For far too long, the Republican perfected campaign strategy of dehumanizing opponents through hidden unusable treasuries or through language manipulation.  In recent American political history, Governor Dukakis (remember Willy Horton ad), and Senator John Kerry (Swift boat attack) proved to be fatal blows on these highly qualified candidates who were not ready for prime time.  Both Dukakis and Kerry either did not respond or wasted time responding to attacks.  Such hesitation or lack thereof cost them the presidency of America . 

Presidency in America or anywhere else in the world is not decided mostly by smartness, dexterity, one overriding issue but more by perception created by the press and kingmakers.  For example, President George W. Bush who, by his own admission, conceded not to be the smartest academically as in the statement, “some of us who are C – students end up becoming Presidents while the “A” students become vice presidents,” and in business, neither did he claim to be an expert in foreign policy yet, he managed to preside over a 200 year old democracy without totally mangling it.  The last seven years have been a test of the inviolability of America ’s political structure set up by the founding fathers as work in progress.

Yet, whoever wins the presidency of America be it Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John McCain face monumental problems from unstable world, rising energy cost, reduced America’s dominance in scientific and technological, pervasive but latent racism, America’s diminishing return on world respect, regrouped Russia, growing financial strength and global economic control by China.  These are issues that US has to contend with in this fundamentally different world view, thanks to some of President George W. Bush’s perilous policies. 

For the current US presidential election, clear heads must prevail.  Whoever wins will need a special grace of God to wade through the mess left behind.  The next president need not have great foreign policy experience just like the one before him but must have an uncanny ability to bring parties together, a good listener and one can easily isolate wheat from its chaff, unite America and remove the uneasiness of many nations upset at President Bush's policies.

In the picture shown below beamed all over the world, Obama wore turban.  The world must understand that clothing is a sign of environment needs.  I really don’t see any reason why Obama should respond other than to say, I visted Somalia , I was honored to wear the local regalia as a Somali elder in respect of both the culture and the elder in front of me.  I, doing so, however, I was cognizant of the precedence that politicians before me had engaged such acts without taking any flack.  There was no initiation or no shedding of blood, if you must know.  Wasn’t Clinton in Nigeria a few years back?  During his visit to Nigeria , President Clinton also joined the natives and wore the “babariga” from Northern Nigeria .  Does Clinton ’s wearing of Northern Nigeria outfit make Clinton Hausa or a Muslim?  It is really silly when politicians try to be better Christian than Jesus the Christ?  It must be realized that either a still picture or video streams tell the total story of any event.  How these Monday morning quarterbacks can interpret wearing of a regalia to be anything other than show of cultural awarness should worry electorates.

In the current Democratic nomination contest, candidates have been tearing each other apart by using languages and unkind words that Republicans can use to nail any of them that may be left standing.  If the picture is what Obama’s opponents is currently using to make a case for preventing Obama’s ascension to the presidency of America , there is something fundamentally wrong.  Granted, no African-American has ever got to the stage Senator Obama is now on but then Barack Obama, in my view, is a special breed.  To begin with, Obama has identifiable root ( Kenya and Kansas heritage) which kept him under the radar for awhile.  He is charismatic, smart, endowed with an equally smart wife and most importantly, he is none confrontational.

Among and within the democratic establishment, the Super-delegates, the equivalence of the cardinals necessary for Papal election are waiting in the wings to tell many democrats that their votes don’t count.  This is a dangerous precedence to follow.  The Democrats must be careful not to disenfranchise their base. Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama should be in a position to knowingly make Democrats lose this election.  The candidate with fewer delegates must not be elevated by the Super-delegates to be the Democratic nominee.  Doing so will end up quashing the will of majority of Democrats.  If the super delegates prevail, John McCain will win the president effortlessly.

Now then, since the political strategists are combing through the archives for any evidence, just any, to make Senator Obama a Muslim, what is he to do?  Although Senator Obama has been going to same church for 20 year, it is irrelevant because this is the “I got you” time.  What if Obama is a Muslim?  Are Muslim Americans prevented from contesting for the highest office?  Isn’t there a separation of church and state?  The fact here is that America is one of the few countries that claim separation of church and state and for that Americans have never been thrown into any religious conflict because of the wise decisions of the founding fathers.  It will be a travesty if America forces herself into inter-faith conflicts.  Are Americans worried that such superlative as separation of church and state is only but an aberration?  America cannot afford to intersperse church with affairs of the state except when issues of morality is concern.

What if the Republicans who indirectly increased taxes, created the largest deficit and racked up both America ’s external and internal debt have the guts to re-label the Democrats as tax and spend, what will happen this time?  Democrats ought to have answers to the Republican’s label: liberals, tax and spend if they are not brain dead but instead of find a solution and a counter punch, the Democrats are always left on the sideline like a deer facing a bright head lamp.  It is not the spending that is the problem but it is spending in unproductive areas.  Will Republican fault Democrats for spending on healthcare to make average working Americans healthy or question reasonable spending on alternate energy without bankrupting the nation?  Will spending on making our public schools more accountable to parents who are better able to prepare children for the challenges they'll meet in the world be unreasonable?  America spent billions of dollars every month on a war she didn’t have to fight and nobody labeled the Republican a “tax and spend” party.  This time around, it will be easier than ever to redefine the Republicans.

What if the Republicans come up with the fact that since the Democrats are in the majority, they have not been able to come up with a substantive legislation?  The fact is that the Democrats are in a very slim majority and cannot do much because all they need is for one democrat to defect and there is a stalemate. 

Some tagged President G.W. Bush the antichrist.  Bush cannot be, simply because antichrist is supposed to combine charisma, smartness, and be a convincing personality.  President Bush is not outrightly weaked but was protecting the interest of America , wrongly or rightly.  Did the antichrist label stick on GW?  No, because the establishment did not want it to stick.  Now that President Bush is almost out of the office, will the Democrat retrofit this label on McCain or will the Republican have another one on the Democrats?   

The Republicans think that they have dismantled the Clinton mystique by constantly driving Senator Clinton’s negative up in the minds of Americans that are unable to go by facts.  On the other hand, to stop Obama, with all the efforts they are making to label him a Muslim, may be Larl Rove, GW’s brain need to be brought back.  Recall that Karl Rove almost single handedly wage a war to make US a dictatorial state.  Americans must be careful not to let a group of individuals stack the courts with those that think like them so that she can still maintain separation of church and state.   

Is Senator Barack Obama prepared to respond to any type of label Republicans will throw at him because they are already making a case by invoking his middle name?  If he is not yet prepared, he should load his political war room with his rapid response team so that they craft out rapid response strategies.  Senator Obama must think of strategies for countering any and all labels that McCain and his Lieutenants will throw at him because a sinking man knows no bound.  While Senator Clinton accepted and may be prepared to wage a contrite war on the Republicans, the question is, does Senator Obama see this contest as a war that need sound war strategies? 

One thing that is sure is whoever wins the Democratic nomination, Clinton or Obama; need to return fire-for-fire in other to win this presidential election.  The opposing party and their candidate is armed to the teeth to defeat the Democrats especially if Senator Obama is the nominee and even try to convince American voters that, maybe, Obama, though a nice man, cannot to be trusted with the Oval Office responsibilities.

Robot  Villager

# 1 For far too long, the Republican perfected campaign strategy of dehumanizing opponents through ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 29.02.2008 01:25

aguabata  Villager

# 2 I thought the consensus was that George bush went into Iraq over americas oil interests, to protect oil supllies they need to maintain their economy and wade off the new threat of china and japan, Why dont Americans like him, we non americans have the right to hate him, but it seems sanctimonious for americans to hate him, since he was trying to protect their extravagant way of life. Posted by aguabata| 29.02.2008 17:01

Abujaboy  Villager

# 3 Aguabata -- Whatever consensus you're talking about doesn't exist either in the U.S. or in thoughtful discussions. If Bush simply wanted easy access to Iraqi oil, or wanted to monopolize/take over Iraqi oil fields, it would've done what the French, Russians, Chinese, etc were doing -- simply smuggle oil out, bribe the key players, or better yet, end the oil sanctions. We all know how effective the UN's "oil for palaces" program was. If you need further proof of that, look at how Iraqi oil is managed now -- without any further benefit to the U.S. over any other country. The real motive for invasion, I think, was the belief that WMDs existed, as a means to attempting to remake the Middle Eastern order. While I wish he hadn't done it, and it's tempting for you Bush-haters to want to reduce it to as base a reason as possible, it's important to view such an event accurately, and to try to assess his motives properly. I'm not sure why you non-Americans "have the right to hate him", beyond anyone else's right to simply be a hateful person (Americans certainly don't hate him, as you claim, except for perhaps a small percentage on the extreme left and right). Please don't say it was for the poor suffering Iraqis, as these same people who claim to hate him for that reason were silent when it was Saddam who was doing all the killing, instead of the jihadis/sectarian groups/et al. Posted by Abujaboy| 03.03.2008 06:34

Abujaboy  Villager

# 4 What a weird article. The author seems uniquely unqualified to have his opinions about U.S. politics put into print anywhere, as he is ignorant about some of the basic facts surrounding U.S. political events and the American electorate. 1) Neither Republican nor Democratic strategy hinged/hinges on "dehumanizing" opponents -- Willie Horton and Swift did not "dehumanize" Dukakis or Kerry in the least. Horton challenged Dukakis' record on crime as governor, and Swift Boat was actually a group of veterans who served with Kerry who were challenging his claims about his war record. While the Republicans certainly sat back with a smile and enjoyed the fireworks, it wasn't the Republicans who did it. This was (gasp!) simply politics -- both sides going after each other. And what the heck is a "hidden unusable treasury"? If it's hidden and unusable, I guess it's not of much use to anyone, is it? 2) Neither did either Kerry or Dukakis lose the elections because of Swift Boat or Willie Horton -- these were small parts of long, complex campaigns. They lost for the usual reasons people lose -- they didn't connect with the voters. 3) Who actually released the turbaned Obama photo? At this stage of the campaign, it's highly unlikely it was the Republicans -- more likely Clinton. 4) What this whole thing comes down to is the author likes Obama and assumes that all good-hearted people will support him -- if only we could stop those evil opponents from campaigning against him! It's clear from the article that Obama is the author's man for the usual reason -- Obama is black, and has (recent) African roots. No discussion on what Obama stands for, because like most Africans who support him (and many Americans too!), the author has no idea what Obama's platform is. And neither does Obama, which is an excellent reason not to vote for him. Obama is a symbol, that's pretty much it. He has little to no experience, no platform to speak of, and an obnoxious wife. 5) Geez, there's so much else wrong with this silly column I'll leave off here. Bottom line: not everyone who has a political opinion and preference should be allowed to broadcast said view, passing themselves off as someone whose opinion matters. The author is basically unacquainted with U.S. history, the U.S. electorate, and U.S. politics. Oh, and what is the "What If?" game we played? Posted by Abujaboy| 03.03.2008 07:18