Idealists push into the White House. Media loves unusual things, and trumpet insignificant curiosities. One is Barack Obama. For all the hype about equal rights, sensible Americans won’t elect a black President. A third position, like Rice’s, is fine – but white Americans won’t elect a Black person to rule over them. At least, not now, not until the political correctness erodes the common sense. Even female rights are not that deeply entrenched in public mentality. Making Nancy Pelosi the Democrats’ leader harmed their ratings a lot. Voters subconsciously attributed the Democrats’ non-performance in the Congress to the female Speaker. People voted for Democratic Party, but ended up with female leader. Gender prejudices are alive and well.

Obama personifies many common traits of native Blacks – not their American variety grown arrogant on the incessant concessions and affirmative action. Obama is nice and soft, dislikes conflicts, all for peace. He would rather suffer than make others suffering. Critically, Obama shares a prominent feature of people from underdeveloped nations: he tries to ingratiate himself with white, advanced Americans; yes, a servant syndrome. Various “experts” proclaim that the third-world people hate America. On the contrary, they admire America and mask their admiration and jealousy with superficial expression of hatred; that hatred evaporates after a half-hour discussion.

Obama feels out-of-place in politics similarly to Jimmy Carter. Both approached the real – cruel – world with moral standards developed for mutually respectful and compassionate communities. Both are equally dangerous champions of the left who try to mould the world into being nice. Carter twisted Menachem Begin’s arms into Sinai capitulation: Israel won the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 against Egypt but relinquished a huge buffer zone of Sinai for unreliable Egyptian promises of peace. Barack Obama revealed the conference of Jewish American politicians that Israel needs a just solution with the Palestinian Arabs rather than seek controlling them through fear; the Jewish anti-Semites applauded him.

The Democrat’s another presidential choice, Hillary Clinton, is equally lame. A woman is naturally anti-war – but in the real world peace comes through war. Clinton’s Methodist family background predisposes her to rational, peaceful means; they do not work in foreign relations. Clinton is fussy. Unable to formulate realistic policy suggestions, she travels to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria to imitate political activity. Hillary Clinton reminds of her husband who forced mildly suicidal Wye River memorandum on Israel just to show himself active on the international arena. Hillary Clinton recalls Golda Meir: leftist, female, indecisive, willful, vindictive, cruel. Clinton, however, lacks Golda’s common sense and charisma: a Jewish grandma leading the world’s oddest nation with one of the world’s strongest armies. Clinton would rather push the client states like Israel or Iraq into the mold of her political preconceptions than admit her political failures. So far, Hillary Clinton did not come up with coherent or sensible foreign policy proposals, but only criticizes the war in Iraq and calls for talks with hostile regimes. She is ready to apply harsh measures against those who refuse her urging: Clinton accepts bombing Iran, but could equally decide to punish Israel, if it is not sufficiently forthcoming.

Both Obama and Clinton proclaim goodwill toward Israel – but only to a very particular Israel: obedient, suffering, and peaceful. To Israel that suicidally dances the American line of the peace process with the committed Arab enemies. A good part is that neither a female nor a black president would be strong enough to push Israel to the national suicide of the peace process.