I have been reading the recent entries about Obama about how the liberals are supposed to get his back and how it is of utmost (and only) importance to win back the White House etc. etc. And I think I might agree with one of them (the winning part) 100%. One think, though, stands out to me is the gradual thinning of line of difference between HRC and BHO.
More after the Jump..
During the primary season when Obama was preferred by the vast majority of the Kossacks over HRC, it was due to the fact that somehow HRC was a continuation of the past when Obama was a clean break from the past. Now looking at the Obama's nimble position on Iraq willing to keep ("residual force for clearly defined missions" aka semi-permanent bases), 180 degree reversal on FISA, his embrace of AIPAC and Israeli hegemony in Middle East, his newest adventure in faith based initiave, this whole "move to the middle" dance has left me wondering, exactly what is it about Obama that is so radically different from Hillary Clinton who is by most account is a typical middle of the road, plain vanilla politician ??
I mean, if he is keeping the ("residual")troops in Iraq, wants to keep syping on people illegaly, will keep on appeasing the genocidial policies of Israel (and by default America's because let's face it, Israel is de-facto the 51st state of US and wouldn't dare taking a dump without its approval), will continue to blur the line between religion and politics in State affairs, really, what is it so different about this guy from a purely policy standpoint which Hillary wouldn't have delivered??
Can anyone explain, please?