To those who say that Mubarak, Egypt, and 'measured reform' is just 'real politik'. That Mubarak is not so bad. That we can't take sides. We can 'watch this one out'. Might you consider...
...Mubarak's 17-30,000 political prisoners?
...Egypt's state of emergency that mostly extends back to 1967?
...Mubarak being consistently named one of the most oppressive regimes?
Unfortunately, that's the side we picked 30 years ago. $1.3 billion/year in guns & ammo to a dictator might suggest that from a historical perspective, we oppose 'self-determination' on the Arab street.
Now consider the rage that you see on the faces of Egyptians today.
Can we 'change' that perspective? Yes, we (and a black, Arabic-named President) can.
But should we even try change the perspective of America in the Middle East?
Maybe you ought to look at the emotion on those faces again.
Today in Egypt, there's rage and hope. Rage blazes towards the past. Hope chants for a better future.
Egypt now pivots towards a brighter future. Will America pivot with them, or march the route laid down by our past presidents. To the Arab street, America's past will matter most if Barak Hussein Obama chooses to continue it.
Obama would be the singular president (having an Arabic name and all that), that could convince the Arab street that he was just waiting for an excuse to lead reform of US policy in the Middle East. Tunisia and Egypt have now given him that 'excuse'. This is an opportunity to make redemption, to beg for forgiveness, a decision that could make for shorter memories.
As to precedence? Well, a black, Arabic-named president did unprecedented things here. Likewise, I would suggest that 'over there', our 'Muslim' president could do bold things that his predecessors would not have had the credibility to undertake.
Update re name spelling. You're wrong about my misspelling. I thought that it might be a little creative thinking to go along with the analytical train of thought.
This post (and earlier posts) is largely about perception of the Arab street. Bārak is an Arabic derivative of Mubarak. Barack is the anglicized form. The post title begins with "What's in a name?" My extended answer is "a lot". Get it now? Barack needs to be Bārak.
Update re 'muslim'
From wikipedia's entry "Quotation mark"
"To avoid the potential for confusion between ironic quotes and direct quotations, some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech. Quotes indicating irony, or other special use, are sometimes called scare, sneer, shock, distance, or horror quotes. They are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes."
Update re the basic premise of Obama name/background equaling Arab street cred.
Obama pressed the point of his name during his speech in Cairo.
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique.
He followed up by explaining his background in terms of geography, and (coincidentally) the links of those places to the Muslim faith.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
So when Obama was in Cairo, he spoke persuasively of his personal connection to Islam, by personal name and by background.
Why would that not be a good link to make in Cairo today? If it made him a more credible speaker then, why not now?
Would he not be even more credible if he took another theme from his Cairo speech (democracy) and made that a policy regarding Egypt?
Update 5 - what's in a name
Some people here have called idiotic the notion that the simple sound of a name could have any sort of emotional weight. They say 'as if the sound will make Egyptians respond'.
The same people have responded very emotionally to a simple lack of a 'c' letter in this post. The 'c' is not phonetic, it's silent. 'Barack' is pronounced the same as 'Barak'.
If subtly changing the appearance of a name means so much, why would the sound not mean even more? Why would the litany of Anglo-Saxon named presidents being replaced by an Arabic-sounding president not trigger the same powerful response as Cossacks missing the 'c'?
Individual development of language is locked in at around 8 months to the dipthongs of the mother's language. From that time on, an individual's mind will always prefer the sounds of the 'mother tongue'. As Obama's name is composed of dipthongs from the Arabic language, the sound of his name is as if it comes from Arabia's mother.
The premise is simple: To some in America, his name is a curse; in Egypt, it could be a blessing.