OBAMA=CLINTON(Bill)

So far so bad!It is a centre right government with more hawks than doves. I think Obama has been too much inspired by the famous book"Team of Rivals". They are a bunch of very experienced people who know everything.I think we are going to have a lot of fun. It will be like watching big lions put together in the same cage.
However I have to confess that my favourite is Susan Rice. She is the only one I like with Bill Richardson.

But I give him a chance, Obama is not even President yet. We shall wait and see.

Mumbai terrorist's attack

It is weird how the media sometimes work. Between 2004 and the Mumbai attacks there have been 4000 casualties. India is after Iraq the country which suffers the most from terrorists of all kind. However for 195 people killed in the horrific Mumbai attacks media and some politicians said that it was India's 9/11.
Don't get me wrong, a death of a even a single individual is always tragic.But what occurs to me is that the media and politicians did not care that much for the "4000" because they were poor. Their was no footage of fighting or explosion. In Mumbai there was shootings, explosion live on T.V. The victims were Westerners or rich or both.
Now back to reality as usual. India has almost disapeared from T.Vscreens.No real analysis on the terrorists groups.
The news from this area are more focus on the long-running dispute between India and Pakistan.No substance.

Powell's endorsement

Dimanche dans la matinée, Collin Powell a apporté son soutien à Barack Obama. Certains diront un peu tard, d'autre qualifieront son soutien d'opportuniste;Barack Obama étant largement en tête selon les derniers sondages.

L'ancien Chef d'état Major général des armées des USA l'explique lui même. Il s'est donné le temps de jauger les candidats et leur campagne. Et évidemment la manière dont ils ont affronté des crises.

De plus le soutien a Obama n'allait pas de soi. Colin Powell est républicain et qui plus ait, il a jouer un rôle majeur dans ce qui apparaît comme la plus grand fiasco de l'administration Bush, la guerre en Irak. Barack Obama ayant été dès le début un des plus grands opposants à cette guerre, le soutien de Powell peut sembler quelque peu ironique. Et quel serait l'intérêt de Powell dans ce soutien? Peut être a t'il voulu se refaire une virginité par rapport aux critiques dont il a pu faire l'objet. Il y'a probablement un peu de cela. Mais il est temps aussi de rendre justice a l'ancien secrétaire d'Etat.

Il a été l'un des rares dans l'administration sortante à faire part de ses réserves et des risques d'une guerre en Irak. C'était sans compter les nuisances de Dick Cheney et Don Rumsfeld à son égard. Condi Rice au milieu qui certes lui a donné raison pour la priorité qu'on devait alors accorder à l'Afghanistan. Mais au fur et a mesure il a été mis en minorité. Et cette humiliation au Conseil de Sécurité où il est allé présenter des "fausses preuves" à son insu. Il est sorti du gouvernement bien tristement en 2005.

Aussi compte tenu de son faible poids politique et des déceptions qu'il a suscité du fait de son soutien à une guerre qu'il savait injustifiée dès le début, son soutien est surtout symbolique. Néanmoins les arguments de son soutien au candidat démocrate mérite qu'on s'y arrête quelques instants. Il a souligné son amitié à John McCain et a affirmé que les 2 candidats pouvaient devenir des Présidents compétents. De toute façon après Bush, n'importe qui peut devenir Président...

Mais ce qu'il a poussé ou plutôt répuslsé, ce sont les attaques dont fait l'objet Barack Hussein Obama. Il est en effet victime de fausses accusations. On parle de lui comme étant un musulman qui se cache ou encore le fait qu'il ait pour amis proches des terroristes. Tout ceci bien entendu est faux. Mais la où Powell se différencie de bien d'autres hommes politiques qui ont condamné ces attaques c'est qu'il ait osé poser la question "et si il avait été musulman?, où est le problème?

"Quel est le problème si un petit musulman[américain] de 7 ans pense qu'il peut devenir un jour Président?"

Et Powell a alors pris l'exemple de Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. Un jeune soldat musulman américain qui a été tué en mission en Irak et enterré au cimetière militaire d'Arlington.

Ce fut probablement pour moi la partie la plus intéréssante et la plus émouvante de son interview avec Tom Brokow.

Mon Général, je vous salut!

GIVE HIM A BREAK

Since the last local elections, it is true that the Labour Party was overwhelming defeated by the Tories and even by the Lib Dems. The Labour lost 331 seats and apparently it was its worst election night for 40 years.( Times 3/05/08, "May day election massacre"). For the pundits, the newspapers, the Tories, opinion polls and even many in the Labour the responsible was Gordon Brown. He has been depicted as a coward for not calling for a general election in November. He was responsible for the lost of the 25m child benefit records, the 10 p tax(which I still don't have a clue what it is about) and so on... And the last week Cherie Blair, John Prescott and Lord Levy joined the lynching of Gordon Brown.( By the way apparently they turned to each other, according to the Telegraph Prescott now is criticising Cherie and Levy.

I think it is too easy to hold Brown responsible for all the failures of the Labour Party since they came back in power in 1997. The former White house pet dog(Yo Blair!) has his big share too. The Iraq war for example.But I have not heard anything about that from his dear wife. So give him a break and Cameron at Downing Street, no thanks!

The link between Maddi and Shannon

Pierre Bourdieu the French sociologist wrote that the lower or working class tend to reproduce - or at least try to- the same behaviour or eat the same kind of food of the upper class. For example because rich people celebrate an event by drinking champagne, the poor are going to try to do the same but with a product of much lower quality for example they will drink some sparkling wine because it looks like champagne and it is cheap.
The McCanns represent the upper class, and Shannon Matthews's parents the working class. I do think that because the way the media have reported on the Maddi case, it might have inspired them to have their 15 minutes of fame. They may have wanted some money from the media. Of course I don't know the truth here, and Shannon's mother is going to have a fair trial and who knows at the end will be discharged of any wrongdoing.
But if she is guilty of "perverting the course of justice and child neglect", I am pretty sure that the media and all the McCanns story have something to do with it.

Hail to the Chief!

At the NATO's summit in Bucharest yesterday, cameras witnessed the very weird way Kevin Rudd the Australian prime minister saluted G.W Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsdAMEZMric)

John Pilger wrote an article on the News Statesman(6/03/2008), called "Australia's hidden empire".From my experience of backpacking around Australia for a year and half, I found the article very interesting with hard truths about Aboriginal Australia but also very severe towards Australia itself and its new Prime Minister.
Kevin Rudd the labour prime minister has been a fierce critic of the Iraq war.When Howard said that Al Qaida would be happy if the Democrats won the presidential election, Rudd gave a brilliant speech at Canberra' parliament.
Thanks to him Australia has just ratified Kyoto's agreements. He apologized to the stolen generation with a knee on the floor. He has a very different approach on foreign policy than Howard, does not bash the EU and acknowledges the importance of the security council:

"Whether it was the debate over the Iraq war, whether it's the consideration of particular actions against the Government of Iran, whether it's other matters, this is the critical decision-making body of the United Nations."( Sydney Morning Herald,April 5th 2008)

John Howard was called or was "appointed" by W the "Sheriff of Asia". ( By the way he called Sarkozy his"little friend" and said that he was the "latest incarnation of Elvis (Presley of course!), I also do not forget the Yo Blair! of W at the G-8 summit in St Petersburg last year).

I am going to plagiarise a bit John; the way Rudd has saluted George W., well the new sheriff of Asia has just pledged allegiance to the Chief!

End of an era?

The Sunday times(30/03/08) run an article about India and Britain" The reverse Raj" or how Indian businesses are buying out British Businesses.
And on Monday, Roger Cohen the NY times columnist wrote " It’s the end of the era of the white man" referring
Actually the last week I was at a workshop with a classmate and he did not like the idea that "the Indians are buying everything in England". We were just reading the news that Tata the Indian conglomerate bought Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford. Obviously he did not care when the American Ford bought the British brands but was annoyed by the fact that an Indian-based company bought former British owned brands from the Americans.

Fortunately the Sunday time's article and the New York Times' column are not racist. They celebrate the success of India and Asia. And anyway it is just how history works. Rome or Athens used to be capitals of "the world" now Italy and Greece are just small countries within the European Union. In Naples one of the biggest and most beautiful city of Italy, rubbish and waste are not collecting.
But the wheel of history is one more time just changing. Cohen writes:
"In the 17th century, China and India accounted for more than half the world’s economic output. After a modest interlude, the pendulum is swinging back to them at a speed the West has not grasped."
For a former Indian diplomat, quoted on the Sunday's Time:"Indians take pride that the relationship is now one of equality, that India is an emerging power and Britain is a former power.”
I just hope that the economic growth of some will not be at the expense of the others.

The women I like

I would like to write about the admiration and respect I have for the the Democratic Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and the German Chancellor,Nancy Pelosi and Angela Markela. There are 2 strong women with principles which is something seldom in politics. Just think about the last Clinton Bosnian-tale.
I admired the fact that Angela Merkel was not shy with the former Russian President Vladimir Putin and did not hesitate to tell him her thoughts about human rights in Russia .She also did not call to congratulate him or his successor because of the way the election was held. And last but not the least, she is the first western leader to decide not to attend opening on Beijing Olympics.

I also like Nancy Pelosi who have met the Dalai-Lama in India and in an interview with ABC is urging the US President to boycott the opening ceremony.

Since I was born, few speeches have ever caught my attention. The very first one was the one Jacques Chirac pronounced the day the former French President, Francois Mitterand died. Christine Albanel drafted it, she is now the French Minister for cultural matters. The second speech was the one Dominique de Villepin then French Foreign Minister pronounced at the U.N security council during the run-up to the Irak War. The 2 last speeches which I would say "turn me on" are from Barrack Obama.

The first one was in Iowa at a fundraiser, a Jefferson Jackson dinner,organised by the Democratic Party. And the second one was this week in Philadelphia, he called it "A More Perfect Union". The context though was different from all the previous speeches I liked. He wrote it under pressure. He wrote it because he has to stop the bleeding caused by his spiritual mentor and former pastor.Of course political speeches are praised or despised according to the commentator's political convictions.

And the"More Perfect Union"was not a execption. He was praised by the liberal wing of the America's political spectrum. And of course the conservatives pilloried it. However they are few exceptions like Andrew Sullivan or Rich Karlgaard from Forbes Magazine. The last one called Obama's speech "A speech for the Ages".

But in general journalists and columnists have vied to attach powerful adjectives, phrases or titles to the speech. It was Obama's Lincoln Moment for Tim Rutten of the L.A Times.For John Dickerson of Slate Magazine, "his speech was flying at 30,000 feet".A "Daring and unique speech of Race" for David Corn of Mother Jones.

However questions remain for Charles Krauthammer. It was for him a brilliant fraud, and he asks :

"why doesn't he leave even today[his Church]?"why would you expose your children to his [Jeremiah Wright]vitriolic divisiveness?" Good questions indeed.

Still, for me that was a powerful speech that nowadays few politicians would dare to deliver.Obama has taken some risks here, and as I mentioned before, Politics are like nobility and Barack Obama is one of the very few aristocrats alive.

YOU ARE WRONG

In Prospect Magazine, Trevor Phillips the chairman of the the Equality and Human Rights Commission (former Commission for racial equality), wrote an article about Barack Obama. For Mr Phillips, Barack Obama is just a charismatic, capable and ruthless politician. At first I would be delighted if Trevor Phillips could give us the name of a single politician at this level who is uncharismatic, incapable and gentle or a choirboy.

For Phillips, Barack Obama is a “bargainer”. According to the African-American conservative author Shelby Steele (A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited about Obama and Why He Can't Win) they are two kind of black leaders in America, the bargainers and the challengers. Basically for the challengers, they very often consider Whites as racist until they prove otherwise. And the bargainers; their motto is “I will not use America's horrible history of white racism against you, if you will promise not to use my race against me”.

Challengers are people such as Malcolm X or Jesse Jackson. The bargainers are people like Oprah Winfrey or Sydney Poitier. Phillips, who does not think that Barack Obama will get the nomination, says that if he gets it and wins the presidency, nothing basically will change in America concerning race relations. For Shelby Steeles if Obama wins, he will fulfil the hopes of Whites therefore he will disappoint Blacks or vice versa. I don’t agree. As a matter of fact if Barack Obama is elected President and turns the economy around, creates jobs and reduces the deficit I do think that Americans whatever the colour of their skin will benefit as a nation from that.

Phillips makes another mistake about Obama; and I am pretty sure that he has not read enough about him.
For example he takes Bill Cosby as a counter example. Phillips writes that the actor who the last years “has toured the country emphasising the theme of black responsibility” is isolated within the Black Community and Obama ignores it and does not want to talk about Blacks responsibilities in their own destiny. Wrong. Bill Cosby is still a revered personality amongst African –Americans and even amongst all Americans. He wrote a book with the professor of psychiatry Alvin Toussaint who teaches at the Harvard Medical School, called “Come on People, on the path from victims to victors”. They were on the NBC's “Meet the Press", interviewed by Tim Russert : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhZve73KQpQ

The excellent New York Times’ Bob Herbert wrote an excellent column about it, make up your mind: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/opinion/16herbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

But Bob Herbert is for sure better informed than Trevor Phillips. Mister Chairman should know that Barack Obama made several speeches in his church in Chicago but also before black audiences on the campaign trail about their own responsibilities to study as long as they can or about the fact that they can improve their lives on a daily basis.

Another point I disagree with is the use of words such as bargainers or challengers. For example the word “bargainer” sounds to me like a modern version of Uncle Tom. I find very stupid to say that a great man like Sydney Poitier is a “bargainer” (pronounce Uncle Tom) just because he is a good actor and appeals to people whatever the colour of their skin. Can we just say that Sydney Poitier is a human being and a good actor who happened to be Black? That Jesse Jackson is not a challenger; he is just a human being and a good politician who built the rainbow coalition, who fought against inequalities from Selma (Alabama, 1965) to Jena (Louisiana 2007) and who happened to be black?
Doctor Martin Luther King said once that he dreamt that his four little children would one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Well Mister Phillips as a chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission it might be the time for you and your conservative friend to stop judging people by the color of their skin and stop putting them into boxes.

And by the way since you believe in such stupid theories, are you a bargainer or a challenger?

What are we afraid of?

Yesterday an anti-aviation group called Plane Crazy has set a demonstration on the rooftop of the British Parliament. Of course it is fair to rise questions about the security of the building, but come on! England is a democracy, the parliament is the house of the people, for the people, it was not a violent action. Again as I mentionned before because of a bench of terrorists we are now afraid of everything. A small group reaches the rooftop to protest against a third runway at Heathrow's airport and the media react as if the security of the Kingdom was under threat.
Gordon Brown said" The message should go out today very cleary that decisions in this country should be made in the chamber of this House and not on the roof of this House". Of course, but I don't think that they intended to make a decision and come on Prime Minister this is a democracy, and if you don't listen to the people this kind of action will increase.

A good method

The German secret service (BND) has paid a Lichtenstein’s bank employee to give the data of 163 German tax dodgers. Around 91 have admitted to the allegations and have already paid €27.8 million in back taxes. For Der Spiegel the Public prosecutors of Bochum, Germany, said on Tuesday they had found more than €200 million in funds hidden in Liechtenstein-based foundations. For The Times of London, Germany estimates that about €4 billion untaxed income are hidden in Liechtenstein.
I do think it is good thing and I don’t see why rich people should be exempted for paying their taxes. Of course one can consider that taxes in Sweden, Germany or France are too high, but even when taxes are lower like in England, some rich people find ways to pay less taxes. For the Times of London, the Inland Revenue is investigating about 100 Britons for tax evasion. For the same newspaper, Germany is bullying countries such as Switzerland or Lichtenstein and it is counter-productive;
” It will be better to persuade them that interdependence is a two way street, and that change is the best guarantee of good relations with their larger neighbours”.
Really? So how long should we wait that these tax havens help tax agencies of bigger states or the justice of Third World looted countries?

I do not know what rich people’s reasons are but they must know that a modern state needs those taxes to work. And how could you enjoy your money in a country where the state can’t provide basic education and healthcare to the people? How could you enjoy your money when it is not safe to go outside your luxurious house? As a matter of fact police forces would be either corrupt or under equipped. How could you enjoy your money when the needy do not have a minimum to live on?

Big Brother

Last week it was revealed that an MP has been bugged when visiting a constituent in jail (it was in 2005 and 2006.Good.Pretty soon we will know the truth about the death of JFK).

The constituent is a terrorist suspect and the US are asking for his extradition. The problems here are the fact that tapes cannot be used in court and of course an MP, a guardian of the British democracy, was twice bugged. But one can consider that it is OK to bug a terrorist suspect. If the police can prevent a terrorist attack, everybody is going to be happy. Of course they have to count on the stupidity of the suspect to give critical information from a jail. I think he can figure out that he is under tight surveillance.

This brings me to my second point.

According to the Times (of London, 6/02/08) they are 4, 2 million CCTV in Britain (reported by Liberty a human rights group). I think the UK is the world leader, by the way Australia is not bad either.

" Convert surveillance, once the stuff of John Le Carré novels and the business of the Stasi in Germany, is a constant reality in 21st-century in Britain."

For the Times many of the CCTV cameras are unregulated. And government agencies are spying on their users;

"You can be followed on your daily activities by men or women from the Office of Fair Trading, the Health and Safety Executive and the Rural Payments Agency"

Pretty soon I think everybody will watch everybody. Another example of the bizarre atmosphere is this case; yesterday a court awarded the five members of a band, the Caribbean Steel International, because they have been wrongly removed from the airplane they boarded en route to London. The reason is that a fellow passenger went to see the captain and said that they looked like terrorists. The five musicians are black and one of them is blind. So they appeared suspect because in the waiting lounge they were together but not in the plane. By the way the company is Ryanair and the plane was full so they could not sit wherever they wanted...

What a strange society we are living in, democratic, but... . The government and/or the parliament give powers to some agencies to investigate their consumers. Why? Because we want more profits, more profitability and more productivity. And in the same time as citizens we become paranoids. We are scared of a bench of crazy terrorists. Our freedom is reduced day by day and the sad thing is that we participate proudly and with enthusiasm.

ATTENTION MONSIEUR OBAMA

In an interview with the French magazine Paris Match and the cable channel
Canal +, Barack Obama praises the leadership of Nicolas Sarkozy the French President. Barack Obama thinks that he is an energetic man and that he is an example of leadership for other leaders around the world.
There is no discussion that Sarkozy is energetic and dynamic. But one has to see further than that especially when people think of you as the Camelot’s new knight (Washington Post 01/29/2008). You can be dynamic, criss-cross the country; you can visit factories or police stations that does not mean that you solve problems. I don’t care if a leader is dynamic or not. The job of a politician is to solve the problems not only talk about it.
So far Sarkozy has spoken more often than he has actually solved the problems of la belle France is facing. I do not know what exactly Obama has found with Sarkozy, but this is a man who asks the French people to make sacrifices and in the meantime went on vacation in Egypt and then in Petra (Jordan) in very luxury hotels the last Christmas.

Barack Obama said that he does not accept the money from lobbies to finance his campaign, so I guess that he will not borrow their private jets or yachts either. Fair enough. But Monsieur Obama the guy that you seem to admire with his new approach of politics is the man who goes on vacation with the private jet of Vincent Bolloré, an important French businessman. He borrows also sometimes his yacht. It is another French businessman who paid his last summer vacation in Wolfsborough (USA).

Sarkozy was supposed to give French people something called “Change” (sounds familiar?).
In a press conference few weeks ago he announced that he could not do anything about the purchasing power of the French and in the same conference he announced that the relation with his Italian former model turned pop singer girl friend was serious. Another example of “new leadership” is when he went to Africa in Senegal not long after his election to give a speech that many considered racist.
By the way the next time Obama wants to give his opinion about a leader, he should have a look at the latest opinion poll, as a matter of fact Sarkozy is more and more unpopular with his own people.

With this kind of faux-pas or if it is the kind of leadership Senator Obama you are admiring and looking forward to exercise, I would rather vote (if I was an American) for Hillary Clinton or the Republican nominees McCain or Romney( he is already a millionaire, I am sure that he won’t borrow the private jet or the swimming pool of a fellow businessman.)

WAR IN CONGO

The war in Congo is killing almost 45000 people every month (The Guardian, 22/01/2008) .The war has so far killed more than 3 million people. It is the deadliest conflict in human history since World War 2. However we live in a world which does not care about it, because it is blacks who are killing each other. As a matter of fact the conflict in Darfur- do not get me wrong, the killings there are unacceptable- attracts much more media attention. But it is different, because some Arabian tribes are killing Black Africans tribes. Furthermore the underground is full of oil.
There are also lot of natural resources in Congo; unfortunately one can extract the resources in a war zone without problems. The sites are secure with very well armed guards. As I watched a report on CNN international the other day, the government or its representatives on the ground are corrupted. Of course the companies which extract the minerals pay some taxes but not what they should pay. Besides the workers are underpay and work in conditions close to that of their ancestors 100 years ago. I can’t imagine what is like being injured in those mines in a remote area in Congo. They have no access to modern hospitals. And even if some infirmaries or hospitals exist they do not have the money to pay the treatments. The world is not really involved because it is a very complex situation. But by the way involvement does not mean solutions at the end. Look at the Israelian-Palestinian conflict. People get involved but no results so far.
So the situation is much more complex in Congo. It has to do with colonisation, bad governance, corruption, and natural resources. We can also include different ethnic groups who hate each other, and a huge market for weapons smugglers. They play an explosive role in the conflict. The truth is we are all guilty at some point of this. As a matter of fact some of the minerals which are extracted in Congo are being used in electronic components. And do not forget the environment, the warriors in this area are also animal smugglers and they are decimating species such as elephants. They killed them with bazookas. How funny is that?
But I am optimistic. The Congo is independent since the sixties. Some countries or continents like Europe were in war for centuries. People seem sometimes to forget their own bloody and violent history, especially in Europe. That is not a reason of course to do nothing to stop this stupid war.

STOLEN GENERATION

The premier of Tasmania has announced yesterday that the stolen generation victims will share $5 million from the Tasmanian government. (The Australian)
So far the federal government has refused to compensate that tragedy with money. However Kevin Rudd the new prime minister of Australia has pledged that he will apologised to Aborigines for all the suffering the white men did to them.
What is the stolen generation? I recommend a wonderful book and a movie based on the book. ”Follow the Rabbit-Proof” fence by author Doris Pikington Garimara and the movie is Rabbit-proof fence from director Phillip Noyce ( The Bone Collector, The Saint).
The stolen generation is all the mixed race children (usually from an Aborigine mother and a White father) who were removed from their families by the Australian government. The authorities wanted to assimilate the children in an all white Australian society, because anyway the” Aborigines were supposed to disappear”.

The question is can the Australian government compensate so much suffering with money? I am not in position to judge, I am not a stolen generation victim. The Tasmanian premier said:” "No amount of money can make up for Aboriginal children being removed from their families simply on the basis of race," (the Australian 22/01/08). Sure. But I know that the federal government will not follow the example of Tasmania because I think if they accept to compensate the “Stolen generation”, what about all the Aborigines people?
But in Australia change comes from the legal system. Last year the Supreme Court of Western Australia has granted rights in some large lands to Aborigines in this state. And in 1992, in the Mabo versus Queensland case the High Court of Australia made irrelevant the terra nullius concept. It meant that before this judgment the Australian government did not recognize that before the White man came in Australia, the Aborigines were already there.

But it is a hard question that the Australian government has to think about, if they have to compensate the Aborigines? And it is the same question with the American government, does it have to compensate Native Americans for all the suffering they endured and the dispossession of their lands? And what about African-Americans and their deportation from Africa and their work in cotton fields? Is compensation the only way to apologize? And why asking the taxpayer to pay for something he has nothing to do with? Why someone will receive some money from some work he never did but his ancestors actually did. I have no answers to these tricky questions, but we can think about it.

Bill Clinton, the Hillary’s barker

William Jefferson Clinton is one of the best President the USA never have, a very intelligent and charismatic leader of the 20th-century. He is admired around the world.
He did everything he could to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. He made a powerful speech in Gore Island (Senegal) which was a slave depot during the 18th century; he said:
"From Gore and other places Africa's sons and daughters were taken through the door of no return, never to see their friends and families again. America's struggle to overcome slavery and its legacy forms one of the most difficult chapters of that history. Yet, it is also one of the most heroic, a triumph of courage, persistence, and dignity. The long journey of African-Americans proves that the spirit can never be enslaved."
It is in Uganda that he apologized for the slave trade. Bill Clinton is also remembered as the first President to visit Vietnam since the war between the two countries ended. He lifted the embargo and restored the diplomatic relation between the two countries.
At home when he left the Office the economy was strong, the unemployment rate was low. The US had a federal budget in balance and even in surplus.
He left the Washington with much more experience than he had when he came into the White House. Still young and energetic he created the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation dedicated to "promotes the values of fairness and opportunity for all".
With few resources, volunteers, donations and his relations within the States and the World, he is succeeding in his fight in against HIV/AIDS. His foundation is treating or help to treat around 800 000 people in 71 countries. Bill Clinton is also involved in the fight against climate change.
Now here is the snag. His wife has decided to run for President of the US. Nothing wrong here except that if she gets the democratic nomination and gets elected President and re- elected, the United States the most powerful democracy in the World would have been under the Bushes and Clintons 28 years( 4 for Bush 41, 8 for Bush 43, 8 for Clinton 42, 8 for Clinton 44, do the math!).
That is not healthy for the ideals of a Republic. And who knows after Hillary the US would elect Jeb Bush, brother of George W. for eight more years, the time for Chelsea Clinton to be ready and so on...
But Hillary Clinton cannot be discriminate because she is the wife of a former President. As John Kennedy said when he appointed his brother as Attorney General “why should we discriminate someone because he is my brother?” Indeed, Robert Kennedy made a very talented and competent Attorney General and some even said that he was the real vice president .And in 1968 he would have won the Democratic nomination fair and square, but someone or some people decided to stop him.
So back to Bill Clinton who is doing everything he can to get his wife elected. He owes her so much. She stood up with him to the attacks when he needed her the most. During his campaign in 1992, she helps him to focus because she is a disciplined woman. Despite his many infidelities, Hillary stayed. Despite the supreme humiliation of the Monicagate she stayed. By calculation or by resignation or just because she loved him, she stayed.
Until the result of the Iowa Caucus Bill Clinton criticised Barack Obama in a fair ton, said that he was too young, too inexperienced, that he had to wait. His turn will come. But everything changed when Barack Obama won the first caucus. The best symbol of change as he called Obama on the Charlie Rose show relegated his dear wife, the best agent of change at a distant third place. Since then he has been hammering Obama in a deeply "depressing way" as Donna Brazile the former Al Gore campaign’s manager pointed out. He misquoted Obama on his opposition to the war, saying that actually he has never been really against it. Truth is that the junior Senator opposed the war since the very beginning, but once the troops were in Iraq, he decided to temper his critiques. Another example is when he angrily accused the Obama campaign in Nevada to threaten some of Hillary’s supporters in front of him and his daughter Chelsea. This is a presidential campaign, this is politics, it is tough and it is normal. Except that the guy we are talking about is Bill Clinton. The same guy who did great things in US, Senegal, Bosnia or Vietnam. Why did he become so aggressive? What is wrong with you Bill? Let's imagine that Barack Obama becomes the democratic nominee, how could he comes before the American people and say look, I am going to vote for this guy, he is the best candidate??!!! Who are you kidding Bill? This is someone who is supposed to unite a country and who is now ready to tear apart his own party. Come down Bill, you are better than what you are doing now.