Replies

Let me try and respond to those points (base of reference: I was born and raised in Kenya, going to the US when I was 18. I returned to Kenya some months before the crisis started, so I was physically there during the crisis). Anyways, my responses to your points (followed by why I chose to respond):

- Obama chose to spent more time (6 days) in Kenya campaigning for his 'cousin" Odinga than he spent fact-finding in Iraq and Afghanistan

True. The main question though is this, will that resonate with independents? Sure, it would make any Conservative and/or core Republican (there is a slight difference) angry due to Obama's lack of priority, but would the average voter really care. Let's be un-PC here ...during GW's first term I was doing grassroot campaigning for him in college, and most people did not even give a darn about most things political. I wonder what the real impact of this would be to the average voter.

- Obama chose to support a candidate who was an avowed Communist

Odinga is a populist, and not only that but his family has historical roots in communism (starting with his father, Oginga Odinga, and going back decades during a time when Kenya's educated elite were either being flown to the US and the UK for higher education, with a small splinter going to the then Soviet Union. Odinga's dad stems from the Soviet side). Raila Odinga even names his son after Fidel Castro. However, Odinga is a populist rather than a communist (as his father was). He has a vast array of businesses, and is actually quite capitalist ....he simply uses populism as a crutch to garner votes (something virtually every politician in Kenya does). Even small-time mayoral elections and council positions normally have people handing out small sums of money to the rabble. It seems like a sticky accusation at first, but it could easily be shot down if the Obama camp ever needed to.

- Obama chose to support a candidate who backed imposition of Sharia law in a country that was over 80% Christian

This was a major bone of contention in Kenya just before the elections, when leaked documents were released showing that Odinga had signed a secret manifesto with several key Muslim leaders (under an Islamic organization called SUPKEM, which is the supreme council of Kenyan muslims). It caused a great deal of hue and cry due to, as you mentioned, Kenya being primarily Christian, and it was all over the major papers as well as on local blogs. It was a veritable powder keg. The problem with the argument is that a couple of weeks before the election the leaked documents were found to be forgeries from a political opponent.

- Obama chose to support a candidate (Odinga) who supported minority Islamists who opposed the Kenya's support of the War on Terror

I don't have any information on this one, one way or another.

- Obama chose to support a candidate who brought violence when he wasn't elected, torchig over 800 Christian churches and killing over 500 people.

The election in Kenya was seriously flawed, with both contenders (the incumbent Mwai Kibaki and of course Raila Odinga) both garnering very close tallies. Unlike the US system, the Kenyan system is solely via popular vote. In my opinion Kibaki won (although it should be noted that I supported him since I believe he was more pro-business than Raila ...under Kibaki Kenya was growing by 6-7%), however it is clear that the win was not by a large margin. Add to this the great number of irregularities that arose during the election. For one, Kibaki's people rigged the election in some areas, which caused furor in Odinga's camp. In the same vein, Odinga's people ALSO rigged the election in certain areas, which showed that both sides were stuffing ballots (it was funny when one side would accuse the other of rigging when the tally of certain areas was over 100% of registered voters, and then in the next few hours you realize that the side ACCUSING also has areas that have more votes than voters). It was a major mess. Which is where the problem began ...Raila's supporters refused to accept defeat, and Raila did not try to calm the tension (infact he threw fuel into the fire by calling for mass action, knowing very well what that would lead to). A section of this supporters used that 'mass protest' to wreak havoc on anyone suspected to have voted for Kibaki, and (coupled with some simmering land dispute issues where some Raila supporters in the Rift Valley felt that Kibaki supporters should not live there) that led to violence and killing. However, there was no targeting of churches because they were churches. There was one big case of a church being burned, but it was set ablaze by members of a tribe that largely supported Raila's party in the Rift Valley because a group of people belonging to a tribe that largely supported Kibaki had taken refuge. Both groups were Christian. A week after that, in another area where the numbers were reversed, a small group of Raila supporters were burned inside a house by a group of Kibaki supporters as an act of blind and stupid retribution. It really had nothing to do with Islam. Your numbers are also note completely correct: More than 500 people died (over a thousand), and in the same vein 800 churches were not burned (if they were that would be basically every major, minor and local church in Kenya, including the really tiny home churches).

- Obama chose to give advice to Odinga on all aspects of his political campaign and continues a close relationship today.

This appears to be true. I cannot say how close the advice was (I was not privy to it), but it is fact that they talked before the campaign, and during the violence Raila claimed to have spoken to Obama on the phone. That is all I know.

THIS IS A KILLER ISSUE (NO PUN INTENDED), THERE ARE SEVERAL VIDEOS OUT THERE TO PASS AROUND. THIS SHOULD BE RELOEASED BEFORE THE DEBATE.

Well, I actually disagree. I think the issue is important, and it should be raised (every thing counts), but it is not what most FReepers take it to be for several reasons. For one, I doubt it will have the level of resonance with the average voter that some think it will. Secondly, the connection has been blown out of proportion (not that it is not there, it is just that every two weeks the story takes another dimension ....e.g. the figure you reported of 800 churches being burned. It is like a hunter seeing a lynx in an area that was 'not supposed' to have any predators, and in a week or so the story is that a cougar was spotted). Thirdly, and most importantly, I believe this election will be framed by the economy. It is important for McCain to hammer other points (e.g. this, as well as things like Ayers, ACORN, etc etc etc), but that is icing on the cake. The meal is the economy.

Anyways, just my thoughts on actually having being here. During the crisis I posted a couple of long posts on the crisis, and heaped blame on both Kibaki and Odinga for letting things get to where they were. True leaders would have put country first. As I said, I supported Kibaki for several reasons, and did not support Odinga for several reasons. However, a lot of the points being raised between the connection between Obama and Odinga could very easily blow up in the face of McCain if he blindly rushes into them without checking proper facts first (and by fact checking I do not mean reading a book or riffling through blogs ....McCain's team can do very thorough research easily, and there are very many REAL papers written by a number of human rights societies on what happened in Kenya).

Anyways, there is some mileage that can be got out of that, but I think too many people are putting too much water on this. It will not change the election by itself ....McCain needs to frame himself on the economy. Maybe Palin can follow up on the other issues (Ayers, this, ACORN). However the answer to the question 'Where's the beef' is simple ....it is the economy.