Mark, you are so right. Anyone who resorts to slandering Obama by feeding into racist stereotypes about his name, or how similar it sounds to “Osama”, is simply unintelligent and too lazy to address the real issues. I have never, and would never, play into such racism. That said, I heard this AM that 23% of Americans wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romne because he’s MORMON! Not because he’s a Republican, or because he’s pro life — but simply because he’s Mormon. Do we think these people are more open-minded about a black man with a Muslim surname…?
“Actually, I think that’s the only way, Obama will get elected. Voters are only willing to take a chance on someone who they trust will not change things too much.”
Sigh…on that we can agree, Perry. But it truly saddens me, because given the very serious issues facing this country ,we now find ourselves at an inflection point. Maintaining the staus quo simply won’t work anymore: hard decisions must be be made about dependence on foreign credit, alternative energy sources, outsourcing, tax cuts (or increases) to support imminent Baby Boomer entitlements… We don’t need pragmatic politics or someone who plays it safe; we need a firebrand who will speak his/her mind and — for once — be more invested in telling the truth than playing the game. We need a candidate who has the balls to stand up and deliver the bitter pill of truth instead of spending their time courting special interest groups! But if you are right and Americans are really only looking for someone who won’t change things too much…then I fear we are doomed.
And again, Perry — I remind you that one of Obama’s closest friends is Warren Buffett. Think about that. He receives investment advice from the richest American. Is it possible that he receives counsel from him on other matters? Indeed, who wouldn’t be swayed or intimidated by a man of such wealth? Do you really think Buffett is advising Obama to take the existing system and improve it? Do you think Buffett or any of Obama’s other insanely-wealthy supporters have any interest in making that happen? And consider this: Obama has made more appearances at AIPAC events than any other Dem except Hillary. Perhaps this is where his hawkish talk on Iran comes from. The sad truth is that it’s hard to change the system or chart a new course for our country when you spend so much time appealing to powerful and wealthy investors and interest groups.
Say what you will about Howard Dean, but the primary reason I supported him was because the mainstream was not supporting him. He was isolated from Hollywood and Wall Street. He stood on his own two feet and raised money from the BOTTOM up without the help of the wealthy. Because he did this, I had faith that he would hold the interests of most Americans — and not his wealthy donors (because he really had none) — at heart. This man had a seriously strong shot of being the Democratic candidate. But what did the media do? Use a silly crowd-pleasing gesture to torpedo him because he became too threatening to the establishment. I have a theory and would curious to get your thoughts on it: the establishment is represented by corporate America; corporate America controls the media. By deduction, if the media is enraptured with a candidate, it necessarily means that they aren’t threatening the establishment. My feeling is that if the media ever torpedoes Obama like they torpedoed Dean, that will be some evidence that he is truly a threat to the system. Until then, I remain suspicous of his ties to the elite and the media’s fascination with him.
“At the very least, he’s better than any of the Republican or Democratic alternatives.” I am curious, why is Obama a better candidate than Edwards? What about his platform distinguishes him from Edwards? I really can’t find any solid distinctions in my research, so I would appreciate an education here. As an aside, I am actually most impressed with Ron Paul. Certainly, he is not charismatic, but he is dousing Americans with much-needed truth about the true state of our economy and our military. Perhaps if the media wasn’t as infatuated with charismatic, well-funded candidates Americans might learn more about this man and like what they hear.
On the subject of Iran…I think we’ll know sometime this year whether this administration is ignorant enough to make the same mistake twice. I am not encouraged by how feeble the Democratic-controlled Congress has been to date: they supported Bush’s Iraq funding bill, WHILE also affirming that Bush does not need Congressional approval to strike Iran. I question why that rider was even included in the bill if an attack on Iran is merely hypothetical. Given that we have several thousand troops now mobilized along the Iraq/Iran border, 3 aircraft carriers off the coast of Iran and the largest fleet build-up in the Gulf since the eve of the Iraq invasion, and the fact that Iran is now selling 60% of its oil in other currencies, thereby reducing global demand for the dollar significantly over the past 6 mos (chart the dollar index — it’s at an all-time low), I would bet that a strike is coming. I hope I am wrong.
Perry, it has been delightful corresponding with you!
