If indeed that is true then I hope that your fanatical faith in the democratic party turns out to be well placed. To me they are not worthy of such faith. But I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps they have learned a lesson from the excessive extremes of the horrible Bush regime.

I'd like to see our country flourish. I want to see change and improvement. And I have some hope that it can happen. But what I want doesn't cause me to become blind to what is.

The incredible disaster of the Bush regime has made the democrats the lesser of evils. But they are not "good guys." They have robbed the American people for years to fill their own corrupt pockets (just like the republicans.) While I can hope...

If indeed that is true then I hope that your fanatical faith in the democratic party turns out to be well placed. To me they are not worthy of such faith. But I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps they have learned a lesson from the excessive extremes of the horrible Bush regime.

I'd like to see our country flourish. I want to see change and improvement. And I have some hope that it can happen. But what I want doesn't cause me to become blind to what is.

The incredible disaster of the Bush regime has made the democrats the lesser of evils. But they are not "good guys." They have robbed the American people for years to fill their own corrupt pockets (just like the republicans.) While I can hope they will now become honest and actually work for the interests of those they are supposed to represent, I'd be a fool to expect that will happen.

I don't consider myself a defeatist or an advocate of negativism for feeling this way. But in the same way I can't delude myself into believing that American weapons are "spreading democracy" with their bullets I find myself a bit skeptical regarding the democrats and their savior role.

@tommy2balmy - Surprising as it may first sound, I'm not a Democrat. (and I don't think we can spread democracy with the power of the gun -- that's sheer propaganda and nonsense)


I'm an Independent, but when I sat down and defined my highest priority for these elections I concluded: DEFEAT REPUBLICANS.

Like you said: there were "excessive extremes of the horrible Bush regime."

I wanted to see his party crushed for it.


ABOUT POLITICAL PARTIES
I don't think of the Democrats as 'guilt-free," or pure of all special interest and corruption but until we get a parliamentary system of government (sorry, I know the word parliamentary makes most Americans snooze), but until we get at least som...

@tommy2balmy - Surprising as it may first sound, I'm not a Democrat. (and I don't think we can spread democracy with the power of the gun -- that's sheer propaganda and nonsense)


I'm an Independent, but when I sat down and defined my highest priority for these elections I concluded: DEFEAT REPUBLICANS.

Like you said: there were "excessive extremes of the horrible Bush regime."

I wanted to see his party crushed for it.


ABOUT POLITICAL PARTIES
I don't think of the Democrats as 'guilt-free," or pure of all special interest and corruption but until we get a parliamentary system of government (sorry, I know the word parliamentary makes most Americans snooze), but until we get at least some critical features of a (snooze) parliamentary system of governement we will be cursed with have either Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum in the unfair and undemocratic 'winner-take-all' elections.

Note in a (snooze) parliament if a party got 20% of the vote they'd get 20% of Congress (not: Nothing).
A president could more easily be fired. Small voices could also jockey around with coalitions to come into real power.

Oh well. I would think all of the third parties in the USA would know this and therefore lobby for changes that would move our election process in this direction. But I have never heard any of them mention it?

They should all unite and work for this. But I have never heard of it happening?

I they can't achieve this parliamentary (snooze) feature of true proportional representation (rather than, like, getting no voice just because you 'only' got 49% of the vote)...well if they can't achieve this they can't achieve anything.

----
ANYHOW, to defeat Republicans, now, In the real world, to me, that meant becoming totally committed to the Democratic Party till Nov. 5th.

(I also came to admire Obama greatly and we won a victory in my congressional district that use to be solidly Republican but now has a good woman from Flagstaff, AZ).

Obama not just 'lesser evil," IMO

@blueridge - You're just totally wrong, again.

T-O-T-A-L-L-Y W-R-O-N-G.

Obama's elections was a great and historic victory for America and a source of inspiration to multi-millions around the world.

You didn't notice that? - You weren't paying attention to this? Is this something else for which you have no regard?

Obama, far from being merely the lesser of two evils he is a positive good. One core reason for this is he believes in our Constitution, it rooted in our ideals and embedded in the best hopes and stories of our history.

On the Iraq War, BTW, he has already ordered General Petraeus to start withdrawing troops.

Yesterday, General Petraeus announced the first troop withdrawal...

@blueridge - You're just totally wrong, again.

T-O-T-A-L-L-Y W-R-O-N-G.

Obama's elections was a great and historic victory for America and a source of inspiration to multi-millions around the world.

You didn't notice that? - You weren't paying attention to this? Is this something else for which you have no regard?

Obama, far from being merely the lesser of two evils he is a positive good. One core reason for this is he believes in our Constitution, it rooted in our ideals and embedded in the best hopes and stories of our history.

On the Iraq War, BTW, he has already ordered General Petraeus to start withdrawing troops.

Yesterday, General Petraeus announced the first troop withdrawals from Iraq to ever happen (i.e. withdraw and not be replaced.

Since nothing seems to satisfy you no need to go on.
But keep in mind, comrade, you're way off track and oblivious to reality.

I'd recommend rehabilitation.

@thisnamecantbetaken

I think Obama is far better than the lesser of two evils.Just his very election has been a great triumph in our American history and sparked joy and celebrations throughout the world -- lifting the hearts and spirits of multi-millions.

Do you see any of that?

His policies are also, IMO, fantastic and he looks to be a very competent, hard work, strong and wise leader.

Oh well...

Re: "the impotent Democratic congress and how they funded the war," yes, this was distressing to me too.

One thing to realize is that before the Two Years of the 'slightly' Democratic Congress was Six Years of the overwhelming Republican majority Congress and Republican-controlled White Hous...

@thisnamecantbetaken

I think Obama is far better than the lesser of two evils.Just his very election has been a great triumph in our American history and sparked joy and celebrations throughout the world -- lifting the hearts and spirits of multi-millions.

Do you see any of that?

His policies are also, IMO, fantastic and he looks to be a very competent, hard work, strong and wise leader.

Oh well...

Re: "the impotent Democratic congress and how they funded the war," yes, this was distressing to me too.

One thing to realize is that before the Two Years of the 'slightly' Democratic Congress was Six Years of the overwhelming Republican majority Congress and Republican-controlled White House.

I would not use the word: "impotent," though. A few good things were done, like raising the minimum wage, which made a lot of working people happy.

But on the big issue of the war in Iraq (which I and so many want to see end) they were...alas...they were "realistic."

I know "realistic," is a terrible word, perhaps, but it means not trying something that can't be achieved.

But there was, too, a touch of them being 'Machiavellian." -- they were more interested in seeing a great victory in these elections and gaining total control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency; and that's what they got.

It was a very valid consideration for them that trying to cut off funds for the war --- which they could not due because the President would veto it.

Right?

So they couldn't do that nor override the president's veto. They needed what they now have to be able to do what they want (strong majorities in both Houses and a Democratic White House.)

The more drastic action of impeachment was also an impossibility in the Senate because they would never have gotten 51% of the Senate to vote for it. Absolutely not.

Plus, impeaching a president DURING A TIME OF WAR, was certain to blow up in their faces and backfire -- they would lose people support.

Realistic. Machiavellian. Tsk.