The news from Canada on Wednesday and Thursday nights created quite a storm here in the States about Obama's views on Free trade. I'll briefly review - then get into his history on the topic.

On Thursday February 28, 2008 We learned from Canadian TV

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value*

Obama's response

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.

Hillary's Response

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.

Then Friday, February 29, 2008, We heard an update from Canadian TV

On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.

"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.

NOTE they carefully used the words ambassador, and embassy, not the words consulate or Consulate General

Hmmm Interesting parsing.

Obama Camp Response

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue.

Early Thursday, we are told no conversations took place with a senior member of Obama's campaign and representatives of the Canadian Government. Now the term Consulate General is a title and the word representative is generically used to mean lower level people, but still with some authority. More parsing and confusion.

On Thursday night, CTV spoke with (Austan) Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

Mr. Goldsbee, Obamas Senior Economic Advisor will neither confirm nor deny whether he had a conversation with the Chicago Canadian Consulate General.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago

Late Thursday night, Obama's campaign issue a flat denial.

But the undaunted and intrepid Canadian reporters (WOW Real Reporters) press on and inform us:

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.:

ABC News Report, 2/29/08:

On Thursday, Goolsbee told ABC's Jennifer Parker that Georges Rioux , Canada 's consul general in Chicago, contacted him "at one point to say `hello' because their office is around the corner."

Goolsbee refused, however, to deny whether he downplayed Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric.

Both men did say that they know each other

Curioser and Curioser. And none to happy to learn that an OUTRAGEOUS LIE was now to be called CAMPAIGN RHETORIC by DC insiders. As a die-hard Academician, the first thing I do when there are totally opposing statements, is to go digging a bit into the past to see what patterns, if any, exist.

First I needed to know who the heck is Goolsbee. Austan Goolsbee is a neoclassical or Friedman type economist Professor at the University of Chicago Grad School. He calls himself "a centrist, market economist" (Washington Times, July 16, 2007).

Come with me below the fold.

Research for the quotes from Obama's books was done by the very erudite Mike Howell at NO QUARTER Admittedly I personally have not read Obama's books, but have read excerpts on the net

Progressives boast they are the REALITY based people in politics. Obama supporters also claim to be part of the REALITY based community. The porcine shaped evil one, Karl Rove, unfortunately, is not justifiably incarcerated. Many of us realize Rove has spent the past months preparing strategic plans to use against the Democratic Presidential nominee in the General Election. Rove himself provided a preview of his intentions in a WSJ Op-ED the day after the NH primary.

Even Worse, Karl now has a national media platform on Faux News.

Any good Political Consultant, or Lawyer, agrees that the best way to dull the impact of the oppositions dramatic revelations, is to get it out in the public first, and making it old news. This post is an attempt to do just that.

Obama's own words impart a look at his perception of American life, culture, and Politics.

In Obama's book, DREAMS OF MY FATHER..

•  "I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE"

•  "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"

•  "That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, blaming "white people -- some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."

However, while campaigning in Kansas, Obama frequently emphasized that his mother was white, and that he had grown up in a predominantly white world.

*  (Obama) vowed that he would "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

According to Colonel Ray, at Huffington Post,  Barack's father was a Muslim economist from Kenya. Before marrying Ann Dunham, Obama's father was married at the age of 18, to a Kenyan woman, with whom he had seven children.

Steve Sailor, uncovers the identity of Obama's half brother Mark, who is the son of Obama Sr. 3rd wife, Ruth. The post includes a great genalogical family tree. Mark is noted as disagreeing with Baracks emotional attachment to his black roots vs. his white heritage.

•  "I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and beyond the given of my appearance, no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant." Honolulu's paucity of African-Americans meant he had to learn to be black from the media: "TV, movies, the radio; those were places to start. Pop culture was color-coded, after all, an arcade of images from which you could cop a walk, a talk, a step, a style."

•  About student life and race at Occidental College  Obama wrote "There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." He added: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

•  While in college, Obama wrote(he) disapproved of what he called other "half-breeds" who gravitated toward whites instead of blacks.

Again, from Colonel Ray

"And after college, he once fell in love with a white woman, only to push her away when he concluded he would have to assimilate into her world, not the other way around. He later married a black woman."

*  After making his first visit to Kenya, Obama wrote of being disappointed to learn that his paternal grandfather had been a servant to rich whites. The revelation caused "ugly words to flash across my mind. Uncle Tom. Collaborator. House nigger."

Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng with whom he is very close, answered a question about Barack's Race Identity this way:

Q.     Do you think of your brother as black?

A.     Yes, because that is how he has named himself. Each of us has a right to name ourselves as we will.

Obama has never recanted what he wrote, although in his 2004 Senate Race he admitted Certain passages have proven to be inconvenient politically."

In Dreams Obama wrote

*  "The person who made me proudest of all, though, was half brother Roy. He converted to Islam."

Classmate Rony Amiris describes young Barry (Barrack Obama) as enjoying playing football and marbles and of being a very devout Muslim. Amiris said, "Barry was previously quite religious in Islam."We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong he looked funny," said Rony. Amiris now the manager of the Bank Mandiri, Jakarta, recently said, "Barry(Obama) was previously quite religious in Islam.

Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng who describes herself as a Buddahist, stated "I don't want to deny Islam. I think it's obviously very important that we have an understanding of Islam, a better understanding. At the same time, it has been erroneously attached to my brother. The man has been a Christian for 20 years".

In yet another interview, Maya  states "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim"

Obama did convert to an Afro Centeric form of Christianity at Trinity United Church of Christ in South Chicago, when he was 26 years old. Peter Hitchens, of London's Daily Mail describes Trinity United Church:

It is pretty radical.

The parish magazine is full of fierce denunciations of the American government's failure to fight AIDS. A large chunk of the sermon was devoted to urging black Americans not to allow themselves to be relegated to second-class citizenship.

The retiring Senior Pastor, Jeremiah Wright (who brought Obama to Christianity), is famous for preaching in African robes. He is also noted for his Church's "disavowal of the pursuit of middle-classness" which sets it apart from many black churches.

Those who achieved success in the American mainstream, Trinity urged, should avoid the "psychological entrapment of black middle-classness that hypnotizes the successful brother or sister into believing that they are better than the rest and teaches them to think in terms of we or they instead of us!"

Trinity says it is "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian". And so it is. A male choir in smart suits sings and sways and on the night I visited, a charismatic preacher, Pastor Otis Moss III, expounded from Exodus with wit and power.

In Obama's book THE AUDACITY Of HOPE

*  He wrote "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

The premier expert on Foreign Affairs and Intelligence, Larry Johnson informs us Obama has involved himself into the tribal clashes now occurring in Kenya. Please read the whole thing, including the well informed comments by other Intelligence Officials.

The opposition leader in Kenya, Raila Odinga, is Obama's cousin. Kenya's tribes-the Luo and Kikuyu-are killing each other over a disputed election that Odinga claims was stolen from him. Prior to the election in December 2007, Odinga wrote a letter to Kenya's pro-jihadist National Muslim Leaders Forum. There he pledged that if elected he would establish Sharia courts throughout the country; enact Islamic dress codes for women; ban alcohol and pork; indoctrinate schoolchildren in the tenets of Islam; ban Christian missionary activities, and dismiss the police commissioner, "Who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists.".

Obama's campaign sent former Clinton Aide, Dick Morris to Kenya to help out Barack's cousin, Odinga. AFP news service details the conditions on the ground as of the first of February 2008.

The information in this post brings the following up for discussion:

•  Obama grievances against the white race, and his struggles to learn how to be "black" while growing up.

•  Obama's father was a Polygamist and Obama has several half siblings. One of the Family Lawyers, commenting, will have to expound on whether Obama's mother and Obama Sr's 3rd wife, Ruth, needed to get a legal divorce, as their marriages were not recognized under American Law. Both ladies did go through some court process, in order to remarry.

•  Obama himself was of the Muslim faith until he was 26 years old, then he converted to an Afro-Centric form of Christianity that is still considered well outside of the `mainstream'.

•  Obama has involved himself in the Kenyan conflict to help the opposition leader, Odinga, who is his cousin.

Karl Rove, and Bill O'Reilly must be beside themselves, planning exclusive "BREAKING" news stories. Imagine Obama's former Muslim classmates, his Occidental College buddies, his Minister or a surrogate, and his cousin Odinga on Fox News for exclusive interviews. Every other media will pick it up, and on this information alone, they would have enough to play up until the General Election.

Add to this Fox's FACT Challenged reporting techniques, and implying Obama has ties to Auchi through Rezko, as done in this blog

If Progressives do not get out in front of this, we can all say HELLO to 100 Year War President McCain come January 2009.

This started out as a comment and evolved into a diary.

BOTH Hillary and Obama are being funded by the same group of people. The Democratic Tsunami 2006 Election made the Financial Establishment very, very nervous. In former times the entire group would back Hillary. Because of the 2006 populist uprising and the mood for change in the country, the Money People made a calculated decision to fund not only Hillary, but another Candidate who could appear different.

Enter Obama in December 2006, with a very well prepared Power Point presentation. After a little further vetting of Obama, the Money Guys decided to fund TWO candidates this year. Hillary got those over 50 years old. The younger ones drew Obama. With TWO candidates, Hillary became the publicly recognized Establishment Candidate, and Obama, the New guy, not yet publicly known as being connected to the movers and shakers, was cleverly labeled the Change person. In this manner the Money Establishment insured that their comfortable merger between government and Business could continue.

Money Chooses Sides from New York Magazine in April 2007, explains the story.

The Clintons had POWER of the White House before their uneasy alliance was made with money. This gives the Clintons a bit more freedom and flexibility in setting the agenda. To the Money Guys she is a known quantity, and therefore their risk on investment is low. In financial terms they will need less interest/expectation of favors.

The a bigger story is that  Obama, with very little money and at a standing start in December 2006, built a fund-raising apparatus as powerful as Clinton's in unheard of short order. Obama required the money people to get started. With his speaking skills, Obama could gloss over populist/progressive issues. Read Social Security on Obama's Web Site and you will see Privatization. Obama cannot promise to Uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law as some of the Money Peoples current and/or former associations would likely become public.

Obama being a new brand is considered High Risk. As a result of the increased risk to the Money People, a greater rate of return/favors are expected. To ensure the `safety' of their investment in Obama, the Financial people placed current or former Lobbyists in high level positions for each of Obama's State Campaigns.

To cloak their manipulations from becoming public, The Money People turned to the CORPORATE MSM, which they ultimately own. It was off to the races, with Hillary being the known Establishment Candidate and Obama, being a new brand was diabolically labeled the Change Candidate. Both these labels were meant to re-enforce the mood of new and young voters with perceptions garnered from the 2006 exit polls.

The main MSM stories all year, have been mostly about the size of the crowds each candidate drew, and the amount of money they raised. This tactic prevented any close look at issues, or in depth vetting of candidates. A quick comparison between Obama's and Hillary's VOTES will show very minute differences in their policy positions. Controlling the story was a brilliant and successful ploy on the part of the Money people to obfuscate that fact that issues were not being examined.

Media coverage was also deliberately designed to assist in eliminating Net Neutrality. By creating superficial stories that focused almost solely on personality and popularity, they drove people into sharply divided camps. Expending a few more dollars on servers, and having people sign up as new members of popular blog communities, they were able to create an almost cult like veneration of Obama, that has played out so shrilly and nastily at the Great Orange Satan. Destroying the largest Progressive Blog's credibility, Net Neutrality will become much easier to eliminate.

No, it was not by accident that Biden, Richardson and others were knocked out so early in the Primaries. As they say , "Other states vote; New York invests."

UPDATE In this diary I asked that each of you to focus your rebuttals on why you think charisma, good speeches, writings, trump character, experience, solid policy, and honesty. Dig deep prior to responding. It's understood the links in this diary will be read, prior to responding.

The majority of you did, and the insight and responses were just fantastic. I found the pony's and will insert them as the promised reward (I hope I can). Others of you responded with ratification of idolatry, personality or emotion. This truly saddened and horrified me!

Reason and logic are indicative of ADULTS. The kindest thing I can say about unconditional adulation is that it is, at best, juvenile.

In reading these unconditional idolizing comments, I learned that those so afflicted either CAN NOT, or WILL NOT, take time, as responsible voters, to verify facts, and fit the information into a whole, so as to come to a rational conclusion. Just to give you some brief examples:

Late yesterday Hillary's campaign brought out that there was a serious question about Obama's position on PRO-CHOICE while a Senator of IL. Obama razzle dazzled the press with ambiguous statements Checking his votes on CHOICE, as a U.S. Senator, he consistently uses the same ploy of missing votes or voting present as he did in IL. If you change the category to "Defense", you will notice that Obama voted more often WITH, rather than AGAINST, George Bush on the Iraq War.

Yet, Obama repeatedly refuses to put his positions in writing, on priority topics , as did the other candidates when asked.

On Obama's webb site, under the sub heading "Bringing our Troops Home" are the words Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. This is another distortion. There are currently 55 American Bases in Iraq. 6 of those are PERMANENT bases as is the green zone bringing the total to 7 permanent bases. The only difference is semantics, with the Pentagon and Administration referring to them as ENDURING Bases as opposed to using the word PERMANENT.

Both the above examples cannot be termed as other than outright LYING to "We the People"

From all of this unconditional unquestioning of Obama, it strongly appears as if his adherents are as rigidly ideological as the neo-cons. They seem as unable to objectively analyze facts as the members of AEI.

Obama followers are adamant they have an unquestionable right to feel good, even if it may cause egregious harm to the country and its citizens They DEMAND the rest of us feel the same way about superficial stirring rhetoric, and soaring oratorical written books. Well, many have told me (I never used drugs) "getting High" made them feel good, for a time. From personal experience I know that getting drunk also feels good, for awhile. Inevitably the crash comes from getting high, and a raging hangover is the consequence of getting drunk.

Americans have been held captive by a cult of personality since the beginning of this century. Remember the guy who "everyone wanted to have a beer with"?

Then there are the First words on Obama's Web Site - I'm asking you to believe An eloquent way of Saying Trust Me. We have been carelessly accelerating down that path for the last 7 years, and look where it brought us.

That ephemeral "Bi-Partisanship? Just code for letting others know that the endemic corruption, war crimes, frauds, torture etc will not be fully investigated, and that most of these heinous crimes against the American People, and our Constitution, will be covered up.

Is this what the Obama loyalists want?

Will there be any real change? Very, very unlikely. Obama is a fully owned by large banking institutions, Insurance companies and Telecom companies Common sense, under these circumstances, tells us that people unable to pay their mortgages, and credit cards are going to be the losers, and financial institutions the winners. And this is with predictions that this recession will be worse than the one in 1929.

NEVER, in my lifetime have I feared so much for the future of my country and my grandchildren as I have in the last week. I am appalled and horrified to find us once again on the brink of yet another personality and "trust me" situation,

To those who feel insulted, I cannot apologize. The shame is yours for insisting on the shallow substitution of "feeling good" with dreams and illusion, over hard reality. a core value of the Progressive Blogosphere. Illusory HOPE and powerful oratory will prove abysmal armor for the difficult challenges that lay ahead.

To our European Cousins, who have mentored and stood by us so steadfastly during the preceding dark years, I offer my most heartfelt regrets. As recently seen, America's public education system has completely failed large numbers of people in teaching critical thinking and inductive and deductive reasoning. Vital skills to survive a global economy and world. I thank you for your wisdom and support, and will fully understand if you abandon America, if she once again falls prey to the sham of personality over substance, strength, solid ideas and courage.

To those wise enough to see through the smoke and mirrors, I thank you for your edifying and wise words. Please contact all you can and advise them of the perils in choosing "feel good" fantasy and personality, over proven courage, bold ideas, and wisdom of experience and trials of life.

Thank you everyone. Sorry I am late getting back to you - us older folks need our sleep, so I just learned about Iowa results this morning. I will answer some of you individually in the comments of my original diary, as I am genuinely impressed with the thoughts brought forward. I have decided to use a new Diary to respond in summary to all your great comments. And in all honesty, I have never used update before and I cannot figure out how to change the title.  

In general, the answers given as to WHY in choosing Obama were mostly based on Charisma, Personality and Rhapsody. In summary - He is charming, he makes us feel good, his speeches and writings give us hope!

What I was truly hoping for was substance and depth, as well as strong character attributes. Please - Bear with me here. Now I would like to play Devils Advocate - again no fighting - this is a discussion, not another war.

In fairness, before we go further, a bit about me. I taught many years at the College level. I DO keep up with young people. I have also had the unique advantage of working with the former head of Save the Children, Dave Miller, for 7 years. His cousin was Abby Hoffman. Dave was my touchstone in learning and understanding about the customs, culture and personalities of people from the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Not being one of the top 75 Colleges in the country, Bush I, believe it or not, had recruiters in the most ghastly parts of the world, who would send students, on easy to get I-9 (student) Visa's, to the lesser rated colleges. We ended up with a 39% ratio to our overall population; mostly from the Middle East, West Africa, the Pacific Rim, and South East Asia.

To address those of you specifically on inspirational reading, no I did  not read Obama's books and let me explain why. Right after the DNC Caucus with all the candidates, I sent each of the Democratic Candidates a list of questions. Some answered, others ignored me. Obama sent me two pictures of himself, in lieu of responses. Rather arrogant I thought, so I decided to wait and see.

Yes, I have read many, many inspirational books, e.g. `The Road Less Traveled', `The Bagda Gita' many of Norman Vincent Peale's books, and I even own a specially translated version of the `Quran', given to me by students. I have been reading inspirational books from all over the world for well over 25 years.

Again, as to the quality of speeches. Yes there are many very good public speakers. Most recently, Hukabee, James Dobson, Pat Robertson to name a few. Oral Roberts even got his followers to cough up 8 Million dollars in a short span, threatening that otherwise God was going to call him home. Each of these individuals is VERY charismatic and have great personalities, but they use that talent, for what I consider, rather nefarious personal gain. Yet each has a broad, but unfortunately gullible, following and now they receive over 300 Million a year from our tax dollars.

Charismatic, personality, Inspirational, - choose your adjective. In the span of MY lifetime, there have been only TWO world leaders who were charismatic, intelligent, and inspirational. They differed from Hitler, Stalin, even Churchill, and others, who also had those abilities, in that they chose to use those abilities to better their countries and mankind in general.

One was John F Kennedy (whom I met personally, as my father helped out behind the scenes in the Kennedy Organization) Under inordinate pressure regarding the Bay of Pigs JFK put the well being of his people and the world ahead of personal enrichment and called off the invasion of Cuba.(WAR always has such great profit for those few you know). In the end he was murdered for his choices.

The other person is Mikhail Gorbachev, who used `Glasnost' to break down the walls of communism in Russia. By some miracle, is still alive and still working to better the world for all mankind.

I had several opportunities to meet Benazir Bhutto, at the home of the sons of one of her bothers, who lived in Manchester NH in the late 80's and early 90's. While the press portrays Benazir as `charming, likable, warm, I found her to be a demanding, imperious Witch (The W should be a B at the beginning of the last word). I won't express my opinion of her husband.

So while Charisma may help one advance, and is definitely the frosting on the cake. Competency, experience and intelligence are much more crucial. to REALLY accomplishing anything and moving forward.

Although he likes to portray himself as the NEW JFK, Obama, other than being nearly as young and also a Senator, is NO JFK Obama's comment about invading Pakistan, on Bhutto's death left me cold. It also put a tremendous chill on the Pakistani's who own "Mom and Pop" stores in the Manchester and Concord areas of NH. Juan Cole clearly lays out the challenges of America's Mid-East conundrum, which must be tackled beginning the first week of the new presidency, or we are really in deep doo doo.

Now on strength of character. Tragedy, and the school of life experience seems to make people either smarter, wiser and more compassionate, or, it breaks them and leaves them angry and bitter. The Left Coaster does an excellent analysis about this topic and Obama. Please read the embedded links. Some of you will recognize Armando (now posting as `Big Tent Democrat') and other well regarded leaders of the blogosphere.

Honesty, not `Truthiness' is a characteristic I value above all else. Lies, even small white ones, eventually go to a place where denial sets in, and people do not realize they acquired this attribute. Again, Disingenuous, mendacity, or whatever noun you like, the ability to deceive by any means, can never be fully trusted.

Steve Clemons, a well known MODERATE foreign policy expert, does NOT believe warm and fuzzy Bipartisanship, touted by the Village DC pundits, will work I strongly believe, compromise, tried for damn near 20 years, has gotten us nothing but our teeth kicked in, our lunch money stolen and thousands of soldiers and probably over a million Mid Easterners dead. And strangely, despite not having 60 votes at any point during their period of rule, the Republicans got through most of what they wanted when in control of congress and the WH. Key to getting Republican votes isn't to come forward sniveling on ones knees asking what the price for the votes is. I suggest the key is to have a president with a strong character, who can aggressively, but intelligently, make the case that the American people deserve health care, deserve lower oil prices, deserve fairer credit card policies - and a president who is willing to go the wall for the millions of us "WE THE PEOPLE"

So I ask each of you to focus your rebuttals on why you think charisma, good speeches, writings, trump character, experience, solid policy, and honesty. Dig deep prior to responding. It's understood the links in this diary will be read, prior to responding. Lets make a game out of it and the best responses get one of Atrios's "Ponies", if I can figure out how to steal one.

As stated earlier, our European allies are stressing publicly, this truly is THE most important election of America's existence We can either show the world we have matured and learned from our previous mistakes, and are willing to delve deeply into issues, character and strength, or, we can have a crashing end to empire that will be very painful indeed-for all of us.

I am from NH and have been watching Presidential campaigns closely since 1960 - Yup I am an oldster. The support for Obama is completely baffling to me and I would appreciate honest reasons why so many of our young people support him (those under 35). I am not trying to be either snarky or to pick a fight. I would sincerely like answers to what I see are major character deficits. Here is my list.

1. Obama spends most of his time at large venues and on stages - speaking AT people, not WITH them. Yes, he has charisma, and is without doubt a great speaker. However, he avoids open town hall type venues, calls only on certain people he knows are pre-selected as safe or are wearing an "Obama" tee shirt.

Candidates will avoid directness with the general masses, to the degree that people "let" them get away with it - and that's been true since the Roman Republic. If people insist that Candidates intermingle - then they would be forced to and that benefits "We the People" because we can see facial expressions and body language when candidates respond - both great indicators of character and willingness to SERVE "We the People".

QUESTIONS - Doesn't it bother our young people that he is not open to CONVERSATION and DIALOGUE with those that may not agree with him? Why does he always have to "hide" up on a stage as opposed to intermingling with people and taking ad hoc questions? Why do our young people accord him "rock star" adoration? Do young people now VOTE for president of the USA in the same manner they VOTE for the "Next American Idol"?

2.Obama does not do work assigned nor finish tasks. Obama has failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman. He made only one brief official visit to London, while on a travel layover on the way back from Russia. Since his sub committee involves NATO, our European allies are nervous, as described in this London Times Article

Obama was also charged with setting up an INDEPENDENT ethics Committee comprised of retired judges and former Senators Once again, incomplete and Obama just walks away.

QUESTIONS - America has had 7 long hellish years of a Photo-Op President who does absolutely nothing for the benefit of "We the People". Are America's young people satisfied with a person who talks a "great line" but never finishes what he sets out to do? What do these "incompletes" and failures tell us about his negotiating abilities, given that his entire premise is he will be "nice" to the opposition and they will agree to limits on their enterprises?

3. Loyalty to the Democratic Bases' Values. Obama actively campaigned for Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primaries. During the runup to the General election, Obama had one event in NYC , a days layover, and then another event in Boston. He could not go to Connecticut and spend a couple of hours saying some positive things about Ned Lamont the WINNER of the Democratic primary?

Obama consistently agrees with the Republicans on Social Security needing fixing. For millions of American Social Security is their ONLY income, especially among minorities and the elderly. Here are the statistics To follow any type of privatization plan of this insurance, would result in the slow genocide of millions of Americans. The answer is and always has been, raise the cap and put Social Security funds in a lock box, inaccessible for war funding, pork barreling and any of the other ways politicians like to spend OUR money.

And yes it is OUR money. The middle and lower classes pay 35-38% of their income in taxes. The wealthy receive their income as "capital gins" and pay only 10-15% of their earnings.

QUESTIONS: Do we want or need another president whose loyalties are to those the base disapproves of, or to someone who scorns Democratic values in place of Republican ideas? Is this the infamous and non workable "bipartisanship" or in reality, just capitulations to the mean old name calling Republicans? Are young people ready to dramatically alter their lives and go back to the 19th century paradigm of living with and caring for their elderly parents and less fortunate relatives?

4. Charlie Savage, Pulitzer Prize winner reporter for the Boston Globe, asked questions of all Democratic Candidates on Executive Powers The question on Executive Privilege was very telling.

Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

Obama's answer was also very telling (all emphasis are mine):

With respect to the "core" of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.

So Obama states that the Supreme Court has not yet made a decision, so HE will get to decide where the limits lie. What Reasonable people is he talking about?

QUESTION - Do we really want to continue down the road to Fascism, with this ridiculous "Unitary Executive" nonsense, which is nothing more than a new name for the Nazi concept of "Furherprinzep or Leadership Principle"?

5. Karl Rove type tactics. Obama is obviously a very adept wordsmith, which allows him to say nothing and everything in 5,000 different ways. This is not surprising for someone selected to be editor of the "Harvard Law Review". But to even imply that Hillary caused Bhutto's death is way over the top And then, there's the type of attacks he uses on Edwards  Also, his wife Michelle has been using "whisper" campaigns to talk about other candidates as CNN refers to here

QUESTIONS - Do we want to stay at the bottom of the sewer with more Karl Rove antics, or would we like to rise above the garbage that we've heard from the White House, DC pundits in the last 7 years? How many would prefer a serious discussion of the issues without the personality attacks?

These are not "whines" or nitpicks. Taken together, all of these things speak of characteristic qualities of someone not ready to be president. The reality is that America is a seriously wounded country, both image wise abroad and socially wise in our own country. We need a strong leader, who will not pander to illusions, that Republicans and our enemies will suddenly become enlightened. And if anyone really believes that Energy companies, Big Pharma, and the Health Insurance Industry are going to agree willingly to part with Billions in profits, they are truly delusional.

Ideology, or unmodified admiration of anyone, is a dangerous place when selecting a president. At a minimum, we should expect someone with integrity, a strong moral compass (I'm talking about a sense of right and wrong applicable to most 9 year olds), and a willingness to interact with people, to be up front most of the time and straight talking, without ambiguity. I also want and insist on someone with a strong respect for the law, so the criminals in the current administrations are held accountable for their numerous crimes against people and the Constitution. We have already had 7 miserable years of "neo Con" Ideology. We absolutely do not need any more ideology or "rock star" type worship from any quarter.

I offer this as an opportunity for Obama adherents to try to convince me otherwise using logic, not emotion.

As with every event that occurs with the Neo Cons and this Administration, there is always more beneath the surface than what first appears. This excellent diary by Brenda Stewart, got me to researching what had happened to the venerable, 85 year old Scholastic Educational Materials and in what manner they were tied to this phony Documentary film to be shown by ABC on September 10th and 11th next week. The Scholastic Materials had always been the premier educational resource company for reading and literacy teaching materials in my entire 61 years.

Like peeling a very rotten onion, the more I looked the worse it got. My outrage and anger built to the point where I am writing my first diary and I honestly don't know if I am even rational enough to be fully coherent.

First I checked out the link to Scholastic on line and found they were supplying course materials for teachers and educators to use. What became clear as I searched was that Scholastic had provided these "lesson plans and materials" either for FREE, or at a reduced cost, as History or Current Events classes, for cash strapped local schools at the Junior and High school levels.

Now as a former teacher, it is my universal view, that teaching is THE highest sacred trust adults have toward our children. Apparently education has now become conflated with Propaganda and real learning is a thing of the past.

If you scroll down on the Scholastic Site, you will see PDF files for Resource Sheets. Resource sheets are tools teachers use to provide information and give an overview of a specific topic. Part One describes Middle Eastern Country's using Republican Talking Points to describe the Muslim Culture, the players, events and terrorists. Not at all historically accurate! Part II provides descriptions of Governmental Departments with a strong deference that clearly favors George and the President as King.

Just under that are the Discussion/Debating PDFs. Normally these are suggestions. In this particular lesson plan they are mandatory. Part One contains a question clearly designed to instill hatred and prejudice toward Muslims:

Do you think the event described above is a case of racial profiling or a search based on evidence? Provide examples from the miniseries to support your answer. (emphasis is mine)

No independent thinking or life experiences allowed as part of the discussion/debate in this lesson plan. Part II of the activities tells the student to read articles in MSM and listen to news on talk radio. It then instructs students to list which are the most or least truthful compared to the documentary.

Next my research took me to see who the current corporate owners of Scholastic Education Materials are. Imagine my dismay when I discovered this venerated educational firm was now partnered with The American Petroleum Institute.  In the May/June 2005 edition of Mother Jones there is an excellent of list of 40 other organizations affiliated with, or funded by Exxon/Mobile, but American Petroleum Institute is not mentioned. Not happy with insidiously invading grades K-12 in the school system, this oil company is now using their partnering with Educational firms to target our toddlers.

With Neo Cons and this Administration, the first question I always ask is "Cui Bono?" For the Administration the obvious slant of this "FAUX DOCUMENTARY" just before an election is obvious. What about the oil companies? Heaven knows they have received gazillions in tax breaks, price gauging and other legislative gimmicks during the last 5 ½ years! Then I remembered I had merely glanced at a diary at Kos this morning. Normally I stay away from conspiracy theories. However an investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is pretty mainstream and scientific. Of course the next logical question became why and for what reason would the oil companies even care about that? I leave conclusions, if any, to you.

Hopefully every parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, and adult brother and sister is as sickened and disgusted by this heinous infiltration of our kids educational system as I am. Now I was raised and believe in the adage that you are "known by the company you keep". Instead of just ranting and screaming (as I did for a couple of hours), I invite each of you to take the following actions:

1.    First thing tomorrow morning contact your Superintendent of Schools office and your child's school. Find out if they purchased the materials from Scholastic or if they were provided gratis. Let them know in no uncertain terms you will not tolerate the dissemination of propaganda in lieu of facts - PERIOD.

2.    Contact each of your local School Board members, and insist on having a special meeting called, if one is not scheduled in the near future. Attend that meeting and adamantly insist that there be a resolution, bylaw, amendment (or whatever mechanism used by your Local School Board) that there be a moratorium on ALL purchases and receipt of Scholastic Materials in your school system, until Scholastic understands that they will be penalized by the "company they keep" and until they find more acceptable associates.

3.    Inform ALL Democratic candidates from your area of what has been done to our precious school systems and your child's heritage and opportunity for getting a decent education.

4.    If you have the time, inclination or energy, LTE's are a great way to inform other parents as to how your local school systems have been hijacked.

It is my fervent hope that by using the power of the "Netroots", we can put an end to these infiltrations of our chidren's education.