One of the more vexing questions these days is how each of the leading presidential candidates in the United States would deal with the tumult in the Middle East. Would an Obama, Clinton or McCain administration be able to tame the raging fires in Iraq and Palestine and prevent the one that may be ignited in Lebanon? Or would it all be more of the same regardless of who is the new tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? There is qualified good news and unqualified bad news. And as I have always believed in finishing first with the bad part, let's start with John McCain.

The 71-year-old senator from Arizona, if elected, would represent another four years of George W. Bush, albeit with a bit more diplomacy and a little less waterboarding. Up until recently, I thought he might be an improvement on Bush. However, I just returned from the Brookings Institution's annual US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, and had the chance to speak at length with one of McCain's senior advisers, Peter Rodman. A Brookings senior fellow who has occupied high-level foreign policy positions in every Republican administration since Richard Nixon, Rodman represents a US inability to admit to its mistakes. On the Israel-Palestine question, he was unable to get past the stale canard of blaming everything on the Palestinians, including Israeli settlements and the illegal separation barrier. As for Iraq, we all know that McCain is willing to stay there for another 100 years just to prove a point. If this is the best that he can put forward, then we are all in for more trouble.

A just as scary proposition is a Hillary Clinton administration led by a woman who has outdone herself pandering to Israel and its supporters on the American right. She has consistently sided with everything Bush has done in the region (her objections to the Iraq war came only after things started going badly there) and she so broadly receives top marks from Israeli newspapers and policymakers, that we can only assume that she will follow the pro-Israel lobby's lead no matter what.

But "Bill wasn't so bad," some argue. No, Mr. Clinton wasn't as bad as the current president. But on top of her McCain-like statements concerning the Middle East (other than Iraq of late), the foreign policy advisers Hillary has retained from her husband's administration, like former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, epitomize the conservative wing of the Democratic party. Outside of Arab bashing (as during the Dubai ports non-deal) she has nothing new to say. Most Arabs would at first be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because she is a Democrat and she is not Bush. But that will only lead Arabs to yet another massive letdown. Better to realize that if Hillary wins, so do Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu and the occupation. Peace and the Palestinians (and the Israeli people) will yet again lose out.

Unfortunately, you need not be a rocket scientist to understand that Clinton and McCain are different sides of the same old coin. The million-dollar question is whether Senator Barack Obama is going to bring his oft-promised change to the Middle East, or if he will become prisoner of his first name and the power of special interests.

If we go by his statements on the Middle East to date, Obama seems little different than most US politicians: He expresses strong support for Israel, the need for peace, a two-state solution, etc. This is to be expected, at least for now. However, he has made some subtle statements that hint at a different tone in discourse. By speaking of having an understanding of Muslims due to his years as a child in Muslim-majority Indonesia and owing to the fact that his late father and maternal grandmother were Muslims, Obama would bring a very different perspective than other candidates. He has not been afraid to say that if elected president, he would forcefully engage himself in the Middle East peace process from day one. He has addressed Muslims and Arabs directly and has shown that racism can be beaten, and that he will not tolerate discrimination.

This is not a policy change, but it is a major change in attitude. If Obama can create a kind of positive, can-do atmosphere in his administration, something good just might emerge from the charred landscape of the region. One should not underestimate the power of creating a "safe haven" for creative thinking and putting the pessimists on notice that the US will no longer take a back seat with regard to implementing its policies in the Middle East. This, in and of itself, would be a solid foundation for bringing about a lasting peace and change that we can all believe in.

It is also noteworthy to look at who is advising the senator from Illinois on foreign policy issues. Tony Lake, Susan Rice and Rob Malley are probably the most formidable and serious group to approach such issues soberly. If Obama is elected, they would be more than capable of implementing his vision. It is relatively safe to assume that Obama would benefit from a wave of international sympathy and support and would be able to bring wide coalitions on board to back the US. Most people want to help the US and believe again in the American dream, which Bush has shattered.

Obama would carry neither the legacy of Bush nor the baggage of Clinton. And while the fear of disappointment is real, neither should the power of hope and a fresh pair of eyes. Can Obama do it? Yes we can.