... who has lost to Obama always seem to second guess his strategies.

When will they learn?

... it could be argued that it is Obama's rise in the world scene that has enabled the current uprising. I would say that he has already been transformative.

He will already be judged to be on the wrong side of history by opposing same-sex marriage.

Instead of being a whiney bitch, get off your ass and put him on the right side of history.

Name one other president that has been as friendly to gays as Obama.

Maybe you should have voted for McCain, you big baby who is going off-topic.

I think that's why he's playing the caaution card now.

He can take a stronger tone when its a safr bet that he will be on the right side of history. This could go in so many directions now. I don't think its a question of changing his approach as much as adapting to the situation as it plays out.

Here's what I think. He has to wait to see if this has legs or if it will just peter out. If it does continue to pick up steam and the marchers begin making even veiled pro american or pro Obama statements, then he makes his move. Right now, he has to wait.

I'd expect to hear him speaking of the importance of votes being counted, of people having the right to speak their minds; all about bringing fairness and light to the process.

There's a lot of claimed "knowledge" who won the election, but to me it looks a lot like Bush-Gore. Ahmadinejad travels around the countryside handing money directly to people, tacky and old-fashioned by our standards, but it probably gets votes. Mousavi got a lot of excited young people on TV in the last few weeks, and that surely motivated the older conservatives to put a stop to all that libertine excess. And of course it will shock no one if the young people talked and danced a bit more than they actually voted.

The news reports are full of partisans claiming there was surely vote manipulation, and this being an election managed by humans, there was surely some. I saw a big "scandal" that Ahmadinejad's victory party had people "flown in from out of town and didn't represent Tehran". Unlike Obama's victory lap in Grant Park, where every single person was from Chicago.

I'm not here trying to defend Ahmadinejad, I'm just saying despite all your desperate hope that one megalomaniac you know nothing about upset another you know little about, none of us know what the legitimate outcome is, and Obama being Obama he's likely (and morally ought) to insist that the legitimate outcome be the one that comes into force.

If the Iranians legitimately re-elected Ahmadinejad, well: The US re-elected Bush. It's not the end of the world.

If they promise to remain there and serve the country of their allegiance.

When two out-of-the-closet shills for Israel are leaning on the President of the United States to do the bidding of a foreign country, treason is the word that comes to mind.

The Zionistas have been frothing @ the mouth for months trying to get their big, dumb attack dog to take a bite out of Iran. We're already fighting one war for Israel in Iraq. Well, not a war, but an occupation after we deposed their popular leader.

Israel spit in the face of Hillary Clinton yet again by explaining they're not about to stop developing West Bank settlements. And now Hillary disgraces herself yet again by acting like a tool for Israel.

Obama needs to examine what "chain of command" means and put these two foreign agents in their place (prison, ideally).

I don't think much of what Obama has been (or not) doing lately; but I think this is the right tact for now.

If he comes down on the side of the protesters to much, the Iranian gov't leaders will use it as a sign of US gov't interference. It's not like the Iranian people have forgotten previous US involvement in their affairs.

Iraq was not invaded to create a bubbling democracy, it was invaded to estoy the place so it could not be a threat.

Lebannon was destroyed basically for the same reason

The Palistinaians are kept down so they will be poor and hated

Now Israel smells an opportunity to create choas in Iran and they will push it for all its worth

I've given up on the NYT's political reporting. Why do they let their sources remain anonymous with these kind of gossipy charges? At the least the NeoCon's aren't afraid to say it to Obama's face. What value, other than maintaining access, does the NYT place on these charges that Obama is not acting properly on Iran election protests ?

So Obama should be more like McCain, of whom Clinton said during the campaign would be better suited to be president. As bad as Obama is, the neocons' Clinton, Biden and McCain would have been much scarier at executing a foreign policy.

If she or, God forbid, McCain would have won, we'd be ramping up our next "Operation Protest Freedom" or "Operation Persian Liberation" or whatever bullshit name we'd be tacking on to a war with Iran.

Obama is making a wise move here- non interference. I can't imagine that sticking our nose in the middle of this hornets nest would be good for Iranians or the US.

The community organizer needs help, help with the task of foreign policy, a task he had little to no experience in prior to assuming the presidency.

Steve Weissman over at TruthOut makes the case that American meddling is all too likely a root cause of Iran's current turmoil ...

Iran: Who's Diddling Democracy?

Thursday 18 June 2009

by: Steve Weissman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Watching the protesters in Tehran, many Americans feel a strong sense of empathy, exhilaration and hope. I strongly share those feelings, especially since I know firsthand the danger the protesters face from government thugs on motorcycles, provocateurs and the secret police. But none of this should blind us to the likelihood that our own government is dangerously meddling in Iran's internal affairs and playing with the lives of those protesters.

I'd like to think he's wrong ... but ... if past behavior predicts future behavior....

Link on my name (also highly recommend his 2004 article detailing American meddling in other-people's democracies).