Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Fails to Impress
SIFNOS, GREECE -- President Barack Obama's masterfully written, artfully delivered recent speech in Cairo was filled with just what the Muslim world had been waiting for.
After eight years of the George W. Bush administration's relentless anti-Islamic hostility, the world's 1.5 billion Muslims at last heard an intelligent, respectful speech from President Obama calling for normalized relations with the Muslim world, including former "betes noires" Iran and Syria, co-operation, and advancement of democracy and human rights.
Very nice. But the Muslim world was not as taken by Obama's silver-tongued oratory as many Americans. The general response there was, "actions speak louder than words. Show us."
Rather than a friendly, helpful U.S.A., many Muslims saw Obama expanding the war in Afghanistan that he could easily have ended upon taking office. They saw the U.S.-rented Pakistani army create three million refugees in its Swat offensive against rebellious tribesmen, continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq, and CIA's covert campaign to destabilize Iran and Syria.
Muslims saw Israel's rightist government thumbing its nose at Obama's sensible calls for a halt to its colonization of the West Bank and Golan, and the U.S. Congress applauding Israel's hard line like trained seals.
These facts speak a lot louder than the president's mellifluous oratory.
We would like to give the new president the benefit of the doubt. He has been in office only four months and will need a lot more time to begin repairing the catastrophic damage inflicted by the Bush administration on U.S. interests and standing in the Muslim world and Europe. Here in Greece, for example, anti-U.S. sentiment reached an all time high, but is now declining thanks to Obama.
However, the White House's recent actions belie the new president's promises.
Exhibit A: Obama unfortunately chose Egypt from which to deliver his message to Muslims of amity, democracy and human rights.
Egypt's U.S.-backed dictator, Husni Mubarak, has ruled for 37 years and is grooming his son to replace him. This leading Arab nation is run by a corrupt oligarchy, the military and secret police.
Torture
Egypt has become notorious for torture and human rights violations. Opponents of the regime are intimidated or arrested and tortured. Elections are crudely rigged.
Egypt is America's most important Muslim ally, along with Saudi Arabia. Are these repressive states what Obama means when he calls for democracy and human rights? He should have given his speech from democratic Indonesia, or the progressive United Arab Emirates and Qatar, rather than Egypt, a pillar of America's Mideast raj.
Exhibit B: Lebanon's June 7 parliamentary elections. A U.S.-French-Saudi-backed coalition of Sunni, Christians, and Druze was pitted against a Syrian-Iranian backed Hezbollah-led coalition that included Armenians and a Christian splinter faction.
Late last month, U.S. Vice-President Joseph Biden went to Lebanon and threatened to cut off all U.S. aid to that nation of 3.9 million if the democratically elected Hezbollah coalition won. Hillary Clinton made similar crude threats.
Imagine the uproar if the Saudi crown prince came to the U.S. just before elections and threatened to raise oil prices if Democrats won.
The United States, Saudi Arabia and France spent millions of dollars bribing Lebanon's rentable politicians and voters. The U.S. has been mucking around in Lebanon since 1957.
Iran spread some money around as well. Nothing new about that: Lebanon's politicians are among the most corrupt and easily bought on earth.
Vote rigging
All the western "baksheesh" and some fancy vote rigging helped the U.S.-backed May 14 coalition, headed by Saad Hariri, win 71 seats. The Hezbollah-led coalition, which speaks for the nation's Shia, won only 57 seats. This left sectarian, fragmented Lebanon just where it was before this sleazy election.
Is this what Obama means by promoting good government in the Muslim world?
Many Muslims and non-Muslims alike see Obama as an honest, decent, well-intentioned leader who has not yet managed to impose his will on the aggressive financial-military-industrial complex that seemingly remains the real power in Washington.
57 Comments so far
Show AllEric Margolis believes that "We would like to give the new president the benefit of the doubt." beg to differ. The new president in an instant can bring a halt to 500 lb. bombs being dropped on innocent Afghan civilians and can make sure that no more drone missiles are being used to kill and maim innocent Pakistanis while also ordering ALL and not just some American soldiers out of Iraq as the sight of an American soldier in that country undoubtedly makes the average Iraqi feel anger, hatred, loathing, bitterness at what the United States has done to its citizens and their country. There is absolutely no excuse for any progressive to excuse Obama's actions based on the amount of time that he has been in office because he could have ended the misery of the people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan the first moment that he stepped into office. But instead he has decided to follow into the footsteps of practically every other American president since the end of WW II with his continued acts of aggression that he could have so easily prevented.
Erroll, I completely agree. But perhaps you are being too hard on Margolis since the thrust of the article is exactly what you are saying.
I don't want to give "the new president the benefit of the doubt" any more than it was necessary to give Bush "the benefit of the doubt". But he follows that paragraph with "the White House's recent actions belie the new president's promises." I think Eric Margolis agrees with you, too.
"And in many ways, Obama is even more dangerous than Bush or McCain, since his ability to fool people with "artfully delivered speeches" is much greater."
RichM, THANK YOU ! This is what I tried to warn others about last year but the Obamabots and the Mccainiacs just wouldn't listen. I voted thrice for Nader and the worse Democrats get year after year, the more vindicated I feel. I still cannot believe that Nader's votes were pushed down over the last 8 years. You and I would think that after both parties showing their true colors that more voters would give just about any 3rd party a chance for a change.
Please to meet you by the way. :)
"This is what I tried to warn others about last year but the Obamabots and the Mccainiacs just wouldn't listen."
All anyone had to do was listen to what Obama actually said ("We should expand the war into Pakistan" -- a paraphrase -- shortly before Bush actually did so.). Also, all anyone had to do was look at his voting record. More war funding, the telecom immunity, FISA, voted for the bank bailout ... just stay awake and listen and pay attention, more to his actions than his words, and one would NOT have voted for Obama, other than of course for the apparently worse alternative. McCain, Obama, it made little difference, the Bush policies would have been carried forward.
I, too, wasted a vote on Nader. He is now too old and has, thanks largely to the media, become more or less a caricature of himself. His ideas are good. Kucinich could carry the torch, but he, too, is a member of one of the established branches of the ONE CORPORATE PARTY we now have.
He's "more dangerous" than Bush or McCain?
So what do you want? A president you personally select? No president? a new government? A different planet, perhaps? What?
Waiguoren
What you seem to be strongly implying is that any dissent aimed against the [alleged] agent of hope and change is to be frowned upon. I believe the implication that Obama is more dangerous than Bush and McCain is correct because people bought the propaganda that Obama was going to be dramatically different then either of the two when in point of fact he is proving to be just as militaristic as either one of them, if not more so.
I never frown upon dissent, only upon hyperbolic, ill-founded, and demagogic rhetoric.
Criticize Obama all you like. I do it all the time.
But when you begin sounding like radio talk, shut it all down and go back to the books for a spell.
If you perceive RichM's consistently insightful and trenchant analyses as equivalent to "radio talk"-- by which I presume you mean wingnut talk radio-- it isn't Rich who has to "shut it all down and go back to the books for a spell".
Since RichM's comments are manifestly NOT hyperbolic, ill-founded, and rhetorically demagogic, I can only infer that the "dissent" and "criticism" you find acceptable are shallow and timid gripes about Obama's shortcomings, with a view to Not Making the Perfect the Enemy of the Good.
If that's the case, RichM is simply going over your head.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Waiguoren, you accuse RichM of sounding like talk radio for stating an innocuous truth. That is hyperbole! Rich is right on the mark and it's true Obama is more dangerous.
I have several Democrat friends that still believe Obama is going to end the war soon, ignore the fact he has sent more troops to Afghanistan, and refuse to believe he has actually increased the military budget. They believe this nonsense because it's Obama instead of McCain.
The big lie promoted by DPAs (Democratic Party Apologists) is that in the big picture McCain would have been worse and we don't swallow that. Obama has escalated the wars in the Middle East beyond even Bush and is spending more money on "defense" than Bush too. He has closer ties to Wall St, received more money from them and has been lavish in his wealth transfer to them.
The more insignificant and symbolic the policy the greater the change you'll see between Democrats and Republicans or Obama and McCain. Closing Guantanamo while continuing Bush policies is a symbolic gesture designed for sap consumption. On the core issues: WAR - ATTACKING WORKERS - SHUTTING DOWN UNIONS - OPPOSING SINGLE PAYER - ENRICHING WALL ST - ETC.- there will hardly be a difference.
That's because the motor that drives the capitalist train is the corporations, the banks, the MIC and the rich elites, not the president. The president is just the conductor and is charged with ensuring the train arrives safely at Profitville. Politicians aren't put into office to change things; they are there to ensure things remain the same. Be it O or Mc the wars and wealth transfer will continue.
Waiguoren, you claim to criticize Obama all the time...just curious, for what?
Oregoncharles
"So what do you want?"
Since you asked: I want a president who seeks to end the wars, not escalate them. I would prefer a president who does not kill innocent children, the elderly. I want a president who is selected by the American people, not giant, powerful corporations. Obama was hired by big money in order to carry out their brutal agenda. Ya really think they'd hire a wimp to do that job?
When I saw the photos and read the accounts of the 1,400 innocent Palestinians slaughtered by Israel in December - a third of whom were children - and there was not a peep of protest from Obama, it became crystal clear what kind of person he is.
You must not have children of your own.
.
Different planet. Definitely. Even mildly different.
**And in many ways, Obama is even more dangerous than Bush or McCain, since his ability to fool people with "artfully delivered speeches" is much greater.**
I agree, if I am still allowed to voice my opinion on the internet, if my bedwetting Naderite thoughts aren't too subversive for the state to survive, before I sit down and shut up, I'd just like to say I think he's more dangerous because, while we point out that he's not a liberal, nonetheless, his supposed liberal agenda empowers the Right to oppose this move to the "Left." There is still no real move to the left, yet the Right is empowered, and the new "hate" destroys what little is left of national identity. The new troubles being brewed embolden those that believe Obama floats above the earth like a god, to demand more silence and obedience, more totalitarianism on all levels. And the new "hate" isn't just a problem on the Right. The left has a fine new hatred that, oddly enough, grew out of the Obama campaign.
The candidate who claimed he could bring republicans along as well as heal the nation and the planet has instead destroyed everything traditional liberals worked for (for example, public funding of elections). He has replaced the left with a new party that works for him instead of those issues. The upshot is that the country's prospects are exceedingly dimmed, for we will fight each other while the exploitation of our country continues. Our economy is going third world and we're going to be left fighting a civil war instead of uniting in our common cause. Now that's hope, change and unity.
Oregoncharles
My brother in law is a psychologist at the NIH. He's not generally interested in politics but he did have this to say about Obama's charisma and speaking talents: politician with charisma can be a very dangerous combination.
I had no idea how true his words would turn out to be, thinking that progressives would right away "get it" and not be fooled. But many didn't get it and are now behaving like abused spouses or children, hoping and waiting for Obama to come back to them. Most abusers do come back, again and again, offer little, expect a lot. For the abused Obama apologists, it's always a brand new day, with brand new hopes, for their "brand Obama."
Sioux Rose
RICH: As usual incisive and powerful analysis. I would merely add that Obama provides one other problematic aspect, and that is because so many STILL believe (if given time) that he will fulfill the agenda of much needed and hoped for change, the force that would otherwise aggregate into a movement that made real progressive change viable, is diluted. I think in that respect he was chosen for his chameleon-like nature.
It's my understanding that lawyers are taught to argue both sides of any issue. Bill Clinton was able to draw both parties together (as a centrist) by essentially taking on the Republican value system. Obama is doing likewise, and both, trained as lawyers have that uncanny ability to make listeners of all stripes think he is agreeing with them. It's partially the persona of the blank screen, a congenial entity that allows for whatever the listener/citizen projects onto it. Evil's most efficient and empowered weapon is deception, and boy oh boy, Deception R'U.S. Seems to me it's the major "growth industry" in the U.S. from the way the banking bailout was handled, to the way single payer is being swept under the rug, while the just route of impeachment was kept off the table; and besides, we don't torture, and all that jazz. Words only mean what our leaders dictate they shall mean! Orwell meets Lucifer and borrows from Bernays.
Absolutely Rose,I would only add that as trained prevaricators lawyers need to be cross examined to extract the truth from them."Progressives" need to find the guts to fight bullshit from all 4 directions.We have been dazzled with brilliant rhetoric and baffled with bullshit,change ,truth sorely missing. "Orwell meets Lucifer and borrows fron Bernays" good one. peace
Sioux Rose
JOHNNY: Gracias. Sometimes I can't believe what's happening in plain sight. It rouses the adage, "Truth is stranger than fiction." And then some.
non-fact-checked comment deleted by author
more and more people are starting to see the "bait and switch" that was the obama for bush
nwo man sent in to repair some cosmetic damage caused by nwo fool, restore some prestige to the presidential bully pulpit
and it worked to some extent - we were swept into oratory bliss - not saying much after 8 long years of bush's brain lesioned mumblings
we were branded with "change you can believe in" but got "continuity we should have seen coming"
the new manchurian candidate - seems a nice guy, pleasant, nice family with a lovely wife and two wonderful children who bring a ton of good feelings with them
so we thought we did good
then came the inevitable reneges one right after another - each one more disappointing than the next, some bitterly so
for the nwo/controllers it has been "continuity we like to rely on with the hirees"
13 trillion dollars (and counting) later, foreclosures still at all time highs, more war in iraq, expanding war in afghanistan, incubating war in pakistan, 20% unemployment and rising, no job creation, pandering to israel, ineffective with north korea, and so on
the fawning corporate media has fanned the flames of hatred for this not even close socialist by the right wing lunatics who are increasingly losing it in their unending quest for a fascist state
the sheeple, never more powerless, preoccupied with their job loss no health care and unsupportable debt
on the ropes - which is where they would like to keep us
yes, i think its safe to say we are disappointed, if that's the word for it...
ma g, you made a superb comment yesterday on the Naomi Klein speech: "The Financial Crisis Presents a Huge Opportunity for Change — We Can’t Let Obama Blow It".
Then the entire article and accompanying thread just *POOF* "disappeared"! I know it's a longshot but did you happen to save that comment?
elaine: sorry to say i did not
i was surprised to see the thread go poof - as you say
i tell you, i am increasingly concerned about common dreams and the obvious ringers who post comments to nullify good posts - just look at the above comments
its hard enough to make a comment with the editor's sword of damoceles hanging over your head but i am more concerned about the plants who make comments to disrupt the other well intentioned folks who post here
in my case a lot of folks attack my writing style - apparently solid grade eight phonetics is what these ringers insist on
words like fuck get a lot of attention and i laugh at that
seven words you can never say on television - i think - was the last word on that for me - george carlin said all that needs to be said
worse are the people who write f@#k and such
the control and the censorship is rampant here
i have found that lots of people like periods - they are ok with imperial wars but they like some closure in the prose
periods you can believe in
the bitching and counter bitching i see above in the posts are common and are a sign of ringers trying to ruin a post board
i thought the klein thread was killed because the mood was anti - dare i say it - klien
imagine the nerve of the posters not to swoon at their imposed icons
so, elaine i don't know where the thread went
klein to me is like obama - looked good going in - very disappointing in fact
looked good from far but was far from good
i put the liar michael moore in this category as well
i took a lot of heat for that stand
the teen fan clubs here at cd don't like t see their demagogues run down
it upsets the uninformed, properly written (with periods) readers
the progressives have no voice because we are consumed with and lead by cults of personality
exactly as the controllers set it up
Ma g, the only time I have trouble with grammar, punctuation and spelling is when it makes the author hard to understand or the meaning unclear. Can't say that about your posts!
I also am concerned about ringers, and what their purpose is. If a person is just a misguided soul who loves being regressive, I guess we should thank them for coming here and reminding us what a great many of the citizens of the USA are like.
But people who are intentionally disrupting by making personal attacks and twisting another poster's words really do annoy me. More to the point, though, is who put them up to it? Is there some group out there whose motto is "let's fuck with the hippies"?
Nonetheless, I'm not leaving and I have my own rules of civility which I follow, not so much to gain the respect of others but to maintain my self-respect.
(May I ask what puts Michael Moore in the letdown club with Obama and Klein? Sorry if I missed your previous posts on that subject.)
Elainem
I have a number of reasons why Michael Moore has been a disappointment. Despite directing an outstanding documentary on health care called Sicko, Moore decided to inexplicably back a candidate-Barack Obama-who had declared during the 2008 campaign that a single-payer system was off the table. Previous to that his candidate of choice was former General Wesley Clark who, as Webster Tarpley points out in his extremely well written book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, that Clark, the NATO commander, ordered "78 days of merciless bombing of Serbia" which resulted the estimated deaths of 10,000 or more Serbian civilians which, as Tarpley notes, is "at least three times the death toll of 9/11" [p.129].
Speaking of 9/11, even though Moore had questioned certain events that took place on 9/11 in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, he seems to have now become reticent on that subject. A YouTube video of him at a gathering of progressives showed him backing away when people from the 9/11 truth movement began asking why he was not becoming more involved in that issue. Why he is reluctant to engage further on this subject is unclear and also perplexing especially considering that facts and logic are on the side of those who question the official version of events that transpired on that particular day.
michael moore uses the documentary as a prop to make his case for - essentially nothing - other than his "gotcha" moments
in the documentary tradition the truth is supposed to be front and center
not for michael
he made his name on roger and me - the whole basis of the film was his frustrated attempt to talk to roger smith - at that time the ceo of gm
watching the film one sees michael attempt and get turned away over and over again
the implication being that if michael could talk to roger for even one minute he would be able to confront him with some truth that is so overwhelming that roger would be exposed for the cad he is
its the basis of the film
the little guy - fat as he is - takes on the power structure armed with only the beacon of truth and light
the truth is that roger gave michael two extended interviews for the film
you would never know that from watching the film
it undermines the honesty factor - this technique is used in all of michael's movies
also in roger and me there is a scene where michael has a mike cut off from the floor of the gm stockholders meeting - presumably once again to keep the beacon of truth and light from evil gm
well, that never happened
it was a hoax created for the movie to mislead
also as noted above - michael is complicit - along with many of alleged left gate keepers in the ongoing cover up of 9/11
other leftists guilty of this - amy goodman, howard zinn and noam chomsky
chomsky - who has written probably millions of pages about the malfeasance of the american government killing and murdering from one country to the next one year to the next
but in the case of 9/11 he sees nothing
so the important folks who could really agitate for an investigation are all silent over the biggest false flag event of the millennia - the basis for the war on terror
and between them these gate keepers can't see shit
as david ray griffin recently pointed out - there is virtually no one of substance who defends the government's version of 9/11
83% of the american public no longer believe the government on 9/11 yet our gate keepers can't see shit
tells me a lot about the pit falls of believing in demaggues
Corporate troll.
So call me an uptight anal prick, but standard capitalization and punctuation do make comments easier to read. Not that you would or should care, but I often skip over those comments even though they may be loaded with good information, much the same as skipping over an all-caps comment.
The Obysmal administration is akin to watching a professional wrestling match with the long haired, steroid ridden wrestlers spouting Shakespeare in between the vulgar, adolescent displays of macho toughness.
If Obama thinks that the Muslims and even the non-Muslims abroad are going to listen to his sugar-coated crap talk, he's sadly mistaken. Unlike our corn-fed electorate, they are smarter and more vigilant and are sick and tired of being torn apart by bullets, bombs, and religious discrimination.
I see all you Obama bashers are too stupid to learn the meaning of compromise and negotiation. Obama has to do what's right for everyone. His job is to help get rid of the bad guys, the Taliban, which most Muslims support. There will be some civilian casualties along the way which were totally unexpected but that's life. All you bedwetting Naderites should keep your mouths shut and let Obama finish his job. In the meantime, you bedwetting Naderites could get some potty training ! LOL ! OOOOOOOOOOOOO ! LOL !
Nebraska Nathan, where you been, red rider? We on these CD comment sites have been missing you, as we've pretty much had only one another to congratulate and expand upon our collective wisdom. If NN didn't exist, would we have to invent him (or her)?
The mammalian musk emanating from NN's vicious and wholly ignorant diatribes reeks of testosterone-- though that's only the prevailing odor from a bouquet of assorted noxious stenches.
Still, it's a difficult and disgusting job to properly sex a troll, and I don't have those shoulder-length gloves ranchers and veterinarians use to, er, probe livestock.
So I propose we simply use "it", which is as good a pronoun as any for this trollish abomination.
· Yr Obd't Servant
EXCELLENT! "It" is exactly what I was going to suggest.
The comet of Obama's Presidency has struck the earth. The Obamites are extinct.
I'm thoroughly disappointed in Obama, and before that Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers for their chickenshit approach to impeachment, and all the other supposed anti-war liberals who now vote to fund more war, but let's get real:
1. A handful of dissatisfied citizens consistantly voting third party has gotten us exactly *Look!* right where we are now.
2. Obama IS better than McCain. Four more years of Rush Limbaugh being accepted as the voice of the ruling party in America would have been unbearable. The words "Vice President Palin" (AACCCKK sorry;hairball) would have increased barf bag sales to the point of leaving the airlines bereft. Call me petty, but seeing the strutting cock Republicans relegated to the whiny, crazy minority party is SATISFYING.
3. Obama might not have delivered on his promises of change but getting a bunch of people who used to use the "N" word regularly to vote for a "black" man sure is different. Maybe Americans are growing up a little, and just maybe Obama is the one who pushed them into it.
#1 has been disproven already. Voting 3rd party isn't the problem. The problem is voters deluding themselves into voting D or R when neither D nor R cares to be pro-people. There were more registered Democrats that voted Dubya than there were Nader voters. Algore would have won TN, AR, and FL otherwise.
#2 is already being disproven even as we speak. Obama is the same as Mccain and whatever Obama does trivially better isn't going to change anything. Now if he would stop issuing more bailouts to Wall Street and dragging more young people into wars and harm's way then #2 would be for real. RichM in fact proves that thanks to Obama's professional ability to look "nice" while simultaneously feeding the devils that Obama is in fact worse than Bush or Mccain. If I were forced to pick between a known devil and an unknown one, I would have to pick the former.
I'm sorry but the Democrats must EARN our votes, not take them for granted like the Republicans.
Is it your position that the democratic party will not allow more progressives into congress or that once in, they'll be forced to conform?
It's possible that people vote center/right because they agree with their policies or are simply confused. It's also possible that Kucinich didn't get more support because, even though many agree w/his policies, they fell for the right's scare tactics. If that's the case, I don't see why a third party will help. Somehow the political attitude of the nation needs to be changed-more progressive economists would help. The presidential race is less important than it seems, contrary to what many sycophants believe.
Well? Look at where single payer health care is going. The party leadership and its blue doggy and dlc gangs won't allow for real progress. Every election race matters btw.
Filling congress with progressives is more important than the spectacular presidential elections. I can relate to the frustration but your beef is with the electorates who voted locally for centrists or worse. "Lesser of two evils" is a legit strategy- supported by the likes of Chomsky, Zinn, Klein, Kucinich and many more. It takes time to undo years of propaganda. I hope your health is better btw.
It's not clear to me that Obama is actually better than McCain.
Liberals are the basis of the problems in our country. Right-wingers need hours of propaganda daily and to be quarantined from the facts to keep them in line.
But Liberals - they're easy. Once a decade, give them some speeches with flowery rhetoric, and they're good to go! They internalize it so quickly and they even generate your propaganda for them!!!
I'm aware the differences are small, that's why I emphasize the the bigger picture goals of changing the attitude of the public (somehow) and getting people to organize locally. Things aren't hopeless-30% of under 30s are sympathetic to socialism.
There seems a contradiction in the third party supporters- on one hand they say the duopoly is not serving the public, on the other they say how stupid the public are for supporting Obama. If a majority favor him, that's a problem that a third party won't help.
No Jennifer, third party voting is not the problem, but it is obviously not the solution, either. Voting for a dysfunctional third party is no better than or different from voting for a dysfunctional mainstream party.
As for number two and your devil analogy, if George W. Bush had run again would you have voted for him? He certainly is a devil we know...
No, I would not have voted for Dubya. I voted for Nader thrice since I based my voting on the issues and not on the "lesser of the two evils" mentality. Year after year, the Democrats have only regressed to the point that I can barely tell them apart from the Republicans anymore. I was referring to being forced to pick between only two candidates. Now if none of the 3rd party candidates had run, I wouldn't have bothered to vote given Obama's campaigning and his flip-flopping to the right on every issue and making me pull me hair and scream. I would have to be "legally" forced to pick between the two and then I'd make the pick. I voted for Kucinich in the Democratic Primaries btw. If Kucinich or the likes can counter-hijack the Democratic Party, I might take the party seriously.
Jennifer, please read this article and then tell me if you feel the same. (URL split for clarity)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/03/23/AR2007032301746.html
Your "#1" has been disproven all ready. Al Gore did, if fact win in Florida.
edit: oops...
You're confused. Americans are growing up? Why? Because once again they have been fooled by a corrupt promise of "change"?
If anything, they're dumber than ever for not seeing Obama for what he really is: a con-artist of the greatest criminal order.
And once and for all, Obama is NOT better than Bush and McCain, for the simple fact that he's continuing *all* fascist policies of Bush's, but still getting innocent people like you to think they're better off.
It's all in the works.
Rome wasn't built in a day and it didn't fall in a day.
po thread its also because denis was shut out of the debate and the msm has painted
him as something other then one of the straight people in congress to suit their means.
russ feingold , kucinich and other left wingers should create another party where they
could jack up the dimocrats and force their way into meaningful legislation.
I'm not convinced that the results would be any different if the progressive dems formed a new party as they have an independent vote now and are free to submit legislation. They'd simply be blocked by the same regressive congressmen as they are now.
Dennis was present in the earlier debates but wasn't polling well and anyone who was interested in the actual issues could have visited his site. Many people simply have a visceral reaction to policies resembling socialism.
Many people think health-care should be in the public sector along with police, fire-fighters etc but why stop there? Utilities? Banks? Retail? people start to get scared because there never was a real debate on this issue.
RichM, Erroll and ma g have especially great comments which I could've written myself, except for the lack of profanities. But I'm supposed to have "anger issue" when addressing Obama and his tragic Democratic voters so my posts are dismissed as "bitter" and from "a whiner".
All I can add to the discussion is that Obama's indeed infinitely more dangerous than Bush since his masterful oratory and race will keep Blacks and 75% of the whites who voted for him always on his side. Obama has virtually destroyed any minimal chance of the left ever achieving any kind of insignificant power in America. The Right has won.