What A Speechmaker ... What A Leader

As I am writing this, Obama is only halfway through his State of the Union address. At a time when Americans have kind of lost track of Obama's vision and "change" mantra, they have a kind of disconnect to the whole thing. At a time when the media cast doubts over Obama's plans to tax the banks, impose new regulations to control them, at a time when Main Street thinks the government is losing its fight to reprimand and teach Wall Street a lesson ... it wasn't easy for Obama.

I have posted on how and why Obama is such a great speechmaker - you can learn most of it, but you cannot learn how to connect. He is not only charismatic, he does not seem artificial at all. In the end, you trust him more because he connects all the dots of your concerns.

Obama's speech is genuine sounding, he made sure that he connected to the everyman in smaller towns, just count the number of small towns he mentioned. He also did not gloss over the realities, that he knows things are not all that rosy, that things put in place are working and that all should be in the same boat.

We have to remember that the media is still largely controlled by Republican-leaning people. In one simple sentence, Obama's contentious tax on big banks gains huge acceptance - when these banks asked for bailouts, and in less than a year are preparing to reward themselves with a huge bonus pool... Obama's tax on them does not seem so bad, especially when it is going to support a jobs bill to create jobs and sustain lending to small businesses.

He did not alienate the Republicans but will put them up to be on the same side to lift the US out of their difficulties. More importantly, Obama has showed all that HE is still very much in CONTROL, that he is still on top of the matters that concerns all, and that he is still addressing the major issues effectively, decisively and continuously.

He punctuates his speech with strong convincing ideas, logic and persuasiveness that is hard to shake off. Well, you can cast a lot of market doubts on Obama government's thrust to reform banking, ability to create jobs, the ability to lift the economy out of the doldrums, and the ability to maintain a stricter fiscal prudence to eliminate deficit ... in one fell swoop, Obama has literally dusted all those concerns off with aplomb and credibility. He reminded all on the cohesiveness of his government's every step and that all actions are working towards many bigger visions for all Americans. I think all market shorts will be running to cover their positions FAST...

Yes, I am in awe again ... this speech is even better than those he made in the past ... even when you know he has the gift of gab, even when you know he is already charismatic ... you still go away feeling you can trust him even more in spite of his natural abilities (which many may use to deceive and con others with).


p/s photo: Choi Ji Woo

Ess'kue Me, Mister Liu!!!

During the recent APEC meeting in Singapore, Liu Mingkang, China's chief banking regulator, took a cheap shot at the US and Obama when he remarked that the US Federal Reserve is fueling speculative investments and endangering global recovery through loose monetary policy. Why I think that was a cheap shot - even my blog has been saying that for the longest time. The policies Liu was refering to were the weak USD, massive liquidity and currency printing, and low interest rates by the US. Liu basically said some standard knowledge: "The US Fed is boosting speculative investments in stock and property markets and will pose new, real and insurmountable risks to the global economy."

Mr. Liu, what do you expect the Fed or Obama to do??? Raise interest rates in the US while property prices, corporate spending and empoyment are still pretty weak??? To criticise the US is so easy. Hallo... you want to talk about bubbles, just look at China's massive expansion in dubious loans over the last 10 months - now that's a bubble as well.

Everybody do not want the financial crisis to happen but it has. How you work together to revive the global economy is more important, rather than criticising one another's policies. Every government is most concerned about saving jobs as it could derail the broader economy for a long time if left unchecked. The underlying rationale is to prevent social unrest, which could spell the end of many governments during times of crisis. Everybody has their own turf to mend first, only then can they work together to bring the global economy out of the woods.

How can the US seriously have a firm or strong USD now??? It needs to be more competitive, it needs to adjust its purchasing power in light of the massive amount of USD being printed, it needs to attract investments into its businesses and assets by having a lower USD - is that wrong? How in the hell is Obama going to justify having a firm USD in current times - yea, make it more attractive for US companies to ship jobs abroad, make US products a lot more expensive. Come on Mr. Liu, think before you speak, or rather stand in the other person's shoes before speaking. What about the massive China's stimulus program, isn't that easy money as well?

As to whether the US monetary and fiscal policies will lead to another global asset bubble, that will take some guess work. As things go, yes, we are headed for one, but we have yet to see how the major central bankers act further down the road. If they behave responsibly and keep selling bonds (buying back liquidity or soaking up liquidity) at a gradual pace, the asset bubble scenario may be averted. The flip side of it is when they do soak up liquidity, you will see asset prices correcting - I guess the strategy is to do it gently and in step with market mood swings. Mr. Liu, you think only you understand that the USD carry trade result in speculation???..., I am sure all central bankers know that, even the central bankers of Mali know that - just work together with other central bankers and stop spewing unnecessary jibes to win brownie points. You can criticise, but offer solutions lah, let's see how and what you would propose to do if your were in Bernanke's shoes.

You can criticise the USD carry trade (borrowing in USD and speculating in foreign currencies, stocks and other assets) but that is beyond the scope of the Fed or Obama. Plus market movements or capital flows may not be long term, it may be shifting trends, you cannot simply manipulate short term monetary or fiscal policy for the sake of controlling what might reall be short term market trends. There will come a time when markets will think the USD has gone too low and the USD carry trade will unwind by itself. Do not jump around like a mad dog over normal course of events when currencies are realigning. Makes me think you not fit enough to be China's banking regulator.


p/s photos: Han Hyo Joo

Obama Tightens The Screws On Firms That Were Bailed-out

PRESIDENT Barack Obama's administration is poised to order cash salary cuts of 90 per cent on average for top executives at firms that received the biggest government bailouts, according to media reports yesterday.

The seven companies that received the most government assistance at the height of the US financial crisis will each be required to cut the salaries of their 25 best-paid executives. The firms are AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, are not affected. These banks last week reported record quarterly profits and have set aside tens of billions to reward their staff. Goldman, for example, has earmarked US$16.7 billion (S$23 billion) for compensation so far this year, or more than US$500,000 per employee.

For the affected seven firms, the biggest cuts will be to the cash portions of the 175 employees' salaries, which will be slashed by an average of 90 per cent, and will mostly fall below US$500,000, the Wall Street Journal said.

- The 175 executives targeted by 'pay czar' Kenneth Feinberg are not only the highest-paid but also considered among the most talented and productive from seven companies that have received billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

Their base salaries will be slashed by an average of 90 per cent.

- That applies to the five top executives and the next 20 highest-paid employees at Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

- Another 525 employees at the companies will also face new curbs on pay from Mr Feinberg, but those details have not yet been released.

- The government did not want to make executives return compensation already received this year, but the reduced pay levels will be the base for making decisions on salary in 2010.

- The executives will still be subject to compensation limits as long as their companies are receiving support from the government's US$700 billion (S$975 billion) bailout fund. Their total compensation was being cut in half, on average.

- Cash salaries will be limited to US$500,000 for more than 90 per cent of affected employees. Personal expenses for such perks as company autos and corporate jets will be capped at US$25,000 without approval from Mr Feinberg's office for higher payments.

- The pay restrictions for all seven companies will require any executive seeking more than US$25,000 in special benefits - things such as country club memberships, private planes and company cars - to get permission for those perks from the government. -- AP

Bernanke's Reappointment - Yes & No Camps

In my view, he should be reappointed, no question. If Henry Paulson was still around, then I would have asked that Paulson be sacked as Treasury Secretary as it was mainly his fumblings with TARP and the yes/no with Lehman Brothers which exacerbated the crisis. Bernanke was reappointed by President Barack Obama for a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Bernanke will still need to be approved by the Senate. His current term as chairman of the Federal Reserve expires in January 2010. In the past weeks there was debate about whether he should or will be reappointed. Doubters pointed to political pressure to delay fiscal reform and to Bernanke's failure to prevent the housing bubble. Supporters pointed to Bernanke's success in preventing a second Great Depression, despite some mistakes, and to his democratic decision-making style.

Why Bernanke Should Not Have Been Reappointed

• Stephen Roach, Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, disagreed with Obama's choice because Bernanke did not do enough to prevent the recession. Bernanke failed due to his agnosticism towards asset bubbles, blaming the bubble on Asia's surplus savers and believing markets know better than regulators.
• Irwin Steltzer, Director of Economic Policy Studies at the Hudson Institute: "An angry president can be counted on to appoint a crew more sympathetic to his views, and less fixated on the sort of anti-inflationary exit strategy that Bernanke has been touting, and the Chinese, their vaults stuffed with dollars, are demanding. There might well be a new chairman in the Fed's near future."
  
• Richard Bernstein, Former Chief Investment Strategist for ML: "His policies both before and after the banking and credit crises have attempted to maintain financial market status quo. Despite the crying need for changes to monetary policy at least as monumental as those of Mr. Volker, Mr. Bernanke did nothing to alter the U.S. banking system's disastrous course...The next Fed chairman must lead a new paradigm of monetary policy to ensure that neither real nor financial asset inflation becomes extreme."
  

Why Bernanke Should Have Been Reappointed

• Dr. Nouriel Roubini: "Bernanke deserves to be reappointed. Both the conventional and unconventional decisions made by this scholar of the Great Depression prevented the Great Recession of 2008-2009 from turning into the Great Depression 2.0....Bernanke deserves to be reappointed so that he can manage the Fed's exit from its most radical economic intervention since its creation in 1913."
  
• Steven Pearlstein, WashPost Business Columnist: "Bernanke has been courageous and creative in his determination to do whatever was necessary to prevent a financial meltdown....As chairman, he has gone out of his way to share power and responsibility with other board members and fostered a new spirit of collegiality. His deep understanding of financial crises--as an academic and as crisis manager--makes him uniquely qualified to help Congress shape the new regulatory architecture and implement its reforms."
  
• FT: "Bernanke's fine judgment has stood him and the economy in good stead. Decisions to lower interest rates in early 2008, excoriated by many other central bankers at the time, have since been vindicated. His tenure is not flawless. Like others, he overestimated financial markets' ability to regulate themselves. But he has proved a pragmatic crisis manager not hostage to dogma."
  

p/s photos: Yang Mi

How To Speak Like Obama

One of the main reasons why Obama is so popular and effective is his oratory skills. Yes, oratory skills can be honed. You can actually improve your public speaking skills by joining Toastmasters. You will learn how to develop the necessary skills in engaging your audience, build on your subject matter, learn about delivery, phrasing, etc... To get to Obama-level, you need natural charisma, much like JFK and Martin Luther King. Leadership qualities, to a large extent can also be honed, but to be a natural leader where people instantly look up to you is a quality that is hard to find. I have come across a few articles that tries to look at how Obama works his oratory skills. Here are the main points:

a) Always know your audience, their expectations, their anxieties, their concerns. When you speak to a group of parents-teachers, its different, when its with union workers about to lose a lot of jobs, its different, when its in front of TV, its different, when you are speaking to political reporters, its again different.

b) Following on the first point, you then broadly define the issues at hand, bring up the context of issues in the audience's perspective, show that you know what they are concerned about. Anticipate what they are thinking. Bringing up points on both sides of the issue and clarify your stance. Justify your stance. At the same time, you must not be seen to be playing your audience - hence you must show integrity, honesty, pragmatism and be realistic about the issues.

c) You have to learn to pause, to allow the audience to reflect and absorb the points. You need to build up your argument and thesis and let your words resonate. When you rush past prepared text, you will lose the impact key words and phrases can have on the audience... e.g. "yes, we can" long pause...

d) Use short phrases. Use phrasing techniques to bring your audience along, like a boat ride, riding out each wave of euphoria and reflection.

e) Be aware of your body language. No fidgety movements. Eye contact and facial expression must be correlate. You have to rehearse how to maintain calmness. If you have to flip pages, do it slow and deliberate. Always look out to the audience as if you were commanding the troops.

f) Always have a good beginning, a casualness (or light hearted humour) to embrace the audience to your side before you launch into your speech. Be aware that you do not climax in your speech too soon, you need to b uild it up, much like a conductor writing the various parts for his orchestra - you want to bring things to a crescendo.

g) Always end well, with the key phrase or what the audience should get from your speech.

A person even of Obama stature cannot do all things by himself. In Obama's case, he has a very very good speechwriter in Jon Favreau. Though only 27, he has the necessary energy and idealism to act as the sounding board. He has the tenacity to understand various tough issues, and drive through the points in a clear way in line with Obama's political views and leanings. That is not an easy task. He has to write the way Obama is thinking, and even the way he usually speak, because if not the speech will sound contrived and regurgitated.

Its not easy to speak well with integrity and class.


p/s photos: SPEED is an all Okinawan female J-pop group

Ideologies, Financial Markets & Personal Values

Which camp do you belong to? Republicans or Democrats, Socialist or Capitalist... many in the Western world often know what they are or what they stand for ... e.g. "he is a left leaning republican ... blah-blah..." People in Asia do not usually ponder these matters, the most important political consideration is whether you are a Communist, and as long as you are against Communism, you are ok. Now here is a case which caught fire over the weekend. If you are honest and admit whose side you are on - it basically tells a lot about how you view the world and people around you.

On CNBC, Rick Santelli complained and ranted that the president’s housing plan rewarded “bad behavior” and suggested creating an Internet Web site to allow Americans to vote on whether they wanted to subsidize “losers’ mortgages.” The rant captured many's attention, some for and some against. Over the weekend, the notable and fiery Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, launched a strong rebuttal against Santelli.

Mr. Gibbs decried Mr. Santelli for what he called a rant and made these observations:

“I’m not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives but the American people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage, stay in their job, pay their bills, send their kids to school. You can’t stay in this program unless you continue to make mortgage payments. That’s important for Mr. Santelli and millions of Americans to understand. Mr. Santelli has argued, I think quite wrongly, that this plan won’t work for everyone. Now every day when I come out here I spend a little time, reading studying the issues, asking people who are smarter than I am questions about those issues. I would encourage him to read the presidents plan and understand that it will help millions of people many of whom he knows. I would be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I’d be happy to buy him a cup of coffee — decaf.”

Before you read on, which camp do you think you are in. Decide now, it should strike a chord in you immediately. Are the things Santelli said always at the back of your mind?

All things being equal, Santelli's diatribe is quite Republican, let the markets correct itself. You made a bad decision, you should have to pay for it yourself. Surprisingly, or rather, unsurprisingly, Santelli did not make the same rant when funds were doled out to banks via TARP!!! That is so Republican, the corporations and businesses are supreme, not the masses.

The key phrase in Santelli's rant was "losers' mortgages". That implies that if you were not smart enough, you deserve to rot in hell. Anyone who ends up on the losing side will be called "losers", not when the bet is still on. That camp always believe investments and funds should go to the deserving, not the needy, hence they are generally against "crutches" and "safety nets"... try pushing through a bill to give single mothers' benefits, and you would have big problem persuading the Santelli's camp.

What is a government but a collection of people under one nation, entrusted to take care of the economy, social infrastructure and prosperity of those people. Its not a business. You cannot lay off your own citizens when the going gets tough.

The assumption that an individual is entirely responsible for their own decisions and actions is false and flawed. You can be a hard working individual with normal commitments, who ends getting caught up in the credit implosion tidal wave that is greater than you can fight off or predict. If you have a mortgage, a car loan, and is supporting two kids in college, and find that your property is now in negative equity, and your job no longer exists - is that entirely your fault? I am not making excuses for those who have lost their jobs and/or in negative equity property loans - some may have taken on more risk than they can or should shoulder. Some have taken on mortgages greater than their ability to pay, but its hard to decipher one from the other.

Most individuals are not "specialised or informed enough" to read prospectuses, to understand the actual make up of CDOs, or what credit default swaps are, many are not aware the regulators are not doing their job well, many have been relying on those fucked up credit rating agencies that put a AAA stamp on those CDOs, many more are deluded that they can afford a$500,000 loan when their monthly salary is only $5,000 by mortgage finance companies, ...

People have government to put in place specialised regulators, laws and enforcement officials to "protect individuals" from excessive mania or maniac behaviour. When you keep offering huge loans to people with little capital and affordability, it is very difficult for the individuals not to be caught up in the spiral. Governments and responsible officers in industry are there to "not allow" these things to get out of hand - they did not do their jobs.

Individuals also have to share their burden of their follies, its not all one sided, but to trash Obama's mortgage renegotiation plan as taxpayers funding those "losers' mortgages" is plain irresponsible and cruel.

CNBC has taken the place of Fox (Republican) network. CNBC is so biased towards the ancient Republican policies that it is ridiculous. Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is the female Rush Limbaugh as some would say. Gasparino is not far behind. Somehow those people in the Santelli camp tends to be owning more than a couple of paid off houses - coincidence? To be fair, there are rich people who are Democrats too, so you need to differentiate. Just that Democrats, even when they are rich, still feel a bigger need to have a fairer society; while a Republican thinks that you need to be pro-business so that the rich can employ the poor.

The housing bill, stimulus bill and TARP are not perfect, but they are a starting point to pull together. Santelli stated something like “you can’t spend your way to prosperity” to which his audience of traders applauded and whistled approvingly. Well, Santelli and his band of traders had no problem leveraging themselves to prosperity over the past 5 years.

No prizes for guessing which camp I belong to.

p/s photos: Aum Patacharapa Chaichua

Its In The Price, Baby!

Things we know, some pretend experts will always say "its in the price". Is it really in the price already? Stock markets are forward discounting models, hence it would be silly to think that any known news would not be in the price already.

So when the banks started falling like bricks, markets fell. But when Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail (Paulson's gravest mistake), that was akin to saying all bets are off, that no one was big enough not to fail. That is why, in many ways, the collapse of Lehman Brothers paved the way for extreme risk aversion. Investors were calmed when AIG was rescued, followed by Fannie and Freddie. However when Lehman Brothers were allowed to fail, investors realised that other troubled entities might not be rescued.

Having realised his mistake, Paulson and Bernanke basically set about rescuing everything they could. Well, not everything, but every big thing. So, when something's in the price, it depends on the logical chain of events that follow - if that's the case, then its in the price. When something out of the ordinary pops out, then its not really in the price yet.

Markets globally collapsed by between 40%-60% over the last 13 months. One can say its in the price, right?! Well, yes and no. The fall is discounting the recession that will be pervasive. While earnings is expected to be bad, no one is certain how bad and for how long. While there have been extreme fiscal measures by most governments, investors will want to see the execution and implementation are done speedily and effectively (not drawn out over 2-4 years).

The markets was priming itself for a bear market rally stepping into the new year, but was halted by rumours of worse than expected losses by some major entities, e.g. Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Bank of America (having problems digesting Merrill Lynch) and Citigroup. The biggest factor has to be Citigroup as it was not just bad earnings but rather whether the entity will even exists. The losses for the latest quarter was not as bad as the rumoured $10bn. Still, steps have been taken to shrink itself down, so markets are calmed somewhat.

Of more importance was Bank of America. The company just received another $20bn to ease their absorption of Merrill Lynch. So far, they have received $138bn in government aid. What is more noteworthy is that their market cap is only approximately $50bn. Technically speaking, you might as well fold it and restart 5 new banks with the $138bn. However, its not as simple as it looks. Allowing Bank of America to fail is not just wiping out $50bn in market cap, it will also trigger a domino effect of counter party transactions failing. The ramifications which could erase more than ten or twenty times the $50bn Bank of America is worth. The confidence issue will take much longer to return should that happen.

Jim Rogers and those market purists will argue that the weak should be allowed to fail, and that no one should be too big to fail. But the reality does not allow for textbook style economics to be implemented. There is the bigger picture to consider - governments have to contend with the aftermath and flow on effects. You may be able to handle a10% unemployment rate, but what if it escalates to 20%, the social costs will be too great. You may even have to go to war to keep employment up.

Markets have fallen 40%-60%, so some of the recession and poor earnings have been factored in the price. Whether the markets have priced in all is debatable. I am of the minority group viewing that the markets have more than priced in the decimation in demand, poor earnings, company failings (look at the yields on non-prime corporate bonds) and jobs losses. To be sure, I think job losses will continue to worsen and may only peak in March/April, and till then I expect even a few more big companies failing ala Nortel and possibly Motorola. Though not publicised, already more than a few hundred small regional banks and mortgage firms have already closed sop in the US. My biggest argument why the markets have over-discounted the weakness is the absolute non-existence of confidence, and the extreme risk aversion to assets of almost all types. The de-leveraging basically just sped up the entire process. have you see how fast and hard commodity prices and shipping rates have collapsed. This is not a slow death, it is a swift reaction, anything seemingly left standing got its head chopped off, within or without reason.

The committment by the Treasury in the way it is treating Bank of America and the likes shows that they will not let another big entity fail. While many will be pooh-poohing Obama's $1 trillion stimulus, saying that its in the price... come to think of it, its not really in the price considering the markets were at the same level it was 2 months back when Obama wasn't even elected??!! Why do they say its in the price? Its the bear's normal reaction - give me anything, give me any news... I will say the good news will be in the price already, and the bad news that appears are not properly discounted yet. Give the bears any news, it will be considered as in the price already for sure.

I am not saying the bears are totally wrong, but one must view the developments with a proper view of developments. All it takes is just a minor improvement in risk aversion and confidence, and you will find things moving quite fast already. Looking at the markets for the last 2 days, even when the Dow flirted with the dubious 8,000 level... there was sellers' exhaustion. I am not trying to talk you all into believing all is right with the world, but that its not as bad as things seem.

p/s photos: Haruna Yabuki

Bamalama Gidinggidinggidong ... Obama

It is so easy to really like Obama. One of the most important ingredient in a powerful leader is his oratory skills, his speech making skills and his charisma. You can have the most qualified leader, but if you don't have those traits that I have just mentioned, you can never reach the heights of a great leader. Did Obama join Toastmasters when he was younger?

I listened and listened to his speeches, and was in awed all the time. You can say in your hearts, let me be cynical and question his every word. You would still end up being swayed by him. He is better in speech making than Churchill and JFK put together. He speaks with a deliberateness, and his words come out with digestible dollops of sharp ideas and emotions. The pace of his speech allows us to take it all in. He knows how to build it up, without the shouting freneticism of a evangelical preacher on hot coals. He does not need to shout. His gift is knowing what is dearest in peoples' minds, and he breaks down the defences and the uncertainty in their hearts one layer by one layer.

A brilliant speech maker does not make a brilliant President. If he was without substance, he would not have risen the ranks in his previous leadership posts. He comes across not as a black man but a man of integrity who happened to be black.

He has huge tasks ahead, he was humble in his acceptance speech, he was sobering, he did not whooped it up as a victory. He immediately put people back onto the real issues ahead. Does he have the ability to tackle the financial mess? Does he have the ability to mend foreign relations, the simmering ties with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia in particular? Nobody really knows the answer, but I am willing to take a bet that he can do well. He seems to have a good grasp of the issues, he does not let it get to his head that he might know all the answers. I think he will have the intelligence to appoint the right people to help him solve the right issues to tackle. What we do know is that we have someone who has the right values and integrity that we want to see to go and tackle the looming issues - and that's all we can ask for, really. I would really like to see Colin Powell being appointed to shore up the defense / foreign relations side of things. Yes, even Republicans can be appointed by a Democrat President. The nomination of the Treasury secretary is his first real test as well. I expect him to make waves by attending the G-20 meeting on Nov 15.

In terms of symbolic change in power, it is very enthralling. It is very empowering, not just for African Americans, but for all minorities. For those who are struggling against the system and the racial discrimination throughout the world. Never would I thought that a black man would be appointed as President ahead of a woman. Does that say something about feminism in America? The whole world celebrates alongside with the US in the present days that is so desperate for a shining light. Change, improvement, democracy, liberty and sensibility.

US Presidential Elections - The Rest Of The World Have Voted

The US Presidential elections is followed not just by Americans but much to the surprise of most Americans, the rest of the world as well. I had plenty of discussions during my conference in New York on that topic. It was a great bunch of people more than half of the 24 in my group were Americans and the rest from all over the world. When discussions went to Obama and McCain, I posed a fact to them, whether they knew that the rest of the world have actually voted on the US elections already. They were surprised.

To me, I am very confident that the rest of the world has voted Obama in by a massive landslide. The ROW is always in a predicament, we value the US as the sheriff for the democratic world, we even like American culture and their people, but darn it, we absolutely hate their foreign policies. While I may be making generalisations here, the gist of my arguments stand.

The ROW wants Obama, firstly because he is not Republican. We want a discontinuation of the Bush-Bush-Cheney regime. We want the US to have a new face, a new policy maker to MEND ties all around the world. We need new engagement with countries like North Korea and Russia. We need more fairness in dealing with Israel, not always Israel first, Israel at all cost kind of policy. We need the silly war to end properly and swiftly. We need new faces to engage Iran and Iraq. There are plenty of frayed nerves with respect to dealing with Islamic extremism. We need to engage more neutral Islamic countries to deal with that.

On trade, we need the US to lessen substantially their farm subsidies. We want a US that makes shrinking their deficit a priority. We want a US that takes the lead in emissions and environemntal issues. We want Al Gore to be appointed as lead negotiator in that. We need tough medicine to solve US social security and healthcare. We need a deliberate scaledown in US military budget, do it via more deliberate engagement with "troubling" nations.

Yes, the ROW has already voted in Obama in their hearts and minds. I hope America makes the right choice as well.

p/s photos: Tomoka Kurotani