Well, well...does the world agree with New Hampshire now?? McCain and the tearful Hillary?
The soap opera continues.

David, It's time to see our enemies straight in the face not make up media spin. At least your post is short and sweet

"whole Bush-fatigued world"
Like Sarkozy, Georgia, Annapolis, Turkey, Sunni Awakening, huh. Even Libya, on a good day, has changed his spots.
And Bush is responsible for crisis "fatigue" such as Darfur, Kenya, Bhutto, Nigeria, Yemen, etc.

"by our PostGlobal sample" Hah, you make me laugh there.

Did you buy the Lancet study of October 2006 (note the date) - sure you did!! Typical of global mass media.
Read http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

Coming soon, 2 million Iraqi refugees or 250000? Where did they go, says UN?

Every election we hear the same old song and dance, "(Insert favorite candidate) will bring change to Washington". And every election we hear sound bites of sycophant middle Americans buying it. What a load of garbage. The problem is career politicians serving their own interests, powerful lobbying groups buying political capital, and (donning my tin-foil hat) a government dominated by collusion between Republicans and Democrats to maintain thier monopoly on power. Nothing will "change" because the American people are too stupid (or maybe just too complacent/complicit) to "change" anything. For instance, if "we" really wanted a change, "we" would support a third party in full. Or "we" would at the very least elect a serious outsider. I'm sorry, but Barack Obama doesn't cut the mustard as an outsider. He may be young and black, but he is still a tax and spend Liberal. On the opposite side of the coin, John McCain is still a tax and spend Conservative. Come to think of it, they are all tax-and-spenders. The only one that gives me the slightest glimmer of hope is Ron Paul, but he is about as electable as me...

"It's time for a change."

No, it's TIME FOR CHANGE! Quite a different proposition.

We have had "a change" so many times... in order that things would not change. And they didn't! Same lot, same gangs, same filthy little friends, same profits in same pockets... only, for a brief moment, "a change" of image, or perception, in the populace. And then: no real change. No reality change! Same old rot.

In that case, a change is what ensures things remain the same without it being obvious that they do.

Genuine change would mean turning this plutocracy into a democracy: "of the people, by the people, for the people".

As Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA puts it, referring to Richard Cohen: "Campaign finance reform and government funded elections is the solution... : No Small Change."

Short of that, it means being restricted to "a change" which is no change at all. Only some cosmetic touch up to ensure things remain the same, without it being obvious to the populace, that they do.

That's called: "one's vote making no real difference". Indeed, hardly any difference at all.

The sub-prime mortgage crisis pushed the world’s financial system passed the tipping point in August and the world’s financial system is now collapsing. Just before Christmas, for example the Daily Telegraph of London headlined on Dec. 29 that “Crisis may make 1929 look a 'walk in the park'” Unfortunately, these financial collapses do not happen in a nice, big explosive fireball like in Die Hard 12 or whatever, so 90 percent or so of the population has not really noticed yet.

The financial collapse is already making its effects felt in the real economy. Credit card delinquencies are rising, and holiday sales adjusted for inflation and population growth actually declined, for the first time in memory. But much worse economic hardship is coming. I do not believe there’s any stopping it at this point. These are indicators of a dramatic collapse in what economists call aggregate demand generation – which is what caused the Great Depression in the late 1920s. (See the summary by Franklin Roosevelt's Federal Reserve Chairman, Marriner Eccles, in the Wikipedia entry on the Great Depression.)

None of the candidates – Republican or Democrat – are talking about these financial crises, and the economic onslaught they portend. Hillary brought up the “possibility” of recession in the debate on Saturday evening, but this beast is going to be much worse than a mere recession. Obviously, Bernanke, Bush’s Treasury, and the boys on Wall Street are desperately trying to prevent the beast from slouching into public view before the election this year

The obvious conclusion is that the next president of the United States is going to be dealing with an economic collapse. The extreme level of economic hardship that will likely result is going to make the population more open to radical solutions – Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine – but whether the population will opt for progressive solutions or go the way of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s is, I fear, entirely open to question. It will be a terrifyingly interesting dynamic between the next President and the howls of pain from the mob outside that will determine which way the next president goes in dealing with the economic collapse.

Either we abandon the failed economics of "neo-liberal" radical free markets, demolish the power of Wall Street, and dismantle the structure of speculative finance and return to industrial capitalism and a Keynesian goal of full employment and wage growth, or the United States will cease to exist as a free, democratic republic in the next ten to twenty years. I honestly believe the stakes are that high.

In America, God is white and a WASP, Christ is also white and a WASP, Mary is a blue eyed brunette.
Obama may become the democrats' choice, but WASP America can not live with a Black in the WHITE House.
Look for republicans voting for Obama in New Hampshire. Best strategy for knocking Hillary out of the race.
With this accomplished, you can run the republican doorman of the Waldorf Astoria and win the 2008 election against a Black person.
To hammer the last nail in this coffin, a Black person with a Moslem heritage has ZERO chance of winning ONE electoral vote in the next US presidential elections.
Sorry to say the above, but this is America, Love it or leave it , as the saying goes.

"not just America, but the whole Bush-fatigued world."

Yup, because Bush is the reason that the average Russian goes to the polls and votes for a thug who ruthlessly quashes dissent. Why is the Arab world stuck in a cycle of political and economic stagnation? Bush again. A particularly sinister example of Bush's malfeasance is the way that he engineered the declining birth rates in Europe and Japan - and then cleverly manipulated the cultures of those areas in such a way that they would not be able to integrate foreign replacement workers. Entrenched poverty in all of African and much of South America? Bush was working to keep these areas down for years. I imagine most of these problems will be cleared up a few months after Bush leaves office.

Look. At the end of Bill Clinton's second term, there was no general sense of "Clinton fatigue" in the world. In fact, even here in hyper-partisan America, Bill Clinton left with an approval rating in the 60s. There is a reason for that. Even though the public was scandalized by Clinton's morally repugnant behaviour while President, they largely approved of his agenda and the job he was doing.

Bush fatigue comes from a general sense of malaise that Bush brought upon us through his incompetence and arrogance in office. The entire world simply got tired of hearing him preach about Islamic Fascism abroad while engaging in his own peculiar brand of fascism at home. They became hopelessly bored with his ridiculously optimistic assessments of concerning the war in Iraq, the economy, and of his flat out stubborn, calcified, knee jerk refusal to accept the reality of global warming. Americans grew weary of his transparent fealty to the old failed supply side theories which always tranferring an inordinate share of the wealth produced to the wealthiest, most advantaged citizens in the country at their expense.

No my friends. Indeed, the country may want to see a change from the old culture war paradigm that has dominated recent elections. But, when it comes to fatigue, the Clintons do not hold a candle to the fatigue the world has expressed for Bush.

I believe the US has been true to its' values for the past seven years. We have stood on the side of liberty everywhere. We have asked our friends to stand with us and some have. But we did not ask their permission.We have attacked and killed the jihadists everywhere we could find them. We liberated two countries with almost 50 million people and provided the support they needed to begin governing themselves. We have supported, in less tangible ways democratic revolutions in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. It is true that these are now having difficulties; that only emphasizes how difficult it is to throw off the yoke of tyranny.

And we have done all these things in spite of a loud minority that has found fault with every step. Another important American value is a dissenting opinion. However in my opinion many of the protests of the last few years have not differences of opinion about some policy but rather opposition to America herself. And I find that shameful.

Bush fatigue is real and it is devastating. Even those who believed they had energy for the fight against the Bush Doctrine, against Guantanamo, against, illegal wire tapping, against tax cuts for the super wealthy and big corporations, against the arrogance of withdrawing for a world dialogue by pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty and refusing to acknowledge a world court unless Americans are given a pass, even those people are exhausted by the sheer volume of excesses engineered by Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, et al. I am even dismayed by the monumental contempt for Congress demonstrated by the Executive Branch. We want Bush gone and we want him replaced by someone who will be Mr. Smith goes to Washington, who will decry the backroom deals and the cynicism. We know it is there but we do not have to become it. The problem is that people 'of the Beltway' don’t even see the corruption as problematic. "Everybody does it' is the watch word of the day. Everybody does not do it! So get a grip.

Campaign finance reform and government funded elections is the solution:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010702262_pf.html

No Small Change

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, January 8, 2008; A19

Change. Change. Change. Change. Change.

How? How? How? How? How?

I'm glad you asked.

“First, do some harm -- and I mean real harm. Break the system we now have, in which every two years most members of Congress have to raise millions of dollars to win reelection, in which senators must do the same every six years and presidential candidates every four. Institute the public funding of elections, an idea whose time has surely come. Theodore Roosevelt suggested it in 1907...

There is another way to do this -- compulsory voting. This eliminates the huge costs of get-out-the-vote efforts and, especially, of targeting particular interest groups. In Australia, such a system produces turnouts of 90 percent or so. But telling someone he has to vote is going to seem to many like telling him how to vote. I can't see America adopting such a system.

Of all the candidates who talk about cleaning up Washington, Obama has the best track record. "We have to break the stranglehold that the lobbyists and special interests have on our democracy," he has said...

Still, Clinton has a point. Change will not come from rhetoric, and it will not come by presidential fiat -- banning lobbyists or branding them with an "L." It will come by blowing up a system that is already broken. Congress's only efficiency is as a vacuum for money. Somebody, please, pull the plug.”

Bush-fatigued world! That about says it all. I suppose that Medicare won't pay for Bush-fatigue syndrome treatment. Oops, Medicare is suffering from Bush-fatigue too.

G. Gerson said:

“Rick,

You are disappointed by Obama's position on the Israel-Palestine problem, and you say this is a very important issue.

Then, why do you plan to vote for Obama?

It doesn't make any sense to me.”

I replied:

“Because no one else will take a balanced stance on this issue either. Mainly because it is political suicide given the media bias and resulting ignorance of the American public. I still have hope that Obama will change his stance (back to his original position) once he has been elected, or perhaps in his second term, when he doesn’t have to worry about another election”

The other point that I and others have made is that Obama has the rare ability to inspire the country to take the steps that are required.

See Cayambe above:

“Obama is the real deal. He has the gift of inspiration, of elegant oratory, of infusing pride and hope and will into an audience. He has the capacity to bring more unity to this nation for the purpose of doing some of the large things needing to be done. We shall have to hope that he will be wise in assembling a team capable of working together constructively.”

Also see David Brook’s (a conservative columnist who normally sides with Republicans) opinion piece in today’s NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

“Obama’s great skill is his ability to perceive and forge bonds with other people. Everybody who’s dealt with him has a story about a time when they felt Obama profoundly listened to them and understood them. One of mine came a few years ago.
I was writing columns criticizing the Republican Congress, but each time I’d throw in a few sentences slamming the Democrats, subconsciously trying to make myself feel good. One morning I got an e-mail message from Obama that roughly said: David, if you want to critique us, fine. But you’re just throwing in those stray sentences to make yourself feel good.

I felt like a bug pinned down in a display case.

Out of that perceptiveness comes a distinct way of seeing the world. Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of his rivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you’ll get a nation standing up...”

Cayambe,

Who are you? You are brilliant. Why don’t you run president? You have my vote as soon as Obama finishes his second term.

Thanks for the post.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

If you're worried why U.S. jobs are all going to China and chinese goods are flooding America you should look back how a democrat president (Clinton) started them all. If you are worried why Al Qaeda has become big and powerful and able to strike the U.S., you should look back how a democrat president (Clinton) allowed the taliban in Afganistan to be left alone and do their business as usual. If you are worried why Christians are now very active in politics, you should look back how a democrat president (Clinton) fanned their frustrations on how America has gone to the dogs. NO MORE DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT. They are all trouble starters. All these troubles we have started all from a democrat president so take a look back.

I quoted the headline wrong, it should have said "The World Agrees With Iowa" but since he won it appears to say that Obama is the only one who advocates change, since he won in Iowa. My opinion of the headline remains the same.

Re: opinions around the world

from thailand...

Go tell your Mamma....

IM VOTING FOR OBAMA!

My protest is the headline of this article, "The World Agrees With Obama." Is this to mean that he is the only one who advocates change? As far as I can tell all the candidates do. Should not the headline read "The World Agrees That America Needs Change."??? Many people read the
headines but not the article, so aren't you guilty of showing predjudice just by your choice of words in the headline? It is a grossly unfair predjudice FOR Obama in a major newspaper that you should be above. Meantime, the comment by you Annette, is the worst example of predjudice I've seen in years... I thought his success in Iowa showed we were finally over that, I guess
except for you. Shame, shame on you. Get educated girl. I'm guessing you are white, and I bet you are guessing I am black. You would be wrong. I'm not black and I am a woman, for those of you who assumed I was a man. The fight against predjudice is not over, but at lest those of you who spout it are the "minority" now.

MR.OBAMA looks more like the rest of the world than any other presidential contender,he speaks in clear terms and not veiled threats. the world feels he will TRULY seek peace as the first option when dealing with perceived threats abroad .he realizes we don't need to kill everyone we disagree with. how refreshing and calming that notion is.

I think its Mrs. Clinton whole world is looking for to as President of America. She's everything that an ideal world leader required to have.

In Iowa she lost. But I have faith in her. She will make a strong come back and overwhelm Obama.

Can we elect a President who does not make our problems worst? CHANGE, EXPERIENCE?-how about good judgment. Economically, we must deal with our deficits. Global warming, medicare, are massive issues right in front of us. Commercial influences have corrupted the political process and independent media coverage of the issues. Take a look at Medicare Part D. In my 64 years(40 in Wash,DC)-OUR PRESIDENTS HAVE CREATED MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY HAVE SOLVED.

Can we elect a President who does not make our problems worst? CHANGE, EXPERIENCE?-how about good judgment. Economically, we must eventually deal with our deficits. Global warming, medicare, upcoming crisises are right in front of us. Commercial influences have corrupted the political process and independent media coverage of the issues. Take a look at Medicare Part D. In my 64 years(40 in Wash,DC)-OUR PRESIDENTS HAVE CREATED MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY HAVE SOLVED.

PUBLIUS OF IDAHO,
Your post is what I would call pungent writing, and I intend it to be taken as a complement. I particularly like the second half of the first paragraph. The point was beautifully made.

David wrote:
“America needs to be true to its own values. It needs to reconnect with the qualities that made America powerful and respected. What's striking to me is that the world (as represented by our PostGlobal sample) and the voters of Iowa are sending the same message: It's time for a change.”

No David, it is not time for a change, which has just become a meaningless word. Better we simply set out to reconnect with what made us respected and admired.

Begin with The Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) that gives government its legitimacy and establishes its subordinate role to the people it serves. Nowhere does it empower one people to establish a government for another people. The invasion of Iraq would have appalled Mr. Jefferson.

Move on to re-establish constitutional norms, the rule of law, even unto the President, at war or not. In particular re-establish the full individual protections outlined in the Bill of Rights, protections we might note, from the over reach of Government. Part of that includes gutting the Patriot act of powers not under court supervision (eg. FBI gimmes).

Extend the right of habeas corpus in some form to any person held in US custody anywhere in the world. It is fundamentally inhumane to incarcerate people at will and indefinitely without some recognized form of due process. Besides that, it is a really stupid thing to do.

Just ban all forms of “physically enhanced interrogations” from any organ of government. It cannot be regulated, it is not worth it, and it is unacceptable in any case to the American self-image.

Reformulate our foreign policy to exclude pre-emptive wars and/or military interventions without both appropriate authorizations and just cause. Maintain the military capability to immediately attack and destroy any state or party that dares to attack us. Disclaim all imperial ambitions and policing duties in this world. Do not meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations.

We need a real energy program which both addresses our vulnerability to the oil industry and to greenhouse gases. That means we have to belly up to the nuclear power bar in a big way and come to grips with Yucca Mountain. Think this will be easy?

We really do need to fix the healthcare mess but we need some reality here. By law we mandate that everyone actually gets healthcare, but only some of us pay for all of it. The fact of the matter is the healthcare system will still need mechanisms to limit the flow of funds into it and distribute those rationally.

Do give Bush some credit. He did try to take on the Social Security mess, single-handedly with little help from Republicans and no help from Democrats. It needs to be fixed and junking the cap as Obama proposed is a damn good start on it.

Medicare has got to be fixed and is to some extent hostage to fixing the healthcare system and costs. Still, as my fellow seniors grow to be an ever-larger percentage of the population for longer and longer, it’s going to be tough avoiding national bankruptcy. Sooner or later we need to face the need for a less expensive way to expire, as all of us will eventually do, without the fruitless application of expensive machinery at 3000 bucks a day, or more.

I am just sick of hearing the term “change” which every single one of these turkey’s claims to offer, to bring. Let us just get down to what in hell we are going to do. The same goes for “fighting for you”, “…for the middle class”. Edwards keeps yammering on about fighting the corporate interests for the middle class. Pray tell, just what specific interest will he fight for what specific benefit? Beats me.

Obama is the real deal. He has the gift of inspiration, of elegant oratory, of infusing pride and hope and will into an audience. He has the capacity to bring more unity to this nation for the purpose of doing some of the large things needing to be done. We shall have to hope that he will be wise in assembling a team capable of working together constructively.

PUBLIUS OF IDAHO,
Your post is what I would call pungent writing, and I intend it to be taken as a complement. I particularly like the second half of the first paragraph. The point was beautifully made.

David wrote:
“America needs to be true to its own values. It needs to reconnect with the qualities that made America powerful and respected. What's striking to me is that the world (as represented by our PostGlobal sample) and the voters of Iowa are sending the same message: It's time for a change.”

No David, it is not time for a change, which has just become a meaningless word. Better we simply set out to reconnect with what made us respected and admired.

Begin with The Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) that gives government its legitimacy and establishes its subordinate role to the people it serves. Nowhere does it empower one people to establish a government for another people. The invasion of Iraq would have appalled Mr. Jefferson.

Move on to re-establish constitutional norms, the rule of law, even unto the President, at war or not. In particular re-establish the full individual protections outlined in the Bill of Rights, protections we might note, from the over reach of Government. Part of that includes gutting the Patriot act of powers not under court supervision (eg. FBI gimmes).

Extend the right of habeas corpus in some form to any person held in US custody anywhere in the world. It is fundamentally inhumane to incarcerate people at will and indefinitely without some recognized form of due process. Besides that, it is a really stupid thing to do.

Just ban all forms of “physically enhanced interrogations” from any organ of government. It cannot be regulated, it is not worth it, and it is unacceptable in any case to the American self-image.

Reformulate our foreign policy to exclude pre-emptive wars and/or military interventions without both appropriate authorizations and just cause. Maintain the military capability to immediately attack and destroy any state or party that dares to attack us. Disclaim all imperial ambitions and policing duties in this world. Do not meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations.

We need a real energy program which both addresses our vulnerability to the oil industry and to greenhouse gases. That means we have to belly up to the nuclear power bar in a big way and come to grips with Yucca Mountain. Think this will be easy?

We really do need to fix the healthcare mess but we need some reality here. By law we mandate that everyone actually gets healthcare, but only some of us pay for all of it. The fact of the matter is the healthcare system will still need mechanisms to limit the flow of funds into it and distribute those rationally.

Do give Bush some credit. He did try to take on the Social Security mess, single-handedly with little help from Republicans and no help from Democrats. It needs to be fixed and junking the cap as Obama proposed is a damn good start on it.

Medicare has got to be fixed and is to some extent hostage to fixing the healthcare system and costs. Still, as my fellow seniors grow to be an ever-larger percentage of the population for longer and longer, it’s going to be tough avoiding national bankruptcy. Sooner or later we need to face the need for a less expensive way to expire, as all of us will eventually do, without the fruitless application of expensive machinery at 3000 bucks a day, or more.

I am just sick of hearing the term “change” which every single one of these turkey’s claims to offer, to bring. Let us just get down to what in hell we are going to do. The same goes for “fighting for you”, “…for the middle class”. Edwards keeps yammering on about fighting the corporate interests for the middle class. Pray tell, just what specific interest will he fight for what specific benefit? Beats me.

Obama is the real deal. He has the gift of inspiration, of elegant oratory, of infusing pride and hope and will into an audience. He has the capacity to bring more unity to this nation for the purpose of doing some of the large things needing to be done. We shall have to hope that he will be wise in assembling a team capable of working together constructively.

The meat and potatoes we never hear from candidates of any ilk is how they actually plan to strike the compromises with those who do not agree their positions. Inspiring a crowd who wants to believe something is relatively easy. But waking into you opponent’s camp and leaving with an agreement is genuine leadership.

Obama is an empty suit. His appeal is strictly to emotions. He speaks of change and hope. He says that that he will evoke the cooperation of all. He is long on charisma and short on planning and execution.

Change makes for winners and losers. Obama has not explained how he proposes to pacify the losers.

His health insurance proposal is not mandatory. The 20 to 40 year olds who have never smoked and exercise every day will opt out. Who will bear the increased expenses of those who opt in? Obama does not explain.

He is not worthy of support.

I would suggest that the new president look to the ocean and by example draw from it the meaning of humility. The Ocean is lowly and is a servant to humanity, and we measure things by the lowliness of "sea level." But the ocean, however lowly, is greatest body of water and all the rivers rush toward it. And as the rivers are drawn to the ocean, humility draws and attracts nations toward a great and humble nation. Even between individuals arrogance is a natural repellant: and however brilliant, it's difficult if not impossible to learn from arrogant individuals. Conversely, humility works as a magnate, it draws people toward it, just as the sea draws the river to it.
The earth and its nations are hungry, no starving to death, for leadership that leads in a spirit of humble service.
It is also vital, to the well being of our great nation, that its leadership consider, at all times, that the vast majority of the earths creatures are people of color and that 83% of humanity practice a religion other then Christianity.

It will make no difference who is our next President. It is our whole foreign policy that needs revamping. Today, the main news was that 5 Iranian gunboats almost risked an attack by our fleet. Why is our fleet there? To protect the oil routes? are we the only country that needs these lanes open? Surely China and almost all European countries need the oil much more than we do. Why isn't the world community Navy involved in this critical stratigic region? Why are we taunting these Middle Eastern countries, if not for one and only reason? Why doesn't the United States declare Israel a protectorate state, commit to a referendum in both Israel and America, have Israel comply with the UN resolutions and since we will guarantee its safety, by declaring that any hostile action against Israel will be considered a hostile action towards the USA and that the USA will use its military and diplomatic force to punish any country that causes harm to Israel?As a grandfather of Jewish-American children, I would like to see Israel protected and guaranteed its survival. If Israel refuses to submit to this referendum, then I believe we should behave the way we did with North Ireland.
It is unfortunate that ALL politicians are indebted to radical organizations that do not have America's interests.Why then must we treat one minority differently than the rest, who have subordinated their ethnicity to their adopted country, America? Why must we not try to solve this thorny problem in a way that will not only ensure Israel's safety, but peace among all its neighbors? This is the 21 century and we all agree that the age of slavery and colonization was a disgraceful period in the history of humanity. Let all of us strive to eradicate these forms of government and let us preserve this wonderfuly Blue Planet for the generations that will follow us.

Seriously though, Iowa has said it and here's looking to definitive support from New Hampshire today. he world is watching, and boy do we love those Iowans who chose hope over fear. Here's looking to America once again taking its RIGHTFUL place of LEADERSHIP in he comity of nations. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. LEADERSHIP WE CAN TRUST. GO OBAMA.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination the Republicans will blow him away thus twenty more years of Republicans in the White house.

I'm a bit confused here. What have African administrative practices, whomever it was that made the comment, have to do with the USA? Does Annette think that the US has been well-administered over the last eight years? Boy.............

Spiderman2 says:

“The Iraq war was justified because they have a lunatic president who wants to destroy Israel just for the sake of causing trouble…”

That’s right Spiderman. We had to launch a preemptive invasion of Iraq, lose 4,000 of our young men’s lives, squander over $1 Trillion of our national wealth, slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, and drive 4 million people into to refugee status in adjacent countries…all to protect the racist Zionist invader and occupier of Palestine.

Thanks for the post.

Poor Bush, he's receiving all the faults as if the U.S. military planners were just following all his orders. The Iraq war was justified because they have a lunatic president who wants to destroy Israel just for the sake of causing trouble. It's the military planning that's faulty because they're doing the police work there when it should be the Iraqis. Their work there should be just to bomb and kill enemies and not to do the police work where they become very easy targets like sitting ducks. If the Iraqis who own their country can't restore peace, so is the Americans. Our help has limits and it should not go beyond the impossible like sacrificing the lives of our poor American soldiers doing the police work while the IEDs are just waiting for them. If they choose to kill themselves, it's not our fault anymore. They will soon tire killing themselves just what happened when the Sunni tribes finally rejected Al Qaeda. If some military planners are listening, I hope they can hire me as adviser. I'm willing to do it for free. Im serious, you really would need my advice. There is still a lot of trouble ahead for America. Iraq would be just peanuts compared to the coming wars ahead. WP knows my email.

Here is what we are talking about:

1. The Zionist invader is occupying stolen land that it acquired by force, with an assist from the world’s superpowers, and so has no grounds for complaint when it is attacked in return by the displaced native population.

2. Israel continues to increase its illegal acquisition of Palestinian land in the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza. It has withdrawn from Gaza (for the moment) but continues to suppress the economy and limit access to vital resources such as water, fuel and electricity.

3. Israel's policy regarding water supply in the West Bank is illegal and discriminates on racial grounds. It flagrantly breaches international law which requires Israel to ensure proper living conditions for the occupied population and to respect the Palestinians' human rights, including the right to receive a sufficient quantity of water to meet their basic needs.”

4. Israel is violating the international law on water since the water resources in the Occupied Territories were integrated into the legal and bureaucratic system of Israel, severely limiting the ability of Palestinians to develop those resources…

5. Israel’s use of groundwater of the Occupied Territories in the settlements is a breach of article 55 of the Hague Regulations.

6. Israel is in breach of Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which prohibits an occupying state from discriminating between residents of occupied territory; since the quantity of water supplied to the settlements is vastly larger than that which is supplied to the Palestinians.

7. Israel is in breach of article 6 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Examination of the current division of water between Israel and the Palestinians leads to the conclusion that this division violates Palestinian rights and contravenes international water law.

8. Even Israel’s own human rights organization considers them to be racist, illegal and “discriminates on racial grounds”.

9. Israel hogs 80% of the regions water supply to keep their swimming pools full and lawns green, while leaving the Palestinians less than half the amount considered necessary for minimum health requirements by the WHO and USAID organizations.

10. The Zionist war criminals have killed more than 6 times the number of Palestinian civilians, as Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.

11. The Zionist war criminals have killed more than 17 times the number of Palestinian children, as Palestinians have killed Israeli children.

12. Your repeated excuses that the Zionists drop leaflets to warn civilian population centers that are about to be bombed back to the stone ages, and apologizes after the fact, are disgusting in the extreme.

13. Your constant whining that suicide bombers kill women and children, a tiny fraction of the women and children slaughtered by the Zionist war criminal, is disgusting in the extreme.

Lydgate says:

“Rick --

So the New York Times is a "rag" owned by the "Zionists?" Life must be very tough for you, having missed out on your chance to participate in the Final Solution. Although it sounds as though you still have aspirations in that regard.”

Thanks for the post Lydgate; you help to make my point. When anyone dares speak out against our government’s unconditional support for Israel’s brutal racist subjugation of the Palestinian people and occupation of Palestine, they are automatically branded as anti-Semite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

“The Final Solution to the Jewish Question (German: Die Endlösung der Judenfrage) refers to the German Nazis' plan to engage in systematic genocide against the European Jewish population during World War II.”

~

Barak Obama is not qualified to be president.

Hope is just another name for wishful thinking. It makes people feel good but hever gets the job done.

People are just drinking the kool-aid.

You have to be able to work inside any organization in order to change it.

An Obama administration would be a nightmare.

~

We live in a global community. Our President is the public face of America - The President is the public fact of good people - and we have had enough of Cowboy Diplomacy.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/06/representing-us-to-the-world/

I agree with you, Joe. But I think that the methane cloud has taken a more solid form.

Do you think that it is ever possible for these retarded Republicans and dim-witted Democrats to ever communicate without calling each other names?

Frankly, the rest of us on this planet see the two parties as a big cloud of methane that needs to dissipate.

Unfortunately, the lingering, festering smell of both parties continues to attack our nostrils.

People like Peter Lombardo, San Francisco, CA provide the rest of us with great entertainment.

People like him manage to blame the Clintons as the cause of all governmental failures and will continue to do so for generations to come.

They practice a "don't ask, don't tell" policy of never, ever questioning the actions of G. W.

Please keep doing it, though. With the writer's strike still going on, the rest of us need the comedy entertainment. :)

There is an illusion held dear in most liberal minds (oxymoron?) that when Bush leaves office there will be some wholesale change in US Policy. Critical thinkers know that this is not possible. Everything in the liberal world revolves around Iraq, so there is no need to waste words discussing much else. No President, Dem or Rep, is going make any moves that will label him or her the one who lost Iraq, especially now that the situation on the ground has turned to precipitously for the better. The more responsible Dems like Biden and Hillary have stated flatly that the course will remain unchanged – brave words spoken to their radically liberal bases.

On the “war on terror” front as well, no president, Dem or Rep, will act to relax monitoring and surveillance activities enacted under Bush and expanded under the current Dem Congress for fear of being labeled the one who allowed the next terrorist attack.

The economy is too close to the brink of recession for taxes to be increased or onerous burdens on industry to be enacted (Kyoto). The only prudent move now is to cut the government tax burden further and hope that will be enough.

Like it or not, the course is set for the major issues and there is scant room for any new President, Dem or Rep, to maneuver.

Watching/reading this all from abroad, this all seems somewhat silly. No candidate can maintain momentum and avoid being trashed for two years. Everybody is already tired of the first group of "front runners" and is moving on to the next ones, like getting a new iPod. Will Obama and McCain maintain momentum until November? We will see.

Then, I see so few discussions of substance, where the main issues are still divided between the two parties. Do you think terrorism is our main challenge? Do you think oil prices should continue to rise? Do you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Or that taxes on the rich should be eliminated/reduced? Then vote for practically any of the Republicans.

Do you think our actions in Iraq, our use of torture, and our reduction of civil liberties are abhorrent? Do you think we should provide health care and a decent education for all Americans, even if we need to pay for them? Do you think "reforms" in D.C. are needed? Do you think that higher taxes might be justified by better government services? Then vote for practically any of the Democrats.

And in either case, you will vote for the candidate most people are not bored or disgusted by in about 11 long months.

Rick --

So the New York Times is a "rag" owned by the "Zionists?" Life must be very tough for you, having missed out on your chance to participate in the Final Solution. Although it sounds as though you still have aspirations in that regard.

I learned a phrase a few years ago in a different context, but it applies here: "Everybody wants progress, but nobody wants change." Now we have everyone, led by Obama, saying they actually want change. Isn't that a hoot!
There's no question that we're in for some rough times ahead, no matter who's president. Even without the war, we'd have the problem of Social Security and the retirement of baby boomers; nuclear proliferation on the Asian subcontinent and possibly the Middle East; soaring oil prices; global warming; the outsourcing of manufacturing and high-tech jobs; an increasingly competitive global market.
The question is how you're going to tackle the problems--ideologically or technocratically. I think it's not an oversimplification to say that Republicans, particularly those who've held sway the past several years, are ideologically driven. Clinton, being the policy wonk that he was, was a technocrat.
I think that the three main Democratic candidates are still mainly technocrats, but they're kind of being forced into an ideological stance because, frankly, it has a certain spiritual power that's rather attractive. Maybe Obama comes off best because he's younger and has a certain charisma. I'd have no problems voting for him. But quite frankly, I guess I have to wonder about anybody who really wants this job.

What are you going to do so that I, a hard WORKING, American keep more of my hard earned money? I'm talking about a very real, significant amount, like $4-5 thousand, not just a measley $300 like Bush gave us? The candidate that tells me he/she is going to let me keep my money will get my vote.

All of our allies see Bush as a leech on our democracy and a moron. Everyone in the world watched as Iowans caucused in a two to one margin Democratic versus Republican in a traditionally purple state. The Iowans chose a Hawaiian because he is a statesman, a skilled politician, and a Constitutional scholar. From Scandanavia to Spain to Sydney, the world is holding their breath for 2009 and the jaw dropping change at the head of our government when Senator Obama takes office.

Honestly sir, do you fail to see the significance or is everything black and white to you?

Here in America, the 70% of us who disapprove of Bush are also some of the people that voted for him. We love America. We just hate Bush, Rove, Cheney and their adminisration. It is only busted neocon logic and rhetoric that says if we dislike Bush and current policy it equates to hating our country.

We love our country and that is why America will give a mandate to clean up after the sludge Rove and Cheney's slash and burn politics has made. Bipartisanship will change and clean up Washington because everyone knows that change is what we need.

Our economy is a wreck. In the fifties corporations payed for a third of the yearly administering of our government. Now they almost pay nothing. All of that cost has been dumped on the middle class. Wall Street is healthy while the middle class hero starves and is tossed out of his house and his job is sent to China. We've been asleep as the affluence of our society has been lose and become the affluent few stockholders.

The worst thing that I've seen from the Bush Administration has happened only recently. A woman being raped serving her country is less important than the bottom line of Halliburton. Halliburton isn't accountable in Iraq and Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, just grins on. The horrifying story of that young woman from Texas is an anecdote now for what the Bush Administration has done to Lady Liberty, the rule of law and the Constitution.

We will restore our Constitution, yes that one President Bush has scuffed at as being, "nothing but a piece of paper," and restore it to the rule of law. And there will be a lot of Republicans and Independants on the liberal side while we do it. And they will restore the Constitution not because they are liberals but because they are Americans and they love their country. And our allies will applaud from across the seas because they love Americans, because they can finally say fair thee well Bush and because they love democracy as well.

G. Gerson says:

“Rick,

You are disappointed by Obama's position on the Israel-Palestine problem, and you say this is a very important issue.

Then, why do you plan to vote for Obama?

It doesn't make any sense to me.”

Because no one else will take a balanced stance on this issue either. Mainly because it is political suicide given the media bias and resulting ignorance of the American public. I still have hope that Obama will change his stance (back to his original position) once he has been elected, or perhaps in his second term, when he doesn’t have to worry about another election

Kim Jonas says:

“I'd have one question for the Democratic candidates:

When 41 or more GOP Senators block cloture on your entire legislative agenda, what do you plan to do about that...”

I think it takes 61 GOP senators Kim, but after the next election there probably won’t even be 41 GOP senators. But you make a good point. Obama will have to educate the American public and get them to pressure their congressmen. And he is an inspirational leader and will be capable of doing that.

Mike says:

“What I hear in this PostGlobal discussion is this: the Post only gives voice to liberals and critics of America. When did the Post turn into such a liberal mouthpiece?”

Maybe you should hang out at the NY Times Mike. They wouldn’t even post my response to their editorial on the election. I guess the Zionists own that rag.

Those of us who love America enough to stand up and speak out when she is on the wrong track are the true patriots.

If one reads the Bible and understands it, it's not the fault of one person why this world is geting in trouble. Replacing Bush would not solve the problem,. In fact world situation is going to get worse. Two many crazy ideas had already engulfed our world beginning with evolution or Monkey Design, communism (watch out for China), atheism and liberalism (U.S and Europe), and religion (Islamist and Catholic liberation theology). All of these are playing their roles now big time. If you people don't know that these are the things that cause trouble then it means you are one of the problem and not only Bush. I'll say it again. Bush will leave in a year but the worse world scenario will only begin. Now get sane and brace for it.

to Mike: Never trust one newspaper, try to read at least 3 and than make up your mind. A newspaper is just a newspaper. Today it is news and tomorrow it is past and trashed or you might use it a second time to wipe your as_s with it and than trash it. That is all what is newspapers about, so why the faz??

Bush is going around on Middle-Eastern TV shows now pumping up his legacy.

Of course folks want something new and promising! Bush's Presidency has been a complete and utter failure on every level by any measure.

People want something better.

You quote HRT, that no nation in Africa has ever been successfully administered. Please, what is your point? C'mon and say it!

We aren't talking about administering a nation in Africa. This is about electing a President of the United States of America.

to berry: What Americans do feel is the money shortish (the price of gold have never been soo high for the last 100 years), and that will bring the biggest change to America and the Americans sinds the big depression of the 1930's. Furthermore those that damaged the good name of America should be ousted and prosecuted, that means that 99% of the men and women (that means 10 to 20 million people) that forms the current administration will be replaced and that is the second big change that will occur in this election year. It is the only way to go and clean the ship to give the u.s. a fresh start. This is my message to the new president.

Iowa is sending a message, inexperience and religous nuts are their choices.

Iowa is sending a message, inexperience and religous nuts are their choices.

In America they say: "Nothing is impossible", that is true, they impossible became possible as mister Bush became president of the u.s.a. although cheating, but he entered the white house as president of the u.s.a.. The world isn't safer after 8 years of Bush reign. The world agrees with that. When I saw Bush for the first time I thought this man is a fraud, he cannot walk and he cannot talk. And I was right, my guts told me eight years ago: "This man is a disaster for the u.s.a., and see what happens now. Everybody that had anything to do with Bush is now declared contaminated and sent away. That counts also for our Dutch government, they will be sent home as well, because they backed a lunatic.. Even a stray cat would do a better job then this administration did the past 8 years.

Where do I start? To repair the inestimable damage done over the past seven years, Americans of every political stripe must remember how, in the past, we learned how to negotiate and compromise with each other to fix the terrible problems we faced. The situation now is dire. Our great nation is hobbled by extremism in both parties...it makes sense that this sort of situation would lead to an undeclared war and a huge gap between the richest and poorest of us. Stop telling us what you think we want to hear...we are bright enough to make a choice once we have a clear idea of each candidate's positions, and anyone who refuses to be clear about where he/she stands on any important issue will be punished by being ignored. I long for our country to be respected world-wide once again. You see the results of elected officials misleading the people...almost 4,000 dead American soldiers, and for what? Their service is honorable...the men and women who sent them there
on the basis of conflating Iraq's bellicosity with
the jihadists who want to kill us, should be prosecuted as liars who ultimately caused the death of these fine young men & women. The truth in all its glory will lead us to a better future. Adhere to it as though your life, and not just your political ambitions, depended on it. See you at the polls!

We do need change and I am pleasantly surprised that the WaPo now recognizes that the neocon program isn't so great. In the past the editorial section has been the mouthpiece for the Cheney/Bush propaganda machine, one of the main cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq and one of the main forces urging us into Iran. Maybe now that the dear leaders are about one year (barring a declaration of martial law installing them as President for Life) from being history, the WaPo is moving back to the center. To prove that you are sincerely interested in sober and responsible editorials, allow Fred Hiatt to spend more time with his family.

I'd have one question for the Democratic candidates:

When 41 or more GOP Senators block cloture on your entire legislative agenda, what do you plan to do about that?

(For obvious reasons, there's no sense in asking the GOP contenders the analogous question. Which is why the 'both sides are equally to blame for Washington gridlock' meme I so frequently find on the Washington Post editorial and op-ed pages is a pile of nonsense.)

What I hear in this PostGlobal discussion is this: the Post only gives voice to liberals and critics of America. When did the Post turn into such a liberal mouthpiece?

I used to think that when Americans would refer to our President as "the leader of the free world" I thought it was a very arrogent statement. Now I see that when we have a horrible president it does cause problems throughout the world. This is the worst president we've ever had. Every citizen on every continent should raise a glass of champaigne, beer, water, O.J., whatever and celebrate the day Bush and Cheney leaves office.

The main everyone is thinking about and not saying out loud is: no more leaders like Bush and Cheney, please. 8 years is a long time to endure for such an incompetent, power-grabbing, supercilious, ignorant, unstatesmanlike leaders. The lies and dissembling were unbearable, rendition, unwarranted wiretapping, torture, the warlike stances all ways all the time - these are all un-American behavior and values. There is a segment of American society that is Bush/Cheney domain, but the majority of America is and was never like that. We want our respect back, the friendships of the world, the goodwill of allies and true leadership.

Please don't limit it to just a Bush-fatigued world. As we saw in Iowa, and are about to see in New Hampshire, the country and the world are real tired of the Clintons, the First Grifters (Washington Post editorial - January 2001). If she doesn't get elected, can we please get them to return the silverware.

Please don't limit it to just a Bush-fatigued world. As we saw in Iowa, and are about to see in New Hampshire, the country and the world are real tired of the Clintons, the First Grifters (Washington Post editorial - January 2001). If she doesn't get elected, can we please get them to return the silverware.

Rick,

You are disappointed by Obama's position on the Israel-Palestine problem, and you say this is a very important issue.

Then, why do you plan to vote for Obama?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

how about regime change!

In response to today’s NY Times editorial page:

I don’t know why we should expect anything else from the NY Times, but I am greatly disappointed that there is hardly ever a mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict either in presidential debates or NY Times or Washington Post editorials. This is probably the preeminent foreign policy issue of our time and as our dear leader says is on the verge of bringing us to WW III.

It is a national disgrace that we continue our unconditional support for the apartheid Zionist invaders who continue their racist subjugation of the Palestinian people and illegal occupation of Palestine.

I intend to vote for Barack Obama in November, but I’m very disappointed in his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The problem is that this issue is not given an honest airing for the American people. As a result, the American people are basically ignorant of this issue, and it would be political suicide for an ambitious politician to address this issue fairly. Just as it would have been political suicide for Hillary to vote against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Here is an article that shows what we are up against. It shows how Barack Obama executed his abrupt flip flop on Palestinian support when he began his campaign for a US Senate seat from Illinois:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel

As a non-American person, I find the whole talk about "change" extremely silly. Every candidate is now in the "change" wagon, even 71-year-old John McCain.

What change?

Some people want universal health care with a single payer; others prefer the current system with light adjustments. Some want to abolish the IRS, others propose to eliminate the federal income tax, and others want Bush's tax breaks made permanent. Some want the troops back from Iraq now; others prefer the troops to stay there until they achieve a clear victory. Some want a huge fence built on the border with Mexico, and 12 million foreigners deported; others want to give those foreigners a legal path to citizenship.

So, nobody agrees on what sort "change" Americans are screaming about?

For the rest of the world, real change is very unlikely. No one expects a Republican President to start withdrawing the troops from Iraq, nor closing down Guantanamo any time soon. By the same token, no one expects a Democratic President ordering the Pentagon to stop selling weapons abroad, nor withdrawing support for brutal dictators when they happen to serve U.S. interests.

There might be some changes though: a well-behaved President who speaks foreign languages may bring people to the table, and get some things done; an experienced diplomat would not make the same blunders GWB has made once and again; a Christian President may have a signficant effect on foreign aid; a woman President may get along -and work more cooperatively- with other women presidents around the globe.

After all... how could the Iowa caucuses represent the world's thirst for change, when they are not even representative of a small, unrepresentative state?

Even though real change is unlikely (i.e. in the unlikely event that Obama wins the Presidency, things will still change little; but he won't win the Presidency, but, yes New Hampshire tomorrow, after that it will be McCain all the way), if it happened, that would still not suffice to restore America to its former position as the sole but also respected super-power that it had been before the two Bushes.

But, maybe, a la Thomas Beckkett, a significant and highly visible does of contrition and self-flagellation might do the trick of restoring America to the position of respect that it commanded, but that will be in a new, tripolar world, no longer unipolar.

I find your conclusion a bit confusing, Annette. What is it that Harry Truman said first? That no nation in Africa has ever been successfully administered? Or is that your comment? If HT said it, he must have been speaking of the European colonialists that ruled most of Africa at the time. He certainly couldn't have meant Egypt, which experienced millenia of successful administration. And I can think of only two other self-ruled african states in Harry Truman's day. If it's your comment, perhaps you'd like to spell out what you are implying.

Regarding dissatisfaction with Congress, there are no doubt a good many people on both the right and the left who are no doubt unhappy that Congress has failed to accomplished what they might like. This is evidence of the standoff between the Republicans and Democrats, and between the President and the Congressional majority party that is precisely what makes people want change. Inability to successfully address difficult issues such as immigration policy or social security and health care reform reflect, in large part, the failure of polititians to be willing to grapple with issues that could hurt their careers or the fortunes of their Party. Presidential leadership can play a major part in setting the stage for good compromise solutions to such issues.

To Annette Reed: Wow! that last line of yours really reveals you. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean? Mr. Obama's success last week really has you racists quaking in your sheets.

No sane person disputes the fact that change is needed in Washington DC, but it isn't just the executive branch that is grievously wounded. Congress got a 14% favorable rating in the last poll, meaning that 86% of Americans polled thought Congress was doing a terrible job. Electing a new "president for change" is not really going to change our government and Congress with a bang. Also, there is some evidence that Obama would not be able to handle the tightly ensconced hardnosed billionaire business leaders now in power. Few of them will be overwhelmed by his inexperience. He talks a good talk, but what he says is lacking in substance. Harry Truman said it first. No nation in Africa has ever been successfully administered.

No sane person disputes the fact that change is needed in Washington DC, but it isn't just the executive branch that is grievously wounded. Congress got a 14% favorable rating in the last poll, meaning that 86% of Americans polled thought Congress was doing a terrible job. Electing a new "president for change" is not really going to change our government and Congress with a bang. Also, there is some evidence that Obama would not be able to handle the tightly ensconced hardnosed billionaire business leaders now in power. Few of them will be overwhelmed by his inexperience. He talks a good talk, but what he says is lacking in substance. Harry Truman said it first. No nation in Africa has ever been successfully administered.

This is the same rhetoric that swept Bush in, in 2000, and nothing changed. It ignites imaginations but you end up with a neophyte in office who makes things worse, not better.

Change requires managing the current system to a particular end. To think that "they way things are done in Washington" is going to change when a new cowboy comes to town will keep us in the same fix that the current cowboy has gotten us into. No matter who gets elected--if a Democrat--the finances and the war efforts of America will change. However, the "way Washington works" will not change unless until those who work Washington make it change. For that to happen, you need an insider, really. It is unpalatable to consider but think about it.