Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Feb 8 2008
Bad news for Erdoðan?
by ALI H. ASLAN
Bad news for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan: Given the results
of the "super Tuesday" primaries in the US, Barack Obama, whom
Erdoðan lashed out at after he promised to acknowledge the so-called
"Armenian genocide," has never been so close to winning the
Democratic Party's nomination for the 2008 presidential elections.
Erdoðan harshly criticized Senator Obama, depicting him as an "acemi"
(rookie) politician. Many people fall into the trap of
underestimating others. As an underestimated politician who has
proven to be the most durable "black" leader in the "white-dominated"
Republic of Turkey, Erdoðan should have known this more than anyone
else. Furthermore, he himself was not more experienced than Obama in
government affairs and he was only two years older than Obama (46)
when he became prime minister with the Turkish general elections in
2002. And I'm telling you, the chances for Obama to be the next
president of the US are no less favorable than Erdoðan's 2002 bid.
The Clintons, who also seem to have underestimated him, should
nowadays be grappling with this fact more than anyone else.
Obama made a strong start by winning the Iowa caucus. The Clinton
camp became increasingly nervous after Obama stole the normally
Clinton-loyal black Americans in South Carolina. But it wasn't until
this Tuesday that alarm bells started to ring for Clinton. Once
considered the obvious frontrunner in the Democratic race, Senator
Clinton now feels the breath of Obama on her neck.
Elections in the first five states granted Clinton 51 percent more
delegates than Obama. In the aftermath of Super Tuesday, however,
delegate tallies are almost even or only slightly in favor of Clinton
according to varying counts due to the confusing calculation methods
of the Democratic primaries. Obama has the psychological edge since
he won five more states than Clinton, whereas the big enchilada,
California, went to Hillary.
There is an even more dramatic comparison in their respective
monetary situations. Who would expect an "underdog" candidate like
Obama to surpass Clinton in terms of campaign funds? Senator Clinton,
whose campaign ran out of money, had to borrow $5 million from her
personal account. Obama, on the other hand, enjoys $32 million raised
in January alone, compared to Hillary's $13.5 million.
Everybody knows money talks in politics (although perhaps not as much
as Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who has spent
millions from his own fortune so far, has counted on). Vice versa,
talk generates money (though not necessarily as much as former
preacher Mike Huckabee might have wished for). Obviously, Obama has
proven very successful in transforming his speaking abilities into
campaign funds. His debate performance may not be extraordinary, but
he can definitely score high points when he addresses crowds. The
wider American public probably first got acquainted with Obama during
his impressive nationally televised victory speech in Iowa. And it
should be no surprise that he was able to garner increasing numbers
of young voters, who constitute the backbone of his political
organization.
It looks like the more people get to know Obama, the more likely they
are to vote for him. So time is on Obama's side in this unusually
long intra-party race. The Clinton campaign is far from being dead.
But eventually we might very well find ourselves in a situation where
we will be talking more about White House foreign policy under
Obama's command. If only, of course, he also beats the Republican
candidate. That person seems to be Senator John McCain, given his
lead over the remaining two contenders, Romney and Huckabee, which is
mathematically almost impossible to beat.
Speaking of mathematics, it's almost a certainty that Clinton, Obama
or McCain is going to be the next US president. All of them are
multilateralists, and that's good for the US and for the world. I'm
sure their counterparts in Ankara, no matter how enraged they might
be at times, will do their best to not reduce Turkey's relations with
the US to issues like the debate over Armenian allegations of
genocide. They would expect the same from the American side. After
all, even the US cannot afford a "with us or against us" mantra on
particular policy topics. How can Turkey do so?
08.02.2008
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Feb 8 2008
Bad news for Erdoðan?
by ALI H. ASLAN
Bad news for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan: Given the results
of the "super Tuesday" primaries in the US, Barack Obama, whom
Erdoðan lashed out at after he promised to acknowledge the so-called
"Armenian genocide," has never been so close to winning the
Democratic Party's nomination for the 2008 presidential elections.
Erdoðan harshly criticized Senator Obama, depicting him as an "acemi"
(rookie) politician. Many people fall into the trap of
underestimating others. As an underestimated politician who has
proven to be the most durable "black" leader in the "white-dominated"
Republic of Turkey, Erdoðan should have known this more than anyone
else. Furthermore, he himself was not more experienced than Obama in
government affairs and he was only two years older than Obama (46)
when he became prime minister with the Turkish general elections in
2002. And I'm telling you, the chances for Obama to be the next
president of the US are no less favorable than Erdoðan's 2002 bid.
The Clintons, who also seem to have underestimated him, should
nowadays be grappling with this fact more than anyone else.
Obama made a strong start by winning the Iowa caucus. The Clinton
camp became increasingly nervous after Obama stole the normally
Clinton-loyal black Americans in South Carolina. But it wasn't until
this Tuesday that alarm bells started to ring for Clinton. Once
considered the obvious frontrunner in the Democratic race, Senator
Clinton now feels the breath of Obama on her neck.
Elections in the first five states granted Clinton 51 percent more
delegates than Obama. In the aftermath of Super Tuesday, however,
delegate tallies are almost even or only slightly in favor of Clinton
according to varying counts due to the confusing calculation methods
of the Democratic primaries. Obama has the psychological edge since
he won five more states than Clinton, whereas the big enchilada,
California, went to Hillary.
There is an even more dramatic comparison in their respective
monetary situations. Who would expect an "underdog" candidate like
Obama to surpass Clinton in terms of campaign funds? Senator Clinton,
whose campaign ran out of money, had to borrow $5 million from her
personal account. Obama, on the other hand, enjoys $32 million raised
in January alone, compared to Hillary's $13.5 million.
Everybody knows money talks in politics (although perhaps not as much
as Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who has spent
millions from his own fortune so far, has counted on). Vice versa,
talk generates money (though not necessarily as much as former
preacher Mike Huckabee might have wished for). Obviously, Obama has
proven very successful in transforming his speaking abilities into
campaign funds. His debate performance may not be extraordinary, but
he can definitely score high points when he addresses crowds. The
wider American public probably first got acquainted with Obama during
his impressive nationally televised victory speech in Iowa. And it
should be no surprise that he was able to garner increasing numbers
of young voters, who constitute the backbone of his political
organization.
It looks like the more people get to know Obama, the more likely they
are to vote for him. So time is on Obama's side in this unusually
long intra-party race. The Clinton campaign is far from being dead.
But eventually we might very well find ourselves in a situation where
we will be talking more about White House foreign policy under
Obama's command. If only, of course, he also beats the Republican
candidate. That person seems to be Senator John McCain, given his
lead over the remaining two contenders, Romney and Huckabee, which is
mathematically almost impossible to beat.
Speaking of mathematics, it's almost a certainty that Clinton, Obama
or McCain is going to be the next US president. All of them are
multilateralists, and that's good for the US and for the world. I'm
sure their counterparts in Ankara, no matter how enraged they might
be at times, will do their best to not reduce Turkey's relations with
the US to issues like the debate over Armenian allegations of
genocide. They would expect the same from the American side. After
all, even the US cannot afford a "with us or against us" mantra on
particular policy topics. How can Turkey do so?
08.02.2008
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress