President Obama's "strong leadership" seems to consist in large degree of using verbal eloquence that appeals to the fundamental, but often unarticulated, desires of his constituents, who then project their conceptual programs back on him. Eventually, the discontinuity becomes too great to ignore and severe disillusionment sets in. Barak Obama's principle tool seems to be the expression of aspirations without much in the way of defining a program for advancing toward realizing them. He didn't invent this technique. It is one of the oldest strategies in politics. As with his predecessors in its practice, it leaves him a free hand to deviate from constituent expectations.

Early on in the campaign, I noticed Senator Obama's aversion to spelling out the steps needed to redirect the Republic away from the toxic practices of the Bush Administration. That he embraces many of Mr. Bush's positions has not surprised me. Barack Obama has never disavowed the maintenance of an American Empire hostile to individual liberty, responsible government, and sustainable economy. Next time you vote, look for a candidate not shy about spelling out his/her program in detail. However, the chances of finding such a candidate with a major party nomination are virtually nil.

I happened to catch the tail end of a show on Free Speech TV called something like "Liberty Network". A political spectrum was shown with the people like Dennis Kucinich toward the left, FDR just left of center, libertarian conservatives near the center, Goldwater conservatives just to the right of the libertarians, and then, way the heck and gone to the far right, were Barack Obama and George W. Bush under the label of "corporate militarism". That just about sums it up for me, too. The corporate militarists control the government through fear-mongering, propaganda, and good old-fashioned intimidation. They have no vision of the world in which their micro-oligarchy does not exercise the option of global annihilation over the rest of us. Barak Obama has had time to transcend this world view, but instead has opted to "stay the course", with its toxic effects on liberty and the general well-being of 99.9% of the people on planet Earth.

As a former Democrat who got tired of the way the Clintons and their ilk (all the way up to the current Incumbent) exploit the hopes and aspirations of the common people to get elected, then totally sell them out to corporate globalists and big investment bankers, I find Lou Dobbs interesting. Rather than spout platitudes about "hope" and "change" and "yes, we can", Dobbs seems to have a specific agenda, a set of prioritized objectives that he wishes to execute, all of which I think would be beneficial to the country as a whole.

Lou Dobbs wants to drive the money-changers out of our political process, or at least reduce their influence. This needs to be a top priority if we are to realize our claim to popular government. Right now the Congress and the Executive are acting as marionettes in a sham of democracy, with Goldman Sachs and their cohorts pulling the strings. If Lou Dobbs could do anything toward liberating our government from the meshes of corporatocracy, as Obama has not, he gets my vote.

I never have figured out why a group of people with serious concerns about our deteriorating planetary life-support system want to allow millions of more people into our country to consume more resources and create more garbage. Lou Dobbs seems spot-on in wanting to check the seemingly relentless onrush of population growth that is threatens our national future.

The only critical issue on which I do not know Lou Dobbs' position is whether he supports the destructive, over-bloated American military that is used as a tool to establish and maintain the Globalist Corporate Empire, or whether he favors a much-needed reduction in military forces, with a withdrawl from all foreign military adventures and the closure of foreign military bases. Nothing on Earth depletes the national treasury, creates more pollution and waste, and brings more discredit on the United States than its oversize military.

Dr. Ron Paul. In the various debates leading up to the primaries, Dr. Paul repeatedly pointed out that American interference with the internal affairs of Muslim nations has naturally engendered mistrust, fear, and hatred, especially if we are propping up authoritarian regimes for the purpose of securing for ourselves the petroleum that is their natural patrimony. The best policy, according to Dr. Paul, would be forbear from such interference. For these cogent, common sense perspectives, he was roundly derided as someone out of touch with reality.

We need politicians clear-sighted enough to distinguish right from wrong and the long-term consequences of pursuing short-term objectives without regard to the more remote future.

Most of all, we need to recognize and tell our current political leaders that we are no longer buying the hogwash fairytales that somehow more money and troops will render the Middle East a more salubrious environment for freedom. The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are wars between the developed West and the indigenous people for control and access to resources.