Reaction to Obama choosing Biden as running mate By The Associated Press – Reaction to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his running mate. ___ "In naming my colleague and friend Sen. Joe Biden to be the vice presidential nominee, Sen. Obama has continued in the best traditions for the vice presidency by selecting an exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant. Sen. Biden will be a purposeful and dynamic vice president who will help Sen. Obama both win the presidency and govern this great country." — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. ___ "There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama's lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president." — Ben Porritt, spokesman for the John McCain campaign. ___ "We now have the ticket that's going to bring the change we've all been hoping for. I join all of the members of the Senate Democratic caucus in congratulating Joe Biden — a great friend, a great Democrat, and now our party's nominee for vice president." — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ___ "I congratulate Sen. Barack Obama on his selection of my friend, Sen. Joe Biden, to be his vice-presidential running mate. I have enjoyed for many years the opportunity to work with Joe Biden to bring strong bipartisan support to United States foreign policy." — Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. ___ "Joe Biden is the right partner for Barack Obama. His many years of distinguished service to America, his seasoned judgment and his vast experience in foreign policy and national security will match up well with the unique challenges of the 21st Century." — Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. ___ "I think he's made a great pick with Joe Biden. It's not just foreign policy. He has expertise in matters of the judiciary, in his work for families." — Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. ___ "I believe that Joe Biden is an excellent choice. He is a man of experience and high integrity. He will be a valuable running mate to Sen. Obama." — former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga. ___ "Obama has spent millions on his change message in Indiana. Biden has held onto a seat in the Senate since 1972. How does that represent change?" — Indiana GOP Chairman Murray Clark. ___ "This is a terrific choice. Joe Biden understands the challenges facing our country at home and abroad, and his long history of bipartisanship in the Senate will be a welcome asset. He will be a tireless and enthusiastic partner for Sen. Obama in the campaign and in the White House." — Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. ___ "Barack Obama demonstrated the judgment to choose a governing partner who is wise and strong and will help him deliver change to a country yearning for it. I enthusiastically support the selection of Senator Biden." — Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. ___ "Joe Biden brings with him a record of voting in favor of tax increases, strict gun control, abortion rights, and against domestic energy exploration in (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), and the opening of a nuclear waste repository — such as Yucca Mountain." — Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C. ___ "Sen. Biden will be a tremendous partner for Sen. Obama and for Michigan. Our state has been battered by the policies of the Bush administration, so it matters to us that Sen. Biden has a long-standing reputation of bringing real results that matter to Americans." — Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Lt. Gov. John Cherry of Michigan. ___ "He has distinguished himself as a member of the United States Senate and is an accomplished public servant. I wish him well in his bid for higher office but remain a supporter and ally of Sen. John McCain." — Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. ___ "Joe brings experience to Barack's message of change. Together, Democrats are offering the American people change, experience and good judgment — a winning combination if there ever was one." — Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. ___ "Joe Biden has always been my first choice, and I am pleased to learn he is Sen. Obama's first choice, as well. I am proud of Joe and believe his experience in the U.S. Senate and as a national leader in foreign policy makes him an excellent candidate for vice president." — Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, D-Del. "In selecting Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, Sen. Obama has chosen a proven and effective advocate for fairness and equality that our entire community can be proud of." _ Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization. AP

Most guys that work with me including the managers are obsessed with their bike and the way they talk about it makes it seem like they just won the gold medal or something. I was even tempted couple of times to get on the back of one of those just to see what the fuss is all about. anyway I haven't seen this on my somali brothers - is this just white boy phenomenal or there are some somali kids that have test for adventure...just wondering here

Originally posted by Macalinka: i dont think Obama will the next president of US? Do you? YES HE CAN . . . He has more than 50/50 chance of becoming the next POTUS. Prescient Obama-Biden ad made in January

Inaalilaahi wa Inaa ileyhi raajicuun. RIP Mr. Magan!

Obama/Biden 08

To: Number Two From: Barack Obama Congratulations. You have agreed to be part of a historic campaign to save the country from more of the same with a vision to take us to a better place, via a new course for America. Enclosed you will find your poncho for Thursday night. Yes. We. Can. To make sure that we do, I thought I might provide a few pointers: New kinds of leaders provide new kinds of leadership. Think of that before you hit the stump. Remember how many houses you have. Also remember how many houses John McCain has. Pay attention to how few leaks sprung while your name and a few others were in the mix. Before you decide to leak something, call or Berry me -- or get in touch with David Plouffe, and he can tell you why it's a bad idea. Once a week, John Kerry will call. Be polite. Twice a week, Howard Dean will call. Let it go to voicemail. Every day, Rahm Emanuel will call. Write down everything he says. You will be asked about Hillary Clinton. Smile -- but you're on your own on this one. PS: You will not influence me by trying to influence Michelle.

I await for the day when Sunday night feels like Friday nite - it's not even Monday yet and I am having Monday blues already.

Get Your War On

Running While Black By BOB HERBERT Published: August 2, 2008 Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates. Spare me any more drivel about the high-mindedness of John McCain. You knew something was up back in March when, in his first ad of the general campaign, Mr. McCain had himself touted as “the American president Americans have been waiting for.” There was nothing subtle about that attempt to position Senator Obama as the Other, a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not sufficiently patriotic and certainly not one of us — the “us” being the genuine red-white-and-blue Americans who the ad was aimed at. Since then, Senator McCain has only upped the ante, smearing Mr. Obama every which way from sundown. On Wednesday, The Washington Post ran an extraordinary front-page article that began: “For four days, Senator John McCain and his allies have accused Senator Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.” Evidence? John McCain needs no evidence. His campaign is about trashing the opposition, Karl Rove-style. Not satisfied with calling his opponent’s patriotism into question, Mr. McCain added what amounted to a charge of treason, insisting that Senator Obama would actually prefer that the United States lose a war if that would mean that he — Senator Obama — would not have to lose an election. Now, from the hapless but increasingly venomous McCain campaign, comes the slimy Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad. The two highly sexualized women (both notorious for displaying themselves to the paparazzi while not wearing underwear) are shown briefly and incongruously at the beginning of a commercial critical of Mr. Obama. The Republican National Committee targeted Harold Ford with a similarly disgusting ad in 2006 when Mr. Ford, then a congressman, was running a strong race for a U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee. The ad, which the committee described as a parody, showed a scantily clad woman whispering, “Harold, call me.” Both ads were foul, poisonous and emanated from the upper reaches of the Republican Party. (What a surprise.) Both were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women. The racial fantasy factor in this presidential campaign is out of control. It was at work in that New Yorker cover that caused such a stir. (Mr. Obama in Muslim garb with the American flag burning in the fireplace.) It’s driving the idea that Barack Obama is somehow presumptuous, too arrogant, too big for his britches — a man who obviously does not know his place. Mr. Obama has to endure these grotesque insults with a smile and heroic levels of equanimity. The reason he has to do this — the sole reason — is that he is black. So there he was this week speaking evenly, and with a touch of humor, to a nearly all-white audience in Missouri. His goal was to reassure his listeners, to let them know he’s not some kind of unpatriotic ogre. Mr. Obama told them: “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky.” The audience seemed to appreciate his comments. Mr. Obama was well-received. But John McCain didn’t appreciate them. RACE CARD! RACE CARD! The McCain camp started bellowing, and it hasn’t stopped since. With great glee bursting through their feigned outrage, the campaign’s operatives and the candidate himself accused Senator Obama of introducing race into the campaign — playing the race card, as they put it, from the very bottom of the deck. Whatever you think about Barack Obama, he does not want the race issue to be front and center in this campaign. Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain. So I guess we understand Mr. McCain’s motivation. Nevertheless, it’s frustrating to watch John McCain calling out Barack Obama on race. Senator Obama has spoken more honestly and thoughtfully about race than any other politician in many years. Senator McCain is the head of a party that has viciously exploited race for political gain for decades. He’s obviously more than willing to continue that nauseating tradition.

^^ Thank you Che for being the best friend you are **must work on October suprise now**

Originally posted by siphoningdilemma: I absolutely love kids and believe to my core that I can be a great mother someday…. Inshallah The dilemma is what a girl to do who doesn’t want to get married however is ready to have kids in a permissible according to Islamic law way? Please advise... thanks Adopt them from Somalia .

Don't we ever get tired of asking this silly questions "should the man help cook or clean or any do any house chores" I mean really if he can't feed himself asaga iyo naagtisa ku dhib qaba so why is it ever a discussion.

for the LADIES, if your father was to present to you a noble, god fearing brother, would you decline? Of course you would decline - no Somali woman worth her salt would accept to be given away.

Happy B-day 2 me too - only my mom called me to make fun of my new duqnimo

Ludacris - Obama is here Ps I am sure the Obama camp would pay anything to have the media ignore this song.

LOL @ no argument, no fighting and no problems - where is the excitement in that! :confused:

Funniest skit ever !!! Enjoy

Interesting article about Somalia. Somalia: Time to Pay Attention While the world looks elsewhere, Somalia is in flames. The nation just topped a list of the world's most unstable countries by Foreign Policy magazine, and the United Nations has declared the humanitarian situation there "worse than Darfur." In the next three months the number of people requiring immediate food aid will reach 3.5 million. Over one million refugees have fled their homes. Due to a raging insurgency against the current transitional government -- which has support from both the West and Ethiopia -- Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, has earned the nickname, "Baghdad on the sea." In Somalia, there are no diplomatic superstars like Condoleezza Rice or Kofi Annan, who rushed to Kenya to settle its election crisis; there are no celebrities like Mia Farrow or Jim Carrey to urge international action and awareness as they did in Sudan and Burma. Instead, Somalia's crisis has elicited a collective yawn of indifference. Just mentioning the country's name is enough to cause even the most dedicated diplomat or aid worker to throw up their hands in desperation. Ironically, unlike the above conflicts, the current crisis in Somalia has developed in part due to America's "war on terror" and failure to grasp some of the nuances of Islam. The Muslim world is not a monolith; there is an ongoing struggle among Muslims with differing interpretations of the religion. Somalia is a traditionally Sufi country -- the mystic, open form of Islam distinct from more conservative interpretations as those seen in places like Saudi Arabia. But in Somalia, a more conservative movement developed under the secular dictatorship of President Siad Barre and during the anarchy that followed his ouster in 1991. The resulting Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) implemented Shari'a law, and although its stricter tenants were opposed by many Somalis, the grassroots movement gained strength because people sought order and justice in a country marred by starvation, warlord violence, and tribal conflict. Despite internal differences in the interpretation of Islam, the UIC created a state of relative stability that led to the return of Somali businesses, united conflicting tribes and ended piracy off Somalia's perilous shores. But the ascension of the UIC worried the United States, which believed the group was sheltering Al-Qaeda members seeking a safe haven in Somalia. The United States intervened by backing secular warlords -- reportedly some of the same individuals it had fought during 1993's "Black Hawk Down" incident -- against the UIC, strengthening, rather than isolating, extremism in Somalia. Despite their ample firepower, the warlords were defeated by the UIC in mid-2006. In December 2006, UIC extremists threatened Somalia's traditional archrival Ethiopia, which they accused of intervening in Somali affairs. Already concerned the UIC would support a domestic ethnic Somali insurgency, Ethiopia invaded. The United States backed Ethiopia's invasion and its ensuing occupation with intelligence, air strikes, Special Forces, and rendition of terror suspects to Guantanamo Bay. An Iraq-style insurgency soon began inside Somalia, mainly drawn from UIC elements but also members of the ****** clan, the tribal base of the UIC. These tribesmen believe the United States and Ethiopians are attacking them by supporting the Somali transitional government, run largely by tribal rivals the *******. Because they are Muslim, they believe Islam is under attack and seek to defend it. Somalia faces many profound challenges, but a recent ceasefire -- which calls for an end to the insurgency ahead of an eventual Ethiopian troop withdrawal in favor of U.N. troops -- has brought some hope. The recent momentum in Somalia for a shift to religious conservatism -- and sometimes militant extremism -- mirrors similar shifts around the Muslim world. However, with quick and responsible action, the United States can still help shift it back. The United States should first pressure Ethiopia to withdraw and bring all Somali factions to the negotiating table. It can also work within traditional tribal structures to reach out to Somalia's people, effect political change and distribute aid. By reaching out to Somali moderates who would be happy to challenge the extremists themselves, and funding development programs that show a renewed respect for local customs and religion, the United States can help swing the pendulum away from extremists who preach that Islam is under attack from the West. To do this, the United States must immediately change a failed policy. Instead of effectively fighting those individuals who wish America harm, it has taken on the Somali people. The United States should learn from its disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that using force to myopically crush "terrorists" at the expense of entire populations only strengthens extremists. These days any attention given to Somalia is encouraging. But to create a stable society that would alleviate the suffering of Somalis and address Western security concerns, something more is required: a true understanding of what has gone wrong and the will to effect positive change.

^^ You guys should probably read McCain's answers to similarly phrased questions back in March by the same paper. In any case I thought he hit the right notes without antagonizing the Palestinians and the larger muslim world - I was specially happy with this part of his answer. I would argue that the number of Muslims who both embrace and act on that ideology[terrorism] is relatively low. There's then a larger circle, there's a broader part of the Muslim world that is fundamentalist, but is not wedded to violence. The key in dealing with that aspect of Islam is to help them reconcile modernity to their faith. A lot of times their gripe is not with the West per se, but with the forces of modern life and globalization that is disruptive to their views of what their faith means. And I think that lifting up models of countries that have found accommodation between Islam and a modern economy, globalization, diversity of cultures...

The American position has been blanketly opposed to settlement construction. Do you think Israel has a right to try and maintain a presence in the West Bank - for security, religious, historic or other reasons? I think that Israel should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made previously. Israel's security concerns, I think, have to be taken into account, via negotiation. I think the parties in previous discussions have stated that settlement construction doesn't necessarily contribute to that enhanced security. I think there are those who would argue that the more settlements there are, the more Israel has to invest in protecting those settlements and the more tensions arise that may undermine Israel's long-term security. Ultimately, though, these are part of the discussions that have to take place between the parties. But I think that, based on what's previously been said, for Israel to make sure that it is aligned with those previous statements is going to be helpful to the process. The current Israeli prime minister told me in an interview a few months ago that the great advantage of the Bush administration on that issue was that they looked at Israel on the basis of "67-plus" - that their starting point was that maybe Israel can expect or deserve support for a slightly larger sovereign presence than the pre-1967 Israel. Do you think of Israel in its final-status incarnation on the basis of "67-plus"? Look, I think that both sides on this equation are going to have to make some calculations. Israel may seek "67-plus" and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They've got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party. The Palestinians are going to have to make a calculation: Are we going to fight for every inch of that '67 border or, given the fact that 40 years have now passed, and new realities have taken place on the ground, do we take a deal that may not perfectly align with the '67 boundaries? My sense is that both sides recognize that there's going to have to be some give. The question from my perspective is can the parties move beyond a rigid, formulaic or ideological approach and take a practical approach that looks at the larger picture and says, "What's going to be the best way for us to achieve security and peace?" How should the free world tackle the threat of Islamic extremism, the "death cult" ideology that holds that the finest thing you can do for your god is kill and be killed? There are a number of different aspects. Our first approach has to be to capture or kill those who are so steeped in that ideology that we're not going to convert them. Bin-Laden is not going to change his mind suddenly. So we have to be very aggressive in simply rolling up those terrorist networks that have been set up and that adhere to those views. I would argue that the number of Muslims who both embrace and act on that ideology is relatively low. There's then a larger circle, there's a broader part of the Muslim world that is fundamentalist, but is not wedded to violence. The key in dealing with that aspect of Islam is to help them reconcile modernity to their faith. A lot of times their gripe is not with the West per se, but with the forces of modern life and globalization that is disruptive to their views of what their faith means. And I think that lifting up models of countries that have found accommodation between Islam and a modern economy, globalization, diversity of cultures... Countries such as? A country like Jordan has gone a long way in moving in that direction. A country like Indonesia, which I lived in as a child for four years, has a strong tradition of tolerance of diversity. And although there was a certain period of time when a fundamentalist strain of terrorism infected the culture, that's not its core. A final aspect of this is recognizing that the population explosion of uneducated young men and women who are impoverished is always dangerous in any society. And that helps fuel and feed Islamic radicalism, even if there is not a direct correlation. I recognize that many of the perpetrators of terrorist acts aren't poor; often times [they] come from middle class or even upper class families. [but] there's no doubt that the tolerance or the acceptance of extremism among the broader population is often fuelled by frustration and a sense of no prospects for the future. To the extent that we can work with countries like Egypt, or countries like Jordan, to assure that the youth that are coming up have avenues that allow them to prosper... We're not going to end this, to eliminate terrorism entirely. There's always going to have to be a part of our strategy that involves force. But I think that we can shrink the appeal of that ideology in a way that makes an enormous difference. Full interview

McCain's embarrassing assertions on the Iraq surge Even military leaders involved in last year's troop escalation agree that the prospect of U.S. withdrawal is the main reason violence has ebbed. By Joe Conason July 25, 2008 | "The surge worked." So insistently do the media's mainstream and conservative commentators repeat the Iraq success meme -- echoing the mantra of George W. Bush and John McCain -- that to probe its premises and assumptions is not permitted. To question the success of last year's troop escalation supposedly implies a negative assessment of the performance of American soldiers and Marines and may even imperil their morale, creating a frame that stifles dissent. But now McCain himself has inadvertently reopened real debate on the subject by claiming that strategies and tactics used to quell the Sunni insurgency long before the surge troops arrived in Iraq should nevertheless be attributed to the surge. Indeed, the surge is so brilliant and so powerful, according to McCain, that it makes things happen in the past as well as in the present and the future. That must be what passes for "maverick" thinking, although there are certainly other names for it. For those of us who remain tethered to reality, however, the success of the surge must be measured in a context that accounts for many other factors -- as must the simple assertion that we are winning the war in Iraq as a result of the escalation. The rebuttals of McCain's embarrassing assertion that the Sunni insurgency's turn toward the U.S. and away from al-Qaida came because of the surge have been ample and devastating. His badly skewed sense of time and events has raised fresh doubts about his fitness for the presidency, since he was either incapable of comprehending contemporary facts or intentionally misleading the public when he told CBS anchor Katie Couric that the Anbar awakening "began" during the surge (and that troop escalation enabled the U.S. to protect a Sunni sheik who was actually assassinated during that period). But aside from that moment of untruth, there are deeper problems in all the airy assertions about the triumph of the surge. First there is the matter of that shift by the Sunni insurgents, which had nothing to do with the escalation. What changed the minds of the Sunni rebels in Anbar province and elsewhere was a revamped counterinsurgency doctrine that emphasized careful bribery over indiscriminate reprisals -- and that seized upon the growing alienation of the Sunnis from the bullying, murderous leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq. The American military officers who oversaw and implemented that strategy, including Gen. David Petraeus, deserve full credit. Even Petraeus, a strong supporter of the surge, makes very limited claims about its role in bolstering the Sunni turn, however. In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. A fascinating article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public "did not go unnoticed" among the province's Sunni sheiks. "They talked about it all the time." Allen also told Kahl that the Marines exploited those concerns by telling the sheiks: "We are leaving ... We don't know when we are leaving, but we don't have much time, so you [the Anbaris] better get after this." Kahl and Odom write that "the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could." They also quote Maj. Niel Smith, the operations officer at the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, and Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of U.S. forces in Ramadi during that crucial period, who wrote a long article on the Anbar awakening in the journal Military Review. "A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias," they recalled, "made these younger [tribal] leaders [who led the awakening] open to our overtures." There is no doubt that the surge has coincided with diminishing violence in Iraq, although kidnappings and bombings continue daily. As many critics have pointed out, surge proponents always compare the present period with the worst months of 2006 and 2007 -- and the arrival of 30,000 troops is not necessarily why the killing has ebbed. Perhaps the most plausible reason is that there are many fewer Iraqis to kill in the places where the worst violence occurred, because so many of them have abandoned their homes or left the country altogether. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that roughly 5 million Iraqis have fled, with nearly half of them now living in Syria, Jordan or other neighboring states. Others belong to the cohort known as the "internally displaced," who have sought refuge from the militias "cleansing" Baghdad in either the northern or southern provinces. When there isn't anybody left to kill, the murder statistics tend to improve. Another fortunate coincidence was the decision of Muqtada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite leader, to order his militia leaders to stand down in August 2007, just as the surge troops were arriving. That cease-fire broke down last spring in southern Iraq but was then reinstated, in part at the instigation of Iran and in part because of Sadr's own political ambitions. Why conditions became better in Iraq is a crucial issue not only because it may affect the outcome of the U.S. presidential election but, more important, because it indicates the best way out. For McCain and Bush, proving the success of the surge is important because that means the occupation must continue. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Barack Obama, that is an unsustainable option. What we should learn from the history of the surge is that only the prod of withdrawal, rather than indefinite escalation, can persuade the Iraqis to defend themselves as a sovereign state.

^^He actually gave this speech this year at the end of April days before Obama cut out all relationship with him. It was carried live by all the cable channels and I thought was pretty good overall. But he lost any sympathy he gained from this speech the next day when he showed up at the national press club.

Hmm! interesting story!!! keep them coming bro.

Welcome to all the new aliens!

The wanted was great movie …specially the end was sort of perfect