Yes We Did It- Obama's Presidential Speech

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled -- Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation's next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics -- you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to -- it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington -- it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America -- I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you -- we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers -- in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House -- a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn -- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world -- our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down -- we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security -- we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright --tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America -- that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing -- Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time -- to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth -- that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

................The photo and speech was got from the Chicago Tribune...........

A Kenyan Town With Its Eyes on the Election

KISUMU, Kenya – This town is primed to celebrate – but it’s also braced for trouble.

Kisumu is the epicenter of Kenya’s Obamaland. It’s the area where Senator Barack Obama’s father was born. By Friday morning, people were already squeezed around TVs and in bars and holding up radios, listening to the news broadcasts about the American election, which had yet to even start.

“It’s D-Day,’’ blared the headline of Tuesday’s Kenya Times.
People wore Obama pins. And Obama T-shirts. And they bought Obama clocks, with the candidate’s smiling face on them.

There was even some mock voting in Kisumu, a relatively big city along the muggy, green, hippo-infested shores of Lake Victoria. Kenyans here went for Senator Obama by about 98 percent.

But the police were taking no chances. Last time this many Kenyans were riveted by an election — their own — in December 2007, riots exploded after the opposition candidate lost and Kenya’s incumbent president won. Widespread allegations of vote rigging sent young men into the streets by the tens of thousands, to loot, burn and kill. Much ofKisumu was ravaged.

On Tuesday, riot squads patrolled the town with plastic shields and tear gas. Most people seemed cheerful. But a few young men yelled out, “No Obama, no peace!’’ a threatening mantra similar to one shouted out last year when the violence was raging and a hotly-contested election nearly brought this once-peaceful nation to its knees.

.....................The story is adopted from the New York Times..............................

Photo: http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/01/13/alg_obama-school.jpg

New York Times Endorses Barack Obama

Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation’s future truly hangs in the balance.

The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.

As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.

Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems.

In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.

Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain’s campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.

Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans’ bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government’s role and responsibilities.

In his convention speech in Denver, Mr. Obama said, “Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.”

Since the financial crisis, he has correctly identified the abject failure of government regulation that has brought the markets to the brink of collapse.

The Economy

The American financial system is the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies. Those ideas have been proved wrong at an unfathomable price, but Mr. McCain — a self-proclaimed “foot soldier in the Reagan revolution” — is still a believer.

Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business.

Mr. McCain talks about reform a lot, but his vision is pinched. His answer to any economic question is to eliminate pork-barrel spending — about $18 billion in a $3 trillion budget — cut taxes and wait for unfettered markets to solve the problem.

Mr. Obama is clear that the nation’s tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children’s options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish and expand educational opportunities.

Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent. And while he talks about keeping taxes low for everyone, his proposed cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent of Americans while digging the country into a deeper fiscal hole.

The American military — its people and equipment — is dangerously overstretched. Mr. Bush has neglected the necessary war in Afghanistan, which now threatens to spiral into defeat. The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.

While Iraq’s leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still talking about some ill-defined “victory.” As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.

Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, has only belatedly focused on Afghanistan’s dangerous unraveling and the threat that neighboring Pakistan may quickly follow.

Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain’s long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible.

Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America’s image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.

Mr. Obama wants to reform the United Nations, while Mr. McCain wants to create a new entity, the League of Democracies — a move that would incite even fiercer anti-American furies around the world.

Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. We have no sympathy for Moscow’s bullying, but we also have no desire to replay the cold war. The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians’ worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives.

Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain’s willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening.

The Constitution and the Rule of Law

Under Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the justice system and the separation of powers have come under relentless attack. Mr. Bush chose to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the moment in which he looked like the president of a unified nation, to try to place himself above the law.

Mr. Bush has arrogated the power to imprison men without charges and browbeat Congress into granting an unfettered authority to spy on Americans. He has created untold numbers of “black” programs, including secret prisons and outsourced torture. The president has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of secret orders. We fear it will take years of forensic research to discover how many basic rights have been violated.

Both candidates have renounced torture and are committed to closing the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But Mr. Obama has gone beyond that, promising to identify and correct Mr. Bush’s attacks on the democratic system. Mr. McCain has been silent on the subject.

WARSAW — Poles were jolted last week by the sudden discovery that they were not immune to the financial crisis contagion rippling across the globe. The plunging stock market here and the drastic weakening of the Polish currency proved, as in so many corners of the fast-growing developing world, how wrong they were.

The next president will have the chance to appoint one or more justices to a Supreme Court that is on the brink of being dominated by a radical right wing. Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like, but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues. He has said he would never appoint a judge who believes in women’s reproductive rights.

The Candidates

It will be an enormous challenge just to get the nation back to where it was before Mr. Bush, to begin to mend its image in the world and to restore its self-confidence and its self-respect. Doing all of that, and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand.

Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance. Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility.

Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.

He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush’s misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform.

Mr. McCain could have seized the high ground on energy and the environment. Earlier in his career, he offered the first plausible bill to control America’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Now his positions are a caricature of that record: think Ms. Palin leading chants of “drill, baby, drill.”

Mr. Obama has endorsed some offshore drilling, but as part of a comprehensive strategy including big investments in new, clean technologies.

Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He’s been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife’s love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans’ patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states “pro-America.”

This politics of fear, division and character assassination helped Mr. Bush drive Mr. McCain from the 2000 Republican primaries and defeat Senator John Kerry in 2004. It has been the dominant theme of his failed presidency.

The nation’s problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing “robo-calls” and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership. Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities.

.................This article is adopted from The New York Times..............

No matter what!!!...

“To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin, and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation, with profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for presidency of the United States.”

Barack Obama is running for the Presidency of the United States of America, no matter what!!! Listening to his inspiring speech, i felt more close to Barack when he showed the importance of his routes.

With his neck all high, slowing turning it left and right with gentility, Kenya was among the first mentions in the Senators speech.

“Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story, of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.”...

I only have a humble request to Obama if he would next time change his end speech

From.... 

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America...

To....

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America and the world!!

China Vs West-China Wins

And so the Olympic Games came and got kicked as quick to London on top of a typical double decker red bus by David Beckham as the press.

China’s inadequate commitment in the troubled areas of Darfur and Tibet was the pre-Olympic match that had China and the West wrestle.

New York Times, Time Magazine, BBC, and thousands of others didn’t profile as much for us, a prospective Olympic double gold medallist hero Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps, the now greatest Swimmer of all time. Some even say, Michael is the greatest ever Olympiad. That’s for the Jamaicans to judge otherwise i risk being partial.

Not even did our very own African media contingent know that Kirsty Coventry, the Zimbabwean would for some days save Robert Mugabe from a left to right hitting by his hungry watchdogs , flying home three silvers and a gold for a country whose inflation rate can no longer be written in figures but rather sentences.

The opening ceremony at the “birds nest” would for the two-week event blindfold almost every single journalist. They all went on a gracious treatment on how the opening was spectacular, how fireworks lit the entire Beijing, how Li Ning, a former Olympic gymnast for China flew around the birds nest, how the world has never seen anything like this before, how not a single mess was witnessed and so on.

Apart from dotted barely unconfirmed reports of abuse of human rights, everything went as planned for China .Even the most courageous of media houses for once forgot about China’s human rights records and concentrated on the games.

As long as Michael Phelps wore a gold medal a day at the water cube, all cameras were stuck at the pool because that’s what the world at that time wanted to know especially Americans, China’s hardest critics.

George Bush for your information smiled as much when Kobe Bryant and LeBron James stepped on court for a China Vs USA. While the US team didn’t grace the court as frequent as Bush would have wished, Michael Phelps gave the now unpopular republican a smile in his presidential suit by plucking medal after medal.

Somehow, he too forgot about China’s rights record. At least for the days China hosted him
China granted the world free access to a country most, prior to the games would rather know it through the media. People were scared of the worlds’ largest country.

The BBC, my most preferred source of information came short of my expectation.
The constant pre-Olympics criticism was heavy enough to convince me of two-week media battering of China.

I was keen and followed every step both on TV and radio.

BBC radio, rather than deploying the very best of investigative reporters, swarmed China with what i can term ‘tourists’-minus sports journalists.

One particular day, a BBC reporter set out for a region thousands of miles away from Beijing. All i heard was him interacting with Chinese on board and those he talked to sounded so amazed of travelling with a white person. It takes a while for these people to set their eyes on foreigners.

Some exploited the reporter by using the 24hour journey to perfect their English.

At the end of the journey, we listeners were not told as to how China has been going wrong in the furthest prior to inaccessible areas. It was more like a travel story to me than anything closer to drawing a picture of hardcore human rights abuse in China.

Credit to them though, they tried.

But to be fair, China was and is smart. Terrorist attack in the far west Chinese territory of Xinjiang Province, 2,500 miles from Beijing was cleaned even before a single footage would be recorded.

That time, 16 policemen were killed and because of the mere giant nature of China, that, i suppose to western media was not news and was buried as soon as it occurred. It was the second attack on China in less than a week.

As the world anticipated a wave of protests in China during the Olympics, not even the hardcore Tibetan supporters who preceding the games distracted the Olympic touch on its tour around the world, stepped a foot during the two weeks.

By today, trust me; most of them are still recovering from the outstanding show China show-cased the world. Do they even remember where their anti-Chinese placards are?

China designated three parks in the outlying parts of Beijing to be used for public protests during the Olympic Games though not a single one took place. Reports coming out said, close to people were denied to protest though they applied to do so.

The media had a shot and did not fully exploit it. Nobody can expect the freedom China gave to prevail now that the Olympics are over.

It’s back to the drawing board.

Most journalists used to enter the country as tourists to unearth human rights abuse and i am sorry many more will go back to China as tourists.

Alcohol now 70% more expensive in Botswana

Not long a go, the Botswana government brought to the table regulations restricting liquor trading hours and operations of night clubs in the country.

For liquor, the Minister of Trade and Industry, Neo Moroka took a shortcut: "It is a national problem," he said after gathering views from all over the country in which he had gone to consult.

Night clubs are to acquire licence to operate in specified hours. For alcohol, a proposed 70% increase in price and reduced trading hours looks more certain to go through evident with a commitment of several members of the Botswana assembly.

As expected, the loving out going Batswana were stung so bad.

According to the revised regulations, bars would now be open at 2.00 to 10.00 pm Monday to Thursdays. On Friday and Saturdays, bars will open 12.000 until 11.00 pm. Prior to these changes, they would close at midnight during the weekends.

Unlike the previous proposed regulations, which suggested that liquor outlets should not open on Sundays, this time, they will, but like the rest of the days, the hours are limited,(3.00 -10.00 pm.) That means just a seven-hour breathe-taking struggle for ease by both customers and bar owners.

Liquor restaurants will open at 2.00 pm and close at 10.00 pm from Monday to Thursday. 12:000-11-00pm on Friday and Saturdays.

If the above is a huge bite to take, night clubs, well, had not just huge bites but mauls.Night clubs will be open from 7.00 pm and close at midnight. For an 18 year old Batswana, five hours of dancing cannot be even closer to acceptance.

Despite an extended two hours to the above on Friday and Saturdays, (7.00pm-2.00am) revellers have to whipe out their sweat for four hours without alcohol as trading hours for liquors end at 10pm in the clubs.

Shooting pool and snooker are also prohibited in bars.

Botswana, having the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS infections in the world, alcohol and night clubs are more often blamed for engineering the continuos spread of the disease even as government in recent years has gone explicit in its attempt to deal with the disease.

HIV/AIDS messages on major roads,bill boards and Sign posts, Buildings, shopping malls, taxis among others are evident.

While Moroka’s regulations cannot be pushed under the carpet, it does not fully address certain situations.What could be the way forward for the affected parties. Human beings are quick at adapting.Close one door and many others open.

Batswana may resort to having house parties where of course the presence of liquor is not debatable. Here, hour restrictions will not be an issue. Government in the paper did not cover for such incidences.

There is a high possibility of Batswana creating "bars and night clubs" in garages and seating rooms which government will completely have no say. Does it mean such places do not contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS?

The prescribed hours at clubs in itself is a big risk. “A drink-before-it's-too-late” policy will crop in.Careless drinking most likely will set in to beat the fast moving daily deadlines which obviously has dangerous strings attached. Pregnancies, Road accidents among others wil still remain high if not worse.

Chances are high that with the high prices imposed on alcohol and limited opening hours of liquor stores, some may resort to drugs that are much cheaper.

The Botswana government currently is facing a huddle in tracking down inflow of drugs into the country especially in the Zimbabwe-South African border points.

A host of cars in recent times have been tracked down with drugs worth millions of pulas.
Unemployment may well be realised since liquor companies have to cut costs of production the fact that sales in the market are already limited. This obviously will have an effect on a Batswana who for example is HIV/AID positive, less educated and and has got no access to the country’s gold mines.

Neo Moroka might be using his jurisdiction in claiming, It is the duty of the government in making sure it takes care of the interests of the nation, but to the those affected, some interests are worth left to individuals to judge for themselves.

Rapid changes have been evident in Botswana since Ian Khama took over presidency, little less than five months from Festus Mogae.

Khama, son to Botswana’s renowned first leader Seretse Khama empahasised four D’s during his inauguration address. Displine made it to the list. The others were Democracy, Development and Dignity. These policies thus may not come as a surprise.

He is a reserved talker. Even those close to him in the ruling party have complained that it is difficult to know what he is thinking and what his next move would be.

For these, Batswana should be braced for an uncertain future in regards to what regulations will be followed.

Political Propaganda: Good for Democrats?

Barack Obama and Hillary Rhodman Clinton are fighting, Oh! Are they?

History dominated the start of the ongoing democratic primary campaigns.

Obama to become the first black president and Hillary, the first woman president should either of them gather sufficient delegates and finally take charge of the White House in the November elections.

It has progressed with much intensity. While the Hillary camp expected to have a run-over Barack Obama, the opposite is rather prevailed so far.

First, the two democrats share spoils. Then Barack Obama, the vibrant speech maker and senator of Illinois, breaks off, winning twelve states in a row.

The Clinton Camp is alarmed.

Any strategy that would halt a run-away Obama was necessary to bring back some life into the Clinton camp.

Done.

They had to be tougher when challenging Obama.

“The man in love with the microphone,” Machinists Union president Tom Buffenbarger started the war.

“He lifts his nose and turns up his ear so he can hear the roar of his adoring crowds. Unlike some, we in the machinists union have seen this act before. He’s damn proud of his performance. But I’m not. All he proved is like Janus, the two faced Roman god… He danced to the tune dictated by billionaires,” Buffenbarger continued.

Clinton then self- declared herself, the candidate who can take up a 3am call.

To this, Obama mildly reacted.

"The question is not about who will be picking up the phone. The question is what kind of judgment will you exercise when you answer the phone."

Obama is an excellent speaker and the Clintons couldn’t stand that fact.

On one of Barack Obama speeches in which a phrase ran close to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Hillary Rodham Clinton accused presidential rival Barack Obama of political plagiarism, when she ridiculed him as the candidate of “change you can Xerox.”

Obama toned the accusations down emphasizing, “What we shouldn’t be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time lifting the country up.”

Attacks aside: Is this healthy for the party?

While both sides point fingers at each other for fueling the attacks, the Clintons surely would take the much responsibilities of these outcomes.

Remember the Clintons first devised any means possible to halt Obama’s run of 12 straight victories which has in a way helped resurrect their camp.

Many political heads have had concerns with these accusations and counter-accusation, saying its bad for the party as it’s bound to create divisionism come November.

Politics though is never clean. Candidates will do whatever it takes to take charge.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has already admonished Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to stop attacking one another because it's “demoralizing the party's base and damaging its chances of winning back the White House in November.”

US house speaker, Nancy Pelosi is also concerned.

She has urged both leading Democratic presidential candidates to cease their bickering, warning that the “escalating rhetoric could hurt the party's chances in November.”

Campaigns anywhere in the world are characterized by questions and answers.

The more vibrant and realistic the answers are, the better. Clintons have attacked Obama on several occasions “forcefully but indirectly” demanding answers from the Illinois Senator’s camp.

In politics, when it comes tough, it goes back tough. That’s exactly what is happening in the Democratic race. Nobody can blame Obama for the return assails.

When you get shut by your opponent, you send a cold chill to your followers who are always at your feet for anything that comes out of your mouth.

My university; Makerere University, recently held its biggest political activity of the year. One candidate had just about everything. The party ticket-name-Hall-beauty but the guy was just so mild in everything he did and that cost him big. He lost eventually.

The democratic primaries are going to drag on for as long as either candidate can sustain.

Attacks will not fade.

These candidates have preached just about every reform Americans wanted to hear. The ground now looks more and more level, that personal attacks could provide the only avenue to change things.

The Democratic Party has a reasonable fan base to gain the White House. All that needs to be done is uniting the fans of both sides to rally behind the eventual winner.

I don’t sustain these attacks but in politics, you cannot avoid certain things.

Hillary Clinton, a, "Commander In-Chief?"

Hillary Clinton Took Ohio and Texas: Two states she worked so hard to win.Two states she knew was a must win.Two states her campaign relied.Yes Hillary Clinton claims her campaign is back.

The New York senator didnt win on a golden plate though.She put up a fight that i considered unfair but usual on a tough political seen.Attacks on Obama.

The prior quiet, mild lady has finally changed strategy. She's now this tough, hard talking.

Her toughness aside, there is one contegious area she has repeatedly tried to burry Barack Obama especially this week:That Obama is not ready to be Commander In-Chief"

Am a close follower of Barack, down east of Africa. My vote will not count in anyway but with internet, am on the same platform in spreading the good news about the senator as a folk in Illinois.

Now, "Commander In-Chief" here is a rather lengthy but important analysis of how what Hillary has been pausing as the real Commander In-Chief. Is this lady the real "Commandaer In Chief" she claims to be?Ben Smith writing for Politics.com hard it all summerised.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China:

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.