“God wants me to be president,” George W. Bush told fellow believers before 2000. If the rest of us had known His intentions, we would have started building an ark.
After eight years of war and political plague from this faith-based presidency, most voters may be ready for some rational doubt and ambivalence in the White House. Yet the candidates still seem mesmerized by Bush’s breakdown between the separation of church and state.
After Barack Obama gaffed about “bitter” voters turning to God and guns, Hillary Clinton was quick to play the God card. “I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith,” she is telling Indiana voters. “The people of faith I know don’t ‘cling to’ religion because they’re bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.”
John McCain left it to a spokesman to do the piety pandering, decrying Obama’s elitism and disrespect for “the American traditions that have contributed to the identity and greatness of this country.”
Ironically, Obama may take his religion more seriously than either Clinton or McCain. What damaged him in the Jeremiah Wright affair was not rejecting his pastor quickly enough to suit otherwise pious voters who want a president with the “right” kind of religious belief.
In the century before Bush, politicians stopped having to “pour God over everything like ketchup,” as Gore Vidal put it during John F. Kennedy’s presidency.
JFK himself said it best: “I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office…
“I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none…and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.”
With that attitude, he couldn’t get elected today.
“Why is it such a struggle for Obama to get elected? The question of Blacks in the United States is the best kept secret in the American family. Forty years after President Johnson’s great campaign for civil rights, much about race relations has changed, but not the essence: the semi-condescending, semi-frightened, mostly disguised fear of African Americans by the White majority.”
In summing up what’s at stake in the Democratic primary race, Maurice writes:
“The outbreak of race in the debate lends itself to a rational argument about the fragility of the Black candidate. In the mind, these unspeakable racial divisions secretly lurk, and mark the campaign with a strong emotional impact. The debate constitutes a profound test for both Democratic candidates.”
By Antoine Maurice
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
May 3, 2008
Tribune de Geneve - Switzerland - Original Article (French)
Why is it such a struggle for Obama to get elected? The question of Blacks in the United States is the best kept secret in the American family. Forty years after President Johnson’s great campaign for civil rights, much about race relations has changed, but not the essence: the semi-condescending, semi-frightened, mostly disguised fear of African Americans by the White majority.
The Black community has been shaped largely by a series of dramatic episodes, and it will soon commemorate the 50th anniversary of some of these events: The death of Martin Luther King, last great advocate for Black integration [40 years ago]; the assassination of two Kennedys [John and Robert - 40 years ago], the dawn of the campaign for civil rights, the birth of a Black middle class, the growth of inter-racial marriage, the advent of minority studies (Black history) in academia and minority participation in the arts.
In short, African Americans, who have built their unity based mostly on the way others view them, have experienced unprecedented economic and civic progress.
Barack Obama serves as an indicator of this spectacular progress, while at the same time he is confronting - despite himself - its incompleteness. His strategy thus far has been not to play the race card, but to present himself as the promoter of change in America, more committed to redressing income inequalities than the burden of racial inequity.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. elections.
The politician was doing what he had to do, but Barack Obama’s personal pain yesterday was palpable as he cut his ties to Jeremiah Wright.
“Whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this,” Obama said. “I don’t think that he showed much concern for me.”
Behind the politician’s voice was the anger and disappointment of a man who barely knew his own father but wrote a book about him, bearing a title inspired by a paternal figure who had now betrayed him.
Searching for substitute fathers has been common for a long time now in an era of mobility, psychological desertion and divorce. Throughout his life, Obama has found more than one, not only Wright and the disreputable Tony Rezko but, among others, two figures from the Kennedy era, Abner Mikva and Newt Minow, who helped and advised him along the way.
The Wright psychodrama, and how Obama handles it, will almost certainly be a turning point in this campaign and beyond. Yesterday he seemed dazed and hurt in making the break.
“The fact that Reverend Wright would think that somehow it was appropriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate is something that not only makes me angry, but also saddens me,” he said in dealing with his pain publicly.
The coming days will be a test of his capacity for recovery and renewal.
Vice President Dick Cheney raised many eyebrows — and sparked lots of news stories — when he uttered the word “So?” when asked about opinion polls on the Iraq war. In this Guest Voice post, Watching America translator Dorian de Wind looks at power of little words.
“So?”
Or
The Power of “Little Words”
By Dorian de Wind
Dick Cheney responded with one word in a recent interview when he was asked what he thought about polls that indicate two-thirds of Americans believe the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, that the cost in lives was not worth the gains.
One single word!
“So?” the vice president said.
So. Even a “little word” is powerful, carries significance and — on many occasions — can and has become a defining moment for the person using that or those “little words.”
When pressed by the reporter whether he cares about the opinion of the American people, instead of bristling at the suggestion, Dick Cheney tried to emend his response by saying “I think you can not be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.” You know, those pesky polls that merely reflect the will of the people.
Much has been written about the power of words, especially in light of Sen. Barack Obama’s extraordinary oratory skills.
Only a few people can recall entire speeches, most of us remember only little “snippets” and “little words.”
Abraham Lincoln: “Four score and seven years ago…”
Martin Luther King Jr.: “I have a dream…”
John F. Kennedy: “…ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country…”
Words can have consequences. Ronald Reagan called on Mikhail Gorbachev at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in 1987: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”
His speech was 2,703 words. We remember six that ushered freedom for millions in Eastern Europe, and eventually in the Soviet Union.
In his 2003 State of the Union address President Bush uttered 16 infamous little words — “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” — and a nation was bound for an unnecessary and disastrous war.
Just last year, nine little words in the National Intelligence Estimate—“in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons Program”—helped expose the Bush administration’s misrepresentations and fear mongering about Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities. We are still grappling with their true significance.
As a veteran who honorably served my country for twenty years during the Vietnam War, words such as the following have a special impact on me: “I had other priorities in the sixties than military service.” These were Mr. Cheney’s words when asked in 1989 by the Washington Post why he did not serve in Vietnam. Only Words?
Single little words can also be very powerful because of what they mean or represent; because of what they say about the person uttering them; or because of the impact they have. General Tony McAuliffe‘s reply in 1944 to the German ultimatum to surrender – “Nuts” — reflected and continues to reflect on the valor, honor and dedication of our military.
“So?”
Condescending? Slip of the tongue? Or a slip in Cheney’s gravitas?
This from a man who assured us “we will be greeted as liberators” … “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”
From time to time our leaders utter words that not only define their term in office and their legacy, but words that also capture the very essence of their character and personality.
This is certainly one of those occasions. To respectfully quote Sen. Obama, “Just words?”… “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”
Dorian de Wind is a retired U.S. Air Force Officer, born in Ecuador and educated in The Netherlands. He has written opinion pieces and travel and other articles for the Austin American-Statesman and for the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. He also translates Dutch press articles for watchingamerica.com Dorian lives with his family in Austin, Texas.
John F. Kennedy was correct about life and politics when he famously said, “Life isn’t fair.” Not only is politics unfair, it may be the least fair part of life. In many election years, if we had blue-ribbon selection panels charged with considering only the qualifications and likely performance of potential presidents, governors, and senators, the list of winners would likely be quite different from the ones actually elected by the voters. But that’s not the way democracy works, and people learn to live with their mistakes–and maybe even learn not to repeat the same mistakes. Part of politics’ unfairness is also the constant criticism that cascades down upon each candidate from every conceivable direction. Yet the critics are often wrong.
In desperation now, the Campaign That Couldn’t is giving us a montage of Hillary Clintons–defiant, angry, scolding, sarcastic–in Ohio and Texas, but how will she blend those stump personas into a coherent candidate for the side-by-side setting of tonight’s crucial debate?
In New Hampshire, the sensitive Hillary won over voters in the final days and, at the end of last week’s sitdown, emerged again to great effect, but her advisors seem convinced that only an aggressive Hillary can overcome doubts about a woman as Commander-in-Chief.
During the 1960 campaign, John F. Kennedy said he felt sorry for Richard Nixon. “It must be hard,” JFK said, “to get up every morning and have to decide who you’re going to be that day.”
Compared to Nixon, Hillary Clinton is a person of substance, but the Barack Obama surge has forced her into parading multiple personalities, adding confusion to the negatives she has to overcome from the Clinton years.
Claiming superior experience didn’t work. Unleashing Bill Clinton didn’t work. Mockery and anger don’t seem to be working. Being soft and sensitive is too risky.
This week’s debate pushed front and center the question of whether the Democratic Party can do what it did in 1960, nominate an inspiring young leader paired with a Washington veteran in the workings of government.
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson persuaded voters that they could open a New Frontier with the first Catholic president in American history. This year, the Democrats can offer a ticket with two firsts. (More about that here.)
In tone and substance, the debate in Austin suggested that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton together can restore the damage that George W. Bush has done to the American body politic and that John McCain might only prolong.
Their policy differences were invisible to the naked eye, and they ended up with the kind of hearty handshake that could be repeated to seal their designation as the 2008 ticket at the Democratic convention in August.
For Obama, it would be a demonstration of his claim that he can bring people together. On her part, it would take character for Hillary Clinton to accept the vice-presidency after leading in the presidential polls for more than a year.
But voters are rendering a different judgment now, and when the Texas and Ohio primaries are over, Obama should look back at how JFK in 1960 insured that his party ended eight years of Republican rule by teaming up with his opponent for the nomination.
If the ticket won, Hillary Clinton in 2016 would still be younger than John McCain is now.
Those who oppose him in both parties are attacking Barack Obama with a double-barreled cultural stereotype, the old film noir thesis that good looks can be deceptive and dangerous combined with a Jim Jones analogy about followers suicidally drinking in hope with laced Kool-Aid.
In yesterday’s New York Times, Sean Wilentz, a Princeton historian and Clinton supporter, observes, “What is troubling about the campaign is that it’s gone beyond hope and change to redemption.” He claims that Obama is “posing as a figure who is the one person who will redeem our politics. And what I fear is, that ends up promising more from politics than politics can deliver.”
Earlier this week, Paul Krugman wrote that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.”
Today’s Times piece quotes Norman Mailer describing JFK’s arrival at the Democratic convention in 1960, “the prince and the beggars of glamour staring at one another across a city street.”
The reporter should have gone further into Mailer’s musings on Kennedy. Substitute “African-American” for “Catholic” in this passage:
“With such a man in office, the myth of the nation would again be engaged, and the fact that he was a Catholic would engage the mind of the White Protestant. For the first time in our history, the Protestant would have the pain and creative luxury of feeling himself in some tiny degree part of a minority, and that was an experience which might be incommensurable in its value to the best of them.”
It’s understandable that detractors would try to equate Obama’s emotional appeal to lack of substance. In the 1960s, when I was editing McCalls, an advertiser told me, “Your competitors say the magazine looks so good that readers don’t get to the ads.”
“If I had to sell a dull magazine,” I answered, “I might make say that too, but if you can’t get people to pay attention, they won’t respond to anything.”
This year, Obama is getting voters to pay attention, and his opponents are reduced to finding fault with that.
With President Bush expected to step off Air Force one in the obscure West African nation of Benin, the people of the country are prepared to shower him with almost unprecedented praise. It will be the first visit of an American head of state in that nation’s history. In the gushing words of this op-ed article from Benin’s Fraternite newspaper, ‘To state it plainly, the boss of the White House will share with us his American virtues. God Bless America. Hopefully the divine blessing enjoyed by the heirs of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson will descend on a nation singing of a New Dawn.’
Sulpice O. Gbaguidi
Translated By Kate Davis
February 15, 2008
Benin - Fraternite - Original Article (French)
The main event of mid-February is, undoubtedly the visit to Benin by American President George W. Bush. The leader of the global superpower should be walking on our nation’s soil tomorrow, Saturday. Or, to state it plainly, the boss of the White House will share with us his American virtues. God Bless America. Hopefully the divine blessing enjoyed by the heirs of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson will descend on a nation singing of a New Dawn.
According to the Foreign Ministry statement, “the visit is part of an African tour the American president will make lead to Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia.” History tells us that the last tour of Africa by George W. Bush was in July 2003. And at that time, he went to Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda and Nigeria. It’s clearly a privilege and an honor to welcome an American president. Not since we achieved independence in 1960 has an American president landed at the Cotonou Airport; from John Kennedy (who was in power in 1960) to Clinton, and including Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush’s father. Benin’s list of honors is short and meager. The arrival of Bush Junior means therefore that he has an appointment with history.
Even though the visit by the head of the White House will be nothing more than a three hour stop at Cotonou Airport, he will breathe the fresh air of change. On the road to development, Benin is willing to expose itself to the contagion of economic development. Boni Yayi [President of Benin ] should drink in the advice of the most powerful man in the world. The president can boast of having removed a cruel weight of history by attracting the leader of the greatest army on the planet to Benin.
Bush Junior couldn’t resist our efforts to consolidate democracy and social development in our country. This visit, which is a diplomatic victory for Yayi’s team, looks like a bonus brought about by democracy and a barometer of change for the regime. …
In the desperation to be rid of Bush, this has become a year of imagery shorthand. While any Republican with a pulse claims to be another Reagan, Barack Obama is seen as a new JFK.
There are parallels. As Nixon did in 1960, Hillary Clinton is invoking her experience during the eight-year tenure of a popular president. But in both cases, the actual occupant of the Oval Office undermined the chances of his would-be successor.
Eisenhower did nothing as blatant as Bill Clinton’s campaign antics but, in trying to help his Vice-President in 1960, he asserted that Nixon played a major role during his terms in office. Asked at a press conference about any piece of advice he had heeded, Eisenhower answered, “If you give me a week, I might think of one.”
In that campaign, as Frank Rich reminds us, neither could Kennedy point to any significant achievement in his brief Senate career, but what he offered was change in a time when Americans were ready but not as desperate as they are now for new, younger leadership.
It was the weekend before the 1960 election and my mother and I were patiently waiting in front of the tiny passenger terminal at the airport outside of Wilmington, Delaware. It didn’t matter that the candidate was over an hour late when the Caroline, his powder-puff blue and white campaign plane, finally dropped out of the sky and taxied toward the chain-link fence that stood between 2,000 or so people and the next president of the United States.
The moment that John F. Kennedy walked toward the crowd and held out his hand to me is indelible: His steely yet warm gaze, those incredible greenish-gray eyes, every hair on his head catching and reflecting the sun just right. Gleaming teeth. The kind of smile you would save for an old friend.
I wondered why he was alone. Where was Jackie? But the thought quickly passed as he grasped my hand and squeezed it ever so slightly. I expected his hand to feel rough and calloused, but in the instant we touched before he moved on down the fence line, it seemed soft and warm.
Does American culture’s profusion of military jargon help a candidate like John McCain? According to O Globo’s William Waack, one of Brazil’s best observers of foreign affairs and the United States, ‘In a country where one of the worst offenses is to be called a ‘loser,’ it’s useful to pay attention to that espirit (there is no better expression) that emphasizes combat, soldiers and veterans, which is something that one doesn’t see in other Western countries.’
By William Waack
Translated By Brandi Miller
January 31, 2008
Brazil - O Globo - Original Article (Portuguese)
It would be incorrect to call American society “militarized,” but for those who have lived in the United States for even the briefest period of time, one’s attention is drawn to how much military jargon is a part of everyday language. One example is to say that so-and-so is “flying under the radar” - an old aerial combat expression used to describe someone behaving in a furtive manner.
Another example is the idiom, “going over the top (superando o topo),” which is widely used to describe someone when they have taken the initiative. The “top,” in this case, are the walls of a trench, when an infantry soldier leaves its relative protection and is forced to confront enemy fire and go on the attack.
Does the anointment of Barack Obama by the patriarch of the Kennedy clan somehow conflict with America’s iconic democratic image? According to this op-ed article from the Nachrichten newspaper of Switzerland, ‘What influence do the Kennedys, or in fact any family clan, have in the United States? Apparently, more than anyone would have thought possible in such an iconic democracy. The parallels to the rise of European feudalism are striking.’
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Ulf Behncke
January 28, 2008
Switzerland - Nachrichten - Original Article (German)
The triumphs of Barak Obama in his fight for the Democratic presidential nomination simply keep coming. First he inflicted a bitter defeat on Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina primary; and now he has received the official endorsement of the Kennedy clan, one of those families which in the United States epitomizes the political aristocracy.
The Clinton’s were in the process of entering this elite group, to which the Bush family also belongs. For that, Hillary would have required the noble blow of Ted Kennedy, brother of the legendary John F. Kennedy and Senator of Massachusetts. At the very least, she would have needed him to keep out of the primaries. But things have turned out differently. When the election campaign turned uglier and certain remarks were made that could have been interpreted as racist, Kennedy seemed to increasingly side with Obama. Read the rest of this entry »
In last night’s Theater of the Absurd, a Lame Duck is quacking at the podium while the ducklings-in-waiting look on, pretending to listen before they waddle out for their turn on the TV stage.
You could have watched the President’s last State of the Union address with the sound off and not turned it up as his would-be successors did their predictable soliloquies–Hillary Clinton with a smile as tight as duct tape, dodging questions about Bill; Barack Obama modestly insisting he’s no JFK but basking in his Kennedy aura for the day; Mitt Romney mouthing “Washington is broken” platitudes followed by non-sequiturs that Harold Pinter would not have dared to write.
On his way out, George W. Bush is besieged by legislators holding out their programs to be autographed for some e-Bay auction years from now on another planet.
Why are so many Europeans so hooked on Barack Obama? According to this op-ed article from Portugal’s leading business daily, Diario Economico, ‘Europe sees Barack Obama as the antithesis of George W. Bush. And confronted with the state of the world, this is something that makes all the difference. Seen from the Old Continent, Obama symbolizes the American spirit in the European heart. He may not represent the full complexity of America, but he certainly represents the America that exists in the Europe’s wildest imagination.’
By Carlos Marques de Almeida
Translated By Brandi Miller
January 25, 2007
Portugal - Diario Economico - Original Article (Portuguese)
Definitively, Barack Obama is the candidate of Europe. The fact that he’s Black, can carry on good social discourse and has cultivated a casual and sophisticated image makes Obama the perfect portrait of an American liberal. But whether or not the senator is a product of talk shows and is the very definition of a style that epitomizes the ideal of “change,” Europe sees Barack Obama as the antithesis of George W. Bush. And confronted with the state of the world, this is something that makes all the difference. Seen from the Old Continent, Obama symbolizes the American spirit in the European heart. Barack Obama may not represent the full complexity of America, but he certainly represents the America that exists in the Europe’s wildest imagination.
In a nation still marked by the American “cultural wars” of the 1960s, the issues of race, religion and gender continue to influence the political discourse. Perhaps in a surprising way, Barack Obama has sought to define himself as the candidate of a new era, a universe apart from radical politics and ideology. In aspiring to a new era, Obama approaches Ronald Reagan, not in the policies he proposes, but certainly in terms of presence and inspiring oratory. Like the Reagan coalition, which succeeded in uniting fiscal and social conservatives nationally, if Obama achieves a fully-fledged “grand social coalition” around the Democratic Party, perhaps Obama’s dream will become Obama’s revolution.
Back in the early days of the presidential campaign when Hillary Clinton was doing her Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm shtick, her supporters mewled that she was being treated unfairly by the media and the other usual suspects because she was a woman who also was being tarred with her husband’s transgressions.
That turned out to be a load of hooey. As the primary season hurtles toward the huge 22-state Super Tuesday showdown next week, Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates — chief among them that oxygen-sucking Big Dog himself — are waging a slimy, race-baiting, disinformation-filled campaign designed to divide and conquer.
It turns out that “Rebecca” is Ma Barker. Her gang is armed not with talking points but with Uzis, and even though this strategy appears to have backfired in the South Carolina primary and is leading Senator Ted Kennedy to endorse Barack Obama today, don’t expect a soul searching mid-course correction. The campaign’s assertion that “it will try to shift the former president back into the sunnier, supportive-spouse role” is only its latest empty mea culpa in response to the ongoing backlash over its tactics.
I have to admit that I’m chagrined the Clintons have calculated that it is in their best interests to campaign from the gutter – and make no mistake about it, the attacks on Obama that began with veiled suggestions from surrogates that he might have dealt and not merely done drugs as a teenager have been planned with the surgical precision of a blitzkrieg. That some of the surrogates in South Carolina were prominent blacks who should know better than to be anti-Obama shills shows astonishing loyalty but still is disappointing.
But then I realize that Hillary wouldn’t know the high road if it hit her in her sizeable backside, and that this chameleon will scratch and claw to attain a second Clinton presidency no matter how much dirt has to be flung.
* * * * *
It took a while for the mainstream media – which played perfectly into Mrs. Clinton’s initial strategy of running as an incumbent until Obama crashed her party — to realize that her coronation was premature and that she hadn’t just gotten around to taking off the gloves, but never had put them on.
A goodly number of liberal commentators are expressing disgust at not so much the race-baiting strafing runs on the first black to make a serious presidential run, but the repeated and gross distortions of what her opponent has said and done that would elate Karl Rove.
On the heels of Caroline Kennedy’s paean to Oback Barama as the heir to her father’s political ideals come reports that the family patriarch, Sen. Ted Kennedy, will endorse Obama, too.
For weeks now, JFK’s alter ego Ted Sorensen has been campaigning for the Illinois Senator, underscoring the continental divide in American politics between the dynasties.
The famous picture of a starry-eyed young Bill Clinton in 1963 shaking Kennedy’s hand is now an ironic reminder of the political and temperamental differences between the two.
Both came to office after enormously popular Republican presidents, Eisenhower and Reagan, but JFK overcame his political caution, learned from mistakes and earned respect for an idealism that, unlike Clinton’s, strengthened during his tenure and earned respect across the ideological landscape.
Kennedy was a skeptic by nature, but he was not capable of the cynicism that Bill Clinton has been showing in the attempt to get his wife to the White House.
The Kennedy dynasty is over, but its heirs may play a significant role in ensuring that the Clintons’ never materializes.
June 1963: Boy’s State delegate Bill Clinton and JFK shake hands
“Over the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.
” . . . Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
“We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.”
Now that Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina have voted, at least in one party, one thing is perfectly clear: While the identities of the two major-party nominees are not yet certain, the ranks on both sides have thinned dramatically and the finalists have emerged. For the Democrats, the nominee will either be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, in that order of probability, and for the Republicans, John McCain or Mitt Romney, with Rudy Giuliani a longshot possibility should he win Florida on January 29th. Notice that we said “win”, not second place, for Giuliani. Unquestioned victory in the Sunshine State is now Rudy’s only chance to be taken seriously since he has done miserably in the first five contests and has chosen to campaign almost exclusively of late in Florida…
![[Guardian Unlimited]](http://worldmeets.us/images/obamakkk_guardian.gif)
![[The Times, U.K.]](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00276/cartoon385_276202a.jpg)
