Obama is president-elect. Nader calls him out.

Barack Obama is president. There's a HUGE significant to that. Of course, Nader's still going to hold his feet to the fire . . .



Of course, one doesn't expect fair and balanced reporting from Fox news. Shep Smith's 'indignant white guilt' act doesn't play out too well, coming from the station that gave us Imus. Now, if Nader was black, no one would have batted an eye to this comment. Democrats are still sore about losing the 2000 election, and Nader will always be the scapegoat for that

To recap - Gore lost the election in 2000 (no thanks to the Gore / Lieberman ticket.) Kerry lost to Bush because of the big bad terrorist threat and the fact that Kerry and Bush stood for the same things. 'Beat Bush' was a wonderful slogan, but it's not bankable policy.

Obama certainly has the orator's gift, but I still failed to see the real difference between him and McCain on the real issues of the day (finance, terrorism, Iran, Iraq, Israel). That's what Nader was calling him out on.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Guantanamo man' in Iraq bombing

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Guantanamo man' in Iraq bombing

So . . .
What came first?
The chicken or the egg?

And how will the Bush administration exploit this to their benefit?

For certian, Bush will cite that this was the reason why Guantanamo was built, and we need to face the realities of war - you know - same old shit.

But I suspect that the real reason they can not close Gitmo down is because we've managed to once again breed a group of terrorists based on our policies in the Middle East.

My, oh my, what would Clinton do? (or Obama, for that reason? No question McCain will simply tow the party line).

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush urges wiretap immunity law

Our Commander-In-Chief is looking out for our well-being, really . . .

Mr Bush said it would be "dangerous" if the legislation - introduced by the government after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US - was not renewed.

He told the White House on Tuesday any lawsuits against telecommunications firms would allow al-Qaeda to scrutinise US intelligence methods and gift them a "roadmap on how to avoid the surveillance".

So . . .
If we don't allow warrantless wiretaps, then the terrorists win?
With this argument, any civil liberty (real or perceived) is subject to aiding and abetting terrorism.

Now, since it's election time, what do our Great Saviours (the Democratic presidential contenders) have to say about this, or the policy in general? I suspect that their position will be about the same (seeing how they are both cut from the same cloth - their contest is more of an election of personalities). I'm sure if Clinton or Obama urged this type of policy, even the most non-liberal conservative-bashing Democrat would spin it to his own liking.

Remind me again why this election is real and not just a coronation, please?