"Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack." Becomming?!?!?!? I supported Obama as soon as my preferred candidate dropped out. Now I am angry. Angry with myself. Angry that I was once again hoodwinked by a political hack who has changed his stripes for political expediency. I used to think that not voting meant that you did not have the right to bitch. Now I don't think I can hold my nose tight enough to block out the stench of voting for one of the major candidates. As I ponder the truth in the statement that "voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil," I realize that the silence of not voting has not become my voice. As hinted at in the article, we do not need a war, we need good investigative work, good police work. If only "Police action" did not leave such a bad taste in the mouth of those who remember Korea and Vietnam. Oh that we had a true leader. Someone that would tell us that there are no easy solutions, someone that would tell us that the path is hard, someone that would tell us what they are going to do and do it, or at the least tell us why they changed their mind. Someone that would lead. I close with apologies to Pete Seeger Where have all the leaders gone? Long time passing Where have all the leaders gone? Long time ago Where have all the leaders gone? Corporates bought them every one When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?

Obama is learning the FACTS of our situation. He does not want to play guessing games. He is also inspecting the commanders on all sides. This is the ONLY way to be equipped to make decisions. It shows me that he is intelligent and serious. Just like FDR in 1932 he will keep mum about any specific plans until after the inagauration. Like FDR, he realizes that when you sizing up massive criminal organizations, you keep quite and don't give them a 9 month head start.

Unfettered spying on electronic communications has been a fact since their inception, and is built in to every such system.

How the war would be waged is the question. There is nothing wrong about Obama waging a war on terrorism so long as it addresses the underlying causes of terrorism. Lack of food, adequate shelter and opportunity breed terrorism just as these causes are starting to cause unrest in the US with the crumbling economy. A war on terrorism with a goal to make sure all the world's people are fed and provided the basic needs to live a decent life would snuff out the breeding grounds of terrorism. Also at a fraction of the cost of our current misadventures and with the reestablishment of the virtue of America in the eyes of the world.

Why the surprise? All politicians have to sell their souls to special interests in order to even have a shot at the top job. Why does anyone think that this is different with Obama? Starting with Eisenhower, the special interests have been calling the shots behind the scenes, regardless of which party was in power. That's why the actually implemented policies of either party have become more and more similar over the years. And what if an elected president were to go back on his or her deals with these special interests after being elected? Well, there are a few members of the Kennedy family that might be able to shed some light on this if they were still around. So, what is the solution to this problem? That is a hard one to call, but we could start with abolishing the electoral college, ensure that all of our elections have verifiable and re-countable votes, institute a plebiscite process for certain types of bills, and most importantly, carefully monitor the voting of your congressmen and senators and vote them into or out of office based on their voting record.

The only way these pro-war corporate tools will learn is if you withhold your support. If you vote for Obama and the Democrats you are telling them that they can continue taking you for granted and pay no political price for their betrayal. It tells them you support a continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called war on terror, erosion of our civil liberties and economic policies that benefit corporations and the rich--because that is exactly the agenda that Obama and his party is selling. He tries hard to sound antiwar (because he needs your vote) but he's merely offering to manage the US empire better, not end it. Obama would continue the US in the same direction as Bush, with a few minor course corrections and a lot of left-sounding rhetoric to get us to swallow it. We must reject the status quo and demand a genuine alternative. Supporting Obama is not a step towards progress, it will only further delay progress.

Finally an A- article from Truthout. Thanks Mr. Scheer. Only problem is, as with other pundits exposing Obama and the Dems, he doesn't go for the jugular and just say it outright: our ONLY option is to vote for someone who truly represents our interests, not someone who panders to whoever happens to form the audience, hoping that they change once they get in office. We have two candidates who represent majoritarian issues this election, that I know of: Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney (is she for sure yet?) ... we need to get them in the debates and choose one. And to all you "liberal' "democrats": quit your threats, recognize that we aren't succeeding with our strategy of voting for the lesser of two evils... here's why: the only chance we really have to influence our political system, in its current form, is at the elections. Once we get the lesser-evil guy in office, we have NO chance to influence him until the next election. Therefore, we lose ground whether we vote for Big Evil or Medium-size Evil, and no, we don't ever get a better chance of changing the country. We will end up in the same place at the end whether we vote for Big or Medium Evil. And we WILL end up at utter fascism sooner or later unless we pull our heads out of the sand and vote for Good (aka Nader aka McKinney...)

When will "we the people" begin to take responsibility for our own government? What is it about the American character that looks to a leader to solve its problems? Could it be that this nation suffers from an authoritarian personality disorder? Lest we ever point the finger at Germany again, we might benefit from looking in the collective mirror (as an aside, it is interesting to note that it's currently against the law in Germany to display the national flag in public; think about it). It's no accident that we live in a fascist state and seek a black messiah to rescue us. How about developing a grassroots movement to affect change instead of looking to a top down miracle to save us from ourselves. FDR was no flaming liberal when he first took office. What saved our country during his administration was the massive grassroots movement that hit the streets and applied enormous pressure on him and his policies (of course, his wife, Eleanor, was no slouch in this regard). Should we wake up to the possibility of a populist movement, a first step might be the willingness to express our views without the fear that renders us anonymous.

While I agree with much of what Sheer has to say, anyone who thinks that letting John McCain waltz into the White House is insane. I'm NOT going to help McCain by voting for Nader or some other third-party. Do you think anyone will care, after he's safely elected, and doing damage to the entire planet, that a few of us "purists" refused to vote for the only man who could stop him? Obama might disappoint us. He might fail. He might end up being another Bill Clinton. I'm willing to take that risk. By refusing to vote for Barack Obama, and letting John McCain win, I'm not taking any risk. I'm certain of what we're all going to get. I want the Republicans to be punished. I want the conservatives to be crushed. I want to have at least the POSSIBILITY of something better. If you can't at least concede the Obama MIGHT be better than McCain, then you're deluding yourself. I'm going to go kick McCain's ass and throw as many Republicans out of office as possible. Who's going to help me? Or not?

I have long admired Robert Scheer's writing and his forceful articulation of views with which I am usually in agreement. Hence my grave disappointment in this poorly-reasoned, ill-considered rant: Scheer at his most inflammatory and immature... To say that "Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack" is SIMPLY PREPOSTEROUS! The fact that Obama at a press conference referred to a war against "terror" rather than "terrorists" hardly indicates that he has accepted Bush's view that we are engaged in a cosmic struggle between Good and Evil. Because Bush and the press CONSTANTLY refer to a 'war against terror', it's understandable that anyone might pick up on the phrase while presenting his own -- very different -- views on how the struggle against Islamic jihadists should be carried out. Driven by an antipathy to Bush's policies that I share, Scheer is nonetheless simplistic when he reduces Islamicist terrorism to "a social pathology that needs to be excised with the surgical precision of detective work..." What is taking place throughout the Moslem world is too pervasive to be reduced to a quasi-police matter. It's a huge movement of mind and spirit in which millions of people are caught up. And while the use of the word 'war' in this connection by a U.S. president has been ill-advised, what we're engaged in surely IS a kind of war --but one involving the mind and heart, requiring maximum exercise of the arts of diplomacy and persuasion, along with judicious use of military force if absolutely necessary... Scheer also misrepresents the realities of the FISA matter when he declares that "Both candidates supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act..." Obama reluctantly voted for the FISA reauthorization bill, while declaring it imperfect -- and making clear that if elected President he would revisit the matter. I think Obama's vote was a BIG mistake. Even so, his position on the matter is hardly equivalent to McCain's. At least one veteran civil-rights leader, Morton Halperin, is quoted as calling the version of the bill that finally passed "our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties". Honorable, public-minded men and women should be able to disagree on important matters without being subjected to the kind of vitreolic attack that Scheer made in this article. I am truly disappointed in him. Peter Cook 562 Hayes St. Richmond, CA 94804 (510) 237-9109 I have long admired Robert Scheer's writing and his forceful articulation of views with which I am in agreement. Hence my grave disappointment in the poorly-reasoned, ill-considered rant he issued against Senator Obama (SF Chronicle 7/23/08) -- Scheer at his most inflammatory and immature... To say that "Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack" is simply preposterous! The fact that Obama at a press conference referred to a war against "terror" rather than "terrorists" hardly indicates that he has accepted Bush's view that we are engaged in a cosmic struggle between Good and Evil. Because Bush and the press constantly refer to a 'war against terror', it's understandable that anyone might pick up on the phrase while presenting his own -- very different -- views on how the struggle against Islamic jihadists should be carried out. Driven by an antipathy to Bush's policies that I share, Scheer is nonetheless simplistic when he reduces Islamicist terrorism to "a social pathology that needs to be excised with the surgical precision of detective work..." What is taking place throughout the Moslem world is too pervasive to be reduced to a quasi-police matter. It's a huge movement of mind and spirit in which millions of people are caught up. And while the use of the word 'war' in this connection by a U.S. president has probably been ill-advised, what we're engaged in surely IS a kind of war --but one involving the mind and heart, requiring maximum exercise of the arts of diplomacy and persuasion, along with judicious use of military force... Scheer also misrepresents the realities of the FISA matter when he declares that "Both candidates supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act..." Obama reluctantly voted for the FISA reauthorization bill, while declaring it imperfect -- and making clear that if elected President he would revisit the matter. I think Obama's vote was a big mistake. Even so, his position on the matter is hardly equivalent to McCain's. At least one veteran civil-rights leader, Morton Halperin, is quoted as calling the version of the bill that finally passed "our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties". Honorable, public-minded men and women should be able to disagree on important matters without being subjected to the kind of scurrilous attack that Scheer made in this article. I am truly disappointed in him. Peter Cook 562 Hayes St. Richmond, CA 94804 (510) 237-9109 I have long admired Robert Scheer's writing and his forceful articulation of views with which I am in agreement. Hence my grave disappointment in the poorly-reasoned, ill-considered rant he issued against Senator Obama (SF Chronicle 7/23/08) -- Scheer at his most inflammatory and immature... To say that "Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack" is simply preposterous! The fact that Obama at a press conference referred to a war against "terror" rather than "terrorists" hardly indicates that he has accepted Bush's view that we are engaged in a cosmic struggle between Good and Evil. Because Bush and the press constantly refer to a 'war against terror', it's understandable that anyone might pick up on the phrase while presenting his own -- very different -- views on how the struggle against Islamic jihadists should be carried out. Driven by an antipathy to Bush's policies that I share, Scheer is nonetheless simplistic when he reduces Islamicist terrorism to "a social pathology that needs to be excised with the surgical precision of detective work..." What is taking place throughout the Moslem world is too pervasive to be reduced to a quasi-police matter. It's a huge movement of mind and spirit in which millions of people are caught up. And while the use of the word 'war' in this connection by a U.S. president has probably been ill-advised, what we're engaged in surely IS a kind of war --but one involving the mind and heart, requiring maximum exercise of the arts of diplomacy and persuasion, along with judicious use of military force... Scheer also misrepresents the realities of the FISA matter when he declares that "Both candidates supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act..." Obama reluctantly voted for the FISA reauthorization bill, while declaring it imperfect -- and making clear that if elected President he would revisit the matter. I think Obama's vote was a big mistake. Even so, his position on the matter is hardly equivalent to McCain's. At least one veteran civil-rights leader, Morton Halperin, is quoted as calling the version of the bill that finally passed "our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties". Honorable, public-minded men and women should be able to disagree on important matters without being subjected to the kind of scurrilous attack that Scheer made in this article. I am truly disappointed in him.