Future Presidential runner Obama's take on Meth

[renegades]

Date: July 28, 2005

Obama Says Bill Will Help Cut Off Supply of Dangerous Methamphetamine

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today said that more strict regulation of the ingredients used to produce methamphetamine will drastically cut production and use of the deadly drug.

"Meth use has become an epidemic in Illinois, especially in Downstate and rural communities," said Obama. "This tough new law will prevent those who use over-the-counter drugs to make meth and sell it to our children from getting the quantities that they need, helping us get this dangerous drug out of our schools and off the streets."

Obama is a cosponsor of the bipartisan Combat Meth Act of 2005. This bill will require over-the-counter cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine to be locked behind the counter. It will also limit the quantity that can be bought in a month, require that purchasers show identification, and authorize $43 million for enforcement, training, and research into treatment.

Methamphetamine use is an epidemic across the United States. A recent survey by the National Association of Counties found that 58 percent of law enforcement officials surveyed identified meth use as their greatest drug challenge. Eighty-seven percent of the counties found an increase in the number of meth-related arrests in the past three years. Seventy percent of the counties said meth use had caused an increase in robberies and burglaries, fifty-three percent reported an increase in assault cases and sixty-two percent reported an increase in domestic violence.

Criminals use pseudoephedrine, a chemical commonly found in over-the-counter cold medicines like Pseudofed, to make methamphetamine in home laboratories. According to the Illinois Criminal Justice Authority, the number of these labs raided by law enforcement officials increased dramatically between 1994 and 2003, from 24 to 971. Seventy-five percent of those facilities were located in rural counties. During that same period, the quantity of methamphetamine seized increased from 3,433 grams to 26,597 grams.

"Part of the reason why meth use has increased so dramatically over the past decade is because it is so easy to make," said Obama. "This bill will help cut off the supply of the ingredients used to make it, and help keep our communities safe from this terrible drug."

The bill passed the Judiciary Committee today.
This is from http://obama.senate.gov/press/050728...ine/index.html.

Well, it looks as though Obama could have not been more wrong. Crystal Meth is easier to get and the quality is better than before this legislation passed Congress thanks to the Mexican drug lords. Swim guess Obama forgot about them and their super factories located in Mexico would fill the demand. When will Politicians learn that building more treatment centers, not jails, spend more money on possible drugs and treatment that might eliminate the desire to use and cravings is the right path in combating meth. This is what swim wants my Politician to do, not be tuff on drug crime with harsh sentences, but get all the drug users out of jail and into treatment. Swim guess this loser is not getting my vote in 2008 unless he does an 180 in regards to drug policy. He is articulate, but with only two years in congress and by pointing out legislation he did in Congress while there in those 2 years, shows swim that Obama lacks the experience to be president, and by the way he handled the meth crises shows he still has lots to learn.

[BeetleJuice]

Eliminating the desire..think its as easy as setting up a clinic?I guess youll be voting for the republicans?
Whats bushs team (crackheads and real druglords) gonna do about one of their main money makers?

[renegades]

No, sorry to your dismay. Bush is not running in 2008 however Swim is a registered independent and have voted democratic many times. Swim is very liberal when it comes to social matters of concern and many times have changed swim's vote based on swim's research on the net. However one person who swim liked was Obama and was surprised to find Obama "the man with new ideas" to be just one of those politicians who believe if you throw money. more laws and more law enforcement without making fundamental changes to the current condition. you already have lost the war on drugs. This is not a new idea. The USA has been doing it for a 100 years without any success. Without fundamental changes in our prison and sentencing laws, lives are going to be ruined, and otherwise law-abiding citizens will be thrown in the USA's version of a concentration camp for years. Drug users are being singled out and are being persecuted for victimless crimes. It is wrong and we need a candidate who can articulate this as a bold new idea, and convince Americans that it must be treated as a medical problem not a law enforcement issue. Recent poll (swim thinks fox 5 in new York)said that 51% of Americans believe that drugs are best treated as if it is a medical problem, 45% see it as a law enforcement issue. So the majority of Americans are willing to make that fundamental change, we just need a candidate who can provide the leadership to make this transition from police state to again be home of the free.

[Bajeda]

You also have to consider that Obama already has alot of things going against him, so looking for a radical change in drug policy would probably hurt more than help politics-wise. When you have to choose between a person you don't find quite ideal and someone even worse to be your leader, I'd take the former. Too bad about his views on drugs, but hopefully development of a more pragmatic approach to politics over time will shift the majority of public perception of drugs to a more favorable view of how to deal with them.

[enquirewithin]

Many of us would love to see an African-American president, but Obama (I shouldn't think he wll become president anyway) will be no radical.

In foreign policy, he is not for pulling out of Iraq and condoned Israel's attack on the Lebanon. See here.

[renegades]

Yep, he does not want to look soft on crime. But here is the twist, it is not a crime issue. The USA makes it a crime issue by passing drug laws. So one needs to separate them and make them two issues. One on victim crimes and the other victimless (drug) crimes. I think the American people realize the war on drugs has failed and have only put our sons and daughters away for years in a detention camps. They are a very compassionate and forgiving people and would support a new approach. One where we find the magic bullet that will rid people of meth heroin and coke cravings, now that Swim calls that a Victory in the War on Drugs not taking out some $5 crack dealer.

[BeetleJuice]

bush dont need to run to be running things (not that HE runs things anyways).
PS america was only free for like a year or so when it was founded (probably not even).
An bout the war on drugs, there is no war an if there was youse lost it loooooooooooooooong ago. how much money has been "spent" on the war on happiness, i mean drugs.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by BeetleJuice

PS america was only free for like a year or so when it was founded (probably not even).

Freedom is relative. Its an abstract concept that is quantified by each individual differently based on their personal perceptions and situation in society. The contemporary paradigm of domestic politics and government protection of civil liberties is based on the idea that one should have as much freedom as possible up to the point where it doesn't impinge on the freedom of other individuals, liberalism. The extent to which this is followed is subject to interpretation, of which many versions exist.

I don't imagine we can ever get to the point where we are completely free. Without laws protecting against people using their freedom to harm others or limit the freedom of others society will devolve and there will be less individual freedom overall. The way this applies to the drug war is that prohibition and its enforcement lead to increasing restrictions on personal freedoms, while drug use in itself could constitute a person giving up their freedom to an addiction in some cases but in the majority of cases (vast majority) doesn't restrict the freedoms of others due to use by a few people.


Its easy to theorize about freedom and how to sustain it and make for a great happy productive society without problems, but it is much much harder to enact in practice. Whatever flaws the founders of the United States and their dreams had, at least they attempted to put them into practice to the best of their ability. We can't lose sight of what the agreement between the government and the people is supposed to signify and accomplish.


That covered, the war on drugs isn't about happiness really. Its about powerful individuals and other entities trying to maintain their strategic interests and increase their power. People who have helped develop this "war" on drugs didn't do so because they don't want to see people happy, but because they saw attacking drugs as a way of deflecting other problems threatening to them (of which drugs were part of the cause) and simply didn't care about the immeasureable consequences that would result.


I hate not having the freedom to ingest whatever I want to, but I am grateful for the fact that I live in a world where indiscriminate killing, war, oppression, and other ugly concepts that squelch individual freedom aren't the norm, but are instead viewed as things to be countered.

[BeetleJuice]

"I hate not having the freedom to ingest whatever I want to, but I am grateful for the fact that I live in a world where indiscriminate killing, war, oppression, and other ugly concepts that squelch individual freedom aren't the norm, but are instead viewed as things to be countered."

Maybe where you an i are living,but thats kinda the point.where your happy without the indiscriminate killings,other people HAVE to live in that situation thanks to the US (and others) coz of their greed. everything you speak of -indiscriminate killing, war, oppression, and other ugly concepts - has been pushed upon people in latin america, mid east, asia n other places BY the very same goverments that keep you away from such things (same reasons germans under hitler where so happy to go along with things,their lifes was going good, while everyone else around em where being slaughtered).

In the words of some dude that i donno the name of "GIVE ME FREEDOM OR GIVE ME DEATH"

(i think this post was way off-topic)

[Bajeda]

You didn't quite get all I said I don't think. Read it over again and maybe look up some background. Comparative Politics and Modern History textbooks would be good.

This is my second year living in the US. I lived elsewhere for most of my life, mostly the Middle-East. I wasn't referring to the fact that in the US there isn't warfare and indiscriminate violence (though the drug war is an abomination), but rather that the current socially accepted norm in current politics is that war is not preferable (the concept of democratic peace arises here) and that human life is to be valued. However lacking the power of the UN is, every human on this planet is recognized to have basic rights not even considered in earlier history. The struggle now that these basic rights have been establish is to secure them for all people, which is difficult. There are still many cycles of history continuing, and however much society has developed in even the richest countries traditional cultural values still linger. This along with a multitude of other factors creates many opportunities for conflict. We must stay true to the ideals that have allowed society to progress this far, and attempt to realize the potential of a humanist social paradigm. Complacency will lead towards regression, which is a fear I have for the US right now. The more powerful and influential countries have to set the precedent for the others rising up, and continue to aid more capricious regions in stabilisation and advancement.

So yeah, things are far from perfect, you definitely don't need to tell me that. I'm just saying that if you look throughout history at the accepted political and social norms you'll be much happier to live in a time where you have more acknowledged worth as a human being (even if people aren't happy about it), and where we are closer to realizing some of the ideals that were mere ideas centuries ago, even if we do still have a long arduous route to travel.



And a last comment, if you are willing to die for something it would be good to have a nuanced understanding of what exactly that thing means to you. And its nice to know the name of the person from whom you got your rallying cry, it gives you a bit more credibility.

[zera]

I don't use meth, but scientific studies have shown that phenylephrine, the stuff they've replaced pseudophedrine with, is completely innefective. In fact the pharmeceutical companies are now defendants in a class action law suit for marketing a useless chemical. Not only that, but the vast majority of meth in the US is manufactured in Mexico, so restricting pseudophedrine in the US will have no effect.

Thanks Obama, you fucking asshole, because of your pointless political pandering to a non-existent "meth epidemic" I know have to suffer through this shitty ass winter with a horrible head cold and can't get the one substance that would relieve me, because the local drugstore doesn't want DEA agents auditing their records every two weeks. This just goes to show Obama's a sellout, unprincipled, career politicians like virtually every other "statesman" in this cursed country which is in a state of perpetual moral panic. Just like South Park says anybody who rises high enough in politics to run for president is either a douche or a turd sandwich.

Obama's not a saviour, he's just another asshole out of dozens that lusts for power more than any junkie lusts for smack. Like the most hardcore addict he'll do anything to get his "fix."

[Bajeda]

Those are some pretty harsh statements to make based off of one policy, do you have any other reasons to bash the shit out of Barack?

I'm not a supporter of him in any way really, but I find him to be an interesting character. I'm just wondering why you reacted so strongly to this one interview with him.

In politics it often does come down to a race between a douchebag and a turd sandwich, but you have to ask yourself which of the two is going to work against everything you believe in and which of the two is going to only work against 90% of what you believe in. Its a very shady subject with many grey areas, but I don't think domestic politics is completely devoid of hope.

[enquirewithin]

However lacking the power of the UN is, every human on this planet is recognized to have basic rights not even considered in earlier history. The struggle now that these basic rights have been establish is to secure them for all people, which is difficult. There are still many cycles of history continuing, and however much society has developed in even the richest countries traditional cultural values still linger. This along with a multitude of other factors creates many opportunities for conflict. We must stay true to the ideals that have allowed society to progress this far, and attempt to realize the potential of a humanist social paradigm. Complacency will lead towards regression, which is a fear I have for the US right now.

The UN, however flawed, is what the world needs, although in a reformed state, but has been made fairly usless by the US's use of it veto (aide by Israel and the the UK). Poeple in the US and the Europe have fought for liberties over time, but this administration is going much to erode them (illegal wars, phone tapping, detention without trial. You are right, we can never stop fighting for civil liberties and rights.

Aldous Huxley: 'Liberty is not given, it is taken.'

Cultural values-- perhaps you mean rule by elites, which has always been the case everywhere-- does persist. The elites will always try to gain as much influence / power as they can.

The more powerful and influential countries have to set the precedent for the others rising up, and continue to aid more capricious regions in stabilisation and advancement.

I am not so sure about that. US/ UK 'advancement of democracy' is a myth. We promote democracy as along as the right oilgarchy gets in power. Deocratically elected governments like Hamas or that of Chavez are 'bad' because the US can't control them. Israel is to be supported, despite the fact that it's an apartheid governmet, as is Saudi, one of the most oppressive governemnts in the world.

Barak Obama is an unknown quantity so far. He may well be the best of a bad lot.

[renegades]

Effect of Obama's Candor Remains to Be Seen
Senator Admitted Trying Cocaine in a Memoir Written 11 Years Ago


By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 3, 2007; A01

Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind."
The Democratic senator from Illinois and likely presidential candidate offered the confession in a memoir written 11 years ago, not long after he graduated from law school and well before he contemplated life on the national stage. At the time, 20,000 copies were printed and the book seemed destined for the remainders stacks.
Today, Obama, 45, is near the top of polls on potential Democratic presidential contenders, and "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" has regularly been on the bestseller lists, with 800,000 copies in print. Taken along with his latest bestseller, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream," Obama has become a genuine publishing phenomenon.
Obama's revelations were not an issue during his Senate campaign two years ago. But now his open narrative of early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity, are sure to receive new scrutiny.
As a potential candidate, Obama has presented himself as a fresh voice offering a politics of hope. Many say he offers something new in American politics: an African American with a less-than-traditional name who has so far demonstrated broad appeal. What remains to be seen is whether the candor he offered in his early memoir will be greeted with a new-style acceptance by voters.
It was not so long ago that such blunt admissions would have led to a candidate's undoing, and there is uneasiness in Democratic circles that "Dreams From My Father" will provide a blueprint for negative attacks.
Two decades ago, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was forced to withdraw as a nominee for the Supreme Court after reports surfaced that he had used marijuana while he was a law professor. As a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton thought marijuana use could be enough of a liability in 1992 that he felt compelled to say he had not inhaled. And President Bush has managed to deflect endless gossip about his past by acknowledging that he had an "irresponsible" youth but offering no details.
Through his book, Obama has become the first potential presidential contender to admit trying cocaine.
"I believe what the country is looking for is someone who is open, honest and candid about themselves rather than someone who seems endlessly driven by polls or focus groups," said Robert Gibbs, Obama's spokesman. Gibbs said yesterday that Obama was not available for an interview.
Presidential aspirants tend to write more sanitized books for use as campaign tools. "Faith of My Fathers" by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) depicts his family's history of military service. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has reissued "It Takes a Village," which offers her views about child-rearing in contemporary society. In fact, Obama's latest book, "Audacity of Hope," lays out his policy positions.
But "Dreams From My Father" is not like that. Obama wrote the highly personal book when he was in his early 30s, after being approached by a publisher when he became the first black person elected editor of the Harvard Law Review.
"This is not the kind of book you would ever expect a politician to write," said GOP consultant Alex Vogel. "Anyone who has a career in politics has to be concerned with what's in their past, but there is no question that Americans have an appetite for redemption."
In fact, Bush himself has been a beneficiary of those sympathies. He has suffered little criticism from his conservative base after acknowledging that he drank too much in the past and is now a teetotaler.
Obama's partisan opponents and experts said it is too early to know whether the admissions will be a liability because the public seems to be enthusiastically embracing his openness at this point. What's more, they note that it is better for a politician to disclose his own transgressions, rather than be put on the defensive by revelations.
Swim thinks Obama would have empathy for other drug users and understand why people use being a user himself. Many times it is not due to an addiction buy rather due different reasons. Thanks to luck, he was not busted and ended up in jail and with a criminal record, but became one of the most articulate people in politics today.

[renegades]

Effect of Obama's Candor Remains to Be Seen
Senator Admitted Trying Cocaine in a Memoir Written 11 Years Ago


By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 3, 2007; A01

Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind."
The Democratic senator from Illinois and likely presidential candidate offered the confession in a memoir written 11 years ago, not long after he graduated from law school and well before he contemplated life on the national stage. At the time, 20,000 copies were printed and the book seemed destined for the remainders stacks.
Today, Obama, 45, is near the top of polls on potential Democratic presidential contenders, and "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" has regularly been on the bestseller lists, with 800,000 copies in print. Taken along with his latest bestseller, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream," Obama has become a genuine publishing phenomenon.
Obama's revelations were not an issue during his Senate campaign two years ago. But now his open narrative of early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity, are sure to receive new scrutiny.
As a potential candidate, Obama has presented himself as a fresh voice offering a politics of hope. Many say he offers something new in American politics: an African American with a less-than-traditional name who has so far demonstrated broad appeal. What remains to be seen is whether the candor he offered in his early memoir will be greeted with a new-style acceptance by voters.
It was not so long ago that such blunt admissions would have led to a candidate's undoing, and there is uneasiness in Democratic circles that "Dreams From My Father" will provide a blueprint for negative attacks.
Two decades ago, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was forced to withdraw as a nominee for the Supreme Court after reports surfaced that he had used marijuana while he was a law professor. As a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton thought marijuana use could be enough of a liability in 1992 that he felt compelled to say he had not inhaled. And President Bush has managed to deflect endless gossip about his past by acknowledging that he had an "irresponsible" youth but offering no details.
Through his book, Obama has become the first potential presidential contender to admit trying cocaine.
"I believe what the country is looking for is someone who is open, honest and candid about themselves rather than someone who seems endlessly driven by polls or focus groups," said Robert Gibbs, Obama's spokesman. Gibbs said yesterday that Obama was not available for an interview.
Presidential aspirants tend to write more sanitized books for use as campaign tools. "Faith of My Fathers" by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) depicts his family's history of military service. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has reissued "It Takes a Village," which offers her views about child-rearing in contemporary society. In fact, Obama's latest book, "Audacity of Hope," lays out his policy positions.
But "Dreams From My Father" is not like that. Obama wrote the highly personal book when he was in his early 30s, after being approached by a publisher when he became the first black person elected editor of the Harvard Law Review.
"This is not the kind of book you would ever expect a politician to write," said GOP consultant Alex Vogel. "Anyone who has a career in politics has to be concerned with what's in their past, but there is no question that Americans have an appetite for redemption."
In fact, Bush himself has been a beneficiary of those sympathies. He has suffered little criticism from his conservative base after acknowledging that he drank too much in the past and is now a teetotaler.
Obama's partisan opponents and experts said it is too early to know whether the admissions will be a liability because the public seems to be enthusiastically embracing his openness at this point. What's more, they note that it is better for a politician to disclose his own transgressions, rather than be put on the defensive by revelations.
Swim thinks Obama would have empathy for other drug users and understand why people use being a user himself for 7 years. Swim believes many times it is not an addiction but rather a host of many different reasons that motivate people to use. Thanks to pure luck, Obama was not busted, ended up in jail with a criminal record, because if he was, his life would have been ruined and he would be not have become one of the most articulate people in politics today.
Oh by the way another news item but just a blurp that, Obama was supposed to have a nose like a vacuum cleaner according to his own brother.
How did these stories get out? Usually the press will circle the wagons if a Democrat gets in trouble, but one does not have to look any further than the Clinton War Room, back in action, whose philosophy is if you can't beat an opponent even if they are democratic, you smear them. If you are accused of being a sexual predator, destroy the accuser. Swim is sure that Obama thinks the bitch set me up. Nothing will get in the way of a Hillary presidency, not even a possible first black president. However Obama did those things so if he would had have more tolerance for drug use such as proposing treatment not prison based on his own experiences, then this would not have been much of a story.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

I am not so sure about that. US/ UK 'advancement of democracy' is a myth. We promote democracy as along as the right oilgarchy gets in power. Deocratically elected governments like Hamas or that of Chavez are 'bad' because the US can't control them. Israel is to be supported, despite the fact that it's an apartheid governmet, as is Saudi, one of the most oppressive governemnts in the world.

I didn't mean it like that, as in the US/UK and "Big Powers" spreading the joys of democracy around the world. I had Barrington Moore's theory from his Social Orgins of Dictatorship and Democracy in mind when writing that particular bit. Keeping with the modernism / secularization theory of democratization, I was thinking about the theory of relative strengths of certain socioeconomic classes in relation to the government that tends to form in such a societal structure. Stronger middle class tends to result in democracy, stronger lower class in socialism, etc. I can't remember the specific facets of the theory at this point, though I do recall its part of the historical-comparative politics methodology. Anyways, I was referring more to what certain powers COULD do to help socio-political systems in lesser developed countries evolve, such as helping with development of infrastructure, aiding in creating legal structures to accomodate people in poverty, protecting the sovereignity of states when its under threat, and basically supporting the UN in its mission. Unilateral actions like those that have been taken in recent years (and previously) undermine the whole system, as does the lingering 'veto' ability of the original nuclear powers.

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

Israel is to be supported, despite the fact that it's an apartheid governmet, as is Saudi, one of the most oppressive governemnts in the world.

Don't get me started on the Middle-East now, I wont be able to stop!

[enquirewithin]

I was referring more to what certain powers COULD do to help socio-political systems in lesser developed countries evolve, such as helping with development of infrastructure, aiding in creating legal structures to accomodate people in poverty, protecting the sovereignity of states when its under threat, and basically supporting the UN in its mission. Unilateral actions like those that have been taken in recent years (and previously) undermine the whole system, as does the lingering 'veto' ability of the original nuclear powers.

I think we agree then! THe UN should be the way forward. The veto system is a major problem. The UN needs democracy itself.

[zera]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

Those are some pretty harsh statements to make based off of one policy, do you have any other reasons to bash the shit out of Barack?

I'm not a supporter of him in any way really, but I find him to be an interesting character. I'm just wondering why you reacted so strongly to this one interview with him.

In politics it often does come down to a race between a douchebag and a turd sandwich, but you have to ask yourself which of the two is going to work against everything you believe in and which of the two is going to only work against 90% of what you believe in. Its a very shady subject with many grey areas, but I don't think domestic politics is completely devoid of hope.

Not only that but you can see the man constantly vaccilate on his position on Iraq. To one group he talks pro-peace, but then he talks about not withdrawing. Like someone I heard describe him, Obama on Iraq in 2007 is about as sincere as Nixon on Vietnam in 1968. It's obvious he is trying to have his electoral cake and eat it to, rather than taking a principled stand. Not only that, but he has done nothing to oppose the growing clamor to attack Iran (a military disaster that would make Iraq look like Grenada). He has even gone so far as to tacitly support the presumption that Iran's respnsible for the problems in Iraq and has said he "hasn't ruled out military action against Iran."

His views on the drug war are well known and very estabilishmentarian. I don't care if he used drugs in the past, he's a fervent drug warrior today. This makes his position even more vile because he's an African American and the drug war does far more damage to his own people, he may become the first black president, but he certainly won't be the first politician to sell his own people out for political gain. He has done nothing to oppose the US farm subsidies that lead to chronic economic underdevelopement in the third world for nothing more than pure corporate welfare to US agribusiness. And I can tell you why he won't ever go anywhere near these: Iowa is the first state to vote in the primaries. Once again this is even more vile than normal because the man spent much of his life in developing countries.

When it comes down to it what really pisses me off about Obama isn't so much the man himself but the cult built around him. Like I said he has done nothing to distinguish himself from the snakepit of politicians around him, yet for some reason people think he's the greatest thing since Lincoln. Why? Because he's black, because he's a great speaker, because he's charming and attractive. Idi Amin was black, a great speaker and charming and attractive, that didn't mean he was a good leader. Obama has shown himself to be just as much a sellout as every other politician.

I regard the feelings of hero worship in politics as the worst possible way for a person to relate to a politician. Politician's are not your friends, they're not meant to be cool guys to hang out with, or nice people. Democracy can only survive in an environement where people view their elected leaders as perpetual vermin to be mistrusted, scrutinized and criticized at every possible opportunity, so as to preserve our freedom from usurpation.

I acknowledge out of the four leading candidates, Obama, Hilary, McCain and Gulliani that Obama is the least authoritarian. Frankly though, I would feel more comfortable with Hilary, who has quite a bit more fascist leanings than Obama, just because most people regard Hilary as a "bitch" and will judge her actions accordingly. When Hilary signs a law curtailing some personal liberty in the name of combatting organized crime/terrorism/whatever the current bogeyman is, many many people will stand up and call her out on it. When Obama does it the nation probably will be too much in love with to see through his lies.