ken hanly wrote:
>
> You are right perhaps Obama was already a neo-con but then that would hardly make him an agent of change. His policy towards Israel hardly represents change either. Why is Bush mad dog imperialism as against normal imperialism? Obama thought of rushing into Pakistan before Bush made a timid foray and Bush simply dabbles in drone attacks. Obama thinks of a great surge in Afghanistan but Bush has just sent a dribble more of troops there. Obama is getting out of Iraq only to get into Afghanistan. Also Obama wants to increase the size of the military. I guess this is just normal imperialism.
> We will have to wait and see how long before Guantanamo is closed if Obama gets elected. What is Obama's position on cluster bombs?
I think you need a more core sense of what the DP problem is, beginning at least with Stevenson and deepening with each election such. They have a really fundamental agreement with their opponents as to the twin necessities of maintaining profits at home and capitalist hegemony abroad. (The latter usually but not always is simple U.S. imperaiialism). On the other hand, they need to appeal to a base (and actually to a large number of the so-called independents) whose interests are quite different. Grssp this and you can begin to understand the rhetoric of DP presidential candidates. For example, "New Frontier" = policy in both domestic and foreign affairs somewhat to the right of Eisenhower. "Change" excites people. The not-so-small print announces the actual conservative (not neo-con, a mere flutter in u.s. politics) core. It is easier this time than usual because of the unpopularity of the Bush Administration people are more willing to accept completely empty rhetoric.
Carrol