How many times did Barack Obama utter the word "Change" during the campaign? "Change is coming to Washington" he boomed from every podium and microphone put before him. "We have to fundamentally change the way Washington works" came the salivating-inducing words to the ears of those sick of the same old BS.

So what is Obama doing so far?

1) Hiring the same old crew of beltway insiders (including some lobbyists!) who represent every last fiber of "status quo" in terms of the same hands and influences on the levers of power.

2) On the verge of appointing one of the ultimate insiders Secretary of State who, along with her husband, have numerous financial and insider-influence conflicts of interest.

3) Refusing to support the removal of one of the biggest traitors in Democratic caucus history who actively campaigned for the other guy non-stop during the campaign.

4) Absolutely no inclination (at least publicly or otherwise) to hold war criminals and felony-committing officials accountable for the despicable things they've done to this country and its reputation.

These pale in comparison, of course, to his utter betrayal of his base and his Constitutional background with regard to the FISA amendments.

So far, I have seen absolutely nothing which gives me any confidence that Obama is going to be anything remotely close to "The Change We Can Believe In." All I see is the calculating, triangulating politician that's been whispered in our tightly covered ears all along.

Awesome. Yea. Woo hoo.

Perhaps "The Change We Can Believe In" that Obama endlessly repeated like an endless VCR tape was really referring to a new series of coins from the US Mint. I just wish he'd held up a few of the prototypes during his speeches so we knew what he was really talking about.

He wants to remain "almost consistent with the Geneva Conventions" and call attention to "humane treatment," but still leave that loophole to enable (presumably) brutal interrogations...but he's not able to come right out (as others were) and advocate such. True, that's hardly a profoundly principled position, but hell, compared to some of the bloodthirsty and vengeful talk about "working the dark side" in those days, it's relatively rational. And rational people can learn and change their minds, eventually, based on cooler emotions and considered evidence. I'll take that over a dumbshit ideologue any day.

What's also striking to me is the reminder that we, as a nation, immediately defaulted to the concept of "war" and to trying to fit the 9/11 CRIMINALS into the category of combatants. So you've got people like Holder struggling to apply Vietnam and WWII P.O.W. conventions to a situation that really doesn't fit the mold.

Well put.

The ability of someone to hold an irrational or undemocratic thought, but to clearly change it after a period of reflection is a good sign to me that that is a thinking person, and not necessarily one who is led solely or primarily by political dogma. It's a good sign, but, like Glenn and others, I'll hold out for more background and behavioral evidence before making my final judgment.

Jim White said:

This passage raises some very interesting questions. Given the parallels in the warnings from PBS and CNN, it appears that somehow, these producers are basically censoring the news. On what authority are they doing this? Is corporate management of both organizations requiring it, or is the government forcing these organizations to censor?

I really think it's important to continue exposing the seedy underbelly of how news and information is "presented" to the masses. It will never rise to the national consciousness if we don't expose it, repeat it, and spread it like wildfire throughout the alternative media so that it is forced to gain traction. Unfortunately, it did not work with the Military Analyst Propaganda story, but perhaps that is because it involved virtually the entirely of the MSM. This story is more confined, and would make for an interesting and darkly revealing investigation.

Thanks again for all that you do, Glenn. If I can somehow serve as a research aid for you with things of this nature, please use and abuse me. heh

I guess the trick is to find a network that will actually let you say/define torture, and who is practicing it, domestically.

Why does Sisyphus come to mind?

No kidding, and I'm beginning to wonder if Olbermann and Maddow would actually have the courage to cover something like this the way it should be covered. My guess is they don't, and they won't. Anything which exposes the management of mass media for what they really are, even in passing, is accidental at best, and verboten at worst.

It is tiring trying to maintain hope that these things will be handled appropriately. *Sigh* I guess it's off to the garage to do a "rattle can restoration" on my new 1977 Ford LTD battle wagon.

Breaking News: Our Intrepid Hero planning to break one of the "in stone" campaign promises he made at least 68 billion times while on the campaign trail.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081123/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_taxes

Typical Beltway Politician, indeed. Watch as the list of promises, "changes" and everything else goes by the wayside because of "conditions on the ground."

Nothing's changing. Nothing's going to change. It will just be a different subset of rich people controlling the gov't for another 8 years.

We should really just stop analyzing this stuff and organize the uprising.

Link at sig.