Squealing about Obama’s “betrayal”


by Sunny
30th June, 2008 at 1:32 pm    

There’s an old saying: “the left want all the power but none of the responsibility”. And its very true, most of the time. Now, I’ve always supported Barack Obama but I have never been the Obama is the messiah kind, contrary to popular belief. Hence, unlike most of the American left, I’m not squealing about his recent decisions because they were more centrist than usual. And hell, I wouldn’t rule out the death penalty for child rapists either.

This post on HuffPo provides background and ends with:

He is simply adhering to the ancient political axiom that Democratic presidential candidates run to the Left and Republicans to the right in the embryonic stages of the campaign. Then when the chips are down they move quickly to the center, the conservative center that is.

The Left can moan over Obama’s political role reversals all it wants. But the hard reality is that presidential wannabes routinely do policy back flips to win. It’s simply part of the American political game.

That, and the fact that he is particularly vulnerable to certain accusations (black men will let off black kiddie rapists!) that could have surfaced during the election. As Michael Tomasky said, “It’s acceptable – and necessary – for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected.” Amen to that.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs






19 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Ravi Naik — on 30th June, 2008 at 3:32 pm  

    I totally agree with you. Desi Italiana would now accuse us of being shameless adherents of RealPolitiks. But Obama is presenting himself to an electorate that got Bush elected TWICE. This is an electorate that got fooled into believing that Kerry – a veteran who volunteered to serve in the Vietnam war – was a traitor and a coward. And Bush… oh never mind, it is too depressing to go back to 2004.

    I hope the Left is hard on him after he gets elected, but is smart enough to fully support him even if it seems like he is snubbing them. The alternative scares me by the day.

  2. marvin — on 30th June, 2008 at 7:23 pm  

    They’ll always be shrill cries on the fringes of a political party when it’s seeking power. Compromises and moderation is needed.

    A member with political savvy will always realise the centre ground is the place of power, and generally this is a pre-requisite for power.

    … Changing the subject slightly, this made me laugh out, The Onion on the Muslim woman headscarf controversy…

  3. Avi Cohen — on 30th June, 2008 at 8:21 pm  

    “But the hard reality is that presidential wannabes routinely do policy back flips to win. It’s simply part of the American political game.”

    Ah so now you see this as a game? Isn’t about getting elected to help people? Isn’t it about making the world a better place?

    If Obama is willing to betray his ideals for the goal of President of the USA isn’t he like a drug taking athlete? Win at any price?

    Obama is playing with people’s lives and the fact you find this acceptable is shameful and again detracts from the very ideals you speak of.

    If the leadership in the USA isn’t entirely truthful then what makes you think they will be good for the rest of us?

    You are sitting by as your boy is selling out ideal after ideal and people after people and you are sadly defending this situation.

    Whilst preaching the ideals of democracy and paying lip service to people’s right to choose you are allowing an American Presidential Candidate to dictate the future of millions of people across the world by denying them basic rights you yourself would hate to be deprived of.

    You are living in hope Obama changes after election. This is exact ly what people hoped would happen to Bush and he didn’t change and there is no reason to suggest Obama will change.

    You may find this sort of cynical approach of politicians acceptable but the most of the world doesn’t.

    What is the difference between Obama and Mugabe – they both want to get elected at any cost. That is the reality and it is that which has sunk Africa into the mess it is in and which will sink america further into the mess it is in.

    Obama Mugabe – Electoral Candidate of Do whatever it takes to get elected. Say whatever it takes to get elected.

    Shameful. Politics at its worst and people are defending this nonsense.

    Would you allow Hilary or McCain to get away with such things? So why the allowances for Obama?

  4. Ravi Naik — on 30th June, 2008 at 9:23 pm  

    “If Obama is willing to betray his ideals for the goal of President of the USA isn’t he like a drug taking athlete? Win at any price?”

    What has Obama done so far that can be compared to cheating? You know what cheating means? You have strict rules and guidelines, and you go against them to get an advantage. Please do tell how that applies to Obama.

    “What is the difference between Obama and Mugabe – they both want to get elected at any cost. That is the reality and it is that which has sunk Africa into the mess it is in and which will sink america further into the mess it is in.”

    You imply that there are similarities between Obama and Mugabe. Apart from both being black, what else there is? Can you be more explicit as to what Obama has done that can be remotely compared to what Mugabe has done? And what exactly are the measures that Obama will do that can be remotely compared to the mess Mugabe has done in his country?

  5. Andy Gilmour — on 1st July, 2008 at 12:03 am  

    “If the leadership in the USA isn’t entirely truthful then what makes you think they will be good for the rest of us?”

    I’m sorry, but that’s almost too funny…

    Are you *seriously* asking that, or brilliantly parodying (naive) self-righteous idealists?

    (It was the Mugabe comparison that made me suspect..taking it right to the limits of credulity!)

    If, and it’s a BIG “if”, you really meant it, may I just request, please, some examples of political leaders (especially Americans) who are/have been “entirely truthful”, by whom we can then measure Mr. Obama’s failings?

  6. Sunny — on 1st July, 2008 at 12:35 am  

    Heh, good points Andy.

    You’re really quite amusing Avi.

  7. Avi Cohen — on 1st July, 2008 at 1:16 pm  

    Sunny – Whilst praying at Temple Obama you’re failing to even see what significant changes he is making. Even the American people are fed up with their politicians.

    Obama was supposed to be a change but he is pretty much the same as before.

    Andy – If you bothered to read what I said it was a general statement that Mugabe wants power at any price and Obama is wiling to say practically anythign to get into power. Thus in a broad sense both men crave power.

    As regards comparison – listen the claim made by Sunny et al was that this man was different. If he is no worse that the others then that isn’t different.

    As you lot fawn over Obama you fail to see that Obama is changing and it isn’t a good change.

    Obama in his craving for power is becoming ugly in his approach, his dealings and his policies. If you find that acceptable from politicians then you are in a growing minority as many people are fed up with politicians who will do anything for power.

    The fact you find such actions acceptable is worrying in itself, the fact you excuse Obama for his misleading approach is worrying.

    It may be amusing for Sunny who is too arrogant to admit that his man – whom he so lovingly endorsed is basically selling out people to get elected. But it is beyond him to admit this so he is making excuses for Obama.

    If Hillary or McCain did this then he’d be up in arms. But when you are part of Club Hundal then most things are excused and sod the effect it has on the people who actually believed Obama and had hope in Obama – hell just get him elected on a platform with his shifting policies and basically lying. Way to go.

    Let’s see so far Sunny has excused and defended Obama’s:

    Unilateral decision to cede Jerusalem to Israel and sod the Palestinians – very democratic but hey Sunny has to get his man elected and who cares about Palestinians.

    Decision to change course on Social Issues – hell lets forget that people voted him in on a different platform after all what the hell is a vote for other than to get the nomination. Isn’t that what Mugabe does lets get voted in and then screw what we promised the electorate.

    He called for an inclusive America but lacks the courage to be photographed with Muslims or go to a Mosque. Fine leadership in creating an inclusive society. All rhetoric and little action to show he actullay means it. But hey Sunny you didn’t even worry about this.

    Obama wants a slow withdrawl from Iraq now after promising a quick withdrawl. Now he has adopted Hilary’s position after errr criticising her for it. Yep way to go – slap down your opponent and then take the same stance. Excellent – so why didn’t he have the courage to say this at the outset.

    Fine it is to get elected but whilst you’re creaming your pants at the mere statements of your boy – kindly explain why he didn’t say this at the start? Why flip flop?

    BTW. Unlike you stupidly poor defence of left or right, that isn’t the main issue., The main issue is why not be honest and make these positions at the start so people know what it is they are voting for. Surely this is just a case of deception. Stangely people find this acceptable.

    Sunny – “You’re really quite amusing Avi.”

    I may be amusing but you’re Obama Love Fest is quite laughable especially in light of your claim:

    “I have never been the Obama is the messiah kind,”

    Yeah right, you’re defending every decision he is making. But how can you still trust what he says when he changes his policy positions more times than you’re having to change your underwear!

  8. Andy Gilmour — on 1st July, 2008 at 8:59 pm  

    Avi,

    Of course I read what you wrote, you condescending poltroon. That’s why I suspected you of parody – it was so ridiculously, puritanically idealistic it almost *had* to be satire…

    “Thus in a broad sense both men crave power.”

    oh my sweet bejasus! a politician who craves power? wow, they must be just like Robert Mugabe! “Obama Mugabe”…yeah, that’s a rational, well-reasoned comment…and I’m a purple giraffe.

    “If you find that acceptable from politicians then you are in a growing minority as many people are fed up with politicians who will do anything for power”

    Please provide statistical evidence for this grand statement – oh, and non-voting doesn’t count. Laziness and apathy cannot be assumed to be opposition. :-)

    And, seriously, have you ever, EVER, studied politics in action??
    Obama’s a typical, high-profile American politician. Of course he’s a religious-ass-kissing, shifty, policy-changing chameleon.

    So what?

    He’s marginally better than the alternatives.

    Again, as I asked before, please supply your list of “entirely truthful” leaders?

    I won’t hold my breath…

  9. Avi Cohen — on 3rd July, 2008 at 4:13 pm  

    Andy,

    If you bothered to get your head out of your arse and take a look at various surveys you’d see that in many countries politicians aren’t trusted by the public.

    But seeing as you have so much difficulty using a keyboard here are a few examples to help you from being such a condescending prat:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4360597.stm

    “Eight out of 10 voters do not trust politicians to tell the truth, a new poll conducted for the BBC suggests.
    And 87% of the 1,000 adults quizzed by ICM for BBC News 24 said politicians did not deliver what they promised.

    The poll comes after Foreign Secretary Jack Straw predicted trust would be “the key choice” at the next election.”

    Equally look at the European Social Survey 2006 regarding how much public trust politicians in various countries.

    Here is a link from Australia
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/nelson-fails-to-win-trust-20080618-2set.html

    Here is a link from america:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-11-ethics_x.htm

    Now what have you to say?

    If the public can’t trust their politicians then democracy is threatened as people won’t vote.

    Obama was for change that was how your boy was hyped, but he is the same all the rest.

    “Again, as I asked before, please supply your list of “entirely truthful” leaders?

    I won’t hold my breath…”

    I didn’t say there were and you’d know that if you read what I said. But you and Sunny are painting Obama as a major change but he isn’t. Do you have the ability to grasp the concept that he is the same as the rest of them?! That was my point and your crap attitude in understanding that and then painting me as condecesnding shows you for what you are.

  10. Indrak — on 3rd July, 2008 at 6:23 pm  

    A Gilmour:
    why not address a mirror before accusing any one of condescension?
    Who are you to divine the motives of all that don’t vote?
    -some actively choose not to exactly to undermine the process, and the fact it’s not quantifiable to the likes of you is not important
    - until/unless there’s an option “none of the above”.

    Avi:
    I basically share your analysis wrt this thread,
    but want to know where it leads you?
    -Every 10 years or so in all polities, people get worked up over a certain figure/party; those who fail to draw systemic conclusions have little problem contorting their positions as they age and profit from the very system they embed themselves into,
    while functioning as a blanket of ignorance so that the young -the only ones with a sound excuse- are condemned to at best re-invent the wheel, and that at the expense of dissipated energies.

  11. Sunny — on 4th July, 2008 at 12:01 am  

    I didn’t say there were and you’d know that if you read what I said. But you and Sunny are painting Obama as a major change but he isn’t.

    Avi – you’re boring us man. What you mean is that he doesn’t want to put in practice the changes you want. In case you forget, a politician has to be elected from a majority of the country to get anywhere and America is more conservative than the UK.

  12. Avi Cohen — on 4th July, 2008 at 1:05 am  

    Sunny – “What you mean is that he doesn’t want to put in practice the changes you want.”

    Not true at all.

    Sunny – “In case you forget, a politician has to be elected from a majority of the country to get anywhere and America is more conservative than the UK.”

    No Sunny clearly you’ve forgotten that a politician is there to get elected on the basis of a platform they present that the people believe in and support. Obama’s flipflopping means few know what he actually stands for any more.

    I have no problem with Obama being the most right wing candidate, but I do have a problem if he hides this and keeps changing position to fit whatever mood he is in.

    Tell me Sunny what is his position on Iraq? Damned if I know. Will he withdraw or won’t he?

    Tell me Sunny what is his position on negotiation with Iran? Damned if I know anymore?

    Tell me Sunny what is his position on one America?

    My point is that politicians to be democratically elected need to be honest about their positions for people to trust what they say and you’ve never been able to answer it and your hiding behind boring tags is lame.

    Democracy is reliant upon politicians being truthful about their positions. It falls over when ever politicians say any damn lie to get elected then people don’t trust politicians.

    Obama is preaching the message of change but behind that he is shifting positions daily. That isn’t change and now how different is his position compared to Hilary? It ain’t that different so please stop boring people by claiming it is and making lame excuses for your boys deceiving people.

    If your argument is true that he needs to shift ground to win then he has won the nomination by deception and not based upon people trusting his position and policies. Thats fraud matey.

  13. Andy Gilmour — on 4th July, 2008 at 1:13 am  

    Dear Avi,

    You said:”But you and Sunny are painting Obama as a major change but he isn’t. Do you have the ability to grasp the concept that he is the same as the rest of them?! That was my point and your crap attitude in understanding that and then painting me as condecesnding shows you for what you are.”

    Ermmm…wrong! Sunny might well be completely “Obama-mental” (or not), but as for me, well, here’s what I’ve said about him:

    “Obama’s a typical, high-profile American politician. Of course he’s a religious-ass-kissing, shifty, policy-changing chameleon.”

    That’ll be “same as the rest of them”, for those of us with reasonable comprehension skills, who aren’t being blinded by our dogmatic little prejudices… :-)

    As to having a point, hey, YOU called him “Obama Mugabe”, which clearly deserved and invited ridicule. So you got some. So what? I did “bother”…which is what’s got you so hot & “bothered”. Which is really quite funny, I’m afraid. :-)

    You are, interestingly, shifting your ground, desperately back-pedalling from some of your more extreme statements, and, unfortunately, still avoiding a perfectly fair question:

    Regarding “truthful leaders”, you fudged nicely: “I didn’t say there were and you’d know that if you read what I said.”

    Ah, but what you DID say was: “If the leadership in the USA isn’t entirely truthful then what makes you think they will be good for the rest of us?”

    Which carries a very clear implication that such a leadership has existed/could exist. Also your statement:

    “What is the difference between Obama and Mugabe – they both want to get elected at any cost. That is the reality and it is that which has sunk Africa into the mess it is in and which will sink america further into the mess it is in.”

    You attack Obammy for not living up to your standards, but then are unwilling to offer examples of leaders who have done. Oh c’mon…

    Shall we play with stats and links, now? It’s fun!

    You offered:
    ““Eight out of 10 voters do not trust politicians to tell the truth, a new poll conducted for the BBC suggests.
    And 87% of the 1,000 adults quizzed by ICM for BBC News 24 said politicians did not deliver what they promised. ”

    Great.Sure. I never said people did trust/like/adore/whatever politicians. But interestingly, here’s some more BBC-sourced evidence (http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4206363.stm):

    “Would you tell me whether you trust politicians generally to tell the truth?
    1983 – 18%
    1993 – 14%
    2003 – 18%
    2004 – 22%
    Source: MORI”

    Which matches the “8 out of 10 not trusting” you mentioned quite well, BUT also suggests that (gullible) people trust them more now than they did during the Thatcher/Major era…but then, who trusts opinion polls? :-)

    You said: “If the public can’t trust their politicians then democracy is threatened as people won’t vote.”

    Unfortunately for your premise – they seem, irritatingly, to keep voting. In very consistent numbers, too. Not as high as they should/could be, sure, but…let’s consider English local council elections (since they’re usually the worst supported, and thus should better reflect your side of the argument).

    From the handy local government association pamphlet, (http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/495528), it would seem that since the 1998 record low of 28%, the figure has stayed consistently around 33-36% (but much higher when a general election was held on the same day – 2001 & 2005 over 60%), while the general election turnout actually recovered slightly (2001 = 56%, 2005 = 61%), after falling from its historical ‘normal’ level of over 72% (71% in 1997). [http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/turnout.htm]

    So, yeah, we may not trust them, but we still vote. So we’re clearly not “fed up” enough, huh?

    I don’t think we’ve got much left to say to each other, do we?

    quick checklist: You seem to be an idealist, I’m a cynic. I rudely took the piss out of your initial, somewhat extreme post, you’ve responded with typical “fundie” strategies (only political idealist rather than raving supernaturalist), I’ve answered you reasonably fully, I reckon – you might not agree, but..??, and I’m too all-round-tired right now to care/take you seriously when all’s said and done. We’ve played the numbers game, we actually agree(!) that Obammy’s not superman, and I’m not going to carry this on any further, so please feel free to have the last word!

    Oh, and Indrak:
    “Who are you to divine the motives of all that don’t vote?”

    I didn’t. I said “laziness & apathy cannot be assumed to be opposition”, which is true, (and was partially in jest – as I made obvious), but at least the apathy bit has some evidence for it – and I certainly didn’t rule out people not voting as protest.

    Apathy through apparent non-choice is certainly a factor – stats for “party loyalty” (again from http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4206363.stm):

    Very strong Conservative identifiers:
    1964: 48%
    1974: 32%
    1983: 25%
    1992: 21%
    2001: 14%
    Very strong Labour identifiers:
    1964: 51%
    1974: 41%
    1983: 28%
    1992: 24%
    2001: 16%
    Very strong Liberal identifiers:
    1964: 32%
    1974: 12%
    1983: 21%
    1992: 8%
    2001: 7%
    Source: British Election Survey

    If you’re not very keen on a particular party, you’re not going to be so fussed who gets in, so why make the effort?

    Then you said:
    “some actively choose not to exactly to undermine the process, and the fact it’s not quantifiable to the likes of you is not important”

    That’s a very old argument that’s just plain wrong, and you ought to know it.

    The act of non-voting sends NO definite message, it reveals NO policy, plan or coherent strategy. How many reasons could there be for deciding not to vote, oh I dunno…You stubbed your toe on the bedpost that morning. It was raining (a bit). You forgot. You’re a (your party of choice) voter in a ward with a huge (not your party of choice) majority, so you reckon your vote’s worthless. You’re genuinely just too lazy / ignorant of the voting process / don’t care about the issues. Or maybe, just maybe, you’re actively seeking to “undermine the process”.

    Trouble is, there’s no bloody way to tell which, now is there? It isn’t quantifiable to anybody, (forget “the likes of” me), which, sorry to say, IS important.

    Non-voting-as-protest is letting the politicians who eventually are elected off the hook, because they can ascribe all sorts of contingent factors instead. All you’ve done is allow someone to obtain power a little more easily. Well done you. Aren’t you clever? Give yourself an ideological purity gold star while you fail to achieve anything.

    Now if, on the other hand, you organised a massive campaign of ballot defacement, where every paper was spoiled in an identical manner (say, by folk inscribing “NO MORE LIES” right across the middle), well…now that would get attention.

    But simply not voting?

    Feel free to keep trying it, and good luck with seeing just how far it gets you.

  14. Avi Cohen — on 4th July, 2008 at 1:28 am  

    I mean Sunny the positions are changing so fast even reporters can’t keep up man. Your boy is having to call them back so he can flip flop positions, check this out:

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080703/tpl-uk-usa-politics-obama-iraq-81f3b62.html

    “At an earlier news conference, the Illinois senator had said he could “refine” his stance after he visits Iraq.”

    then a short time later – Sunny’s Flip Flop Messiah said:

    “”Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war,” Obama told reporters in his second news conference.

    But he added: “I would be a poor commander in chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account.”"

    I mean come on Sunny man even you can’t keep defending this. Is he staying or going in Iraq? Simple question and the man can’t answer it straight.

    Then you have the nerve to call me boring for asking for honesty and clarity in politics!

    Contrast that with your approach to Boris and how he changes positions and you blog that as a sin and saying he isn’t keeping his promises. So why the two positions? Boris can’t flip flop and has to say what he means. Obama can flip flop and you defend it.

    Whats going on?

    Then to hide behind this by calling me boring isn’t answering the point. Why the hell can’t Obama just say what his positions are and then campaign on that? Is it soooooooooooooooooooooo hard to just say what you stand for and campaign on that?

    Come on Obama Campaign Manager in the UK tell me is he staying or going in Iraq?

    I don’t know if I like the position because I don’t know what the position is!

  15. digitalcntrl — on 4th July, 2008 at 2:06 am  

    @ Avi
    “Obama can flip flop and you defend it. Whats going on?”

    I thought being a flip flop was a good thing as opposed to being a diehard ideologue a la Bush.

    “Why the hell can’t Obama just say what his positions are and then campaign on that? Is it soooooooooooooooooooooo hard to just say what you stand for and campaign on that?”

    Ironic that your comments and links made me an Obama fan : ). I was afraid he was some diehard with zero common sense. Ideally I am sure he wishes to extract American forces from Iraq today, but he is also a realist. He realizes that pulling out suddenly now would only yield a bloodbath in Iraq. It is easy to pontificate over what should have happened in 2003, not what is the best course of action in 2008.

  16. Avi Cohen — on 4th July, 2008 at 2:58 pm  

    digitalcntrl – the flip flopping here isn’t due to any common sense on Obama’s part. Thats the damn point he is just saying what different people want to hear.

    I doubt anyone including Sunny know what Obama’s real position is on many things.

    So how on earth are voters to base their decision?

    Andy – will reply to your points later.

  17. Ravi Naik — on 4th July, 2008 at 3:28 pm  

    “the flip flopping here isn’t due to any common sense on Obama’s part. Thats the damn point he is just saying what different people want to hear.”

    The problem with the term “flip-flop” is that it assumes issues are black-and-white. And also assumes that you are incapable of understanding the complexity of issues.

    “I mean come on Sunny man even you can’t keep defending this. Is he staying or going in Iraq? Simple question and the man can’t answer it straight.”

    What part don’t you understand? Honestly, you seem to prefer a retard like Bush that talks to people like they are children. He says he intends to finish the War – that is to bring the troops back. He said he intends to do with within 16 months, but he reserves the right to see the realities on the ground. It might mean that unexpected events may delay the process, or on the other hand, it may speed up the process.

    He is a freaking Presidential candidate, not the President – he has no idea about details and what is really happening on the ground, nor what is going to happen in the future. Only a foolish leader would keep on going on course (like Bush) when events change. That’s what Obama is saying, and does not conflict with the goal to finish the war. Finishing the war does not mean pack your bags and leave in the next day.

    I actually do know Obama’s positions on every issue. If you don’t, then its because you don’t really want to know.

  18. Avi Cohen — on 4th July, 2008 at 5:18 pm  

    Ravi – I don’t prefer Bush, but I don’t see Obama as being the big change that everyone is hoping for.

    Come on at leats be consistent here, Boris Johnston is being bashed for changing policy and it is beign blogged regularly here. I preferred Ken but hey Obama is doing the same as Boris and is being praised.

    As you know every position for Obama then please answer the following:

    Is he leaving Iraq or staying?

    Is he going to move the USA Embassy to Jerusalem or not?

    Is Jerusalem the united capital of Israel or is it to be shared?

    Is he going to talk to Iran or not?

    Is Obama for universal healthcare in the USA or not?

    Is Obama unilateralist or goign to work with nations?

    Is Obama willing to be photographed with Muslim women wearing scarves or not?

    How can you know what he stands for when he is changing on a daily basis?

    If you do know then why doesn’t his own team know and how do you know more than them?

    I am not pro-Bush and anti-Obama. I actually think it would be good if he is elected but only if he is honest abotu his policies. At the moment I don’t think he is being straightforward about his policies.

  19. Ravi Naik — on 4th July, 2008 at 6:20 pm  

    “Ravi – I don’t prefer Bush, but I don’t see Obama as being the big change that everyone is hoping for.”

    He is going to be very different from Bush, and that’s good enough change for me, thank you very much. People will be disappointed if they think he is going to change the definition of a politician. I don’t know where you get off comparing Obama with Boris – the latter reminds me of a slighter more competent version of Bush.

    Is he leaving Iraq or staying?

    American troops will start leaving Iraq as soon as he takes office. It will not be overnight, and it will be progressive and dictated by events. Right now, the troops are remaining in Iraq indefinitely.

    Is he going to move the USA Embassy to Jerusalem or not? Is Jerusalem the united capital of Israel or is it to be shared?”

    That is not a decision for him to make. If Jerusalem becomes the capital of Israel (which is very unlikely), then he will move it. I very much doubt that this will be sorted out while he is in office.
    My personal opinion is that he flopped on the issue of the capital – not flip-flopped.

    “Is he going to talk to Iran or not?”

    Yes, he is!

    Is Obama for universal healthcare in the USA or not?”

    Yes, he is! Hillary’s plan was better. My view is that Obama is a pragmatist: he would rather go for progressive changes, then to try to completely change the system in one go – in part because he needs to get these plans passed in the Senate and the House. Hillary’s plan failed miserably in the 90′s.

    Is Obama unilateralist or goign to work with nations?

    He is going to work with nations.

    Is Obama willing to be photographed with Muslim women wearing scarves or not?

    Yes, he is.

    “How can you know what he stands for when he is changing on a daily basis?”

    Be he doesn’t.

    If you do know then why doesn’t his own team know and how do you know more than them?

    Which members of his team are you referring? I know about Obama because I follow his speeches, his blog and a number of political blogs. What is your excuse for being so clueless about Obama? I mean, the questions you’ve asked are pretty straightforward, and not worth the bitchin you’ve been making.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.