As the US Democratic candidate heads towards Europe, liberals refer to him as if he represents a second coming
Last Tuesday a 25-year-old white student was wandering around Union Square in New York when she was set upon by four black teenage girls who pushed her, pulled out her earphones, and spat in her face. She was wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "Obama is my slave" that she had bought from Apollo Braun's Lower East Side store in Manhattan.
This isn't the first controversial T-shirt Braun has printed about the Democratic presidential hopeful, Barack Obama. His body of work includes such slogans as "Jews Against Obama", "Obama = Hitler" and "Who Killed Obama?" - which he told New York's Metro was his most popular yet.
When questioned about the message that he is putting out, Braun insists these are not his views but those of the rest of America. "For a lot of people, when they see Obama, they see a slave. People think America is not ready for a black president," he said. Not people like him, he says, insisting that Obama's race is "the only thing I like about him. He opens the door for other minorities" - but "ordinary Wasps", with whom, it turns out, Braun has more in common than he cares to admit. "I can't stand Obama," he says, comparing him to Hitler, because "he is a Muslim".
Obama is not a Muslim. Nonetheless, according to a recent Pew research survey, 12% of Americans still believe that he is. Another 10% say they have "heard different things". This is why the New Yorker cartoon portraying Obama as a flag-burning terrorist wasn't that funny. For satire to work, it has to be edgy. It fails when it misjudges where the edge is. When, according to another survey, one in five Democrats with a negative opinion of Obama believes he is a Muslim, we are not talking isolated pockets but mainstream public opinion.
"It's hard to ignore what you hear when everybody you know is saying it," Jim Peterman, from Findlay, Ohio, told the Washington Post recently, having heard various accounts of Obama's lack of patriotism and extreme Islamic views. "These are good people, smart people, so can they really all be wrong?"
"The way we see things is affected by what we know and what we believe," wrote John Berger in Ways of Seeing. "The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled."
Herein lies both Obama's greatest asset and biggest problem. In the past six months, it has become patently clear people see in him whatever they want to see. After being told his parents' race and nationality, more than half (55%) of white people said he was biracial while two-thirds of African-Americans said he was black, according to a Zogby poll. A New York Times poll last week showed two-thirds of black people believe he is very patriotic while one in five whites believe he is not very patriotic.
The division is not just racial but ideological. Liberals refer to him as though he represents a second coming. The left sees him as a disappointment waiting to happen. Hillary Clinton's team tried to paint him as a condescending sexist. Jesse Jackson wants to cut his nuts off.
These contradictions are arguably true of all politicians, but they seem truer of Obama than most. He must be the only "radical Islamist" whose biggest scandal to date has arisen from membership of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Depending on what Kool-Aid you have been drinking, when it comes to Obama your glass is either half full, half empty or overflowing, or you've smashed it lest anybody else imbibes its poison.
People come to Obama with extraordinary amounts of baggage and dump it at his door. For the most part their responses to him tell you far more about them than they do about him.
And so it is that his world tour heads to Europe, to what most predict will be a lively and rapturous reception from huge and hopeful crowds. Germany's Der Spiegel magazine has referred to him as the messiah. It is not difficult to see why. The damage George Bush has done to the world's view of America is both pervasive and profound. In a global survey of 27 countries conducted by Pew in 2000, 25 had a favourable view of America. Last month, in a similar survey of 24 countries, that number was down to seven.
On the world stage, America's misfortune has become Obama's opportunity. Most Europeans see him not just as Bush's likely successor but as his absolute negation - the anti-Bush. Where the current president is belligerent, parochial, indifferent and oafish, Obama is conciliatory, worldly, curious and refined. When it comes to the forthcoming elections, 23 of those 24 nations preferred Obama to John McCain.
Europeans think they are going to see Kennedy. The difference is that when Kennedy arrived in Europe in 1963, he had been president for three years - Obama is still trying to get elected, and Europeans don't get to vote. Indeed, the intense interest in the elections and enthusiasm for Obama in Europe reveals a real geopolitical weakness.
The past seven years have shown European governments able to frustrate America's excesses but not to thwart them. The issue is not solely that Europe has failed to present an effective challenge to America - a question of power - but that it has yet to come up with a coherent ideological alternative to it: a question of ideas.
America is nowhere near as excited about Obama as Europe is. So Europeans are left rooting on the sidelines in the hope that middle America (which is where most elections are decided) will make a better choice about who it thinks should run the world than it did last time. For Europeans, Obama's appearance has the palliative effect of methadone - taking the edge off a long-term dependency.
In Obama they see a paradigm shift. But if he wins, what they will get, in the words of the former president Warren Harding, is a "return to normalcy". Obama is not a radical, he is a mainstream Democrat - a party that in any other western nation would find itself on the right on foreign policy, the centre on economic policy, the centre-left on social policy.
When it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush and much better than McCain. That takes him a long way from the parlous place where America is now. But his current platform will still leave America a considerable distance from where most Europeans who come out to greet him would like it to be.
This would matter more if they thought their own leaders could do any better. But Obama's other asset right now is the pathetic state of European leadership. He arrives in a continent whose unifying project has been stalled by the Irish and is based in a country that is falling apart - Belgium.
With the exception of Angela Merkel, riding high on folksy popularity, he will meet leaders (Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy) who are not much more popular than Bush. So Obama's arrival gives Europeans a chance to be passionate about politics - a feeling they have not had for a long time. In Obama, they pine for something they have singularly failed to produce - a politician who inspires them and a politics of hope.
--Gary Younge
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
37 Comments so far
Show AllI am so tired of this white people think Obama is biracial and black people think he's black. Obama would be black to white people if he wasn't famous and people knew that his mother was white. Black people always see brown skin as black because of the one-drop rule which says that if you look black to white people and you are not famous enough for them to know you have white relatives then that's just what you are. Of course some whites still consider Obama black because he does have a Kenyan father. That's enough for them. This just shows how clever the elite are at dividing us to keep the attention off themselves. It will be and is being our undoing. Ironically in the end white supremacy will destroy most non-whites but whites as well because it blind everyday whites to who their real enemies are.
Elderlylady -- you are right, but that is only one-half of the situation
the other half is that people (some more than others) have the ability to PROJECT onto others the image they want them to see
one famous quote (sorry, don't know who said it, maybe someone here does) nailed it :
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes ?"
or as my husband (who comes from a very powerful family of projectors) once said :
"What you see and what you know are two different things . . . "
Right. That pretty much sums up how projectors function in this realm. . . they are the real victims, because they create appearances which they themselves mistake for reality, the problem is the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces, which seems to have been a full-time job for most of humanity for MANY millennia . . .
zimmie53 asks where is the outrage against the wars and inequality?
Maybe it is just below the surface, held back by people's fear that there is no alternative and we can't get a better society. That is why movements that involve thousands of people coming together for a common cause (a strike with really big picket lines or a mass demonstration) are so important. When you see you aren't marching alone but have thousands on your side you start feeling the winds of optimism again.
There's going to be lots of such actions in the next year- a new round of Bring the Troops Home Now protests once the election is over is just one example.
We had eight years of Ronald Reagan, four of Bush I, eight of Clinton, and now almost eight years of BushII/Cheney. Outrageous years that have (possibly, irrevocably) damaged our nation and our souls. But where is meaningful outrage in our society? I mean outrage like that of the workers' movements of the early 20th century, of the civil rights movement, the anti-Viet Nam war movement?
It ain't here, folks. So I'm hoping Obama wins, not because he is the Messiah, but because maybe, just maybe the inevitable disappointment he will bring will inspire outrage among us, and then we the people will take back our nation, our governement, and our communities. Or maybe he will become the Messiah.
Politics is about the possible, not the perfect. With Obama, we know we will PROBABLY get another corporate-owned Emperor; with McCain, we KNOW we will. And this late in the game, nobody else is going to be our next president.
Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote, but deserves to be a slave of liars. If the voter does not have principles, do not expect the politicians to have any.
elderlady
don't mistake the vigorous exercise of free speech/sharing of opinion on sites devoted to the same such as common dreams with an attempt to tell anyone what to think. if you read these articles and see fit to respond, chances are you listen to and/or respect commentary from a variety of viewpoints. it's not an unreasonable intention to present facts, opinions, feelings with the idea that they might influence someone else.
People see in EVERYBODY what they want to see.
Friends, family, colleagues, political candidates.
That's human nature.
Frankly, I would rather see what I make up my mind I want to see, than what somebody tells me I should see.
Including this author, and the posters on this thread.
Samson: "The corporations, that have made him the top recipient of Wall St money from the beginning, and that have helped fill his campaign accounts with $300 Billion or more, will still be in charge."
Say what? 300 billion? It might help to get some figures straight to support your case. Why not just say Obama has $500 trillion? What do you think, he's the Pentagon?
zzz as we can see from your list, Democrats have accomplished the task of being more corrupt, greedier and successful at pleasing Wall Street than the Republicans. Congratulations are in order!
jacq,
I cited figures and gave you the source.
"Obama is slightly ahead of McCain and the DNC is struggling mightily" I would say that raising over twice as much money, as well as having nearly 3 times the available cash, is more than being just "slightly ahead".
Here are the figures for Senate and Congressional races:
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $99,004,362
National Republican Congressional Cmte $74,272,770
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $82,459,587
National Republican Senatorial Cmte $52,764,449
"and WHERE did this site ("IreaditontheInternetsoitHAStobeTRUE")get the figures?"
If you can click a mouse, you can answer your own question, by going here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/about/tour.php
O'Bama is the Ripening Repuk - watch him slowly change from green to red.
Being ALL things to ALL people is a CODEPENDENT trait. Obama is NOT codependent in any way shape or form. As for the so called 'radicals' on this comment bloc-Obama is starting where things ARE, not as he, or you or I would LIKE them to BE. As for the 'cock-sure' fundraising figures so proudly waved under our noses, the ONLY Democratic fundraising that is AHEAD is the fundraising done for both the Senate and the House races. Obama is slightly ahead of McCain and the DNC is struggling mightily. Sad-because the DNC funds MORE than national elections. The DNC is behind races for mayor, city council and even SCHOOL BOARD-as is the RNC. So-where are all the billions of dollars coming from to support these claims of 'ownership' and WHERE did this site ("IreaditontheInternetsoitHAStobeTRUE")get the figures? This entire country is in a TRUE MESS and getting MESSIER. Most people want a President who is going to DO something-and guess what? Obama's basketball moment was a hell of a LOT more REAL than that turkey presenting a papier-mache Turkey to the troops in Iraq. GEEZ! GO ORGANIZE SOMETHING and QUIT WHINING!
"People See in Obama What They Want to See — That's a Blessing and a Curse"
It's a blessing for the con-man Obama and a curse for the rest of us.
" hoytdouglas July 21st, 2008 9:33 pm
"When it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush and much better than McCain."
Man, you are deluded.
He is what Obama resently said:
..."
I agree about whoever you quoted being [deluded], but what are you talking about when saying that 'Obama resently said' ....? What did he resent about or in what he said? To resent is like to regret; 'To feel indignantly aggrieved at', according to an online dict. that I use.
As far as I've gathered, he doesn't resently say what you quoted of him saying and as per the CP article you linked to. Instead, he strikes me as yet another charlatan trying to [deceive] The People, of the U.S. and of the rest of Earth; and that he also [knows] it, instead of not knowing what he says, what his senatorial votes really are, etcetera!
He most likely knows that the war in and on Afghanistan is not justifiable and that the U.S. and its coalition evils there must withdraw. He likely knows that it's war for natural resources, as are nearly ever war the U.S. has ever involved itself in; and much more that the U.S. has covertly done and continues to do. I doubt that he's so ignorant that he's unaware of these realities.
He knows the 9-11 Commission produced a bogus report and was very, very corrupt; knowing that the investigation must be re-opened and conducted NOT by a U.S. govt team, but by an independent team of experts and observers.
He must surely know that Bush Jr clearly stated following the 9-11 attacks and prior to the actual launch of military strikes on the Taliban, and then Afghanistan, that the Taliban had had absolutely nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks. He most surely is aware that the U.S. govt has no charges officially placed against Osama Bin Ladin for the 9-11 attacks and that Bush Jr has stated more than once that Osama Bin Ladin is an okay guy, free, and of no real interest to the Bush-Cheney cabal.
I'm assuming that Obama does some homework, pays attention to some news media reporting, and likely is aware of more. Perhaps I'm assuming too much of the so-called law expert or graduate, who has demonstrated rather NO substantial understanding of law whatsoever during his years as a senator.
He reminds me of another Colin Powell war criminal, liar, slave, etcetera.
So what exactly did or does he resent about the words you quoted of him saying? I wonder; for I doubt he resented saying them. Instead, he's pro-war as far as Afghanistan is concerned; is not speaking truthfully when saying he, if elected President, will withdraw the U.S. from Iraq, certainly not before having ensured that the U.S.'s permanent military bases and embassy, and puppet Iraqi govt, will stay, instead of vanish. What's he said and done with respect to the continuing criminal U.S., French and Canadian, as well as UN conduct against Haiti's people and their strongly enough democratically elected govt? NOTHING!
Etcetera.
ezeflyer,
"Actually, Obama's fundraising is behind McCain's. The RNC has a 400 million dollar and growing fund for McCain. Didn't think the oligarchs would give up that easily did you?"
I'm no accountant, but I believe you are mistaken. The money raised by both parties is obscene. But Obama is in the lead, especially in terms of cash on hand.
Sorry, if this gets reformatted.
(1)Total Raised (2)Cash on Hand (3)Total Spent (4)Debts
Democratic Party (1)$377,514,572 (2)$113,891,067 (3)$275,166,633 (4)$1,218,333
Republican Party (1)$407,565,524 (2)$107,360,610 (3)$309,917,912 (4)$3,084,584
DNC (1)$82,376,743 (2)$3,965,886 (3)$82,121,157 (4)$6,306
RNC (1)$167,675,965 (2)$53,508,001 (3)$117,276,180 (4)$0
Obama, Barack (1)$339,216,317 (2)$267,545,993 (3)$71,670,324 (4)$890,921
McCain, John (1)$145,466,201 (2)$109,829,375 (3)$35,636,825 (4)$1,453,172
Obama total: $799,107,632 (not including debts)
McCain total: $720,707,690 (not including debts)
SOURCE: http://www.opensecrets.org
As wonderful as it sounds to say Obama and King shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath, I still think it's fundamentally misconceived to make the comparison, even in deriding the the supposed comparison. (BTW, who exactly put Obama and King in the same category? Certainly, not Obama). Anyways, the reason why the comparison is invalid, and kinda unfair to Obama, is b/c King was a preacher; not running for office. Two entirely different constituencies.
"When it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush and much better than McCain."
Man, you are deluded.
He is what Obama resently said:
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney07212008.html
You think this is an improvement?
"escalation and expansion of the war into another sovereign country" is an improvement?
OBAMA IS MY SLAVE - is not an appropriate t-shirt for common people to wear. It's more suitable for some CEO to wear while he works in his garage on his new sportscar.
OBAMA IS A CORPORATE SLAVE!
Barack Obama knew exactly what he was doing with his FISA vote, i.e., when he voted to trash the 4th Amendment. Obama's FISA vote , places the president, as well as all future presidents -- including himself if he's elected -- above the law. ... (Bye, bye, Constitution.)
Also, just exactly how far up AIPAC's ass does Obama have to crawl before it becomes obvious that he's as much a hawk on the Middle East as any self-abusing neocon?
Obama has worshipped at the feet of the Israeli government's militaristic brutality so frequently and with such fervor that even Joe Lieberman would blush.
Obama's new "rethought" position on Iraq is that he will "defer to the judgment of the generals." ... Oh, great, that sure is reassuring. Now go find me a general in Iraq who's a dove.
Oh, and let's not forget about "Change."
Su-u-u-u-u-re! How much is going to change given that Obama is scruffing up more Wall Street dough than John McCain?
Wake up DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists), Barack Obama is NOT a progressive. Barack Obama is bought and paid for by Corporate America. (Hint: Follow the money.)
How many *more* countries does the US have to invade before DPA ers realize that Obama:
– supported invading Afghanistan.
– supports the US' continued presence in Iraq.
– along with the rest of the Senate, Democrats as well as Republicans, gave George Bush the ok to invade Iran.
– and is right on board with threatening Pakistan, Syria and God only knows what other countries suit his imperialist-defending frame of mind.
Wake up, DPAers! Barack Obama is not a progressive, he never was and he never will be. (See the following for just a few of his pro-corporate, pro-militaristic predispositions — http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html )
And yet there are those who have the nerve, THE COCKEYED, FACOCKTA NERVE, to mention Barack Obama in the same breath as Martin Luther King, Jr. ... What Martin Luther King, Jr. said about "the madness of militarism" were words he not only went to bat for but are words that eventually got him killed by the political establishment in this country. ... Obama, on the other hand, is *supported* by the political establishment! They love him. They know full well that, if elected, Obama won't make a peep as far as making any meaningful changes when it comes to either the political or the economic status quo.
Barack Obama has voted for every Iraq War funding bill that's come down the pike. What do you think Martin Luther King, Jr. would have to say about those votes?
So start with the simplest, most direct, most visible thing you can do: VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE! Vote Nader, or vote McKinney, or vote socialist. All it takes is what Corporate America is scared to death of
-- the people organized.
Grousefeather - I appreciate your sentiment, but it is the foreign leaders who make the decisions, not the people. It is the people who love Obama, as the article points out. They are as helpless as we vis-a-vis their governments's "So?" policies. Foreign citizens are complicit in the same way we are - we haven't demanded actual government of the people, and those representing us have stolen it for themselves.
'Being all good things to all people is what they call "charisma."' And charisma alone don't feed the bulldog, or change the world.
Those of us who always saw Obamania as the worship of an empty suit are pretty disgusted with the few fleshy parts now filling it up. I always knew Obama was not the saviour his followers saw (much the way I see the egotistical Nader) but I assumed he would hold onto at least a few principles. Campaign funding I can see - no sense giving the opposition a head start. But the faith-based expansion, embracing illegal occupation, the MCA and FISA? At least Hilary would have aggravated the Republicans into apoplexy; Obama's playing right, far right, into their hands.
Since the economy, the war, the housing bubble, the wealth divide, and climate change are yet to hit bottom, I'm almost to the point of letting the flag-waving, not-ready-for-a-black-president dupes of "middle America (which is where most elections are decided)" have their boy McCain and watch him and them drown in it. We should be smart enough to keep our heads above water, after all, we're condemned as the "intellectual elite", no? Yeah, we lose the supreme court for decades but it's already gone, so big deal. Maybe once McCain treats every city in America the way Bush treated New Orleans we'll have a real revolution and we can establish a new democracy to replace the one the rich have stolen.
I like this article and I think it's right on. However, I do take issue with the reference to the rest of the world being distainful of Bush. We've all heard this time and again and frankly it's become a bit tedious. I'm certainly not saying that Bush doesn't deserve distain, but if the rest of the world is REALLY distainful, why don't they put their money where their mouth is?
By that I mean to say that the rest of the world is really complicit in Bush's war crimes, because other than mouth-off about it they haven't done a thing to actually show their disapproval in a way that really matters. For example: why don't the countries that disapprove of Bush's war crimes refuse US airlines access to their airports; refuse US ships access to their ports; refuse mail and other shipments to and from the US; freeze US bank accounts? It seems to me that the people in European countries are just as apathetic as Americans when it comes to the slaughter of the Iraqui people and Bush's immoral wars in the Mid-east.
"In the past six months, it has become patently clear people see in him whatever they want to see. After being told his parents' race and nationality, more than half (55%) of white people said he was biracial while two-thirds of African-Americans said he was black, according to a Zogby poll."
That's easy to understand. When white people (and yes I'm generalizing) speak of race, publicly, they're talking in terms of DNA and what-not.
When black people talk about race, they're NOT talking about biology. They're talking sociology. In other words, "blackness" for most black folk is about this -- and this alone: if a white authority figure (i.e. cop, employer etc.) sees you walking down the street or applying for a job or whatever, will THEY think you are black? If the answer is yes, then you're "black," regardless of whether, after DNA analysis, it can be determined that so-and-so is 1/4 negroid, 1/8 caucasoid and so on and so forth.
It's the difference between having a discussion about a person's genetic stock and whether or not people share the same, or very similar, historical experiences, which includes being treated like a N-- in a country founded on white-skin privilege. And part of being treated like a N-- is to have your identity chosen for you and then being treated as such by the dominant society -- AND there's not a damn thing you, as an individual, can do about it. That's what it feels like.
With regards to the hysteria over Rev. Wright and his alleged secret muslimness, most black folks look at that and say: yup, he's one of us, even if his mama is white. Meanwhile, white folks are having sophisticated discussions about his bi-racial make up.
"Notice which way the major donations are flowing. Obama's victory is a done deal, and the only tricky bit will be to make it look close."
Actually, Obama's fundraising is behind McCain's. The RNC has a 400 million dollar and growing fund for McCain. Didn't think the oligarchs would give up that easily did you?
"I had to wait and wade through a long fruitless primary season that gave little hint of Obama's true position on issues that mattered deeply to me. He has failed. He has done so, not by a little margin. He is so much more of the same that I feel that I should bill him for my wasted time and interest. He is just one more Republican posing as a Democrat. He is, and deserves to remain, just one more failed politician."
I guess the only thing to do now is to commit suicide by voting for McCain.
I've only voted once for a presidential candidate in over 40 years. But for that one exception, non of them passed my "issues" evaluation. History has pretty much proven those I withheld casting my vote, didn't deserve it in the first place. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that almost all those who seek candidacy should be prevented from doing so. They are *that* unqualified for performing the tasks necessary to fulfill the obligations to a country purported to be a democracy... especially one held up to be a beacon of light for others who desire freedom.
I came to caucus without hopes of casting a vote for anyone. Only after listening to Obama supporters did I change my mind. I wanted to hear Obama on the issues to see if what he offered matched the expectations of those who supported him. I already knew Clinton didn't qualify based upon her history.
I had to wait and wade through a long fruitless primary season that gave little hint of Obama's true position on issues that mattered deeply to me. He has failed. He has done so, not by a little margin. He is so much more of the same that I feel that I should bill him for my wasted time and interest. He is just one more Republican posing as a Democrat. He is, and deserves to remain, just one more failed politician.
Obama's integrity is all tapped out. He had me at hope and change. He lost me with lies and deceit.
The authors imply that dislike on the American Left might be partially due to racism. But.... it is obviously NOT racism.
They should ask themselves, "why does Jesse Jackson disapprove of Obama so much?" Once they force themselves to understand that answer the real truth will become clear in a flash.
The Military Commissions Act was bad enough, but the FISA vote on telecom immunity (past and future) sent a loud and clear signal of the fascist direction Obama intends to follow.
The parallels with Hitler's Germany (1930's) are all there or being signalled for those who care to look.
Would it really matter IF Obama was Muslim?
For those who expend so much energy instructing---no, make that, what, admonishing? exhorting? browbeating? yes, that's it---us to sell our votes to fear, abandon hope and principle, hold our noses and vote for Obama based on your threats about all things McCain:
Take a few deep breaths. Relax. Rest easy. Notice which way the major donations are flowing. Obama's victory is a done deal, and the only tricky bit will be to make it look close.
For those who cast their ballots only for candidates who adhere to their professed values---who walk their talk---you're absolved. Go in peace.
"ANYBODY but Obama/McCain! Forget the winning/losing syndrome that we have been force fed for decades. Place a vote for an "outsider" and let the cards (Ballots) fall where they may."
I can almost guarantee you that voting for an "outsider" will let bombs fall where they may and annihilate life on earth.
Interesting solution though. No people, no problems.
ANYBODY but Obama/McCain! Forget the winning/losing syndrome that we have been force fed for decades. Place a vote for an "outsider" and let the cards (Ballots) fall where they may.
When will Democrats apologize to Nader?
Wall Street is favoring Obama over McCain 2 to 1, that alone should tell a 5yo that Obama is a corporate WHORE waiting to stab Americans in the back.
Obama reminds me of that philandering pastor portrayed by Richard Pryor in Which Way Is Up? (1977), who used to get wives pregnant when husbands were absent, a con artist of the first order. Like Obama, Reverend Lenox Thomas sounded magical, inspiring. It's part of their scheme to sound irresistible.
Maybe Europeans are excited because they have better coverage of the Iraq war than we do. They see that there is most certainly a difference between the 2 parties, however small the difference seems here. In Europe they get better coverage of the 3rd world in general, and so they may know that McCain has been chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy funded International Republican Institute, which has orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Haiti and Venezuela in recent years, and is involved in similar activities- prevention of democracy in the 3rd world- elsewhere.
As bad as the Democrats are, they aren't as bad as the Republicans. Europeans know that.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the rulers of the ruling class have decided that a black man should be the fall guy for the mess we're in? I'll probably vote independent but it's too early to make a decision.
Obama is just another con-man politician who is in it for his own aggrandizement. We've seen his true stripes when he voted for The Military Commissions Act, the FISA Bill and changed his position on campaign contributions. The corporations bought him off when he became the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate.
None of this is an accident. Its all the results of an excellently executed con on the part of Obama's handlers. It comes from chanting 'hope' and 'change' in every phrase in every line of every speech, but never saying what 'change' he would support. Thus, he created the image in everyone's mind that he supports the 'change' they would support.
Its all a well executed political con.
And in the end 'Mendo Chuck' is correct. The corporations, that have made him the top recipient of Wall St money from the beginning, and that have helped fill his campaign accounts with $300 Billion or more, will still be in charge. And no one else will be getting any 'change' they want.
If you look at the art of lying to and misleading the public of a democracy to gain political power as an art form, its all been very well done. If you look at a 'democracy' as a form of government where the wishes of the people are the basis of power, its all rather disgusting.
Being all good things to all people is what they call "charisma."
Obama, McCain, Republican or Democrat.
Name it what you wish.
I call it politics as usual.
Washington DC is run by corporations and the big money is going to Obama because BIG money believes that he will help them get the more business in the global market. Nothing more, nothing less.
Follow the money trail . . . .