Obama is the Democrats' Reagan

he is a force of nature, but the evil things the clinton machine can do still lie down the road. i hope he can overcome them and that voters have decisively rejected the poisoning by the clintons.

A problem with Hillary Clinton is that she cannot in any way, shape or form give the speech that Barack Obama just gave.

And I'm not talking about her rhetorical skills. I'm talking about the content of what Obama said.

He may be lying through his teeth and simply putting on an act, but there is no way in h-e-double-hockey-sticks that she could begin to say any of the things he said without the audience either falling on the floor with laughter or tarring and feathering her and riding her out of town on a rail.

Now, if Obama accepts the VP slot under her, should she get the nomination, what does that say about how much he means what he is now saying?

Ha ha! DEMOCRATS are the party of corruption! Good gravy. Mark you're a rube. Where have you BEEN for the past 7 years? Have you ever heard of the K street project? Tom Delay? Brent Wilkes? Duke Cunningham? Gonzales?

These are Republican officials from the current adminstration!!! What about Halliburton? Blackwater?

Your partisan blinders are incredible. You're on autopilot.

I'm on autopilot? You're so programmed with "keyword" reactionism that you don't understand the whole thing.

You actually think that "halliburton" name dropping is some kind of response to this? Or Blackwater? All the smoke is the yelling ones. There's no fire. No reality, no truth.

oh, and I did mention the real problem: Obama promising that all bad will be fixed by Washington. The biggest lie of all. Anything else pales into nothingness compared to that.

And here you are being a partisan in support of it.

sheesh.

He said nothing. But he said it well.

I remember when political oratory was more than a laundry list of new entitlements. Sadly, it's been that way for so long now that when somebody who is skilled enough to make the latest laundry list sound like a manifesto for Middle America nobody even notices.

If you strip out all the rhetoric and the chanting of the crowds, what do you have?

Free health care for all!
Better schools! Better pay for teachers!
Help for homeowners who can't pay their mortgages!
Make college affordable, and energy cleaner!
Guarantee decent wages and dignified retirement!
No tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas!
End the war in Iraq, and kick the eeevil lobbyists out of Washington! (Because that Magically Fixes Everything!)(Oh, but keep the Planned Parenthood lobbyists, because We Approve Of Them.)

And, of course, if you raise mild doubts about a president's ability to do those things, or even the constitutionality of any of them, why, shucks, that's just the old-style cynicism talking! We've done away with all of that, because it's not white vs. black or men vs. women or Republican vs. Democrat anymore: it's just Past vs. Future, and people who raise objections or ask to see specifics, particularly about the *staggeringly colossal* growth in the Federal Government these stupendously massive new federal entitlements would require are clearly just doubters and naysayers who don't understand that "Yes We Can!" is America's new, improved rallying cry.

I'm not sure what in this speech makes one proud to be an American. Eager to latch on to the nursing apparatus of the swollen and fetid government-provided swine, sure, but proud? Since when were we in this country proud of a state of growing and engulfing dependency on Uncle Sam to provide us with everything from health care to money for the mortgage? Since when have Americans become too stupid to realize that these "freebies" will cost us more of our constricting liberty than we can afford to pay?

It's easy to make a victory dance around the word "change." But not all change is for the better, and there's precious little Obama's offering that is substantially different from anything anyone else is offering. Future presidential candidates won't even bother giving speeches: they'll stand up and recite, like a bad old price/item ad, just how many new toys and goodies they plan to give us if we sell them our votes and what's left of our freedom.

Charles Cosimano,
"The question is going to be, assuming that he can get nominated, will Obama's message work in soundbites?"
I think you're right.
Nuff said.

Mark, nice try. I'm disoriented from your verbal jiu jitsu:

"You actually think that "halliburton" name dropping is some kind of response to this? Or Blackwater? All the smoke is the yelling ones. There's no fire. No reality, no truth."

Eh, you're right, GOP prison sentences and fines, there's no truth in THAT, Mark. Rube. Read a headline.

"oh, and I did mention the real problem: Obama promising that all bad will be fixed by Washington. The biggest lie of all. Anything else pales into nothingness compared to that."

Yeah, right. A campaign promise - those have never been exaggerated before, right? A campaign promise on either side 'pales' in comparison in to actual, illegal bribery and corruption. Rube.

"And here you are being a partisan in support of it. sheesh."

Oh, I know. I'm so partisan I'd rather ignore ... an inspiring politician doing his best to elevate discourse above the Clinton attack machine and race-baiting than the GOP's massive, systemic politicization and corruption that has been documented for the past several years. Oh dear me, Mark. I'm a sinkhole. The nerve of you to try and paint Dems as the party of corruption. No ability to look in the mirror. NICE TRY. Rube.

I did not hear Obama's speech last night when he gave it and cannot (puter problems) listen to it here but I can hear it in the other speaches he's given. I could for the first time in my life vote for a democrat if Obama gets the nod especially if the republicans pick Romney. I have only one fear for Mr. Obama--that he would be more like Jimmy Carter than Regan in that Washington would shut him out. Hillary would be back in the senate to stir up trouble for him. And, we know her vindictive ways. The republicans too (except ironically perhaps for McCain) won't make it easy. My fear is he'd be a lame duck before he started unless we got rid of those who would hold him back. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination I think we are doomed to another Ted Kennedy in the senate for years and years and...Guess that's the lesser of the two evils. Seriously I believe McCain is the best choice because he has proven his ability to work with people on both sides of the isle (heck that's why he isn't running away with the republican nomination).

Obama, as has been said, is articulate. The problem is, he has not articulated his positions, from what I've heard, but only spoken in platitudes and stirring themes. There are cadences of the Black Preacher there, but not so much as to align himself only with that segment of the population. I've seen/heard him dance around tough questions.

He is now catching the "Change" wave, hoping to ride it all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But there is a difference between aiming for the stars and perhaps thereby catching the sun and the moon in the bargain (or as compensation for one's lofty but failed efforts), and promising people the moon when the promise is made with skywriting - pretty-looking, but ephemeral and insubstantial.

I wish there were more "there" there, or that his politics weren't as liberal and socialist as they seem to be.

His troops have heard the battle cry. They have a leader and a theme. They feel victory, against formerly overwhelming odds, is perhaps in their reach.

The battle begins.

WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Like I said before, what will Obama DO that will be transformative (assuming he's elected)? Yes, he seems like a decent guy with a nice wife and kids, and he sure as hell can give a great speech, but that doesn't equate to being transformative. Or is the real argument that Obama will be transformative simply by the virtue of being the first black person elected president? By that logic, Hillary would be just as transformative by becoming the first woman president. Again, if Obama gets elected he may surprise everyone and be transformative president, but how specifically does everyone think he will do that? Just by taking the oath of office?

Content of character folks!!!! At the end of the day, this politician will take America in the same old direction that all liberal and progressives desire. That being, backwards in time to Sodom and Gomorrah, where many, many, many, children will grow up without fathers and where the perverted are given a place of respect, and where all people will have to bow to the total power of the tax collector. Donny

Donny your warning is eight years too late. You hindsite defines your vision.

So Harvey, if I understand your response correctly, you're saying that electing Obama president would be in and of itself transformative? How? What would his election as president transform? "Give us hope for changes in our own lives"? Hope for what changes? What does that mean?

While I understand the sentiment behind the desire to elect a black president, it's rather demeaning to Obama because the rationale behind that sentiment is to elect him for WHAT he is as opposed to WHO he is.

Again, if he gets elected, Obama may end up becoming one of the great presidents - but for that to happen, he'll have to do something, not just be something.

What are Obama's planned policies? When I've heard him speak I hear the same tired ol' Democratic statements that are boiled down to
"let the guvmint take care of you. we know best what is for you."

Yes he frightens me, but to compare him to Reagan is downright plain wrong. One can at least see in Reagan's papers that he was over the years a staunch conservative. We can go all the way back to when he was fighting the Communists as the president of SAG. Listen to his radio talks

I don't see a similar thing with Obama

"This country really needs to be healed and restored. Obama can do that. No one else can. If that makes America a little bit more left-leaning than it is now, so be it."

The very concept of liberty and justice for all IS a left-leaning one.

So Harvey, if I understand your response correctly, you're saying that electing Obama president would be in and of itself transformative? How? What would his election as president transform? "Give us hope for changes in our own lives"? Hope for what changes? What does that mean? Posted by: cb

cb, I'm a believer in believing. A couple of years ago I got to speak at a memorial service for a college dean, a friend. As I sat there listening to people much smarter and one heckuva lot more educated, I don't even have a high school diploma, speak my notes went into the mental trash can.

When it was my turn I spoke about my friend giving the ultimate gift one human being can give another. After listening to all of them I realized our friend had given us all the same gift and it had made a substantial difference in each of our lives. He's believed in us.

Believing in another person is not unlike respect. You have to give it to get it and the hiccup is you have to have a little to get a lot.

So when I see Obama speak and I see the reactions of others I feel good about myself because I believe that he believes in me. Not me specifically necessarily, but he believes in me the citizen who wants to do better in making our world better.

So yes, I believe (athiests are believers too btw) that Obama can be the impetus for a transformation in the United States. He has that intangible that's been missing for so many years in American politics, he's a believer in people.

Obama has also demonstrated an ability to mobilize the American people, I cannot at this time compare him to Kennedy but I see the same potential. To me, that is one of the most important things a politician can and should do is the ability to lead Americans into taking action that result in effective and positive change through public service and volunteerism. For it is the actions and choices of the American people that make this nation what it is in all its greatness and shame.

Harvey,

You seem educated to me, but If you are so inclined this is where I got my HS diploma from as a home schooled kid http://www.americanschoolofcorr.com/. I took the general course but found I was well prepared for college and more importantly life long learning, but you seem to have already got that down, but if ya want too...

Harvey: "So when I see Obama speak and I see the reactions of others I feel good about myself because I believe that he believes in me."

Obama: "I can understand people from different walks of life, understand their perspectives, see the best of them without accepting the worst in them and get them to work together. And that's partly because of what I've had to do in my life. That's what we need right now. Instead of thinking ideologically, I think very practically about what will get something done." http://www.newsweek.com/id/105568/page/2

"See the best of them without accepting the worst in them and get them to work together." Yes, I think this is the core of Obama's appeal, and that it is a very practical appeal. It's odd that Obama is criticized for being idealistic. It's much more idealistic to focus predominantly on ideas, on policies, that won't be implemented. I think Obama is actually the realist in this race, because he's the one who realizes that improvements in American federal government are only going to come about through an implementation of policies that sufficient numbers feel invested in to work for their success. Obama brings the community organizer's perspective to the presidency, which will aid him in creating and maintaining successful coalitions.

Picture a meeting run by Obama, and picture a meeting run by Bush, or by Clinton. I think that Obama has proven that he has the social skills necessary to run successful meetings, and we know he is a successful and inspirational rhetorician. I've got some concerns about his judgment when it comes to appointments, but I think he's probably a good enough people-person to make good decisions.

My wife and I, after supporting Bush in 2004, will be supporting Obama in 2008 if he gets the nomination. I expect we'll even get off our duffs and work for his election. May God bless him and keep him.

I'm surprised to hear so many critiques about Obama's supposed lack of policy statements. Sure, he could be more vocal about his policies on the stump, but that's a campaigning decision and they must think they've got a good strategy to win. Anyone looking for more substance need only go to his website. His policy statements are as clear and detailed as those of any other candidate.

For example:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

I like this riff:

# Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

# Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.

# End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program

Bless,
Doug

Here's one more interesting Obama answer from the Alter interview linked in my previous post:

Alter: Even great presidents accomplish only two or three big things. What will you have accomplished at the end of eight years?

Obama: We will have ended the war in Iraq in an honorable and strategic way as part of a larger process of rebuilding our standing in the world. We will have passed universal health care and not only expanded coverage, but started on the road toward a more efficient system. And we will have a bold energy agenda that drastically reduces our emission of greenhouse gases while creating a green engine that can drive growth for many years to come.

The war. Health care. Energy/environment.

Those are Obama's top three priorities. I'm happy with this, because it is in line with my understanding of the role of American federal government. He doesn't talking about ending institutional racism or other code words for identity politics, like "full representation". He doesn't talk about marriage, divorce, or other social issues. He's campaigning on the big stuff, the polar opposite of Clinton's micro-issues of the 90's. And I think he's got a better chance of actually making positive headway on these fronts than any other candidate running. Deal well this big three, and it'll be the best thing the government could do for the sake of the economy, and for the strength of American families and communities.

Bless,
Doug

Like I said before, what will Obama DO that will be transformative (assuming he's elected)? Yes, he seems like a decent guy with a nice wife and kids, and he sure as hell can give a great speech, but that doesn't equate to being transformative.

He would be transformative because he would be able to persuade people toward applied liberalism by the force of his oratory and presence. Moreover, he'll have something Reagan never had: a Congress in which both houses are in the hands of his party. Even more crucial, he will have something Reagan never enjoyed: a heavily discredited, weak and confused opposition (thanks Mr. Bush, Mr. Delay). And finally, it's looking more and more like we're headed into really difficult economic times. People will be more willing than ever to follow a leader who gives them the feeling of hope. That's power right there.

Obviously I'm not hoping for this outcome. But I see it as likely.

"Really, watch: if this man gets his party's nomination, he's going to be the next president. By a landslide."

Oh, nonsense. First of all, it all depends who the GOP nominates, and if they nominate McCain, the Democrats will have a real fight on their hands. Also, while there's a lot of feel-good stuff being printed right now about Republicans saying they'd vote for Obama, most of that will evaporate by Election Day, when Republicans go back to their ancestral party, particularly after the right-wing noise machine manages to turn Obama into evil incarnate. Heck, it's not uncommon to see Obama referred to as "B. Hussein Obama", if not worse, on conservative blogs and talk radio already.

No matter who the Democrats nominate, it'll be a close election, and all this hype about Obama being the shoe-in for a landslide victory is empty. And I'm speaking as someone who would vote for Obama in the general election, though not in the Democratic primary.

Transformative? In what way? There's nothing Obama, or anyone else can say to convince me that more welfare, big government, and higher taxes will somehow turn my life into paradise.

Quite the contrary. I was once a liberal and lived the "dependent" life. I experienced "transformative" and it had NOTHING to do with government handouts, programs, tiny tax law changes, or any other such stupidity.

The change was ME. I turned failure into success. Dependency into self sufficiency. Depression and anger into enthusiasm and enjoyment of life.

I've BEEN THERE. I know this truth by experience.

If you want "transformative", then don't be looking at "mortgage tax credit". Sheesh. One more line on your tax form just isn't going to do it.

Nor will forcing the people to pay more taxes and buy overpriced subsidized health care for someone else.

In fact, you CANNOT transform the character of the individuals of this nation with any kind of REDISTRIBUTION level or tactic. Transformation requires a full change of thinking on the part of the people... A alteration of how they view themselves.

We're a society with TOO MUCH dependency. Adding to it cannot change us for the better.

Within this is the clues... The clues to real transformation... And no Democrat has EVER spoken to any of them.

The Dem Party is a mass psychology movement, that’s all it really is. The faithful keep waiting for the next Messiah: someone to press all their buttons. That charismatic leader who will lead them to the Promised Land.

Sorry, but this new “Exalted Leader” is going to get knee-capped real soon by Madame Mao and ex-president Billy Buttafucco.

The thing is that we living in a time when not only is there no national agreement on ideology or even where we want to go. If we elect a liberal, half the country is not going to see the country going in the "right" direction. If we elect a conservative, the other half of the country will percieve that we're headed off a cliff. This ongoing split just isn't sustainable. "A house divided against itself" and all of that.

What is appealing to people about Obama isn't that they think he's going to implement the right policies or transform people's lives through government action. What is appealling is the that they think he might be able to govern in a way which re-introduces the idea of respect for those we disagree with to the national discourse. If the trade off is a candidate who implements policies we don't agree with, but who also short circuits the hate politics which have reigned supreme for the last several decades, then that's a trade off a lot of people are going to at least consider.

I think that this is what's going on, which should serve cause people who are genuinely alarmed at the prospect of Obama's policies to re-examine their own rhetoric. Let's say that Obama's appeal lies largely in the change in tone (from "the other guy is not only wrong, but evil and probably has a monument to satan in his bathroom" to "I disagree with the other guy, but I respect that's he's trying to do what he thinks is right"). If that is the case, then comments like Donny's and Marks which paint democrats/liberals as bad people who would be conservatives if they understood what it means to be a good person, will be profoundly counter-productive. Of course, what will be interesting is to see if those who have been raised on the Daily Kos, Glen Beck style of hate politics can adjust. Because if they cannot or will not, then it is my opinion that they will render themselves and possibly even the good things they believe in to be utterly irrelevant. Something to think about, IMO.

The Republicans owe so much of their success to "The Great Communicator" and you fail to see how Obama can be an important political figure and maybe even transformative. He seems to have real personal substance. Bush managed to win just by being more likeable. While I currently prefer McCain I see Obama as a real valid option.

Steve

"I keep coming back to this-what is a president-a leader who will tell you things you may not like but must know, or a happy-talking matinee idol?" - Bugg

In a sentence, that'd be the best argument I've read for McCain instead of Obama.

Rebbecat:

From your lips to God's ears! I think it'd be a beautiful thing if the hate mongers could be replaced by rational voices with higher standards - hopefully of the conservative genre. Maybe that is EXACTLY the problem, Makes perfect sense. People have already been turned off TO the conservative truths by the Conservative hate mongers.[And by the corruption, false pretenses, runaway spending. . .]

Now Who's to blame for that?

Reaganite in NYC, this wary Democrat agrees with you. Barack Obama is a wonderfully inspiring speaker. He is also a professional politican.

The Republicans owe so much of their success to "The Great Communicator" and you fail to see how Obama can be an important political figure and maybe even transformative.

Hey, I remember 1980. I remember loving Reagan. I sure don't remember thinking he was the Word Incarnate.

And those of us who thought about it at the time, and those who can think about it since, are aware that any Republican nominee that year, short of Richard Nixon, would have clobbered Jimmy Carter.

Can I see Obama as President? Sure. I can very easily see him as the nominal Chief Magistrate still promising to Transform Us as he cuts ribbons at supermarket openings and wetland set-asides, while the federal government goes into a de facto receivership run by a troika of Ben Bernanke, Zhou Xiaochuan (just Google him) and Jean-Claude Trichet. Let's just never forget: the managers of the sovereign wealth funds who will be directing our national Chapter 11 will be so impressed that we have a black President.

I find myself in complete agreement with Mr. K Street. We are facing serious fundamental fiscal problems which Obama is not even discussing. Hope and change have little to do with the devaluation of our currency in world markets, the stagnation of middle class wages and a government that spends way beyond it's means. If only a lovely speech would only forestall the day the Chinese cease seeing US T bills as a good investment, or the day thereafter, when they do not get out only because Mr. Bernanke's Fed has to raise the interest rates to Carter Era levels to keep them buying into America.

Mark in Houston, I agree that it will not be a cakewalk for Obama if McCain gets the nomination. The irony is that all the gasbags on talk radio are doing their darnedest to make sure that doesn't happen. If they succeed in getting Romney on the ballot, it'll be over before it starts. Although I disagree with the Democrats on just about everything, that might be just what the Republicans deserve if they're stupid enough to nominate Romney.

Mark--I've just gotta know: what "life of dependency" did you lead while a liberal? I ask because one frequently hears these conversion stories--when a liberal, I lived off the gummint, but then I had my conservative rebirth and have been free and independent ever since! What does it mean?

Re the topic at hand--I'm a Dem, but sufficiently wonky that I'm not overly inspired by this speech. I hear you, Bugg--where's the meat? I want to know specifics of what a President will do. Don't just yell "Change!" over and over again. I liked Bill Richardson, but of course he's already out of it. I'll probably decide when I step up to vote next Tuesday.

Angela, I'm with you on that one on Mark. Some of the most hardworking and independent cusses I know would eat a bug before they're vote for a republican. And I'm here in Texas where one of our highways was named after a hedge plant.

As for the meat, what a Presidential candidate says they will do, I'm sure they all have dreams. Look at Dubya after his mandate (grin) in 2004, he had capital and all he got on his wish list was a couple of Supreme Court justices.

I'd like to see Obama take office with a mandate for change. And not the kind of mandate Bush got with the manipulating of the haters either.

Okay, maybe I'm ignorant, but I thought everyone has the right to itemize their deductions, but if they meet certain qualifications, they can use the EZ or short form instead. Not because it deprives them of the right to itemize, but because their taxes are simple to calculate and they will pay either the same or less taxes by taking standard deductions instead of itemizing them. If so, then Obama's language is nothing but a smokescreen and an attempt to create class warfare and create resentment toward "the well-off." And if that's his modus operandi, then I think it's deceitful and wrong.

To add to rebeccat's post, I think he's talking about making the mortgage a deduction above the line, the place on the tax form where you calculate your adjusted gross income before itemization or standard deductions takes place. But I'm confused by the use of the term credit instead of deduction as they mean two different things in the tax code. I'd be happy with either an above the line deduction or credit (would prefer it as a credit myself...) adn I itemize my mortgage interest.

Closet authoritarian who longed for policy to be set by the Great Man in theatrical/liturgical settings (see Hamilton, Alexander; see also Newburgh Conspiracy)

A few of the commenters above were asking exactly what Obama was going to do to transform things. Personally I think that's the wrong question to be asking (and might actually be symptomatic of the problem). It's not what he's going to do that transforms things, it's how he's going to do them that transforms things.

A very big problem we've been facing is one that not too many people in the public view have really acknowledged: the fact that over the last fifteen years nobody on either side of the political divide is listening to each other. We've gotten so that both political parties have been calling each other cowards, fascists, and worse. Senators and Congressmen have been talking at their colleagues in office, not talking with them.

Okay, so let them fight it out and the marketplace of ideas will determine which side was correct, right? Well, no. No human being is right all of the time; neither is a given group of human beings. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are always going to be totally right (or wrong) about everything. But if they refuse to take criticism from the other side; refuse to take the other side's ideas seriously; and refuse to budge one iota from the stated ideological base; then the public has to choose between evils. It's no shock to me that problems fester when this happens.

Obama is game-changing because he's trying to close the book on that kind of politics. What's he going to do that changes things? The same thing he's done in his campaign: treat his opponents with respect. Don't demonize them. Stand his ground when he disagrees; but be willing to learn. Approach the whole thing with a sense of humility. This works. This is good policy, this is good governance, and nobody else in the race is doing it.

The really amazing thing is that when you allow the possibility of dissenting opinion, the final decision you make - no matter what decision is being made - is much, much better. I don't completely trust Obama's ideas on all of the issues. In fact I disagree with quite a number of them. But I do completely trust his methods in arriving at policy. That's the kind of leadership we need right now. Not this servile "trust the Decider" nonsense that we've gotten with Bush and would get with Clinton.

Whose voice do I want to listen to for the next four years in every radio address or TV press conference.

Hands down it's Barack Obama when it comes to a choice between him and Hillary, who is sounding more and more like a screech owl every day.

It's a different story when it comes to the Republicans, because none of the Big 3 are that hard on the ears, though I think Romney wins in this regard; Giuliani's lisp is a bit irritating, but he may not be a factor anymore after Florida.

Why oh why aren't they playing this for the Super Bowl:

youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

It is even more accurate today than when it first appeared.

Rod, your lack of political savvy is something to behold. Are you really only now figuring out that Obama is "the Democrats' Reagan"? Only now figuring out that Obama is (to use a Reaganesque term) a Great Communicator? Only now snapping to the fact that he's capturing the country's imagination and will bury the Republicans?
And you couldn't see the self-destruction of the Clintons coming a mile away?
Yes, be afraid, my Republican friends. This man will genuinely be a "uniter, not a divider," as a bumbling, incomprehensible, sloganeering Republican candidate used to say.

It's sad when a country votes on Emotional appeal versus Logical appeal.

Ron Paul 2008!

**It's sad when a country votes on Emotional appeal versus Logical appeal.**

Savvy political commentators (such as CONSERVATIVE Michael Barone) will tell you that's exactly how REPUBLICANS have won 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections. So many Democratic nominees (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry) have been mercilessly attacked as bloodless technocrats.

Maybe you're just scared the Dems may have found the passion they need to succeed ...

i am with derek on this ... there is only one party .... yes, the frosting that covers this looks like it has two colors, and there is some free speech, etc., allowed, but just one party

obama may be on the edge of allowability, if the machine cannot get hillary and remain concealed, you may be sure he will be talked to before he moves in to the white house

Sometimes it's not necessarily the ideas or which way a candidate's views lean that defines him/her. It's the way that person conducts his/herself, the way that person can inspire. People nowadays are very cynical about their government. And it takes some pretty powerful persuasion to change the group think mentality of our government. You cannot engage someone in a consensus if you aren't willing to engage in the first place. While the 60s have been glossed over and mythologized, there is no doubt that this country would have been a different place if the Kennedys had lived, whether one agress with the direction it would have taken or not. As a child of those times, I wonder if the neocons would have survived (with Kennedy heeding Eisehower's warning of the rise of the military-industrial complex and thus the escalation of the Vietnam war which Kennedy would have ended if re-elected), or Nixon would have been but a footnote.

For the reasons above and for the speeches like the one above, I have chosen to support Barack Obama. I am 53 years old. I have never voted. I never have had a reason to vote or a cause to vote for or a person that inspired me. If I had voted in the past, I fancy I would have voted liberterian, but not so sure now. Maybe I'll regret my first vote ever. I'm not too trusting of either political party (if there are actually two - open to debate) but what is needed is someone who can stand above what either party might or might not stand for and reason directly with the people in terms that might inspire us all to greater heights.

I read a lot of complaining, grousing, downright anger, etc. about what all is wrong with this country, who should be blamed, and who should be impeached / tried / waterboarded. I don't see anything any of these parties are doing to change anything (if so, speak up now). Perhaps we all feel powerless; I suspect recent administrations have made us feel that way, without a voice or a means of initiating real change, not the oft-used abominated definition of the word. There are ways to change this from our end and increase interest in our government - a push for a national referendum on specific issues that are important to the man on the street (similar to what many state governments do today), for example. Adoption of the FairTax, a bold move that would transform this country for the better, and Obama is now actually considering, is another exmaple.

Times like these demand a change, not because it's a handy cathcphrase, but because it's absolutely necessary to fundamentally alter the direction of this country, from empire-building to self-sufficiency through innovation. Sometimes it takes a voice bigger than all of ours, as much as we'd like everyone to listen to just us. Look beyond the positions you may or may not agree with and look to the person who can not only deliver the message with the reasons why but put them into action via consensus and persuasion. Intelligent people, when presented the facts and both sides of every issue, will usually make the right, or at least an informed, decision. I used to think the presidential debates should be limited to three months maximum prior to the election, but this year has opened up an avenue for discourse amongst Americans that has rarely been seen since our early days. I do believe people see we need to do something different, whatever that ends up being.

We are not the country we once were, but there's no reason we couldn't be again. Yes, the problems are more complex given the nature of the world and our interlocking part in it, but there is some truth to what Ron Paul says - the time for war and acrimony are over. If the religions want to fight with each other, fine. There's no way America can win that war. Best to disengage from any conflict over ideas based on blind belief in something we cannot know. Freedom will only come to people who want it bad enough. We cannot enable them or make them like our brand of freedom and it's ludicrous and pompous for us to think so. Instead, we need to go back to being that beacon on the hill, that land of plenty, that land of innovation and possibilities, that land that ends a helping hand but leaves it up to others to make their own choices. We should only help if we're specifically invited and if the inviter understands what that entails. No, not isolationism but mutual involvement. We are not the world's caretaker; all we do is enable sick governments. Countries ultimately must sink or swim on their own. We ourselves will sink into the ruthless annals of history if we don't understand this.

I believe Barack Obama understands this. He will grow into the role of president on his own but his underlying values and thought process that got him there will still be there in the end. So, for whatever it's worth, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unite in one voice and one vision, open to consensus and reasoned debate. It's time to stop being Demopublicans / libservatives and be Americans for a change. Who knows? We all might end up liking it.

I believe Barack Obama understands this. He will grow into the role of president on his own but his underlying values and thought process that got him there will still be there in the end. So, for whatever it's worth, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unite in one voice and one vision, open to consensus and reasoned debate.

This is irrational.

Neither Obama nor anyone else will establish "consensus" politics or make Americans "unite in one voice." The President proposes legislation and reacts to world events. People will react to what he does, favorably or unfavorably. He or she may be able to convey a conciliatory tone (though probably not for long), but it won't be long before intense and vociferous public opposition to the Administration develops. That reality is built into the job, and it's no less true of Barack Obama than of any other potential President.

As someone who has brown tired of throwing labels around (as if they were kisses and we were Bill Clinton at a White House intern Christmas party), I sense that Obama represents more than "liberal" ideas and policies. Like Reagan, I do consider Obama to be a candidate who can bring together a grand coalition across all barriers (party, race, religion) to address the real problems facing our problems. No doubt these problems have been exacerbated by an warmongering president and a tax-cut and spend congress. What an Obama victory would mean is that all voices who seek to communicate would be heard. I don't know about you, but I am ready for a "liberal" dose of a functioning democracy!

Obama is all show and no substance.

Ronald says:
No doubt these problems have been exacerbated by a[n] warmongering republican president and a republican tax-cut and spend congress.

I've merely corrected the parts that he left out.

Any semblance of balance left the political spectrum about 30 years ago. It doesn't matter who is President anymore. With a split Congress (thus living up to its name of being anti progress), any hope of a presidential policy of any gravitas occurring is not very likely.

In an ideal U.S. political world, the President would set a direction, the Congress would shape policy for that direction to be accomplished, and we would move on to the next problem. Currently, Congress sets the direction and policy, and the President must veto his (or her) way to the direction the President wants.

As a democrat I can tell you I have not been this as excited about a candidate EVER. Not even Clinton in '92 or '96.

(Though strangely enough I got a little excited about McCain in the 2000 primary).

Bottom line: if we have Clinton you'd better nominate McCain. If we get Obama, well ... cya in 4 years :)

Here's the real bottom line. Since power has been brought bet to the left your congress has had the lowest approval rating of any congress. You have gotten less done than any other congress in the history of this nation. Instead of the real issues like healthcare, education, the economy, you have decided to get into steroids in baseball for another round. The Federal Judges have not had a raise in over 30 years they have not had a salary that adjusts with inflation. You have allowed nothing to get done and in the process of hating George Bush have relied on 2 members of your Senate to try and take over this country next. I knew in the mid-term elections when you took over that you had plenty of time to implode and you have done that. Your party does not understand how this world actually works.
Let it go you guys the hippie generation is over, get off the acid and The Beatles, and WAKE THE HELL UP!

Republicans have a right to be scared (though I don't particularly love Obama -- he's another machine candidate). If there were an unbiased investigate, a lot of top Republicans would go to jail.

We spent a trillion dollars on this war -- so where are our results? We were told it would take a few months and a few billion dollars.

Billions of dollars have been given out in no-bid contracts to the Vice-President's own companies. Cheney has personally profited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars from this. So where are the results? Where did all the money go in Iraq? Why have we spent almost a billion dollars on an Embassy which still doesn't work? Where did the money go in New Orleans?

The Defense Department was tested on 9/11 -- it got zero out of four. Why did not even one person lose their job? Why did nothing change?

Again, I don't really think Obama is going to change much of anything -- shorn of the fancy rhetoric, he's not promising much at all -- but I think he might just be able to jail some of the criminals who have raided the US Treasury.

Wow - Harrison. Are all rabid pseudo-conservatives as good with English grammar as you are? Your are almost as eloquent as that hairless monkey you elected -- twice.

This man is quite charismatic. He speaks well, but does not have much substance -- most of this speech was dedicated to "change" and "hope" and challenging the "status quo."

He made lots of promises to make healthcare and education affordable, to raise wages, and so forth. All of these things cost money, and our country is in debt. He made no mention of where he would cut back or save money, shrink the government or reduce spending. He wants to repeal tax cuts, which would provide some funding, but would also reduce economic activity and be self-defeating. I am afraid that Mr. Obama, while he is a very intelligent, articulate, and charismatic person, will not be able to help our nation become fiscally powerful again.

First of let me make a bad start in my post by saying that Harrison is a complete idiot. The current congress is just as unpopular with Dems as it is with Reps. And I honestly believe that is because Dems are less willing to send their country of the cliff for the sake of their party than reps, who've proven how far they'll go the last 7 years. I'll tell you what they won't do and that is vote for Republicans in the next mid term elections. And neither will independents.
Now to the more positive tone. Is this really a religious/socially conservative site? Cause I'm astounded by the amount of fair minded thought trough comments. And I don't even mean that as an insult I've not seen these kind of comments on any sites before be they left or right wing. Truly impressed. Some of you are questioning the meaning of Obama's change message. I'll tell you what it truly amounts to. On the issues Obama is hardly different than Clinton (which makes you wonder why she is being painted as a baby eating commie and Obama is so respected) but Obama has much wider support, cross party lines even. So instead of another gridlock you'll get a president who'll actually be able to implement his ideas. Now whether you think that is positive or not, that's some real executive power the perfect tools for any kind of change he wishes to create.

William,

Exactly, much of the same story here.

"He made lots of promises to make healthcare and education affordable, to raise wages, and so forth. All of these things cost money, and our country is in debt. He made no mention of where he would cut back or save money, shrink the government or reduce spending."

Well, if we hadn't had this stupid war, we'd have saved a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars! That would have paid for a lot of healthcare, education, and so forth.

If you look where the money has gone in this administration, you see it all being funnelled into the pockets of Republican supporters and the "military-industrial complex" -- with nothing to show for it.

Simply shutting down this pointless war, and forcing aggressive, competitive bidding for government contractors, and we'd save hundreds of billions a year. Enough money for you?

I have to say I agree. Obama is one of those rare figures that can seemingly transcend party lines. He doesn't have the long history that Hillary does, meaning that Independent and moderate republicans are much more likely to consider him. Thus far, he really seems to be trying to stay above the petty politics that we've seen over the past few years.
Moreover, I think a lot of democrats are coming to the realization that the republicans were correct about the Clinton's in the 90s.....they really will do and say ANYTHING to get elected. Obama, at least at this point, seems like someone that can truly unite this country in a way that hasn't been done since Reagan. That says quite a lot and it is definitely something that this country NEEDS.

Now, regarding the comment by " MCG " -- The reason congress has such a low approval rating is because they're spineless. At the very least, republicans stand up for their convictions. Despite his approval rating, President Bush has essentially gotten everything he wanted from a democratic congress. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not inspiring leaders. Neither of them really have an ability to mobilize their base, so republicans disapprove of congress since it's democratically controlled. Democrats disapprove of Congress because they are spineless. I think if they had the courage to do something, to stand up, you'd see a higher approval rating.

Here's the thing. Barack works WITH Republicans. That's his track record. So he may want to fight for health care and wages, but he'll find the right ways to fund it, WITH Republican support.

Besides, all of you fiscal conservatives were betrayed by Reagan and Bush. How much debt did we get under their administrations? You can't talk that away any more than Jenna Bush can be made pretty.

I suspect Barack will gather ideas from both sides of the aisle to craft the kind of legislation we need to move this country forward. Just requiring corporations to pay taxes at same levels they did back in the conservative heydey of the 1950s might be enough, or preventing American companies from getting billions in corporate welfare might be enough.

He does talk and interesting game and his record shows he can walk the walk too. I support him in his bid for the presidency because we've seen far too much of the neocon agenda in this country.

@matt
I hope you don't think I was meaning anything different than what you said I agree with you 100%. When I was making positive comments about Dems I sure as hell wasn't talking about those in congress but rather the ones who are giving the approval ratings.

I am curious why you are a Republican. Who in the Republican party do you admire? You mentioned Reagan but surely you don't think of Reagan as a moral man, a spiritual man or even a religious man. I can't for the life of me see the attraction. The only man even close to being a God fearing man elected in the last thirty years was Carter. This is easily borne out by what these people actually do when they get out of office. So please explain the attraction to this mean-spirited hateful group.

I wish he were British, we need someone who REALLY believes in doing things the right way, in supporting the poor and needy and rejects the libertarian agenda of survival of the fittest. He doesn't remind me of Reagan, he reminds me of Kennedy at his peak. He will put the great back into America and allow her friends to love her again. If America rejects this man hell mend you all and may God have mercy on us.

I have voted Republican in the last 5 Presidential elections.

And I must tell you, with all sincerity, after the last 8 years we have all experienced, Obama will have my vote if he makes it past Hillary. I am (naively?) chasing the idea that we can have a President that can unite our fractured nation.

Are you kidding me? You fell for that, Dems always use Race, Class, gender, sexuality to divide and conquer. He is the same., Listen to him. Do you wonder why there are very few or no Obama republicans, because no matter how flowery the speech, How much he makes YOU want to believe he is the Messiah. He is still a no judgements, tax and spend, Blame the rich, corporations are bad liberal. Wake up ..and Carter? are you kidding, religious..Yes, a believer in the Most Loving and Merciful God and His Son...absolutely not. If any one here is truly "religious" you are in serious trouble if a real "false prophet" ever shows up, because you will follow him right to the pit of hell, Just like those idiots that strap bombs on themselves in the name of "God"..you people are just looking for someone to follow..God help us

Scott, I think you fail to realise there are Christians on the democrat side as well.

Dont know how many others are as incensed as I am about these chain emails being sent to religious groups and others that question Sen. Barack Obamas patriotism and religious beliefs. (See press link to last weeks open letter from Jewish groups being bombarded with these emails: http://www.adl.org/internet/Letter_obama.asp)

The use of the Internet to spread false information about a political candidate--- and thus to affect the outcome of an election--- is particularly abhorrent to me.

We cannot regress to old-style dirty tricks. In the public interest, we need to get behind these emails---and identify who originated them.

If you have received such an email, please forward it to me.

negemail53@gmail.com

I'm an Obama Republican.... at least right now.

I don't get it are we that stupid?

We have a choice between
change change change change or terrorist terrorist terrorist terrorist

Sounds to me like South Park episode.. Now who is the turd and who is the douche bag?

It would be nice if we had serious people instead of Peggy Noonan talking heads speaking like televangelist fundraising.. The country has issues and this is the best the mainstream media can throw down our necks.

Rod Dreher's eyes must have glazed over while he watched this speech. Beware the outstanding public speaker, he can demagogue anything. Adolph Hitler was a passionate speaker who got people to believe, who got the government to dominate private industry and talked about higher purposes. It's very tempting to believe Obama wants only lofty ideals. My guess is if he wins he will crush anyone who opposes him on any policy. He will be Eliot Spitzer with a personality.

Simon, I'm afraid you're relying on your mythology, not the historical record. Nixon prolonged the war and made it worse. Period. It's also a matter of historical record that JFK would have withdrawn from Vietnam soon after he was re-elected.

As for consensus building, I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but it is possible, even in today's poisonous atmosphere, to achieve this if approached in a logical fashion that appeals to your opponents' vanity and own personal interests. If Congress can see that Obama isn't going to stoop to all the old tags that infuriate people, I believe enough will come around to get some things done. If that's irrational, then thanks for the compliment.

Simon, some friendly advice: it's easy to be a nay-sayer about everything vs. offering solutions and positive possibilities. Take the other fork in the road for a change - you might be pleasantly surprised.

this is a victory speech, not a stump speech. He is not up there to rehash his pragmatic platform, he is up there to thank the voters and to amplify his overarching message of hope. If you want the details of what he will do, go to his website, check out youtube, pick up some literature. It's all out there for you, and he has gone over his strategies in detail over and over. And yet he is accused of not being thorough about the issues. watch his intimate meetings with people from all walks of life as he discusses issues and lays out clear, concise strategies for addressing their issues. Do not judge his pragmaticism based on this speech. this is a speech of thanks, of hope and a communication of overarching ideals he wishes to bring to the campaign. know the venue, do the research, then judge.

Before you say this speech has no substance and doesn't reveal anything about the canidate why dont you spend the time actually going to his website and finding out. It is literally categorized by issue and you can see his stance of about 3 pages typed or more for every issue. I am voting for him because of what he believes in and what he says he is going to do as president. This speech just shows that he believes in what he is doing, don't cut him down for trying to share that with everyone.

www.barackobama.com

WIN OR LOSE . . .

I AM FILLED WITH TREMENDOUS

ADMIRATION -- FOR THIS MAN

AND HIS POSITIVE ATTEMPTS.

I am so proud of Barack and proud of this country that we are giving him an opportunity to completely change the way politics work. I don't understand why this is a contest on the Democratic side. Senator Obama won't say just anything to get elected. It is honorable that someone can stand up for things that are politically expedient.

I do not wish to 'flame' anyone. However, I wish to respond to "Hank". It is apparent that he has read some of the slander that has come across the 'Net recently. I don't know if I will vote for Barak Obama or not, but I think that he should be judged fairly.
I offer this excerpt from ucc.org about Mr. Obama:
"He became familiar with Trinity UCC during his days as a Chicago community organizer in the mid-1980s, an experience he wrote about in the August-September 2006 issue of United Church News.

"You come to church — in the first place — precisely because you are of this world, not apart from it," Obama wrote. "You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away, because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity UCC on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith."
In 2004, just after being elected to the U.S. Senate, Obama told United Church News, "Trinity UCC has been a true community to me — a place in which the mind, heart and soul come together to celebrate God's goodness."
Mr. Obama is a professed Christian, and as such, believes in Jesus Christ. He has been a member of Trinity Church since 1988.
Please understand that, Hank, and don't accept EVERYTHING that you read as gospel truth.
JHH
Angola, IN

I'm voting Republican for the first time in my voting career if Obama wins the nomination. And I've voted since 1972.

I wouldn't like McCain's choice of conservative Supreme Court justices, if it came to that, but a too inexperienced Obama scares me.

Mr. Harris states that Senator Obama is a Christian and believes in Jesus Christ. The Bible says that even Satan's demons believe and tremble, but I do not believe that does not make them Christian. Christian means to be Christlike and Senator Obama's strong support of partial-birth abortion alone is enough to convince me that he is not Christlike. Besides, if he were really a Christian, the Democrats would not allow him to be their candidate. Remember how they maligned President Bush for even mentioning that he was a man of faith during the last two campaigns??? They did not want faith to be part of it.
During the 1976 presidential race, which was my first election in which to vote, I was persuaded to vote Democratic for the only time in my life because of a candidate who said publicly "I am a born-again Christian?" I was young and naive and never even considered researching his claim or his record. Had I known Jimmy Carter hated Israel and its people, I would have never voted for him.
The Bible also says that those who bless Israel will be blessed by God and those who curse Israel will be cursed by God. I know everyone is tired of hearing about Reverend Wright, but Senator Obama was a member of a congregation for twenty years led by a man that has at least more than once maligned the Israelis for their treatment of the people of Palestine. I personally do not want to take a chance of having a leader who could even potentially turn against the Nation of Israel!!!
And yes, Pearl, Senator Obama and his followers are the ones who keep returning to the issue of race, while at the same time claiming to be the ones who will transcend race. If Senator Obama really intended to be the candidate for everyone, he would say that he is as much white as he is black -- but he does not. . . . .

No Comments »
I’m no conspiracy nut, but you can’t argue with facts. Important information to forward to like minded conservatives. I sent this to everyone on my address list.

- Les Reinhold
"Freedom isn't Free"

America’s “Wrath of Khaan” – The Truth About Condoleezza Rice

By J. Richard Hollingsworth

The facts fit together like a well-crafted John LeCarre spy novel. While some Americans speculate that presidential candidate Barrack Hussein Obama may be a “Manchurian Candidate”, a close examination of the facts points in another direction. History has shown us that the biggest threats to governments are often not the leaders themselves, but the confidants and closest advisors to the leaders. Consider these facts about American Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice:

• Her unusual name “Condoleezza”, we are told, is “Italian”. A similar sounding name, Khaandolizhad, is mentioned eighteen times in the Koran, the Muslim Bible. Roughly translated, the name means “(female) servant of Allah”. It is a common name among Muslim women in North Africa. Young Muslim girls with that name often go by the nickname “Khaan” or “Khaandi”, a homonym for “Condi”. Try as I may, I have yet to find a record of an Italian woman named “Condoleezza”.

• No one seems to know the middle name of Dr. Rice. The only information that general searches show is that it may begin with “H”. Tracing back her genealogy, we find several ancestors with the name “Hassan”. Hassan is a North African derivation of the common Middle Eastern name “Hussein”. This is similar to the difference between the English name “Smythe” and the American version “Smith”.

• Dr. Rice has a cousin in Los Angeles who still uses the original version of the surname “Rice”, before it was Americanized decades ago. The cousin, Edward Mustaffa “Rischad”, is a known member of a black Muslim organization in Los Angeles, California. The surname “Rischad” is a shortened version of the North African/Middle Eastern Muslim surname “al-Rischad”. Therefore, using her original names, Dr. Rice would be “Khaandolizhad Hussan al-Rischad”.

• Little is known about the childhood of Condoleezza Rice. Many of the records that would shed some light are not accessible through the Freedom of Information Act. They have been sealed due to Patriot Act restrictions. (Much of the Patriot Act was drafted by Dr. Rice when she was National Security Advisor). It is known however that as a young girl, Condoleezza Rice traveled widely and frequently outside the United States with her parents, often for months at a time. Much of her early schooling took place on foreign soil. She speaks several foreign languages, including Russian and Farsi.

• President George W. Bush had no foreign policy experience upon taking office in 2000 (it should be noted that he had never traveled outside the U.S. prior to his presidency). To remedy this deficiency, a small advisory group was formed to provide intensive education in foreign affairs for Mr. Bush. The group was headed by Dr. Rice. The main topic at most sessions concerned what Dr. Rice called “the growing threat of Iraq”. The threat of Usama bin Laden and al-Qaeda was not discussed.

• Secular Sunni Muslin Saddam Hussein was the sworn enemy of the Shiite Muslim Usama bin Laden.

• Iran was the sworn enemy of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

• In August of 2001 a memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S.”, written by then U.S. Chief of Counterterrorism Richard A. Clarke, was presented to the National Security Advisor (NSA), Condoleezza Rice. Dr. Rice never passed the memo on to President George W. Bush, citing later that the memo contained “no actionable intelligence”.

• While all air travel in the US was grounded on 9/11, all US based members of Usama bin Laden’s family were allowed to travel by air out of the country. This exception to the air traffic ban was authorized by the National Security Advisor, Condeleezza Rice.

• After 9/11, Dr. Rice was a major force in convincing President Bush that there must be a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and that war with Iraq was an absolute necessity.

Was Dr. Khanndolizhad Hussan al-Rischad AKA Condoleezza Rice in collusion with Usama bin Laden and the government of Iran, with the ultimate goal of influencing the President of the United States to use the greatest fighting force in the history of the world to remove the mortal enemy of both bin Laden and Iran? Just a theory, but one that should not be readily dismissed. And remember, insiders say that the most likely 2012 Republican nominee for President will be Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

J. Richard Hollingsworth is a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Oxford University. He is a frequent contributor to the weekly London Conservative magazine.

Comment by Sam Daniels — August 12, 2008 @ 1:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI