The Obama Delusion

Barack doesn't salute our flag and Michelle has not been proud of this country for 45 years.
I see why you all love those two.

Personally, I do not want a "coverboy" for the most important leadership position in the world. I realize young people think an agent of change is important, but all I have heard is Obama adopting the oratory style of Martin Luther King while being touted as the " new JFK". How is that CHANGE? I agree with this article. There is not alot of substance or effectual change in this candidate, just flowery speeches. That may be inspiring, but it is not going to bring this nation the change it needs. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, outlined her plans and policies way before Obama did. Now, he is trying to play catch up with the specifics he was lacking. Sorry, but we do not need another president having on-the-job-training like the present one, GW Bush.

I would like to point out that you work for a known, neo-con friendly publication and thus, I would assume that you and your editor for whatever reason would much prefer a neo-con friendly politician in office to keep these hawkish policies going. So much has been said to obfuscate the Obama momentum over the last week, almost as prep work to derail his chances in Texas and Ohio. Sadly, out of all the candidates running, that would be Clinton moreso than McCain. More than likely if the powers at be are as rutheless as most Americans now assume them to be, you and the establishment henchmen will prove successful. Just remember, it is so easy to dismiss the claims I am making as wildly conspiratorial, and you can carefully implant your subversive suggestions into the voter conscience about electibility, youth, plagerism, communism, race cards, and now what appears to be the current "on message" trend about policy record and substance, but in the end you are just punching a time card for the people who keep the world in turmoil for the sole purpose of monitary and military superiority where no cost, human or other is too great. I suppose as long as you get your paycheck and keep your house payments current, then that is all that matters. But think about what you just said, let me paraphrase. All the candidates lie about the promises they make, but it really only matters that Obama lies because he says he is the real deal, oh and uh, I would rather have someone who I know already lies and the fact that they suck is widely known, than some new guy who seems to be inspirational but cant prove his worth. What is particularly interesting to note is that they ALL claim to be genuine and for change and ideologically driven. Why is Obama different again? That is a weak argument by any account and you should know better. By your own logic, you would rather have someone you know will keep the status quo, rather than give someone a chance to prove his claim of trying to move this country forward, and worst case scenario just becomes another establishment candidate. I am more than willing to take that risk sir, and you would fair far better to take that wager yourself.

What I see the republican and yes some democrates has allowed a republican president to push our count in debt and gave the little people nothhing... here is some one that can give people hope and now you'll want to take that.

Finally someone in the media not afraid to speak the truth and see past all the hype! I want someone in the White House who knows what they are doing -- we've had 8 years of incompetence. I truly don't understand how so many Americans can be sucked in by the side show called Obama.

Dunny104

Robert J. Samuelson - An Utter Disgrace To The Washington Post

by paradox
Before we get all warm and fuzzy about real journalists at The Washington Post like Dana Milbank. Or whores like Jonathan Weisman who sometimes act like real journalists. It???s important to remember that paper is still firmly captured, ensnared by corporate greed and a nauseating self-righteousness.
Robert J. Samuelson fits that profile perfectly today in his incredibly dishonest and condescending piece The Phony Job Debate. Electing a president based on job creation makes as much sense as selecting a doctor based on palm reading.
Facing a weak economy, a government can do three things: cut interest rates; run a budget deficit; and allow -- or cause -- its currency to depreciate.
Samuelson must think his readers are total morons who never heard of Keynes. Samuelson is totally, rankly lying, for he knows full well there???s another option, stimulative spending. He barely skips around the truth by calling this running a deficit.?
All these weapons have been deployed.
Deficit spending has not been deployed. A huge deficit has been deployed by giving the rich tax cuts, implementing a huge hike in defense spending, letting Congressional Republicans gorge on pork, and letting corporate taxation further erode.
Real deficit spending would have given tax cuts to the poor, who would have immediately spent it instead of saving it like the rich do. Real deficit spending would have flowed cash to immediate, massive public works projects that had a primary goal of employing workers, with a secondary benefit of improving the country???s infrastructure (roads, schools, forest maintenance, etc).
Bush gambled that his save-the-rich-from-pain strategy would work to produce jobs. It failed miserably, yet Samuelson is willing to rankly lie to defend Bush. In war, truth is often said to be the first casualty. It's the same in campaigns.
It???s the same at the Washington Post.


Mr. Samuelson is on "Billary's" payroll, what's left of it, he's a quack.

To the arthur of this article; why is it that you have failed to point out the inconsistency in Hillary Clinton's promises. Lets face it, she is running because Bill can't and she has had a "I smell boo boo look on her face since they left the white house. You talk of her political experience, but pardon me when did she hold public office before running for the senate after bill was booted from the white house. According to HER Biography she was a lawyer before being first lady for the state of Arkansas, and of the white house. She doesn't have that much experience other than what Bill has exposed her too.

You focus on these minor details as though they are massive gaffs in political judgement. Well I've got a major Gaff for you - going into a ridiculous war that North America was duped into supporting and refusing to admit that at best you where fooled by a President who can't tie his own shoelaces. Don't tell me that at the time everybody believed the Hogwash the White House and it's underlings where spinning in the media about Sadam, there where many people around the World and America that knew the thruth. Hillary wasn't one of them Obama was and for that alone he stand head and shoulders above her political drival.

Ah, Mr. Samuelson. When you discuss "broad rhetoric" and "narrow agenda", I am very tempted to believe you because as I read your article I can tell you certainly know a thing or two about rhetoric and having an agenda. To cut to the chase: I think you perform a disservice to Mr. Obama by painting this picture of a patronizing politician that is just saying things to get elected. Let's not mince words; you are labeling him as disingenuous and a liar over the course of the article. This is something that I have not observed, and I have looked as hard as you and come into this as a Republican by nature. So, something must be skewing what we see when we look at the same data and come to completely different conclusions. For myself, I believe that Mr. Obama represents a catalyst for changing our status quo for the better. Will it all be roses? No, change rarely occurs without some level of negative reaction. However, it is necessary. Many people believe that there is an opportunity here to change not only our government but our expectations. Perhaps you have had your hopes dashed too many times in the past by the false promises provided by political candidates. I share that skepticism. Truly, I do. However, perhaps what I am more concerned and skeptical about, is another candidate giving speeches that do nothing but make me grit my teeth at the thought that they sound just like the candidate before them like the candidate before them and so on. Here is chance to have something far better than any other candidate offers. Barack Obama represents an opportunity to bring something different into the White House - something better. Yes, there is a risk associated with someone who has not been in the machine as long as Barack Obama. But for my money and my vote, I see this as a risk that is minimal (even perhaps an advantage) compared to the risk of having the same thing served to us again.

Read the candidates positions on glassbooth.org, a nonpartisan site. Obama is bright enough to know that change comes about incrementally through negotiations and perserverence. What is so strange to me about all of the negative articles the press are writing about Obama, no one is pointing out the fact that McCain is more LIBERAL in many ways than both Obama and Clinton. He is for unfettered amnesty for illegal immigrants. He sponsored a bill with Edward Kennedy about the matter. He ha also talked about lifting thcap on social security taxation as a way to handle the system going bankrupt. The Republicans can win with a conservative candidate so they are parading neo-liberal as their candidate.

The title says a lot about this author of this article. He and a lot of Americans cannot see that America needs to turn the page and give a chance to a man who wants to make an attempt to bring America where it should and needs to be. We are all frustrated, disgruntled, angry and so polorized and biased on the economy, war, race, religion and politics that this is evidence of our still a long ways from being the country we should be. Barack Obama is asking for a chance to be given a job to unify americans and to get prorities straight and in order to turn this country around for new needed direction to the future. So many like this author of this article want to do nothing but throw the stones of negative attacks at this man. The Clintons and the McCains feel it okay to show their so called good side by slanderous negative attacks. Obama has not attacked, only said what is good about me to have me as your President and what I want and will do for you America and the American people.

Clinton is a politician. Obama is a leader. There is nothing wrong with hope. We have gone eight years as a country with little but despair and embarrassment. With Clinton and McCain we know we will be getting merely more of the same. This country, indeed this world, could use a great leader. Let us give Obama the chance to fill those shoes and lead us all to a better place.

Robert J. Samuelson - An Utter Disgrace To The Washington Post

by paradox
Before we get all warm and fuzzy about real journalists at The Washington Post like Dana Milbank. Or whores like Jonathan Weisman who sometimes act like real journalists. It???s important to remember that paper is still firmly captured, ensnared by corporate greed and a nauseating self-righteousness.
Robert J. Samuelson fits that profile perfectly today in his incredibly dishonest and condescending piece The Phony Job Debate. Electing a president based on job creation makes as much sense as selecting a doctor based on palm reading.
Facing a weak economy, a government can do three things: cut interest rates; run a budget deficit; and allow -- or cause -- its currency to depreciate.
Samuelson must think his readers are total morons who never heard of Keynes. Samuelson is totally, rankly lying, for he knows full well there???s another option, stimulative spending. He barely skips around the truth by calling this running a deficit.?
All these weapons have been deployed.
Deficit spending has not been deployed. A huge deficit has been deployed by giving the rich tax cuts, implementing a huge hike in defense spending, letting Congressional Republicans gorge on pork, and letting corporate taxation further erode.
Real deficit spending would have given tax cuts to the poor, who would have immediately spent it instead of saving it like the rich do. Real deficit spending would have flowed cash to immediate, massive public works projects that had a primary goal of employing workers, with a secondary benefit of improving the country???s infrastructure (roads, schools, forest maintenance, etc).
Bush gambled that his save-the-rich-from-pain strategy would work to produce jobs. It failed miserably, yet Samuelson is willing to rankly lie to defend Bush. In war, truth is often said to be the first casualty. It's the same in campaigns.
It???s the same at the Washington Post.

Mr. Samuelson is on "Billary's" payroll, what's left of it, he's a quack.

Evasive critique.

dear nightfall, obama could even have walked on water, so what. hillary would have bill clinton, someone who spent eight years in the whitehouse to provide advice, when asked. all former presidents have provided advice when asked. and then you have mccain who was a war hero, who would have given his life for his country if need be and who has a distinguished record in the senate. these are people you know you can trust. obama, wonder boy, if smoke and mirrors.

The problem is that this view is not able to be forwarded because of the dense fervor and revival-like response Obama receives from pundits, the opposition and other critical thinkers.
Perhaps he is all that he claims ... but this type of rhetorical satin is a very dangerous fabric and too ofter, the Emporer has no clothes.