Obama doing some good things, some bad...

He's Just Not There Yet (If "There" is indeed where he is headed...)

Barack Obama sometimes shows that he gets it (that is, the continuing crass cycles of national politics), sometimes, his real inexperience shows. I must say it is inexperience because he has shown little in policy outcome. Reading his remarks or watching him speak, I can see an idealistic change the system premise, but it becomes muddled as he uses consultant, feel-good language or over-used Bush Admin. approved Washington dialogue (explained further on in this post.)

It is still unclear whether or not Obama is what so many claim him to be. He has had a few moments of freshness and frankness, but far more moments of recycled comments and phrases that Washington pollsters seem to think Americans want to hear on specific issues.

It is certain that activists see him as new and definitely are projecting their hopes and dreams for a new, better, and functioning democratic (small and big D- democratic)system.

Recently, Obama blamed Bush for the state of Mideast diplomacy in the Middle East, but more credits this administration the ascension of Iran in this dangerous game.
But let's look in brief at Obama'scomments::

Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday blamed Bush Administration failings in Iraq for strengthening the strategic position of Iran, which he says must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Illinois senator said that means "direct engagement" with Iran similar to the meetings with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

It is a bit obvious for even casual international observers to to realize hardline politics is almost self-fulfilling when it comes to diplomacy. If one takes the "hardline" with another country and uses every possible policy to further threaten the existence of another state, that state will no doubt have to repsond to save itself from internally collapsing. (And this is where a conservatives inserts the Reagan argument. Forget it friend, Reagan dropped the hardline and talked to Gorbachev.)

But then Obama goes and says this, sounding just like Bush (and every other fool who feels the need to appease certain lobbies with whom they speak):

"While we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons," Obama said.

Wow! That will do wonders to speed up any compromises. If Obama wants America to move on past to the current stolid and static state of Washington affairs, then he's got dump this type of talk. What do I mean, you ask? First off, it is a given that America and/or Iran hold the right to engage in conflcit when the leaders of these countries feel that it will protect the existence of their regimes or enhance their strength. That is given. We never rule this out. Americans get it, start acting like it, you'll win over alot more voters. Second Obama would benefit to stand in front of a popular lobby and tell them that Israel doesn't deserve blank checks in "defending" itself. We guarantee its protection, but we don't do its bidding, simply put. It is not a total change in policy, just gives us the flexibility that Bush and so many Washington politicians claim to want in war and peace. A "Sista Souljah" moment anyone?

Bottomline: More of this

Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

Ridicule these terrible people, attack them. (I couldn't imagine a better way to see Bush or Cheney lose their cool from being belittled), but don't talk their Republican language. If you change the words, you change the debate, and then you it becomes possible for change.