Barack Obama left black and blue by the political colour war

IN all the clamour and ferocity of the debate about racism and Barack Obama, there is a colour issue emerging that explains some of the heat directed at the President: it's not that he's black, it's that he's blue, too blue.

Liberals have been quick to support former president Jimmy Carter's accusation that the criticism directed at Obama is racially motivated, while the conservatives have retorted with claims about socialist agendas and reverse racism - but it's clear the US political debate is not as simple as black and white.

The other key colours are blue and red - blue for Obama's Democratic Party, and red for the Republican Party, which is now regrouping after its election loss almost a year ago.

Of course, race and racism remain a potent force in the debate, but there is a long tradition of presidents - all white by definition - facing ferocious public attacks because they were controversial characters and in power at times of sharp political division.

Ever since Carter raised the race issue, there has been a growing debate as to whether it is because Obama is black that the rednecks are coming out of the woodwork. The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd suggested that when Obama was heckled during his address to the US congress on the health bill, the call of "You lie" carried the unspoken racist inference of "boy" at the end.

Unmasking hidden racism has become a preoccupation with many commentators and politicians as they rush to defend Obama. But for his part the President has downplayed the racial significance of the attacks, because there is a more complicated, and for him more important, political strategy being played out.

Obama has calmly conceded there is a racial element in the debate. As part of his popular TV campaign last week to sell his health care bill, Obama faced questions about the race issue, and when asked by David Letterman whether his opponents were motivated by racial hatred, the President joked back: "It's important to realise I was actually black before the election, so ... this is true."

It is worth noting that Obama was facing criticism for trying to dump New York's first black governor, David A.Paterson, from the gubernatorial race next year because he thought he'd lose. Obama was making a tough decision to dump a black governor for political reasons. The New York Times reported that the "overt involvement of Mr Obama's team in New York, where they have tried to ease Governor Paterson out of the race, has made clear this is a White House willing to use its clout to help clear the field for favoured Democratic candidates and to direct money and other resources in the way it thinks will most benefit the administration and help preserve the Democratic majority in Congress".

"The President's top strategists have recruited candidates - and nudged others to step aside - in races in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. They said they intended to continue this practice heading into the 2010 midterm elections," the Times reported.

The paper said this reflected the political style of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, "who helped Democrats win the house three years ago as chairman of the congressional campaign committee".

This is the story of the other colour fight - the fight to keep the Democratic blue dominant over the Republican red, and to give Obama the best chance of implementing his program by using the Democrats' superior numbers in Congress.

On the White House website photograph of Obama addressing congress on the health bill, the shot is taken from his left and looking over the right to supportive members standing and applauding. It shuts out the truculent Republicans on his left, including the heckler from the South, who has since picked up $1.8million in contributions to his re-election fund.

The picture underlines the partisan nature of the issue, and the giant task Obama is undertaking to widen access to heathcare. The President's best hope of success is to keep his fellow Democrats united and disciplined, and he is addressing their concerns.

He made it clear he would dump bipartisanship on health if necessary, when he said during the address: "Know this - I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it."

Like Ronald Reagan, who faced his own ferocious criticism, Obama is intent on remaking his party and maintaining and building on the momentum of his election win over John McCain. And it's not just through intervention in sometimes grubby state political preselection fights.

There is a smouldering religious war under way as "progressive Christians" bemoan the fact Obama has backtracked on promises to axe spending on religious programs started by George W. Bush, which are now being directed to centre-right evangelical Christian groups and Catholics, who are seen as critical to Obama's election victory. The Obama administration has put Democratic campaign managers and supporters into key posts in the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, which oversees a network of faith and community centres.

Obama is not just funding these groups, he's allowing them to train people to proselytise. And he is appointing anti-abortionists to boards and committees, which the pro-choice activists and church-state separatists see as a sell-out.

When Kevin Rudd dipped his toe into the US domestic scene in New York last week to back Obama's objective of universal health cover, Ted Roosevelt, the great-grandson of president Theodore Roosevelt, observed that opposition to socialised medicine in the US was almost a cultural inheritance akin to a Frenchman's attachment to all things French.

All this has given the Republican red forces some hope. While some Democrats are applauding Obama's apparent backtracking on his promise to go beyond partisan politics, others fear it will hurt his standing as the President - the office above politics that is revered and should never be heckled.

As former Australian media executive Bruce Wolpe, who returned to work as a Democratic adviser after Obama's victory, told The Australian: "The address on health was partisan - it was a bit like the Westministerisation of the US system."

Just as Obama was black before he was elected president, he was also a Democrat.

Agencies Instructed to Separate Politics From Grant Awards

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday instructed government agencies to keep politics away from the awarding of federal grants, a step taken as the administration sought to minimize the fallout after an official at the National Endowment for the Arts urged artists to advance President Obama’s agenda.

The new guidelines were issued at a meeting between White House officials and chiefs of staff across the executive branch, following the disclosure of a conference call last month in which artists were asked to work with the Corporation for Public Service to promote Mr. Obama’s health care, education and environmental proposals.

“We regret any comments on the call that may have been misunderstood or troubled other participants,” said Bill Burton, a deputy White House press secretary. “We are fully committed to the N.E.A’s historic mission, and we will take all steps necessary to ensure that there is no further cause for questions or concerns about that commitment.”

A White House memorandum, distributed to agencies across the executive branch, told officials that grant decisions should be made on their merits and government officials should avoid creating an appearance that politics was involved in any decisions. The administration does not believe the N.E.A. conference call violated the law, Mr. Burton said, but conceded that it bothered some participants who said it crossed the line by promoting the president’s agenda.

On the Aug. 10 call, the N.E.A. official encouraged people to promote the administration’s United We Serve campaign, and asked them to create artwork that promoted Mr. Obama’s agenda. One listener recorded the call, and the audio turned up on a conservative Web site, BigHollywood.Breitbart.com.

On the call, the N.E.A. communications director Yosi Sergant said, “I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment — you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service.” He resigned after the call became public.

White House officials said Tuesday that they did not believe the call violated laws that prohibit government employees from expressly supporting the Obama political agenda. But the administration was planning to schedule training sessions and staff visits, Mr. Burton said, “to make sure the message gets across.”

US can't solve world's problems alone: Obama

Seizing a chance to challenge the world, President Barack Obama says the global community is failing its people and fixing that is not "solely America's endeavour."

"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," Obama said in a passage of the speech he was delivering Wednesday to the United Nations General Assembly.

The White House released excerpts in advance that carried a remarkably blunt tone.

It comes in Obama's first speech to this world body, a forum like none other for a leader hoping to wash away any lasting images of US unilateralism under President George W Bush.

In essence, Obama's message is that he expects plenty in return for reaching out.

"We have sought in word and deed a new era of engagement with the world," Obama said, echoing the cooperative theme he promised as a candidate and has since used as a pillar of his foreign policy. "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility."

He said if the world is honest with itself, it has fallen woefully short.

"Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world," Obama said. "Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations. Persistent poverty and pandemic disease."

The president added, "I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action."

Obama's speech is the centrepiece of a day in which he was also holding pivotal meetings with the new Japanese prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Immersed in a packed agenda here, Obama foreshadowed his message to world leaders in a speech Tuesday to the Clinton Global Initiative. He spoke of nations interconnected by problems, whether a flu strain or an economic collapse or a drug trade that crosses borders.

"Just as no nation can wall itself off from the world, no one nation - no matter how large, no matter how powerful - can meet these challenges alone," Obama said.

While that point is hardly new, it is sharper because of the political context. Obama follows Bush, who at times questioned the UN's toughness and credibility, particularly in containing Iraq's Saddam Hussein. The US-UN relationship wilted.

Obama's team is intent on drawing the contrast.

"The United States has dramatically changed the tone, the substance and the practice of our diplomacy at the United Nations," said Susan Rice, Obama's ambassador to the UN.

But multilateralism has its limits, particularly as national interests collide.

Obama needs the sway of Russia and China in getting tougher UN action against Iran over its potential nuclear weapons program, and neither country is showing interest.

While other world leaders could push for Mideast peace, it was Obama who personally intervened in pulling together the Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Tuesday. He showed some impatience as both sides have been stalled over familiar issues.

The good-will feeling of Obama's fresh government is apparent at the United Nations.

But eight months into his presidency, the problems he inherited are now his own, upping expectations for results. His White House is being pressed to right the war in Afghanistan. And his efforts toward diplomacy with adversaries, chiefly Iran and North Korea, are not meant to be open-ended.

Obama's day starts with his meeting with Hatoyama, who has said he wants to shift Japan's diplomatic stance from one that is less centred on Washington's lead.

Later, Obama was meeting with Medvedev. That session comes just days following Obama's decision to abruptly scrap a Bush-era missile defence plan in Eastern Europe that Russia deeply opposed, swapping it for a proposal the US says better targets any launch by Iran.

Russian leaders rejoiced over Obama's move, but he dismissed any role Russia may have played and called it just a bonus if the country is now less "paranoid" about the US

Levin takes on McCain over Afghanistan strategy

WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee responded Sunday to recent criticism from former White House hopeful Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the committee.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, has lately suggested that the proper course for the United States to pursue in Afghanistan is to beef up the country’s own army and police forces before planning on sending in any additional American troops.

At a hearing of the Armed Services Committee last week, McCain took direct aim at Levin’s approach.

“Despite our successes in Iraq and the hard won understanding we have gained about what it takes to defeat an insurgency,” McCain said on Capitol Hill last Tuesday, “it seems we now, regrettably, must have the same debate again today with respect to Afghanistan. In all due respect, Sen. Levin, I’ve seen that movie before.”

“It’s a very different movie,” Levin said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, in response to McCain’s recent remarks.

Levin told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that the U.S. is seeing some success in Iraq because the military succeeded in winning over insurgents who had been attacking American soldiers and destabilizing Iraqi society. “That’s what we need to also do in Afghanistan. That is a very big difference.”

As in Iraq, however, Levin noted that the U.S. military in Afghanistan is changing its strategy in dealing with the local population. “Instead of just trying to attack the insurgents, we were protecting the population. That new strategy is now in place in Afghanistan. So, this is a very different movie from Iraq. They’re two very different places.”

Levin also said Sunday that the Iraqi army does not enjoy the level of public confidence that the Afghan army has with the local population.

In an interview that also aired Sunday on State of the Union, President Obama said he was working with his military and national security advisers to develop his administration’s strategy for continued U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.

"I think that what we have to do is get the right strategy, and then I think we've got to have some clear benchmarks, [a] matrix of progress," Obama told King about the war-torn country.

"I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question," Obama also said. "Because there is a natural inclination to say, if I get more, then I can do more. But right now, the question is, the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

Also on State of the Union Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the president generally had the support of Senate Republicans for what the Obama administration has been doing in Afghanistan. But McConnell expressed concern about an apparent delay in making available to Congress troop level recommendations from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

“We’d like to see Gen. McChrystal and Gen. [David] Petraeus come up to Congress like they did during the Iraq [war’s] surge and give us the information about what they’re recommending. We think the time for decision is now,” McConnell said, adding that if Obama ultimately decided on a change in strategy in Afghanistan or on adding additional troops, the White House would have the support of Senate Republicans.

Obama: Race not 'overriding issue' in criticism

WASHINGTON – Harsh rhetoric flung in his direction is no different than that hurled at other presidents who tried to make major changes during their administrations, President Barack Obama said Friday.

In an interview with CNN's John King airing on "State of the Union with John King" this Sunday, Obama acknowledged that racism plays a role in some of the criticism against him, but added that race is "not the overriding issue."

"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are. That's not the overriding issue here," he said. "I think there are people who are anti-government. I think there's been a long-standing debate in this country that is usually that much more fierce during times of transition, or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes.

"I mean, things that were said about FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) were pretty similar to things that were said about me. 'He's a communist, he's a socialist.' Things that were said about Ronald Reagan when he was trying to reverse some of the New Deal programs, you know, were pretty vicious as well."

Anti-missile Missiles and the Politics of Fear

President Obama's sensible decision to pull the plug on the Bush administration's plan put missile defense components in Poland and the Czech Republic has - predictably - drawn howls of protest from Republican critics who argue that it will leave the U.S. and its European allies exposed to an Iranian missile attack. While they're at it, they note that the decision somehow involves "abandoning" our Polish and Czech allies, as if the deployment of a missile defense program were the only way to cement relations with two countries that are, after all, already NATO allies covered by the U.S. defense umbrella. The details of the Obama administration's alternative approach matter, but of equal interest is whether the latest attempt by military hawks to play the "fear card" will get political traction.

What is there to be afraid of? As Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione has observed on foreignpolicy.com, Iran is unlikely to master the technology for a medium- or long-range missile capable of reaching Europe or the United States for ten to fifteen years. Even if they reached that threshold it would be insane for any Iranian leader to use them, as the net result would be the obliteration of his own country. Cirincione's point is backed up by a recent study of the matter by the East-West Institute. Even this decidedly non-alarmist view assumes that Iran will move full speed ahead on nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs, a development which is by no means assured. In short, the "Iranian threat" to the United States and Europe that President Obama's critics are jumping up and down about may not arise for ten or fifteen years or longer, if ever.

Why does Iran want a nuclear capability in the first place? If there is any rationale other than showing it can master the technology - a point of national pride for some Iranians - it is as a deterrent against possible attacks from the United States, or Israel, or even (albeit much less likely) a resurgent Iraq. A key to capping or eliminating the Iranian nuclear program will be finding ways to assure Tehran that if it foregoes the nuclear option, it will not be vulnerable to attack.

In short, the key to blunting Iran's nuclear program is to lessen the fears on both sides, not to rattle sabers while trusting in a technological fix that is untested and probably unworkable in any case. The Obama administration's alternaive approach - a willingness to at least talk to Iran about what it would take to curb its nuclear and missile programs -- is a crucial step in the right direction.

Finally, in a point that is largely ignored by the "sky is falling" crowd, it is not as if the Obama administration has abandoned plans for any missile defenses in Europe. It has merely shifted gears towards a plan that would focus on the shorter range missiles Iran has made progress on rather than the long-range ones that may or may not ever be built. Whether or not this new missile defense plan is the best option, it is important to note that the President's critics are so wedded to ideology - rather than evidence - that they are pretending that the president's new approach doesn't even exist.

As we have seen in the case of the non-existent "death panels" that have dogged administration efforts to secure health care reform, a lie, if repeated often enough, can hijack the debate over even the most serious matter. So, even though the Obama administration has the facts on its side, it will be incumbent upon its supporters to make that clear early and often, in language that reduces fear rather than stoking it.

Politics of combating swine flu

The US is within a few weeks of commencing the most ambitious crash inoculation programme in world history. Given worst-case projections that half the US population could become infected with the H1N1 virus this year, the government is determined to become the global pace-setter by assuring that as many Americans as possible are vaccinated before the pandemic can become a mass killer. This week, the Federal Drug Administration approved commercial production by four vaccine manufacturers, even before clinical trials of the drug have been completed for young children and pregnant women, two particularly vulnerable groups. But US authorities had already locked up advanced purchase of about 600 million doses of the vaccine. Because the initial trials show just a single dose to be highly effective, the US may need only half that amount to inoculate its entire population. By contrast, Chinese authorities have committed to producing enough vaccine for only five percent of the country's much larger population. The US and eight other counties have notified the World Health Organisation (WHO) that the remainder of its surplus vaccine supply could be made available to countries in need. Ten hospitals around the US have conducted the clinical trials on some four thousand volunteers, from six-month old babies to people over the age of 70. They are paid only a few hundred dollars a piece to become "guinea pigs" - a term the medical researchers say they avoid using when referring to the vaccine trial subjects. But money is rarely why volunteers enter the program. Public responsibility The US inoculation programme rolls out beginning in October [AFP] Retired nurse Betty Ruano was motivated by a sense of civic duty together with a grim personal awareness. She said: "My dad's parents died in the flu epidemic of 1918," the global killer which originated on American soil and is estimated to have been the most lethal in history. "And so I've been tuned into the risks of flu." If all goes as planned, the first of 145 million doses will be ready for distribution by early October. The first 3.4 million doses will come in the form of nose spray. Immunising nearly all the US population before the peak flu season ends could cost the government up to $9 billion. It will be given out free to doctor's offices, retail pharmacies and local health departments. But not enough vaccine may be produced in time for the peak of the season, partly because manufacturers are still racing to meet the demand for seasonal flu vaccine. While the vaccinations are voluntary, Barack Obama, the US president, has led the government's high-profile public relations campaign urging everyone to be injected. Not only is the vaccine campaign a public health challenge, but it also carries some political risk at a time when Obama is also fighting against formidable odds to enact healthcare coverage for the 15 per cent of the population which lack medical insurance. His commitment comes three decades after one of his predecessors, Gerald Ford, pursued a crash flu vaccination programme that treated 46 million Americans. Fatal reactions It was a pandemic, though, which never materialised. Dozens of people, however, suffered fatal autoimmune reactions to that vaccine, while hundreds more were permanently maimed by side effects. Ford was accused of exaggerating the threat, a contributing factor in his losing the 1976 presidential election. This time, though, experts believe the evidence of a major pandemic is much more alarming. The government has been airing TV messages featuring parents whose children died from milder strains of flu. On camera, one tearful mother says: "The flu has changed our lives. It took one of our children. I could have gotten Emily a flu shot. I should have given all of our children a flu shot." Conspiracy theories Yet authorities must deal with stubborn pockets of resistance to mass inoculation. Some medical sceptics insist that vaccines, which employ weakened strains of the virus to generate antibodies against the disease, are just too risky. And others suspect a political conspiracy afoot. One conservative magazine expressed doubt that H1N1 even constitutes a pandemic, as the WHO has determined. "The National Guard is even practising mock takeovers of public schools in the event of an ‘H1N1 riot.' What kind of riot could arise out of a flu that has only killed 1,000 worldwide," wrote the author of an article in "The American Thinker." "Could a form of martial law be imminent? Obama appears ready to cross the Rubicon, and all he needs is a killer virus."

PM announces programme to rehabilitate illegal racers

PUTRAJAYA: A new programme, dubbed "Remaja Perkasa Negara", is to be implemented most probably next January to rehabilitate illegal motorcycle racers widely known as "Mat Rempit", Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said today.

He said the programme, to come under the ambit of the Permata Negara programme, would handle young people between 18 and 25 years old at high risk of getting involved in social problems.

"The programme is not aimed at penalising these youngsters but to rehabilitate them so as to be more capable and confident," he told reporters after chairing a Permata Negara committee meeting, here.

Also present was Najib's wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, who is Permata Negara patron.

Najib said the Remaja Perkasa Negara would incorporate a social service programme for young offenders penalised to carry out community service.

"The offenders will be required to carry out not only community service but also undergo monitoring, mentoring and other activities which have a more positive impact on them.

"The pilot project will involve 50 youngsters who are repeat offenders, and the court can issue an order for them to participate in the programme," he said.

They would initially undergo a camp-based intervention programme for between two weeks and six months to shape them up in terms of leadership and self-empowerment, he said, adding that the programme would exclude those found to be involved in drug activities.

Najib said sending "Mat Rempit" to jail would only expose them to hardcore criminals and make them commit more serious crimes.

Today's meeting also decided to establish a "Permata Pintar" centre at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) to accommodate gifted students, and which was expected to begin operations in 2011.

A total of 405 students had been selected to participate in a camp during the first term school holidays.

The meeting also discussed the "Permata Seni" programme which would have a choir group of 33 people work on establishing a name for themselves at the international level.

It also discussed the "Permata Insan" programme for pupils aged nine to 12 in religious schools to be educated as professionals with an in-depth knowledge of religion.