The Daily Observer

After months of speculation, Barack Obama has finally announced his choice for vice president. Joe Biden, a moderate
Democrat who is respected by both sides of the political aisle, will make an excellent counsigliere to Obama, and
most importantly, will make an excellent President should, God forbid, something happen to Obama if he is elected.

The choice of Biden, although a bit unexpected until about a week ago, is a masterstroke for many reasons. One good
reason is the fact that Biden is NOT Hillary Clinton. A VP should be someone the president trusts, not someone the
president is afraid will stab him in the back . A VP should be someone dedicated to the goals of the
administration, not someone who is interested in her or his own agenda. While choosing Hillary as his VP candidate
might have gotten Obama some votes from Hillary’s core constituency of older white women, it more likely would have
lost him a huge number of votes from the unique  coalition of political newbies, Western state independents, and
liberal Republicans painstakingly built by Obama’s campaign.

More than 30 years of effective and influential functioning in the Senate gives Biden the ability to advise Obama on
how to deal with the legistative bodies of the US. Much has been made of the fact that Biden’s extensive Washington
experience makes him an insider which contrasts with Obama’s message of change. The fact is that if Obama intends to
implement any kind of ‘change’ he will need to work with the Senate and House, and needs someone with intimate
knowldedge of the working of these institutions. Biden, with his strong record of legislative  accomplishments,
amongst them the Biden Crime law and VAWA, is the ideal person to guide Obama.

On foreign policy, this writer has long held the view that Obama does have a strong understanding of the world and
has what it takes to defend the US’ interests in the international arena. Biden’s extensive knowledge of foreign
affairs and stewardship of the Foreign Relations Committee complements and strengthens Obama. An advocate of strong
ties with democracies such as India, Biden tends to be a realist as well, although his position on trifurcating Iraq
may not be the best for that country. But hey, you don’t have to agree with a candidate on each and every issue.


One job of a vice-presidential candidate is to function as an attack dog, attacking the presidential candidate’s
rival(s) while  the candidate himself/herself can focus on larger issues. Being a good friend of John McCain’s,
Biden is uniquely qualified to fill this role. Who knows a person’s weaknesses better than a really good friend? And
Biden’s overall personal reputation will make sure that at least the Democratic side does not take the low road on
the fight for the presidency.

The Imigration issue and Immigrants are being debated heavily these days.I would like to present my views on this topic.I am an immigrant to this country, I am not a citizen of USA but I would like to be someday. I admit that I didn’t realize the greatness of this country before I came to this country. I lived here now for about eight years and I can geniunely say that this is one of the greatest country in the world . where else can you find a society that is a melting pot of so many cultures, so many religions and so many races and gives an oppurtunity for any individual no matter what his/her beackground is , to live in freedom and prosper not because he belongs to a particular religion or race or sex, but to prosper solely based on their intellect. I have have great respect an love and admiration for this society , this collection of human beings, they call United States of America.

 Now, about the amnesty program that the current administration is contemplating about, I support the effort to assimilate the hundreds of thousands of "illegal immigrants" into the American way of life. many people complain about how these illegal immigrants work the system and not pay their taxes now and they argue that they will not contribute to the system once they are granted legal status but continue to draw from the system. I disagree with that argument, when you are an illegal immigrant in this country, you basically have no identity and nobody would like to live their life without acknowledgment. I believe that America, inspite of its flaws is still such a great country in the world because of its values and rewards  an individual for their mind than their background. This idea had enticed the people of intellect to this country for a long time and it still does.

 I believe that once these "illegal immigrants" are granted a legal status they contribute more to the economy and the American way of life. They will be given an oppurtunity to live their life in freedom and are at the liberty to pursue their dreams of having a happy life. I believe that they would trade the burden of paying taxes to the burden of living an unacknowledged life any day. I believe that this move will strengthen the concept of American way of life and strengthen the economy. I believe that freedom and the quality of life that this country has offerred the immigrants are reciprocated with loyalty and gratitude. I believe that thought of providing home for any individual that is ready to work hard and appreciate and uphold the freedom of self and any other individual is truly what makes this country the greatest nation on earth.

During the recent visit of the President of the United States to India, an agreement on nuclear cooperation between the two largest democracies was announced. According to  the agreement, India will have to declare 14 out of 22 nuclear reactors civilian in purpose. The remaining 8  can be used as part of India’s military program. The US will help provide technology and fuel to the 14 civilian reactors. India reserves the right to reserve any nuclear reactor it builds in the future for military purposes. However it can receive international assistancec only for  its civilian reactors, which will also come under international inspection. The US and the world benefit from this deal in many ways. Number one, this is  the first time in history that India has declared its intention to allow international inspections on its civilian reactors. Number two, this will allow India to help meet the growing energy needs of its large population and rapidly expanding economy without burning a lot of fossil fuels. This will reduce the amount of harmful pollutants in the atmosphere, leading to cleaner air for all.  Number three, this will help reduce pressure on prices for petroleum based fuels. Number four, this is an example to the entire world that countries that behave responsibly in the international arena and do not indulge in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will be treated differently than those that do.

What is hard to comprehend is the reaction of some of the media and politicians in the US who are opposing the nuclear agreement. The New York Times has been proiminent in this regard. Edward Markey, a US Representative from Massachusetts, has also been critical of the agreement. One thing that some of the critics keep harping on is that countries like Iran and North Korea will look at this deal and feel discriminated. The critics think that this will make it harder for the US to convince them to give up their nuclear weapons. I just wonder how anybody who follows world history and current politics can put India in the same bracket with North Korea and Iran . The entire point of diplomacy is to see how to best further the interests of your own country by negotiating on different terms with different countries depending on circumstances, shared values and shared objectives. Is it really in the interests of the US to have a nuclear armed Iran and a nuclear armed North Korea but an energy starving India? North Korea and Iran didn’t get their arsenal by playing by the rules.  They got their arsenal partly with the help of a certain Dr. Khan from  a certain country which lies on India’s  border to the west. Incidentally, that country iis cited by critics of the Indo-US nuclear deal as another country that has been discriminated against.

I don’t for a moment doubt the patriotism of Rep. Markey and the NYT and  other critics of the deal. But their is a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty in opposing the Indo-US nuclear deal because of discrimination towards other countries and because it leaves India a certain degree of freedom to develop its nuclear arsenal further, and at the same time not seriously challenging the conventional nuclear order which gives 5 countries (Russia, US, UK, China and France) immense privileges in terms of nuclear energy and atomic military development. The critics may feel that the best way to ensure long term security is to limit the nuclear weapons capabilities of other countries. If it is easier to chip away at India’s arsenal than doing the same for Iran and North Korea, go ahead and do it.

However the reality of today’s world is that nations (more specifically ruling establishments) do have qualitative differences amongst them. Some national regimes think it is okay to brainwash their citizens , isolate them from the rest of the world, and routinely threaten the obliteration of other countries. Other regimes may think that it is important to hold free and fair elections, make sure that the press is not bullied around,and that the way to ensure lasting peace is by strong economic, cultural and people to people contacts with other countries. Some countries routinely disburse money to people in other countries to fund terrorist operations. Other countries may use spare funds to assist other nations in holding free and fair elections, and to improve educational and health facilities abroad. Therefore the presence of a nuclear weapons program in some countries may pose a strong threat to world peace than the presence of weapons in other countries. I wish  the influential critics of the deal took a moment to ponder this.

A peaceful, economically prosperous world is  in the best interests of the people of the US. India long  ago announced a no first  use policy on nuclear weapons, in addition to a voluntary memoriam on testing. India has an excellent record in terms of not assisting  other nations in nuclear weapons programs. Assisting India in its quest for energy can only strengthen the long term economic and  security interests of the US.

 -A