Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria has an excellent piece about the power of personality. In it, he explains very cogently how an Obama presidency can transform and restore America's image around the world namely because of his strong root to the developing world. Zakaria speaks from experience and explains how having himself born and live in a foreign country has shaped his views of the world.

And Obama for his part has been clear on how his unique identity gives him a unique advantage to restore America's image around the world. He has a grand mother still living in Kenya and that gives him a unique advantage in reaching out to these people beyond our shores and a unique perspective on how the decisions we take here in the US might reverberate in the wider world. In fact,as zakaria puts it:

"He was intelligent and prescient about the costs of the Iraq War. But he says that his judgment was formed by his experience as a boy with a Kenyan father--and later an Indonesian stepfather--who spent four years growing up in Indonesia, and who lived in the multicultural swirl of Hawaii".

However, Zakaria at first did not realize the power of this unique experience. As he put it,
"I never thought I'd agree with Obama. I've spent my life acquiring formal expertise on foreign policy. I've got fancy degrees, have run research projects, taught in colleges and graduate schools, edited a foreign-affairs journal, advised politicians and businessmen, written columns and cover stories, and traveled hundreds of thousands of miles all over the world. I've never thought of my identity as any kind of qualification. I've never written an article that contains the phrase "As an Indian-American ..." or "As a person of color ..."

But now he says he understand Obama's argument and agrees that Obama's experience is clearly an asset.

Please read the full article for yourself at this link:http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157/page/1
And don't forget to comment and recommend this post!

For a second time, Congress is arguing over a supplemental funding bill for the G.W. Bush War in Iraq. As you all know by now, Congress set a new course for the war in Iraq. It provided a way forward for the Iraqi people, and laid a path to bring our Troops home. Sure it had riders on it to provide funding for some of the pressing problems faced in this country.

But the idiot we have in the Whitehouse chose to veto the Iraq spending bill. Why? His stupid pride was hurt.

This president has a revenge-obsession with Iraq and continues to play like the three monkeys or at least two, he closes his eyes and covers his ears to the truth of this occupation. He could give a damn about the U.S. troops who have died in Iraq, a number approaching 3,400 men and women, not to mention the deaths tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. The farce of a president has thrown away over $427 billion of taxpayers hard earned money in Iraq, a vast amount of it has been stolen by unscrupulous U.S. contractors. This is $1423.00 for every man, woman and child in this country.

America said: This is our constitution, you're not fucking with it.
America said: These are our beliefs, let them be.
America said: This is our County, sweet land of liberty, not tyranny.

America said: You work for, us, Mr. Bush; we won't be bullied and lied to anymore.

America stood up and said: It's over, Mr. Bush, it's over.

The world said; you go America, you go.

Look for a Conservative Minority Government as a result of next Monday's federal elections.

My seat predictions, a week out from the voting.

Conservatives: 130 to 140
Liberals: 80 to 90
Bloc Quebecois: 55 to 60
NDP: 30 to 35

Background

Why are the Conservatives going to win? Well, to put it very simply, the (centirst, in a Canadian context, center-left in an American context) Liberals have now been in power for something going on 12 years. While Canada has generally done well under their leadership, and while the Liberal Party is considered the "natural party of government" in Canada (having been in power for 78 of the last 110 years), the Liberals have been wracked by a series of scandals. On their own, the Liberals might have been able to whether these scandals, but combined with being in power for such a long strech of time, many Canadian voters have come to believe that is time for another party to be in charge too ensure that Canadian democracy remains vibrant. Liberal dominance during the '90s (sometimes having overwhelming majorities, at one point controlling 101 of 105 "ridings" or seats in Ontario) was greatly aided by a split between the traditional party of the center-right, the Progressive Conservatives (typically called the Tories, as in Britain) and a new more explicitly right wing party, called, over time, Reform and the Alliance, largely born in Canada's most conservative province, Alberta, whose goal was largely to create a party in the mirror image of the American GOP. This project largely failed, as the Reform/Alliance were viewed as too closely aligned to the sectional politics of the Canadian West and too right wing by most Canadian voters, especially in the crucial province of Ontario. In 2004, Reform cum Alliance thus merged with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the new Canadian Conservative Party.

 In 2004, the Conservatives looked poised to win power, but new leader Stephen Harper's ties to the old Reform Party, his ideologically-driven think-tank past (largely seen as advocating the kinds of policies - vis-a-vis Canadian federation as well as more conventional right wing policies), his poor campaigning, the undiscipline of his newly formed party, doomed the Conservatives to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. However, the subsequent Liberal minority government - while not especially bad in terms of economic management, and quite good from a progressive social perspective - has continued to be dogged by scandal, a lack of new ideas, and new PM Paul Martin's generally mediocre leadership skills. Thus, in 2006, with a newly revamped party, platform, and campaign style, Stephen Harper appears set to become Canada's 22nd PM.

What does this mean? Certainly Harper is ideologically sympathetic to the right, mostly in terms of the economy. He is also ideologically a "decentralist," as in the past he has advocated a strategy of building a "firewall" around the province of Alberta, protecting it from federal imposition vis-a-vis the use of the province's extensive natural resources (oil, above all) and undesireable "welfarist" mandates (from whence he hails). However, his recent campaign has largely tried to muffle (what in Canada, although not in the US) are regarded as extreme social/cultural positions, if not from Harper (who is not esp. seen as an agent of the the Canadian cultural right), but from his candidates, upon whom the Party has imposed a strong and effective discipline. Certain of the more "flamboyant" "socons" have been deselected as candidates. His campaign has largely focused on the following: Liberal corruption, arrogance, and sleave, targeted tax cuts (for the "masses," a reduction in the national sales tax, for business a reduction on capital gains), a small increase in the Canadian military's size, a stipend of $1,300 to all Canadian parents with small children, some noises on law an order, and a promise of a "free vote" on the recently passed Same Sex Marriage law passed by the Liberal government.  He is also recently backed away from earlier (in 2003) support for the Iraq War and has promised not to send Canadian troops to the conflict if elected. Frankly, there is not much here that will look out of place in the Democratic Party campaign in 2006 and 2008.

Many in Canada remain skeptical of Harper, not believing that the new Conservative agenda will in fact be the agenda once elected, and that a "secret platform" will be unveiled. There are good reasons for this skepticism, as Harper past work with the Reform Party and as think tanker, particularly in the 80s and 90s, suggests he would (or at least, would have) desired to replicate a kind of northern Gingrich-style revolution. However, in must be said that even though I think Harper would like to govern to the right of where his current platform is, I think he changed to a degree since becoming more intimately involved in electoral politics, esp. on a national stage. The Reform project failure, the experience of 2004 in particular have chastened at least elements of the old Reform Party/Albertan wing of Canadian politics, recognizing that, in order to govern Canada, one has to make compromises with the ex-Progressive Conservatives (who are a not insubstantial part of the new Conservative Party) as well as with "middle Canadian" sentiment, esp. in Ontario. Finally, the fact his government will almost certainly be that of a minority will limit any "secret agenda" he may possess. While I personally think Harper's calculations and what he believes is possible (if not his fundamental ideological orientations) has changed over time, we really will not know the upshot until he begins to govern. Evidence for a "stealth agenda" exists (and some have made the comparison to Bush's 2000 "compassionate conservatism" schtick, although I think this comparison is quite superficial), but I personally think that something like the Bush in 2000 vs. 2001 will not play out, for reasons of principle, electoral calculation, and internal Conservative disagreement.

The 1918 influenza epidemic killed approximately 2-5% of the world's population.  There's a strain of flu going around Asian and Turkey (dangerously close to the US troops that ferry back and forth stateside) that is similar in its potential for damage.  Read Effect Measure or the FluWiki if you're really interested in the details.

Senator Barack Obama was the first politician to recognize the threat (Gary Boatwright, chill), and he was followed by Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy.  We're not going to have enough anti-viral medication, and we're not going to have enough vaccines on hand, and even if we did we don't have the public health infrastructure to deliver the medicine should there be a pandemic.

Of course, the Republicans are using this episode to dole out pork to their corporate backers and to attack trial lawyers.  The real problem here is that preparations for keeping the US infrastructure running in case of a flu pandemic just aren't happening.  Even if you think that it's worthwhile to divert public health resources to the war on terror, part of that war is addressing the threat of bioterrorism, which looks remarkably similar to addressing the threat of avian flu.

Regardless of what you think of the Republican Party's philosophy, it's clear we need people who can prepare for disasters and manage our government when those disasters hit, not just yell through bullhorns.  As with Katrina and New Orleans, you can't blame the terrorists for avian flu.  I hope the adults get put in charge soon.  It's too scary to contemplate what happens otherwise.

A new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll is out on the President's Iraq plan, or, uh, thingy.

Among poll respondents, 55 percent said they did not believe Bush has a plan that will achieve victory for the United States in Iraq; 41 percent thought he did.

There's more interesting stuff in there, unfortunately I'm out the door to get on a train so I'll have to dig into it later.

Perhaps it wasn't quite that simple, but as Chris mentioned yesterday, that's the message Iraqi leaders are sending the American government. AmericaBlog is all over it, writing that the Iraqis have essentially "endorsed Congressman Murtha's proposal for a timed withdrawal." I disagree with John's characterization of Iraq's call for a timetable as "extremely bizarre," but he's exactly right that this leaves the GOP in the lurch. Here are the details from the AP.

Though there's no exact timetable given, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr has indicated that Iraq's military will be at full readiness by the end of 2006. There was no immediate word from the Bush administration as to whether or not Jabr was emboldening the terrorists.

The call for timed withdrawal also included an interesting, if somewhat frightening attempt to split the definitions of terrorism and insurgency as they relate to Iraq.

There's no mention of American troops in there at all, which suggests that the Iraqi government considers the insurgency to have some legitimacy. I'm no fan of this war, but that does strike me as intensely screwed up. It will be interesting to see how the Iraqi government responds to certain acts of violence from now on. For example, if a car bomb targets American forces or installations, but happens to kill a number of innocent Iraqis in the process, is that somehow okay? Either way, it makes sustaining the occupation even more difficult than it already is.

It has been well documented that the Bush administration has said repeatedly that our forces would pull out of Iraq if their government asked. Some feel that Bush will ignore the Iraqis on this, giving the lie to the claim that this war was about democracy. But I imagine that some in the administration must view this call as the ultimate get out of jail free card. They'll claim they're not cutting and running, but staying true to their word. Will this sound ridiculous coming from people who have been talking about retreat, surrender, and cowardice? Of course it will. But since when has this administration ever worried about sounding ridiculous?

Our job is to hammer home the message that it's time for the Republicans to sign on to Democratic proposals from Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Carl Levin, and Rep. John Murtha. While the Republicans were willing to accept the military being bogged down in Iraq for decades to come if that's what Bush wanted, that has never been acceptable to the Democrats.

Paul Bremer, administrator of Iraq, May 14, 2004: Iraqi leaders, November 21, 2005: Vice-President Cheney, November 21, 2005: The "spreading freedom" lie is just as bad as the WMD lie. If the Bush administration was seriously interested in Iraqi democracy, they would accept the will of Iraqi leaders and help set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq. However, they are ignoring those pleas, just as they ignored pleas from the intelligence community about the shoddy WMD intelligence. That they don't actually care what Iraqis think of the American-led occupation shows once again just how elective this war actually was and still is. It shows how, more than anything else, invading and occupying Iraq was simply a pet project of neo-conservatives from long before Bush came into office or the attacks of September 11th, 2001. They just wanted this war, period. They want to keep continuing it, period. They really don't seem to care what happens, as long as they get to keep fighting it. The only real Bush administration justification for war in Iraq is that they just want to do it. WMD's, democracy, and mounting human costs don't matter. They want this war. If peopel keep voting for Bush supporters, this war is what they will continue to get.