it.

Here is the problem though that we have in America. We have kids born in poor ghettos in uneducated families, with little or no choice of lifestyle. They end up joining gangs and turning into career criminals or simply into adults with no education, rendered into irremediable poverty. Regardless of race, gender or ethnicity, these kids are simply a group that we need to worry about the most and help. That is the job of the government which can create a strong social network that will guide these kids from K-12 onto the right path into a normal life. And the government today has basically failed on all counts of this mission. Why?!

Neither Hillary nor Obama have been personally disadvantaged in any way in their lives. But the whole question is who do you identify yourself with the most. Most women will identify with her, while most African-Americans will identify with Obama. Guess what, most white males will identify with John Edwards or John McCain. (This said in very general brush strokes, because we all have multiple identities that are very situational and influenced by many other variables. Also, keep in mind that sophisticated and informed voters may not vote for those they identify with the most. They vote not on their hearts, but on their minds).

Tested and proven-- Hillary for President!

Just returned from a rally where I met Hillary. I can share with you my thoughts and emotions.
She exceeded all my expectations. She has ‘grown’ and has taken up the role of the new leader we are in search for. Charismatic, passionate, fearless, strong and full of charge for the challenge. Knowing very well what a nightmare the next President will inherit from Bush, she is standing up to the podium, ready to serve, ready to deliver. Not only she is ready, but she has the record to display behind the podium, suggesting that it is not only about words and beautiful speeches, but foremost about work you have done to stand up now and ask for a vote. This is a woman who can make a real difference in your lives. She is tested and proven. Through the years she fought hard for universal health care, for your jobs, your security at home. She was able to stand next to her husband and not leave him in difficult times. She was also able to survive Washington and the media who tried to destroy her so that she does not get to this day! Even right now she is very patient with the media and her male contenders who are constantly attacking her for every single thing! She has proven to be tough enough to withstand all crises and yet remain a woman, who can gracefully walk to the podium, smile and show her femininity! Who can also say, ‘I am running for President not because I am a woman, but because I am the most qualified.’ (quoting from today's rally). She is standing up and talking about America that we all lost hope for, she is talking about the ‘green-collar jobs’ that we can create to solve the energy crisis, she is talking about your homes in foreclosure that she will take steps to protect, she is talking about our troops coming home and how we are going to take care of them. She also talks about the America abroad that lost its face and how can regain it!

This is a leader who will roll up her sleeves and get to work the next day she is inaugurated President. She has the record to show that she will fight for you, those of you who are called by the name of ‘middle-class’—a group that is basically vanishing from the American scene, giving in to poverty. She is there for you! She is full of rechargeable power and energy that fires up the hearts of women, men, who love this country.

Vote for the first woman President of the United States of America! Vote for the powerful leader who can in fact make a difference in your lives! This is just the beginning of a new America!

Promise kept alive

The ANCA (Armenian National Committee of America) has just released the news that Hillary Clinton will co-sponsor the Armenian Genocide Resolution bill. Barack Obama has also expressed his intent to give careful consideration to the bill. In fact, listening to his response, it seems, he cannot give a full commitment yet by saying, 'I will check with my staff.' Here

So, Hillary (and potentially Obama) are in it for the Armenian vote, knowing how intensely the American Armenians care about this. The question is whether they will act on their promises if elected as President.

Contest of 'personalities'?

The race between Hillary and Obama reflects the true dynamics in politics. Charisma vs. experience, change over known paths. It is very interesting to look back in history and see when the American voters wanted stability over change and vice versa. In times of war generally they wanted stability, not change. But when they got fed up with things, they wanted change and quickly.

Now it seems Obama, a young, charismatic, a relative newcomer to the political scene has gained the momentum with crowds who are really fed up with Washington and the war we did not need. While Hillary has got much more experience and a longer track record, it seems, voters are more excited with Obama. Obama has the Hollywood spark, Hillary has the solid 'lawyer' type of an image. The general population who hates lawyers and anything associated with them, run to Obama. But what occurred to me, Obama is also a centrist. He can appeal to a broad segment of the population. Really, I think at this point there is not much of a difference between them two, except for 'image'. So, it will all depend on who the voters will 'like' the most. This is not a contest of issues, but a contest of 'personalities.' You may disagree? But Obama does not have a long track record for you to compare and contrast with Hillary. Therefore, in some sense he has the advantage. There is little to attack him for. Probably, the Democratic voters cannot forgive Hillary for supporting the war in Iraq. But let us face it. The war in Iraq could have been handled much more differently with good planning and thinking. So, another President, for example Hillary, would have probably handled it very differently. The American voters would have cared less if the war had been short, relatively painless and with sensible planning. After all, they are used to the US deploying military force in different parts of the world. Remember Kosovo, or the Kuweit war by the Bush father? As far as international law and human rights, which percentage of the American population even knows about them (unfortunately).

That is why sometimes politics does not make sense. It turns into a contest of 'personalities'.

Electoral College

We all know, there are problems with the Electoral College system of presidential elections in the US. Low voter turnout, focus of candidates on 'states' vs. 'voters', disparity of popular vote and states votes, to name but a few. But the Founding Fathers had antipathy against direct popular vote, devising this system. Some have urged to abolish it. Interestingly, the Electoral College has worked to the advantage of the Republican party in the last two elections. You get many solid 'red' states voting Republican, but many 'blue' states turn into battlegrounds where the swing voters all of a sudden are bombarded with campaign ads. These swing votes become determinative of the elections. Hence, we have had pretty tight races, where the Independent parties took away many of the swing votes from the Democrats. Therefore, really the Republican party has been using the Electoral College to its major advantage.

Of course, the most funny thing is when the popular vote does not coincide with the Electoral College votes. It has happened:

• In 1876 there were a total of 369 electoral votes available with 185 needed to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.
• In 1888 there were a total of 401 electoral votes available with 201 needed to win. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.
• In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president.

for more see here

These battleground states also have major voting irregularities and computer 'glitches', so to speak, making people wonder, whether things really work smoothly or the way they should work. Cynical people stop voting because of these problems. The Florida 'nightmare' of 2000 has made many of us very cynical of the electoral system.

Another anomaly of the Electoral college is that it is possible for a candidate to not get a single person's vote -- not one -- in 39 states or the District of Columbia, yet be elected president by winning the popular vote in just 11 of these 12 states:
California
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
New Jersey
North Carolina
Georgia
Virginia

Of course, many of these things change with changing demographics and voter characteristics. Voter turnout in light of this system is a subject of extensive studies in political science. Sometimes one wonders whether the whole system that was devised in the late 1700s is necessarily the right one for our modern times. America has changed dramatically and perhaps we can think of making some incremental changes without departing from the general vision of the Founding Fathers.

(above are the results of the 2000 presidential elections)

Right-wing monopoly

The question is how the Democrats can win the next election, when the whole media—the source of information for the American people, is taken over and under the monopoly of the right-wing ideology. Big business pays for the media outlets and is definitely right-wing. I have stopped watching the news because of frustration. But for the Internet, I would have no source of information. But most people are attached to TV and minute by minute, day by day are indoctrinated, brainwashed and misinformed by the media. All they hear is criticism and ridicule of other countries and their leaders. Europe is old and irrelevant, China is an economic threat, Russia is a despotism, Arabic nations are our enemies. We get programs like ‘Czar Putin’, when it is time for us to look at our own leaders here in the White House. Why is it that CNN does not make a program on Bush and his policies in these last 7 years? Why is it that in the run-up for the elections Republicans avoid discussing issues and focus again and again on values. They know they will lose on most issues disastrously and they focus on values. That is how they won their way in 2004. That is how they are hoping to win their way in 2008.

All they want you to do is to go to church and pray to God, because the government is really not in the business of helping you. Not that there is anything wrong with praying to God, but that they substitute God for ‘government.’ God must be your only guide. So when you are poor, pray to God. When you have no food to eat and homeless in the street, pray to God. Do not ask the government for support to get you up on your feet. When your rights are violated on a daily basis, all you can do is to pray to God. Meanwhile, the same government who does not want to help you to get out of poverty, will help the rich to get richer. They will cut the taxes for them. Who cares about the environment, about the middle-class squeezed and vanishing rapidly, about health-care, about social crisis. All we care is to make big money, which entails going to war for oil. As far as your fears about the perceived and real enemies of the nation, we will use your fears to our advantage. Our country is in grave danger and we are going to protect you.

This is what the media is telling the American people. Just like the 2000 and 2004 elections were orchestrated, I fear the same way the 2008 elections will be orchestrated. Most people watching TV will subscribe to the right-wing ideology without even knowing it. Information is the source of developing opinions on issues. Whatever information you get, your opinions will be formed accordingly.

Don't get me wrong. I am perfectly well aware that there are ordinary middle class people out there who truly believe in the Republican party and their value system. These are not rich businessmen, but they still do believe in the GOP. I respect them. But I only wish they formed their beliefs after getting a more objective picture of the reality. I also still think that both parties should get together and find solutions to the pressing problems. Division in the house is not a good thing. But coming together entails honest recognition of mistakes and flaws and committing to not repeating them again. It also entails recognition that the interests of the big business usually do not coincide with interests of the middle class and therefore, policies of a good responsible government must reflect its concern for the latter, not the former.

Why Hillary would be my choice...

I would like to make the best case for Hillary Clinton as the President. While she is not my perfect candidate and Obama definitely is competing strongly, I would still vote for her. Why? Here are some of the reasons:

1. She is the most qualified out of all the candidates to be the President. After all, she knows about the job from first-hand experience. Don't you think being a First Lady to one of the most successful presidents in the US history is an additional point on her resume? She is familiar with the overall stress level and essentials of the job. We know that she had great influence on Clinton. Therefore, she should also get credit for his success. She has done well as a Senator. She is a very sharp politician, knows what to say and when and how. Diplomacy will be her strongest quality. While she may not be the best speech maker, she does not mumble like Bush and does not make English grammar mistakes. She leaves a very solid impression.

2. She is a woman and is sensitive to many social issues that most men are just not. Half the population has been largely ignored in many ways in the still male-dominated world. It is time for us to get someone who will be more or less like us. I fear that the other half of the population won't vote for her just because of still lingering sexism. Why do you think so many hate her? I am already tired of the assumption that women are simply not 'qualified' for a job. We live in one of the most developed countries in the world, but count how many women we have on the Supreme Court, and how many women leaders have we had in our history? It is even ridiculous and pathetic!

3. She has the ability to be bi-partisan. First of all, she is a centrist in many ways just like Clinton. Of course, I wish she was more liberal and I certainly disagree with her on some issues, for example the war on Iraq. She voted for use of force in Iraq. (That is probably the biggest problem I have with her. Of course, she voted so on the basis of the false evidence presented.) But in this divided land, we need someone who can in fact appeal to both sides somehow and bring some sort of a consensus. She knows the secret behind that. While she has been a bit unpredictable in her voting pattern, that is largely the way politics operates. Especially centrists are always attacked for that. When you try to be bi-partisan, you are attacked as unprincipled.

4. In foreign policy she won't be able to undo much of what has been done. But she certainly will be able to moderate the anti-American sentiments by her vastly different approach to diplomacy and negotiation. Her image in of itself is so different from what we are used to getting from Bush. In fact, I predict that she would be able to bring some sort of hope for peace in the Middle East. Just like Clinton, she might even succeed in the Israel-Palestine deadlock. My hope is that she wouldn't take this country into another war. Iran is definitely lined up by the Bush administration. The problem she would have to face as a President is how to do the right thing internationally-- for example, in the area of human rights-- even when the short-term national interests are in conflict. That is the challenge for all political leaders, isn't it?

5. In domestic policy, while she may still be more conservative than I wish, she would certainly be able to do something for the middle-class folks, health care and the environment. Even if she does not succeed, she could stop the catastrophic economic and social crisis that we have due to the war in Iraq.

I hope, she gets the endorsement of the Democratic Party and gets the chance to be the President of the US. As cynical as I have become about politics in general, I still try to hope for better... Frankly, anyone would be better than Bush!

For the voting history of Clinton see here.