abu hartal wrote:
>
> 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;
I'm afraid you are a bit clueless as to u.s. politics. There is no chance whatever that _any_ president will be elected who will be any better for the rest of the world than have been the last half dozen or so. They are _all_ committed to what they see as the interests of the u.s. empire, and it is in that respect that Obama is just another politician, just another servant of capital. Some on this list think that the people who support him _may_ offer some hope of later political action _against_ the actual policies that Obama will support. You do know, don't you, that Obama has declared himself ready to send u.s. troops into Pakistan if a government unfriendly to the u.s. should emerge there.
I'm not sure which of the three remaining candidates is most dangerous to the rest of the world -- but all three are dangerous, and my own speculation is that Obama may be the most dangerous of the three.
Of course he is lying. He may go through the motions on some of those claims you make for him, but the substance will not be particularly different from what Clinton or McCain would do. Don't put any more fear into McCain's rhetoric than hope into Obama's rrhetoric.
Carrol