Is Barack Obama An Intellectual?

Barack Obama was the first black President of Harvard Law Review, the 5th black senator, the first black president of US in 275 years. He also has the dubious honor of becoming US president with the least governing experience in modern history and had mostly voted 'present' (not even 'abstaining') as state senator in Illinois legislature.

Is it even fair to ask, an Ivy league graduate and a man so many historical firsts, whether Obama is an intellectual? A legendary political strategist confided in a private conversation that "whoever becomes the US President, irrespective of the party, deserves to be there". Obama's candidacy for US presidency is a tale of ambition and strategy unparalleled even by Reagan and Clinton, both of whom were very experienced Governors who sought national office and had to fight their way to it within the party and nationwide.

Taking advantage of opportunities is a talent by itself. In the aftermath of the drubbing that GOP recieved in 2006 mid-term elections Bill Clinton is supposed to have told Hillary "unless the Democratic party nominates a felon we can win the presidency". Obama, in many ways, was like what Carlyle said, "the moment produces the man". Let us not forget that Obama started as an outlier candidate. Until his Iowa victory even within Afro-American community he was seen as sure to lose possibly gain experience now and run a better campaign at a later date. It is easy to talk of how he coasted to the Presidency from gaining popularity since his much lauded address at the 2004 Democratic convention.

It would be gross injustice to Obama's campaign to harp only on how the press treated him with kid gloves and was lost in blind adulation. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to be re-elected since FDR. Democrats and Republicans thought Hillary was a shoo-in given that she would be supported by the political genius of Bill Clinton. Those were lonely dog days for Obama. When he romped home in Iowa (37% vote) and Hillary finished a poor third Obama became an overnight national sensation. But how he won Iowa is the question on which I intend to discuss what kind of an intellectual Obama is.

Beyond 'hope' and 'change' the only tangible thing Obama did in Iowa was pandering. He pandered to Iowa's notorious farm lobby for tarriffs against Brazil's sugarcane based ethanol. John McCain, later to become Obama's opponent, bluntly opposed the Iowa corn lobby on the tarriff against Brazil. Sugarcane based ethanol is more fuel efficient than Iowa's corn based ethanol. Economists continue to warn against using corn for ethanol in an artifical attempt to lower fuel imports. Corn diverted to brew ethanol to fuel American cars robs the world of corn based food driving up food scarcity. Pandering to sections of voters will be a recurrent pattern of the next four years.

Obama has never challenged conventional wisdom or populism. In midst of a world seething with fury against Wall street it does not take any courage to scold bankers or to call them 'fat cats'. What would have taken courage is to call for better and more capitalism. Wall Street's undoing was not capitalism but insufficient capitalism. It was Bush who, risking unpopularity and the wrath of his own party, bailed out Wall Street under terms that eventually benefiited the tax payer. It was also Bush who bailed out Detroit. Obama turned it to a reckless bailout to reward the unions and resulted in continued tax payer losses.

Withdrawing from Iraq was no brainer. The American taxpayer was exhausted, the war was controversial from the word go. What would have been intellectual was to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2009. The VP and many others counseled Obama to withdraw from Afghanistan too citing weak economy and the intractable mess the war was. Afraid of GOP backlash and with his eye on 2012 Obama tried to replicate Bush's Iraq 'surge' strategy. It is a grand failure today. If Obama had leveled with American people and refused a 'surge' for Afghanistan and vowed that pursuit of Bin Laden is still afoot that would have been a moment of leadership.

Unlike Bill Clinton's crusade in 1992 to reform health care in 2008 it was commonly agreed by all candidates and the American tax payer that the health care cost Leviathan needs to be hooked. The only contention was how to do it. Battle scarred Hillary Clinton presented a plan that included mandates. Obama cried foul and pontificated that his plan does not levy a 'tax', as he referred to mandate. Hillary and other experts disagreed that health care reform without mandate was not possible or cost effective. During Ohio primary Hillary exploded 'shame on you Barack Obama' for mischaracterizing her mandate as tax. As president Obama instituted mandate in his Affordable care act and the US Supreme Court later ruled that that was consitutional but called it a 'tax'

As President has Obama ever delivered bad news to a constituency that he depends on for re-election? Never. Not once. Standing before a gathering of hundreds of doctors Obama lobbied for his health care reform but started off with a stern message "I cannnot give you what you want" referring to doctors demand to reform malpractice lawsuits and institute caps on awards. Tort lawyers are a very influential democratic base and prodigious fund raisers too. It is easy to offend doctors than to risk offending his own fund raising base.This is not about opportunism. An intellectual articulates a difficult to swallow position and shepherds his constituency with logic and reason about a required change of course given new paradigms. Failing to do that is a signal failure of an intellectual.

America has a debt burden of $16 Trillion which is almost 100% of UD GDP. Entitlement programs are expanding exponentially beyond any fiscal sustenance. Obama's simplistic prescription is to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires under the pretext of asking them to pay 'their fair share'. Without going into the debate of whether millionaires and billionaires are paying their fair share lets look at the 'what-if' scenario of Obama getting his wish. The revenue thus raised will pay for only 72 hours of US Government expenses. This, to be polite, is intellectually dishonest shorn of any shred of intellectual integrity. A serious problem needs a serious answer not dishonesty.

That Obama, an Afro-American, became a President is justifiably characterized as a watershed moment, even a redemption. Many black commentators wrote that seeing a black first family inspires many afro-american kids. True. But within the Afro-American community there is widespread resentment against Obama administration, despite the immense pride that is there on the surface. Seeking to be seen as "president of all America" Obama, even where he could or should, has actively distanced himself from being seen as doing something targeted for Afro-Americans.

Jodi Kantor writes in New York Times, "At the first meeting of his top campaign donors last year, some black donors were dismayed when officials handed out cards with talking points on the administration’s achievements for various groups — women, Jews, gays and lesbians — and there was no card for African-Americans". Referring to Obama's quote that he is not only "President of Black America" Afro-American activist and scholar Cornel West said that statement “makes me want to vomit. Did you say that to the business round table?” he asked rhetorically. “Do you say that to Aipac?” (referring to a pro-Israel lobbying group).

Unemployment rages at 15%, twice the national average, for Afro-Americans. Appearing before the Congressional Black Caucus that was anxious to hear what President Obama can do. Obama borrowed a much revered Civil Rights era slogan and lectured "put on your marching shoes". That implied, for astute observers, that Afro-American community was sitting idle and not doing enough to lift itself. That was not Obama's intention. It was a speech delivered without much thought or sensitivity. Black Congresswoman Maxine Waters erupted "who was he talking to, we are hurting already". 

Even more shameful was the Shirley Sherrod episode. Shirley Sherrod, an Afro-American State Director of Rural Agriculture in Georgia, was falsely accused of being racist in refusing to help a white farmer. The whole incident was based on dishonest editing of a portion of her speech at a NAACP function. Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart broke that story. White House went into panic mode and was instrumental in making Shirley Sherrod resign. Sherrod is blistering in her recently released memoirs of how betrayed she felt that this happened in an Afro-American Presidency. Sherrod, as the full speech showed, had actually went out of her way to help the white farmer retain his land. When the full truth emerged the administration still did not offer her old job back, they only offered an 'equivalent'  position. Obama later called her and spoke telling her that he understands her and has written about her kind of experiences in his book. Sherrod simply told him that he could not have had her experiences. Sherrod grew up in racially charged in Georgia unlike Obama. Obama promised her to visit Georgia. Sherrod notes Obama is yet to keep his promise. If Bush had treated Shirley Sherrod like that the GOP would be called 'racist'.

In the aftermath of a rash of shootings that included hurting a congresswoman much was written about America's fetish for guns and the second amendment. The GOP, beholden as it is to the gun lobby, was shamefully, but understandably, silent on talking about gun controls. The acute disappointment was Obama's silence. The last President to sign a ban on assault weapons, A.K. 47's, was Bill Clinton. That ban lapsed in Bush's period and was not renewed. Obama, keen to be re-elected, completely ignored the gun control issue. This was a moment for a supposedly intellectual president to seize the issue and shape public opinion. Instead we only got more soaring rhetoric.

Obama is undoubtedly a very intelligent and very talented politician. But the more and more one looks at his record we only realise that this President is interested in only one thing, his political ambitions and success.

Eisenhower defined an intellectual as "one who takes more words than necessary to say more than what he knows". On that score Barack Obama is the most intellectual to ever occupy the Oval Office.

Bush, The Intellectual President

I never thought a day would come when I would argue that George W Bush was an intellectual.I came to USA in 1998 when the economy was booming and Clinton was widely praised for it. The GOP and Bush were repulsive to me especially with their accent on religion. During a republican presidential debate all candidates were asked to name a political philosopher who influenced them most. Bush said "Jesus Christ" and just looked away into the distant sky (or roof). I was angry at such an answer. Today I do not think so and with that a lot of my perceptions changed about Bush thanks in large measure due to Barack Obama.I used to be virulently anti-Bush and today I am not so. I still have criticisms of Bush's Iraq war and the deficits. I've not changed my views of Bush only because I have a visceral hatred of Obama's policies. I am not doing a volte face either. My views have changed simply because I've become far better informed than I used to be as a new immigrant in the early years of Bush. Second, my animosity towards religion is mellowed down as I see religion as a more constructive force, especially as it is used in USA compared to how Advani used it in India. Third, my understanding of economics has deepened considerably since I came to USA and of course it took some time to really shake off some decades old truisms that were beaten into an Indian's conscience (some of which apply to Americans too).

To define who is an 'intellectual' is a very difficult task. It surely should not be restricted to academic achievements or books that a person digests. It is not even just the ability to formulate ideas. Its more. One should be able to stand up for one's ideas and convince a skeptical audience of those ideas. One should be able to transcend the stereotypical image of the collective group of which one is a member of. And, yes, it includes willingness to change one's ideas in the face of new evidence. Bush has a stellar record on some of those benchmarks and a mixed record on some. How does he measure as an intellectual on balance? Let's see.

Bush campaigned on a humble foreign policy. He declared America will not be a "911 to the world" (referring to the number Americans dial for emergencies). A Republican candidate was arguing for a less muscular foreign policy harking back to the original isolationist tendencies of the GOP. Yet 9/11 prompted an immediate change and Bush realized that, for good or bad, America has to plunge headlong into tackling a global menace. It's like how an aging Godfather feels "just when I want to get out they pull me back right in".

Bush was lauded from the left and right for the moral clarity he brought to combating Al Qaeda. Lance Morrow writing for Time said this is a moment for 'purple rage' and told Americans not to allow themselves to be counseled. Only the far left naysayers like Noam Chomsky writhed in agony. It took a Romney candidacy for New York Times to find something redeeming in the Bush actions immediately after 9/11. NYT columnist wrote of a little spoken about visit by George Bush to a mosque after 9/11 to clearly signal that America is at war only with Al Qaeda and not with Islam. When a Muslim Secret service member was asked to get off a plane Bush, visibly angry, took to the bully pulpit with that agent standing next to him and declared that it was 'un-American' to treat his agent like that. Bush also recognized the need to revamp America's laws and re-organize America's security agencies. To Bush's credit his successor has not changed much of those laws and has only taken them further. Imitation is the best form of flattery.

It is GOP orthodoxy that Federal government should stay away from education which rightly belongs to states to legislate and manage. America's school system, unlike its Universities, suffers from deep malaise. Students not being tested and just moved from one class to another is a common sickness of American education. The man whom liberals love to deride as least intellectual and practically a dumb guy was the one who put education on the table to reform. Bush worked with arch ideological nemesis Ted Kennedy to create 'No Child Left Behind' law. Suddenly all of America was abuzz with talk of 'standardised testing' and 'teacher performance'. Bush stood up to his own party's orthodoxy and crafted a bi-partisan legislation working with Ted Kennedy of all people. Sure, the bill has its flaws and it can be improved. That applies to all legislation. The credit should go to the fact that Bush took an important issue head on and shaped public opinion and in the process led his party against its deeply held beliefs.

Bush's faith based initiatives were widely criticized when he formulated them. Given my experience of seeing politicians use religion to get votes in India I was appalled. I've mellowed since then after realizing how religion has a central and enriching role in the American society. Bush was seeking to use religious institutions, not just churches, as vital organs of society. Mac Arthur genius awardee and Afro-American scientist John Dabiri's interview in NPR was a catalyst in making me understand how churches play an integral role in many blighted neighborhoods in America. To characterise Bush's faith based initiative as theocracy does gross injustice to the program and only betrays the leaden thinking of liberals who wield their atheism as a badge of honor. The answer about Christ as political philosopher is very credible and not laughable I'd concede now. Christ's teachings have influenced many world leaders and it is not an answer to ridicule if one understands the role of religious texts in influencing many a world leader across history. If MLK Jr and Gandhi can draw succor from religion so can George Bush.

Bush's handling of stem cell funding came in for lot of criticism from many, including Nobel Laureate and former member of President's Council on Science, under Clinton, Harold Varmus. Bush, in his first nationally televised address, said he would not allow federal funding to stem cell studies that used embryonic stem cell EXCEPT the then current 2 lines that were being researched. Academics and liberals were in an uproar that the President sacrificed scientific progress at the altar of religious belief and party orthodoxy. I too thought so until I read Bush's detailed analysis in his book 'Decision Points'.

Embryonic stem cells are a tricky issue in the frontier of science where very disturbing questions do get thrown up. To be succinct, those stem cells were harvested from embryos that are often discarded after fertility treatments as either surplus or as useless. Bush, as pro-life GOP President, saw that as disturbing. Some of those embryos did hold a promise of life, babies born from such embryos are called 'snow flakes'. Bush was surrounded by 'snow flake babies' when he signed that order banning 'further' federal funds to such stem cells. Note, he only banned federal funds not private funds. Bush had consulted widely with scientists, bio-ethicists and religious people. He arrived at a careful thought out decision. Many cried that this was the end of stem cell research. It was not. Today such embryonic stem cells have been deemed unnecessary. I'd identify this as a key intellectual moment for which the liberal academics have been loath to recognize the president for. Let us also bear in mind that scientists have often egged on Presidents to recklessly pursue courses, like the arms race, in the name of science.

The nuclear deal signed with India was another intellectual moment. Bush nurtured India as a strategic partner and with the weight of the US Presidency he brought India onto the exclusive nuclear club while snubbing Pakistan. Today that deal is in the doldrums thanks to lack of leadership in both countries.

The day after his re-election Bush declared "I've earned political capital and I intend to spend it". He wanted to reform Social Security and Health care. Both proposals had merit to at least be considered. But the downward spiral of Iraq war stopped that.

Iraq is where Bush deserves much scolding. To be brief, no nation at that time could say with certainty that Saddam had no WMD's. All agreed Saddam was gaming the UN inspectors. Where the rest of the world disagreed was on what to do about it. Bush saw Iraq as unfinished job. He squandered US taxpayer money and lives in both countries. It was not a war for oil as Iraq later showed by NOT giving US many oil contracts. Lost in this din is also the fact that Iraq remains the only Islamic middle eastern country where women voted in elections and free elections were held. Bush ignored the Iraq study group recommendation to cut and run. Instead he fashioned the surge that his predecessor later copied for Afghanistan albeit without the political will. Iraq is still far from a liberal democracy but the Iraq that is today is entirely due to Bush. It is up to Iraqis to live up to their historic opportunities.

Bush would ask invitees as to why he is hated overseas, 'is it me or is the US Presidency'. Bush haters reveled that it was Bush who gave US a bad name. Nay. Irrespective of who occupies the White House  they will be hated by a large swath of people simply because its America. This was amply borne out when Obama was no more loved than Bush in the middle east. Bush was very respected in Eastern European nations though for standing up to Russia. Interestingly a Pew global survey indicated Bush was popular in India. Hindu majority population disgusted with the squeamishness of their own leaders in standing up to radical Islamism saw a ray of hope in Bush.

Obama has pulled of a propaganda victory in tying the 2008 financial crises to the Bush era. Bush cried hoarse about the need to rein in the reckless lending by Fannie and Freddie. As I pointed out earlier it was during the Clinton years that Wall Street was deregulated and given a free ride. Bush sacrificed populism to do the unthinkable for a GOP President. He bailed out both Wall Street and Detroit.


The dot-com bust of 2001 started under the Clinton watch and was entirely due to the 'irrational exuberance' of Clinton era yet I did not hear, by hindsight, Bush blame his predecessor as much as Obama whines and groans about his predecessor's 'failed economic policies'. Clinton often brags about the surplus he left behind which supposedly Bush squandered. Clinton's surplus evaporated in the dot-com bust and was totally gone immediately after 9/11.


One of the inflection points in how I viewed Bush was his conduct during the 2008 election season. As the country rapidly slid into a financial morass Bush refused to play favorites. He instructed all departments to keep both Obama and McCain equally informed of what is being done. Aware of how unprepared his new administration was on national security, taking over from Clinton, Bush worked to avoid it. He instructed his homeland security team to work with Obama's transition team on dry runs. Obama team, allegedly, balked thinking "hey what if something happens in the early days of our administration we cannot blame Bush then".

I've never understood how Kennedy, Clinton, LBJ, FDR are all revered as 'intellectuals' but not Reagan or Bush. All those that the liberals love have committed serious acts of omission or racism or plain recklessness and yet we are told to look at them as intellectuals. LBJ would personally pick bombing areas in Vietnam. Kennedy administration dropped orange gas in Vietnam. FDR interned Japanese Americans and embarked on a failed New Deal. Clinton threw away his second term simply because his pants had no zipper.

Bush had his share of omissions. Most notably Iraq but he found his stride on that. Towards the last days of Bush administration many in his circle thought that history will be kinder to Bush as it is towards Harry Truman. I think history will be kinder to Bush and harsher on Obama.

Clinton's Economy: Myths and Realities.

During the 2000 Presidential campaign Al Gore, trying to define himself as his 'own man', distanced from Bill Clinton and rarely invited Clinton to the campaign trail. Time columnist Lance Morrow wrote, "while Salieri campaigns, the Mozart sits in the Oval office". Obama after sparring with both Clintons in 2008 vowing a new era and basking in his own new found rock star status had no need of the fabled campaigner. What a difference 4 years makes. 

In 2012 the Mozart was called out by this year's Salieri to campaign. Clinton, the party soldier, appeared on prime time at the Democratic National Convention and showed the world why he still is the only Mozart in town. A day after accepting the nomination Obama gushed, at a campaign stop, "I got an email suggesting that I appoint Bill Clinton as the Secretary of 'explaining stuff'". The crowd roared in approval seeing the supposedly silver tongued orator realize that giving a speech littered with pabulums and rhetoric is no match for the master-explainer.

Bill Clinton laid out the case for Obama often reminding America about the sunny years of the Clinton era. Like any politician Clinton took credit for the years that are still referred to as the longest economic expansion in US history. If somebody can make the word 'arithmetic' become a punch-line only Clinton could. Clinton detailed his years of balancing the budget, working across the aisle, delivering prosperity, surplus budgets and more. 

Amidst campaign rhetoric as always truth is the first casualty. Clinton roared into office on a landslide coasting on the mantra "its the economy, stupid". Unemployment was at 7.5% in 1992 (today it is 7.8% and Clinton wants a second term to the guy at the helm unlike what he said in 1992!!!). When Clinton left office unemployment was at 4.7%, up 0.7% during the same year, 2000, as the nation was sliding into recession. Clinton often boasts about the 20 million jobs created in his tenure and the budget surplus that he left. Both are true, but only on the surface.

Economist Raghuram Rajan taught me, in his book 'Fault Lines' on the 2008 financial crises, an important principle about any analysis of an event. He said it is important to look at not just the event but its associated events. He said look for 'in ceteris paribus", i.e. 'all things remaining same'. Clinton made it a virtue that he raised taxes on the so called wealthy that helped address deficit and the rest followed. Can Obama do the same 'in ceteris paribus'?

Clinton's 1992 budget deal, recounted in detail by Bob Woodward in 'Agenda', is remarkable for how much the debate remains the same. Clinton's address of Feb 17th 1992 is classic Obama. But the similarity is only on the rhetoric. By the time the address was turned into a bill and voted Clinton had moved to the center. Clinton abandoned the middle class tax cut he campaigned on. The price he extracted for that was taxing the rich. The movement to the center abandoned spending the revenue raised by that tax on pet liberal causes. This is where Obama fails. Obama can never be Bill Clinton. Woodward acknowledges that Clinton's tax helped address the deficit.

But is that all? No. Look at the world in 1992. USSR had imploded. Eastern Europe was redrawn. Germany, Europe's powerhouse of production, was spending billions of dollars in the unification and was also dealing with the political turmoil arising out of that. India and China were not yet BRIC. India, in 1991, had been compelled to reform its pathetic economy due to a balance of payment crises. It took Deng Xio Ping well into 90's to reform China's economy. Add to the above the 1997 Asian crises that America managed to dodge making Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers as 'Person's of the year" by Time. 

Into that picture try to fit in the internet revolution. Today there is a hue and cry over raising taxes on dividend income. Time, in it's cover story of 1982 titled 'America's risk takers' with Steve Jobs on the cover.

The TIME cover story is telling in details:

                 In 1969 Congress increased from 25% to 49% :he maximum tax on long-term capital gains—the profit made by an investor on the sale of stocks, real estate and other property.

The effect was devastating. The amount of money that Americans were willing to gamble on a long-shot business dropped sharply. In 1969, $171 million was amassed in venture capital. By 1975 the amount had fallen to just $10 million.

                In 1978, however, Congress rolled back the capital gains tax rate to 28%. With the potential payoff increased, investors were again willing to take a risk. Last year $1.3 billion in venture funds was accumulated, more than 100 times the amount of only six years earlier.

Add on the Y2K economy. America was importing talent by allowing H1B's by the thousands and unemployment was still going down. At its lowest, unemployment would be 4%. A full 1% below what is considered full employment. Talk about an over heated economy.

The Dow was soaring with everyone asking 'how high is high'. The one really great achievement by Clinton in this period was signing NAFTA. Much of the work for NAFTA was done by the previous Bush administration. Clinton enlisted Bush to campaign for NAFTA with Congress. Obama rattled Canada by vowing to re-negotiate NAFTA and scolded both Clintons on the campaign trail for NAFTA. Again, Obama is no Bill Clinton. Yes, Obama has signed a free trade pact with Mexico and South Korea but the work for that was done by George W Bush administration.

Into this heady cocktail lets add the surging housing market. Alan Greenspan battling unemployment early on kept interest rates too low for too long. The housing market just exploded beyond belief. Clinton and subsequently Bush campaigned for the 'American dream'. Clinton ignored calls to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Bush Jr's attempt to rein them in was rebuffed by a Democratic congress. Many economists later would point to the low interest regime during Greenspan era as sowing the seeds for a crises that brought American economy to its knees. 

Clinton took credit for an economy that was starting to get better even during the days of George H.W.Bush. Of course Clinton did make some hard choices like the tax bill he passed. However Clinton's signature achievement, 'ending welfare as we know it' was largely the result of a republican congress.

Bush Jr inherited a recession that was entirely due to Clinton era policies. The dot com bust was due to what Alan Greenspan memorably labeled 'irrational exuberance'. Bush, unlike Obama, did not blame his predecessor at every speech. 

Liberals love to talk about de-regulation as the sinister evil that created the 2008 financial crises. Most point to the repeal of Glass-Steagall act that separated investment banks from commercial banks. It was Bill Clinton who signed that repeal. (Never mind that Bear Sterns and Lehman bankruptcies had nothing to do with that repeal). It was Clinton's economic tag team of Larry Summers and Robert Rubin that warned off Brooksley Born who wanted to regulate the burgeoning derivatives market. The implosion of the derivatives market would be at the center of the financial crises a decade later. 

Oh, about that working across the aisle. Clinton's economic plan in 1992 recieved zero republican votes. The GOP's intransigence was only part of the story. Woodward recounts that Democratic legislators were warned 'not to work' with GOP to craft any compromise. And who would forget the infamous Newt Gingrich led government shutdown. Clinton made it habit to co-opt GOP ideas and do what came to be called 'Clinton's triangulation'. Obama derided that triangulation in 2008 proving that he can never be Bill Clinton. 

Clinton, to sum, takes too much credit for unique circumstances where US was the unassailed economic super power by a mile. At the same time Clinton and his admirers turn a complete blind eye to the fact that it was Clinton's administration that has much to answer for the financial crises. 

America and the world in 2012 are only faintly similar to 1992. The Euro area is collapsing, China and India are having challenges. It may not be 1992, but if only Obama was Clinton, at least the good sides, America would roar ahead, again. Alas, that will not be the case.

Brooklyn Book Festival: The Far-Left Exposes The Left On Obama

I attended the just concluded Brooklyn book festival. The festival was a complete domination of authors in the left and far-left with not even a nod to accommodating any opinion from the center-right let alone the conservative right. The book stalls and the audience were firmly in the radical camp. A conservative would be an endangered species there. The most interesting part of the day was the interplay between Obama loving authors and leading critics from the far left

Far left Marxist author Tariq Ali scolded the liberals "if a Republican president had killed an American citizen (referring to Anwar Al Awlaki) without due process using drones would you be quiet". He asked why liberals are silent about Obama's use of drones abroad and at home. Mr Ali wondered what moral authority liberals would have to scold a republican president in case Romney gets elected and pursues what are commonly thought of as republican policies of national security. To rub it in Mr Ali added, for effect, Obama acts like what one would expect of Putin. OUCH.



The discussion featuring Gail Collins, from NYT, Jodie Kantor, author of widely praised and very Obama sympathetic bestseller 'Obamas' and John A MacArthur was the most revealing for sheer fireworks.

The discussion opened with a question about what good does a long election season do for the people with regard to knowing the candidates. Gail Collins, working for New York Times and therefore a confirmed Obama sympathiser dived right into the video of the season. A surreptititously taped Romney talking to fundraisers that 47% of voters do not pay taxes and therefore will vote only for Obama as Romney's message on tax cuts has no relevance for them.Romney is right and that too only partially. It was a bad statement and one that might cost him the election. The Brooklyn audience tittered in agreement.

John MacArthur expressed disappointment that Obama broke his promises on renegotiating NAFTA and raising dividend taxes to 25%. MacArthur chided the liberals for focusing on Romney's much debated 15% tax rate on $22 million income but giving Obama a pass on his failure to raise the taxes on dividends when he had the majority control to do so. MacArthur also added that Obama was told sternly not to do so by Democratic party big-wigs because that tax increase would alienate their rich donors. He also flung the gauntlet to Gail Collins asking her to write a column on that. When Obama launched his attack ads on Romey's private equity career many Democrats distanced themselves from attacking an industry that was a rich source of donations. MacArthur alleged that the famously foul mouthed and self-confessedly vindictive Rahm Emmanuel was the 'enforcer to sideline the more radical elements within the party. He asked "where is Howard Dean today? why do we not hear a protest at redistricting Kucinich's constituency?"

Jodi Kantor then opened a can of worms with what she thought was a profound observation. Kantor said "Obama came into office with no experience, no foreign policy experience, no senate experience, no governing experience and yet he is very reluctant to talk about his 'learning curve' in the Presidency. Obama does not open up on talking about what he learned as President". I was stunned to see a columnist and author basically say that Obama had no experience and stumbled into office. Her naivete in expecting a sitting president to talk about 'learning curve' during campaign season is simply breathtaking.

All three talked of the debt ceiling fight last summer. None mentioned the fact that Obama, as senator, happily voted against Bush's request to increase the debt ceiling. He reasoned "the President had the requisite votes so I felt free to cast a 'no'". Bob Woodward in his book "Price of politics" and his interviews thereafter chided both sides for the brinkmanship. Woodward had tougher words for Obama though for failing to lead and to use the office of the presidency to lead. None mentioned any of that.

MacArthur spoke of how much Obama was ready to cut in entitlements. True, but MacArthur did not add that Obama was ready to cut until he discovered that his own party will not go with him. MacArthur then added how Obama cold shouldered a Dennis Kucinich sponsored bill to raise minimum wage, a pet cause for leftists. Never mind that even liberal economists have debunked the theory of minimum wage. That a democratic President fails to even mention it in campaign speeches was MacArthur's point. He finished with a sting "Obama is not there for working people".

Kantor felt compelled to join issue and opined "I disagree with that". She narrated how Obama grew up in poverty (so did speaker and GOP rep John Boehner). Kantor then trotted out the famous excuse of liberals "he is not good at communicating to people and translating policy into a speech that people can relate to". Liberals want to have to have the cake and eat it too. On one side they are breathless about his eloquence and in the same breath add that he is not good at explaining policy to people. So, is eloquence to be defined as stringing empty rhetoric and unconnected to articulating ideas to a skeptical audience?

Not satisfied with excusing Obama's unpopularity to a simple messaging issue Kantor continued that Obama loves dealing with 'intellectual complex issues' where there are no clear options and any course of action come fraught with political problems. She cited the auto-bailout and killing of Osama. Basically she echoed Vice President Biden's famous bumper sticker phrase 'General motors is alive, Osama is dead". The implication being that the other non-complex issues do not interest the President. The president hates 'retail politics' we were informed. Collins added 'he looks down on retail politics'.

MacArthur sliced that excuse "if he dislikes politics so much and dislikes working with congress, including his own party, why is he the President?". Kantor jumped in to say "I spoke to Robert Gibbs, he said if you ask 'Michelle Obama a hundred times if he should run for the Presidency she would reply a 100 times 'No'". MacArthur sneered "Robert Gibbs was the White House spokesman and you would expect him to talk like that". No self-respecting journalist would take a spokesman's word as character witness.

I don't know what was intellectual and complex about bailing out Detroit which has hundreds of thousands of votes for Obama. The process of the bailout was nothing but a write off of Detroit to his union buddies. Wall Street bailout returned money to tax payers. Detroit bailout has tax payers still on the hook. Ask Ford and Alan Mulally over how the bailout was a giveaway to the unions.The killing of Osama was a brave gambit. But it was more tactical than a question of policy. Any American president would have gambled that. Kantor basically said that talking about jobs, deficit etc are 'unintellectual' for this supposedly intellectual president.

Both Kantor and Collins spoke of how Obama tried to be bi-partisan and failed. MacArthur sizzled in response "McCain sponsored a truly bi-partisan bill with a democrat to re-instate Glass-Steagall act and Mr bi-partisan refused to sign or lobby for that bill". I wish MacArthur had drawn a contrast citing how Bush worked with his ideological nemesis, Ted Kennedy, to reshape how America educates its children. Bush, a Republican, signed into law the bipartisan Mcain-Feingold bill that attempted to reform campaign finance.

Collins then imitated Harry Reid and said how this Congress was stymied by 380 filibusters compared to just one during Johnson's presidency. She also added that Obama hated working in the Senate. MacArthur shredded that excuse asking Collins to "read Caro's biography 'Master of the senate' to learn how LBJ worked with the senate to achieve his goals. That is why he could get things done". During 2008 campaign Hillary Clinton said "you campaign in poetry but you have govern in prose" and cited how LBJ shepherded the civil rights bill through the congress. She was right as Robert Caro detailed in his magisterial yet to complete 4 volume biography.

Jodi Kantor joined saying "Obama prefers being community organizer" and that "he does not belong to the  political machinery". MacArthur became livid and demolished that detailing how Obama was very much a part of Chicago's Democratic political machinery especially the much feared Daley's political machine. Obama broke with his controversial pastor only when the pastor committed the unforgivable sin of calling Obama "just another politician" in a widely telecast national TV press conference. Obama guards his "I am no politician" image with a zeal.

I will never agree with MacArthur or Tariq Ali, especially on their tirade against free trade and capitalism. Do I cheer their criticisms of Obama just because I disagree with Obama? No. Those are all criticisms I've articulated too. When it comes from the far-left camp it carries a heavy stamp. What is noteworthy is MacArthur is tearing down the image building by two journalists who are more intent on giving excuses for Obama instead of holding him accountable. Mr Ali is shining an inconvenient spotlight on the hypocrisies of the left and it carries a moral weight when he utters those words instead of coming from Obama's habitual ideological opponents.

I congratulated MacArthur for holding Jodi Kantor and Gail Collins to account. With Kantor, in ear shot, I told MacArthur that she was a disgrace to journalism. 

GOP And Romney Will Defeat Romney.

In the aftermath of 2008 presidential election the Republican party lay in complete disarray and in tatters. George Bush bears a lot of responsibility for destroying the GOP brand. McCain drove the last nail into the coffin of GOP's image as the party of ideas with his selection of Sarah Palin. For nearly 4 years thereafter until the day she announced that she will not be a presidential candidate Sarah Palin remained as a poster-girl for populism run amuck and her shadow on the GOP completely destroyed any semblance of intellectual rigor in the party of ideas. Seeing Obama demolish the Clinton dynasty, 'without raising his voice', many republicans resigned themselves to writing off 2012 and only talked of 2016. There was no hope for a GOP nominee in 2012 seen from 2008. But things changed.

In the heat of healthcare reform debate the tea-party insurrection breathed new vigor into the GOP. The bail out of Detroit and Wall Street added flavor to the debate on the role of government in the economy and lives of citizenry. The tea-party led GOP delivered a crushing blow to Obama in the mid-term elections. Under Obama the Democrats lost more seats in the Congress than the previous rout in 1993 under Bill Clinton. The tea-party also cleaned house in the GOP. Some of it was not pretty and sowed the seeds for Obama's own resurrection for 2012.

Sarah Palin and the tea party are largely responsible for the caricature of air-heads that the GOP became. With the fight for controlling the senate in balance the tea party defeated GOP's establishment favorite and veteran Mike Castle in an upset primary in Delaware that launched Christine O'Donnell into limelight. O'Donnell had confessed to having indulged in witchcraft in her youth, wondered if church-state separation was in the constitution, released an ad that declared 'I am not a witch, I am you". She was trounced and GOP was left with a stigma.

When Michelle Obama campaigned against obesity, an epidemic that costs the US economy billions of dollars, Sarah Palin asked school kids to eat cookies and resist 'government intervention in their lives'. Libertarianism was tarnished by the fathomless depths of Palin's vacuity . When Palin spoke of Obama's death panels in the health care reform bill Krauthammer wrote "let's have a serious discussion and lets begin by asking Sarah Palin to get out of the room". Explaining how GOP would stop Obama's agenda Palin crowed "we are not the party of no. We are the party of 'Hell!! NO!" The tea-party congressmen wore it as a badge of honor that they were elected to be uncompromising. When US faced the debt ceiling many tea-partiers went on TV to announce pompously "a US default will not be catastrophic". Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann proclaimed that it will be a good idea to 'default'. Blogger and talking head Erik Erikson counseled GOP on CNN to 'hold the line'. Bob Woodward in his latest book chides both the President and GOP speaker John Boehner for not leading in debt ceiling talks. Obama came in for a rare direct rebuke from Mr Woodward. But the idea of uncompromising, devil may care attitude of GOP is stuck in the minds of the voters.

The GOP candidates for presidency were an exercise of how low can the party really go.

A former Federal reserve member Mr Herman Cain made a caricature of himself with his 9-9-9 plan that he parroted even for a question like if the sun was too hot. Cain was swept out in a barrage of rumors of sexual affairs

Michelle Bachmann was in a league of herself.She used to crow 'I want to make Barack Obama a one-term-president' in all debates. She bowed out after the Iowa primary after tarnishing GOP as the anti-science party by expounding her loony theory that vaccines cause autism.

Then there was the 'oops' heard around the world from one-time favorite Texas governor Rick Perry who forgot what departments that he wanted to abolish and said 'oops'. Rick Perry flamed out after it became known he had 'mandated' HPV for girls in school and more importantly he had allowed illegal aliens who came to USA as kids to study in Texas universities paying the much lower in-state tuition fee if they had gone to school there. Latino's had loved that but in a republican primary that humane gesture became apostasy.

Rick Santorum, with degrees in Law, declared Obama to be a 'snob' for wanting kids to get a degree and for good measured reminded voters of the cave man with his harping on social values. Rick Santorum stepped down after it looked like he would lose in his home state PA to Romney.

Newt Gingrich won South Carolina only because he skewered John King of CNN who asked Gingrich at a debate before the primary about the charges Gingrich's wife made on ABC that he wanted an 'open marriage'. When Newt Gingrich appeared to demolish Romney, after a victory at South Carolina, the GOP establishment watched in horror. Former GOP nominee Bob Dole wrote a stinging op-ed on why Gingrich as nominee will be disaster.Then there was the pseudo revolutionary Ron Paul who attracted a Obama like following amongst the youth with his outlandish ideas of ending the Federal reserve and having an isolationist foreign policy. Ron Paul's use of libertarianism was often a fig leaf for either muddled outdated ideas or plain racism. Each month saw the rise and later, fall of a that month's not-Romney candidate.

Finally Romney became the nominee by default.

Mitt Romney is not an instinctive politician, much less a conservative in his bones. Romney remains Romney's first nemesis. When Rick Perry needled him about illegal aliens working in his home once upon a time, Romney blurted "we had sub contracted the work. When we found out that illegals were employed we told the contractor 'for Pete's sake I am running for office I cannot have illegals working on my property". At another debate Romney challenged Perry to a $10,000 bet. When asked whether he, like his father, would release ten years of tax returns Romney gave the most awkward guffaw to say "maybe". Romney threw the kitchen sink at Gingrich to win Florida and having won he told America the next morning "I am not concerned about the poor they have a safety net, the rich are doing just fine its the middle class I am worried about". The impish anchor pressed him if he did not care about the poor and Romney said "if the net has holes I will fix it". Conservative commentators went into a fit of rage. That no-one but the very weakest should rely on any safety net but be productive individuals is the conservative orthodoxy.

Romney is a very successful businessman but his success rate as politician is pathetic. Reacting to Romney's claims about not spending his life in the government Gingrich snarled "that not just baloney but pious baloney". Romney had chosen not to run for re-election as governor but instead run for president in 2008 because his ratings were falling in MA. Previously Romney had lost a senate race. His 2008 bid ended very quickly.

Life is unfair. Obama learned that fundraising conference calls, supposed to be private and with supposedly friendly people, need not be so. An attendee recorded Obama saying that people sometimes vote against their economic interests because they 'cling to their guns and religion'. When the tape surfaced Obama had by then become the darling of the media and had an unassailable lead in the delegate count in the primaries. Romney, like an GOP candidate, is not the darling of any media save Fox news. A surreptitiously recorded video of Romney at a fund raiser is dominating the news now.

Analyzing how he can win the election Romney told a group of very rich fund raisers that 47% of Americans who pay no tax (actually they pay payroll tax but just not Federal income tax) are 'dependent' on the government and feel 'victimized' and 'entitled' and that his message of 'tax cuts' will not resonate with them and therefore he would not pay attention to courting them. The complete put down of a large swathe of America left everyone speechless and many seething with rage. Peggy Noonan, speech writer to Reagan, wrote a stinging op-ed in Wall Street Journal. Romney, to be fair, was sizing up the problem of how he can win the election. The CEO was looking to see how he can reach 51% vote. He was looking at a problem and was presenting possible solutions. That an American Presidential candidate is looking to win just 1% above the 50% mark is itself pathetic and it is beyond speechless to see him write of 47% of the electorate. Ironically amongst that 47% are a large percentage of seniors who live on Social security and mostly vote GOP!!!! The guy does not even  know who his voters are.

A man running for the Presidency is politically dimwitted to have offshore accounts in Sweden. Its not illegal but it clearly shows that he is running for the presidency as an after thought and is not running with his heart and soul in it. Responding to a heckler at a rally Romney yelled back "if you want free stuff go vote for the other guy". In a GOP primary that sounded good but it showed a deeply flawed candidate.

Romney is a very, very rich man. Despite both Obama's and his GOP opponents's propagandaAmericans, by and large, do not begrudge him that. It is Romney's utter failure to convince Americans that he will be President of all Americans that will defeat him.

When Romney harps on his credentials as problem solver and as CEO it often comes across as "I'll fix the problem and if it requires patchwork solution I'll take it". It also translates into "I've no core belief that I'll go to mattresses for". When Obama repeatedly scolded the Clinton era for the acrimonious debates Bill Clinton responded "we fought the fights that had to be fought". No CEO does that. And thats why CEO's do not become politicians. The Presidency is much larger than anything anybody could cite as experience. Romney's total silence on how he governed as governor of MA and perpetual harping on his ability as CEO can only carry him so far. Romney actually governed more from the center than this right wing version of Romney that he is presenting himself to be. Romney became the laughing stock of conservatives when he said that he was 'severely conservative' as governor. 'Severely conservative. What's that?" chortled conservative talking heads.

The GOP convention also highlighted another problem. The GOP does not have a Bill Clinton they only keep talking of Ronald Reagan who left office 24 years back. There is no elder statesman in GOP who can rally the base and make the case for the incumbent to the undecided.

When the camera panned across the audience in Tampa the GOP crowd was almost exclusively caucasian though they paraded a popular woman Hispanic governor, a wildly popular Hispanic senators, two Indian-American governors, an Afro-American congressman etc the crowd did not reflect that diversity. The GOP has a demography problem that was accentuated by Romney's strident rhetoric against Hispanics who form the largest group of illegal aliens in USA. Susannah Martinez, Hispanic republican governor of New Mexico mocked Romney's 'self deportation' idea 'self-deportation? what's that?" Jeb Bush warned against such rhetoric and cautioned that the nominee cannot win unless they can match George Bush's the Latino vote share. Romney pretended he never heard it. The only way Romney could get the nomination in 2012 was by rooting for some extreme right wing positions in order to convince primary voters of his 'conservatism'.

While Obama was giving away free contraceptives for women (paid by the much hated insurance companies) Rush Limbaugh smeared a university girl student, Sandra Fluke, with an obscene epithet. Whatever her policies might be she did not deserve that. Romney, afraid to antagonize Rush Limbaugh, soft pedaled his condemnation saying "I would not choose those words". To be fair Obama is equally silent when his supporter Bill Maher heaps despicable caricatures of Sarah Palin but then the media, his lap dogs, give Obama a pass. The democrats unleashed a propaganda about GOP's 'war on women'. Adding fuel to that was GOP senate candidate Todd Akin's comment that in a 'legitimate rape' the woman's body has 'ways to shut that whole thing off'. The GOP became apoplectic and asked Akin to withdraw. Akin is still staying in the race. Making matters worse is Paul Ryan's sponsoring of an anti-abortion bill with Akin that refused the three most common exceptions to abortion, 'rape, incest and life of mother'. Virginia state legislature considered passing a bill, encouraged by its GOP governor, to compel women to undergo a physical probe examination to see and hear a heartbeat prior to going in for abortion. All of this snow balled making the GOP look like a party of old caucasian misogynists.

In a week when US embassies were attacked, in what is now called a 'planned attack', and an ambassador was killed in an embassy that was not protected very well despite being in war ravaged Bengazhi we find that Obama is doing no explaining but it is Romney who is being pilloried for his rush to blame Obama. When Romney scolded the Obama administration the attacks were still underway and it would be a few hours before ambassador Richard Stevens would be killed. Romney could have exercised restraint and appeared 'presidential' by not seeking to upstage the commander in chief. But he acted like a schoolboy. That said, again the national media ignores the more important issues to focus on Romney. Then came the 47% talk and now nobody talks of Obama's foreign policy that is in tatters. Killing Osama bin laden is not foreign policy.

I've donated to Mitt Romney and I'll vote for him. But I do not see him winning and actually I am beginning to wonder if he can be a better president. So why should I not vote for Obama? Just yesterday an old taping of Obama was unearthed where Obama declared unambiguously ''I believe in redistribution". I'd any day take Mitt Romney over Karl Marx. By the way Andrea Mitchell of NBC said that the reason NBC is not airing that clip of Obama is because they have not authenticated it. I bet if it was a Romney video NBC would have it on a day long loop.

Romney is not Bill Clinton to get elected despite a string of women claiming, and proving, that he is an adulterer.There is still slim hope for Romney though. The upcoming debates are his last chance. Today the topics for the first debate were announced, they are, healthcare, role of government and governing. If Romney does not ace it then its all over. And the reasons for his defeat will be the GOP and himself. The gods are smiling on Obama now.

Ryan and Rand Vs Obama and Wright

Ever since Mitt Romney chose Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate op-ed writers, bloggers and talking heads are all abuzz with talk of Ayn Rand. Paul Ryan had said in the past that Ayn Rand was his greatest inspiration to come to public life. Ryan gives Rand's tome 'Atlas Shrugged' as Christmas gifts to staffers and others.

Paul Krugman the unofficial town hall crier of the democratic party declared in his column "Galt, Gold and God", "what does it say about the party when its intellectual leader evidently gets his ideas largely from deeply unrealistic fantasy novel?". Another blogger seized on the fact that Ayn Rand, according to Jennifer Burns's biography 'The Goddess of the market: Ayn Rand and the American right", expressed admiration for a grisly serial killer and wrote a column titled, yes, titled "Paul Ryan's guru Ayn Rand worshipped a serial killer who kidnapped and dismembered little girls". Jennifer Burns herself took  to op-eds to ask if Ayn Rand, who disapproved Ronald Reagan, would approve Paul Ryan. Burns wrote two op-eds.

Paul Ryan told an interviewer that for all his love for Ayn Rand her militant atheism is not something he agrees. Ryan's another mentor is Friedrich Hayek. Hayek, Nobel laureate in economics, is revered for his polemical book that argued about the evils of socialist/communist model of economics in 'The Road to Serfdom'. Hayek nevertheless had voiced support for a government run health care program. An idea that Ryan and Romney now oppose. Another columnist pulled up Ryan for 'cherry picking' ideas from Rand and Hayek.

Liberals and the Press would have drooled 'intellectual' if Obama talked about philosophers and economists so passionately. They drool so even when he does not talk serious ideas and offers his 'Robinhood' as a choice against what he calls 'Romneyhood'.

Ayn Rand did indeed express some admiration for a serial killer from the perspective of a man who defies society's mores. As repugnant as it may seem let us not forget that Truman Capote's 'In cold blood' is considered a classic despite the fact that Capote did indeed almost admire two very gruesome murderers. Jennifer Burns does trace how Rand obsessed with Nietzchean idea of 'super human' did fashion her heroes mostly as anti-heroes first and only then progressed to stylizing her heroes as defying society in a positive way.

No human being ever picks up a book and accepts all that is said, even for the Bible. If Ryan as a Catholic said he believed the Book of Genesis these same liberals would chortle. We all read and love many books. We imbibe cherry picked ideas to create the most complex phenomenon in the world, our own composite identities. Ayn Rand hated Friedrich Hayek exactly for Hayek's concession that government could still have some legitimate role. If Krugman thinks 'Atlas Shrugged' is just fantasy he needs to take some classes in literary appreciation. Maybe his employer, Princeton University, will give him a discount to attend its humanities courses.

Jennifer Burns's biography details the strife between Ayn Rand and the intellectual vanguard of the right, particularly its rising intellectual lodestar William F. Buckley Jr. The conservatives ridiculed Rand for her atheism and for idolizing strident unbridled individualism. Liberals scorn conservatives use of religion as a yoke for their ideas. It is a topic for another blog. We all read great works of literature without agreeing with all of the ideas or the personal ideologies of the author. Tolstoy was a philanderer. Does it mean that we condone or look to emulate that part of Tolstoy when we lose our hearts in his immortal works?

Compare all this brouhaha to how quickly the media and opinion makers were eager to pass over discussion of Obama being influenced by Jeremiah Wright.

After a month of unbroken string of crushing victories as the 2008 primaries ground towards three big states PA, OH and TX. ABC broke news about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright's incendiary sermons. The week after 9/11, Wright, in elaborate embroidered dress, thundered "America's chickens have come home to roost". In another sermon he intoned at high pitch "no, no, no. Not God bless America but God damn America and that's in the Bible".

America was stunned. Obama campaign went into a tail spin. Hillary archly said "if he had been my pastor I'd have changed my church". The news was not broken by Fox News and hence even Obama loving liberal media had to sit back and take notice. Questions of 'does Obama share these views' dominated the airwaves. Obama the orator rode to the rescue of his own candidacy. Obama's belief that he could mesmerize audiences and make them suspend logic proved, by hind sight, a great prophetic gamble that paid off handsomely.

Obama confessed that Rev. Wright used to speak critically of USA in his sermons while Obama sat in the pews for two decades. Rev. Wright presided presided Obama's marriage and baptized his children. Obama nevertheless added that these remarks, now looped on national TV, were 'incendiary'. The remarks, Obama said in his landmark address, had "the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but view that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike". He then went on to say that this was not all there was to Rev. Wright and why he can no more abandon his pastor than he could abandon his white grandmother who raised him but was prone to racial stereotyping. Obama gave a carte-blanche good conduct certificate to Rev.Wright, "not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms".

More of Rev. Wright's sermons tumbled out. Rev. Wright himself chose to address the country at a 'National Press Club' event. The press conference was sheer circus. Obama advisers showed him a taped video and told him to make the final decision of what to do. In a brief terse address Obama repudiated the pastor and severed all connections with Rev. Wright's church. In the general election when GOP surrogates raised the Wright issue John McCain, a gentleman, forbade any discussion of that saying that such a topic is beyond politics. Big mistake.

Obama's assertion that he has never heard such 'incendiary' remarks from Rev.Wright is a facetious claim that was eagerly lapped up by his enablers in the media and propagated for consumption to his adoring masses. The night before his announcement in Springfield, IL, for his candidacy Obama campaign was worried. Rolling Stones magazine had run a profile on Rev.Wright the pastor supposed to offer invocation at the historic ceremony. Obama personally called Rev. Wright and said 'you have a way of saying things' and suggested that Rev.Wright offer a prayer away from the public eye in the basement before the chosen 'One' ascends the stage.

Rev. Wright was known for such remarks and known to make anti-semitic remarks in sermons. Long after the election when asked if he had spoken to Obama Rev.Wright said "them Jews will not allow me to talk to him". Obama's then chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel was a Jew. Afro-American community and their leaders have a fraught relationship with Jews and Israel. Malcolm X, according to his Pulitzer awarded biographer Manning Marable, would recount the words of Saudi emperor referring to New York as 'Jew York'.

Sarah Palin's 'palling around with terrorists' helped the Obama campaign to ridicule any legitimate criticism. Lost in the mind numbing adulation of Obama was any discussion of intellectual influences on the candidate.

Obama's recent biographer David Maraniss says he referred to his first employer as 'working for the enemy'. That was Obama's vision of corporate America decades before he called Wall Street CEO's 'fat cats'. This view was strengthened and deepened in the crucible of Rev.Wright's church. From W.E.B. Du Bois to MLK Jr to Rev Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson, criticism of capitalism is an article on faith amongst Afro-American leaders especially in church sermons.

 Everyone talked about MLK Jr's comment that 'Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America' referring to how whites and blacks have separate churches. No journalist or magazine thought it fit to write articles about black churches and their ideologies. Jodi Kantor, NYT journalist, wants to visit Mitt Romney's Mormon church and talk to fellow Mormon church goers. Recently Mitt Romney invited journalists to his church and a CNN columnist wrote asking for more such invitations.

Obama spoke in his address about being referred to as 'not black enough'. That's true. But what he failed to mention was that that whisper campaign was what the black political leadership used to destroy his run for becoming congressman in Chicago. Pulitzer winning author David Remnick recounts Obama's testy relationship with black leaders in Chicago in 'The Bridge: The life and rise of Barack Obama'. Obama needed a foothold in Chicago politics amongst Afro-Americans and the door for that was Jeremiah Wright's influential church.

Oprah Winfrey was another congregant at Wright's church. When her show started being noticed Winfrey, knowing Wright's incendiary attitude, withdrew herself from the church. It is little wonder that Obama followed her example.

Recently Rev.Wright claimed that he was offered a bribe during 2008 election to disappear and not cause a problem for Obama. Of course the press acted like they never heard the interview.

Romney, Ryan And Obama : Diversity In American Politics

The American electorate made history in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama, the nation's first black President. 2012 is set to break further barriers and bring diversity to the forefront of American politics. The GOP has nominated Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Romney has picked Paul Ryan, a Catholic, to be his running mate. Amidst the din of campaigning this positive development has lost attention. America's diversity was rarely ever reflected in its candidates for office especially for the Presidency. The diversity in candidacy is exceeded by the demographic composition of the electorate that in turn is changing the electoral map. A lot of this is for good and some, of course, causes concern.

Hillary Clinton, the first woman to run for the nomination of a major party, faced unique problems. Her standard dress, a pant suit, was mocked. As Clinton ground through a losing nomination she read a supporter's letter at a rally, "it is not over until the lady in pantsuit says so". She did not laugh, critics said, she 'guffawed'. If her makeup was a little off a whisper campaign started "is she going to throw in the hat". If her tops showed some cleavage that was mentioned in an article. Sexist jokes, even sexist toys showed up.  Clinton, as she loves to remind all, put 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling of gender discrimination in Presidential primaries. When Clinton campaigned in New Hampshire two men stood up holding some clothes saying "iron my shirt". Clinton responded "ah- the remnants of sexism - alive and well". A WSJ poll said Americans were more ready to accept an Afro-American than a woman for the Presidency. 

Obama endured barbs, some unintentional, about being Afro-American. Joe Biden, a fellow contender, remarked , in cringe-worthy words, "you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy".  Biden called Obama to apologize. Obama said it was 'unnecessary and told reporters generously "I have no problem with Joe Biden". At a debate in New Hampshire fresh from his trail blazing victory at Iowa Obama made a gaffe telling Hillary, looking down at his notepad, "you are likable enough Hillary". He lost women vote and New Hampshire by 2 points. 

Race, more than gender, played a very large role in 2008. Panicked after Hillary's humiliating loss in Iowa Bill Clinton jumped into the fray at New Hampshire. Trying to point out that Obama's positions on Iraq war mirrored Hillary's Bill exploded "this is the biggest fairy tale". Bill Clinton was referring to Obama's opposition to the war as 'fairy tale'. Afro-Americans, helped by many a anti-Hillary commentariat, took it as referring to Obama's historic candidacy. Then came S. Carolina. Bill Clinton stung by Hillary's loss in South Carolina after a very racially heated primary shot off "well Jesse Jackson won here". Afro-American leader and preacher Jackson having won S.Carolina went on to lose the nomination. Afro-Americans, until then Clinton's redoubtable supporters, turned on him in fury. Till the end of the election Bill Clinton faced allegations of race baiting. There was no truth in them though. Clinton, as his ardent supporter James Carville said on CNN, "had not a single racist bone in his body".

McCain defied a supporter who ranted that Obama was not born in the US and was a Muslim. McCain cut off that woman saying "no madam. He is an honorable man with a nice family. I only have policy disagreements with him". Sarah Palin, a political unknown until being nominated to the Vice Presidency by a panicking McCain, was the one who really had it tough. Very shameful rumors swirled about her, her daughter's pregnancy, her Down's syndrome afflicted child, her marriage etc. 

Amidst all of the above the silver lining was America was coming to terms with their candidates being diverse. Joe Biden, known for his foot-in-mouth disease, was coached on being gender sensitive during his debate with Sarah Palin. When McCain referred to Obama as 'that one' in their first debate it raised a flutter. Candidates were still learning that their words, every day words, could become transformed when it refers to a person of different background. Obama and McCain's first debate took place in University of Mississippi where James Meredith, the first Afro-American student, had to enter guarded by US Marshals. Meredith's admission resulted in race riots at the university. The University celebrates Meredith, aged 79 today, with a statue in his honor. 

The GOP, notorious for being a white man's party and in thralldom to evangelical Christians nominated a Mormon. To many evangelical Christians Mormonism is a satanic cult. Mitt Romney weathered many a not too subtle attacks on his religion. Washington Post has drawn attention to how Obama, campaigning in Iowa, drank beer with voters and spoke of it in order to bond. A favorite staple question of US Presidential elections is to ask voters 'which candidate would you have beer with'. Romney, as Mormon, is a teetotaler. An MSNBC commentator asked "why should we elect a guy who does not drink beer".

JFK's candidacy was hogged by criticism of his Irish Catholic roots. Would Kennedy, many bigots wondered, take orders from the Vatican. JFK then gave his speech on religious freedom and eventually romped into the Oval office.Al Gore nominated the nation's first Jew, Joe Lieberman, to be the VP in 2000. Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, is Catholic. Joe Biden is Catholic too. There is no white male protestant on the ticket for 2012.

Madeline Albright became America's first woman Secretary of state in 1993. Since then until today no white male has occupied that office. Clinton and George W brought in a lot of diversity to their cabinets. Bush nominated the nations first Hispanic attorney general, two Afro-Americans successively as secretaries of state. Obama nominated, Eric Holder, the first Afro-American attorney general. Today 3 women, one of them Hispanic, serve in the US Supreme Court. And there was Nancy Pelosi, America's first woman speaker. America has come a long way one could say.

The electorate's demographics too changed. Obama carried Virginia, that bastion of civil war and segregation, a first for a Democrat in 40 years, simply because of a very diverse population in Northern Virginia. Northern Virginia has lot of Asians and Afro-Americans. Likewise Colorado. There are projections that demographic changes might even change Texas as battleground state. 

George Bush carried 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 and thus putting together a 'winning coalition'. Alarmed at the shrill rhetoric on immigration during 2012 GOP primaries Jeb Bush cautioned the candidates against such strident positions. Obama is now nakedly pandering to Hispanics. This vote-bank politics focused on ethic minorities, particularly Afro-Americans and Hispanics is cause for concern as much pandering to Evangelicals and gun lobby is of concern. Arizona, home state of John McCain, is within Obama's reach thanks to Hispanic population there and head-in-sand racist GOP administration there. Both Romney and Obama have given prime speaking spots for Hispanics at their conventions.

The GOP is more diverse than what people credit it for. The GOP canduidates includeed an Afro-American, a woman and two Mormons. GOP boasts of the nation's first Hispanic senator, charismatic Marco Rubio. Then there are Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, both of Indian origin, governors of states in racially sensitive South. Jindal and Rubio are watched with interest and may run for the presidency one day.

America is being reshaped demographically in all spheres beyond just politics. Ivy League University Presidents and CEO's of companies are increasingly ethnically diverse. In short I can happily conclude 'E PLURIBUS UNUM' (out of many, one).