Obama is right to stay out of Iran What is being played out on Iran's streets is an internal power struggle – and the US must avoid getting involved Comments (54)    Eric Hooglund guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 June 2009 21.00 BST Article history An Iranian woman shows ink on her finger after voting in Tehran last week. Photograph: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty  The several days of mass, peaceful protests in Iran's cities, towns and even villages, by millions of Iranians who believe their votes were not counted fairly in last weekend's presidential election, have prompted various politicians in Washington to ponder whether the US should provide verbal or other support for those protestors – and even condemn the incidents of violence that have left at least seven dead in Tehran and one in the southwestern city of Shiraz.An article in yesterday's New York Times raises serious questions as to the appropriate US response to the political developments in Iran since the (disputed) results were announced. President Obama, however, seems to be resisting the urging of some for his administration to criticise the Iranian government's handling of the vote, stating at a press conference that he does not wish to interfere in Iran's politics.Obama's caution is the appropriate policy course for the US. What is essential in this situation is for Washington not to interfere, or even be perceived as interfering, in Iran's political process. There are six important reasons why the Obama administration needs to follow an approach of strict neutralism vis-à-vis political events in Iran.First and foremost, what is transpiring in Iran is a domestic political dispute. And it is a truism that no country easily tolerates foreign meddling in its internal political affairs.Second, the history of US intervention in Iran since the 1950s has contributed to a pervasive Iranian perception of Washington as being hostile to its national aspirations and interests. This historical memory, for Iranians, includes the US role in helping to engineer the coup d'état that overthrew the constitutional government of prime minister Muhammad Mossadeq in 1953, subsequent US support for the repressive regime of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, a perceived belief that Washington supported Iraq when it invaded Iran in 1980 and during the subsequent eight years of war, and the frequently expressed calls by officials in the administration of George Bush for regime change in Iran.Third, this history of US-Iran "relations" means that few Iranian political leaders want to be perceived as being in any way beholden to the US. In practical terms, any official US statement of support for Mir Hosain Mousavi, the principal presidential candidate challenging the government's claim that he lost his bid to unseat President Ahmadinejad, would be equivalent to a kiss of death for his political career.Fourth, the political struggle is not between the Iranian government and a repressed opposition, as is being portrayed in some American and European media, but is…

   Obama at 100 Days Five noted historians compare Obama’s start with his modern predecessors’.  

Barack Obama went online to build an army of fans The new US president used the net to make 70m people feel they had a stake in his future Holly Watt
‘We just made history. And I don’t want you to forget how we did it,” said the e-mail that flashed up in the inboxes of millions of BlackBerrys and computers across America late on Tuesday. That was how Barack Obama signed off his campaign, e-mailing supporters before he took to the stage in Grant Park, Chicago. Every message was individually addressed and signed simply “Barack”. Few of the estimated 70m people who received the message were surprised at the personal greeting from the man moving to the White House. For Obama’s campaign was a self-proclaimed “movement” with the internet at its core. The web spearheaded a new way of fundraising, identifying volunteers and – most of all – accumulating contact details for millions of converts to the Obama surge. The movement continues. Within hours of his victory speech, a new government website – change.gov – went live. People could write about their experiences of the campaign, hopes for the new government – and apply for jobs. And just as the web was used to bypass more traditional media in the election, it is expected to remain essential in communicating with voters once Obama takes office. “We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I’ll be in touch soon about what comes next,” Obama promised in his e-mail. 'Change has come' - Obama wins in landslideSweeping victory for America's first black president is greeted by tumultuous scenes Watch our video Analysis: Barack Obama's victory is head-spinning stuff
Michelle Obama: a new type of First LadyFor Carla Bruni the game is finally up. In Michelle Obama she has truly met her match - a First Lady like none beforeBackground Bush - 'We should all be proud of Obama' The challenge that greets Obama
Multimedia Team Obama - who are they? Bonjour 'Barack'Related Links Panting starts over president’s choice of top dog Sarah Palin: heroine or has-been? Joe Cool arrives at the White House His powerful use of the internet took his rivals by surprise and now fills future opponents with envy and foreboding. “They have millions of e-mail addresses, phone numbers and whole communities of supporters – both geographic and online – and it will be very interesting to see how they use them in government,” said Aaron Smith from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. One of Obama’s first moves was to hire Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, the social networking website. He set up my.barackobama. com – a vast networking site that attracted young voters. Viral networking spread the message further by e-mail and text messaging. The effort and expense repaid itself many times over: hundreds of thousands…

   A Two Page Article With Nothing New

  Rules Worth Following, for Everyone’s Sake   "populations who rely on the so-called Western diet — lots of processed foods, meat, added fat, sugar and refined grains — “invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.” Indeed, 4 of the top 10 killers of Americans are linked to this diet."Read Article