Michael Smith says "Perhaps--if you believe it". Why not yes of course those would be important differences if they turn out to be real! Smith's statement reflects perfectly the disinterest in the fate of the world by the people have it in their hands; we have here an attempt to dismiss responsibility for working for an Obama victory. Why should we not believe that these differences are real? The editors at the Nation and Stephen Zunes seem to think there are real differences, especially in regards to willingness to have diplomatic relations with Iran (and Syria)--a key to any rational exist strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan. It also seems to me obvious both that Obama would not go to war without Security council authorization and that he will not harp on this in yahoo america. Leftists should be able to understand the delicacy of the situation and read between the lines. It also seems obvious to me that Obama is much more serious (that is willing to talk about measures that will actually cost us Americans) about minimizing new global greenhouse gas emissions given that the stock is already too dangerously high, but "perhaps" this is of no great concern to this list. Human rights conventions. No biggie, right? One of the tragedies of this list is the windbaggery and irrelevance of those comments submitted in defense of Obama.
Abu Hartal. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/