Apparently I need to clarify a few points. I agree that representative democracy is a good thing. But if you don't like the job that the Pres and Congress are doing (80% of Americans don't) then it is insanity to re-elect the same incumbents again and again and expect different results. But that is exactly what we are doing with a 90%+ incumbent re-election rate. I don't believe in rewarding failure for disasters like Iraq.

And having more people directly participate in holding public officials accountable doesn't seem like theory to me. It seems like it was what the founders intended. The founders expected the office seekers would be driven by ambition and avarice as well as by the nobility of the spirit. The pols need to fear the people more than the lobbyists. And, yes, branding, and all sort of neo-mythic making crap have to take place. Both our modern sensibilities and tribal roots have to be placated.

Why do you think this system of "democracy" that I have just described is what has worked in this country for so long and is what most other democratic countries are using up to the present? It may not be perfect, but it is better than anything else out there.

So I hear what you are saying, but I don't believe it will work. Nice theory, though.

Your are begining to sound to me as one-dimensional as the posters you decry. It's pretty clear to me that Wahabist thought is extremist, and mainstream Islamic scholars like Khaled M Abou El Fadl (who, unlike me, actually know something about it), say the same thing. To alter and remove words in the Qur'an and mandate the killing of other muslims who are not in your faction is extremist. To not be tolerant of other people of the book (christians and jews) is extremist. I think a more interesting question is the relationship between the US, ARAMCO and the house of Saud to Wahabists. That goes back to FDR

And I actually think that there is a modicum of chance that Obama policy in the region might move things forward. It will at least be better than trying to assemble the necessary pre-conditions for Aramgeddon.

Here's some Obama quotes on Isreal:

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud ap-proach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," leading Democratic presidential contender Illinois Senator Barack Obama said Sunday.

"If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress," he said.

He also criticized the notion that anyone who asks tough questions about advancing the peace process or tries to secure Israel by anyway other than "just crushing the opposition" is being "soft or anti-Israel."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203847465591&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Wasn't that precisely his point? I mean, isn't that the entire point of his speech? That family and friends are complicated, multi-layer individuals who do or say some bad stuff along with the good? Wasn't the white grandmother who spouts racist stuff just a counterpoint to the black preacher who spouts racist stuff? He's saying that he loves them both in spite of their flaws. You made his point for him.

Yes, indeed.

Independent of Obama or Hillary or McCain, are we ready discard the simple masks and deal with each other as more complex beings? Jury is out, but stay tuned.

If Obama is so great and really about change, then why doesn't he decry the Imperial System?

Well, there's a lot going on here, too much for a format such as this.

First off, I think the main problem (alluded to in a prior post of mine) is that most Americans don't think that we have an empire. How can you get rid of something you don't even know you have? How many people know about all the troops we still have in Korea, Okinawa, Germany, etc? Has the fact that we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined really sunk in? I don't think so. I've listened to radio shows where 'experts' deny that we even have an empire at all.

It's like our dependence on Oil. We built that dependence over 100 years, so to think that we can back out in 10 is wishful thinking. I know that every administration after Carter has said, let's wait another 4 years.

Not building long term bases in Iraq will be start of a trend reversal.

who thinks that Obama is somehow antiwar I don't think Obama is antiwar.

I think its reasonable to believe that Obama can be a change candidate without him changing everything. I think it's unreasonable to think he can change everything. I don't see it as all or nothing. I don't see it as saint or fraud either.

Sorry I didn't get to your Israel/Muslim remarks. Suffice to say, there are others building their own empires. It's a long standing human tradition.

This was due in no small part to the mischaracterization of Hillary Clinton’s remark that it took a strong president, LBJ [...]

I don't agree with that all. Hillary diminished the role of a mythical Hero by saying LBJ had to do the real work. Of course the followers of the hero are going to be pissed. If you tell a bunch of republican Regan admirerers that the cold war was really won due to an arms build up started by the Carter Administration, you're not going to get their vote.

It's that simple. It doesn't matter if its true or not. Don't mess with the Icons. Hillary should be enough of a politician to know this. Take any american hero and criticize him or her in front of their supporters. See what kind of happy faces you get.