[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Thanks for the link. I read it with interest but have to take issue with certain sections. Obama is said to have fought a campaign based on moving the US in a 'fundamentally progressive direction'. This being the same campaign where the concerns of the middle class dominated all others, with (from memory) absolutely no mention whatsoever of a growing body of Americans living beneath the poverty line.

well, see, in america, unlike in england, the working class doesn't like to call themselves "working class", they call themselves "middle class", and if you call them otherwise you're pidgeonholed as an elitist. and in fact this working class achieved middle-class living standards at some point in history-- living standards which have sharply eroded in past decades. so this is a semantic issue.

same with mentioning the poor-- when obama talked about "spreading the wealth", the repukes tried to paint him as a socialist-- remember that fake unlicensed wannabe-millionaire plumber protesting tax increases for what he one day wanted to be while ignoring the offer of tax cuts for what he is today? (see "joe the plumber"). people like to think themselves better off than they actually are (is an unlicensed plumber considered "middle class" in england?)

so in america if you say "let's give money to the poor" you get called an advocate of the welfare state. if you call for improving the conditions of the "people making under $50,000 a year" and the problems of people "living paycheck to paycheck", and you fight "predatory lending", and "protecting the rights of workers to organize", "raising the minimum wage," "balancing work and family", and calling for universal health care, etc, then you indeed are tackling the problems of the working poor, just from a different, non-socialist approach. americans tend to dislike "handouts" but are ok with people getting their "fair share" when they work. what can i say, it's the national ethos. but the problems of the middle class are a lot like the problems of the poor, today. in fact a lot of "middle class" people are just one paycheck away from poverty.

so yes, they are dealing with issues like poverty--- again, i refer you to melody barnes, who will be in charge of domestic policy

start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Barnes and follow links to her previous affiliations and career. the proposal for "green jobs" that obama adopted comes from the center for american progress, for example.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

It was also a campaign in which Obama asserted an entirely dogmatic commitment to Israel and even out-Cheneyed the previous Bush administration with his all too comfortable talk of launching a nuclear strike on Pakistan. (A position even Sarah Palin was advised by her party to distance herself from) Obviously, none of these points suggest that Obama is merely an extension of the Bush (or even the Clinton) regime, but does a continuation (nee strengehtening even) of America's partisan backing of Israel, an incredibly hostile to Pakistan and an apparent blindness to its nation's poor really constitute a progressive move both for America's foreign and domestic policy?

obama never said let's nuke pakistan, he said he'd enter pakistan to kill osama if pakistan couldn't do it-- later he's refined his position in "with the permission of the pakistani government if they can't do it", etc. there was some kind of nuclear weapons gaffe.

see: http://www.nysun.com/national/obamas...-strike/59807/

at the time, biden was his opponent, ha ha ha.

anyway, obama has a clear understanding that the real front on this fucking "war on terror" (i hope it doesnt end up like the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on etc) is in the afghanistan/pakistan border. he stood out from early on calling for teh withdrawal of iraq to finish things in these other two taliban-infested countries.

and yes, pakistan is a horrible country with a rich elite and a starving population that's utterly fucked up from decades of the u.s. propping up its military dictatorships during the cold war and beyond, and that-- that is beyond my understanding

it was hillary who said later (i think i was at the AIPAC conference?) that she'd nuke IRAN if they nuked israel first.

please note, i'm not too excited about hillary's pick for state, but i can see the rationale for getting here there. see for example: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...wering_th.html (you might need login, sorry, but try anyway). still i have my reservations, like i had when obama asked for lieberman no to be publicly impaled.

regarding support for israel, let's face it-- israel is a longtime u.s. ally, there are millions of well-organized pro-israel jews in america (no rotschilds, but still). so we're sticking to this alliance. plus, it's the only democracy in the region (in spite of the apartheid, human rights abuses, etc-- ok-- that's what permanent war gets you). clinton was very much pro-israel yet the palestinians loved him, he got arafat in the white house, remember? so you can be pro-israel but you can negotiate the peace. now remember that israel is not just netanyahu and ariel sharon (i know, it's serious) and those demented settlers, there are other important factions and ideologies in its political life, but unfortunately things have moved to the right in recent years. so let's see what happens.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I'm prepared to agree with the article in so far as its pointing to a shift among the American people in favour of a fairer, less stratified and less bombastic society. However i see little so far either in Obama's rhetoric or his actions to suggest that he's particular committed to such a shift himself.

ok, i wrote a super-long reply; i hope that was sufficient for the time being.