On Friday, McCain said that “Al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against me.” This is a new page in the republican playbook, which they are bound to use more in the coming months. Republicans know that this fear-mongering tactic will work in the general elections and don’t want to play their card too soon.

Senator Hillary Clinton used this method once in the Texas primary with her “3 a.m.” ad, focusing on the idea of the U.S. president’s potential to lead the country during terrorist attacks.

But, if Senator Clinton is so compelling in her efforts to fix domestic shortcomings and Senator Obama seems able to engage more American in politics and form a more united America, when it comes to foreign policy, Senator McCain has the final word, as he can rely on his longtime service in the Army and Senate.

Obama’s superior sense of judgment and Clinton’s new approach toward foreign policy separate them from the republican candidate. However, when it comes to threats to the nation, people tend to vote somebody who has already been tested.

The fear factor will lead people to choose a candidate who is experienced enough. McCain’s allegations show that his advisors are readying people for the day they choose their candidates not because of their passion, excellent plans and inspiring speeches, but simply for their ability to properly react should any national security threat come up.

Yet among the three remaining candidates, McCain is the weakest when it comes to domestic issues and has no significant plan when it comes to economy, health care and education.

Regarding the importance and urgency of capturing the White House, nothing can better serve republicans than images of “fear” and “foreign threat.” So, the question now is in what manner republicans will make national security and foreign policy their first priority in the coming months. If you find it hard to guess, remember the months before the Iraq invasion in April 2003. Remember?
(Updates: Don’t miss this on Washpost blog: A McCain Gaffe in Jordan)

Since I’ve started blogging on presidential elections in the United States on my Farsi blog, my readers have doubled. I am not really sure whether it’s my eloquent writing that’s drawing the new readers or a desire to get firsthand information about a unique election that could change the life of millions of people outside the United States.

“Everywhere I go, people talk about Hillary and Obama,” observed one of my readers from Tehran. “Some of the university students analyze candidates’ debates as though they were going to vote in November.”

In Iran, one of the founding members of President Bush’s “axis of evil” club, young people record the U.S. candidates’ speeches and lend recorded tapes to their friends to watch. A friend of mine told me that she was invited to a gathering to watch the Ohio and Texas primaries. “In Tehran today, it is a hip and fun thing to do,” my friend says.

There is a simple reason behind this obsessive attention. The two Democratic front-runners embody the promise of the American dream – that hard work is rewarded with success regardless of race or gender. This dream is sold to the rest of the world in Hollywood movies and Silicon Valley success stories, but when it comes to Washington, the dream turns to war, fear and aggression.

This article appeared on page G – 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

In my humble opinion, there is no country among Iraq’s neighbors that enjoys stability and peace in Iraq more than Iran.Simply because Iranians fear that widespread violence in Iraq can easily speared in Iran and harm the country’s stability.

On the other side, the U.S. has given Iranians the best service they could ever expect by diminishing Iran’s enemies, the Taliban on the East side and Saddam Hussein to the West. (Don’t miss this video)

The point is that McCain, who has not been able to make his case concerning domestic issues – and particularly the U.S. economy – is manipulating the reality of what’s going on in the region to scare voters and get their support.

Ahmadinejad’s historical visit to Baghdad shows that McCain’s argument about Iran is not valid. Here is an excerpt from Reuters’ report on this trip that delicately describes the Iran-Iraq relationship:

His warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by Iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was Iraq’s first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

His visit not only marks the cementing in ties between the neighbors, both run by Si’ite majorities, but is seen as a show of support for the Iraqi government and an act of defiance against Iran’s longtime enemy, the United States, which has over 150,000 troops Iraq.

To Iraq’s neighbors, Ahmadinejad’s visit underlines that a non-Arab country has kept its embassies open since the fall of Saddam and its leader visits Iraq,” Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abbawi told Reuters.

Many Arab diplomats have stayed away after a suicide car bomber attacked the Jordanian embassy in August 2003, killing 17 people. Militants have killed several other diplomats, including an Egyptian who had been sent to head Cairo’s mission in 2005.

“Not a single Arab country has an embassy in Iraq and not one of their leaders has visited, despite Iraq being an Arab country,” Abbawi said.

-Omid Memarian

(Photo Description: I was chatting with my friend, who is a German journalist and was in Talibani’s palace in Baghdad today. I asked her to send me a picture of President Ahmadinejad’s meeting with President Talibani. She sent me a picture taken by Iraqi photographer Jamal Penjweny.)

However, I do not believe that the silly season started with Clinton or Obama. The credit of going silly should be given to The New York Times for claiming a “romantic relationship” between McCain and the middle-aged blonde and charming lobbyist Vicki Iseman.. Especially for calling the relationship “romantic, that there is nothing we can check, no one we can ask, no digging we can do.” However, these days people are talking about this “romantic relationship,” referring to the Times article. I don’t know how the Times can handle the ethical issue of that particular sentence, but I know that the silly season has truly arrived.

It’s not just Times going tabloid – a news show on CNN even referred to it as: “Tabloid Times?” — because when it is a silly season, anybody could go silly, especially when nobody is sure who is behind some of these attacks. The rumors about Clinton and her personal aide, Huma Abedin, are one example. The attempt by mainstream media and particularly right-wing websites to play on the “Obama” and “Osama” similarity in sounds is another.

Silly claims such as those of lesbianism and Islamic extremism could have found “a fertile ground” for the general elections. After all, the silly season has just started.
-Omid Memarian
Photo Credit:Left: DON’T GO THERE: BRIT PAPER STARTS ‘UGLIEST MONTH’(Drudge Report), Middle- Clinton: ‘Shame on you, Barack Obama’ (CNN Politics), Right:Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right, is dressed as a Somali Elder by Sheikh Mahmed Hassan, left, photo from Aug. 27, 2006. (AP Photo)

It also shows that Clinton’s campaign has targeted Obama’ dominant factor: the way he uses simple words to inspire millions of people. But is that a big deal? Is that really “plagiarism”? When I heard Obama’s speech, particularly when he said: “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’ — just words?” I never thought that I hadn’t heard those words somewhere or from someone before. Why? Simply because, there is not even one single unsaid thing in the world that we could comfortably say people haven’t said before. (Haven’t you heard this before?)

Politicians do not, and also cannot, invent words. They simply use them at the right time, at the right place and for the right people. Millions of people say, “I have a dream” on a daily basis. But there is just one “I Have A Dream” which marks an opening to a history of hope, struggle and change. Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to credit Martin Luther King every time we use this phrase? It is more important to observe how what politicians say fits what they are and what people expect of them.

Accusing Obama of plagiarism, however, shows how frustrated Clinton’s campaign feels about his simple use of words, which have made a huge impact on millions of people.

Millions of people say, “Yes, we can”. But these days, this simple sentence, has become one of the most inspiring phrases we hear. Is that also plagiarism? I’m not sure this is a good tactic to stop Obama’s momentum, but at least it shows how Clinton’s campaign feels vulnerable about the power of words used by Obama, something that Clinton lacks badly.
- Omid Memarian