Begins when Obama went to Chicago and became an organizer, this man has an intense drive to succeed. The documentaries that I have seen shows a man with a great determination to achieve his goals, failure is not ian option for him. In spite of being young, he had the common sense to learn and be instructed by the best. He has a lot of confidence in himself, and a lot of hope and faith in his christian belief. This mind set to dare to hope, even against the odds is what gave him (his advisors, and his wife) the ability to stand firm in opposition and adversity. Persistence is a strong characteristic that he thrives on, so much so, that he was able to engage people who would not normally find themselves caught up on the words of a Black man. Plus someone, somewhere in his lifetime has taught him the principle of there is a time to speak and a time to be quiet, and he did this well during the election. A lot of mud slinging was going on, but rarely did he retaliate. From video's that I have seen of Obama during the election, were of people of all ages, nationalities, even outside of the American jurisdiction were individuals clinging to his articulate word of promise and change. The nit-picking got to be old hat, the people was tired of that. A man born to a White mother and a Nigerian father, and later raised by his maternal grandparents. They instilled a core of values in him, and from his immediate family (which is like the rainbow coalition) gave him the ability and know how to get along with people from all racial backgrounds. Not to mention that in America we are down to "two" classes of people, Rich and Poor, the "middle" class because of the economy is slowly falling to the wayside. So people from all walks of life, even in "lily White" communities and States found themselves chanting "Yes We Can," and the end results of the election was "Yes We Did." That's how I see it.

I like this video. It shows that not everyone is as informed as they think they are. I didn't know much about either candidates so i made sure to do the research before my decision. Most people jumped on the bandwagon for one reason or another when it came to voting for Obama. I think a lot of people simply felt that it was time for a change in president's party. 8 years of one party tends to inspire a surge of support in the other naturally. especially, if said party has been seen as unsuccessful in the past 8 years. unfortunately, a lot of people voted for obama for the wrong reasons, but time will show if they made the right choices or not. just as many who were not aware of his policies versus mccain's, there were many who strove to make their policies clear and many who listened. hopefully, future voters will take more initiative in their government and try to understand how their decisions will affect their future. finally, the media did give an uneven amount of attention to the candidates. i remember having to look twice as hard for positive coverage on mccain's campaign than obama's. in the end, i turned to the internet. either way, the information one obtains is bound to be riddled in bias. no wonder people are so misinformed (i wouldn't necessarily call all of them ignorant).

ps: the intro music is creepy. too much adulation of one man really freaks me out >.> so he's the first black president. that's really amazing and a great step for the American people. but i question if we were ready to make that step. i believe, in years to come, as long as God wills this nation to exist, there will be many other black presidents and many women presidents as well and people will think how strange overexpressive
"obamites" were.

More change less dollars... unless your another welfare recipient. ... Convoluted arguments don't mean you win. Ever since they took Civics ( not a car by the way)classes out of the schools, the populace has forgotten that it is the house and senate that make the laws and dictates what happens in our country, the Pres is only a third of the power of government the last being the judicial system which has been corrupted. Instead of interpreting the law they are trying to write law from the bench a clear vio;lation of our constition and bill of rights. Same with the man holding the office of the president, he has no power to control nor take over and fire management of private corporations. Thats isn't nay-saying thats the painful truth of the way our country is going. The only good thing I see about it all is we are now one step closer to the Second coming of Christ. I emplore you to read about the history of the Third Reich and look at todays similarities. We are in for YEARS of trouble and strife. and moved down the food chain to less than the super power we once were. I stood my ground for this country and protected it so people like you could spew whatever drivel you wanted to bad I now have to be relegated to less because you don't like what I have to say so you wqnt me shoved in a corner and told to shut up. You will be surprised at how many of us are fed up with your libreal soft bellied anti christian views and aren't going to be pushed around anylonger. When the Military of the United States joins in the rebellion of ideas who is going to take care of your whinning ass when we shut the doors of the New Republic and your stuck on the outside looking in.

The President does not have any authority to control who manages corporations. The Congress is the primary authority on budget items, although they may have delegated some control to the President on specific issues. But that delegation can be taken back by Congress. If there is something different, please let me know the Section and paragraph in the Constitution.
Fascism is defined as: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. With a Congress that has rolled over and played dead, Obama seems to have these powers. Centralized control over banks, car manufacturers, pay czars, etc. Obama seems to be on track. And when he tries to stifle Fox news, fires watchdogs, etc, he is heading to suppression of opposition. So, I don't think that Hitler analogy fits as well as the Mussolini analogy.
Do you find it curious that MSNBC and NBC are owned by GE which is heavily invested into a) health information systems and b) green energy technology, both of which stand to profit greatly from Obama's agenda?

Anyway, just so you'll know, I don't really care what Obama does. Hate to see what will happen to the country but they elected him. And they elected congress. I have gone John Galt, have stopped paying taxes, and live off of government aid of one kind or another. I feel bad about not pulling my weight but the only way to stop this guy is to stop working and contributing.
Starving the beast now will save things in the long run. It is a technique learned from the Chicago radicals that Obama came from.

The president, as head of the Executive department of government, as the overall head of the Treasury Dept. has the authority to propose solutions for bankrupt corporate reorganization when such bankruptcy presents a danger to the economic health of the country (too big to fail) , though, legally, the actual implementation of any such plan is only by authority of the bankruptcy judge. Obama proposed a solution to the pending bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM; he had no authority to impose it on his own. Any one of the stakeholders in these corporations could have objected to Obama's plan and forced the bankrupty judge to make a ruling, which may have resulted in something far different from what Obama wanted. However, all parties agreed. There was no usurpation of authority here. As to fascism, you don't have a clue. If the USA were anything close to a true fascist state, you couldn't "go Galt." Right now, you'd be in the interrogation rooms being tortured to see if there were any more "Galters." Just look at what is happening in Iran now to get a clue as to what a proto-fascist state does when confronted with opposition. Suppress Fox News? Give me a break. In a fascist state, any media opposition would have been suppressed long ago.

It is a firm belief of mine that most Americans take their freedoms for granted. They have no idea what it is like to live in a dictatorship and think that because Congress passes a bill that they don't like, that means we'rte in a fascist state. Get your head out of Ayn Rand and go read some history about Mussolini and fascism. It will do you good.

Sorry for the late response but I have trouble following my emails.
I just want to respond to your 2nd to last paragraph. I am very disturbed by this indiscriminate killings of civilians and am at a total lost to understand why there is sometimes no or very limited public outcry over "collateral" damage, to use a nice word. You call me a conservative and want me to fit into a nice category. But I am opposed to air campaigns against civilian areas. It is ironic that the words "weapons of mass destruction" were first used to describe the fascist air bombings in Guernica made famous by Picasso. I was opposed to Clinton's 1999 air war with Serbia. I think that these are war crimes. Yes, I know that they were NATO approved and by that approval, they were UN approved. But a reasonable objective person would call the attempt to stop random ethnic cleansing by aerial bombings of Serbian ethnic enclaves to be "odd", at least. Perhaps 5,000 civilians were killed. No americans cared because no Americans died. I am totally against the Bush-Obama drone war against Pakistan. Perhaps 700 innocent Pakistanis have died, plus maybe 14 Al-Qaeda members. I understand that sometimes air bombings are acceptable for some "greater" good. But I just can not understand a war that relies entirely on dropping bombs on civilian targets. To be honest, I would prefer to see American soldiers dying if the trade-off is reducing innocent civilian deaths. Except in Philadelphia in the 1970's police in this country do not normally drop bombs on civilians to get at criminals.
To my knowledge, the Bush-Obama drone war with Pakistan has not been approved by Congress nor by any UN resolution. I am not some "eye for an eye" person. I am not a supporter of pre-emptive strikes. I support ground troops supporting the Afghan government. I support ground troops supporting the Pakistani government. I support limited air power in those areas, if approved by the Pakistani and Afghan governments. Do we have those? Have the leaders of those countries publicly expressed support for these bombings?
I suspect that I am much more progressive than you if you support these operations.
One comment on your last paragraph. As long as we talk about "your side of the fence" we will have problems. Maybe I am odd but I agreed with c. 50-60% of Bush's agenda and 40% of Obama's agenda. The future of this country rests with the independent people who fluctuate and try to decide who to bet on when all candidates are significantly flawed. The two special interest groups that scare me the most are the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Wow, this is a first on SH: I am to the Right of someone. I, in general, support the drone war because of the near impossibility of getting to Al Qaeda leaders on the ground. We don't have enough intelligence to pinpoint just where these terrorists are for any length of time and even if we did, it's likely they would get warning and disappear into the hills before our troops could get there, not to mention the diplomatic issues of US troops operating on foreign soil without a clear mandate from the host government.

The drone war, if done right, can, and has proven effective in that some important Al Qaeda leaders have been killed. However, you make a good point about "collateral damage" and perhaps, if the accuracy of the drones isn't perfected, their use will be counterproductive, not to mention the moral issues of killing civilians. On the other hand, it is standard operating procedure for Islamic terrorists deliberately to situate themselves in civilian areas so as to produce collateral damage when anyone tries to take them out, as is seen in Israel and Palestine. So they are, IMHO, ultimately responsible for civilaian casualties.

As to the legality of the drone war, the President has the authority to conduct the war as he sees fit under his constitutional war-making powers; he does not need congressional apporval to approve his strategy or tactcs, with the proviso that certain conduct that is regarded under international law as war crimes isn't done. The drone war doesn't come under these proscriptions because drones are not deliberately targeted to kill civilians.

Wow! It is OK to drop bombs on suspected (not tried and convicted) terrorists, based on some intelligence estimate (the type that said Iraq has WMDs) and it is not a war crime if civilians are killed? Wow! Glad that I don't live in Pakistan, Sudan, Serbia, Afghanistan, etc. So, you are in favor of Israelis targeting civilian areas because the terrorists are hiding in these areas? Do you support or oppose the Bush era consideration of assassinating terrorists? Is it OK to try to kill terrorists non-surgically by dropping bombs on civilian areas while aiming for the terrorists or is it better to directly assassinate them?
I think that the Constitution requires the president to ask Congressional authority to engage in warfare. The War Powers clause gives Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. I would hope that you would see the advantage of this clause. Clinton did not ask for it re. Serbia but Bush did for Iraq. Congress has given too much power to the President, beyond the intent of the Constitution but I think that this is very unfortunate, whether a Republican or Democrat is President. Yes, I understand that the President has tactical and strategic powers after Congress approves the overall war policy.
Another belief that you probably hold that puts you well to the right of me regards Obama's tax policy. He wants to REDUCE taxes for those making under $250,000. Now do people who opposed Bush tax cuts for the rich support the idea of tax cuts for people making more than 90% of the population? I can not understand Obama's tax cuts when we have these deficits. I feel like I am in some Roman era when the Ceasar provided bread and gladiator games to keep the masses shut up. If you are from Brooklyn, perhaps you have read the following:
http://www.city-journal.org/2...
Obama seems to want to buy votes through hand-outs. He has turned JFK's saying into "Ask not what you can do for your country but what the country (or Obama) can do you." You ruin democracy when you are buying votes, with public money. I wish that he would stand up and say "health care, education, etc costs money and we will pay for it with revenues, with a majority paying for it. I don't mind progressive taxes but I am opposed to most people being exempt from taxes.