Obama would have no momentum if it were not for 9/11. Osama got the ball rolling and showed that might is never right by making a multi-trillion dollar military establishment look like a crippled Goliath. It has scared the shit out of the West.
Obama is still technically an agent of the establishment. He needs the Democratic Party apparatus to keep him on the ballot list. The main question is; are there enough pissed off voters to give him a personal mandate to forego politics as usual and throw that whole out-dated socio/economic system overboard and set us all on a new course of global cooperation into the 21st Century. Hopefully he has the broadness of mind to see the big picture.
I would take the trouble to enumerate all the necessary changes here and what general policy could replace them , if it were not for the fact that it takes a book to do that and i have already published such a global agenda in “Psyche-Genetics”. With a bit of luck, maybe he will read it.
I don’t know that anyone can answer that question. I believe he has the personality to make major changes if he can escape the chains of Washington bureaucracy. It’s a tough, if not near-impossible task, but of all the candidates I do think he has the best chance of making at least something happen
but have no fear, the left wing totalitarians that run the free and open democrat party will make certain that their queen gets the nod after super tuesday making another magnificant comeback…
Are you insinuating that the President has no affect on what becomes law? What about directions in foreign policy? Economic directives?
Who’s idea was No Child Left Behind?
Since Hillary is a firm supporter of NAFTA, and the WTO, I wonder how she can be called “Left Wing?” This designation would make Obama a “raving leftist?” And if so, Edwards, the only major candidate left, who is against the above economic agreements, I guess he could be called “A Raving lunatic Leftist?”
And Kucinich? Words fail me. I’ve run out of “raving” adjectives.
By any objective standards, Hillary is a right wing Democrat. On key issue after key issue she is politically aligned with Republicans. On many issues she is to the political right of respected Conservatives.
Personally I intensely dislike her politics, but I can be fair enough to note that she is hated for what I consider the wrong reasons. She’s an outspoken woman, which is something I respect. She’s extremely intelligent. She is then transformed into a “shrew” or a “termagant,” for characteristics which they would admire in a man.
It’s a shame that she’s hated for these two admirable personal traits, while residents of La la land don’t have a clue as to her real failings. Among these are the ability to capitalise on the suspensions of the Constitution provided to her by this present administration. She’s supported every violation of the Constitution - But no resident of La la Land will mention this, since they too feel that our country has “too much freedom,” and have welcomed every abuse that Mr. Bush has made.
If she is elected, that will be my one recompense, to hear the screams from them when she uses the rules that George has been so clever to provide her with.
A real shame that Republicans hate Ron Paul almost as much as they hate Hillary. At least he believes in the rule of law and the Constitution; that he believes, as I do, that Mr. Bush should be impeached, which Hillary doesn’t, merely adds to my appreciation.
He continously makes idiotic statements about the place religion has in society, on top of not believing in evolution, he makes a lot of ignorant claims. Well if he doesn’t, i think he’s claimed he doesn’t.
Mr. Paul is in many respects extremely Conservative. But he wishes to impose none of his views on me. If he’s in favor of religion, he manifests that by wanting to allow Private Prayer in schools, in which the government is barred from dictating what people pray.
He is absolutely against the Patriot Act, the Presidents signing statements, the suspension of the Forth and First Amendment. The suspension of Habeaus Corpus.
I can disagree with Mr. Paul, but share with him the commanality of believing in the same American traditions of keeping government out of my private life. Our country will not survive long as a free society with a continuation of either the Bush’s or the Hillaries of this world.
And as Much as I detest Mr. Pauls economic programs, we will survive as a free country if he was the Presdent.
Obama has the a gift of oration that is stirring eneough to rouse an entire nation to action.
Problem is that he is chanting the same old revolutionary mantra of sticking it to the man.
So too Hillary.
Going after the establishment may well rouse the rabble but never inspire the people for real change.
What both need is a clear vision of this nation’s future capabilities once it stops using the dollar as an artificial barrier to the type of large scale global projects that can change everything.
What Obama and Clinton both need right now to do is take a break from campaigning and go on a vision quest.
Strangely enough, only Edwards is attacking Corporations. There is little to choose between the two top Democrats calling for “change,” and the rhetoric of Huckabe, or even Romney or McCain. Everyone is calling for “change,” or “a new direction,” without being too specific.
Jesus help us! Since when is more war, greater degrees of commercial exploitation and the accumulation of private wealth the recipe for real change?
Surely there is someone here with something more original to say?
