am i discouraged??

not at all.  considering the bru-ha-ha that erupted here in canada when medicare was introduced, i'm not surprised in the least at the antics playing out in the us right now.   clinton tried a few times to get universal health care rolling, and it proved elusive... i'd say if anyone could do it, obama is still my vote for the one. 

on a brighter note for me, the fact that all this is happening in the us seems to be making canadians a little more appreciative of the health care that we do have...

Fallacy of poisoning the well. Fallacy of appeal to emotion.

Obama was simply a much better politician, person, and hope, than Bush ever was. That has not changed. He was not, nor is, a Divine figure, so the use of the word "blasphemy" is purely an attempt at inciting emotional response.

No.

At least in part on Obama.

What do you mean "still"? I was never an Obama supporter.

Hopefully he will serve but one term, and the next election will see the Republicans returned to power.

...because Lord knows we don't want to see the US return to the Democrat policy of budget surpluses and diplomacy, as opposed to the good ol' American tradition of record defecits and wars under false pretences that Republicans have given them.

Oh, witch. don't exaggerate. I said it was CLOSE TO blasphemy. And, in any case, anybody who would take that sentence so literally needs to rest for a while.

As the the budget,  it's notable that conservative governments in both Canada and the US have been the big spenders. Amazing that so many people still take them seriously when they talk about their fiscal conservatism.

However, I don't think Obama is in any position to maintain the "liberal" surplus record. Even if he imposes much, much higher taxes on the rich (and I don't think he can), he will still be in the basement.

I think he's Bush with brains and charm. But he's still Bush.

 I like Obama in that he is using his authority and stature and doing symbolic gestures to inspire thought and change among others. Much like Princess Diana and the GG when she ate seal meat.

Of course with my political learnings his legislation is conservative in my opinion and very corporate, but he is an American President, I would not expect otherwise.

Symbolically he has done important things. for peace, like addressing the muslim world directly and declaring that the US is not a Christian nations. This has affected public opinion world wide and is at least leading to the possiblility of greater peace and harmony in the long wrong.

I also like that he has made the US Supreme Court more diverse by appointing an Hispanic Women. This is a major change and symbolic as much he himself being of African descent being President is symbolic, which allows minorities and people who are different to hope for and strive for greater influence in the world.

Also I like how he pisses off world leaders and republicans, by taking time out of his schedule and spending time to take his wife out on dates. Symbolically it sends a message that no matter who one is, one must spend quality time with ones family. He's saying that ones family is as important as work. A message we in the west need to hear.

His use of symbolism has even created a great deal of symbolic art which raises issues of race, as well as exposing the bankrupt nature of US politics, (as well as politics in other parts of the world.) Which leads to Americans disscussing issues that they have long avoided. Look at this from a Denis Kunich supporter. Wow what a contreversy this has started. Yet it leads people to think. 

Yes I figured you were exagerrating, and I know you well enough to know there's intelligence behind your posts, although we don't always agree.

I think you are correct in that Obama hasn't got a hop in hell of having a surplus during his term(s), even so, it would appear it is the flawed fiscal policies of the Bush era, coupled with a Republican unwillingness to hold big business accountable, coupled with a war which was as unnecessarty as it was fiscally destructive, that caused the crash. Obama has the unenviable job of doing something about it.

Considering the recent history of fiscal irresponsibility in the Republican presidencies, and the recent history of Democratic presidencies pulling the American bacon out of the fire, I'd say Obama is still the best bet. I don't expect miracles from him, although I will admit there is a minority that does, I just expect that he'll fight the hard slog, uphill all the way, with the republicans dragging him all the way; not because they have a better idea, but only because they need for him to fail at all costs, even if it means destroying the country along the way.

But Jae....if the *spit* Republicans get back in power I shall vomit...you don't want lil' ol' me to vomit do you?

Also, Obama has alot to deal with, give him time, he probably wont fix everything right off the bat but then who could?

I suppose what scares me is that if he does not meet hopes (and I don't see how he can), then I don't know where the backlash will go.

One strong possibility is that the republicans come back. They will be in more of a position to deal with the problems that Obama is. So they will do what Bush did - drum up fear, aim the fear at moslems or terra-rists or anything foreign, and step up the wars.

The other possibility - and even scarier - is a widespread collapse of faith in any government - and I don't like to even think of where that goes.

The most likely result is some combination of both of those.

What scares me most is the rise of protectionism in the US. protectionism has a nasty habit of turning into xenophobia.

Indeed, it does. And there are very,very few people in business who have any real faith in the free market.

Historically, American and Canadian business have been highly protectionist. They changed their minds only when they had become so secure, well after world war 2, that they no longer feared competition. Then free trade became gospel because it would give them access to markets they were now big enough to control.

But the bottom line has always been their own welfare. And if they feel threatened, they will rush back to protectionism.

"Eight months ago, it was close to blasphemy in these threads to suggest that Obama might not be the great hope for the future. One reads daily of spreading disillusionment of the constant watering down of his health care proposal - and the probability that even that will not pass."

That is definitely disappointing, but let's keep this in perspective.  When Howard Dean put forward his own healthcare plan in 2004, it was attacked for being too left-leaning and never likely to make it through Congress, even though Dean's plan made no mention of prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions, let alone a public option.  Even without the public option, which is essential to effective reform, the plan Congress will eventually pass is going to be a lot different than anything that we might have thought possible even 2 years ago. 

"An American army of 130,000 is still in Iraq with little sign of leaving."

I don't know where you're getting this from because American troops are no longer allowed to even enter Iraqi cities, which is where most Iraqis leave, and there's suggestions that they may be withdrawn by the middle of next year, way ahead of anything Obama has scheduled.  In this matter, Obama is proceeding practically - as he should.  A rushed withdrawal undertaken out of disgust with the war can have deadly consequences, as today's massive suicide bombings suggest. 

"The war in Afghanistan goes on, with troop figures increased, with the war spreading to Pakistan, and no end in sight."

Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan, which he has always said is where the real fight should have been.  There's nothing to be disillusioned by on this issue - his position on Afghanistan has always been clear. 

This is not to say that I'm not disappointed (rather than disillusioned) by some of the things he has done, or rather, not done, like taking more vigorous action on gay rights or doing away with ad hoc military tribunals entirely but he's not just like Bush.  Slowly but surely, things are changing.  You wouldn't have so many lunatics with guns going hysteric if they weren't. 

okay, freethinker - so we put you down as satisfied and relatively pleased and still hopeful? (not being sarcastic. just trying to get a sense of how people feel.)

You're a little disappointed - but still upbeat?

"One strong possibility is that the republicans come back. They will be in more of a position to deal with the problems that Obama is. So they will do what Bush did - drum up fear, aim the fear at moslems or terra-rists or anything foreign, and step up the wars."

That's a possibility that keeps me up at night, but the road to power is far from being paved for the Republicans.  They have become the party of Angry White Men, at the expense of the gains made among Hispanic voters.  In 2004, Bush nearly carried the Hispanic vote with 45% support.  It's hard to imagine a Republican gaining similar support among Hispanics after the attacks on Sotomayor, the fortress mentality on immigration or the hysteria over Obama being born in a foreign country, and good luck winning an American election without this rapidly growing and politically important part of the electorate.  As for young voters and blacks, forget it.  The only way the Republicans can win is by gaining an overwhelming majority among white Americans, and that will hard to do.   Even if it's pulled off, it wont help them for very long.  In 2 decades or so, America will be a majority non-white country. 

"The other possibility - and even scarier - is a widespread collapse of faith in any government - and I don't like to even think of where that goes.

The most likely result is some combination of both of those."

Yes.  And all these nut-bags have guns. 

Obama, as many impatient people seem to disregard, said time and time again that everything he wished to accomplished would require time, and that everything wouldn't 'suddenly go right' as soon as he stepped foot in the Oval Office.

He has only recently been informed that torture camps are still being used, and it's obvious that he didn't wish it to be. He may have alot of power, but the people working under him have power as well, which means they can still control who goes in and who goes out of Guantanamo, as well as what they do to those people while they're in there.

If things look up just a bit more, it may be necessary to elect him for a second time as to reassure him time to wrap his counter-revolution up.

he has only recently been informed that torture camps are still in operation. He's the president. And he just found out?

Heck, there have been public reports of it since the start. Couldn't the American budget spring to get a newspaper subscription for him?

graeme

The White House has has just revealed that Obama is bi-polar, and has enter a depressive stage. Now we know why he wanted to keep hope alive.

This is really frightening. There has always been an element of the gutter in the news media. But the gutter now embraces even the leading news sources. This is in a class with the other "big stories" that Obama is not an American citizen by birth, that he is a secret moslem, etc.

At one time, this sort of thing was to be found only in the most irresponsible of supermarket weeklies. It is now to be be found in the most respected of news services.

Some time ago, someone posted a note that he had switched on Fox News, and thought at first he was watching a humorous takeoff on the news. I have the same feeling watching this clip. Maybe it is a humorous takeoff. but it's no longer possible to tell.

Graeme, that's on the Onion wich is a humorous new station/news paper/news website like the Daily Show/Colbert Report/this Houre has 22 min so I don't think it's real.

AH.|AS I SAID< IT CAN BE HARD TO TELL>

I HAVE SEEN REAL EPISODES ON AMERICANNEWS THAT HAVe LEFT ME QUITE PUZZLED>

AND MY KEYBOARD WILL NOT GET OFF CAPS> GOT TO GET
A NEW ONE>

GRAEME

I know what you mean Graeme, American news (Fox more than the others) are becoming less news and more gossip. Also, I agree, a new key board might be in order teehee

DON"T MAKE FUN OF MY KEYBOARD> IT"S a FUndY.
 

THE BiAS Is NEW hAS ALWaYS BEEN THeRE< oF couRsE. BUT
ThE SLOPpInEsS ANd THE MIxINg oF BIAS WITh goSsiP AND ENtERTainMEnT
REALLY BEGAN WITH JAcKiE KENnEDY.
UNTIL HER< THE GOSSIP WAS IN MOVIE MAGAZINES< AND
WAS ABouT MOVIE STARS> (IN THE SAME PeRIOD< A LITTLE EARLIER< WE GOT
THE GUTTER GOSSIP OF THE SUPERMARKET TABLOIDS>

JACKIE KEnnEDY bROUghT ANd AuRa oF STARDoM TO THE POLITICAL ScENE< AND sHE WAS sOon a fEATURE oF ThE HollYWood MaGs.
NoW, ALL THE  TYpES ARE MIXEd AND bLURREd RiGHT ACRoSS
THE BOARD>

Intelligent people don't think of fox as news. I've often seen it referred to as faux news channel. Personally any and every time I see that listed as someone's source of information I dismiss it out of hand. Repeatedly polls show that viewers of fox are the least likely to know important facts about what's going on in America and in the world and they're the most likely to believe certain falsehoods, most famously that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. Fox viewers believed that a much higher rate than everybody else.

I wouldn't pin that on Jackie Kennedy herself but on the fascination people had with her. Otherwise I agree with your point.

Oh, I don't blame Jackie at all. She was simply a target. But I remember those hollywood mags from my childhood. (my mother loved them.) They were solely about film starts - until John F. Kennedy came to power. Then stories about Jackie became standard - and from that point they drifted into being simply "famous people" magazines. Including some, like Paris Hilton, are famous only for being famois.

As to Fox, I'm sure it's true, as you say, that intelligent people don't take it seriously. But there are millions who do - and they all have votes. As well - and as you say, there are very large numbers of people who believe all sorts of myths to be true. They all have enough votes to decide who we shall atack, who we shall kill...

And, of course, it is not just Fox (though that is prehaps the worst example) and it is not just the US by any means.

O____O Graeme! You'r key-board! Is it fixt??!

YaH iT's AlL dUn.

Actually I bought one at Salvation army for 3 dollars.

There's a disturbing indication of the limits of Obama's power. We have a situation in Honduras in which the elected president has been kicked out by the army. ( I know, some people will say he was usurping the constitution - that's nonsense. Holding vote on a portion of the constitution  is not only legal, but done frequently in most democracies. Anyway, it is scarcely up to the generals to decide that sort of thing.)

It seems clear the people behind the coup were landowners who benefit from cheap labour and almost no taxes, and who were threatened by reforms. And those landowners are Americans with a long record of influence in Washington.

Obama clearly does not approve of the coup. It's equally clear he's tip toeing around it - though Honduras is the American back yard.

I'm afraid a president has real power only when the right people want him to have it.

My friend, please post these polls you speak of.

Oh, and according to CPMA (look 'em up, they are not a conservative organization in anyway):

Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

I'm not setting myself up as the sole defender of Fox, their pundits and hosts can be looney. However, I think your admittance that you dismiss out of hand anything from Fox is a rather poor thing to do when talking to someone with differing views.

I will dismiss it out of hand because it's looney, as you admit. I'll dismiss anything out of hand from the tabloids as well, or Rush Limbaugh, or Lyndon LaRouche, or others. If a source has no credibility why waste your time on it. I can disagree with George Will, or the late William F. Buckley but I'd take them seriously. Fox doesn't merit that.

But Fox has an audience, and a big one. That means we have to take it seriously.

And it's not just Fox.

Most Americans have never heard of the genocide in Guatemala, even though Clinton apologized publicly for it.

Most Americans had not heard of military torture by the US until months after theinformation was available. In fact, the American army torture manual was made public at least twenty years ago. And, for that matter, the technique of waterboarding by the American army goes back to the Spanish American war.

How many Americans know that Saddam came to power as an American protege, and kept American support for many years?

Millions of American believe Saddam supported Islamic terrorism, that he had weapons of mass destruction, that terrorists were trained in Iraq - none of it true.

They believe the Taliban protected the Al Quaeda terrorists. In fact, they didn't. They refused to hand over people demanded by Bush - but that was because Bush offered no evidence. No country hands over people with no evidence (except, possibly, canada.)

Americans don't know that Bush protected a terrorist in a similar case, though in this case, plenty of evidence was offered. A Cuban man blew up a Cuban civil airliner killing all on board. That is terrorism. He is not happily living in Florida because the US has refused to turn him over for trial. How many Americans know that?

And that goes way back. How many Americans then or now knew that the Americans at the Alamo were fighting to preserve their right to have slaves? ( it was contrary to Mexican law. But Americans in Texas had some 5000 slaves.)

Despite a huge news media apparatus, Americans remain astonishingly ignorant about basic information that should be in the news, but doesn't make it.

Very true. The route of the problem is I believe in that they disrespect education and teachers. I don't know how many times when I lived in Quebec City that I heard stories about Americans arriving in July with skis, expecting to go sking. I think this has something to do with the Stokes trial, but if not it is demonstrative of their disrespect of education.

Even basic information that does make the news is ignored., by the majority. I remember a follow up report 60 minutes in the ninties. They covered a story in the 70's where people who were convicted of crimes were given light sentences along with education and social services. Thye went back to the sevenities report and examined what had happen to the convicts in it.. Almost all of them had turned their lives around and were contributing law abiding members of society.   While convicts who were given heavy sentences and no education were either dead or in jail, few if none bade it out of the criminal justice system.

Did you know that more young Americans are in jail then in University? And sentencing continues to place more and more people in jail. while they depend on immigrants for to fill jobs requiring an education, like medicine, or nursing.

My parents spend their winters in Florida in a community with many middle class white Americans. They are convinced that Obama is a socialist and that he is out to destroy them.  The value of their houses in Florida have collapsed, and somehow they believe Obama is responsible. Even through he only came to power after the markets colapsed.

Middle class older priveledged Americans are now more interested in scapegroats rather then taking  responsibility.

After all they have taken advantage of the developing world, why would they want to become educated if it means that they become aware of there exploitation.  Just as the Stoke trial showed how when education threatened their world view, they would choose to decide education only taught theories while their churches only taught the truth.

Here is a good example of how Obama is using his soft, or symbolic power to move the Middle East towards peace.

From Todays New York Times. 

^{http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magazine/13JStreet-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=j%20street&st=cse}

In July, President Obama met for 45 minutes with leaders of American Jewish organizations. All presidents meet with Israel’s advocates. Obama, however, had taken his time, and powerhouse figures of the Jewish community were grumbling; Obama’s coolness seemed to be of a piece with his willingness to publicly pressure Israel to freeze the growth of its settlements and with what was deemed his excessive solicitude toward the plight of the Palestinians......

It is safe to say that at least one participant in the meeting enjoyed this exchange immensely: Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder and executive director of J Street, a year-old lobbying group with progressive views on Israel. Some of the mainstream groups vehemently protested the White House decision to invite J Street, which they regard as a marginal organization located well beyond the consensus that they themselves seek to enforce. But J Street shares the Obama administration’s agenda, and the invitation stayed. Ben-Ami didn’t say a word at the meeting — he is aware of J Street’s neophyte status — but afterward he was quoted extensively in the press, which vexed the mainstream groups all over again. J Street does not accept the “public harmony” rule any more than Obama does. In a conversation a month before the White House session, Ben-Ami explained to me: “We’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. You don’t have to be noncritical. You don’t have to adopt the party line. It’s not, ‘Israel, right or wrong.’ ”

It's an interesting article to read, because not only does it show how Obama is  moving Israel towards a less extreme postion, but that it also shows how in the US the Jewish "consenus" on Israel is breaking, and pro-peace and a pro-Israeli of   a group call J Street, is being lead by a new generation of Jews, many of which had garndparents involved in the establishment of Israel, and were survivors of Nazi Germany.

Just by inviting this group to meet with him, along with other preo-Israeli groups, Obama ensured that the groups credibility was raised in the Jewish community, as well in the US and Israel.

He did not have to use his "hard" power to do so. No legislation, no appointment, or no public pronoucement. All he did was invite an organization to a meeting of pro-Israeli groups.

The J street types is not really all that new in the US. The Jewish community in the US has long been less right wing and conformist than it is in canada. The hard liners in the US have been  orgnizationally successful in giving the impression they represent the vast majority of Jews. But they never have.

In Canada, that right wing, religiously conservative and super pro zionists has been extremely successful in shutting down all other Jewish voices. As well, Canadian Judaism is, I believe, a good deal more conservative than it's American counterpart.

BTW, Obama's chief of staff at the white house is a man born in Israel, whose father was a prominent member of Irgun, a zionist terrorism group of the 1940s. Can you imagine the storm if he had chosen as chief of staff a man born in Palestine, whose father had been an arab terrorist?

I believe that Obama would never do that. because of the reaction.

There are many things I believe that Obama can not do. I think he understands this, and so does not do certain things that he would personnally support. As a politician he understands that while he could take certain stands,  if he did they would not be successful in the long term in moving things forwards. Obama is after all a politician in the US.

Many people in the GLBT are dissapointed that Obama has not moved further on our issues. However I believe that he does not do more because he is balancing what is possible and effective with what is right and ineffective.

I believe one can tell what he really wants by looking at what he does symbolically, or by use of his "soft" power as head of state.

Certainly he could have done more in regards to the Middle East, and other issues, however if one looks at what he has or will achieve, it will be more then any president had achieved in moving the US forward since Roosevelt.

Can you imagine Hillary, Bush, or McCain doing things like inviting J Street to meet with him.

i agree with you very largely. But that brings us to theh problem that scares me the most. This is the best that can be accomplished in the US. I'm sure it is. But it is nowhere close to good enough.

Yeah I agree with you. It scares me too. I just have to have faith that change will come, or the earth is doomed.

Its why symbols are more important then actually policies.  Unless we have something that stirs the peoples imagination to a new way, we are doomed.  Obama is the best we have and hopefully his postion as President will stir others that will produce real change.  It's unlikely, but while there is still life there is hope.