Gamal Nkrumah assesses the dynamics of the making of Obama, a phenomenon that might transform the world's mightiest nation Barack Obama is a deft politician. He makes sure that all and sundry understand that there is much to be gained from peering into the deep recesses of his mind. Obama is not, contrary to what many of his detractors would have us believe, about obscurantism. There is a world of difference between an obscurantist attitude and a multifaceted and manifold mind. There is nothing nebulous about Obama. He is also a heart-throb with a head for political foresight. He is not about entertaining his audience, as many American politicians, particularly black ones, have been prone to do. The phenomenon of a magnetic politician driving America in a new direction is nothing new. Comparisons have been made between Obama and John F Kennedy. However, steering America away from the warpath is no walkover task, as the latter learned the hard way. However, the political climate in America today appears to be ready for change, even though those who espouse anachronistic opinions hold out. "I do not believe our country can fulfil its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam," pontificated John McCain's spiritual guru, televangelist Rod Parsley, who advocates destruction of Islam, "the false religion". Obama has not yet won a decisive mandate for change in the United States with his anticipated victory over Senator Hillary Clinton. Calm and collected, the articulate and hugely charismatic Obama appears to be nearing his goal of at least becoming the official Democratic presidential candidate. The central themes of his campaign have galvanised many Americans, and are proving to be food for thought for countless others. Obama is a leader who breaks long tried and tested traditions, who breaks with tradition and who has his gaze firmly focussed on new horizons. Expectations that the presidential election would be a shoo-in for Obama look set to be fulfilled. Parallels are drawn between the Vietnam War and the current war in Iraq. "You read a lot of comparisons now about Vietnam and Iraq. For the most part they are totally incomparable; the nature and purpose of the war, almost everything is totally different except in one respect: how they are perceived in the United States. In both cases there is what is now sometimes called the 'Q' word, quagmire," Noam Chomsky notes. So why did the US concede defeat in Vietnam and fail to get out of Iraq? Is it oil, perhaps. "We could withdraw from Vietnam because the US had already essentially obtained its objective by then. Iraq, we can't because we haven't obtained our objectives," Chomsky observed. America is in Iraq, and cannot leave for the moment, because it wants to gain control of the country's vast oil reserves -- the world's second largest after Saudi Arabia. Be that as it may, public opinion was never taken into consideration as far as successive US administrations are concerned. And, again it seems sagacious to heed Chomsky's words of wisdom. "Incidentally, in the case of Cuba about two-thirds of Americans think we ought to end the embargo and all threats and enter into diplomatic relations. And that has been true ever since polls have been taken -- for about 30 years," Chomsky points out. "That is the kind of hypocrisy that we have been seeing in our foreign policy, the kind of fear-peddling, fear-mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safer," Obama said recently. Torn between the desire for security and realisation for the need for reform, the American voters -- or rather the Democratic voters -- are increasingly pinning their hopes on Obama. Obama has stirred up much excitement in the developing countries of the South. The prospects of a black, anti-war president is irrepressibly refreshing. In the end, the sheer determination and professionalism of Obama's campaign might prove to be decisive in overcoming the fierce rearguard action by Senator Clinton. Can Obama win a mandate for change from the American people? In the longer term, yes. The question now is: will the American electorate give Obama a comfortable victory over John McCain? Until Obama's victory is secure, people in the developing countries of the South cannot breathe a deep sigh of relief. If Obama triumphs in the presidential race, they would then raise the loudest cheer. To many, black and white -- in America and abroad -- Reverend Jeremiah Wright's remarks initially sounded the death knell to dreams of Obama's chances of becoming America's first black president. Americans scrutinised the manner in which Obama tackled the iconoclastic issue of race. The initial reactions from Obama's detractors in the aftermath of Reverend Wright's remarks read like an indictment on the promising and charismatic senator. Then he surprised friend and foe with a most dexterous, albeit politically astute speech -- perhaps the most puissant in America's post-civil rights era. It signalled a break with the past, with how the prickly problem of race in American politics is traditionally tackled. Obama deftly distanced himself from his former spiritual mentor, but neither did he rubbish him. Obama did not belittle Black America's "particular grievances". Rather, he urged the "binding" of those grievances "to the larger aspirations of all Americans". And hence the genius of the man. Race has traditionally been the Achilles' heel that has held black politicians in check and deprived them of high political office. Race is also used by white politicians to destroy the political prospects of promising black politicians. Predictably, Wright was used by Republicans to quite literally blacken Obama's image in the eyes of the American electorate. "Wright fits with their narrative of division, diversion and destruction," Donna Brazile, the first black woman to manage a Democratic Campaign (that of Al Gore in 2000) so aptly summed it up. Obama eschews attention-grabbing policies. But he cannot stand idly by while his opponents tarnish his image. It is the way, however, in which he defended his cause that attracted the attention of the entire world. His masterful handling of the Wright affair was nothing short of impressive. He prudently refused to dwell too long on the subject of race and the bitterness voiced by his erstwhile spiritual mentor. Nevertheless, he scrupulously avoided denigrating Wright and the core issues he raised -- prickly subjects that are dear to the hearts of the vast majority of liberal and African Americans. Moreover, Obama knows all too well that the war against terror appears to be more psychological than real. His views on the Palestinians are surprisingly novel as far as American politicians are concerned. "They are the government and sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them," Obama insightfully remarked on the Hamas political stranglehold on Gaza. He understands that Hamas is the Palestinian choice, whether Western democracies accept it or not. Will he ultimately have the mandate to shake up the system with a clear message of confidence in change? Do not panic just yet, Israelis and American political establishment. Obama might not have had the dubious honour of spending the night in the Abraham Lincoln bedroom at the White House, but he sure knows the inner workings of the American political system. Obama is against excessive rigidity at the helm. In reality, the American political establishment's approach is likely to entail a patchwork of regulations. American politicians do not always heed their constituencies, as the example on the American public opinion on Cuba clearly shows. Moreover, they are vulnerable to special interest pleading. The main point is to gain bargaining power by understanding that one's opponent is not infallible. Obama comprehends that, too. Obama doesn't rise to the bait. He left Bush's outrageous comparison of Obama's call for America to speak to its supposed adversaries to "negotiating with the Nazis" to the Democratic bigwigs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed Bush's remarks as "beneath the dignity of the office of president". Howard Dean, chairman of he Democratic National Committee, called Bush's remarks, made of all places to the Israeli Knesset, "an embarrassment to our country not based in fact and bringing us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region."
