He *did* say he would end the war in Iraq. (Because really, have the Republicans ever come up with a clear definition of what “winning in Irag” is????)

He has indicated, more troops in Afghanistan might be necessary.

But, hey, anything said during a campaign can’t be taken all that *seriously*…:)

Karen – Perhaps you’re right. Maybe the world has changed. Maybe we’ve all changed and hope will pull us out of this economic mess and bring an end to the war. Because… that *is* an Obama policy… isn’t it? Didn’t Obama say that he’d fix the economy and end the war?

BTW, I can support your paranoid distress over BIG MONEY supporting campaigns…just remember, there *are* limitations to all donations, and they are directed to a party, not an individual/wolf.(HOW *DARE* YOU!!!)

AND, hell ya, Obama ain’t Jesus, (but he does hear everything), but he is the *best* leader/face of a party, any party, to come along for awhile; intelligence, good judgement, calm demeanour, confidence balanced with humility…but he does/will not act alone…

AND, the *hope* has already arrived…Have you looked outside the window today?

Never underestimate the power of symbolism…It can be a very *real* thing…beyond words.

Does it ever occur to you that perhaps the PEOPLE at the economist, remember, it’s run by living breathing thinking people, maybe they are expressing their opinion? Preselected?

Grow up. People are tired of partisan crap.

I’m not suggesting that editorial content in a magazine is *wrong*, I’m saying that the decision to run with Obama on the cover had to have been made in late October given the date on the magazine.

I don’t think that the cover is an “op-ed” piece… I think that they wouldn’t gamble like that unless they were beyond certain that they wouldn’t have egg on their face come Nov. 4th (the day that the magazine appears on the doorstep). To put a finer point on it (again), I think that the entire Obama campaign has been a massive marketing/propaganda success.

Perhaps I do need a slap on the wrist, but that’s not at all what I’m trying to get across with regards to The Economist cover.

I don’t think there’s a single publication in the world that doesn’t think about Truman holding up that paper before they run an election headline.

But… if you’re *sure* that there was a McCain cover ready to go for my doorstep this morning… then I guess your full-house beats my pair

Re: Your nosey queries;

1. That’s a real stickey wicket, that one…We’re all just hoping that by ignoring it, it will just evaporate…but if you insist on being a squawking wheel on this one, I suggest you send a dissenting email to…just about anyone…I’m sure the Feds will snuff it out in good time…

2. Please elaborate here…I’m too busy slogging through Canadian copyright porposals to research this one…

3. Of course, *we’re* going to be duck waddling over to Iran and/or Pakistan b4 you can shout “UN Ineffectuality!” And Obama will crush that tall, nasty fella with his bare hands and climate change will abrupty stop.

4.Constitutional re-writes??!!! Don’t say that infront of an NRA crowd. What’s written in stone & musket must remain so forever more…

5. Sugar Bear, the Change *I* hope for, definately comes in the form of a tall, dreamy, glass of history-making water!

And since I seem to resemble Sarah Palin at times, I’m gonna go have sex with myself until the poles close…

“I don’t know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.” – Report Newsmagazine, March 25 2002

The reason Stephen Harper doesn’t know all the facts is because he has is head so far up George Bush’s back passage that George could get a gig as the two-headed freak at a traveling sideshow.

http://theimpolitecanadian.wordpress.com/
http://blogoffanddie.wordpress.com