i think i'd asterisk the "asians" category for a few reasons.

first, it's a ridiculous single group. it represents at least a dozen languages, several unrelated religions, and while they all eat rice and "curry," from there, they part. india and china are virtually continents to themselves and they have a major rivalry which does affect the lives of their american diasporas.

even so, three things are generally true across the population: compared to indigenous and african descendants, asian-americans -- except for pacific islanders -- are much richer; much better educated/more professional; emigrated much more voluntarily and under better terms; and they hold much higher status relationships with the home countries.

because of those, maybe some hypothetical unified asian population might have less qualms about voting for the black guy, but it's much more likely that they voted for the guy who wasn't an idiotic nationalist pent on punishing the rest of the world.

Posted by: hapa at November 8, 2008 05:02 PM

Now, what would be nice is if a shrinking of the white electorate entailed a shrinking in support for empire. It may, but so far our first non-Caucasian president-elect seems to be as much a supporter of imperial policies as those who went before him.

Posted by: Jonathan Versen at November 8, 2008 05:10 PM

Jonathan,

I think there WILL be some reduction in empire, if for no other reason that I think it would be a lot easier for Obama to place himself in the shoes of the people of the countries to be invaded.

I feel that when you grow up without the privilege and sense of entitlement that many straight Caucasian men have, including our previous presidents, you're a little more receptive to what it means to be 'the other.'

Hell, SOME of Rev. Wright's points must have penetrated his skull over that time.

Posted by: Paulie Chestnuts at November 8, 2008 06:45 PM

How about Clinton? Didn't he grow up without the privilege and sense of entitlement that many straight Caucasian men have, including our previous presidents? He was white but his origins were every bit as humble as Obama's.

Posted by: cemmcs at November 8, 2008 07:00 PM

Holy cow, Pat Buchanan was right all along!

Posted by: Mollie at November 8, 2008 07:26 PM

Concerning Paulie Chestnut's comments, Obama has made it crystal clear, to anyone bothering to pay attention, that he has no plans whatever impeding or otherwise lessening empire. He sold himself to his financial backers as a superior empire manager. That's it.

His big challenge, if he wants a second term, is to keep non-white voters bamboozeled. In every important respect of politics and policy, we have President Oreo, and it remains to be seen how long that will be enough for the people who are going to be further ground down by just one more neoliberal, technocratic regime, Now With More Melanin!

Posted by: Phillip Allen at November 8, 2008 07:52 PM

Paulie,
My sense is that Obama does in fact understand why the empire is untenable and bad thing, both morally, and more tangibly in the long term. I don't dispute this.

But I don't think he cares about any of that, just becoming president. He is very deeply invested in the oligarchy, in votes for the expanded security state, in advocating for expanded war with Afghanistan, in voting for the disgusting bailout package, all the while making vague suggestions in his stump speeches that he was against all that stuff.

You can be impressed with the icing all you want, I am more concerned with the cake.

Posted by: Jonathan Versen at November 8, 2008 08:03 PM

I know, most of the ATR commenters will not agree with me but is it possible that one can wait to judjge him? I mean, he is not the president YET, he is not occupying the White House, he does not have his cabinet yet, he has not formally formulated his policies yet.

Most of the politicians say things and promise things to get elected and after being elected, do not follow through on them. Probably, he had done the same and it would suit everyone fine if he did not follow through on some of the things he said like going after Afghanistan and Pakistan. ( He may even change his mind about FISA and death penalty ). And he could still deliver on his other programmes to help the needy, like healthcare, education, creating jobs etc.

I personally would wait till he is THE president and see how he deals with problems before passing judgment.

Posted by: Rupa Shah at November 8, 2008 08:34 PM

A different take on this is that Obama won because he had low hurdles to jump over. Eight years of Bush the most unpopular prez ever(I include Iraq in this category), the bad economy, and John McCain as an opponent made Obama a very lucky candidate. To say that every voter based their vote on what their own race is and what Obama’s race is, is well, an assumption and one I am not sure is correct though certainly Obama would have had a harder time winning if he was white considering his unremarkable record as Senator. What I am curious to see is if in four years from now, will people still be shilling for Obama.

Posted by: Rob Payne at November 8, 2008 10:31 PM

Oh, and I wouldn’t put too much faith in statistics, or as someone once said…

“Statisticians are like the drunk leaning against the lamp pole - they are there for support not illumination.”

Posted by: Rob Payne at November 8, 2008 10:54 PM

so based on these numbers there seems to have been no bradley effect and whites continued to vote along their normal party lines. or, if there was a bradley effect, then the number of whites who didn't vote for obama because he is black was made up for by the number of whites that thought he would be a better president.

so whites as a whole don't seem to have been racist in this election. or, if democrat whites were racist they disliked the republican party even more and still voted for obama.

blacks, latinos and asians on the other hand seem to have been more apt to vote for the minority candidate. racism? resentment? something else?

Posted by: creamcitian at November 8, 2008 11:15 PM

Subject: A lot of Obama/Yes-on-8 voters? 70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds.

It seems people of color don't mind bigotry so long as they are not the ones suffering it. So from the survey below, white despise bigotry even though they supposedly gain from it.

Who'da guessed it?

So the answer would seem to be to run an Op-Prop 8 on the next ballot without Obama. Huh? He did nothing to oppose it, so hopefully he could keep his mouth shut if an op-prop 8 could be hoisted.

Obama & Yes-on-8 voters? 70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds

12:10 PM, November 5, 2008

"A lot of Obama/Yes-on-8 voters? The Associated Press exit polls show that African Americans and Latinos backed Proposition 8 in good numbers. Details here from AP:

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split..."

-- Shelby Grad
Photo: Los Angeles Times

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html

Posted by: S Brennan at November 8, 2008 11:19 PM

Rupa Shah: Which would be worse: to keep your skepticism and vigilance at their highest pitch and be pleasantly surprised if you're proven wrong, or to give Obama a pass for the next six months or so and then realize you were mistaken?

Posted by: John Caruso at November 9, 2008 04:37 AM

Once you accept this view of the world where racial composition of the population provides some sort of fundamental explanation to the politics of the place - whether you're looking at it from the right of from the left - you'll find, of course, all kinds of correlations, all over the place.

Whether these correlations actually explain something or they are merely symptoms of something else - that's a different question.

Someone recently told me that only about 30 years ago there were signs on shop doors around Zurich everywhere: "no dogs or Italians". Do you think this was based on some racial theories, or their contempt for the underclass + association of the underclass with some particular racial/ethnic group? What's cause and what's effect here?

Posted by: abb1 at November 9, 2008 06:13 AM

When did any of you guys start believing that promises made during a campaign start translating into actual policies?

Yes, there's what he says he will do and what he WILL do.

I've read right-wing blogs who were nervous about Obama because they felt he wouldn't have the same degree of commitment to empire. And yes, I also know how the people at Antiwar.com feel.

Politically, I suspect I'm further left than most people here, so I'm not as happy about this outcome as I would have been with a Kucinich or Nader presidency.

But ask yourselves two things:
1. What message are we telling the world by voting in McCain, thus implying most of us felt the last 8 years were hunky-dory?
2. The U.S. public has had plenty of opportunities to elect unabashedly antiwar presidential candidates, and they've both gone nowhere (Nader and Paul). How do you implement a less belligerent foreign policy that clearly goes against the will of the people?

Imperialism is not exclusively an American thing, obviously. The only question is for which reason(s) a leader would invade another country. My only hopes are that Obama will be privy to more information about our current conflicts and be forced to reconsider his campaign promises, and not have the same neocon justifications as his predecessor for initiating new ones.

Posted by: Paulie Chestnuts at November 9, 2008 09:25 AM

Here we go again:

1)
I think there WILL be some reduction in empire, if for no other reason that I think it would be a lot easier for Obama to place himself in the shoes of the people of the countries to be invaded.

2)
Obama has made it crystal clear, to anyone bothering to pay attention, that he has no plans whatever impeding or otherwise lessening empire. He sold himself to his financial backers as a superior empire manager. That's it.

Despite their disagreement, these two commenters have one thing in common: they're treating the question of empire as if it's entirely a question of Obama's intentions, or of the intentions of the U.S. ruling class.

It's like trying to answer the question "Will the British leave India?" by only examining the contents of Clement Atlee's head, while leaving out of your calculations the desires of 300 million Indians, or a certain fellow named Ghandi, or the perilous state of the Pound Sterling.

Posted by: SteveB at November 9, 2008 09:45 AM

and as empire faltered,
its friends and foes arrayed,
the biosphere steamed onward
to cardiac arrest.

Posted by: hapa at November 9, 2008 10:29 AM

John Caruso:
I was not saying, let us give him a pass for six months. What I am saying is, let him at least become the president, have his cabinet and hear him out regards his policies ( they certainly will be different to some extent from what he said during the campaign ) and who will be implementing them. I strongly believe, he genuinely wants to make a difference and I also know, he will not be able to satisfy every American in the political spectrum, from far left to far right. However, if he is able to achieve his ( and our ) goals of providing healthcare, educational opportunities and living wages for all, change laws so our prison population does not keep increasing, stop torture, use diplomacy rather than force to solve international conflicts, I will be satisfied. There will be enough time later to be skeptical and cynical but for now, I would like to do what I can to support him in his struggle to solve the massive problems our country faces. Criticising him NOW, will neither help him nor the country.

Posted by: Rupa Shah at November 9, 2008 10:42 AM

SteveB, have all the protests by citizens around the world plus the stated preferences of actual Iraqi citizens gotten us out of Iraq yet?

Posted by: Paulie Chestnuts at November 9, 2008 10:43 AM

In reply to Paulie Chestnut's point:

[i]"...is it possible that one can wait to judjge him? I mean, he is not the president YET, he is not occupying the White House, he does not have his cabinet yet, he has not formally formulated his policies yet."[/i]

Obama appointing Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff is a very clear indication of the direction he intends to take on government. Emanuel is the proud son of a Stern Gang terrorist and an Israeli citizen. He is the consummate neoliberal Republican in Democratic Party drag and has brought his well-practiced bureaucratic thuggery to oppose virtually every progressive measure or primary candidate that fell within his purview. When you add all the other war criminals and habitual offenders who surround Obama to the mix, how can you possibly think that somehow on January 20 Obama will molt and reveal himself to be the living reincarnation of New Deal and Great Society politics?

And to SteveB:

[i]"...they're treating the question of empire as if it's entirely a question of Obama's intentions, or of the intentions of the U.S. ruling class."[/i]

I do not intend to imply that the continuation of the American empire is solely a matter of the intentions of our ruling class or it's designated managers. As the Indian people forced the retreat of the British, the Vietnamese people forced the retreat of the Americans, the Algerian people forced the retreat of the French, it will likewise be primarily the resistance of the Iraqi and Afghan peoples that force the retreat of the US from it's occupations in those countries.

The US imperial posture of global militarism will be largely unaffected by the inevitable defeats in Central Asia. If anything the decline of US economic power may ultimately force some retreat from the current garrisoning of the planet, some retreat from the parasitic hold of militarism on the domestic economy and social relations as a whole. Obama's job is at minimum to preserve the empire and to reinforce and expand it if at all possible. I wish there were a mass people's movement in the US that would oppose the policies of Obama's masters, but there isn't one yet.

Posted by: Phillip Allen at November 9, 2008 11:01 AM

HELP OBAMA OUT, (and help yourself, family, and nation)IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY, call Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at November 9, 2008 11:05 AM

The future has arrived.

The Firesign Theatre observed, "This is the future. You've got to live it, or live with it", or, I would add, get out of the way.

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. at November 9, 2008 11:06 AM

It seems that what's concealed by these percentages, as you have them, is the reality that a lot of white Republicans just stayed home (in Ohio, for example). If that's the case, extrapolating that it's a less "white" America now in political terms is probably mistaken (though it's certainly true that we're headed towards a non-white majority, demographically-speaking).

Posted by: Helmut at November 9, 2008 11:44 AM

have all the protests by citizens around the world plus the stated preferences of actual Iraqi citizens gotten us out of Iraq yet?

All resistance is a failure, until it suddenly becomes successful. You might as well ask how Ghandi's doing in forcing the Brits out of India in 1944 or the how the US, British and Russians are doing vs. the Nazis in '42, or how much the civil rights movement has "succeeded" in '62.

What we should ask from social movements and liberation movements is not success, but progress. The U.S. is at a weaker position in Iraq than it was a year ago, and will be in a still weaker position a year from now. And that's true whatever Obama's "intentions."

And:
Obama's job is at minimum to preserve the empire and to reinforce and expand it if at all possible.

Why is this his job? Why shouldn't it be his job to manage imperial decline and retrenchment in a sensible way? Britain was once an empire, now they're not, and that transition from empire to not-empire had to be managed by someone. Obama, it seems to me, has some of the necessary qualifications: he's intelligent, has some grasp of reality, and isn't emotionally attached to the continuation of the occupation of Iraq (as McCain was). Note that I haven't claimed he's a secret peacenick, just that he's a good representative of the "Sane Billionaires" that our host sometimes refers to.

But again, Obama is only one factor. I think an imperial retrenchment will be forced on us by circumstances, and Obama will be, at most, reacting to those circumstances.

Posted by: SteveB at November 9, 2008 11:55 AM

I enjoy the Obama-bashing on this board, and hate the Emmanuel appointment (although I'm glad to be rid of him as my Congressional representative), but I'm strongly with Rupa Shah here. (Also, Rupa, thanks for saying what I've been thinking for so long.)

The smartest thing I've read on this site ever (well, I can't understand a damn thing Bernard says), is this comment Jon wrote:

"George Bush could have been the most progressive president America has ever had, if there was enough pressure on him. We should concentrate on creating this pressure, rather than worrying about whether individual candidates are especially nice."

This strikes me as true, and also very beautiful. Imagine what all of us might have said about FDR prior to his election in 1932? ("Pampered son of the militarist ruling class overlords?") So, look, the trick isn't getting Obama elected. It's getting Obama to do what you want him to do. There's actually vast potential there.

So, yeah, scream at him when he does the wrong thing, and kick him out after four years if he's horrible. But maybe, if we don't get what we want, it's because WE didn't buckle down AFTER some of us worked so hard to get him elected to do the REAL work. And that would be our fault as well as his.

Posted by: Aaron Datesman at November 9, 2008 12:07 PM

helmut: that showed up in one of the reports of the NAAS. in california, vietnamese-descended bush voters, strongly leaning republican generally, split 2:1 between mccain and obama, with lots of undecided. why? the economy and the war, mostly. once all the dust has settled, maybe obama's winning margin had a surprising number of non-european republican-leaners (who would also be mostly under 45, their disaffection masked by the age group view).

obama is a democrat. he is a "liberal." he was the democratic party's official candidate. in my view, with the war and the crash, clear ethnic-origin impact mostly ended with the primaries. why? because american white racists already see the democratic party as "colored."

Posted by: hapa at November 9, 2008 12:26 PM

Rupa: When you say "I was not saying, let us give him a pass for six months" and follow it up with "There will be enough time later to be skeptical," you're contradicting yourself in terms of what I originally said, since I was explicitly contrasting giving him a pass with being skeptical and vigilant.

And we do already have hard information we can look at. Even in just these few days Obama has done everything wrong in terms of the team he's assembling around him; I can scarcely imagine how it could be worse. And I'd say the critical time to put pressure on him is right now, before any more of these awful plans become awful realities (e.g. Larry Summers).

Aaron: You said you agree with Rupa, but you strongly supported the notion of putting pressure on Obama and said we should "scream at him when he does the wrong thing," whereas Rupa said "Criticising him NOW, will neither help him nor the country." I don't see how those can be reconciled.

On the other hand, I don't think there's any contradiction between 1) being skeptical and vigilant and 2) participating or helping in whatever ways we can.

Posted by: John Caruso at November 9, 2008 01:31 PM

Phillip Allen:

"Emanuel is the proud son of a Stern Gang terrorist and an Israeli citizen".

I PERSONALLY do not like Rahm Emanuel. But I am not the Pres-Elect and I do not have to work with him. Considering Obama will face hundreds of isues daily to deal with and will need somebody he can trust, rely on and is ABLE TO WORK WITH, WITHOUT FRICTION, he should be able to choose his chief of staff. As regards Emanuel's father being a stern gang member, Pres Jimmy Carter negotiated with one and brought peace to Egypt (and Egypt got back its territory).

When you add all the other war criminals and habitual offenders who surround Obama to the mix, how can you possibly think that somehow on January 20 Obama will molt and reveal himself to be the living reincarnation of New Deal and Great Society politics?

I did not write what you are implying. I am saying, wait till he is the president, let him have his team and see what policies he formulates. There will be enough time to criticise him then and and bring pressure with this massive grass roots movement which has put him in the White House. And I believe, because of who he is ( his intellect, his upbringing, his sensitivity to diversity and concern for the vulnerable in our society), he can see the humanity of every American and see that everyone of them lives a life of dignity. Well-being of every American should be and will be his number one priority.

Aaron Datesman: Not only you and I ( though he is not my congressman) and many others will be glad to see him go. Some because they are proud him ( his supporters ) and for others, it will be good riddance!

Posted by: Rupa Shah at November 9, 2008 01:37 PM

I see nothing wrong or jumping the gun by pressureing the Obama Team on ANY point or other or time. I have NO strong opinion of Mr. Summers although I have read much about him these several days. I don't have ANY clear idea of whom else Obama would have to choose. Graham? Keep Paulson? Rehire Greenspan? Some accountant from Hoboken?

Posted by: Mike Meyer at November 9, 2008 01:55 PM

John Caruso:
I differentite between criticising and putting pressure. Yes, if there is something I do not like about what he is doing, I call his office ( he is still a senator ) and send him an email ( which I have already done ). And signing a petition to not appoint Larry Summers, yes, I am all for it and I signed the petition and even suggested my choice for that position! He certainly needs to hear from us but as Aaron has noted and I agree with him, there is a lot of Obama bashing going on which I do not agree with.

And I just happen to be an optimist who does not want to be skeptical YET!!

Posted by: Rupa Shah at November 9, 2008 02:04 PM

Obomba may be half black, but his agenda is all white.

Posted by: Marcus at November 9, 2008 02:18 PM

Marcus: I bet if U looked close enough U'd see he's black all over.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at November 9, 2008 02:43 PM

SteveB:

A lot of these pressures can be more successful if the president is at least receptive to the message. McCain chose to not flee to Canada instead of fighting in Vietnam. And his experiences haven't done what they've done to thousands of other vets, which is make them anti-war. There is absolutely nothing to regret over having kept him out of the White House. Let us not forget that his veep pick thought Cuba was an actual 'menace.'

Phillip:

That quote is not from me. All the same, many wingnuts do believe Obama is a Manchurian leftist, and unless they're all divorced from reality (a distinct possiblity) they may have picked up on clues that some of us have missed.

Again, Obama's upbringing is probably the most 'marginalized'- by mainstream American standards - of any presidential candidate. I mean, to have a father who was born outside the U.S.? And in frickin' KENYA?

I'd like to think that may factor into some of his decision-making. But as a religious Wall Street-friendly candidate, it's obvious there are limits to what good he can accomplish.

And in this day and age, a non-Zionist will NEVER be allowed to be in charge.

Posted by: Paulie Chestnuts at November 9, 2008 03:17 PM

Here is an editorial comment by Paul Woodward of www.warincontext.org

In assessing the significance of Rahm Emanuel’s appointment as chief of staff, what is likely to count for more? The fact that he served in the IDF and his father was in Irgun, or the fact that he and Obama are close friends, know each other from Chicago and that he has a lot of power in Congress? (That’s meant to be a rhetorical question.)

When it comes to predicting how Obama’s Middle East approach is likely to shape up, we should be paying more attention to whether he appoints a Middle East envoy, who that is, and how much authority he is given. With the right pick, with sufficient authority and a clear mission, it could turn out that the fact that Obama had already placed an Israeli (Emanuel) in such an influential position inside the White House is a way of buttressing the president from attacks from the Israel lobby. Rather than Emanuel being the Israel lobby’s Trojan Horse inside the White House, he may turn out to be Obama’s envoy inside the lobby.

Posted by: Rupa Shah at November 9, 2008 06:13 PM

A lot of these pressures can be more successful if the president is at least receptive to the message.

Agreed. What I object to is the discussion of Obama as if Obama is the only part of the equation that matters. As I wrote above, Obama has some positive qualities (like intelligence) that might make him more willing to reconsider U.S. imperial policy, but whether that reconsideration actually happens is primarily a function of the amount of resistance the U.S. faces from Iraqis and Afghans, so their resistance should be part of the discussion as well.

McCain chose to not flee to Canada instead of fighting in Vietnam. And his experiences haven't done what they've done to thousands of other vets, which is make them anti-war. There is absolutely nothing to regret over having kept him out of the White House. Let us not forget that his veep pick thought Cuba was an actual 'menace.'

Also agreed.

Posted by: SteveB at November 9, 2008 06:47 PM

Paulie Chestnuts at November 9, 2008 09:25 AM The U.S. public has had plenty of opportunities to elect unabashedly antiwar presidential candidates, and they've both gone nowhere (Nader and Paul). How do you implement a less belligerent foreign policy that clearly goes against the will of the people?

WTF? Since when do the people get to vote on the candidate of their choice. We have this process in the U.S. called a “primary” that has the main purpose of preventing over-popular candidates from running for office in the main election when said candidates buck the establishment line. Where have you been?

Dean was only slightly populist and Clinton destroyed him in 2004, backing Kerry -- who she expected would be weak against Bush, making her 2008 run possible. Dean was, compared to Nader and Paul, an insider, and he was annihilated by his own party for the twin sins of unorthodox fundraising (Dean’s internet fundraising was the template Obama used) and populist rhetoric.

The idea that the people are voting for war is so wrong that it would actually take a herculean effort to be more incorrect.

Take a look at the 2006 election. Even the mainstream media called this one right: voters swept Dems into office because they hated the Iraq war. Those Democrats, of course, loved the war and supported it once in office. The people were thwarted.

I’m stopping there, but it is very difficult to see how the last few decades can be understood at all if one buys the premise that the U.S. people are pro-war.

(Just because the citizenry is generally anti-war doesn’t mean that it will vote against war. Race and other issues can distract it. But, all things being equal, citizens will generally vote against warmongers -- if they have a chance. The entire point of politics is to deny that chance.)

Posted by: No One of Consequence at November 9, 2008 07:37 PM

Rupa Shah at November 9, 2008 10:42 AM: What I am saying is, let him at least become the president, have his cabinet and hear him out regards his policies ( they certainly will be different to some extent from what he said during the campaign ) and who will be implementing them.

I will never understand how this notion doesn’t get old. Based on what Obama has already said -- not done, just on what his intentions are, taking him at face value -- he’s already an awful person and will be a tremendously bad president. (Nothing special there -- they have all been bad of late.) So what is being hoped for here is, essentially, that Obama is a clever liar and will do nothing like what he promised.

If someone affirmatively declares he’s going to murder a complete stranger, I don’t wait around to see the hitman he hires before deciding the guy is filth.

Posted by: No One of Consequence at November 9, 2008 07:41 PM

NoOoCo:
After having waited for almost eight years of GWB nightmare to end, I can wait for eight weeks of Obama in the White House, to decide, what he is and he is not.

Posted by: Rupa Shah at November 9, 2008 09:19 PM

Rupa Shah: Don't worry, none of are going anywhere in the next 175 days.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at November 9, 2008 09:33 PM

After having waited for almost eight years of GWB nightmare to end, I can wait for eight weeks of Obama in the White House, to decide, what he is and he is not.

*blink*

Bush made it clear he would be a murderous jackass before he was in office. Obama made it clear he would be a mildly well-spoken murderous jackass before he was in office. You ignored the issue: it's not merely that you're waiting, but what the hell are you waiting for? I mean, if you can't evaluate a politician at all before he or she enters office, you aren't competent to vote. Or go outdoors without adult supervision. The only reason I can see to be so evasive is to nurture self-delusion: it is because the evidence disproves one's position that one needs a dramatic event to say "oh no, I was wrong!" We had to endure the same crap from right-wingers with Bush, the pathetic faux-surprise that Bush was a wretched PoS, just as all the evidence accumulated before November 3rd, 2000 made it very clear he was. It was more tolerable from the right, seeing as how that political faction is going all oroborous and destroying itself with success. It will be far rougher chewing through so-called progressive articles when the left's time comes.

Posted by: No One of Consequence at November 10, 2008 01:45 AM

Mike Meyer: Thank you for your patience and yes, do not go away. If I am proven wrong, I will be the first one to admit it.

Posted by: Rupa Shah at November 10, 2008 11:39 AM

NoOoCo:

By now, I have realized that you are totally intolerant of someone else's point of view and think that everyone has to agree with yours. And you convey this in a very disagreeable way ( this is not my first personal experience regarding this ). Let me just tell you, I can think for myself and I do not need a lecture from anyone on what and how I should think. And I also have a right to be wrong some time!

I am glad, you are NOT THE DECIDER whether I can vote or not.

Please do not waste your time responding to this comment as I certainly will not, responding to your comment to THIS comment.

I come to ATR to exchange views and ideas and learn and most of the time I do but certainly not for someone's ideas to be imposed on me.

Posted by: Rupa Shah at November 10, 2008 12:06 PM