Egypt Protests: Stories and Videos from January 25, 2011

Scroll down to see videos of today's protests in Egypt -- they're fairly fresh, with view counts only in the tens and hundreds so far. Help make them go viral.

I'll keep updating this post with more material as I get it.

If you have links to more pics and videos, post them in the comments section.

***

Protesters tearing up posters of Hosni Mubarak:






Protest Erupts in Egypt:




This one is stunning. Protesters chase the riot police:




Protest in Tahrir Square, downtown Cairo:




More from the Tahrir Square protest in downtown Cairo:




Eric Trager at The Atlantic writes about the would-be Revolution, with a great picture showing the size of the crowd: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/01/scenes-from-egypts-would-be-revolution/70191/

Are You Prepared for the Onset of Cacto-Phobia?

Muslims have officially had their heyday. It's done.

"According to the poll, Obama has lost favor among many voters who supported his candidacy in 2008 but have since come to doubt he is a mammal. While these Americans concede Obama may not specifically be a cactus, most believe he is a plant of some kind, with 18 percent saying the president is a ficus, 37 percent believing him to be a grain such as wheat or millet, and 12 percent convinced he is an old-growth forest in Northern California.

When asked why they agreed with the statement "President Obama is a large succulent plant composed of specialized cells designed for water retention in arid climates," many responded that they "just know," claiming the president only acts like a human being for political purposes and is truly a cactus at heart."

Is The United States Gearing Up To Go Into Pakistan?

In 2007, Barack Obama attracted controversy during his campaign by declaring that if elected, he would be willing to go into Pakistan if there is "actionable intelligence about high-value targets" in the country, and if the Pakistani government "won't act" against them.

During her three-day visit to Pakistan this week, Hillary Clinton seemed to indicate that those two criteria may now have been fulfilled.

On actionable intelligence about high-value targets, Clinton seemed confident that Al Qaeda's leadership is present in Pakistan: "Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002...it is just a fact that Al Qaeda had sought refuge in Pakistan after the US and our allies went after them because of the attack on 9/11...Our best information is that Al Qaeda leadership is somewhere in Pakistan."

On unwillingness to act, she suggested that Pakistani officials know where these terrorists are, but are hesitant to go after them: "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to. Maybe they're not gettable. I don't know."

Even while commending Pakistan's military efforts in Swat and South Waziristan, she said that it was "not sufficient".

Meanwhile, President Obama has been "dithering" (as Dick Cheney put it) on a decision about how many more troops to send to Afghanistan, if any.

He may be listening closely to his vice president. Newsweek's recent cover story on Joe Biden started off highlighting the veep's concerns about resources and strategy in the region: "So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?"

The question is a good one, and Biden's observations are shared by others, notably National Security Adviser Retd. Gen. James Jones, who said of Afghanistan earlier this month: "The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

On Friday, the White House stood behind Clinton's blunt comments, calling them "completely appropriate".

While it may be too early to tell whether Obama will follow through on his 2007 campaign pledge, it does seem like his administration is setting the stage.

An Exclusive Interview with a Pro-Ahmadinejad Cleric in Qom, Iran

I lived in Lahore, Pakistan for a few years during high school. It was during that time that I met Hasan (name altered for anonymity). Hasan lives in Qom, Iran, and is training at the Islamic seminary in the city, the largest institution for the study of Shiite Islamic theology in the world, where both of Iran's Supreme Leaders, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei, received training. Hasan is currently a Hojjat-ul-Islam, the rank Khamenei was when he was selected to succeed Khomeini as Iran's second Supreme Leader.

When I tracked him down, Hasan was more eager to speak to me than I had expected. He felt that his people's views on the Iranian elections were not being represented properly in the international media. Before I spoke to him on the phone, he also consulted with some of his colleagues, teachers, and friends at the seminary to ensure, in his words, that what he tells me is "accurate" and "representative".

As you'll notice, a recurring theme in many of his answers is his very strong belief that "foreign" Western powers, particularly England, are behind the current unrest in Tehran, an idea that is being played up significantly on Iranian state television, radio, and newspapers, which he cites often. Second, he does not make much of the scale of the protests, and downplays the idea of a rift in the clerical establishment, often expressing surprise when I inform him of some of the reports we have seen here.

All of the opinions and ideas presented here are solely his. Here is the interview.


Based on the media and resources that you have access to, can you give us a general idea about what you think is happening in Tehran?

There are several factors in this situation that have come together. There is one segment of the population that did want Mousavi to win the election. These people had done some propaganda to make it seem like Mousavi will get most of the votes. In particular, Tehran... because Tehran is a metropolitan city, you have people with all kinds of backgrounds and thinking. In Tehran itself, [Mousavi] had a lot of supporters. Tehran is part of what we call "Ustan-e-Tehran", where Tehran is the central city and the "ustan" includes the suburbs and smaller towns surrounding Tehran. An ustan is bigger than a district, but smaller than a province. If you look at the election results, in these suburbs and small towns in Ustan-e-Tehran, Ahmadinejad got more votes than Mousavi. But in the central city of Tehran, Ahmadinejad got fewer votes than Mousavi.

But you see, Tehran isn't all of Iran. People in Tehran sometimes think that because they are all supporters of Mousavi, all of Iran must be supporters of Mousavi, but this is not true. Overall, in 2 ustans, Azerbaijan-e-Ghardi and Ustan-e-Sistan-e-Balochistan, Mousavi got more votes than Ahmadinejad. In the rest of the ustans... I think Iran has a total of 24 ustans... in the rest of the 22 ustans, Ahmadinejad took more votes. Even in Ustan-e-Tehran, Ahmadinejad has more votes than Mousavi, but in the Tehran city, Mousavi has more votes.

So what happened is that the people in Tehran thought that he would win, Mousavi, because they had created a sort of atmosphere where they thought that the newspapers there, the Western media, and the American media was supporting him. But if you look at the rest of Iran, Ahmadinejad has done a lot of good work. I mean, there were projects that would take 7 or 8 or 9 years to complete, and he completed these projects in 2 or 3 years. He brought electricity to places that had none, clean water to places where water wasn't clean, and many things like this. He has greatly helped the poor people of Iran. The majority of Iran, therefore, was with Ahmadinejad.

That leaves Tehran, the Tehran city particularly. Now here there were groups led by important people like Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani [a powerful cleric who chairs Iran's Assembly of Experts, and a former president] and others who said they would support Mousavi. They said they would protest, but they wanted to protest peacefully. They never had the intention to come to Tehran and damage property, break things, or burn things, because in Iran, overall, this is not something that's in our history. It's very rare and even if it happens once in many years, it's done by small groups and it is considered very bad. Whoever you are protesting against, doing these things, damaging and breaking things is considered very bad.

Now Tehran has millions of people, and bringing out a few thousand to protest is not such a big feat. When some of these people were going back recently, they were arrested by the Iranian intelligence and questioned. They said that they were neither with Ahmadinejad, nor with Mousavi. In fact, they said they hadn't even voted at all. They said that they had specifically received orders from a lady in England named Zohra, which I think is a fake name, who had given them orders to do all of this breaking and damaging and violence. They recorded her phone calls, and showed it on TV here. I saw it myself. She would call them and give them orders to go out and destroy things, set fire to gas stations, and so on. And now the foreign minister of Iran has done a press conference and openly said that these people in England are calling people over here and telling them to go out and commit vandalism and violence. They had all of this planned ahead of time, well before the election.


What are the people you know saying about Ayatollah Khamenei's sermon on Friday?

If you noticed, in the khutba [sermon] by the Rahber [the title used to address the Supreme Leader], he mentioned Rafsanjani by name and criticized him, but he also supported him and said good things about him. He also criticized Ahmadinejad, but also supported him. So after this, Rafsanjani and the other leaders who were supporting Mousavi withdrew from the protests. They said that after the Rahber's speech, we don't think it is right to continue this opposition, and the Rahber has now shown us the right path. But some of the small parties and groups supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi continued their protests.

Another thing that happened was that during the debates, Ahmadinejad accidentally criticized Rafsanjani and portrayed him in a negative light. As a result, some of Ahmadinejad's supporters began to have a negative image of Rafsanjani. On the other hand, Rafsanjani's people also became angry, saying that Ahmadinejad's people have maligned them. But then, in his khutba on Friday, the Rahber admonished both Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad. He scolded Ahmadinejad for saying negative things about Rafsanjani without any proof. Of course Khamenei and Rafsanjani have differences in their opinions. This is normal in politics. It happens everywhere. It does not discredit the other person entirely. Once the Rahber brought everyone together in this way, Rafsanjani's group withdrew and decided that they will not continue the protests.

The protests that continued after the speech were not done by people here. They were done by foreign influences, like this woman Zohra in England. I saw on the news that yesterday [Saturday], they even burned a mosque. Can you imagine that? You can completely forget about the idea that any real Iranian, even a supporter of Mousavi, would ever burn a mosque. Anyone who would burn a mosque... this means that he is not even a Muslim. When this news came out over here, everybody became completely convinced that the people doing all of this have been planted from outside Iran. Nobody burns a mosque! I told you before that even burning a bank or another building is something that is considered very bad over here. People here are very educated and civilized.


What about the reported bombing of Ayatollah Khomeini's tomb? Do you think that this was also carried out by people planted from outside Iran? Could Mousavi's supporters have done this?

See, this is what I'm telling you. This is not the kind of thing that Mousavi's supporters could have done. They may have had minor grievances with the other side, like the disagreements between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, but these incidents of bombings and destruction are all being done by people outside Iran that have been planted by foreign powers. They were showing on TV here that these are people who were given training in Iraq and then were sent over here to do these things. These people have been hired and paid.

What do these people want? They want to delegitimize this record-breaking election we've had where 85% of people came out and voted. They want people to think that this report of an 85% turnout is fraudulent, that there is all this infighting going on in Iran and people don't have faith in the system. But the world has seen on the day of the election here, that there were endless lines at the voting stations before voting had even started... in such a big democracy, where 85% of people came out to vote.

Look, Ahmadinejad got 24 million votes, and Mousavi got about 13 million, and with the rest of the candidates, it's a total of 39 million people who came out and participated in the process of democracy. Think about that... why would so many people come out and vote if they did not have any faith in the system? Who votes? It is those people who know that they can get justice and a better life through the process. If a person thinks there is corruption and deception in the system, he wouldn't bother to vote, he would just stay home. People participated in this election and came out to vote because they accepted the system and had faith in it.


But there are some parts of the process that are very suspicious. First, by law, the final results of the election cannot be certified by the Supreme Leader for a period of at least three days, in order to allow for any grievances that participating candidates may have. Second, voting was done on paper ballots and counted by hand. How is it possible that 39 million votes were counted in such a short time, just a few hours?

As far as the three day law goes, I have to look into this myself and see what the methodology was exactly. [Hasan said that he will get back to me soon on this issue, and when he does, I will update this post.] But I will explain what I know to you about the vote counting.

During the election, there were about 47,000 polling stations for voting. [I have independently confirmed that this is accurate.] For each station, every candidate was allowed to have a representative present to oversee the process. Mir Hossein Mousavi had 47,000 representatives, one at each station, and Ahmadinejad I think had 42,000 or something like that. The other candidates had fewer representatives. When the voting ended at 11 pm, they immediately started counting. Once they had the final tallies at each station, the representatives were made to sign off on them, and the numbers were fed into a centrally computerized system where the tallies were collected.

Now, if you divide 39 million votes by 47,000 stations, it comes to 893 votes per station on average. This is a very small number of ballots that can easily be counted in a short period of time, and the final tally from each station was submitted to the central computerized system immediately. They reported the results live on TV as the final tallies came in. Again, remember that the representatives of both candidates at each polling station were required to sign off on the final tally at that station.

Also, the ballots were present in a booklet, like a checkbook where you can rip out the checks. This is how the ballots were distributed, and like a checkbook, each booklet had a fixed number of ballots. As soon as a booklet was exhausted, they would enter that record into the computer, so that the computer would keep track of how many booklets had been used up. Even after all of this, the Guardian Council allowed for people to come forward and report any irregularities in writing so that they could be investigated. This was not done at first, but later, on prompting, when a complaint was filed, the Guardian Council agreed to a partial recount of 10% of the votes.


Speaking of the Guardian Council, Ali Larijani, the pro-Khamenei Speaker of Parliament, has implied that some members of the Guardian Council are taking sides in the situation, which takes away from Khamenei's statement that this was a clear victory for Ahmadinejad, and even contradicts it--

Ali Larijani said this? Really?


Yes, this is what was reported here on Sunday morning.

No, no. It's not true. I watched Ali Larijani on TV just last night [Saturday] and he said that the Western media wants to take our great success in this election with record turnout and portray it in a negative light. He said to the public of Iran that we should be celebrating our wonderful success as a democracy. I saw this myself, on TV, and everyone in Iran saw it, so no one here will ever believe this report. I think the Western media may have taken his words and edited them to quote them out of context.


I also wanted to ask you about your access to the media. Apart from state-run television broadcasts, do you have complete access to the internet, sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter for instance?

Yes, we have complete access.


Well, over here, because of the ban on foreign journalists covering the events in Tehran, a lot of the major media outlets have started to broadcast web-based images and videos that are being sent in by people on the ground in Iran. There are literally hundreds of videos and pictures that have come in this way showing large numbers of people protesting, and many of them show brutal violence, home invasions, and so on. There is one particularly gruesome video of a woman named Neda who was shot and killed on camera by paramilitary forces, and it has evoked widespread reaction. Are you familiar with these kinds of events?

Look, in Iran, we have a few sources. We have two TV channels, radio, and then we have the newspapers, which are particularly popular among Iranians. Now, we also have the internet, and yes, we are familiar with these videos showing the murders of these people and the violence against them. I can tell you the impression of the people here... they believe that it is the people who are damaging and vandalizing, these planted forces from outside, that are committing these murders. This is what people believe in Iran.

You know, one of the biggest pieces of propaganda is that the forces here are allowed to use firearms. They're not. If you look closely at these videos, you'll notice that the legitimate police and officers are using clubs, tear gas, and water canons to control the crowd, not firearms. If you are seeing people using guns and firearms, these are the rogues from outside Iran who are terrorizing the people and vandalizing property. I'm telling you, all of Iran is against these people who are committing these acts of violence and vandalism.

I'll tell you something which I'm not sure you know. Last week, the office of the Rahber called on hundreds of thousands of people to celebrate at a place called Meydan-e-Wali-Asr, not because Ahmadinejad won, but to celebrate Iran's democratic process, to celebrate our momentous election with a record-breaking turnout. A few days later, people were called out again to demonstrate against these people who were committing acts of violence and vandalism in the protests, and again hundreds of thousands of people came out for that demonstration. But the international media never covers these kinds of things. Instead, the media is taking a few protests with a few hundred or a few thousand people in Tehran and making them out to be much more significant than they are.

And then you have seen the huge crowd that attended the Rahber's speech at Friday prayers. Again, there were hundreds of thousands of people who came to hear him and support him, from all over the country. You have seen them on TV. People were so energized and so excited to see the Rahber that the first twenty minutes were just them cheering and chanting slogans praising him.

Who are these people? Are they not Iranians? Just because the media never shows this side of things, everyone thinks that these protesters committing violence is all that is going on here, while the rest of Iran is silent, and there is no other point of view. In fact, most Iranians are upset with the government for not being more aggressive in cracking down on these people.


In that case, why do you think the government isn't cracking down on these people more aggressively?

Because they are mixed in with the normal people. If you know 100% that the people standing in front of you are your enemy, you can be aggressive. But these people are in regular clothing, they are in the middle of the city, where there are also regular people mixed in, working, in the shops, walking around. So you have to be careful in how you go about tackling the situation. This is also why the government forces are not allowed to use firearms. If they fire at them, the rogues will fire back, and they won't care if the public is in the way. So you have to be careful.


You're speaking a lot about these videos on the internet that are being exaggerated to mean more than what they are, and you're also complaining that the media is not covering your side of the situation. However, if the government bans all foreign media outlets as they have, it forces them to rely on these videos, images, blogs, and Tweets as their primary source of information, which you claim are misrepresentative. Does the government understand that this works against them? Also, why hasn't your side organized events and made their own videos to present your side of the story?

This thing that you're saying is absolutely right. This is something that is lacking on our side. The supporters on our side should do this more of this kind of work. The people who are supporting Ahmadinejad, our government, and our police force need to express what they think, make videos, and send them out so that people can see the other side. We were discussing this among ourselves the other day. It has been shocking to us to see that what we are witnessing here is so different from what the international media is showing.

There are two websites you should read and let me know what you think, pakalert.wordpress.com and prisonplanet.com. On the second one, there is an article about how the BBC took a picture from a pro-Ahmadinejad rally and claimed that it was a Mousavi rally. [Note: Here's the link to the article that Hasan is talking about. The website deals with various conspiracy theories.]


In past protests like the one in 1999, the establishment in Iran was united. However, now there are reports of powerful figures like Rafsanjani and Khatami moving away from Khamenei. Neither of the two was present at the Friday sermon even though they were summoned by Khamenei to attend. Also, on Sunday morning Ayatollah Montazeri declared a period of mourning for those killed in the protests from Wednesday to Friday. Rafsanjani has made a statement saying that the protests and the voice of the people should be respected and supported. Mousavi has also reportedly declared that he is ready for martyrdom. Do you believe that there is a genuine rift in the clerical establishment?

[Expresses surprise at statements from Montazeri and Rafsanjani.] Look, there is no doubt that there are disagreements among some of these men. They are nothing new. Montazeri, although he is respected because he is a mujtahid [the highest rank achievable in Shia religious training], does not have much of a following here. As you know, he was originally selected by Imam Khomeini as his successor, but later the Imam denounced him because of a corruption scandal. It was a dark spot on his character, and although he is learned and respected, he was not qualified to become the next Rahber. He is a controversial figure who gets a lot of attention from the foreign media, but the media and the people here consider him insignificant.


But what about Rafsanjani? There are reports that Jawad Shahristani, the representative and son-in-law of Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, met secretly with Rafsanjani and the Assembly of Experts in Qom to consider redrafting the system of clerical rule in Iran by establishing a collective ruling body instead of a single Supreme Leader. Are you familiar with this? [Note: Sistani, based in Iraq, is one of the most influential Shia spiritual leaders in the region.]

Well, yes, we have heard something like this, that they are considering introducing the system of shoora-e-rahbariya, or a council of mujtahids that act as a supreme authority instead of one supreme leader. But you see, this is nothing new. The late Shaheed Muttahari, who was considered to be... well, you can think of him as number 2 to Imam Khomeini, also suggested the idea of having a mujtahid council. But this idea was not welcomed or accepted among the people. We do have a report from authentic sources that Rafsanjani, on his last trip to Iraq, met with Ayatollah Sistani, who advised him to obey Khamenei. He said that it was not in the interest of Iran to not obey the Rahber, who provides excellent leadership for the country.

The second thing is that if several people get together to float ideas... well, that is the job of the Assembly of Experts, which Rafsanjani is the chairman of. These are people who are mujtahids and are elected by the people of Iran. They keep watch over the supreme leadership, and God forbid if the Rahber makes a mistake or makes a wrong decision, they have the authority to replace him. So there already is a body that oversees these things. If there was a council of people to issue fatwas and edicts, without a singular figure of authority, it would not have as much authenticity and credibility among the people.

At our institution in Qom, in the Imam Khomeini Madrassa, we have many seminars, where ulema [scholars] from around the world come to speak and debate. They disagree very often and have open debates, where they sometimes have completely antithetical views on things. Open academic discussion and debate are very normal and encouraged here. This does not mean that there are any serious enmities within the clerical establishment.


Do you think, then, that despite their differences, eventually Rafsanjani and Khatami will end up supporting Khamenei?

Look, all of these men understand, accept, and revere the system. This is not something they disagree on. They're united on this. The difference is in their preference of methodology in order to get things done. For example, they often discuss how we should deal with the Western world. One group says that we should be firm and outspoken in our approach. The other says that we should be softer and more diplomatic. For example, Mohammad Khatami may be more open to engaging in talks and making concessions with the West about Iran's nuclear program to avoid sanctions and other headaches. Others believe that we should take a harder stance and stand our ground. These disagreements on policy are very normal. They happen in every country in the world. Remember, even when Mohammad Khatami was president, it was still Khamenei who was the Supreme Leader. Khatami did try his soft approach on the nuclear issue. The Rahber told him to make concessions, but if there is no response or accommodation on the other side, he should go back to being aggressive. So at the end of his presidency, after Ahmadinejad was elected, Iran returned to the aggressive stance.


Regarding the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad has said that he wants to develop the nuclear program for energy, not to make a bomb. Khamenei has also issued a fatwa against building a nuclear bomb. Why should the rest of the world believe them?

You know, there is one fundamental thing that people in the West don't understand about Iran, and if they can understand this one basic concept, they will understand many other things. Look, the government of Iran is an Islamic government. Their view is, if there is something that isn't even allowed in Sharia, something that Islam does not allow us to do, how can we even think of doing this thing? The Rahber has said this many times, and as you said, issued a fatwa against making a nuclear bomb. He has said that if this is something I give permission for, it can jeopardize my own faith and my own stature as a Muslim. It's against our moral and religious beliefs.

America looks at this issue according to their own mentality. They think, we're lying, so they must be lying too. You can look through all of the speeches of the Rahber, and you will not find a single instance of deception or lying. He cannot do it. If he lies or does something wrong, he cannot stay the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts would have to replace him.


One of the biggest problems that people here have with Ahmadinejad is his stance on Israel and his denial of the Holocaust. It is one thing to be critical of Israeli policy, but what purpose does denying the Holocaust and holding conferences dedicated to Holocaust denial serve in helping Iran's interests and relations with the rest of the world?

Look, if you listen to his words carefully, he doesn't say that he accepts or denies the Holocaust. He is a university professor, an academic. He looks at it as a historical event, like any other. He doesn't understand why each event in recorded history is subjected to research and re-evaluation except for this one. In Denmark, they can make cartoons insulting the Holy Prophet and this is defended as freedom of opinion. But in this case, it is taboo to have any opinions on this issue.


You do see, though, that there are parallels in the way Muslims feel about the Danish cartoons and the way Jews feel about the Holocaust? It is a very personal, emotional issue for them. Academic debate is one thing, but do you think it serves any kind of purpose when people in powerful political positions express these opinions? If the goal is to try and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue, why should people in political positions highlight an unnecessary issue that would only inflame the other side and complicate the potential for a solution? Wouldn't it be more effective to put the Holocaust issue aside and just focus on the Israeli-Palestinian issue?

Again, many of Ahmadinejad's statements have been misunderstood. He does not reject the Holocaust. Okay, suppose he says the Holocaust happened just as it is recorded in history, without challenging it. It still happened in Europe, right? Why then are the Palestinian people being punished for it? That is the real question.

Also remember, we have 30,000 Jews living in Iran very peacefully. They like the Iranian government. We have always made a clear distinction between Judaism and Zionism. This is very important. Our opposition is to the Zionists, not to the Jews. We have a lot of respect for Judaism... it is also a religion of God, from Abraham.


What kind of approach do you think the people of Iran want to see from President Obama and the United States during this time?

The Iranians have always maintained that that the United States should communicate with them at a level of equality, with mutual respect. They should remember that just as they are a nation, we are also a nation. If the United States talks down to Iran like they are our boss, and want to tell us what to do, we will not listen to a word they say. The same goes for Obama. Obama needs to be more honest. One one hand, he says that we should improve our relations with Iran, and on the other, he comes out and says he is very upset with the unjust treatment of these people who are committing violence and vandalism in Tehran. He should open his eyes and see how many supporters there are of the government and the Supreme Leader. These 85% that came out to vote... whoever they voted for, they are still supporters of the Rahber and the government. They vote because they have faith in the system. He should look in the United States. When has the United States had an 85% voter turnout? What do you have, maybe 40%?


Last year, it was around 60%.

Okay, 60%. Why was it higher than usual last year? Because people in America had some hopes and expectations in the last election. They had faith in the system and thought that Obama would come and change things. Iranians have the same support for their system. This is why there was such a high turnout. So Obama needs to be more honest, specially with his own people. He is taking their taxes and sending American soldiers into different countries where they are dying for no reason, to protect the interests of the rich people in the United States. If Obama can stop this and just take good care of his own people, that is good enough, we will not have any problems with him. The American government spends more time protecting the interests of Zionism than it does the interests of its own people. We have never been against the people in America, just the policies of its government.


My last question is a personal one. You still enjoy a very close relationship with your brother, who lives in the West, is non-religious, and has strong secular beliefs. You on the other hand live in Qom, and are a few years shy of being a religious scholar at the highest (mujtahid) rank. To what extent, if any, have your stark ideological differences had an effect on your relationship?

You know, as I've lived and studied here, I have learned many things. My faith teaches me that human beings are the creations of God, and God has created this world and everything in it for human beings. This is very important. God has given human beings a great stature, and thus humanity is of great importance. If there is any ideology that is against this universal concept of humanity... this is what we are at war with. This concept is present in all belief systems. These other systems and religions only differ in how they translate this concept of humanity. We may try to help them understand our beliefs and they will try to help us understand theirs, but we will never fight them. We will only fight those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings.

I believe that as human beings, we should worship and praise our creator. But this service to God shouldn't be of the kind that harms others. For example, you can say that you're secular, that you don't believe in a god, and you don't believe in worship. You don't think it's required of you. So your ideology is different. But based on this, we will never clash with each other. Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother.

However, if someone's ideology says that I am a lesser person, that he rules over me, or he's my boss, we will probably clash with each other. This is what I mean when I say our conflict is not with Jews or Judaism, but with Zionism. We place great importance on this difference.


Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.

Thank you.

A Peek Into America's Possible Future Pakistan Policy

Four days after 9/11, Pakistani-British writer and political activist Tariq Ali wrote about an encounter he had with a Pakistani army general whom he asked about Islamist militants in the region.

Why had they been so receptive to American financing and weapon support during the Cold War, only to turn against the US overnight?

"Pakistan was the condom the Americans needed to enter Afghanistan," replied the general. "We've served our purpose and they think we can be just flushed down the toilet."

"The old condom is being fished out for use once again," wrote Ali at the time. "But will it work?"

He may have had a point.

Seven years later, the United States is quagmired in a violent insurgency in Afghanistan, while Pakistan, having surrendered part of its territory to Islamist militant control under a "peace deal", is on the verge of becoming a failed state. Triggered by the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore last week, Ali reiterated his contention about Pakistan in The Guardian: "The appalling terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan cricketers in Pakistan had one aim: to demonstrate to Washington that the country is ungovernable."

Americans have been paying more attention to Tariq Ali -- the man who in 1968 inspired the Rolling Stones song "Street Fighting Man" -- since he published his book, The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power, last fall.

One of them is Bruce Riedel, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution who previously served as a CIA official for almost thirty years.

Riedel, known for his harsh criticism of the Bush administration's policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was tapped as a foreign policy advisor by Barack Obama during his presidential campaign. Last month, Riedel was appointed by the Obama administration to head a White House review committee on policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, an overhaul of which is to be completed before April's NATO summit.

In a glowing review of Tariq Ali's book, Riedel acknowledges Ali's assertion that the US has had a significant role in the peril that Pakistan faces today:

"Ali rightly notes that the United States has consistently chosen to back Pakistan's military dictators when they seized power from elected governments. Eisenhower and Kennedy backed the first dictator, Ayub Khan; JFK even gave him a state dinner at Mount Vernon and took him to Newport, R.I. Nixon famously tilted toward Yahya Khan during Pakistan's brutal attempt to crush Bangladesh. Carter and Reagan backed Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq to help defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, inadvertently giving birth to the modern jihadist movement. And George W. Bush backed Pervez Musharraf in return for help fighting al-Qaeda, even through the general perverted election after election to stay in power. Blind U.S. support for these military strongmen has eroded Pakistan's civil institutions and rule of law, along with America's claim to support freedom and democracy in the Islamic world."

Riedel points out the part that both of his employers -- the CIA and the Brookings Institution -- have played in the genesis of Pakistan's current state, and also agrees with Ali's criticism of Barack Obama's pledge to unilaterally strike Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan in the presence of actionable intelligence and absence of cooperation from the Pakistani government. In an interview with Dubai-based Pakistani news channel ARY One World, Riedel, while acknowledging the success of recent US strikes in Pakistan near the Afghan border, noted that there was a "counterproductive element" to them, as they alienate the Pakistani people away from the United States.

While he calls many of Ali's policy suggestions "useful", Riedel is also cautious about his underestimation of the threat of Al Qaeda both to Pakistan and the United States, and warns of a possible sanctuary in Pakistan for terrorists who may bring about another world-changing event with dangerous consequences.

In contrast to the policy of the Bush administration, however, Riedel proposes an approach that is beyond just militaristic. "The Duel makes a strong case that the United States should back Pakistan's civilian leadership, flawed as it is, in an effort to build a modern Islamic democracy," he writes. "That will require much more economic aid, creative diplomacy to ease tensions with Afghanistan and India, straight talk about ending Pakistan's ties to terrorism, and patience. It will take time to recover from the Bush-Musharraf legacy, but we cannot afford a failed state in Pakistan, especially one that bears the label Made in the U.S.A."

Favoring a multi-pronged approach to the problems facing and arising from Pakistan, Riedel has stressed the need to look at them in a regional context. He emphasizes the importance of recognizing the influence that Pakistan's concerns about India has had on how it handles Afghanistan.

He also understands that all of this will need to be balanced delicately with a strategy to deal with the distrust that citizens in all of these countries have developed towards the United States in the last few decades. The people in the region still remember Ronald Reagan famously calling the Afghan Mujahideen (which literally means "those involved in a jihad") the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers" when they were helping the United States fight the Soviet Union -- and then turning on them as they became Taliban terrorists. As Tariq Ali points out in The Duel, if America once turned on the allies that helped it defeat the Soviets, many Pakistanis feel, what would stop it from turning on Pakistan?

"You... have to deal with [these problems] with a great degree of subtlety and sophistication," Riedel told ARY One World in January. "Because there are decades-old fears among all the parties about American intentions."

You can't effectively treat a condition without a diagnosis, and only time will tell if the new administration's management strategy will be effective. But in Bruce Riedel, the United States finally has a skilled diagnostician.

This is a positive start -- and it might serve as a good opportunity to do away with the need for more future used-condom analogies.

Why the Terrorists Could be Winning in Mumbai

Things had been going well for Islamic jihadist militant groups after 9/11.

Moderate and liberal Muslims worldwide - most of whom abhor the idea of terrorism - have long had legitimate grievances about the situations in Palestine, Iraq, and Kashmir. By successfully exploiting these issues while taking advantage of alienated Muslims' sentiments towards the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policies - including legislation such as the Patriot Act, which many American Muslims feel is discriminatory - terrorist groups were trying to get some of the more moderate Muslims over to their side.

And it often worked: the last eight years saw the worldwide burgeoning of homegrown terrorist cells (especially in Europe), the successful election of Hamas in Palestine, a competitive, well-funded and re-energized Hezbollah holding its own in its 2006 war with Israel, and an unshakeable (if now diluted) anti-US insurgency in Iraq that showcased nationalist Iraqis and al Qaeda fighting on the same side for the first time.

The goal that Islamists have always had is to create - and maintain - a clash of civilizations. To them, this is very much a war between Islam and the West, and this schism needs to be maintained. It's a little eerie to think that when George W. Bush told us that we could either be with him or against him, it may have been exactly what they wanted to hear.

Sure enough, as the Bush administration began its war in Iraq or broke unconditionally in favor of Israel, disillusioned Muslims - even the moderate, secular ones - found that they couldn't side with it. Amid the simplistic, black and white, this-way-or-that-way atmosphere that they were suspended in, they found that even their legitimate concerns - about legitimate issues - caused them to be lumped on the same side as the terrorists, who they couldn't side with either.

There was a reason why Osama bin Laden threw himself into 2004's US election. With John Kerry favored to win a few days before Election Day, bin Laden released a video that he knew would help play a role in re-electing George W. Bush.

Keeping Bush in power not only ensured that the alienation that moderate and liberal Muslims felt from the US government would stay intact, but - let's face it - it was one hell of a recruitment tool.

In declaring its support for John McCain this year across several websites, al Qaeda had hoped this would continue.

But it didn't.

Barack Obama's message resonated with billions worldwide. Not least among them were moderate and liberal Muslims who'd been in limbo during the Bush years. Obama's middle name didn't exactly hurt him here, but it was more than that: Obama seemed to have a sound understanding of the complexity of the geopolitical mileu that the war on terrorism is being waged in. His was the exact antithesis of the Bush approach. Fareed Zakaria said it best back in July:

"Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas."

Obama seemed to have the perspective that much of the world outside the United States - including most of the Muslim world - related to. With his election to the presidency, Islamic militant groups started to see millions of moderate Muslims begin to view the United States in a different light, joining Barack Obama's call for change instead of theirs.

In Iraq, al Qaeda had been given a front to fight the war it wanted, thanks to the Bush administration's knee-jerk response to 9/11. Bleeding the US military had been a stated goal of bin Laden, and now it was stretched thin - in two major wars. This didn't just help the al Qaeda folks in their jihad - it also strengthened the positions of countries like Iran, which was now able to both help finance and arm Hezbollah shockingly well in its 2006 war with Israel - and abet the Iraqi insurgency - virtually unhindered.

Now, as the newly elected US administration promises to shift its focus from Iraq to Afghanistan (a war that has never been opposed by Muslims even remotely as vehemently as the war in Iraq), Islamists are facing a problem.

Recently elected Pakistani president Asif Zardari has tacitly been approving US airstrikes on Pakistani soil. As relations with India warmed steadily, Zardari made some of the most conciliatory remarks towards India of any former Pakistani head of state. Last month, he referred to Kashmiri insurgents - for the first time - as "terrorists" instead of "freedom fighters". Then, after a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he proposed a policy of nuclear non-proliferation between the two countries, ruling out first use of nuclear weapons in a potential conflict.

As much as Zardari's actions may have upset some in his own intelligence agency (the ISI) and Pakistan's military officials, they delighted the United States, for whom better India-Pakistan relations would translate into a reduction of Pakistani troops at its India border in favor of an increased presence at its border with Afghanistan.

Suddenly, there was a lot of love in the air, and that wasn't exactly helping the Islamist agenda. So they decided to throw a wrench into the whole thing last week by descending on Mumbai.

:(

Could they be getting what they were aiming for?

At the street level, emotions are still running high in a city where moderate to liberal Hindus and Muslims have been able to coexist relatively peacefully. Now, there are signs of an emerging cleft between the two.

India has placed blame on Pakistan for the attacks, and no one can really blame them for thinking so. (Pakistan has long supported organizations like the banned-since-2002 chief suspect Lashkar-e-Toiba, and its intelligence and military establishments are known to contain terrorist sympathizers.) As India handed Pakistan a list of names of terrorism suspects to turn over, it also announced its plans to increase troop presence at its border with Pakistan in a show of strength.

Both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Senator John McCain are visiting India this week to show solidarity, and probably to help ease the tension - a shift of Pakistan's focus from the Afghani to the Indian border doesn't exactly help the United States' interests in the region.

The perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks knew that well. We may not know for sure who they are, but it is pretty clear what they want - and so far they haven't had much reason to complain.

They want Pakistan and India to play the blame game. They want to effectively reverse the recent progress that has made in the countries’ relations. They want for Hindus in India to feel unsafe, and for Muslims to feel alienated. They want fresh lines of separation to be drawn. They want a shift in Pakistan's focus (and troops) towards India and away from Afghanistan. They want to inject fresh energy to keep their clash of civilizations alive.

They know they can't destroy their enemy, but they can handicap and fragment it, by manipulating its politics, targeting its economy, bleeding its military, and coaxing it into war.

We have all seen that happen with the United States in the last eight years, and it wasn't fun for anyone except those who instigated it.

If the world can't rise above it this time - and again takes the bait - who wins?

Election 2008: The Victory of Idealism Over Issues

My Libyan born Pakistani-Canadian brother who lives in the United States now shares his name with the American President.

As residents of the border city of Buffalo, New York, we frequently drive home into Canada, and on returning, US border officials will sometimes joke with him when they read the name on his passport.

"Hussain Rizvi. Hmmm. So, are you related to Saddam?" they chuckle.

Now he finally has a response.

"No, sir - I'm related to Barack Hussein Obama."

The optimism about America's new president-elect is still cautious and reserved. Will he be able to fix an economy in recession, two major wars, and the country's damaged alliances overseas? Will he bring the change he promised? The expectations are high, the tasks daunting, every word under scrutiny, and every action under a microscope.

In the short term, when it comes to policy issues, he'll likely make mistakes like any other president. He'll come through on some of his promises, and may not on others. He'll change his mind on some things. He'll be praised at times and criticized at others.

However, the long term implications of this election aren't as much about the world's issues as its ideals. Barack Obama hasn't just brought change and hope with him - he represents it. He is the living, breathing personification of what Gandhi was talking about when he said, "Be the change you want to see in this world." There are many firsts here, and being the first black president is only one of them.

Obama is the only son of a first-generation immigrant to be elected to the presidency in modern history. He is the product of an interracial marriage, which was illegal in many states until he was six years old. He is also the first anti-war candidate to be elected at a time of war.

As a black man with a last name that rhymes with Osama, the middle name Hussein, and less than two years as a junior US senator, Barack Obama went up against virtually impossible odds when he decided to run for president. He ran against the royal establishment of the Democratic party, the Clintons - not just one, but two of them, one being a wildly popular ex-president. He earned the endorsements of the both the brother and the daughter of President John F. Kennedy along the way. After defeating the Clintons, he ran against an a celebrated American war hero, John McCain - and won again. In doing so, he defeated not just his opponents, but a set of seemingly insurmountable odds that had statistically and historically been stacked against him.

He also defeated an ideology. Richmond, Virginia was the most permanent capital of the Confederacy. The state hadn't voted for a Democrat since 1964, when Obama was three years old. Neither had Indiana. For the first time in 44 years, Barack Obama turned both of those states blue. Although Obama is the first northern-state liberal to be elected to the presidency since Kennedy (Clinton, Carter, and Johnson were all from southern states), he is, unlike Kennedy, an almost entirely self-made man who did not come from a wealthy, politically well-connected family.

Even if Barack Obama was a white man, these achievements would be historic and monumental. He had to have known the odds and the enormity of his ambition, but he seems to have gone for it anyway, simply because, well, he thought he could.

Sure this is about the economy, about Iraq, health care, taxes, Social Security, immigration, and foreign policy. And at any other time, it wouldn't feel like anything could ever be more pressing than these issues, especially how they are all in crisis together at the same time.

But the impact of what happened on Tuesday stretches far beyond even what Martin Luther King, Jr. called the "fierce urgency of now." It goes beyond race and beyond policy issues. It's about overcoming improbable odds and going against the grain, shattering that "real world" myth, and redefining - or de-defining - reality.

This is a big win for that kind of stick-it-out-no-matter-what-they-say idealism, for being daring and not being afraid to question age-old established ideas and perceptions as long as your conscience tells you it's the right thing to do. And it's a very blatantly visible confirmation of all those cliches that don't seem so hollow anymore - that anything is possible and nothing is certain.

This is a return to the celebration of intelligence and education over ignorance and mediocrity; science, reason, and rationality over superstition and dogma; creativity and innovation over tradition; and hope and trust over fear.

My brother Hussain's circumstances aren't of his own making. My parents were professors with a penchant for traveling the world. I have never lived in the same country for more than nine years, and at thirty three, I have lived and gone to school in South Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, Canada, and the United States. Among the six members of my family, we have three different countries of birth.

I never really developed any emotional or patriotic affiliation to any one country or region. As a consequence, the ties I formed with the people and the places I've encountered aren't rooted in geography or culture, but in ideology.

Barack Obama was elected at least partly because almost everyone is able to see part of their own story in his story. This phenomenon isn't just restricted to the blue-collar worker who relates to his middle class roots, the Ivy League professor, or the first-generation immigrant. It permeates into a much more intricate demographic that includes the tiny group of us that are third-culture, identity-challenged, foreign non-foreigners like my brother and myself.

This is about how not having a cultural, geographic, religious, or racial identity is an identity in itself.

It's about defying categorization and shedding labels.

It's about how non-American does not always mean un-American.

Maybe the wars will end, maybe we'll all have jobs, and maybe not. For now, this isn't about what will happen, but what already has: this year has revealed an America and a world that has grown up, yet at the same time, regained its innocence.

Colin Powell and Ben Affleck Address the Muslim/Arab Issue

For a while, it felt like it was simply becoming okay to accept the answer to the "Barack Obama is a Muslim!" rumor by saying, admittedly correctly, that he's not, he's a Christian, and he has never been Muslim. Despite that, about 13% of Americans still believe that Obama is Muslim.

Colin Powell, in one of the most well-thought out, articulate endorsements of any this year, finally made the distinction between the "correct" answer and the "right" answer to this question:

I'm also troubled by – not what Senator McCain says – but what members of the Party say, and it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian; has always been a Christian.

But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer's "No, that's not America."

Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be President?

Yet, I have heard senior members of my own Party drop the suggestion he's Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery. And she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards – Purple Heart, Bronze Star; showed that he died in Iraq; gave his date of birth, date of death. He was twenty years old.

And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross. It didn't have a Star of David. It had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Karim Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American.

He was born in New Jersey, he was fourteen years old at the time of 9/11 and he waited until he could go serve his country and he gave his life.

Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that within the party we have these kinds of expressions.

A separate incident a little over a week ago at a McCain-Palin town-hall meeting featured a woman who told John McCain that she was afraid of an Obama's presidency because he's "an Arab".

This time, it was Ben Affleck who addressed it best on Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher (starting at 5:20 in the clip):

"...(John McCain) said, "No he's not an Arab, he's a good man."

What if someone said, "I heard he was a Jew..." and I said, "No, no, no, he's not a Jew, he's alright..."? 'Arab' and 'good person' are not antithetical to one another!

We've allowed this idea, denying the fact that Obama - who, yes, is not an Arab, nor is he a Muslim - (that) we've allowed that denial to turn into the acceptance of both of those things as a legitimate slur is really a problem.

Instead of standing up and saying these aren't slurs, these are categories of human beings, they're not slurs of people - no one in the media stood up and said that. And instead they just follow around Joe the Plumber, it's the same bullshit they do every fucking day over and over again."

Despite the fact that Obama is neither Muslim nor Arab, his historic campaign may give rise to a more balanced national dialogue not only on race, but on what has been another kind of bigotry - one that is novel and easily overlooked, but just as significant.

John McCain Has Lost His Confidence

Let's face it - these debates aren't really debates - they're auditions.

A real "debate" would be a substantive discussion on the issues, and although we have seen that happen from time to time, it's only one of many components of the overall audition.

Everything from smiling into the camera to delivering sharp one-liners plays into the performance - and sometimes, depending on expectations, simply not screwing up is enough to make it through.

In the end, debates are won with confidence. No voter can have confidence in a candidate if a candidate doesn't have confidence in himself. And what we saw more than anything last night was a palpable display of John McCain's loss of confidence.

Sarah Palin went into last week's debate facing very low expectations; conversely, McCain went into last night's debate facing very high expectations.

He had been touting his townhall debate proposal all summer, and it was all but established that the townhall format favored him.

He had appeared erratic and impulsive during the economic crisis and needed to come across as stable and presidential.

He had appeared agitated and cynical during the first presidential debate, needed to show more optimism, and needed to connect with voters in the warm way that he did during his townhall meetings in the primary season.

He needed to follow through on his campaign's bizarre announcement that they will now focus on 'exposing' Obama's alleged deficiency in character, judgment, and patriotism.

He didn't do any of those things.

Instead, he reminded voters again and again of his record and experience, which have now been established as non-factors in this debate. The two most popular candidates in this election, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, have the shortest records and the least experience.

He appeared agitated, cynical, and tired again, more so than in the first debate. He occasionally rambled. His few attempts at humor fell flat, making him appear sarcastic and passive-aggressive. It really is a testament to John McCain's honesty that he doesn't have a very good poker face, but in these debates/auditions, this has been a major handicap.

Finally, his decision not to bring up talking points like the alleged "terrorist" ties Obama has - as his campaign and running mate have been doing recently - showed inconsistency.

McCain had promised a feisty Tuesday night, and appears now to have backtracked on the nature of the attacks that his party's faithful were hoping to see. He built up those expectations for the Republican base all week, and then let them down, de-energizing them at a time where it is critical for him to maintain the fragile momentum and energy level the Republicans have finally gained in this fall.

McCain is trailing by more than 5 points in almost every aggregate poll, and he's down by over 100 votes in state-by-state electoral college polls. He walked into last night's debate looking like a man too aware of that - discouraged and exhausted, his confidence shattered.

To regain his footing, he needs his confidence back.

And it's not going to happen with the William Ayers association attacks or questions about Obama's patriotism. It's too late for McCain to define his opponent - everybody already knows Barack Obama by now, and opinions have already been formed.

Perhaps finding Osama bin Laden can save John McCain. Maybe if Sarah Palin is dropped and a new, equally explosive VP pick is announced a week before November 4, he could get his mojo back. But short of those kinds of scenarios, I've run out of ideas.

It's becoming very obvious that John McCain has too.

No Post-Debate Bump for McCain-Palin

Frank Luntz and Bill O'Reilly predicted it wrong. There has been no poll bump for John McCain as a consequence of the VP debate.

Barack Obama's lead has actually widened in the first national polls conducted entirely after Sarah Palin and Joe Biden's vice presidential debate on Thursday, October 2.

For October 3-5, Hotline/FD shows a 6 point advantage (47-41%), Rasmussen an 8 point advantage (52-44%), and Gallup shows an 8 point advantage (50-42%), for Obama.

The Electoral College Map Obama leading by over 100 electoral votes, despite another 100 or votes still in the toss-up states.

Apparently, people were able to see through the Palin facade, despite the analysts and pundits largely declaring the debate a "tie". Karl Rove's campaign style, predicated on the assumption that the majority of people are gullible and can be taken advantage of, seems to have gone the way of trickle-down economics.

The McCain camp will now focus on Obama's alleged association with William Ayers - a last resort strategy - and deliberately target Obama's character, judgment, and patriotism. It's obvious why they feel the need to go down this route now.

I wonder if Bill O'Reilly has any more predictions.

Biden Helps Obama, and Palin Helps Palin

Going into the debate last night, it was pretty clear what the tasks for each vice presidential candidate would be.

Sarah Palin had to survive the ninety minutes and bounce back from the Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews, which she did.

Joe Biden had to win the debate, which he did.

The two major post-debate polls conducted on undecided voters by CNN and CBS showed that Joe Biden won the debate by a significant margin, but Sarah Palin exceeded expectations.

Normally, this would mean a boost for the Obama-Biden ticket, but it's not. Winning the debate isn't enough - primarily because these things aren't really debates. They're auditions, and the actual debate (which by definition would be a substantive discussion on the issues) was only one component of the audition last night.

Strategically, Joe Biden had to define John McCain as an out-of-touch non-maverick closely tied to the Bush administration. He accomplished this very effectively.

Palin needed to show that she was not as clueless and incoherent as she appeared in her Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews.

She accomplished this partially.

She wasn't completely coherent - she would often ramble and repeat herself, and she did dodge questions, including a very relevant one on McCain's record on deregulation. When Biden pointed out that she didn't answer the question, she covered up semi-effectively by saying, "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people."

She also wasn't completely clueless - she was able to hold her own, not stumble, take a few effective jabs at both Biden and Obama, and come up with some sort of answer, as tangential as it may be, to every question.

On style, Biden and Palin were both great, but Palin seemed to have the edge.

She was charming, delivered her attacks with a smile, and constantly looked and spoke into the camera. She was concise and clear, and warm and folksy. Her hockey-mom persona came through well. At one point, she sent a shout-out to a group of third graders who she said would get extra credit for watching the debate.

Her Washington-outsider persona also came through well, forming the basis of her single most effective one-liner against McCain: "Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You're one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice-versa."


Palin Benefits From Reverse Sexism.

Biden was coached to restrain himself and not attack her or appear like he's "beating up" on a woman. Again, he did this perfectly. He was gracious and gentleman-like, not even correcting her when she mistakenly called David McKiernan (the commanding general in Afghanistan), "McClellan". He allowed Palin to get away with a lot, rarely if ever criticising her, instead choosing to focus on McCain.

If Palin was a man, Joe Biden would most certainly have been more aggressive about the dodged questions and slipups, like Lloyd Bentsen was to Dan Quayle in 1988.

But Biden was careful and did the smart thing, recognizing that in some situations, Americans are still not ready to see a woman treated in exactly the same way as a man.

He was easy on her, playing the honor student to her cheerleader: anything semi-intelligent out of her was shockingly impressive, while anything short of brilliant out of him was less than expected.


The Aftermath.

In the end, things are most likely to stay the same. The Republican base will love Palin's performance, the Democratic base will love Biden's, and the undecided voters will again, as they have before, vote against the status quo if they feel that things are going badly.

Thankfully, though, the Palin sideshow is over and she has now been initiated. Last night's audition went without any major disasters or home runs, and the race is back on track. From here on, Palin may be wise to restrict her media exposure to short but frequent interviews that are not recorded and susceptible to operator-dependent editing, but carried live - which seems to be the format most suited to her.

But for now, it's back to McCain and Obama.