Wikileaks and Kevin Rudd...

It must hurt to be Prime Minister of Australia and then be described by the US Ambassador, a close ally, as "a mistake prone control freak". But, to Rudd's credit, he does not give a damn. And, he makes a good point that there has been worse written about him in the past and there is likely to be worse written about him in the future. So, his job is to get on with the job of being Australia's number one diplomat.

Nevertheless, the scathing assessment suggested that he was also abrasive and impulsive while being not up to the task according to this little burst from the former US Ambassador:

''Rudd … undoubtedly believes that with his intellect, his six years as a diplomat in the 1980s and his five years as shadow foreign minister, he has the background and the ability to direct Australia's foreign policy. His performance so far, however, demonstrates that he does not have the staff or the experience to do the job properly.''

And, this was from just over 12 months ago. However, this was generally the gist of most assessments fired off by the former US Ambassador, Richard McCallum, to the former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and more recently the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.


The micro-management style of the former Prime Minister and his habit of undertaking large commitments without first consulting those that would be doing the hard yards in getting the initiatives up and running was ultimately his downfall. So, there really is nothing all that surprising or new in the diplomatic cables being leaked by Wikileaks. Perhaps, Kevin Rudd knows himself well enough to know the blunt assessments of him are one interpretation of his manner and style. He might not agree with those assessments, but it is probably true that he does not give a damn.

So, what is next on the Wikileaks front for Australia's diplomats?

Manohara Odelia Pinot -- Part XIII -- Daisy Fajarina as the "Evil Mother"

The saga continues. It is somewhat addictive for me as there is just so much to process and analyze from a legal standpoint. It seems that the Malaysian press is coming up with the far juicer pieces for the gossip columns. The following piece is based on an article from the Malay Mail.

George Manz is Manohara's biological father. He is a engineer that was formerly based in Indonesia. He met Daisy while he was in Jakarta in 1989, presumably fell in love, and the rest is history as they say. Mano, as she is affectionately known, was born in 1992. Not long after this things apparently went wrong fast and Manz claims that Daisy stole his daughter away from him. He also claims that Daisy is a proponent of black magic and has an evil hold over his daughter.

According to Manz, the black magic proof is in an x-ray of Mano's mouth. It is claimed that on a visit to a dentist an x-ray was taken and this x-ray showed gold needles and diamonds embedded in Mano's chin. I do not know how this proves black magic is in play. It would seem to make more sense that Mano was about to become a mule in a smuggling operation.

Nevertheless, the black magic claims aside, Manz has agreed to help the prince in his fight against the evil one, aka Daisy Fajarina. Manz sent a letter to the prince outlining his desire to help, his belief that the prince can save Mano from Daisy's evil influence, and sent documents that he believes might assist in the fight.

The whole affair is about to get a whole lot more interesting in a legal sense as Manz is threatening to get the US State Department (some Hillary Clinton involvement?) involved, Mano is a US citizen, and it would seem that the basis of the pursuit might be some form of international child kidnapping scenario.

However, it is a little late one would have thought for Manz to be coming forward now, particularly when he says that he has been following the case from afar with the help of friends in Singapore and Jakarta.

Another aspect of the case which has had some coverage in Indonesia is the legal problems that Daisy has herself and the outstanding Interpol Red Notice that requires local police agencies to facilitate the apprehension of her. Indonesia has an Interpol liaison office.

The allegations against Daisy are that she facilitated the sexual abuse of a domestic servant, who was also legally her step-daughter, by her second husband, Juergen Reiner Noack Pinot. The allegations or rape, including forcible masturbation, were subsequently proved and Pinot served jail time. Not much it seems considering he was out in four months. For her part in the whole abuse scandal, Daisy was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Daisy has yet to serve a day of that sentence and that is why the French have sort the red notice.

It would seem that Daisy knows a lot about the sexual abuse of young and vulnerable women having participated in the perpetration of such abuse herself. If she is really so shocked and abhorred by such conduct then she must show that she has the courage of those convictions and return to France and face the legal music there.

I am sure the symphony that is planned for her on her eventual return is going to be far from the sweet music she thinks she might be able to enjoy in Jakarta.

Extradition treaty or not with France, Indonesia must show that it is committed to the elimination of all violence against women, even where this violence is perpetrated by women against other women.

Simply, Indonesia must comply with the red notice and facilitate the detention of Daisy Fajarina and allow her to be returned to France. The only way that this should not happen is if Daisy can show, and prove, that the process against her was fatally flawed and that the sentence imposed upon her was legally wrong.

As much as I might feel for Mano's plight with respect to the allegations she has made against the prince, and even if the allegations are true, this cannot and must not become a get out of jail free card for her mother.

Simply, Daisy Fajarina is not a victim here. If anyone is a victim then Mano is, assuming that the allegations can be made out. And, to date, they have not been made out. The truth is that Daisy is the perpetrator of some serious crimes of violence against another woman for which she has not paid the price.

Palin, A Stripped Moose, African-Americans, and Jews

If you fail to see the connection then you should feel comfortable with the fact that you are probably not the only one.

But here it is and straight from the mouth of Rep. Alcee Hastings (the Rep. standing for Representative and meaning he is a Congressman in the US) who is a Democrat and former Hillary Clinton supporter and now vocal Barack Obama supporter.

This is what was said:

“anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

This was a comment made to a group of African-American and Jewish Democrats and by all reports brought hoots of laughter and applause from all in attendance.

The idea that being able to shoot and strip a moose in any way reflects how one views race and religion relationships is about the same as Republicans claiming that Barack Obama's middle name says something about how he will deal with Muslims and Non-Muslims. Or that Obama's middle name in some way brings into question his Christian beliefs. It is bizarre and it is stupid!

Anyone who thinks that race and religion are not going to be important factors in this US Presidential race need to think again. Even with the US economy on the brink of free-fall into a recession (some might say the abyss of depression), the idea that race and religion keep coming to the fore says something about this historic moment for the US.

I am not an American. But, if I was I think there are more important things at stake in this presidential election other than whether Sarah Palin can strip a moose or the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussain.

Then again that's just me!

Obama + Clinton

It seems that I might have called the differences between Obama and Clinton a little more pronounced than they really are! It appears that there are discussions underway regarding how Clinton will end her bid for President, endorse Obama, and then get the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket...

I guess this ends my days as a pundit!

However, I am reading reports that she is not interested and that it is a case of others trying to make sure the "dream ticket" comes to fruition...

We shall see!

Obama and Trinity United Church of Christ

I have made a few posts on US politics and the General / Presidential elections coming to that part of the world in November. I am not a US citizen and as such my interest is as an outsider. I have been there a couple of times and went to school in North Carolina so perhaps my interest in the whole process is also different from that of others. In any event the interest is not the point and who wins is ultimately no more important than that person will have their finger on the little red button that destroys the world.

However, my comments here are about politicians claiming to be a breath of fresh air, something different, a new breed of politician. Barack Obama has built his whole campaign on change but really it has only ever been about getting elected and therefore it has been a campaign of political expediency. The majority of the liberal and left-leaning press have given the fella a free ride to all intents and purposes. This may have been a mistake for Democrats!

Obama is proving to be nothing more than a run of the mill politician who operates in a world of double speak! The failures to answer serious questions about his relationships with certain people and his beliefs, not religious, but how to effect change have been a lesson in political speak; answering a question without ever really answering the question.

This is particularly so with the decision to resign from the Trinity United Church of Christ! This is a fella who has been a parishioner there for a very long time and when the proverbial hits the fan he bails out without really bailing out. This I would suggest is political expediency, a sweeping under the rug of some unpleasantness without ever denouncing the ideas themselves or ones association with those ideas. Obama is hoping that his resignation from his spiritual home of the last 20 years will end the bad publicity. This bad publicity includes matters related not only to the racially charged rhetoric of the ministers that preach there, such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (or used to), but also the "Black Value System" that underpins the Trinity Church belief system.

On the contrary, not only should it not end the controversy it should in fact intensify it! The hard questions need to be asked; like Why now? Why after 20 years? Can you honestly say that in those 20 years you never heard rhetoric like this before? If you did then why didn't you resign then? Should he denounce his former Church, I don't know that would make a difference in the long run. To denounce his Church would imply that he had been involved with a Church for almost 20 years that was preaching a message that needs to be denounced. to do so would severely undermine is ability to claim that he was not aware of that message. Yet, it is catch 22 because his failure to denounce the Church implies that I am resigning because this is no longer a tenable situation for me, I do not agree with the comments that have been caught on tape, but ultimately the Church is reflective of who I am although some of the sermons are not! Political double speak!

The reality is that these questions are unlikely to be asked because the desire for change is real and the belief that there is a real chance that an African-American man can be president. Simply, there are opportunities not to be missed. There is absolutely no reason why an African-American man cannot be elected to the presidency as there is no reason a woman cannot be elected to the presidency or for that matter an African-American woman!

I am always a supporter of acting and voting on a person's merits to be elected to the office they seek. As I said I am not a US citizen and cannot vote.

I am not questioning Obama's credentials to be president and I am also not advocating that Hillary Clinton should be nominated in his place. I am rather questioning the idea that Obama is a new breed of politician who says what he means and means what he says. My personal opinion is that he is just another politician who will say anything to get elected.

To be clear my concerns in this post relate to whether Barack Obama is a new breed of politician, a breath of fresh air, that is going to sweep into the halls of power or is he just another politician that has run an excellent campaign.

I make no aspersions to the man's ability to be president. I do question whether he has fully disclosed what he knew and when with regards to the rants of the pastor of his Church and his one time spiritual advisor. In that sense perhaps the period between now and November will be particularly revealing as there is a more intensive vetting of his record and his associations.

Welcome to politics!

Obama and Clinton - Who Wins?

It is always fun to watch democracy in action and the pundits dissect and deconstruct every little piece of the puzzle. It is also fun to watch when there are a number of possible firsts at stake, including a former President with a shot at becoming First Gentleman.

The race for the White House and who can win is a pollster's dream. Right now in the head-to-head polls it seems that Clinton has the edge on McCain in the General Election and McCain has the edge on Obama. This assumes two things: First, the election is held today and, Second that Obama's number won't improve once the seemingly inevitable happens and Obama gets the Democratic Party nod.

The fun and games will continue for a little while yet as there are still a few more primary contests to be held and a Democratic Rules Committee meeting to determine what is to happen with those currently disenfranchised voters of Florida and Michigan. However, the never shy of the spotlight former President, William Jefferson Clinton, in support of his preferred candidate, who just happens to be his wife, has warned the Democratic party to get with the program and see that Obama just cannot take McCain in the General Election and Hillary can!

So, the slogan is "Hillary Can and Obama Can't!"

The dream ticket that some propose of Obama and Clinton cannot happen, it would never work! This is in spite of my tendencies to never say never! If the Clinton's truly believe Obama cannot take this thing this year then why bother getting onto the ticket? The idea that 2012 is but four years away seems to make better sense. You have the "I told you so" argument about 2008 that you would never have to mention. Maybe any jostling for the VP slot is tacit recognition that maybe, just maybe, Obama can and will pull this thing off and become the first African-American President of the United States of America.

I do not know about anyone else but I will keep watching the drama unfold. It is more exciting than an Indonesian sinetron anyway (personal choice and preference)!

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

This is a picture that I found on the blog of a colleague (Rima Fauzi of "A Chocoholic's Piece of Mind" fame) and I am not sure where she found it. However, in light of the previous post on context and intent, I post the picture here.

Is a combination like this really the best of both worlds; a dream ticket?

Never work...neither wants to play second fiddle to the other!

Hillary Clinton and RFK...

It seems that the mere mention of a former assassinated presidential contender is news worthy for its offensiveness when it is uttered by Hillary Clinton albeit the people who should most likely be offended by it have gone on the record to say that they are not. Yet, the campaign of the other side looks to try and draw some political advantage from the comment that was clearly not intended to offend.

What is interesting here is the undercurrent that is not being spoken. Perhaps, Barack Obama's camp took umbrage to the remark because Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968 after claiming the California Primary and it seemed perhaps he had turned the corner and was on the way to the nomination himself. Maybe Obama's camp thinks that this comment will bring out all the nut jobs looking to assassinate another presidential contender and this would some how justify Clinton's decision to fight for this thing tooth and nail to the end.

This is bizarre logic and stupid! The context and the intent is clearly not that but any suggestion that it is, is in fact something that is offensive.

Obama, as do Clinton and McCain, has secret service protection. Not that this is a guarantee or anything, but it does make it conceivably much more difficult for those wanting their 15 minutes of fame by trying to assassinate a contender. To be fair Ronald Reagan had secret service protection and that did not stop a near successful attempt on his life while he was President.

But back to the comment and the context. Here is what Clinton said:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it"

I just do not see how this is offensive and I do not see it to say anything other than; I am still in this race because I think it is important, I still think I can win, and the race is not over.

However, this is what Obama had to say:

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here. Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."

This though is an attempt at political point scoring because it was not such a careless statement but rather an opportunity to twist the context with a view to gaining some kind of political advantage.

The reality here is that people want Clinton to quit sooner rather than later and this is an opportunity to up the ante on that call. Let's face it these remarks have been uttered before in a slightly different form back in March.

The difference between March and now is that it seems like Obama has wrapped this primary election process up. Although there might be a mathematical possibility for Clinton to win with the support of super delegates, no one really considers this to be likely.

However, the family of RFK released a statement via RFK Jr. that went like this:

"I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard-fought through June" and "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Surely politicians have more important issues to debate and rake over the coals than this. What about some serious discussion of the issues that define the candidates, their policies,and their respective visions of the future. Now, that would be an issue worthy of some quality press coverage.

Should Clinton be Playing Nice?

What has struck me about the Democratic campaign for the nomination of the party for President is how nice it has been played. The politics have been downright nice. Whatever happened to politics being a game for the brave who were prepared to play dirty?

Obama said this just recently:


"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."


"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


He has since tried to explain this away in a number of different ways but never really retracted it! The closest he came was to suggest that he could have said it better...I don't know perhaps he could have said something along the lines of, I am not surprised that these gun-toting, God-loving, racist, isolationists small towners are bitter about their lives! Is Obama an elitist or are we reading too much into this?


I wonder how you spin this one. If Obama has learned anything from Clinton's super large embellishment of her so-called under live fire Bosnia moment is that perhaps it is better to say; Yep, stretched the truth on that one and get back to the business of campaigning. Clinton's mistake was to try and keep making the incident something it clearly wasn't once the video emerged.


People might still be sold on the "change" and the "hope" for new politics in Washington but it really is a hope against hope in the sense that there really needs to be desire for change from those in Washington. The only other way to get this change is to have a majority of new faces committed to being that change.


In any event Obama has been in the Senate long enough now for an evaluation of his record on policy...why is this so difficult to find in the mainstream media. Perhaps the charges laid by the Clinton campaign that Obama has generally had a free ride in the mainstream media is true!


In a general election it looks like it could get ugly, particularly so when the Republicans are likely to be playing for keeps. What looked like a certain Democratic victory is a whole lot less certain now if Obama does fall across the line for the victory. The Obama baggage is only just about to start getting rifled through and the vetting process may prove much more harmful to him than it would to Clinton. I lot of people must be wondering, super delegates included, how much more there is hiding in the Obama closet because the Clinton closet (including that of the former President) has been picked over for a long while like a vulture picking over a carcass.


American politics, always fun to watch!

Obama vs. Clinton - Free Trade

Recent weeks have seen a number of developments on this front and all of them highlight the hypocrisy and double-speak of politicians...It is sad that we get caught up in the need for change and do not give enough critical thought to these things. I am not an American so do not get to vote. But I think that even though this is the case, the outcome of the US election will impact on the broader world in general and as such we as citizens of the world should care a little more!

On topic...Some time ago an Obama advisor and strategist, Austan Goolsbee, told some Canadian officials not to be too concerned with the Obama rhetoric on NAFTA because he did not really mean it. However, Obama did not "get rid of" Goolsbee in spite of saying that he would have removed Mark Penn if he had been on his staff. Nah, the rationale here is that Goolsbee was never a paid staffer and as such could not be removed. It's all semantics to me! If that is the logic then why bother responding to the anti-American outbursts of your former preacher because he is no longer your preacher and no longer part of the campaign in any form...as I said it is all semantics to me!

Yet, when it was revealed that Clinton's chief economic strategist, Mark Penn, is lobbying on behalf of the Colombian government with respect to a free trade deal he was forced to step down and leave the campaign staff. This had to happen because Clinton has been railing against the deal with Colombia.

The Democrats need to work this one out though because free trade is not necessarily a bad deal overall. There is obviously some pain felt for some but overall NAFTA by all accounts has delivered more benefits overall than it has been detrimental (I would need to read more before entering into a debate on the matter).

If I was an American and having to vote this coming November, I would be questioning just how much change Obama is willing to deliver or perhaps more importantly how much change can he deliver? The rhetoric is one thing the delivery is another. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and not the baking, or actions speak louder than words, or seeing is believing!

But ultimately one reaps what they sow!