WILL THE AMERICANS ELECT A DARK-SKINNED PRESIDENT WITH QUITE A "PROBLEMATIC" MIDDLE NAME HUSSEIN?
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
PanARMENIAN.Net
18.10.2008 GMT+04:00
Presidential candidates are always inclined to forget their
pre-election promises, especially on such Â"embarrassingÂ" issues as
recognition of the Armenian Genocide or the right of Nagorno-Karabakh
people to self-determination.
Somewhat more than two weeks is left before the US Presidential
Elections. Despite the convincing victory of Barack Obama in all the
three TV debates it would be a bit optimistic to claim that Americans
are ready to elect as a US president a dark-skinned democrat candidate
with quite a Â"problematicÂ" middle name Hussein.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The American system of voting is rather bulky
and archaic, and on the whole it can hardly be called purely
democratic. Rather than directly voting for the President, United
States citizens cast votes for electors. Voters cast ballots for a
slate of electors of the U.S. Electoral College, who in turn directly
elect the President and Vice President. The number of electors
from each state is determined by its population, plus two votes of
senators. Washington D.C is given a number of electors equal to the
number held by the smallest states, i.e. three electors. Two states,
Maine and Nebraska, select one elector within each congressional
district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two
electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote. Most states allow
voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote
for the presidential and vice presidential tickets of various parties;
the ticket that receives the most votes statewide ‘wins’ all of the
votes cast by electors from that state. That is why U.S. presidential
campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of
states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning
to win the most votes nationally. Thus candidates other than those
representing the two main parties have hardly any chance to be
elected, though from time to time they introduce people to their
political and economic views. Besides the names of Barack Obama and
John McCain, another four independent candidates are included in
the ballot-papers of 2008. However, most of the electors do not know
them at all. About 55 million Americans support the Republicans, 72
million – the Democrats, while 42 million are independent in their
preference. These are rough estimates however. The last democrat
in the White House used to be President Bill Clinton, and now, if we
should follow the unvoiced tradition, after Republican George Bush, the
United States is to have a democrat president. On the other hand, the
proved method of the current President may be used, i.e. when George
Bush became Head of State by the decision of the US Supreme Court.
To some extent repetition of this scenario is unlikely, but
anything can be expected from America lately. Though the financial
crisis seriously shook the confidence of Americans in the current
Administration, there is no guarantee that they will not elect a
Republican for the mere reason that he is white, fought in Vietnam
and his Vice-President is a woman, who will play some role in public
organizations like Â"Women for equal electoral rightsÂ", and the like.
Meanwhile, on October 17 the Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune,
The San Francisco Chronicle and the largest and oldest Spanish-language
daily newspaper in New York City El Diario/La Prensa endorsed Barack
Obama in their issues. Â"Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and
exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is,
and as it aspires to beÂ",- reported Los Angeles Times.
The Chicago Tribune, which usually backs up Republican candidates in
its Friday issue, endorsing a Democratic presidential nominee for the
first time, expresses "tremendous confidence" in Obama’s "intellectual
rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful,
and careful decisions." Â"He is readyÂ",- the paper concludes. In
its turn, The San Francisco Chronicle compares the behavior of the
two major-party candidates at the time of the economic crisis, and
concludes: "Barack Obama is the right president for these troubled
times". Earlier such influential US papers as The Washington Post,
The New Yorker, The Financial Times and Rolling Stone had announced
about their endorsement of Obama.
Such a rare unanimity may really help Obama win. We shouldn’t
also forget about the powerful Armenian Community in the US. The
organization "Armenians for Obama" founded by the Community, has
directed its activity not only to Armenians, but to other ethnic
groups as well. It is only the European lobby that is against Obama,
but as a matter of principle it may still review its position.
Â"Armenian Community in the US has the same problems as all the
Americans do, but alongside with these problems Armenian-Americans
attach great importance to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide
in the Ottoman Empire. Of course, this issue is not the most central
concern, but it is neither secondaryÂ",- said Arpi Vartanian, Country
Director for Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh in the Armenian Assembly
of America.
As far as Senator McCain is concerned, he is quite reluctant to
recognize the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire and is relatively
indifferent towards bilateral relations between the United States
and Armenia. However, the present stance may seriously hurt McCain,
at least in the states with a substantial Armenian-American presence,
such as California, New Jersey, Michigan, and Nevada.
In its most recent edition The Atlantic Monthly focuses on the Armenian
vote in the upcoming elections in an article entitled "McCain’s Armenia
Problem". As the article claims McCain is the first presidential
candidate in the past two decades who is on the record as opposing
genocide recognition without already being a member of the incumbent
Administration. In 1990, McCain voted against a recognition resolution
that was sponsored by then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole. In 2000,
campaigning for the Republican nomination in California, McCain
confirmed that he would not support such a resolution. "I don’t
see what this resolution does to improve this situation one iota,"
said McCain. The Senator has stuck to his position also in 2008,
attracting widespread criticism from Armenian groups. By contrast,
Obama has pledged that his Administration would recognize the 1915
extermination as an act of genocide. His campaign released two
statements on this issue on January 19 and on April 28. "The facts
are undeniable," his statements said. Obama’s January 19th statement
also pledged to maintain Armenian foreign aid and to move toward a
resolution of the Karabakh conflict that would respect the "principle
of self-determination" – a language close to Armenian demands.
Presidential candidates are usually inclined to forget their
pre-election promises, especially on such Â"embarrassingÂ" issues as
recognition of the Armenian Genocide or the right of Nagorno-Karabakh
people to self-determination. Will Barack Obama break this tradition?
–Boundary_(ID_dnDwZUWiU57JAtJs5v3Vyg) —
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress