XH "Thanks for the "news." It's not like people here don't know the failings of the Democratic party. But thanks for your condescending attempt to educate everybody. You know so much."

I'm not pretending that I'm a genius or that I know something that others don't. I am, however, looking to dampen your hopes that Obama or the Democractic Party are going to be any different to the previous administration. You're only setting yourself up for disappointment. The only thing which made the Bush administration "worse" than others was their utter incompetence at keeping some of their hideous authoritarian activities secret. Maybe this has something more to do with the slow democratization of media than their poor confidence abilities. Every party, Republican, Democratic or Whig has run roughshod over the wishes of the people and has crushed those who get in the way at the first possible moment. It has been corrupted to such an extent that we no longer even raise an eyebrow and the massive "campaign contributions" made by corporate sponsors, or the millions funneled to the party by "soft money".

XH: How is this relevant to an article that summarizes and analyzes a speech by Michelle Obama? As for Obama being "different," well, he is and he isn't. Nobody has any illusions about the fact that he's a politician who plays a political game. But he does bring something fresh to the scene, and there's nothing wrong with people appreciating it and getting excited about it. You're just stroking your own ego if you think you're enlightening us with your cynicism.

I guess I just don't see it as cynical to point out that Obama is no different to any other politician. As you pointed out, he has to play the game. I also don't see that he brings anything fresh or new to either the party or to politics. He's charismatic, youthful and a stupendous orator, sure, but that's just surface. What is actually different about his approach to leadership, government or policy? I suppose I just chose this article because it was the straw that broke this camel's back in terms of salon's blatantly uncritical analysis of somebody who's got a good chance of wielding executive power for the next four years.

XH: Thanks, but you're a piss-poor messenger for Orwell and I doubt he'd appreciate your negativism. If your point is that all politics, elections and government is a charade, then fine. Have at it. Be sure to write such essays during the RNC as well.

Firstly, I concede bringing up Orwell was more than likely a blunder. I didn't mean to come off wanky, I just know that a lot of people on this website have a huge regard for him and his views, whilst also shilling for the charade that is contemporary representational politics. I'm sorry but I just find it a bit hypocritical. Yes, my point is that elections are a charade. We need to see why that is and correct it.

XH: Charming. Then why did you read the article, and why are you here writing about it? You don't care. Great! Congratulations! You're a cynic. We all get it. I'm cynical too, but I don't fool myself into thinking I'm helping people by rubbing their noses in my cynicism.

I'm not trying to be cynical, but I am tabling my opinion that many of the issues that both liberals and this website are concerned with will not and cannot be solved by party politics. These are problems which are endemic with centralised, representational governance.

I apologise if I came across as a bit too militant there, but I was immensely annoyed that a liberal-biased website such as salon, which I enjoy for it's regular eviscerations of the authoritarian right that are far more in-depth and clever than the rest of the MSM, is unwilling to point that laser focus at the slightly less authoritarian right party or it's new leader.