"I think Obama might have had some ideals left when he got to Washington, but certain economic realities and the Golden Rule--who has the gold makes the rules--have become his mantra because there was no choice. I suppose something is better than nothing.

The more Obama is seen as the problem the more will the real problem--corrupt financial markets, corrupt representatives, corrupt courts and subsequently corrupt laws--skulk behind the curtains and do as they have done for decades. Obama may be the one person who could fend off totalitarian rule in the USA, but for that he needs time. The people of the USA will be crushed within months if resistance does break out, and since media keeps people happy now, most Americans wouldn't experience any real change. Stupidity is as stupidity does.

I agree with Saws and GfS with regard to the endgame, not because Obama is necessarily a bad man, but because it is close to impossible to override the various security organizations in the US. There are more than a few agendas being carried out, and I am not assured by anything I've seen for a few years that it will be good for the notion of democracy. Dick asked an important question in his first post: Can we afford Democracy?

It depends. If we want two cars, electric razors, hair dryers, electric tooth brushes, lights on in every room, occupied or not, disposable machines that are defunct even before they are manufactured, genetically engineered foods, red slime, drugs prescribed by doctors that are sold for many times their cost, then NO, we can't afford democracy. But the real question as I see it is 'can we afford freedom?'. Listening to most people here from either side of the equation, it seems you all think yes. Now, what will you do about that? Because shouting at each other ain't gonna get 'er done, capiche?"

The above was posted by a brilliant political analyst on another thread; he is seldom heard on CNN. Modesty prevents me from saying who.