Eyewitness in San Francisco
I arrived in San Francisco in the state of California to attend a medical conference the day after Barack Obama’s crushing victory to be the next American president. He obtained 345 votes (against his opponent’s 195 votes) in the electoral college and around 55% of the popular vote. This is considered a sweep on the democratic scale because [a win by] 90 or 95 percent only happens in the third world, and has nothing to do with democracy.
Naturally, I witnessed the unbridled joy of the American people in response to the election results; even the Republican supporters felt a change was necessary for the United States.
The victory of Obama (an American of African descent) is a miracle by all measures. America is a conservative society, and only half a century ago black Americans in the United States were not allowed to ride buses with whites and sit with them at the same table in a restaurant.
All of the opinion polls showed Obama’s lead during the last few weeks, but everyone feared that white Americans would change their vote behind the voting booth curtain when it came time to vote, especially since this had happened before with Bradley, the candidate for governor of one of the larger states. So how did the miracle happen?
First: The foolish behavior of the fanatical American right was a catastrophe for the American people, from the wars to the destruction of the economy. This led to an overwhelming desire for change on the part of the majority of the people, who came to detest Bush and his administration. He received the lowest level of support in history out of American presidents.
Second: Barack Obama is a rare personality. He is a skillful politician with moral stock and an amazing ability for speaking and connecting with the hearts and minds of the masses. That being said, don’t forget that Obama is an ordinary American citizen from a poor family. His father was a Kenyan immigrant. He lived with his mother then grandmother under difficult circumstances, but in the end he was able to enter one of the greatest universities in America and the world, Harvard University. He graduated with honors at the head of his class while being a poor black man. That means this young man is a true genius of sound thinking; he is a fighter and a warrior who overcame the obligatory obstacles of American higher learning. We shouldn’t forget that the United States – the capitalist country par excellence that has a higher percentage of inhabitants living below the poverty line than in Western Europe – provides an opportunity to excel to all, be they poor or immigrants, by giving grants and loans to students to reach their highest. Thus they attract many minds to work for the state.
Third: Obama had an extraordinary ability to organize and choose a select group of supporters who set a clear and strong strategy for two years without differences or problems. This organizing was skillful and strong enough to reach every American eligible to vote for Obama.
Fourth: For two years, Obama’s campaign concentrated on swing states, because it is well known that the states on the east and west coasts vote Democratic while the states in the south and center vote Republican. The ones that decide the election are swing states, the most important of which are Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and New Mexico. Obama won in all of those, in addition to winning in a few Republican strongholds.
Fifth: Obama was able to gather unprecedented financial contributions from the non-rich. Everyone donated to the campaign according to his means; most of the financing came from the middle class and the poor in small amounts. The campaign maintained tight discipline. There were no differences or resignations; rather, it was organized like an amazing symphony right until the end.
Sixth: It’s well known that the percentage of Americans who vote in elections are not more than 35% of the people. The percentage is smaller among the young, blacks, and immigrants from Latin America and the Middle East. Obama’s well-disciplined organization was able to convince millions from these groups to register to vote, and then executed an unprecedented campaign to convince them to go to the election boxes. An Egyptian immigrant friend of mine of thirty years told me that Obama’s campaign telephoned him three times on election day to make sure he and his children would go and vote. This new group on the American election scene changed the face of the elections and gave it strong push, especially in the decisive states that teetered between the two big parties. Another friend of mine has three daughters between the ages of 20 and 30 who had no previous interest in politics and had never voted in any previous election. Obama’s campaign was able to enlist them to donate and poll for Obama with zeal; they became some of his most fervent supporters.
Seventh: We shouldn’t forget that the American people, which the whole world describes as simple and not understanding politics, and the handful of businessmen and the media that have extreme influence over them, are not always such. In times of crisis, the American people have proven that they are able to change and have a strong will to fight corruption. No one should forget the election of Roosevelt and Kennedy, or Nixon’s trial and his removal from office of the presidency, or Clinton’s trial in the Congress, and the removal of large numbers of members of the House of Representatives as well as governors of states because of corruption, and that without any hesitation. In addition they were sentenced with weighty punishments. Stringent standards of honesty and obligation were applied to American politicians at all levels, from the president of the republic down to councilmen from the smallest city districts, to the positions of judges, mayors, city councilmen, and governors of states, etc. Imagine if these strict American standards of honesty to the country were applied to the Third World, for example in Egypt. What would be the percentage of rulers and politicians spared conviction and imprisonment? Some say ninety percent, but a friend of mine, who I value for his clear-headedness, said that the Egyptian state [politicians] would all be put in prison because all that they do would clearly condemn them in any fair trial.
Even in the last few days before the presidential elections there was a fear for Obama’s campaign that racism would gain the upper hand and McCain would win because he was white. However, that did not happen, because studies show that while racism against blacks still plays an important role in the way people over the age of 55 think, and has less influence on those between the ages of 45 and 50, for those less than 45 years of age color is no obstacle for white American men. In general, American women are less racist than men are against blacks, even among the elderly. In these elections in particular the presence of young voters was strong, and that reduced the importance of skin color as a factor.
At this distinct historical moment one of the largest countries in the world chose a president of African descent, of strong moral character and amazing political skills, when America was passing through some of the worst economic and military periods.
But should we expect anything for the Middle East from Obama? That is another subject, because the Middle East is not among the top five priorities that Obama announced. The first of those is saving the American economy. The rest concern domestic matters including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are considered domestic matters. The new American president will concentrate on the American economy and that will take much time. The countries of the world will organize the free economy to actually be free, but without shadowy speculation on false monetary concoctions which led to the destruction of the American stock market. Secondly, he will quickly end the Iraq war and try to find a political solution to the problem of Afghanistan. He will try to engage Iran and calm and improve relations as long as Iran continues to use its nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. As for the Middle East, I don’t think he will even approach it for the first two years, or even for the entire first term. He is aware that its problems are difficult, and among those are two very complicated dilemmas: Israel and oil.
As everyone knows, the White House Chief of Staff is an important person and has the most influence on the president, and he is of dual Israeli-American nationality whose father is an extremist Israeli politician who made an antagonistic statement about Arabs. But his son came forward to America and apologized to the Arabs and Palestinians and announced that that statement does not represent the new American administration. The new White House Chief of Staff is a veteran American politician who won three terms in the American Congress and is still a member in it. Among the Democratic members of Congress, he is in fourth place with respect to importance, and has a deep understanding of the Middle East’s problems.
In my opinion, the United States will offer nothing, except for a few kind words, to solve the Palestinian problem for a long time. As for Egypt, there is the possibility they will greatly reduce the amount of American aid, not because of American-Egyptian misunderstanding, but because of the general principle the country will take to reduce foreign spending.
What is not known is Obama’s position on dictatorial countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which do not abide by human rights conventions, and which interfere in judicial matters, falsify elections, and beat and imprison the people without process.
In his second debate, Obama announced that Bush made a mistake in sending tens of billions of dollars to a dictator by the name of Musharraf, so he lost that money and the Pakistani people lost, and it would have been better to pay the Pakistani people and gain their support, and thus win the war politically and militarily. The situation in Egypt is different. On one hand, Obama is a person of morals who will dismantle the Guantanamo detention center and work to bring changes to the laws Bush set in place to spy on Americans and restrict their freedoms. As a matter of principle, he cannot give clear support to a dictatorial regime anywhere that doesn’t respect human rights. On the other hand, the Israeli lobby will defend the Egyptian regime because it is the most tolerant of Israel and its policies. Even until now, Obama has not taken a clear position on this, but he will probably not take an immoral and extremely racist and opportunistic position like the Bush administration did. Hillary Clinton will be the Secretary of State, and the White House Chief of Staff will have much input on how to deal with Egypt.
Finally, the United States will definitely not be worse off in Obama’s epoch than in Bush’s epoch. In the end, we should congratulate the American people, who have elected a black American whose father was an immigrant, for that is an amazing thing which cannot happen anywhere else in the world.
Naturally, I witnessed the unbridled joy of the American people in response to the election results; even the Republican supporters felt a change was necessary for the United States.
The victory of Obama (an American of African descent) is a miracle by all measures. America is a conservative society, and only half a century ago black Americans in the United States were not allowed to ride buses with whites and sit with them at the same table in a restaurant.
All of the opinion polls showed Obama’s lead during the last few weeks, but everyone feared that white Americans would change their vote behind the voting booth curtain when it came time to vote, especially since this had happened before with Bradley, the candidate for governor of one of the larger states. So how did the miracle happen?
First: The foolish behavior of the fanatical American right was a catastrophe for the American people, from the wars to the destruction of the economy. This led to an overwhelming desire for change on the part of the majority of the people, who came to detest Bush and his administration. He received the lowest level of support in history out of American presidents.
Second: Barack Obama is a rare personality. He is a skillful politician with moral stock and an amazing ability for speaking and connecting with the hearts and minds of the masses. That being said, don’t forget that Obama is an ordinary American citizen from a poor family. His father was a Kenyan immigrant. He lived with his mother then grandmother under difficult circumstances, but in the end he was able to enter one of the greatest universities in America and the world, Harvard University. He graduated with honors at the head of his class while being a poor black man. That means this young man is a true genius of sound thinking; he is a fighter and a warrior who overcame the obligatory obstacles of American higher learning. We shouldn’t forget that the United States – the capitalist country par excellence that has a higher percentage of inhabitants living below the poverty line than in Western Europe – provides an opportunity to excel to all, be they poor or immigrants, by giving grants and loans to students to reach their highest. Thus they attract many minds to work for the state.
Third: Obama had an extraordinary ability to organize and choose a select group of supporters who set a clear and strong strategy for two years without differences or problems. This organizing was skillful and strong enough to reach every American eligible to vote for Obama.
Fourth: For two years, Obama’s campaign concentrated on swing states, because it is well known that the states on the east and west coasts vote Democratic while the states in the south and center vote Republican. The ones that decide the election are swing states, the most important of which are Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and New Mexico. Obama won in all of those, in addition to winning in a few Republican strongholds.
Fifth: Obama was able to gather unprecedented financial contributions from the non-rich. Everyone donated to the campaign according to his means; most of the financing came from the middle class and the poor in small amounts. The campaign maintained tight discipline. There were no differences or resignations; rather, it was organized like an amazing symphony right until the end.
Sixth: It’s well known that the percentage of Americans who vote in elections are not more than 35% of the people. The percentage is smaller among the young, blacks, and immigrants from Latin America and the Middle East. Obama’s well-disciplined organization was able to convince millions from these groups to register to vote, and then executed an unprecedented campaign to convince them to go to the election boxes. An Egyptian immigrant friend of mine of thirty years told me that Obama’s campaign telephoned him three times on election day to make sure he and his children would go and vote. This new group on the American election scene changed the face of the elections and gave it strong push, especially in the decisive states that teetered between the two big parties. Another friend of mine has three daughters between the ages of 20 and 30 who had no previous interest in politics and had never voted in any previous election. Obama’s campaign was able to enlist them to donate and poll for Obama with zeal; they became some of his most fervent supporters.
Seventh: We shouldn’t forget that the American people, which the whole world describes as simple and not understanding politics, and the handful of businessmen and the media that have extreme influence over them, are not always such. In times of crisis, the American people have proven that they are able to change and have a strong will to fight corruption. No one should forget the election of Roosevelt and Kennedy, or Nixon’s trial and his removal from office of the presidency, or Clinton’s trial in the Congress, and the removal of large numbers of members of the House of Representatives as well as governors of states because of corruption, and that without any hesitation. In addition they were sentenced with weighty punishments. Stringent standards of honesty and obligation were applied to American politicians at all levels, from the president of the republic down to councilmen from the smallest city districts, to the positions of judges, mayors, city councilmen, and governors of states, etc. Imagine if these strict American standards of honesty to the country were applied to the Third World, for example in Egypt. What would be the percentage of rulers and politicians spared conviction and imprisonment? Some say ninety percent, but a friend of mine, who I value for his clear-headedness, said that the Egyptian state [politicians] would all be put in prison because all that they do would clearly condemn them in any fair trial.
Even in the last few days before the presidential elections there was a fear for Obama’s campaign that racism would gain the upper hand and McCain would win because he was white. However, that did not happen, because studies show that while racism against blacks still plays an important role in the way people over the age of 55 think, and has less influence on those between the ages of 45 and 50, for those less than 45 years of age color is no obstacle for white American men. In general, American women are less racist than men are against blacks, even among the elderly. In these elections in particular the presence of young voters was strong, and that reduced the importance of skin color as a factor.
At this distinct historical moment one of the largest countries in the world chose a president of African descent, of strong moral character and amazing political skills, when America was passing through some of the worst economic and military periods.
But should we expect anything for the Middle East from Obama? That is another subject, because the Middle East is not among the top five priorities that Obama announced. The first of those is saving the American economy. The rest concern domestic matters including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are considered domestic matters. The new American president will concentrate on the American economy and that will take much time. The countries of the world will organize the free economy to actually be free, but without shadowy speculation on false monetary concoctions which led to the destruction of the American stock market. Secondly, he will quickly end the Iraq war and try to find a political solution to the problem of Afghanistan. He will try to engage Iran and calm and improve relations as long as Iran continues to use its nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. As for the Middle East, I don’t think he will even approach it for the first two years, or even for the entire first term. He is aware that its problems are difficult, and among those are two very complicated dilemmas: Israel and oil.
As everyone knows, the White House Chief of Staff is an important person and has the most influence on the president, and he is of dual Israeli-American nationality whose father is an extremist Israeli politician who made an antagonistic statement about Arabs. But his son came forward to America and apologized to the Arabs and Palestinians and announced that that statement does not represent the new American administration. The new White House Chief of Staff is a veteran American politician who won three terms in the American Congress and is still a member in it. Among the Democratic members of Congress, he is in fourth place with respect to importance, and has a deep understanding of the Middle East’s problems.
In my opinion, the United States will offer nothing, except for a few kind words, to solve the Palestinian problem for a long time. As for Egypt, there is the possibility they will greatly reduce the amount of American aid, not because of American-Egyptian misunderstanding, but because of the general principle the country will take to reduce foreign spending.
What is not known is Obama’s position on dictatorial countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which do not abide by human rights conventions, and which interfere in judicial matters, falsify elections, and beat and imprison the people without process.
In his second debate, Obama announced that Bush made a mistake in sending tens of billions of dollars to a dictator by the name of Musharraf, so he lost that money and the Pakistani people lost, and it would have been better to pay the Pakistani people and gain their support, and thus win the war politically and militarily. The situation in Egypt is different. On one hand, Obama is a person of morals who will dismantle the Guantanamo detention center and work to bring changes to the laws Bush set in place to spy on Americans and restrict their freedoms. As a matter of principle, he cannot give clear support to a dictatorial regime anywhere that doesn’t respect human rights. On the other hand, the Israeli lobby will defend the Egyptian regime because it is the most tolerant of Israel and its policies. Even until now, Obama has not taken a clear position on this, but he will probably not take an immoral and extremely racist and opportunistic position like the Bush administration did. Hillary Clinton will be the Secretary of State, and the White House Chief of Staff will have much input on how to deal with Egypt.
Finally, the United States will definitely not be worse off in Obama’s epoch than in Bush’s epoch. In the end, we should congratulate the American people, who have elected a black American whose father was an immigrant, for that is an amazing thing which cannot happen anywhere else in the world.