For years, Muslims and Islam have been the center of some of the most heated and controversial debates in the Western world – about things as fickle as faith, democracy, and values. “Clash of Civilizations;” 9/11; the Cartoon Controversy; the veil (a symbol of oppression, or a symbol of unshakable faith); Palestine and Israel; Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran… Therefore, one could have expected Muslims to take center stage during the 2008 elections. But what happened?

To find out, I (P) asked Katrin Simon (KS), assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Free University Berlin, a few questions…
P:
Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Jihad… Since 9/11 2001, it seems like Islam has been one of the hottest potatoes out there – politically and religiously. Yet, google “muslim vote 2008 election,” and you get 303,000 hits (July 18, 2008), but hardly any from the mainstream media, dealing with the Muslim vote during this election.

Do Muslims not have a say in U.S. politics, are they not relevant, or do they simply not care?

KS:

American Muslims definitely care! They have to, since they are under scrutiny from various sides: the government and aligned institutions, other faith communities in the U.S., the American public and media in general, or Muslims worldwide. As we have millions of Muslims in the U.S. (around 6 million is the most quoted number) they are also relevant since these persons are possible voters. The question is if they matter as “Muslims,” that is, if they form something like a ‘Muslim voting block,’ where self-identifying Muslims rally around a “Muslim opinion.”

The U.S. Muslim community is the most diverse in the whole world. More than a third are African-Americans (mostly converts), a third have an Arab background, and a quarter a South Asian one. You could only speak about a Muslim voting block if those people gave priority to their Muslim identity instead of national, ethnic, racial, or class considerations. But studies show that there exist huge fissures along these lines, although there seems to be a tendency towards a “Muslim consciousness” since 9/11. Before, immigrant Muslims, who were mainly middle-class, gave priority to their conservative attitudes in moral issues and economy, and came out supporting G.W. Bush strongly in the 2000 election, whereas African American Muslims voted mostly Democrat, like the black community in general. Since 9/11 and the Iraq war, however, immigrant Muslims share with their black Muslim brethren the feeling of marginalization, stigmatization, and alienation from mainstream America and in 2004 shifted to John Kerry.

Nonetheless, ethnic lobby groups still represent more Muslim voters than decidedly Muslim lobby groups. From a strategic point of view, this is definitely more effective, since support from a Muslim group still gains negative press for any politician. The main reason for the invisibility of a Muslim voting block is that American Muslims have failed in establishing effective advocacy groups that add an outspoken ‘Muslim perspective’ to American public debates. Whether there is no will, or simply a lack of ability, to do that is a hotly contested issue even within the American Muslim community.

P:
One of the most persistent, and effectual, scare tactics of the 2008 campaign has been to refer to, and speculate about, Barack Obama’s Muslim ties. One might ask, why this should even be offensive in the first place, in a country like the US, where the 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion? But the Obama campaign has wasted quite a lot of energy and time on denying those claims (e.g., “Know the Facts” from Obama’s homepage stating: “Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a commited Christian”). In fact, according to recent surveys, in the wake of the much-debated The New Yorker cover, 12% still thought Obama is Muslim.

In 2008, how is this still possible? And who has failed more in improving the “Muslim image” in the US – the media, the politicians, or the Muslims themselves?

KS:
When I talk to non-Muslim Americans, I am sometimes told that they cannot vote for a Muslim. The name (Barack Hussein Obama), the stepfather [Lolo Soetoro from Indonesia], and his having attended a Muslim school [in Jakarta, Indonesia] (which is false), seem to be proof enough. Sometimes people add that if Obama was an apostate he would have already been killed by Muslims, so he must still be a Muslim. But fortunately, these voices become increasingly silent.
The point is that being Muslim still seems to contradict the possibility of being a ‘good American citizen,’ as if it were a question of double loyalties. We should not forget that it took a long time before Catholics stopped being accused of being more loyal to the Vatican than to the U.S. [editors note: even JFK battled with this throughout the majority of his 1960 presidential campaign]. So Muslims are definitely not the first groups [charged with such accusations]. But since 9/11, “Islam” as a whole is perceived as the big enemy of America, and voting for a Muslim could mean to vote for the wolf in sheep’s clothing – for the enemy within.

Even a half-educated American public believes to know this much about Islam: that in “Islam” there is no division of religious and state affairs; and they take that as proof that a Muslim president could not possibly distinguish between his own religious identity and political considerations (G.W. Bush, by the way, is the best proof of a president who was bringing his own religious convictions to the office). But unfortunately, the American public, including the media, fail to acknowledge that something like “the Islam” does not exist – that Islam is as diverse as the 1 billion Muslims in the world, and that there is no single, exclusive opinion about how politics and religion should relate to each other. But who failed in improving the Muslim image in the U.S. is difficult to say. I tend to think that this question is so tightly connected with American foreign policy that as long as, especially, the situation in the Middle East is presented as a “clash of civilization” with Islam – instead of as tensions in a region whose inhabitants are predominantly Muslim – this image won’t change.

P:
Recently, Obama has struggled to cater to Jewish voters, going so far as to declaring that “Jerusalem the capital of Israel – and it must remain undivided” (words which Obama later admitted were “poorly chosen”).

On the Muslim side, however, the presidential candidates have not done much catering. For instance, Mrs. Clinton returned $50,000 in political contributions, which she received from the American Muslim Alliance (AMA). This is a woman who ended up loaning her own campaign over $10,000,000 of her own money! What is more, in September 2007, at the 44th annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in Chicago, all of the Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls in the race at that time were invited to speak. Not one accepted the invitation!

Are American Muslims really that bad? Is there simply no room for Muslims in American politics?

KS:
A brilliant article in Islamica Magazine dealt with the Muslim community’s “Obama problem”. Its author, Firas Ahmad, wrote about the difficulty of supporting a candidate, while knowing that each support from your side will lessen his chances of winning. Obama would lose much more votes if he is suspected of having too close ties to Islam, than he could gain by directly addressing possible Muslim voters. This is the only reason why a politician would reject a voting block, although he usually will try to get as many voters as possible, especially in such a competitive and open-ended campaign. So the question here relates directly to the public image of Islam and Muslims in the U.S. Furthermore, this point is directly connected to the important Jewish vote: American media reported a lot about disappointed Jewish voters, who think about switching to McCain instead of voting for Obama, now that Hillary is done. This could be dangerous for Obama, since Jews have traditionally been a reliable support of the Democratic vote.

As for the ISNA convention: no politician would risk being seen in a picture, let alone on TV, together with certain participants of the biggest Muslim gatherings in America. Most of them are definitely good and loyal citizens, but a few are nonetheless famous for their critical attitude towards the American political system. The Muslim vote is [simply] not important enough. Also, thanks to Bush, most Muslims will not vote Republican anyway. So Obama has no reason to show up with Muslims in public. Most Muslim I have been talking to understand that this would only bring damage to his campaign, and if there is anything most American Muslims currently want, it is for Obama [to win the election].

P:
On January 4, 2007, Keith Ellison (R, DFL–MN) became the first Muslim to assume office in the US Congress.

On March 13, 2008, André Carson became the United States Representative for Indiana’s 7th congressional district, becoming the second Muslim to hold office in the US Congress.

Ellison was sworn in using Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an from 1764, rather than a Bible – a first-time-ever in the history of the United States. Sure enough, this garnered a lot of controversy in the national media, to which Ellison responded: “It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran.”

Are Ellison and Carson an indication of a new breed of American political visionaries?

KS:
Did Ellison and Carson get elected because they were Muslim? I don’t think so. They are both African Americans, and in the black community, there is almost no family without [a Muslim member] – be it “orthodox Islam,” Nation of Islam or anything else. Their religious identity is neither their only point of reference when they make politics, nor, from what I can tell, their prioritized focus. Only the kind of scandal that emerged as soon as the media covered Ellison’s story, his possible connections to the Nation of Islam (which most white Americans perceive as anti-white racist), and his wish to be sworn in on the Qur’an, put Ellison on the spot. He had to make clear, whether his religious convictions threaten his loyalty towards his job as an American politician. I think, he chose the best way by bringing his Muslim identity in a context with American history, with a Founding Father even, and religious tolerance as one of the traditionally most important American values. I am not sure if he thought about that before he got into that trouble – I tend to think that it was a sort of invented narrative, but definitely a helpful and convincing one.

At a talk at NYU, Ellison stressed his eagerness to bring America back to the ideals on which it was founded. He explained that he became a better Muslim during his election campaign. When “Media&Co.” harrassed him, he was forced to study Islam more extensively, he told the audience, and he realized then, during these hardships, how far this country was from the values it had once promised to its citizens.

P:
In New York, you were conducting fieldwork by attending Salaatul Jum’ah (Friday prayer) at the Masjid at-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn. What were the things being addressed there? Also, the imams are (in)famous, amongst other things, for their political influence on the Muslim community. How would you describe their role during this elections?

KS:
Almost each khutba (sermon) dealt, in one way or another, with politics and the [2008] elections. But, as far as I can tell, this is not representative of all mosques in the U.S. My impression is that African American mosques put a higher emphasis on political debates, similar to most black churches (with which many of the black imams grew up). Immigrant mosques (and most American mosques are still ethnic mosques), however, only talk indirectly about political affairs, e.g., by addressing moral value topics, but rarely by naming politicians or parties.

A big topic is of course American foreign policy. But interestingly, most sermons dealt much more with Palestine than with Iraq. Palestine also seems to be the big topic around which African American and immigrant Muslims unite, although immigrants are in general more concerned with foreign policy issues, whereas black Muslims focus on domestic policy. But Palestine was repeatedly presented as the symbol of American (and Israeli) hubris and hypocrisy, where democratic evolutions are oppressed in the name of democracy and human rights.

Also, the khtubas emphasized Muslim experiences of discrimination in the U.S. – be it at airports, in schools or at the working place; of raids and detaining; and biased and skewed media representation. Again, the hypocrisy of the American system was addressed, which, for many Muslims, seems neither willing, nor able, to fulfill the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – although they recognize the core values that are the basis of these documents. Only one imam openly questioned the system as a whole, and the values on which it was grounded.

For a long time, it was a contested issue within the American Muslim community, whether one could, and should, participate in elections. Today, obviously, most agree that if one wants to have any influence, one has to vote. Even Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam openly endorsed Obama, and encouraged his audience to vote for him (which was, ironically, possibly more detrimental than beneficial to the Obama campaign).

Many Muslims have difficulties endorsing a candidate who, on the one hand, supports an end to the Iraq mission and shows no open hostility towards Muslims, while, on the other, favors the possibility of homosexual civil unions and a liberal abortion law. This is, by the way, a problem that many Muslims face in Europe as well: although they are, for the most part, conservative regarding moral issues, they nonetheless vote for liberal parties who represent their economic interest and embrace a multi-cultural and tolerant model of society (including groups many Muslims have problems with). At the same time, conservative parties often reject conservative Muslim voters by anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant rhetoric. This is one reason why some Muslims favored Republican Ron Paul – a “compassionate conservative.”
But all imams were united in their opinion that it is a blessing that the system forbids Bush to run for a third term. And most of them seem to hope that Obama, as soon as the election is over, can openly articulate his sympathy for American Muslims – which they believe he sincerely feels, even if he has to hide it for now.

Written and edited by Peter Dahl

In a little more than 13 hours, U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama will stand in the golden hue of Victoria, at the foot of Prussian greatness, walking in the footsteps of American greats before him.

Germans know their history well. To this day, over 50 years after WWII, and almost 20 years since the Wall gave way to German unity, they are still struggling with their past. To this day, you will still find Germans in their forties being asked, if they ever met Hitler when they were in the Hitlerjugend. And to this day, you will still find young Europeans carrying within them the resentment passed down through generations, from when they were occupied by the Nazi regime.

No page in history is the mere sum of its words. It holds the lives and fates of the thousands before it, who paved the way. It holds the hearts and souls of those who changed it. And it owes its life to those, whose story it did not tell.

For that reason, tomorrow, Obama will walk with Kennedy, and he will work with Reagan to tear down the Wall. Obama’s every word will be dissected, and held against the Berlin sky, where those of his predecessors still flow. And for that reason, Obama, tomorrow, can make history. The question is whose? and how well? One thing seems certain, though, the Germans are on their guards. The location of his speech alone has already been enough to keep the political kettle boiling, and public sentiments brewing, over the past weeks.

Apparently, speaking in Berlin is something you earn. “He is no Kennedy, he is not even president yet!,” roared the opposition by the thought of Obama speaking at Rathaus Schöneberg, where Kennedy gave his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech 45 years ago. Brandenburger Gate, where Reagan delivered his famous “Tear Down this Wall” speech on June 12, 1987, was nixed by Chancellor Merkel. Both speeches articulated the desire for peace, and for freedom. And though Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel might be more urgent venues for articulating those desires, Berlin is still as good as ever.

In many ways, 9/11 was our Kennedy assassination, and it was our Dr. King on the balcony. It changed the world as we knew it, it shook our faith in the goodness of mankind, and it propelled us into uncertainty – it made us lose hope.

But Obama, too, is our Kennedy, and he is our Dr. King. For many, even beyond the U.S., he is that hope – and the belief – that change is going to come, that the world, again, can become a better place. Obama might not be president yet, but he can make history. And Berlin has always been the place for that…

They did it. With the stroke of a pen, The New Yorker did what the Republicans have been trying to do ever since Obama proved a force to be reckoned with in the 2008 election: they created the perfect GOP Smear Campaign poster.

On its July 21, 2008, cover, The New Yorker is portraying Barack and Michelle Obama in the Oval Office as fist-bumping, ‘fro donning (Michelle), US flag burning, bin-Laden-outfit wearing (Obama) and bin-Laden praising (crowning the mantlepiece) connivers.

The Obama Campaign is incensed, and HuffPost is not about to quench the fire. But let’s be honest: this cartoon barely has enough spark to ignite the bomb in the Prophet Muhammad’s turban (if you still don’t know how it got there, ask Jyllands-Posten), let alone a firecracker. To be sure, I’m not even certain if this qualifies as a stroke for freedom of speech.

As a matter of fact, one could have hoped that Barry Blitt (the artiste) had come up with the cover sooner, and sold it to the GOPs while Clinton was still in the game, because that would probably have shaved off a couple of days of the Democratic nomination circus, since it is so blatantly sarcastic that not even David Plouffe could have come up with a more effective chain mail to demonstrate the audacity of ignorance of some Republican voters, even if he’d wanted to (heck, he could have had the entire Pixar Studios, and he still wouldn’t come up with anything as effective).

I mean, if the Bush Administration had summoned the press corps for a PowerPoint presentation, we might have had something to fear, but we’re talking about The New Yorker here – Cloud 9 on print for liberal, U.S. intellectuals (any liberal intellectual worldwide who can get his or her hands on one of those subscription coupons, for that matter).

To be honest, that the Obama campaign can’t laugh at this is disturbing, and casts a shadow over their purported freshness, not even a YouTube featuring Obama doing the “Soulja Boy” could drive away. Plouffe should raise the donation requests to $27.99, so they could start printing t-shirts with the cover rather than the mythical “O” – that’d be sure to out-fundraise McCain.

Just to be sure: is Obama wearing flip-flops?

Thank God Obama stuck to guns and religion, when trying to illustrate the big bind America has gotten itself into over the last years. One can only imagine what would have happened, if he had been deemed elitist for stressing an even (literally) bigger one: obesity. The Mister Softee jingle (“Bubblicious RMX” feat. Celine Dion and Enrique Iglesias) would go triple platinum, Ronald McDonald would clinch a last-minute nomination and pull home an election landslide, and Coca-Cola would break the NASDAQ after announcing its plan to fuse with leading water providers to deliver sparkling soft drinks fresh from the tap.

On May 28, the New York Times reported of “hints of hope,” while the Washington Post boldly declared that the “obesity epidemic might have peaked.” This cautious optimism came in the wake of data collected from 1999 to 2006 by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. As the Washington Post stated,

The plateau follows years of excessive weight gain among American school children. For instance, in 1980, 6.5 percent of children age 6 to 11 were obese, but by 1994 that number had climbed to 11.3 percent. By 2002, the number had jumped to 16.3 percent, but it has now appeared to stabilize around 17 percent.

That being noted, however, 32% of American schoolchildren remained obese or overweight.

What Happened to Arkansas?

Four years ago, in 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shifted to code red after studies estimated that 40% of Arkansas students were overweight or at risk of becoming so – a number that was linked to the state’s poverty level. “Arkansas is one of the nation’s poorest states, and low-income adults are known to have high obesity levels,” reported USA Today, adding that the problem did not limit itself to Arkansas. “As more data comes in, I think it’s going to be this bad everywhere. I don’t think it’s isolated to Arkansas,” said Carden Johnston, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics to USA Today.

What followed was a display of corporate consciousness, maybe only matched by another “inconvenient truth”: the environment. On May 3, 2006, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, headed by former president Bill Clinton, announced a deal with U.S.’ leading soft drink companies to halt nearly all soda sales to public schools. Effective as of 2009, Cadbury Schweppes PLC, Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and the American Beverage Association have signed onto the following plan:

• Elementary schools will sell water, and 8-ounce servings of juice with no added sweeteners, along with fat-free and low-fat milk.
• Middle schools will sell the same, but up the serving to 10-ounces.
• In high schools, at least half of all beverages will be water. Juice and sports drinks can be sold in 12-ounce containers, along with diet soda.

But though the obesity index has stabilized, the optimism might just be premature. With a recession (lurking, mild or full-blown? – no one wants to be the messenger and get killed for throwing the country over the edge, risking bank run scenarios anno 1929), soaring food prices, and a growing median income gap, poor families will be more likely to be forced to buy poorer food, adding grease to the already “fat fire.” And while higher gas prices have forced Americans to fall out of love with their Hummers, McDonald’s is seeing the current crisis as a way to spice up the American love affair with their burgers.

A Big Mac a Day Keeps the Apple Away

When Coca-Cola got wind of the direction the U.S. was heading, it set sail for calmer waters. When McDonald’s caught the drift, however, it set out to conquer the seven seas. At a time when most other food retailers are struggling, the price of an apple has gone up 7.4% since April 2007, a banana has gone up 20.3%, and all food has gone up 5.1%, McDonald’s has promised that, “its Dollar Menu would live up to its name.” This led to March 2008 reports of an 11.7% same-store sales increase over the preceding 13 months on the US market, while McDonald’s European sales rose 23% in the company’s most recently reported quarter alone.

Though this could sound like good news for the U.S. economy, this route is headed for rock bottom. “Nothing is more degrading than hunger,” said Ban Ki-Moon yesterday at the United Nations summit in Rome, addressing the effects of the current food crisis on the world’s poorest nations. Paradoxical as this may seem, the spirit of Ban Ki-Moon’s words could be applied to USA’s obesity crisis: obesity is inextricably linked to poverty, statistics show. The state of Mississippi, which at 29.5% had the highest rate of obese adults in 2006, lagged close to $20,000 behind the “leanest state,” Colorado (16.9%), in 2006 Median Household Income.

Just Put It On the Tab

The pressure is on for the next president, as the weight problem is bound to leave its mark on health insurance expenditures. According to August 2007 figures, 47 million people – or 15.8% of the total U.S. population, and 17.9% of the non-elderly – were uninsured in 2006. Needless to point out that the uninsured are likely to be the same people that keep McDonald’s numbers sizzling, and who keep states like Mississippi steady sinking on the national health charts.

With a growing income gap, a shrinking middle class, an increase in teenage mothers, and close to ¼ of all US children being born to immigrant mothers (of which 59% were Mexican, Central or South American), who is going to pay the bill? This is not to make a case against “young love,” let alone immigrants – to say that either part does not carry their load of the American burden. Rather, the point is that neither are going to be able to carry much weight when it comes to covering Health Insurance expenditures (in 2006, the Median Income for Hispanic Americans was still trailing almost $13,000 behind their White counterparts). This in turn could prove fundamental if Washington is to be changed, since K-Street’s Top Dogs will be sure to look for something in return, when the bill ends up on their desk.

Young America had better know how to swim, because it is going to take more than 10-ounce containers to turn the tide.

By Peter Dahl

Just when you thought the Dems were beginning to move in circles, looking to something as colorful as gas taxes to spike the “Donkey Punch,” Obama supporters turn the knobs and change the beat.

Following Will.I.Am’s wildly popular “Yes We Can,” featuring soul saint John Legend, basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and the angelic Scarlett Johansson (just to name a few), TI$A (from the superior, but much overlooked, hip-hop/r’n'b producer/writer/super group Sa-Ra Creative Partners) drops another MTV/Hollywood gem to keep the election spectacle vibrant.

This time around, Obama is backed by R&B young ‘un Chris Brown, and hip-hop icons Jay-Z and Kanye West (really, just to name a few!).

In what is likely to go down in Election-’08-history as probably the most neo-artsy-add’o'lescent-chic contribution (don’t fret if you don’t know the word, I just made it up!), probably one thing stands out more than the neon-rocking dancers: the demographics! Predominantly African-American, young and “hip” (I struggle to not add the “hop”) voters.

Admitted, I can picture 55-year-old Sam from Bucks County, PA, driving home from the daily treadmill singing his heart out to the tunes of “Hot 4 Hill,” but I just can’t see him do the bump ‘n grind with the missus, or hanging out with his buddies on the front porch, to the sounds of “We hood, we votin’, and throwing it uuup!” (as much as MTV would like us to think that the elderly actually do that).

In effect, this could become indicative of the challenges facing the future Democratic presidential candidate. If Obama is elected, will Hillary’s “Sams” look to the Republicans for an encore (I propose: “Insane 4 McCain”)? If Hillary is elected, will Obama’s “TI$As” choose to dance it out in the streets rather than duke it out in the voting booths? Basically, will either candidate be able to beat their (wanted or unwanted) demographic pigeonholing as the clock winds down on the Dems?

While I can already see the Berlin club kids dying to jump on this bandwagon, I’m looking long and hard for the Hillary voters “up in this…”

By Peter Dahl

Call him the Black Kennedy, the Tiger Woods of politics, or the Second Coming. The epithets used to describe presidential hopeful Barack Obama (D-Ill) are a testimony to an election that is so much more than politics. There is something close to biblical about rain, when the skies give way to an almost cathartic downpour, draining off the drudge, sins and conversation-residuals clogging the streets. In any Hollywood movie (especially considering the writers’ strike) it could have been a Second Coming scenario, yet it was an unassuming Monday with weather more befitting of an unassuming British city pronounced Gloomster (but probably spelled Gleucmcester) in the midst of Berlin. The prophesized savior of American politics, Barack Obama, drew close to a 100 people, who sought shelter in the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung on this rainy, borderline-suicidal Monday evening, to learn about the self-professed harbinger of a new era – in a country so far from theirs.

Needless to add, Obama himself was not there. Instead we were served a German debate between Christoph von Marschall and Anjana Shrivastava. Marschall is a Tagesspiegel editor and US correspondent since 2005, whose book “Obama – the Black Kennedy” appeared short before Christmas. Anjana Shrivastava, American, a Harvard-graduate and former Wall Street Journal Europe essayist turned Berlin-based writer, currently writing a weekly colum, “Winning the White House,” for Welt Online. Barack hardly needs any introduction: upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia, white Kansas mother and Muslim, black Kenyan father, his work as a community organizer on the Southside of Chicago, his self-confessed “blow”-record, his being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, and his catapulting onto the world stage as the most colorful candidate (no pun intended) of the 2008 US presidential election. Still, the quest for “the true identity of Obama” seems never-ending. Is he black or white? Does he have any connection to Osama? Too green, or just what the doctor prescribed? Political pragmatic or polemic stunt? “Hopemonger” or a new Messiah?

Christoph von Marschall, the designated “BaraXpert,” having personally followed Obama on his campaign trail, offered an introduction and projection of his very own “Black Kennedy.” First the standards: Upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia, white mother, black father – you know where I’m going. Then came the interesting and (sometimes unintended, I reckon) controversial part…

Black Hole or Full Circle?

Be it his autobiographic narrations of his substance abuse to help him through college, or his wife, Michelle’s, (half-joking) accounts of Barack’s smoking habits, the Obamas have done little to seal off the fact that he is human. A gift and a curse, Marschall proposed. “His life story is his political programmatic. Obama has become a parable of the American Dream. His rallies are reminiscent of religious events, and at times a simple sign reading ‘Hope’ or ‘Change We Can Believe In’ – not even mentioning his name – is enough to cause hysteria,” the Tagesspiegel correspondent observed. Ever since his now famous 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Boston, MA, Obama has become something like a “’projection screen’ for hopes and dreams not even an Übermensch could fulfill,” Marschall continued.

The symbolic of Obama and his 2004 keynote address was not lost on the analyst, either. The Illinois Congress member won wide popularity with his glorious eloquence, as did another Illinois Congress member, Abraham Lincoln, who won his presidential endorsement at the 1860 Illinois Republican State Convention, and went on to become one of the single most popular presidents in the history of the United States. Should Obama go on to become the 44th US president, this would, according to Mr. Marschall, mean history coming full circle: beginning with Lincoln, hailed as the abolisher of slavery, and ending with Obama, the first African American president in US history. To draw attention to Lincoln’s debatable opportunist use of abolitionist rhetoric to favor the Union would have been futile. To remark that Lincoln self-admittedly would have sustained the peculiar institution to save the Union, and if so would have transformed the “full circle” into a ring of fire, would have spoiled the mood. And, arguably, Lincoln’s early stance on slavery should stand in the shadow of his contribution to its eventual abolishment. Yet, good as Mr. Marschall’s intentions were, and they really were, they somehow seemed symptomatic of a campaign in which gender and race seem to have taken up as much energy and media coverage, if not more, as Iraq, the economy and health care combined. When Marschall mentions something as bluntly stereotypical as Barack and Michelle’s “two cute black girls” as trump cards in the candidate’s campaign-image – as opposed to Hillary’s “old” looks, Bill, or, if Bill’s busy, Chelsea – people can question Obama’s shade of “blackness” till kingdom come. The reasoning seems to question whether Obama would even be where he is now, had he been a mid-40s white Illinois representative named Gill.

“Der Präsident ist sehr viel learning on the job”

Around this point Anjana Shrivastava joined the debate, and suddenly it became oddly emblematic of the real (U.S.) debate. Before us a middle-class woman, weighing Obama’s lack of experience against Hillary’s, and a white middle-class man, who was coming around to this Obama-spectacle.

What ensued was a long round of pro-Obama/pro-Hillary jabs – because, frankly, no other candidate than “HillaBama” was mentioned, as seems to be the trend as of “late” – and a more-than-occasional collision of misunderstandings.

Principle of Reality Control

Cristoph von Marschall offered that 40% of American voters say they would never vote for Hillary, because of her “polarizing nature,” and therein lies Obama’s strength – in his ability to unite people and work across party lines. Indeed, Obama has proven himself a “complex uniter” – as someone who is not afraid to go bipartisan to seal legislation – a feature not lost on voters disillusioned with the current state of Washington. His tireless rants against the lobbies on K Street have had people rally around his flag, who see the pie getting bigger, but their piece smaller. To gain so much popularity off of going against forces that can usually make or break a candidate (and without being mistaken for Ralf Nader, at that) is nothing short of audacious. More importantly, his ability to mobilize youth is spectacular, considering past records among young (potential) voters. According to CIRCLE estimates, in Iowa alone, the turnout rate amongst youth aged 17-29 increased from 4% in 2004 to 11% in 2008, while the number of youth who caucused almost quadrupled from 14,940 (or 3%) in 2000 to 56,875 this year. Also, bouncing back from initial doubts in both black and white camps as to the “racial identity” and “electability” of Obama, his win in Iowa suggests him gaining a feasible majority of the “black votes.” It is said that the one who wins the “black vote” wins the election. CNN exit polls predicted that Obama would have won 73% of the “black votes” in Michigan had he run – an estimated 22% would have voted for Clinton. This situation has only become more desperate for Hillary, in the wake of her and her husband’s recent rhetorical missteps. That being noted, however, there is nothing new about working across party lines, as such.

The notion of party loyalty in the US, as we know it from Europe, is a common misconception. Surely, since the Democrats won both the Senate and the House in November 2006, the drawing of party lines has become sharper. But in a two-party system, where not even the party of the President can turn a blind eye on the “goings-down” of things, there is a good chance you will find a New York Republican having more in common with a Texas Democrat politically, than with a Utah Republican. The skill to create coalitions and work across party lines is, in many ways, a prerequisite if you want to prove to the voters, who got you into Congress in the first place, that you can bring home the bacon. This explains the 2006-voters’ frustration and disillusion with the Democrats, spearheaded by Miss Pelosi, who have acted as the blueprint of how sticking within party lines can get you close to nowhere. Indeed, the future president will have to balance a double-edged sword: on the one side, the need to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he or she can single-handedly make tough decisions; on the other, the need to unite, to cooperate and communicate, to move the country in the right direction – even if it takes donkeys and elephants to get there. The latter is where the Bush Administration has failed miserably, and cut itself fatally.

Obama is a political prototype of a “uniter,” which unquestionably worked in his favor in the early stages of the campaign, where he created a warm contrast to the, sometimes, cool machinery of Senator Clinton’s. But both camps have had to realize the complexity a potential president’s character must contain in 2008, neutralizing their weaknesses by borrowing the other’s strengths. What has followed has been a brouhaha of WWF-style “Mr.&Mrs.”-tag-team attacks and misty-eyed masterpieces. Whoever can keep up the act the longest is likely to win the Democratic nomination.

Principle of Experience

Back to Berlin where Shrivastava played the “inexperience” card: Against Clinton, Obama was too young and green (and we’re not talking hybrids here) to get the nation back on the right path. “If Daimler Chrysler were to propose a 21-year-old to get them out of a crisis, people might be skeptic, too. I am not willing to experiment!“ she reasoned. People got it. “Der Präsident ist sehr viel learning on the job,” Marschall responded. People got that, too. In the meantime, Shrivastava reloaded, took aim, and fired…hitting nothing but air. “International experience.” “Foreign policy experience.” “Obama’s been to London once, on a lay-over.” In her defense, this was in part brought on by the audience, who had inquired about a future president’s (read: HillaBama) interest in Europe.

Nonetheless, claiming “international experience” as a disqualifier for the presidency is a clear stab in the dark for two reasons:

1. For one, a considerable portion of the United States’ citizens has never traveled outside US borders, let alone to Europe. In 2005, the Economist reported that only 34% of Americans over the age of 18 have passports. Admittedly, that does not add up to not caring about international affairs; by all means, Americans have experienced first-hand the effects a bad image can have on a nation. Yet, the Bush Administration’s fatal ventures into distant plains (Iraq) coupled with domestic catastrophes (Katrina), a near-recession national economy and growing social differences, has created an urgency among the public for the next president to direct his or her focus inwards, and “stop playing cowboys” for the taxpayers’ money.

2. Most senators, who make up a significant part of presidential candidates, have little to no international experience. Their main concern is to represent the voters of their State and maybe an occasional business trip – something that requires a thorough national and regional knowledge, but does not necessitate a half-full “Where I’ve Been”-map. That happens when an Administration is appointed. Undoubtedly, Hillary has the advantage of having spent 8 years in the White House, “but during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda,” NY Times revealed on Dec. 26, 2007. The “third” contestant for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards, spent 2001-2004 organizing “tutorials, roundtable discussions with foreign policy analysts at his Georgetown home, trips to hot spots abroad and meetings with foreign leaders to prepare for his presidential campaign,” according to a 2004 Washington Post article.

If we move to the Republicans, usually “international credentials” have consisted in serving in the military, possibly in Vietnam. But even here, Senator McCain is the only candidate left, who can claim that title. Giuliani was reclassified from a 1-A (available for military service) to a 2-A (civilian occupation deferment) in 1969 – having been rejected once in 1968, Giuliani was not granted deferment until his employer, Judge MacMahon of NY, “took care of things”; Huckabee was too young to be drafted for Vietnam; and the only “service” Romney has done is mission service. Matter of fact, only 5 of 15 presidential candidates served in the military: Ron Paul (R), John McCain (R), Duncan Hunter (R), Mike Gravel (D), and Chris Dodd (D). But, let’s be frank, we are not looking at no “Minister to France”-Thomas Jeffersons here.

Even so, Marschall pointed to two experiences that only Obama can boast: intercultural (USA and Indonesia) and interconfessional (Christian mother and Muslim father). And though the “Muslim-side” of Obama has received mixed reviews in the public debate, these qualities just might prove more decisive for the future of the United States than his cross-party line qualities, should he become elected. But there is a long and bumpy road ahead, with roadside bombs sure to be planted by both Republicans and Democrats. Whether Obama is truly experienced enough will depend on his ability to keep cool and steer clear. Then he might just navigate his way to the White House.

Who was Obama?

Outside the rain had subsided, the streets bathed in the golden light from the lampposts. Two hours past, and the notion of who Barack Obama really is seemed no clearer than the Berlin sky. Colorful politician or unelectable man of color? Political prophet or America’s next president? As Marschall said, “Obama’s political program is his life story – a parable of the American Dream.” But there is a long way from Lincoln’s one-room log cabin childhood in Hardin County, Kentucky, to Obama’s childhood in Honolulu, Hawaii. Dare the Americans keep the Dream alive – full circle?

By Peter Dahl

Feel like you don’t know all there is to know about the “Second Coming”? Still unsure how to categorize this newest high-rise on the Democratic block? Here’s your chance:

“Wer ist Barack Obama? Vortrag und Diskussion” featuring Christoph von Marschall, Washington correspondent for the Tagesspiegel

Time: Monday, 21. Januar, 2008 @ 18.30 Uhr
Place: Galerie der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Rosenthaler Str. 40/41, Berlin-Mitte
Free Entry/Eintritt frei

Excerpt from the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung’s own description (in German):
Der Vorwahlkampf in den USA ist in vollem Gange und Barack Obama ist der Überraschungskandidat mit guten Chancen auf das Präsidentenamt.
Obama gilt als der “Kennedy seiner Generation”: ein Hoffnungsträger, der einen neuen Stil einführt und die Schranken des Establishments niederreißt.
Doch welche politischen Positionen und welche Werte vertritt er? Was hat die Welt zu erwarten, wenn er als erster Afroamerikaner ins Weiße Haus einziehen sollte? Und vor welchem gesellschaftlichen Hintergrund konnte er in so kurzer Zeit so erfolgreich werden?

Christoph von Marschall begleitet seit einem Jahr Barack Obama im Wahlkampf und verfolgt die Vorwahlen aus nächster Nähe.

Fachkontakt: Barbara Assheuer assheuer@boell.de

By Peter Dahl

It’s election time in the Danish Kingdom, and what better way to churn out those votes, than to let the Prophet Muhammad work his magic?

The Danish People’s Party (DPP, Dansk Folkeparti) has published election posters (here) featuring a drawing by Alexander Ross from 1683 of the Prophet. The poster reads in bold, capital letters: “Freedom of Speech is Danish, Censorship Isn’t – We Hang on to the Danish Values,” and continues, “Danish People’s Party – Your Country, Your Choice.” According to Danish People’s Party’s party leader, Pia Kjærsgaard, “We [Danish People's Party] are not doing this to provoke, but are doing it exactly because a drawing – a 400 year old drawing of Muhammad – is a symbol of the freedom of speech in Denmark, because we hung on to that freedom of speech.”

As in 2005, the Danish government does not intend to take any actions against the party, although the word has already spilled into the Arab world. In a press release on Oct. 30, the Great Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Husseini, condemns the drawing, which he calls both “uncivilized” and “hateful,” according to leading Danish newspaper Politiken. The press release follows the denunciation issued by Saudi-Arabia Oct. 29, and encourages the Danish government to put an immediate stop to Danish People’s Party’s “illegal activities,” the Danish daily notes. “Due to Jerusalem’s special status as the third holiest city in Islam, his words weigh heavily throughout the Muslim world, when he encourages all Arab and Muslim states ‘not to remain silent’,” Politiken predicts.

Danish Foreign Minister, Per Stig Møller (the Conservative, De Konservative), vindicates Danish People’s Party’s campaign, and has this to say about the Great Mufti’s press release to Politiken: “I’m having a hard time understanding why it is uncivilized, since it is a 300 year old drawing; I don’t want to defend the Danish People’s Party, but it is, after all, an existing Islamic drawing, so it can’t be uncivilized to use it, considering it hasn’t been crossed out by Islamic censorship.”

Denmark came under serious fire in much of the Arab world, and woke up to mixed reviews in the Western press, when Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten decided to publish 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad 2 years ago, on Sept. 30, 2005. The result: possibly the greatest diplomatic crisis in Danish history during which, especially, Danish dairy merger Arla suffered from boycotts and an estimated $2,000,000 deficit pr. day. Among the Cartoons was one depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban; according to Jyllands Posten, they were intended to spark a “much-needed” national debate about freedom of speech and freedom of press, after more and more journalists had expressed increasing anxieties about criticizing Islam in Denmark, some fearing for their lives.

Following a delegation of leading Danish Muslims to various Arab and Muslim countries (during which were presented cartoons that had not even been published by Jyllands Posten), the controversy took on unforeseeable proportions as Danish consulates, embassies, flags, and pictures of the Prime Minister were set ablaze by angry protesters in as different places as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Philippines; in Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan more than 40 people died as a result of violent protests. Throughout, the Danish government refused to infringe on the rights of Jyllands Posten, citing freedom of press. Reports later surfaced, documenting that the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Ramussen (Left, or “Venstre”), had refused to meet with diplomats from the Arab world, calling it a matter of principal, thereby extending the crisis well into 2006.

Surely, to most this is old news. What apparently is not, however, is the immigration debate, which has crowned the Danish political agenda for 10+ years, since Danish People’s Party was founded by Pia Kjærsgaard in 1995. The party, which former Danish Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social Democrats, Social Demokraterne), described as “not housebroken” in a 1999 speech at the People’s Assembly (Folketinget), soon soared to the top of Danish politics, making it, until just recently, Denmark’s 3rd biggest party and an influential coalition partner of the current government.

DPP is also one of the most disputed parties on the Danish political scene. Statements made on national television, on the pulpit of the Danish People’s Assembly, in party newsletters and at national conventions tell the story of a party that has done all rhetorically possible to stay in the political spotlight – for better or worse:

“Let me make it clear: Muslims must live in Muslimland – and that’s not here [Denmark].” (Mogens Camre at DPP’s Annual National Convention, Sept. 9, 2004)

“I completely agree with Søren Krarup [MP, DPP] that it is the exact same symbol – a veil and a swastika.” [Pia Kjærsgaard on TV-Avisen [Danish national news program], Apr. 29, 2007)

“…Islam is not a religion in the traditional sense. It’s a terrorist organization, trying to obtain world domination through violence” (Michael Rex at DPP’s Annual National Convention, Sept. 15.-16., 2001)

“It’s been said that 9/11 caused the clash of civilizations. I disagree. Because a clash of civilizations would require two civilizations, and that’s not the case. There’s but one civilization, and that’s ours.” (Pia Kjærsgaard, opening of People’s Assembly, Oct. 2, 2001)

Comprising app. 6 percent of the Danish 5.5 million inhabitants, about the same as the state of Maryland, immigrants (with emphasis on Muslims, comprising an estimated 2 percent) have been a political hot potato, and has secured DPP a solid following especially in rural towns and provinces across the nation. Promoting itself on a strict immigration policy, Danish People’s Party has been instrumental in making Denmark one of the hardest countries in the EU to get into, despite being one of the richest. Inevitably, this has led to tensions, with many Muslims feeling targeted by the media and politicians, a development criticized by the UN Human Rights Commission in their 2006 Annual Report on the elimination of racial discrimination – also, expressing an overall concern about the tendencies in Europe, as a whole.

In 2006, video clips surfaced of a Danish People’s Party Youth summer camp at which seemingly drunken people had a contest about who could make the “best” drawing of the Prophet Muhammad – among the contestants was a depiction of the Prophet as a urinating, beer-drinking camel. The clips were shot by Danish artist Martin Rosengaard Knudsen, part of a group of artists called Defending Denmark, who had joined and infiltrated DPPY since March 2005. The clips, however, caused but a number of big “Ooh’s” and “Ah’s!” As a spokesman for Danish group Muslims in Dialogue, not surprised by the event, told FOX News: “The Danish People’s Party has through its history made a virtue to make humiliating and generalized statements about minority groups, especially Muslims.”

In 2007, however, Danish People’s Party has tried to weed out bad seeds that unfavorably affect the polls. The result: deleterious dissension within party ranks, and accusations of tyranny, culminating in a free-fall in the voter polls. Today, DPP is predicted to get 9.8 percent of the votes, a deficit of 3,5 pp, or 6 mandates in the People’s Assembly, compared to the national elections in 2005. With the Socialist People’s Party (Socialitistk Folkeparti) looking to double their mandates according to recent polls, and New Alliance (Ny Alliance) co-founded by the Muslim, and former political profile of the Radical Left (Radikale Venstre), Naser Khader, posing a serious threat to DPP as a potent coalition partner, it could be a rocky road for Danish People’s Party. Not that they are not used to that.

This week in an interview with Jyllands Posten, Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade spokesperson, Khaled al-Jabbari, slighted at the consequences of the election poster: “This party is bargaining with the Danish people’s blood. That is dangerous.” When asked whether to take that as a threat, al-Jabbari responded, “No, I am not threating, I am warning. We do not wish to see the Danish people as an enemy, but this could lead to actions,” stating he himself would be willing to actively attack Danish institutions to defend the Prophet. The Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade is designated a terrorist organization in the EU, USA and in Israel.

While al-Jabbari’s words might fan the fire in the Middle East, they are sure to bring the Danish People’s Party to a political boil in the last 9 days before the Danes cast their ballot. Danes are habitually allergic to outside threats. After a period of national division over the Muhammad Cartoons in 2005, by January 2006, after reports of burning embassies and flags, 79 percent of Danes polled said that they did not want the Danish Prime Minister to apologize. This time round, he, too, has denounced al-Jabbari’s statements.

In a nation with more than 1500 years of history, which once spread from Iceland to France, Denmark is first in line of European countries with an identity crisis waiting for psychoanalysis. With the new realities and challenges posed by an ever-growing influence of outside cultures, statements like “We Hang on to the Danish Values” make Danish People’s Party all the more diffuse. One thing seems certain, however: Danish People’s Party is going to need more than divine prophecy to relive their glory days. Maybe al-Jabbari is that secret ingredient?

Election date is Nov. 13. Who will the Danes let define their new identity?

Pictures from Politiken.dk

By Peter Dahl

Bill Maher’s at it again.

The man who brought you “Politically Incorrect,” which ABC eventually took off the air in 2002 after Maher made a comment on live radio that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards, but “we [the American government] have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away,” might just have hit home with the political right.

During an Oct. 19, 2007, live transmission of Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher took matters into his own hands, physically throwing out 9/11 conspiracy “nutcases,” as he labeled them, from the audience, who interrupted the show by shouting 9/11 conspiracy slogans.

Maher jokingly explained to his panelists: “Of all the things I’ve said – and, believe me, I’ve said a lot of things, as you all know, that could get my head on a block – the one that they protest about out here [outside the studio] is the people who think that the World Trade Center was a controlled explosion. You see, in that instance, I’m actually defending President Bush. I don’t think President Bush brought down the World Trade Center. (loud “BOOOOOs!” from the audience) And cows disagree with me!”

Comic, or tragic (you choose), as the Maher incident is, this goes to show that the events surrounding the tragedy of 9/11-2001 has done all but unite the American people, and that there is still a desperate need of a neutral and conclusive (i.e., as conclusive as possible) investigation into 9/11.Echoing the alarming approval ratings of Congress, which at 11% are less than half of that of Bush’s paltry 24% (Reuters.com, Oct. 17, 2007), it seems evident that the next president needs more than appealing Health Care plans to appease the American people. And though 9/11-2001 hurt the soul of an entire nation (see “From the 78th Floor to the Stairway to Heaven” reported by tapmag), there is still a disagreement as to how to best heal the wound – in public, or in private.

By Peter Dahl

Sometimes, silence seems louder than the shrillest noise. In New York, where noise is the norm, silence can pierce your heart and penetrate your soul, until you feel like crying.

6 years after 2 planes pierced the hearts of an entire nation, and penetrated the souls of the Western world, the silence at Ground Zero still screams. And though the pain will never go away, New York is back on its feet.

The sky is grey, almost black, as I pace through Chinatown 8:00 a.m. this morning, but New York seems as loud as ever; people hurrying to work, kids going to school, and shop owners preparing for another day. Nothing unusual. I pass Columbus Park, Broadway, and head south on Church St., when the silence starts to penetrate. Today, 6 years after 2 planes changed the world as we know it, people look as though they try to escape another piercing, striding north away from the Financial District and Lower Manhattan.

I emerge on the World Trade Center site to the sight of 50+ police officers and firefighters, surrounded by even more journalists and tourists, lined up facing the emptiness that was once the lungs of the New York business life. Eerie silence develops to a slight piercing in the chest, and every step seems a thousand times heavier. A slight drizzle breaks the levee of emotions that’s been clogging the air, and it becomes hard to tell drops of water from teardrops – probably to the relief of many, for it seems as though New York is tired of crying. As one woman, who lost her husband (69) to the first tower, auspiciously noted, “raining today is like a signal for change, like it’s time to move on. Like, ‘Fuck you, we’re moving!’”

It’s 8:45 a.m. when the bell tolls, marking the time of the first plane, hitting the south tower of the World Trade Center. For a minute, the insisting sound of clicking cameras seizes, as a police chief’s commands soar to the sky along with the memories and blessings of the officers and firefighters getting in line before him, praying that their lost loved one’s have gone to a place where silence is golden. Some formal words follow, and they proceed to the reading of the names of the victims. A couple of minutes later, the audience becomes uneasy, and the last name I hear is “Paul” before the sound of cameras and chatter conquers the scene.

I seek cover under the canopy of the “Millenium Hilton,” and overhear an English officer ask a guy from the FBI, “when’s the next bell?” eager to take a time-out and get some coffee. A woman from Jehovah’s Witness completes the awkwardness, remarking to her group of co-Witnesses, “I got to go back to get some more [issues of “Awake!”]. They just love the story on 9/11!” Time works in mysterious ways.

Minutes pass, and the next bell tolls. 9:03 a.m.: the time of the second plane, hitting the north tower of the World Trade Center. Again, the police chief commands a bit of commotion, while the reading of names rustles in the background. The following bell goes almost unnoticed, and the commanding chief causes but a ripple on the pool of people still facing the memorial site. Under the canopy, people begin to share their own experiences of that day 6 years ago: One lost her husband, who, at 69, “just wouldn’t retire;” another lost a colleague, who “wouldn’t move until he received orders.”

Across from the “Millenium Hilton,” a visual choir of critical voices display that America might just be ripe for more than ceremonies and sentimental tip-toe’ing. “Investigate 9/11” and “9-11 Truth Seeking Leads to Peace,” demonstrate that the mourning has moved beyond flowers and balloons. As the New York Times notes, “Sept. 11, as a public occasion, has shrunk to life size: potent as ever for people holding photographs of fathers on their wedding days and mothers in their backyards, but unlikely to start wars again” (New York Times, Sept. 12, 2007).

I leave the shelter of the canopy to make my final rounds of the Memorial Site, and pay my last respect. The sun peeps through the clouds, as the chief’s commands briefly fuse with the 2,750 names and then evaporates under the morning sky. The last thing I hear is, “…who went from the 78th floor to the stairway to heaven.” No one can afford to stand still in New York. Like, “Fuck you, we’re moving!”

By Peter Dahl