he arcane American election process can drive a saint crazy, certainly the average American, "on what could be the most significant night of the 2008 campaign to date."

Recognising this, The New York Times, took the unprecedented step of warning its reader in its lead article on the front page to "brace yourself".

The two leading parties - Democratic and Republican - run in parallel contests, each state selecting delegates who pledge themselves to their favourite candidate at the upcoming nation conventions later this year. But these contests are more "than popular vote totals, The New York Times said, "the point of these contests is to allocate delegates to the national conventions".

On Tuesday, there were 43 presidential nominating contests in 24 states yielding a total of 3,156 delegates under these cumbersome rules. Democrats allocate most of their delegates proportionately based on their percentage of the vote that each candidate wins in each state.

But Republicans' delegate selection rules are different. In 8 of the 21 Republican contests, the winner gets all the delegates. Independents are banned from voting in some states, adding to the confusion.

Accordingly, the NYT added, "It is possible to lose a state and still get a majority of the delegates, and it is likely that the losing candidate will still get a substantial share of the delegates," adding "what matters going forward is who gets the most pledged delegates".

This super-complex process is one reason why interest groups play a significant role in the presidential elections, which this year is expected to go to the Democratic Party in the wake of the poor record of the Bush administration, nationally and internationally.

And one group that has figured out prominently in the process is the role of the pro-Israel lobby and various other American Jewish groups. This has been best illustrated in their confused attitude toward Barack Obama, the African-American senator, who poses a serious challenge to Clinton.

Unlike Clinton, whose leanings towards Israel have been evident ever since she was elected senator of New York state, where Jews are 8.4 per cent of the state's population or a little over 1.6 million, Obama has been chastised by the pro-Israel lobby for telling a small gathering in Iowa last March that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people".

This attack, as well as others about his religion, ancestry and middle name, Hussain, prompted the Illinois senator to yield several statements in support of Israel over the last few months.

Obama, the fifth African-American senator in US history and the only one currently serving in the 100-man legislative body, had early on given hope to some Arab-American groups that he can be more forthright than other US politicians and not be intimidated by the pro-Israel abuse. But his ambition has apparently prompted the turnaround in his stance.

Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, a Chicago-based online publication, recalled that he had met with Obama "often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which (the late Palestinian-American thinker) Edward Said was the keynote speaker".

In 2000, when Obama ran unsuccessfully for Congress, Abunimah wrote this week that he heard him being "forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict".

At their last meeting four years ago in a Chicago neighbourhood, Abunimah recalled Obama telling him "warmly" that he was sorry that "I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race (for his Senate seat).

I'm hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front." And he also urged him to "keep up the good work" at The Chicago Tribune where his column appeared and was "critical of Israeli and US policy".

Obama's about-face is well documented but interestingly it may have not benefited him because several American Jewish organisations and leaders continue to suspect his true feelings.

The "Israeli Index" panel, a team of experts monitoring for the Israeli paper Haaretz, the candidates' positions on issues related to Israel, continues to place Obama at the bottom of the list of the candidates running for election. (The Republican front-runner, John McCain has the highest score, followed by Clinton).

"The panel does not think Obama is hiding more pro-Palestinian tendencies for political reasons," Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Washington correspondent, writes in his column this week, "but rather takes him at his word". Rosner added, "They also do not believe that he is 'the only candidate' who can bring peace to Israel and Palestine."

The bottom line is that American presidential candidates should not be taken at face value and Arab-Americans should refrain from being one-issue voters.

Most of the candidates' views change once they are in office as was clearly demonstrated by George W. Bush, who is now seen as Israel's "biggest" presidential supporter.