The ghost of Charles Percy lives on in America's staunch support for Israel at the UN

Ever heard of Charles Percy? Me neither but back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, he was apparently the US Republicans answer to JFK. He died in the past week and Rupert Cornwell the excellent Independent journalist that covers American politics, wrote an obituary for him last Thursday which can be read here.

Arab/Israeli Tensions in 1984
A moderate Republican, he was, so says Cornwell, sizing up a Presidential bid in 1976 but the demise of Nixon and the coming of Ford blew his chances out of the water. He continued however as a respected politician of the American right and in 1981 became Chair of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But in 1984, in a year when Reagan swept to a crushing re-election victory to the White House over the Democrats' Walter Mondale, Percy lost in his attempt to win a 4th term in the Senate in the state of Illinois. He lost to the Democrat Paul Simon but the reason many argue that he lost resonates to this day and indeed to the current diplomatic wranglings being witnessed at this very moment in the UN.

Cornwell notes that Percy "...had criticised Israel for missing opportunities to negotiate with the Palestinians, he had described Yasser Arafat as a "relative moderate", and had twice voted for controversial sales of US arms to Saudi Arabia, opposed by both Israel and AIPAC, the main Israel lobbying group in Washington".

The Jewish lobby wanted blood and they got their man by heavily financing and supporting Simon's campaign. Did it swing the campaign decisively in Simon's favour? Who can say but the response of AIPAC was clear. As Cornwell goes on to quote the Group's President Tom Dine at the time "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to defeat Percy, and American politicians – those who hold public positions now and those who aspire – got the message".

Cornwell concludes by stating that Congress's lockstep and virtually unanimous support of Israel since suggests he may have had a point.

Arab/Israeli Tensions in 2011
Percy's death last week therefore has a particular resonance at a time when a Democratic President of the USA threatens the UN with a Security Council wielding veto if the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas continues with his call for full membership of the United Nations.

Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations

I've been mulling over the diplomatic wranglings of recent days as the United Nations has played centre stage to this latest chapter in the sorry recent history of Arab/Israeli relations.

I've been desperately trying to realistically size up what has been right and what has been wrong about the recent moves by Mahmoud Abbas to request full membership status of the UN at its General Assembly in New York this week.

My gut instinct as one who has always shared great sympathy with the Palestinian cause has unsurprisingly been one of support. After all, after decades of deadlocked peace talks, why not just take the call for full nationhood status to the UN where there is clear support for such a call? But then there's my dismay at the Obama administration's response that any formal application will be vetoed by the USA in the Security Council. This takes us right back to the case of Charles Percy and the tribal nature of American party politics on this issue in which the Jewish lobby hold so much sway.

The response from Obama and indeed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is one that could actually be seen as being reasonable. It isn't they say that they are against a two state solution, just one that is opposed from top-down from the UN as opposed to one that is agreed bottom-up by both sides on the ground. At first sight this of course holds water - any agreement to co-exist side-by-side with each other can only realistically be made with another Oslo syle agreement by both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

But, and this is the big but, peace talks have stalled having gone round and round in circles for years. The election of the right-wing Likud leader Netanyahu as Prime Minister only intensified the concerns of all moderates that no common ground could be found between the two sides. This seems to have been bourne out by the building of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank which led to the collapse of the last round of talks in September 2010. Netanyahu will riposte by claiming that the reason of the collapse in communication is the Palestinians unwillingness to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. At the end of the day, they all must make compromises if they are to live together but in the mean-time, one side of the divide has it's national boundaries and a sovereignly recognised state whilst the other does not.

So who can blame the Palestinians for wanting to kick up a diplomatic fuss about it?

Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama

Are they right in doing so in such a way that will provoke the US into having to make an embarassing veto on the matter? Well to begin with, the US haven't got to veto but the recent history of the Jewish lobby's power in American politics as stated above demonstrates just how difficult it would be for Obama in an election year to go against their views. It's a sad situation but I can almost understand why he feels he must take that view even though I wish he didn't feel so beholden to one pressure group.

So Abbas will seek to force a vote on the issue at the UN and the result seems to be a foregone conclusion. Yet he could seek to request a secondary level of upgrading in Palestine's status short of full UN membership. The Palestinians currently have permanent observer status in the UN but a simple majority vote in the General Assembly could increase this status to one of a non-member observer state as is held for example by the Vatican City and has been held in the past by Switzerland. Such a move if successful would improve the Palestinians' chances of joining UN agencies and the International Criminal Court, although the process would be neither automatic nor guaranteed.

So there should as I read it, be a legitimate opportunity for the Palestinians through this watered down alternative route, to increase their influence in the UN as it would be likely that such a majority, non-veto wielding vote could be won in the General Assembly.

So with this in mind, should they put a stop to their futile call for full membership, knowing that the America have already guaranteed its failure by promising a veto if such a vote in the Security Council ever came to pass? In my mind, absolutely not. If the Palestinians, knowing how one country and one country alone can have the power to deny them membership, wish to embarass that country by proving it to be the case, then good luck to them. Not only that, they can show just how much support they have within the UN by seeking to increase their influence by becoming a non-member observer state. If they achieve the simple majority needed but indeed, receive the support of as much as two thirds of the UN membership, then it will prove to the Security Council and to the USA in particular that the international community are ready to admit Palestine into their club, whether Israel are willing for that to happen now or not.

It would increase the pressure on their western supporting allies to force Israel back to the negotiating table to cut a final deal with Palestine that will find a viable solution to the two-state conundrum that has evaded generations of politicians and diplomats.

Am I confident it will work? Absolutely not. Do I believe that Palestine have every right to force the issue further in this way? Absolutely.

Charles Percy will probably be looking down now in exasperation as this diplomatic merry-go-round plays its course as his country proves to be one of its greatest stumbling blocks, simply due to the strength of the Jewish lobby in America. Charles Percy will himself know more than most, about that.

The Humbling of President Obama (and those Congress votes in Full)

So, there we have it.

With only 12 hours to spare, the US Congress pulled back from leading the world's largest economy towards a humiliating and devastating default on its debts by increasing its debt ceiling by $2.4tn from $14.3tn.

Source: BBC News Website

Surely, it never was going to happen was it? Probably not. But leaving it to the 11th hour in such a way demonstrated just how divided the Congress is on this issue and more generally. What is quite extraordinary however is that even at this latest of moments there were so many members of Congress from both sides of the political divide who were effectively willing to vote for default by voting against the package eventually put forward by the Democratic and Republican leaders on Sunday.

161 members of the lower House of Representatives voted against the bill against a majority of 269 in favour. The Democrats were torn down the middle with a dead-even 95 in favour and 95 against whilst 174 Republicans supported its passage against 66 who likewise voted for economic armageddon (the indiviudal voting records can be seen here). Be it the ultra-liberal Democratic Party left or the ultra-conservative Republican Tea Party right, that was an incredibly irresponsible number of senior US politicians who were willing to put their differing political ideologies above pragmatic political and economic reality. That surely must give the American people some serious food for thought. Vince Cable recently called the Republican Tea Party right-wingers 'nutters'. I wouldn't disagree with him but in all fairness, what about those on the left of the Democratic Party who for different reasons, still voted the same way as these so called 'nutters'? Their motivations may have been poles apart, but their actions would've led to the same cliff-edge disaster for their national economy.

Indeed, even in the more bi-partisan Senate, there were still 26 Senators who likewise were willing to vote against. Maybe it was in the knowledge that the majority was in faour and that theirs were really merely protest votes but even if that's the case, it's an incredibly recklesss gamble to play. The indiviudal voting records can be seen here (respect to the Senate website who have released the information within an hour of the vote) and shows that of the 26 Nays, 19 were Republicans, 6 were Democrats and 1 was an Independent.

President Obama - Stuck in the Middle with You
So it comes to pass that we find President Obama stuck in a politically neutered position. In such a scenario where the Congress is split between a Democratic-ran Senate and a Republican-ran House, compromise is the only way forward. It has always been thus.

Despite having the executive powers of the Oval Office at his disposal, Obama's powers are still nevertheless limited. On domestic and economic issues such as this, he has not got the ability to wave a magic wand and to do whatver he wishes. He must have the support of the Congress to further his domestic agenda and ever since he lost the control of the House last November in the mid-terms, it was clear that that would not now be the case for the remainder of his term in office.

Will it reflect badly on his own opinion ratings? Only time will tell. He is still in a strong position to seek re-election to a second term in November 2012 but whilst he has avoided a catastrophe on his watch, the fact that it was the Republicans that got its vote out to win the critical House vote shows that there was more in it for them than there was for the despairing Democrats.

A Bright Light Amongst the Gloom
One moment of relief at least came in the House yesterday when Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford was given an ovation on her first appearance back in Congress after she was shot in the head in Tuscan back in January. The emotional scenes gave a brief reminder that Congress can at times come together and claw above the political din which casts in the eyes of the American public, a pox on both of their houses.

As a footnote, Congresswoman Gifford voted in favour of the Resolution. Out of this entirely regrettable mess, she is probably the only American politican who comes out of it with any shred of credibility and dignity.

Osama Bin Laden's Death - Obama's Victory & Pakistan's Shame

Almost 10 years after the 9/11 attacks, America got its man.

There is unsurprising rejoicing around the western world and particularly in America on the news that US Special Forces successfully targeted and killed Public Enemy No.1 in Pakistan.

Whilst it can not be said that Osama Bin Laden headed the central operations of Al-Qaeda now, his death as a figurehead of this terrorist cell is still a significant and symbolic victory for the west in their war which began in Afghanistan in 2001.

It all began under President Bush but under his watch, Bin Laden slipped through his fingers. The folly of an illegal war in Iraq also took the eye off the ball and gave Bin Laden a free-er hand to continue his reign of terror than he should've had.

Obama's Victory
But it's under Obama's Presidency that he has finally been killed. Obama will benefit significantly from this and he needs it.

The loss of the House of Representatives at the mid-terms to a resurgent Republican Party has dented Obama's ability to govern domestic policy and in the midst of a tentative economic recovery, this is a perilous position in which to find himself.

But in foreign policy, he is still very much the man with his hands on the levers of power. This successful execution of a long-planned operation will give Obama's administration much needed kudos just as the build-up to the Presidential primaries begin to gather momentum.

Pakistan's Shame
But whilst Obama will take credit for what has been achieved, it must be remembered that this isn't the end of the matter when it comes to Al-Qaeda. The terror cells still exist and whilst they may not be as strong as they have been in previous years, they still pose a threat.

But where does this threat emanate from? Afghanistan's President Karzai will feel vindicated this morning at the fact that his protestations to the west that Bin Laden was not in the Afghani hills turned out to be true.

For it is now clear that it was indeed neighbouring Pakistan that harboured the west's most wanted criminal. He was found in a fortified compound on the outskirts of Abbottabad in north-west Pakistan - just 62 miles from the capital Islamabad.

The compound was barely some 200-800 yards away from the Pakistan Military Academy, an elite military training centre, which is Pakistan's equivalent to Britain's Sandhurst.

So what does this say about the Pakistani authorities' military intelligence? It is inconceivable that they were unaware that Bin Laden was on their door-step. The fact that the US went in and undertook the operation without pre-warning the Pakistani Government says it all - they clearly had no faith in them to tell them for fear that they may warn those in the compund about the impending strike.

It does seriously question Pakistan's words of comfort when it purports to support the west's campaign against the fundamentalist extremism that has been central to the past decade's war in this part of the world.

This is a day to be thankful but at the same time, it raises more questions about Pakistan's relationship with the west and with the USA in particular.

Bin Laden may be dead, but this story is not yet concluded...

US Mid-Terms - Obama's Nadir or his Saviour?

It was not long ago that I asked the question on this blog, what went wrong for Obama? That was September 5th and now, almost 2 months later, the mid-terms are upon us.

Obama's hopes look as bleak now as they did then. For the reasons that I mentioned in that earlier post, it isn't really surprising.

However, I couldn't help but notice a comment that I made, that if as expected, the results go against the Democrats, then to quote Bachman-Turner Overdrive and to paraphrase D:ream, 'You ain't seen nothing yet' because 'Things can only get worse'.

Hope for Obama?

I hold by my belief that the Democrats should just narrowly hold on to the Senate but are unfortunately likely to lose the House.

But having read Rupert Cornwell's front page piece in yesterday's Independent, perhaps I should not be so pessimistic, even if this scenario is played out.

Now, Rupert Cornwell is one of the many reasons why I read The Independent. The paper has some excellent commentators and Rupert, with his wry but keen observational eye on north American politics and life in general, always delivers with his incisive comment.

He made the valid point yesterday that if Obama does lose control of Congress, it may not be the disaster that it looks at present. Of course, if the 'Tea Party' contingent pull the Republicans in the House of Representatives further to the right, then we could have a complete and utter dead-lock.

But having said that, running the House would suddenly give the Republicans responsibility. They won't suddenly be able to play the obstructionist card which they have done so effectively (and to America's great damage) ovet the past 2 years. If they did, then they should suffer at the hands of the electorate in 2 years time.

The Clinton Experience

I mentioned it in my earlier blog post and Rupert Cornwell also alluded to the Bill Clinton experience is such a circumstance.

Clinton went from seeing a Democratic control of both Houses of Congress evaporate within 2 years of his election as Newt Gingrich's Republicans swept the board in 1994. Yet it didn't play against Clinton's chances when his re-election came around in 1996.

Clinton moved to the centre and worked constructively with the new Congress and it was to his credit. Suddenly, he was not soley to blame for the country's ills. The 'Republican Congress' also had to take it's fair share of the blame for the nation's discontent.

Republican intrasigence whilst leading the House will not play in their favour. At least it shouldn't do.

The Mid-Terms - Obama's Nadir or his Saviour?

So perhaps, losing outright control of Congree might make it easier for the Democrats to share the blame in the years ahead and help Obama in his re-election in 2012.

Having said that, it goes without saying that I'd much prefer the Democrats to retain overall control of Congress. No doubt I'll report back when my predictions have been blown apart this coming week.

What went wrong for Obama?

On re-starting my blog, I looked over my earlier posts. President Obama was taking over in the Oval Office when I began this blog and my initial posts covered this momentus event.

Those blog posts were understandably full of relief that the reign of 'Dubya' had come to an end and optimism that Obama's was about to begin.

But, 18 months on, what went wrong?
Looking back now, it's incredible to see how such hope has turned to cynicism. Obama's popularity numbers are typically low (admittedly similar to those of Clinton and Regan mid-way through their first terms) and there doesn't seem to be any hope of an upsurge in his foirtunes in the near future. Indeed, with mid-term congressional elections just months away, things are going to get a lot worse.

But why?
The economy of course has been central. Despite the big bailouts, the western economy still hangs precariously and worries that we may fall into a 'double-dip' recession continues to harm consumer confidence. Obama is no miracle worker and recovery has been slow. Unemployment in the USA is still uncomfortably high, currently running at around 9.6% and until he can get these numbers down, Obama will continue to be harangued for a problem that emanated under his predecessors time in office.

The health care debate was protracted and felt more like an exercise in water torture. It is fundamentally to Obama'a credit that he finally came out of the 12 month long process with reform that has alluded past Presidents - particularly Clinton. Whatever happens, he can point decisively to this great, progressive step forward for his country as one of his legacies - 48m uninsured Americans now have affordable healthcare cover.

Yet, the anger that the whole debate engendered throughout the country demonstrates how vitriolic and downright stubborn the American right continue to be despite the defeat to Obama in November '08. There is an overwhelmingly strong independent streak within the American psyche that doesn't like to be told what to do. Big Government is Bad Government and Obama's 'Socialist' policies will of course be the ruin of the American way of life as we know it. The fact that these extreme sentiments are easily transferred into the American consciousness via the media and talk show stations across the country, means that agitation spreads quickly.

The growth of the 'Tea Party' movement at this time demonstrated to me very quickly and suddenly, that that minority who didn't support Obama, were not going to lie down and let him lead. They would do all that they could to challenge his government and in as loud a way as possible. Despite having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, it was still a herculean effort for Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to get their reforms onto the statute books. It was so ironic that the death of arch-liberal Ted Kennedy and the shock loss of his ultra-liberal safe Massachusetts Senate Seat made the whole saga that much more complicated. Yet, it demonstrated as starkly as anything else could, that within merely 12 months of his historic election, Obama's honeymoon had well and truly come to an end. By pushing so hard and so soon on this necessary piece of legislation, he offered his deepest cynics the opportunity to come out fighting. It is a great shame however, that despite being roundly defeated in the November '08 Presidential and Congressional elections, the Republican Party refused to show decent grace and greater magnaminity with Obama as he looked to herald in reform that had clearly won the support of the electorate at election time. I felt the Republican Party's attiude at this time was nothing short of disgraceful but then, I shouldn't really have been surprised.

The 'Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill' in the Gulf of Mexico has also been an unexpected disaster that has turned against Obama. In many respects, there's little he could do apart from wait for the engineers to find a way to finally block the pipe and make the best of a bad job. But whether he deserves criticism or not, the way he has handled the issue hasn't endeared him to many struggling Americans who have suffered as a result.

The recent furore about the Muslim Mosque planning application in New York by Ground Zero has again brought his judgement into question. In this writer's opinion, Obama'a willingness to suddenly change his tone, as he did with the BP Oil Spill above, to attempt to strike closer to what may be perceived to be the 'public mood' demonstrates a great enease in his own position at present.

The great tide of support for Obama of course was based not only on his personal credentials, but the widely perceived credentials of his failed predecessor. We moderate, reasonable thinking people of the world were just relieved that Dubya's time was finally at an end and that this shining star was coming to save us.

Of course, expectations were too high - particularly in the midst of a great economic downturn and being in government now for 18 months has meant that Obama has rightly had to shoulder greater responsibility for the ills of his nation.

But can it get any better?
The worrying truth of the matter, is probably not. The damage that has rightly or wrongly been dealt to the Democratic Party is without a doubt going to show itself this coming November. At the best, Obama can hope to retain greatly reduced majorities in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. If the Democrats can pull this off, it would be a great result.

Of the 37 Senate seats up for grabs on November 2nd, 19 are held by the Democrats and 18 by the Republicans. Considering that the Democrats currently have 57 Senators to the Republicans' 41, Obama is in a better position than may have been the case. Almost half of the Republican Senatorial base are up for grabs this autumn but the same can only be said for a third of the Democratic base. To take the majority in the Senate, the Republicans would need to keep their 18 and take at least 9 of the Democrats' 19. It's a tall order but I can see Harry Reid continuing to play the role of Majority Leader come January, but only just.

The House of Representatives however is of course a much more fickle beast. All 435 seats are up for grabs this autumn and the Democrats currently hold a 253-178 seat majority of 75. There need be a mere switch of 40 seats for Nancy Pelosi to lose her position as Speaker of the House and in these fevered, volatile times, it could well happen.

Now, it's possible of course that the Democrats may well keep their majorities in both, but with the addition of the 'Tea Party' and their broad support of the Republican Party, who knows where the wind will blow. Will their additional support sweep the Republicans to victory on Capitol Hill or will it, Sarah Palin like, turn off the mainstream moderate voters and send them back to the Democrats?

Time will tell but whatever happens, Obama's great majorities in both Houses are going to be a thing of the past. These first two years have been tough but looking forward, we may look back at them as the Golden Years of Obama's Presidency when he actually had the support on Capitol Hill to push through progressive domestic reforms. If it all goes badly in the fall, then Obama could find himself up against a Republican House and/or Senate in the same way that Clinton did in 1994 after only 2 years at the White House.

This doesn't mean that Obama will lose his re-election bid in 2012 of course - Bill Clinton didn't. But if the Democrats lose out this November as they invariably will, then to quote Bachman-Turner Overdrive and to paraphrase D:ream, 'You ain't seen nothing yet' because 'Things can only get worse'.

Good luck for the elections to my Democrat friends and Mr Obama. I dread to say it, but they're going to need it.

Dr Strangelove has left the building...

It was a fantastic few hours watching Obama's inauguration last night.

Everything (apart from the Chief Justice's slip-up and the lateness of the oath of office itself) seemed to go perfectly.

I had been rather annoyed in seeing many of my friends Facebook status updates in recent days expressing hope that Obama would make it to the ceremony itself. I understand the concern, but did it really have to be expressed? I think it shows that many still had a feeling of disbelief that after 8 years of Bush & Cheney, something good could come out of it all. Did Obama really beat Hilary? Did he really win the general against bull-dog McCain? Are we that lucky?! I suppose, with the sheer enormity of what had happened and had gone before, it was reasonable to be weary and to hope that nothing bad would befall him during the transition. It must be said, I was rather relaxed about it all. America has turned the corner to such an extent that I felt it was going to go smoothly.

Dick Cheney in his wheelchair was a rather bizzare and in a way, a rather comical sight. Doesn't it signify better than anything, how moribund this out-going Presidency had become?! He also looked thoroughly unhappy and clearly didn't want to be there which added to the occasion! He did strike me as resembling Dr Strangelove. Seeing him being wheeled off, and Bush flying off into the distance, was as good as anything I witnessed yesterday.

Michelle Obama is going to be a fantasically fiery First Lady. As fiery as Abbey Bartlett off the West Wing? Possibly so - and there's nothing wrong with that! Having young children in the White House for the first time since the Presidency of JFK will also do wonders to the Presidency as an institution - not mentioning the fact that young Malia and Sasha seem like smashing kids who are lapping up the attention and the limelight.

I think, more than anything, the wonder of yesterday was seeing the whole spectrum of American society not only out there in Washington watching the inauguration, but doing so with beaming smiles that showed a hope and pride for what they were witnessing. The fact that Americans of all races and all creeds were coming together for what was in effect, a national celebration, was wonderful to see.

The speech itself was surprisingly businessmanlike. But maybe, we shouldn't have been so surprised. There's much to do and Obama seemed to want to give across the impression that it was time to lead, and that time was immediate. No sweeping gestures, just an understading that the work begins now. Quite right too. My favourite line in the speech? Easily the one where he said "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist". Fantastic stuff.

What of the future? Well, his announcement to start with of his intention to close Guantanamo was expected. But nevertheless, within hours of assuming the Presidency, it's a clear signal of where he means to lead his country and how he plans to deal with the outside world.

A few constitutional throughts did strike me. Once Joe Biden had been sworn in as Vice-President, in the intervening minutes whilst the orchestra was playing, if anything had happened to Obama, then I presume it would've been Biden, not Cheney who would've been in charge. More interestingly, because the whole inauguration was running some 5 minutes late, Obama hadn't actually been sworn in at the stroke of noon. As far as I'm aware, Bush's Presidency came to an end at that point. But because of the delay, his successor hadn't been sworn in by that time. So, who technically, was in charge between 12pm and 12.05pm when Obama swore the oath of office? Surely it couldn't have been him as he hadn't taken the Oath. So for those 5 minutes, was VP Joe Biden actually, technically, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America?! Of course, it doesn't really matter, but these little thing intrigue me!

An apt tune for the occasion had the organisers asked me for my opition, would've been 'Goodbye, Hello' by the Beatles. Goodbye Mr Bush, hello President Obama.

Actually, taking in the significance of the entire event, the best part for me, even better than seeing Bush and Cheney fade away into hoped for obscurity, had to be when Obama made his oath of office and said "I, Barack Hussein Obama..." That was enough for me. For America to have elected an African American with the middle name Hussein, and to hear him proudly announce his full name in front of a global viewing audience of millions, is worth its weight in gold and demonstrates better than anything else, that the only way is up.

Growing up with Dubya

It's quite odd, looking back, to realise that today is in fact, January 19th 2009.

For too long, I've been waiting and waiting for this day - and the next. Long before Obama was even in our headlights, I've been waiting for the day when America's 43rd President would be leaving high office.

It's a sobering thought, but pretty much since I left the steady, calm confines ofYsgol Gyfun Dyffryn Taf back in August 2000 to enter the real world, this man they call 'Dubya' has been stalking my every move.

I came to University in Aberystwyth that September. I well remember listening to the 2000 US Presidential election results coming through in the computer room in Pantycelyn that November. I also remember far too well, bursting into said computer room, yelling out 'Al Gore's won Florida!' when it was announced on the US networks. Of course, the rest is history. I can vaguely recall avoiding Dubya's inauguration ceremony that January 20th. It wasn't his victory anyway, so I wasn't going to participate in his moment of crowning glory!

Through my years as a student in Aberystwyth, undergraduate and postgraduate, and into my years in politics in Cardigan, he has remained. The 2004 election night I recall was particularly galling. I'd been laid low by my only bout, to date, of tonsilitis. I was at home in the hills of north Pembrokeshire, recovering. I actually did think that Kerry had a good chance of winning it. I stayed up all night to watch the results (of course) and watched in growing horror as our Dubya held onto Ohio and Florida to secure another 4 years in the White House. How could they re-elect him after Iraq?! I was non-plussed to say the least.

From then on, January 20th 2009 has been a far flung speck of light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

In many ways, I have sympathy with Dubya. Like Blair, I credit him with doing what he belived was right. He was blatantly wrong time after time after time, but I sense his belief that he was right, like with Blair, was a guiding principle. Unfortunately, it's a guide that has left the world a much more troubled place than it was on January 20th 2000. It must also be noted however, that for the last 8 years, Sandie Shaw has played a surprisingly significant role in global politics. That is, of course, if you swop Dick Cheney with our Sandie. Dubya, has quite simply, been the puppet on Cheney's string. He's been in charge all along and will be shown by the history books to have been the most powerful VP in US history.

That in a way, is what made the past 8 years so unpalatable. As much as I detested Dubya, the thought of his choking on his pretzel and not seeing it through to the other side, only meant a President Dick Cheney and if there was only one thing worse than Dubya in office, then it was that.

So when Obama came along, not only was it a feeling of relief that January 20th 2009 was finally approaching and Dubya could finally go back to his ranch, but there's also been the feeling of excitement, that actually, we are on the brink of a potentially historic Presidency. Indeed, it will be historic as it is, but Obama seems to have the qualities that will raise him above many of his predecessors. We will see what happens. No doubt we'll feel let down by many of his initiatives (or lack of them) but then with so much hype around his coming, a touch of reality is needed here. Will we see the great change in emphasis in Middle Eastern policy that is needed now more than ever? Maybe, maybe not. With Hillary as Secretary of State I have my doubts, but here's hoping. What there will be though is a new sense of purpose and a feeling of American renewal which is desperately needed.

8 long years. It's a scary concept but just like Reagan in the 80s, Dubya has been there throughout the entirety of this decade. Indeed, with tomorrow, comes the end of back-to-back Presidencies. Not since Jefferson, Madison and Monroe between 1801 and 1825 have we had 2 successive Presidencies that lasted their full two terms. Obama will hopefully make it a 3rd.

Its been a dark decade with Dubya in power. America deserved and deserves better. It's a fantastic country which has been badly let down by its Government. Now, the waiting is finally over. That elusive date, January 20th 2009 is upon us. There's hope and there's relief shared in equal measure.

I grew up in the shadow of Dubya, and now it's time to move on and look forward to a different, more progressive American and global future. In years to come, will they mention the 44th President in the same breath as the 16th, 32nd and 35th? Here's hoping. But I think it's safe to say, that Dubya, the 43rd, will go down in history in the same breath as the 14th, 15th and 29th.