What the Hel is Obama doing? [Archive]

Franklin Johnson

11-20-2008, 09:09 AM

I'm surprised that you're surprised. Did you really believe that things were going to change that much? The left/progressive/liberal/whatever community learns its historical lessons the hard way.

Now that we finally got our first African-American president, we can finally begin to learn that being from that minority racial group does not necessarily translate into the kinds of major reforms that we need, such as a 2nd New Deal, etc.

Starting way back in the primaries when Obama was pulling his first upsets over Clinton, it was obvious that people thought that Barak was going to be a great president SIMPLY because of the color of his skin. How foolish! NOW, we are finally going to learn this basic lesson.

Forward thinking Americans allowed themselves to be seduced by the romantic picture of a black man reaching the highest public office in the country and that if this was possible then anything is, in turn, giving themselves hope as well. The word 'Hope' was not chosen by the Obama campaign by accident.

Fidel Castro stated recently that Obama as president was not going to make the U.S. a less belligerent nation. Castro expects Obama to keep doing business as usual when it comes to foreign policy. Brace yourselves because our beloved, progressive African-American president is going to blow up cities and kill children all over the world. Gotta hand it to the Marxists when it comes to interpreting reality. They don't fall for the religious crap like we do here. Americans are a deeply christian/idealist (idealist in the Marxist sense) people and believing in fantasies, holy spirits and holy ghosts (just like children believe in Santa Clause) are a strong propensity and weakness we Americans have.

Franklin

Has anyone noticed that the "change we need" is a return to the Clinton era, or even worse, to the GHW Bush era? All of the appointments to the Obama cabinet and all of his advisors are old school warmongers and dirty money people. What is he thinking? Where is the new blood? Where is the change we were promised?

Is anyone else outraged and disappointed by who he is surrounding himself with?

Our winner appears to be creating a losing cabinet.

I'm disappointed, but not shocked. Our politics are pretty screwed up. I guess we can look forward to another four years of global wars.

-Jeff

Barry

11-20-2008, 09:54 AM

zenekar

11-20-2008, 11:32 AM

If you were expecting something else, I understand your disappointment.

The ruling elite are clever, knowing that US citizens are naive and easily deceived into believing that electing a "leader" selected for the election by the elite, is democracy. Most likely, Wacco folks know that the media is owned and sponsored by the same corporations disguised as individuals and vice-versa, that control the wealth of this nation.

Any candidate who seriously opposes the elite's corporate sponsored candidates is shut out, i.e. Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney. If Nader and McKinney had been ALLOWED to address the real issues with equal media attention to the corporate candidates, it would be clearly apparent who is really representing the people's interests over the interest of the ruling class.

Obama is not alone in making choices for the Cabinet. The ruling class is there with him, to make sure that their wealth will be secure by positioning people in the Cabinet who will execute their appointment according to the needs of the elite.

Yes, we've been bamboozled again and will continue to be until people wake-up to the reality of US politricks. Government of, by and for the people will occur when we, the people, stop being spectators and decide it's time to act.

Attila
---

Has anyone noticed that the "change we need" is a return to the Clinton era, or even worse, to the GHW Bush era? All of the appointments to the Obama cabinet and all of his advisors are old school warmongers and dirty money people. What is he thinking? Where is the new blood? Where is the change we were promised?

Is anyone else outraged and disappointed by who he is surrounding himself with?

Our winner appears to be creating a losing cabinet.

I'm disappointed, but not shocked. Our politics are pretty screwed up. I guess we can look forward to another four years of global wars.

-Jeff

Photoguy

11-20-2008, 12:01 PM

We can only hope the "change" brings us back to a point as good as the Clinton era(could have been). Clinton was prevented from doing quite a few things because he had a Republican congress, and he couldn't stay out of trouble. Obama will not have the discipline problem and he has a Democratic congress. You bet that will mean change. You didn't think he would bring in the guy from his local food co-op to run the Department of Agriculture, a bicycle shop owner to run D.O.T. or a peace activist to run Homeland Security? However, yes he still represents the top 1-2% of the population and his job is preserving their wealth. Far too many Americans are far too ignorant to actually take charge of our "democracy". Obama running the U.S. during the coming great depression will mean the FEMA camps will be filled voluntarily instead of at gunpoint and we will end up with some form of health care. There are good monarchs and bad ones, I think Obama might end up being a much better monarch than any republican alternative.

zenekar

11-20-2008, 01:42 PM

Nice dream, Photoguy. Here is a reality check:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obama-cabinet

These are power-brokers not of our local co-op variety. Remember, Clinton is responsible for NAFTA, welfare deform, bombing of Yugoslavia and Iraq -- causing half-million children deaths with the embargo of Iraq, etc. There is an unstated US imperialist policy by the ruling elite regardless of who sits in the White(man's)house.

Attila
---

We can only hope the "change" brings us back to a point as good as the Clinton era(could have been). Clinton was prevented from doing quite a few things because he had a Republican congress, and he couldn't stay out of trouble. Obama will not have the discipline problem and he has a Democratic congress. You bet that will mean change. You didn't think he would bring in the guy from his local food co-op to run the Department of Agriculture, a bicycle shop owner to run D.O.T. or a peace activist to run Homeland Security? However, yes he still represents the top 1-2% of the population and his job is preserving their wealth. Far too many Americans are far too ignorant to actually take charge of our "democracy". Obama running the U.S. during the coming great depression will mean the FEMA camps will be filled voluntarily instead of at gunpoint and we will end up with some form of health care. There are good monarchs and bad ones, I think Obama might end up being a much better monarch than any republican alternative.

Photoguy

11-20-2008, 02:01 PM

Like I said his job is to protect the wealth of the top 1% or 2% of the population. He is the other side of that same coin, I just suspect he will be more competent and possibly less fascist in his stewardship.

Nice dream, Photoguy. Here is a reality check:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obama-cabinet

These are power-brokers not of our local co-op variety. Remember, Clinton is responsible for NAFTA, welfare deform, bombing of Yugoslavia and Iraq -- causing half-million children deaths with the embargo of Iraq, etc. There is an unstated US imperialist policy by the ruling elite regardless of who sits in the White(man's)house.

Attila
---

Braggi

11-20-2008, 04:22 PM

I'm surprised that you're surprised. Did you really believe that things were going to change that much? The left/progressive/liberal/whatever community learns its historical lessons the hard way. ...

I'm not surprised at all. Disappointed, but not surprised. It's exactly what I expected. I just want to be sure I'm not the only one noticing.

This is an area where Obama could be slipping in a little "change" almost on the sly, if he was careful. Fact is, he's not giving us the "change we need" or even the change we expect. There is a chance he can give all these nice folks the kind of direction that looks like change to us and let's continue to hope for that. But, for instance, I'd like Obama to let Iraq know that their discussions over us leaving in 2011 aren't even necessary because we'll be gone before then. Pipe dreams, I know. Think I'll light up again ...

I realize he's waiting until inauguration day to start implementing real change of any kind, OTOH, bringing in some new blood over all these retreads from Clinton days would be showing us he really does intend to carry through on his mandate.

Think "he" reads my posts here on Waccobb.net?

-Jeff

mykil

11-20-2008, 05:12 PM

This is why I refuse to VOTE!!!!!

zenekar

11-20-2008, 08:26 PM

Voting for a president who is pre-selected by the ruling elite does seem futile. But, it is important to participate in local elections and vote for candidates who best represent your values and the needs of the community. It is a democratic process where your vote does count and you need to take responsibility for your sake and for the sake of the community. If for no other reason, consider all the women you can flirt with at the poles. :)

Attila
---

This is why I refuse to VOTE!!!!!

Barry

11-20-2008, 09:02 PM

While I agree with you about flirting with women at the poles (at least from before I became a permanent absentee voter a decade ago), I disagree with the idea of a pre-selected president. Obama, in particular, was far from pre-selected. You could make the case that Hillary was pre-selected, but she didn't get selected, did she?

McCain may well have been pre-selected by the Republicans, but surely the McCain v Obama race was not. Although a case could be made that McCain "threw" the election, like a prize fighter taking a dive, based on his dismal compaign.

There has been much to be cynical about for a long time, Atilla, but now is the time to put that aside, and once again have Hope, if you can remember how.

Voting for a president who is pre-selected by the ruling elite does seem futile. But, it is important to participate in local elections and vote for candidates who best represent your values and the needs of the community. It is a democratic process where your vote does count and you need to take responsibility for your sake and for the sake of the community. If for no other reason, consider all the women you can flirt with at the poles. :)

Attila
---

mykil

11-20-2008, 09:44 PM

babaruss

11-20-2008, 11:11 PM

I still giving Barack the benefit of the doubt. There are two parts to making a change:

1) Setting a course and providing leadership
2) Making it happen

Barack's job is item number one. He appears to be exceptionally good at it and his heart seems like its in the right place (or as right as possible).

His team is in charge of item 2. They need to be experienced (which Barack is a bit short on).

Bringing real change is going to be difficult for congress, Washington in general and the rest of the country. Barack needs experienced capable people who are loyal to him and his agenda.

And let's be realistic about how far and how fast he can and will change things. It's not going to be nirvana overnight, or ever. Supertankers just don't have that tight of a turning radius. But I don't have any doubt that he is going turn it as fast as possible/feasible and that can be maintained and embraced.

Barack and the country can't afford OJT and newbie fumbles at this point.

He seems exceptionally clear headed and focused and continues to embrace the themes of his campaign. My faith remains undiminished.

I believe Obama is doing things right.

I'm always disappointed at the venom so many people spew out because their morning wishes have not come true by the time the sun sets.

I've lived way too long, and fought for one hell of a lot of very unpopular causes.

In that process I learned the one thing that many young people can't grasp.
Change...if it is to meaningful at all, does not come about as a result of a vote. The vote is only a tiny fragment of a long and arduous process...a very time consuming, and infinitely frustrating process (especially for the 'I deserve it now, and want it now' crowd.

We don't 'deserve' a damned thing. It is by trial and error that we as a people have arrived at the place we are at now.
The constitution however abused it has been in recent years, did not just happen. Most of the things we 'rights' hold dear today were a culmination of years of heartbreaking struggle, and painstaking negotiation.

If you never grew up poor, with out the luxury of welfare, food stamps,have ...or lived with predudice, violence, and similar abuses, then you won't understand how far we have come.

The way this country has evolved (just since I was born) has been amazing.

Sure people through out history have done (and still do) ugly things...but really when have they not ?
It is also true that people do loving, intelligent, and kind things).

Many of the things which people accept as being their 'God given rights' today were not heard of when I was growing up..in my father's time life was even harsher. no need to keep going back in time to make my point.

I've seen what I've seen, and know what I know, everything is steadily moving forward.... albeit frog in the well style...(up a bit back a bit).

I remember when they first started crying to 'give peace a chance'.
The world as a whole hasn't managed that yet...so maybe that's another clue to the time factor where change is involved.

Obama has at least demonstrated how to be peaceful, calm, and focused (as well as uncommonly courteous) through out this whole tedious election process.
Witnessing that was more than enough for me put me at ease accept the idea that he is the right choice for the office of President.
Russ

metimeesthetics

11-21-2008, 12:22 AM

Hear, hear, Barry.

Franklin and the other bashers,

Give the guy a chance, why don't you? He's not even in office yet, and people who supported him a few short weeks ago are already aiming to throw him under the bus. Talk about fair weather fans!

He is inheriting 30 years of deregulation, greed and self-interest. It is going to be a long, difficult job to climb out of the abyss we find ourselves in, and it will not be accomplished in six months, one year or even (I fear) a single term. His heart and his spirit are in the right place so why don't we, as a nation, suck it up and support him, instead of verbally thrashing him before he is even officially the Prez.

If you are so concerned, quit writing and start protesting. Part of the reason we are all in this mess is that we, as a nation, are too apathetic to actually DO anything that requires more effort than a vote (or an opinion expressed from the safety of our computers, myself included), to force our elected representatives to hear us and take heed of what we, the people, think and want. Write your congressperson, write your mayor, write your state rep, write the speaker of the house, write the president. Or go march.

The war in Vietnam was ended partially on the strengths of the protests. The Civil Rights movement gained momentum because of protests. It amazes me that this generation has few who are willing to put there actions where their mouths, or keypads, are. As my 12th grade government teacher said repeatedly, "You can't b*tch if you do not participate."

Mrs. Wacco

11-21-2008, 08:38 AM

No, but he (or his worker-bees) might at www.change.gov (https://www.change.gov)

He used the power of the Internet to rally folks to make his win happen. Same approach for continuing "the change". Get involved.

You can also apply for a job in the administration at the website.

Think "he" reads my posts here on Waccobb.net?

-Jeff

Tars

11-21-2008, 08:59 AM

Fact is, he's not giving us the "change we need" or even the change we expect.

Of course, when you say "we", you really mean "I". You evidently expected that he'd bring in only a bunch of "progressives", or whatever your personal preferences? That's not the change I heard him speaking of. The change I understood that he meant from the beginning, is a change of inclusion, as opposed to the exclusion that's been practiced by both parties for the last couple of decades.

If you missed that inclusion of more voices is what Obama has been talking about, to achieve a change from the hostile political climate lately prevalent in the U.S., you mis-understood one of the most important aspects of the man's philosophy.

The change I expect from Obama's administration is that there will be intelligent inclusionary discourse among as many political perspectives as possible, so as to come as close to consensus as possible.

We don't need "change" that only involves excluding opinions from people we don't agree with. We don't need "change" that is nothing more than namecalling at political personages whom we might personally not like. That's what we've had since 1993 at least. See where that went?

The Carter administration exercised the "change" that a lot of liberals/progressives demanded in peopling the administration. As a result, not much positive was accomplished for four years.

Personally, I'm happy with the choices Obama has evidenced so far. I feel more conifidence in decisions made after hearing/debating as many viewpoints as possible, not just the "progressive" opinions.

Keep up the good work Barack!

Don't have conniptions just yet, OK? Give the guy a chance.

zenekar

11-21-2008, 09:21 AM

When people lead, leaders will follow. That is my point. When we are complacent we GIVE the ruling elite more power. Obama appears to be an intelligent, caring human being. But having hope that a leader/saviour -- be it Obama, Jesus, God, or whatever outside entity will take responsibility while we sit by, is how we enable the elite to manipulate us into allowing our sons and daughters to kill and die in wars/invasions/occupations that create more wealth for the grossly wealthy.

Candidates of the duopoly, like Obama, McCain, etc., are vetted by the power-borkers before we know of them as candidates. Those, like Nader, McKinney, even Kucinich, who speak common sense, are ignored by the media so that people won't hear how they reason and challenge the status quo.

History reveals that it has always been people's movements, not kings or Presidents, that create change. We must engage in "politics" -- meaning our awareness and everyday conscious actions. Change will occur when citizens have the will and make the effort to create a just and equitable system. We can see evidence of it in democratic movements in nations of South America.

Voting in local elections -- protecting our commons -- is an important process in creating democracy from the bottom up.

Attila
---

Hear, hear, Barry.

Franklin and the other bashers,

Give the guy a chance, why don't you? He's not even in office yet, and people who supported him a few short weeks ago are already aiming to throw him under the bus. Talk about fair weather fans!

He is inheriting 30 years of deregulation, greed and self-interest. It is going to be a long, difficult job to climb out of the abyss we find ourselves in, and it will not be accomplished in six months, one year or even (I fear) a single term. His heart and his spirit are in the right place so why don't we, as a nation, suck it up and support him, instead of verbally thrashing him before he is even officially the Prez.

If you are so concerned, quit writing and start protesting. Part of the reason we are all in this mess is that we, as a nation, are too apathetic to actually DO anything that requires more effort than a vote (or an opinion expressed from the safety of our computers, myself included), to force our elected representatives to hear us and take heed of what we, the people, think and want. Write your congressperson, write your mayor, write your state rep, write the speaker of the house, write the president. Or go march.

The war in Vietnam was ended partially on the strengths of the protests. The Civil Rights movement gained momentum because of protests. It amazes me that this generation has few who are willing to put there actions where their mouths, or keypads, are. As my 12th grade government teacher said repeatedly, "You can't b*tch if you do not participate."

Braggi

11-21-2008, 09:43 AM

I believe Obama is doing things right. ...
Obama has at least demonstrated how to be peaceful, calm, and focused (as well as uncommonly courteous) through out this whole tedious election process.
Witnessing that was more than enough for me put me at ease accept the idea that he is the right choice for the office of President.

Yup. Agreed. That gives me hope, but his choices of war and Military Industrial Political Complex supporting underlings gives me pause. Obama has the ability to lead and inspire in a way no president has perhaps since JFK. He can lead his underlings away from the reptilian past or he can watch as they run him.

We'll see.

-Jeff

Braggi

11-21-2008, 09:45 AM

Of course, when you say "we", you really mean "I". You evidently expected that he'd bring in only a bunch of "progressives", or whatever your personal preferences? ...

No, I speak with the authority of a great "we." We the people who were promised a quick way out of Iraq. It doesn't look like that's going to happen based on who he's surrounding himself with. I'm disappointed.

He was elected based on his promise. Let's see if he comes through.

-Jeff

Braggi

11-21-2008, 10:03 AM

... Candidates of the duopoly, like Obama, McCain, etc., are vetted by the power-borkers before we know of them as candidates. Those, like Nader, McKinney, even Kucinich, who speak common sense, are ignored by the media so that people won't hear how they reason and challenge the status quo. ...

Sorry, but this is just bull. Obama may have been "vetted" but as has been mentioned, Hillary was the choice of the elite. Obama was truly "the people's candidate."

And remember Perot? He got a ton of media exposure, far more than he deserved. The nation is just plain tired of Nader. Everyone knows his shrill voice and those who know a bit about psychology know he's just a narcissist who's out to inflate his own ego. He deserves to be a loser. I think McKinney would make a fine president and I wish her voice was better known. Perhaps that will happen in the years to come.

This is the age of personal publication. If you want these people to be better known, make it so.

-Jeff

babaruss

11-21-2008, 10:44 AM

Voting in local elections -- protecting our commons -- is an important process in creating democracy from the bottom up.

Attila
---[/quote]

Meanwhile getting involved at all levels of need is grass roots is all about right ?

Working with the 'enemy' instead of battling with them makes a hell of a lot of sense too. That's where Obama really got my attention ! Inclusive not seperate and apart.

Guess this is a good enough place to paste this article:
Russ

What Next for Obama's Network?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, November 21, 2008; A23

While the nation's capital obsesses over Barack Obama (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline)'s next Cabinet pick, the president-elect's lieutenants are engaged with what may be a more important long-term issue: What will become of Obama's vast grass-roots network?
Electoral campaigns, like circus tents, quickly disappear after the show is over. But Obama is our first community-organizer president, and he sees the way he got elected as being almost as crucial as the fact that he won. Because of the emphasis he put on organizing, barackobama.com might fairly be seen as the most successful high-tech startup of the past two years.
Over and over, Obama has spoken of change coming from "the bottom up," and the organization he built down to the precinct and neighborhood level could be an agent of that change. But how?
The discussion among Obama's lieutenants focuses on several alternatives. In one view, the Obama apparatus could be integrated into the Democratic Party (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Democratic+Party?tid=informline) and be run through the Democratic National Committee (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Democratic+National+Committee?tid=informline). Many of Obama's top aides, including campaign manager David Plouffe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/David+Plouffe?tid=informline), are veterans of traditional Democratic politics.
Turning the Obama network into a vast national party organization could give Democrats durable advantages that the party has not enjoyed since the New Deal era, when Franklin Roosevelt (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Franklin+D.+Roosevelt?tid=informline) built an alliance between local political machines and a growing labor movement.
But Plouffe himself has been much affected by the new way of campaigning he oversaw. His regular video reports to the troops turned him into something of a hero to the Obama faithful.
Moreover, Steve Hildebrand (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Steve+Hildebrand?tid=informline), Obama's deputy campaign manager, has argued that members of the network include many who are averse to traditional party politics: young people with weak party loyalties, independents and even some Republicans. He has been suggesting at Democratic gatherings that the Obama apparatus might instead constitute itself as an independent political organization -- friendly and parallel to the Democratic Party but a separate entity nonetheless. Obama supporters are also discussing how local networks could integrate into their communities through various forms of service work and activism. Obama's Web site is raising money for the victims of the Southern California fires.
The importance of cultivating the network and keeping it intact was underscored by an online survey that Plouffe sent to supporters on Tuesday. The survey explicitly asked: "How would you like to see this organization move forward in the months and years ahead?"
Offering a clue as to what Obama insiders are thinking, the survey asked supporters to rank four objectives: helping the new administration "pass legislation through grass-roots efforts"; helping elect state and local candidates "who share the same vision for our country"; training others in the organizing techniques perfected by the campaign; and "working on local issues that impact our communities."
Notably absent from that list was the word "Democrat."
Yet there is only so much distance that Obama either can or wants to keep from his party. He is, in important ways, a loyal Chicago organization Democrat. Plouffe is currently using the Obama fundraising network to help the Democratic National Committee erase its deficit.
Obama supporters have been moving into Georgia to help Democrat Jim Martin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jim+Martin?tid=informline) in his Dec. 2 runoff election against incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Saxby+Chambliss?tid=informline). Yet Obama himself has yet to make clear how forcefully he'll intervene in a state that he lost. A Martin victory would signal the depth of the nation's desire for change, but a new president-elect with soaring popularity may not want to subject himself to such an early test on not-entirely-hospitable terrain.
One Democratic strategist said that parts of the Obama organization are still mistrustful of the national committee, seeing it as a redoubt for Hillary and Bill Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+Clinton?tid=informline) loyalists. But this view is waning, since Obama, as the party's undisputed leader, will inevitably take over the party apparatus, and he is making peace with the Clintons, notably by suggesting he may want Sen. Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hillary+Clinton?tid=informline) as his secretary of state.
The urgency of the organizational discussion signals that Obama's lieutenants see the 2008 campaign as having fundamentally altered the contours of American politics.
Democrats believe (and many Republicans fear) that Obama allowed his party and its allies to take an enormous leap forward in both technological sophistication and grass-roots activism. Preserving those gains and building on them is a priority for a man who sees organizing not only as instrumental but also as a way of transforming democracy itself.

Dixon

11-21-2008, 09:48 PM

Has anyone noticed that the "change we need" is a return to the Clinton era, or even worse, to the GHW Bush era? All of the appointments to the Obama cabinet and all of his advisors are old school warmongers and dirty money people. What is he thinking? Where is the new blood? Where is the change we were promised?
Is anyone else outraged and disappointed by who he is surrounding himself with?

Outraged, sure. Disappointed, nope, because I expected it. All the signs have been there all along, as I tried to tell the starry-eyed liberals all around me.

Our winner appears to be creating a losing cabinet."Our" winner? I didn't vote for him; I voted Green.

I'm disappointed, but not shocked. Our politics are pretty screwed up. I guess we can look forward to another four years of global wars.Yeah. The question is: Will you let the Dems sucker you into supporting their lesser-of-two-evils corporate warmonger (whoever it may be) again 4 years from now? Did they fool you 4 years ago? And 4 years before that? And...and...and...?

--Dixon

babaruss

11-21-2008, 10:06 PM

Outraged, sure. Disappointed, nope, because I expected it. All the signs have been there all along, as I tried to tell the starry-eyed liberals all around me.

"Our" winner? I didn't vote for him; I voted Green.

Yeah. The question is: Will you let the Dems sucker you into supporting their lesser-of-two-evils corporate warmonger (whoever it may be) again 4 years from now? Did they fool you 4 years ago? And 4 years before that? And...and...and...?

--Dixon

Progress gentlemen...not perfection... that is the way life unfolds.
"Here a little there a little".. as that old fart Isaiah once said.
Russ

Dixon

11-21-2008, 10:09 PM

[QUOTE]Obama was truly "the people's candidate."

Well, out of the ones that the ruling class owners of all our major media allowed to become front-runners, anyway. A "kinder and gentler" figurehead for the corrupt empire, the better to keep us pacified. And yes, he is a little better than the Repubs; that's how the game works.

The nation is just plain tired of Nader. Everyone knows his shrill voice...

I'm so tired of Nader-bashing. He's an amazingly dedicated guy who has, through his steadfast opposition to the depredations of the corporate oligarchy over many years, created more progressive change than almost anyone.

...and those who know a bit about psychology know he's just a narcissist who's out to inflate his own ego.

I have a BA in Psychology and MA in Counseling, Jeff, and I don't see it that way at all. For many years he had thousands if not millions of people begging him to run for President, and he refused election after election, saying that the Democrats would handle the problems. Only after the Democrats consistently proved that they were part of the problem rather than the solution did he throw his hat into the ring. If he were narcissistic he would have done so 20 years earlier instead of deferring to the Dems.

I think McKinney would make a fine president and I wish her voice was better known. Perhaps that will happen in the years to come.

Well, that will probably only happen if people do what I did and actually vote for her.

Regards;

Dixon

Dixon

11-21-2008, 10:15 PM

Oooops--I forgot to recommend the documentary on Nader, "An Unreasonable Man", for a realistic look at him, as opposed to the shrill Nader-bashing we hear so much. Remember, when people with progressive values attack one another, the grease-dripping jowls of the ruling elite jiggle with delighted laughter.

Dixon

I'm so tired of Nader-bashing. He's an amazingly dedicated guy who has, through his steadfast opposition to the depredations of the corporate oligarchy over many years, created more progressive change than almost anyone.
...For many years he had thousands if not millions of people begging him to run for President, and he refused election after election, saying that the Democrats would handle the problems. Only after the Democrats consistently proved that they were part of the problem rather than the solution did he throw his hat into the ring. If he were narcissistic he would have done so 20 years earlier instead of deferring to the Dems.

babaruss

11-21-2008, 10:29 PM

Oooops--I forgot to recommend the documentary on Nader, "An Unreasonable Man", for a realistic look at him, as opposed to the shrill Nader-bashing we hear so much. Remember, when people with progressive values attack one another, the grease-dripping jowls of the ruling elite jiggle with delighted laughter.

Dixon

Wow fantastic imagery there Dixon.
Keep it up and I might just become frightened (rather than become enlightened).
Demonizing the enemy is what we do when we go to war.
Gooks, slope, chinks, japs. krauts, towel heads,... hey what's to like about people like that ?
As long as those with whom we disagree are demonized, there will be no hope of reaching them, let alone persuading them to rethink their ways of being.
Russ

Dixon

11-22-2008, 11:41 AM

Wow fantastic imagery there Dixon.
Keep it up and I might just become frightened (rather than become enlightened).

The two aren't mutually exclusive. When we wake up from consensus trance and become enlightened about how corrupt and brutal the "system" is, a certain amount of appropriate fear, especially if it motivates us to constructive action, is an enlightened response. If you think that "negative" emotions such as fear are to be entirely avoided (more accurately, repressed), I urge you to meditate a little more deeply re: how the One manifests through both light and darkness.

Demonizing the enemy is what we do when we go to war. Here's a news flash, Russ: You're at war whether you like it or not, because the global ruling class is conducting class war on even the most peaceful of us daily. As far as demonizing the enemy goes, I don't think that's what I'm doing. Is it demonizing to use accurate descriptions (and accurate metaphors) based on people's actual behavior (as opposed to their race, nationality or whatever)?

Gooks, slope, chinks, japs. krauts, towel heads,... hey what's to like about people like that?These racist stereotypes, often used to justify wars of aggression, are quite different from my unflattering characterization of the ruling class, which was based not on race, but on their brutal, corrupt and greedy practices which are fucking us all over and destroying the planet for short-term profit. If you're implying that my characterization of the ruling class is on a par with such racist stereotypes, well that's both inaccurate and insulting. It seems like a passive-aggressive swipe at me, Russ, which belies your apparent self-image as a peaceful, enlightened, non-judgmental kinda guy, LOL!

As long as those with whom we disagree...It's not about mere disagreement; it's about astounding depths of corruption, brutality and planet-rape on a business-as-usual basis.

...are demonized...Not demonization, just accurate description of something that happens to be very, very ugly.

...there will be no hope of reaching them, let alone persuading them to rethink their ways of being.

Good luck reaching them, Russ. Let me know how it turns out.

Blessings;

Dixon

phooph

11-22-2008, 09:33 PM

theindependenteye

11-22-2008, 10:10 PM

>>Yeah. The question is: Will you let the Dems sucker you into supporting their lesser-of-two-evils corporate warmonger (whoever it may be) again 4 years from now?

Yes, very likely I will. As Russ argues, most productive change is incremental, as maddening as that is. The kind of change that would truly satisfy you or Attila (or me, for that matter) would be revolution, and the only revolution that'll ever take place in this country will be one we really won't like, because I suspect the other guys have more guns than we do.

You seem to suggest that the only ones feeling relatively heartened by Obama's election are naive teenagers in a hot tub, and if we truly knew the score we'd either be donning sackclosh and ashes or, if we were enlightened enough to vote for McKinney or Nader, we could join you in chortling, "See, it's already November 23 and the world is still a vile shithole!"

I've been fulminating at the follies of humanity in general and this country in particular since 1955, at the age of 15, so I feel a little miffed at johnny-come-latelies who castigate me for not being miserable right now. Come to our reading at Coffee Catz tomorrow and we’ll make sure to include some really depressing stuff.

My own sense is that Barack Obama is a very good Chicago politician, who will play the system ruthlessly to make small gains. That means assembling a team who knows how the game is played -- not people who'll take six months to find where the restrooms are. It's hard to imagine assembling any *effective* administration without inclusion of a large percentage of individuals with blood on their hands or shit on their lapels.

I would be very surprised if significant changes don't happen in foreign policy, environment, labor law, and health care. The war, I don't know; civil liberties, I don't know, though I think the extremities will be withdrawn. I think it'll be less likely that the Supreme Court will be lobotomized. I think in the long run more of us will be benefit from the change than not.

Will humanity in general be better off? I don't know. At this point I'm more interested in anything that will make people's lives a bit better, in whatever way. This guy got 52% of the vote, not 95% of the vote, and he'd be insane to assume he had a mandate for a New Age utopia, with Kucinich as Secretary of Peace giving yoga instruction to four-star generals. (It's fun to imagine, though.)

I agree that money buys big armies and rules the world. But it doesn't follow, for me, that there's an over-arching, coherently mind-melded ruling elite for whom all politicians are mere errand-boys. I see it as a vast, shifting field of forces -- like the feudal push-pull between the king, the nobility, the church, and the free cities, or the constant rejuggling of alliances in Europe from the Renaissance to the late 20th Century, the weak playing the strong against the strong to find some wiggle room. A politician may indeed be in the pocket of one vested interest, but it's also possible, if the person's damned good at it, to manipulate forces. You can surely sail against the wind, as Nader, Paul, etc., do, and be admired for grit, but you'll never get out of Bodega Bay.

Compromise -- huge compromise -- is the essence of parliamentary democracy. If you don't like it, then start the revolution, but you're more likely to wind up with a Hitler than with the Dalai Lama.

That's my take on it anyway. Nothing personal, it's just my day off.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

toddwquigley

11-23-2008, 12:25 AM

Obama is doing what he has always done, I guess you all didn't look at his history which is to tell people what they want to hear, and then do the exact opposite. The citizens of Illinois are still waiting for the tax breaks (they got tax increases instead) and all the other things he promised 10 years ago in order to get elected to the State Senate.

Obama is the most controlled puppet we have ever had, do you actually think he makes any of the decisions? He sold his soul years ago, and has been nothing but a carefully groomed puppet ever since. He says what they tell him to say, and he does what they tell him to do, and that's all he does.

The only difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama is black, and calls himself a Democrat, and Bush is white and calls himself a Republican. They are both controlled by the exact same people, with the exact same agenda. They are two sides of the same coin: Opposite on the outside, but the same on the inside.

OK, there is one difference, Bush's family is one of the small group of financial elite that actually calls the shots, so he has insider knowledge of what's really going on, while Obama is not that high up the ladder, and is left in the dark until they tell him what to say.

You people expected anything different? Hilarious!!!

You fell prey to the carefully manipulated polarization of politics that ensures that a centrist never actually gets into a position of power (Of course if a centrist accidentally does become President, they get removed, just like Lincoln, McKinley and JFK)

As long as you keep on being distracted by silly things like gay marriage, social medicine and abortion, as they endlessly bounce back and forth to no final decision to keep you distracted so that you don't think about the big picture, and as long as you stay polarized to the hard to the left or right, you are just a closed minded pawn, and part of the problem, not the solution.

Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama: "40 years of the exact same thing".

Get ready for OBush's third term, you begged for it.

toddwquigley

11-23-2008, 11:42 AM

See, it's already starting:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.

Neshamah

11-23-2008, 12:27 PM

Voters get what they vote for. (And not voting is the same as voting for the winner, so thank you Mykil.)

Republican Chuck Hagel at least regrets his support for giving Bush a blank check in 2002. Clinton does not even do that, and her family's attempt to force her into his administration foreshadows what kind of a team player she will be.

Obama is not Bush, so I do have a reasonable amount of hope for the future. His website does have a place for input, and maybe it gets read. Let him know the status quo is unacceptable. I am just glad I live in a one-sided state and had the luxury of voting for a third party.

~ Neshamah

Tars

11-23-2008, 12:52 PM

Working with the 'enemy' instead of battling with them makes a hell of a lot of sense too. That's where Obama really got my attention ! Inclusive not seperate and apart.

It was the same for me. Amazing how many people aren't at all happy, unless their particular sliver of the electorate gets into power, at the cost of everyone else. One would think that, after the debacle of the last eight years, they'd get a clue. Just because all people won't join consensus, doesn't make it any less valuable a goal.

About Nader: I know that he has popularity on this forum far FAR beyond almost anywhere else. I don't really have strong feelings about him one way or another. He's well-intentioned I'm sure. Unfortunate that in recent history his biggest contribution was a negative effect on election outcome. I was relieved to see that in this presidential election almost everyone except a minute percentage ignored him, along with his conservative counterpart, Barr. I think that by now almost all people realize that a good gadfly would probably make a horrendously ineffective president.

theindependenteye

11-23-2008, 12:55 PM

>>Clinton does not even do that, and her family's attempt to force her into his administration foreshadows what kind of a team player she will be.

Hi--

What's your source for the information that she's being forced by family into the Cabinet? I haven't read anything to that effect.

Cheers--
Conrad

babaruss

11-23-2008, 02:11 PM

It was the same for me. Amazing how many people aren't at all happy, unless their particular sliver of the electorate gets into power, at the cost of everyone else.

I am a bit dismayed by the persistent demand for instant gratification which seems to permeate young minds today. Likewise their unimaginable call for formenting blazing revolutions in order to bring about change.

Time can be an excellent teacher, and it's a pity the lessons that come with age and experience aren't transferable to young people.

Lest anyone think age and experience lays claim to all knowledge, or is in any way the last word..let it be made clear ...I'm very aware how of far behind this new generation I am, at least where it comes to education, technical advances, communications skills etc.

I do have the advantage of a knowing that the wheels of change do grind slowly, and what they produce is rarely enough to satisfy most my desires.
Still, I am willing to temper my responses in accordance with the understanding that a move forward is better than sliding back into the abyss.

Likewise, I have a better understanding of what blazing revolutions canlook like.
It's one thing to shoot 'em up on video game where it's all clean and tidy.

It's quite another to stand over an 'enemy's' body smelling blood, shit, and whatever meal he has but partly digested.
It's a god awful thing to look into dying eyes, seeing (for the very first time) he is just another human being ...one who happens not to look like me ... one who not doubt also bought into the 'fight for God and Country' ploy.

Damn me if my heart doesn't still stir when certain marching tunes are played.
Damn me again for having ever believed in fighting for God, Country, and Freedom was ever an honorable course of action.

Young males have been biting on that kind of rotten bait for as far as as recorded history goes, and then a hell of a lot more.

And damn me again because there is nothing I can do to change their minds.
Russ

Neshamah

11-23-2008, 04:58 PM

Conrad,

I'm sorry, I wasn't writing very carefully. No one is forcing Clinton to do anything. Rather, Hillary and Bill Clinton are trying to force Obama to pick her as Secretary of State by making it appear that to do otherwise would be a very public snub. I cannot think of any other reason the Clintons so quickly made it public that she was under consideration. If selected, they will continue to do what they can to manipulate him. If he can stand his ground this time, I am fairly optimistic about the next four years. If he caves this early, well, he's still someone other than Bush, so I won't lose all hope.

~ Neshamah

toddwquigley

11-23-2008, 10:27 PM

Let's just call him "Bushama", or do ya'all you like "OClinton" better?

Change: Yes, he changes what he says every other day.
Hope: I sure hope you don't really believe him.

Let's see, in just the last 18 days:

No tax decreases for the poor and middle class.
No tax break rollbacks for the rich.
His "new politics" are Clinton's ex's.
We won't be out of Iraq in the foreseeable future.

18 days and he has already broken his 4 biggest promises, how much longer are you fools going to believe the liar?

"I will only use public funding", "I do not support offshore drilling", "I would never disown Jeremiah Wright" etc, etc.

I guess if somebody tells you what you really want to hear, then you really believe him even when confronted with the opposing truth, but this kind of self delusion has never had any appeal to me.

I'll bet people are sporting "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers before he gets inaugurated...

Sonomamark

11-24-2008, 09:15 PM

Concern-troll much?

First of all, tax cuts for the bottom 95% are still planned.

Secondly, while there is discussion of waiting to overturn the Bush tax cuts for the rich, this is actually recommended even by some very progressive economists right now, because the economy is in free-fall. The cuts will expire in 2010 and there is NO discussion out of the Obama shop of extending them.

Third, where do you propose he find experienced and knowledgeable people who can fill appointment seats if you propose he must avoid all of those who had roles in the Clinton administration? You think he should bring back 80-year-olds who served in the Carter administration? Or do you think he should do as Bush did, and fill the seats with ideological hacks and incompetent cronies?

Fourth, Obama never promised to take public financing--he promised to "enter a discussion" with McCain to reach an agreement on it. But more importantly, his campaign was consistent with the SPIRIT of public financing, which is to take politics out of the hands of the wealthy and level the playing field for ordinary people. With 3.1 million donors at an average of $86 each, Obama ran the most grassroots-fueled campaign in living memory, and probably in the entire planet's history.

Fifth, I don't know where you got the nonsense about Iraq, but the 16-month timetable is still the Obama plan...more than that, the SOF agreement the Iraqi government is insisting on only goes a few months after that, so the troops ARE coming out.

Sixth, he DIDN'T "disown" Jeremiah Wright. AFTER Obama's race speech, Wright went aggressively public with even more inflammatory statements, and Obama--rightfully--said he'd had enough. He first defended him, then placed his statements in the context of the complexities of race in our society, and only after all that, when Wright basically forced it on him, did he give up on him. That's not Obama's fault.

Seventh, Obama never had a hard-and-fast position against offshore oil drilling. He voted against it--pretty much a party-line vote--but his primary point on it has been that we can't drill our way out of the problem, and that remains his position. He's looking at appointing Raul Grijalva as Secretary of the Interior, who would be the greatest environmentalist at that position in history, more so even than Bruce Babbitt.

Eighth and finally, have you noticed he's not President yet?

Maybe before hitting that righteous-indignation pipe one more time, you could wait until the Obama administration has been in charge for awhile, and find out what happens. Oh, and follow the news, that would be good, too.

Mark

Let's just call him "Bushama", or do ya'all you like "OClinton" better?

Change: Yes, he changes what he says every other day.
Hope: I sure hope you don't really believe him.

Let's see, in just the last 18 days:

No tax decreases for the poor and middle class.
No tax break rollbacks for the rich.
His "new politics" are Clinton's ex's.
We won't be out of Iraq in the foreseeable future.

18 days and he has already broken his 4 biggest promises, how much longer are you fools going to believe the liar?

"I will only use public funding", "I do not support offshore drilling", "I would never disown Jeremiah Wright" etc, etc.

I guess if somebody tells you what you really want to hear, then you really believe him even when confronted with the opposing truth, but this kind of self delusion has never had any appeal to me.

I'll bet people are sporting "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers before he gets inaugurated...

Sonomamark

11-24-2008, 09:32 PM

You know, this is the version of what's going on that's being peddled by conservative media voices--mostly, in my opinion, because they have wishful thinking that they can provoke a civil war in the Democratic Party. But I see no evidence for it. If Barack Obama didn't want HRC as Secretary of State, she wouldn't be asked. There is zero evidence that the man can be pushed to do things he doesn't want to do.

To me, it makes sense, from both a policy and a political standpoint. On policy, the Clintons are well-respected internationally. And the policy will be SET by Obama, not the Secretary of State. Rather than being outside and able to criticize, she will have to stand up for his policy.

Politically, it works great for Obama. If she were in the Senate, she could undermine his foreign policy and horn in on health care reform, which she desperately wants to get credit for.

From her standpoint, it makes sense because she wants to be more than just a junior Senator, and she is a long, long way from having the seniority to really be important in the Senate. She's unwilling to wait that long.

But by taking State, she's stuck until 2016. There's no way she can challenge Obama from inside his Cabinet--agreeing to serve is an endorsement of his policies and an acknowledgment of his fitness to lead. So for Obama, it's checkmate: he gets her expertise, her intelligence and her standing, and completely defangs her ability to challenge him in 2012.

It's brilliant.

Make no mistake. This guy is not just an inspiring speech maker. He is a very, very smart political strategist. Giving State to Hillary is a way for him to keep her exactly where he wants her and sharply curtail her ability to do him any harm. It helps her to get out of her Senate backwater, but gives her almost no freedom of movement until he's in his second term.

Mark

Conrad,

I'm sorry, I wasn't writing very carefully. No one is forcing Clinton to do anything. Rather, Hillary and Bill Clinton are trying to force Obama to pick her as Secretary of State by making it appear that to do otherwise would be a very public snub. I cannot think of any other reason the Clintons so quickly made it public that she was under consideration. If selected, they will continue to do what they can to manipulate him. If he can stand his ground this time, I am fairly optimistic about the next four years. If he caves this early, well, he's still someone other than Bush, so I won't lose all hope.

~ Neshamah

toddwquigley

11-25-2008, 12:56 AM

Concern-troll much?

First of all, tax cuts for the bottom 95% are still planned.

Yeah, when??? He said they would be a first priority. I plan to fly through the air like Superman, and even though I have put it aside, I still plan to do it. You will get your tax breaks right after I flay across the Pacific in a reda and ble suit.

Check with the people of Illinois: He promised them tax breaks 10 years ago to get elected, and they got tax raises instead.

Secondly, while there is discussion of waiting to overturn the Bush tax cuts for the rich, this is actually recommended even by some very progressive economists right now, because the economy is in free-fall. The cuts will expire in 2010 and there is NO discussion out of the Obama shop of extending them.

Again, he said he woul overturn the tax breaks before they ran out, and yet again somebody made him change his mind.

Third, where do you propose he find experienced and knowledgeable people who can fill appointment seats if you propose he must avoid all of those who had roles in the Clinton administration? You think he should bring back 80-year-olds who served in the Carter administration? Or do you think he should do as Bush did, and fill the seats with ideological hacks and incompetent cronies?

He said there he would not fill his cabinet with Washington insiders, he has. I really don't care where he finds new blood as long as he does, but he won't, because his handlers will not let him.

Fourth, Obama never promised to take public financing--he promised to "enter a discussion" with McCain to reach an agreement on it. But more importantly, his campaign was consistent with the SPIRIT of public financing, which is to take politics out of the hands of the wealthy and level the playing field for ordinary people. With 3.1 million donors at an average of $86 each, Obama ran the most grassroots-fueled campaign in living memory, and probably in the entire planet's history.

Wrong, he flat out promised to take public financing, what channel were you watching. Nice spin, using the word spirit, do you work for Axelrod? Obama took ridiculous amounts of corporate money, try Exxon for example, over $300,000...
Fifth, I don't know where you got the nonsense about Iraq, but the 16-month timetable is still the Obama plan...more than that, the SOF agreement the Iraqi government is insisting on only goes a few months after that, so the troops ARE coming out.

Guess you missed the news the other day, the 16 month timetable is no longer the plan, the new plan is to TRY and remove some troops, with no timeline or deadline guaranteed for withdrawl. Guess what, Obama doesn't really have any say about that anyway, the people who control him do. Do you really think he makes up his own mind? LOL!!!

Sixth, he DIDN'T "disown" Jeremiah Wright. AFTER Obama's race speech, Wright went aggressively public with even more inflammatory statements, and Obama--rightfully--said he'd had enough. He first defended him, then placed his statements in the context of the complexities of race in our society, and only after all that, when Wright basically forced it on him, did he give up on him. That's not Obama's fault.

Wrong yet again, he said that he would never disown J W and Trinity after JW's "God Damn America" speech came out, that lasted 3 weeks before he cut all ties. Stop making excuses for him, he did what he did.

Seventh, Obama never had a hard-and-fast position against offshore oil drilling. He voted against it--pretty much a party-line vote--but his primary point on it has been that we can't drill our way out of the problem, and that remains his position. He's looking at appointing Raul Grijalva as Secretary of the Interior, who would be the greatest environmentalist at that position in history, more so even than Bruce Babbitt.

Oh come on, he flip-flopped back and forth on this so many times in a 2 week period that it was ridiculous, personally I lost track, is for or against now?
Eighth and finally, have you noticed he's not President yet?

Yes, that's my point exactly, 20 days later, and he has already backtracked virtually everything he said and promised. No surprise to me, I looked at his history, and his history is to tell the people whatever they want to hear, and then do whatever his handlers tell him to do, which is usually 180 degrees from what he promised.

Maybe before hitting that righteous-indignation pipe one more time, you could wait until the Obama administration has been in charge for awhile, and find out what happens. Oh, and follow the news, that would be good, too.

Why wait, I saw enough 18 months ago, he's the biggest liar I've ever seen, he makes Bush and Cheney look like angels.

I follow the news, and with brand Obama, it changes constantly, because what he says and then does never matches up. I also look at the old news, the news everybody else seems to forget after a few days. Try getting your information from different sources, instead of just listening to the news that you want to hear. The media has tried their best to cover for him, but they just can't keep up with him. Too much of the truth is still out there, and they can't change it all.

Orwell was right: "War is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength". Go read 1984 and Animal Farm again, we are living them right now. Obama is a puppet for the same people that controlled Bush, there is no difference except in your mind, which is exactly what they want.

Sonomamark

11-25-2008, 09:37 AM

Todd, what part of the words "plan" and "President-ELECT" don't you understand?

There's a lot that's just factually wrong in your reply here. Obama never said that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and implementing the middle class tax cut was "the first priority". Never said it. It's been a centerpiece of the plan. Plans are all that can exist until someone takes office, at which point there are proposals before Congress.

Obama also never said he "wouldn't fill his Cabinet with Washington insiders". Never said any such thing. He said he would bring change, and you have zero evidence that he won't. Nor will you, until he is actually in office. Perhaps you don't understand what the President does, because Bush has been a hand-puppet for his handlers for 8 years.

This guy is going to make the policy, and his appointees are going to implement it. That's how it's supposed to work, and you have no evidence that it won't.

I could go on, but there's little point. Every point you make here is a twisted version of the truth, but not the truth itself. It is the height of idiocy to accuse someone of failing to meet their campaign promises when they haven't even taken office yet. You're just looking for a reason to be outraged.

"Biggest liar I've ever seen"?

Yeah. Right.

SM

Concern-troll much?

First of all, tax cuts for the bottom 95% are still planned.

Yeah, when??? He said they would be a first priority. I plan to fly through the air like Superman, and even though I have put it aside, I still plan to do it. You will get your tax breaks right after I flay across the Pacific in a reda and ble suit.
Check with the people of Illinois: He promised them tax breaks 10 years ago to get elected, and they got tax raises instead.

Secondly, while there is discussion of waiting to overturn the Bush tax cuts for the rich, this is actually recommended even by some very progressive economists right now, because the economy is in free-fall. The cuts will expire in 2010 and there is NO discussion out of the Obama shop of extending them.

Again, he said he woul overturn the tax breaks before they ran out, and yet again somebody made him change his mind.

Third, where do you propose he find experienced and knowledgeable people who can fill appointment seats if you propose he must avoid all of those who had roles in the Clinton administration? You think he should bring back 80-year-olds who served in the Carter administration? Or do you think he should do as Bush did, and fill the seats with ideological hacks and incompetent cronies?

He said there he would not fill his cabinet with Washington insiders, he has. I really don't care where he finds new blood as long as he does, but he won't, because his handlers will not let him.

Fourth, Obama never promised to take public financing--he promised to "enter a discussion" with McCain to reach an agreement on it. But more importantly, his campaign was consistent with the SPIRIT of public financing, which is to take politics out of the hands of the wealthy and level the playing field for ordinary people. With 3.1 million donors at an average of $86 each, Obama ran the most grassroots-fueled campaign in living memory, and probably in the entire planet's history.

Wrong, he flat out promised to take public financing, what channel were you watching. Nice spin, using the word spirit, do you work for Axelrod? Obama took ridiculous amounts of corporate money, try Exxon for example, over $300,000...
Fifth, I don't know where you got the nonsense about Iraq, but the 16-month timetable is still the Obama plan...more than that, the SOF agreement the Iraqi government is insisting on only goes a few months after that, so the troops ARE coming out.

Guess you missed the news the other day, the 16 month timetable is no longer the plan, the new plan is to TRY and remove some troops, with no timeline or deadline guaranteed for withdrawl. Guess what, Obama doesn't really have any say about that anyway, the people who control him do. Do you really think he makes up his own mind? LOL!!!

Sixth, he DIDN'T "disown" Jeremiah Wright. AFTER Obama's race speech, Wright went aggressively public with even more inflammatory statements, and Obama--rightfully--said he'd had enough. He first defended him, then placed his statements in the context of the complexities of race in our society, and only after all that, when Wright basically forced it on him, did he give up on him. That's not Obama's fault.

Wrong yet again, he said that he would never disown J W and Trinity after JW's "God Damn America" speech came out, that lasted 3 weeks before he cut all ties. Stop making excuses for him, he did what he did.

Seventh, Obama never had a hard-and-fast position against offshore oil drilling. He voted against it--pretty much a party-line vote--but his primary point on it has been that we can't drill our way out of the problem, and that remains his position. He's looking at appointing Raul Grijalva as Secretary of the Interior, who would be the greatest environmentalist at that position in history, more so even than Bruce Babbitt.

Oh come on, he flip-flopped back and forth on this so many times in a 2 week period that it was ridiculous, personally I lost track, is for or against now?
Eighth and finally, have you noticed he's not President yet?

Yes, that's my point exactly, 20 days later, and he has already backtracked virtually everything he said and promised. No surprise to me, I looked at his history, and his history is to tell the people whatever they want to hear, and then do whatever his handlers tell him to do, which is usually 180 degrees from what he promised.

Maybe before hitting that righteous-indignation pipe one more time, you could wait until the Obama administration has been in charge for awhile, and find out what happens. Oh, and follow the news, that would be good, too.

Why wait, I saw enough 18 months ago, he's the biggest liar I've ever seen, he makes Bush and Cheney look like angels.

I follow the news, and with brand Obama, it changes constantly, because what he says and then does never matches up. I also look at the old news, the news everybody else seems to forget after a few days. Try getting your information from different sources, instead of just listening to the news that you want to hear. The media has tried their best to cover for him, but they just can't keep up with him. Too much of the truth is still out there, and they can't change it all.

Orwell was right: "War is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength". Go read 1984 and Animal Farm again, we are living them right now. Obama is a puppet for the same people that controlled Bush, there is no difference except in your mind, which is exactly what they want.