Thursday, September 11, 2008

The Guardian Warns America

Jonathan Freedland (who can at times be rather reasonable by Guardian standards) warns America that if Obama isn't elected, the rest of the world will have had it, and will be fed up. And Mighty Peeved.

It's not clear what the actual implications will be, but apparently they're dire.


Anonymous said...


Obama's not going to be elected.

All that's visible since Palin entered McCain's stage; is that there's a swell of enthusiam in 50 states. And, states that Obama was sure he'd win, are now swinging "red."

As to England, FDR didn't really "help" Winston Churchill, for more than a full year's worth of time. Leaving England to be bled nearly dry.

Then, when WW2 ended, all the troubles we have now, actually come from FDR's idea for a UN. And, the force AMerica applied to England and others ... the french ... and the dutch. To give up their colonies.

Israel's not even the only nation with "border problems." She's the only nation where the left leaning, liberal press, has been having a field day.

Except? Well, when Obama goes ... so, too, will go the influences that brought this dog to the top of the democrapic ticket.

Usually, I don't like to guess what happens in the future.

But America's election day is drawing close enough. And, lots of American can vote early. How early? In Iowa, voting begins on September 26th. And, since I vote Absentee; I know I vote in mid-October. Meaning? There are no TV ads, or "surprises" that hang up a political career to make much of a difference.

What happens on college campuses? I have no idea. But they are very left, when you look at their philosophy; and the professors they hire. HOWEVER! Palin's whipped them! She doesn't carry one of those stinking, and expensive credentials.

Will it be time to re-think what got busted? Dunno. Politics always knows how to reform itself around people who can get elected. That it gets more expensive? Well, on the loser's side, they also spent money.

What if the liberal press loses its influence?

I've been a fan of the Internet, now, for quite awhile.

Anonymous said...


Today, I read an interesting piece. It says that if it's obvious to kids on college campuses, that Obama's momentum is gone; then there are kids who would have voted IF he had remained a popular candidate ... But when you're perceived as losing?

It changes the "buyer's dynamics." Perhaps? Perhaps, it could be called "buyer's remorse." But people who vote for winners pull away. Should there be a reality that Obama is going to lose.

You know what struck me, here? Oprah has said she doesn't vote. But she's voting for Obama. And, part of the popularity Obama had BEFORE McCain selected Sarah Palin ... was that the momentum was going to keep Obama's voters on board.

Should Obama lose?

Then, at some point you could begin to account for a phenomenon. People vote for winners, easily. But when you begin to need each and every vote ... There are kids (the youth vote), who won't be bothered to vote for a loser.

It seems pollsters are registering this distress. McCain seems to be picking up momentum.

Only after 11/4 will we be sure.

But Biden, selected as Obama's veep, hasn't enjoyed the "bounce" that Palin surely has brought to McCain.

Why you can even see it when McCain and Palin are out on the campaign trail. And, venues that hold large crowds are filled to overcrowding.

Well, that's how you measure momentum.

And, after 11/4 you'll see the numbers, reviewed.

Will the American story have "staying powers?"

You know, in America, the Catholic Church lost a good chunk of their adherents. Where the Catholic Church grows is among the illegals. And, down in South America; where people are born into abject poverty. (You want stories? The Vatican may be out of touch.)

What if politics isn't healthy for religious growth? Just because politicians make deals with various religious factions? Trading portfolios for votes? Stinks to the high heavens. Isn't religion. Just politics. Fully flawed.