Were You Surprised?

By Cernig

Were you surprised that The Fools On The Hill (D) utterly capitulated on the FISA eavesdropping bill and allowed provisions that gave the Attorney General totalitarian power over any lawsuits?

Were you surprised that Obama was AWOL on an issue and vote that is central to his PR message that change in the Beltway establishment's way of doing things and has also repeatedly backed candidates who enshine that Beltway process?

Were you surprised that, despite change being needed in American foreign policy cicles perhaps more than in any other area of government, Obama set up a national security committee staffed entirely by grey-headed VSPs who largely backed Bush interventionism at first?

Are you surpised that neither McCain nor Obama have stuck to their earlier promises on campaign financing?

You shouldn't have been. It's been clear from word one that "Change you can believe in" is a stump-speech ploy lifted directly from Tony Blair's original hugely successful 1997 election campaign. It's far more like Change you can Xerox.

And yet, still, an Obama presidency is to be vastly preferred over a McCain one. Obama may well be just another political hack, breaking promises and working to consolidate power in the hands of the beltway elite of politicians and lobbyists - but McCain is like Obama on steroids in that respect and like Cheney's wet dream on interventionist and belligerent contact with the world beyond American shores.

I'd like to see Obama win, but I'm not wearing blinkers.

Comments

[Michael]

I'd like to see Obama win, but if he doesn't stand up to this travesty he will lose my support and I will return to a position of abstention.