I for one don`t believe Senator Obama has or will ever betray us , as we all know the sellout started at the beginning of the war and not one thing will change I don`t care what the vote is for , until someones elected to office ,if Obama color is wrong for some people then by all means , vote for Mccain.

In response to my previous post this was written:

"but we would do better to pay reparations than to accept whatever an AA candidate does--which s racist in itself!! What, we're supposed to expect LESS from himm because he's AfA?? When Canada, France, UK, etc. get a African' background or black nomoinee---get back to me!!"

In reply, no, I do not believe one should support an AA candidate just because he's AA. The point is - HE WON THE NOMINATION ACCORDING TO THE RULES. He is the Democratic candidate and a damn good one. Hillary, who had every opportunity to win (and I was a BIG supporter myself until S.Carolina), would also have shifted to the center and made many compromises that would have disappointed. Didn't her husband? Did he not support Kyoto, or create the bizarre 'don't ask, don't tell' policy re; gays in the military? How about the Democratic Leadership Council. All the same gang back with Hillary. Hillary's history of questionable votes such as authorization of war in Iraq - swept away in the nationalist fervor of the time that was frankly scary. Anhd she didn't know better? As a national leader? Hysterical along with the worst of the venal Republican leadership. Shades of a uniquely American authoritarianism during that period of national hysteria. Hillary went along with most of the Democratic leadership. Again, shameful in a democracy. It is highly probable Hillary would have done the same thing re; FISA or any other troubling piece of legislation, of that I have no doubt. Didn't she want to be portayed as tough?

Now, to comment on Canada and say it's moving rightward is completely irrelevant. It's like a South African white saying apartheid was OK because of how Canada treats its native peoples (or the Australians' treatment of aborigine peoples, or Americans' treatment of whatever). Apartheid was bad, period. Not to mention that the head of state of Canada, the Governor General, is a black woman with roots in Haiti. I'm also an American so I am writing as an equal citizen to you who bears the burden of this country's history along with the citizenship. And I chafe at that knowledge because I know the difference as I come from a good and compassionate country. Values that need to become more prominent in this place.

Obama's the Democratic candidate and he's African American which is very significant. As much as Hillary's being a woman is significant to her supporters and many others too. But let's not forget that in the pipeline of political leaders there are far more women than there are African American men, so it is a very significant and historic opportunity for a country that had a free and fair Democratic primary electoral process. I believe many people are truly disappointed that Hillary did not win, but I also believe that some of this disappointment is colored by some less noble motivations. Because. the truth is this type of thing would have happenned with WHOMEVER became the Democratic presidential nominee. It's part of the structure of the US political/economic system. There are 2 permanent political parties competing for power. What do you really expect? A Second Coming?

re: "What more of a candidate could you ask?"

How about: Honesty and upholding the Constitution and the rule of law

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

http://tinyurl.com/5h6uf9

In order to be a loyal progressive, according to you, Joan, a presidential candidate has to ignore every bit of new data, as well as the voting pattern of most of his colleagues in the senate. He must rigidly adhere to a jaded cersion of the liberal agenda, on an unrealistic, a priori basis, so that, for example, when he votes for a surveillance bill which punishes telecom companies who violated the last one, and it fails miserably, because of democratic party sell-outs, then he's no good for voting for a compromise bill, which includes added safeguards. When he modifies his genertal platform on Iraq, to be consistent with recent developments on the ground, there, then he is a traitor, as well. When he understands that it is unconstitutional to ban the carrying of firearms in the nation's capital, or anywhere else, he merits the same labelling.

If you are really sincere in your criticisms, then what is your alternative? Hillary Clinton has never apologized for her foolhardy support of a war, that despite all the manipulated intelligence, she should have engaged in far more debate about. What were our goals? Who were our Iraqi allies? What type of war was it? What are the best-educated military minds, like Colin Powell, Wes Clark, or General Kashvili saying? How do we get out? Why did Hillary Clinton foster the HMO system, in this country, which has been a disaster, insofar as dangerous corner-cutting? Why dioes she support trade policies which have helped bankrupt the country?

Or, perhaps, you'd like to vote for the Republican, pro abusive-petroleum-interest contingent, the latest issuance of which, by the president, being the silencing of the EPA's recommendations for cleaning the environment. This was done with the hypocritical lie that cleaning our environment would cripple the economy.

You cannot say that Barack Obama does not have a strong desire to re-invoke a fair, progressive tax structure, to resurrect the estate tax and taxes on overseas business, to re-acquire some measure of import controls, to end the war, on as timely a schedule as possible, to foster alternative energy subsidies and development, and to create jobs and higher levels of education and physical wellbeing. What more of a candidate could you ask?