Obama Concedes Remarks Were Ill Chosen

I'll chosen? He admits that he wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment and take away personally owned firearms. He would prefer all sales of them be stopped. Obama was asked if he supports legislation to, "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." His one-word answer—uncommonly direct and lacking the flowery eloquence we've come to expect from him—was "Yes."

In another interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune, Obama said "I am not in favor of concealed weapons." There is an inherent connection between the 2nd and 1st Amendment. Take one away and the other will follow. Civil rights and gun rights are joined at the hip!

Hillary Clinton will do anything to become President of this country and it baffles me as to how she can criticize anyone when she and her husband have amassed a fortune in less than 6 years. The irony is that if anyone epitomizes elitism it is the Clinton dynasty. I am offended that she has the unmitigated gall to claim allegiance to working poor and those on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder......anything to become President without equivocation. It is sad..........

K-stanz you are right. Clinton calling Obama elitist is like a certain pot-and-kettle analogy.

The sad thing is that Obama is right, at least to a certain degree. There is a portion of the population who does get angry but then they focus that anger or bitterness in the wrong way. Your factory gets shut down and moves out to Mexico so its the Mexicans fault. it does happen, and its not hard to see the fact that that kind of descrimination and ignorance does exist in the middle and lower class. Just as there is a certain form of ignorance in the upper class. In this case it's the "well, i'm doing fine, so they should all shut up" which is what a lot of the powerful in this country want.

Obama hit on something that was true, and McCain and Clinton (who are very much old-guard politicians) want you to hate him for pointing out that there are real problems within society itself. I am still unsure if I'll vote at all -simply because I realize that my vote doesn't count (thanks George W. Bush) but at least Obama is saying provocative things.

I've lived in central PA for years and his remarks were 100% on the money.

Something unusual and hard to explain is occurring on the national political scene. There appears to be a concentrated effort by two of the three major candidates to fault and attack the one. That may just be a compliment demonstrating that the two candidates respect and fear the other candidate’s potential, yet it could be more. I’ve observed that not only the two candidates but also some significant power behind the scene is involved, including with a lot of the reporting. There seems to be substantial effort, frequently creative and questionable, to aggressively fault everything about Barack Obama and then not just by Clinton and McCain; I have even experienced a selectivity regarding which postings are passed through. One explanation I’ve heard offered is that the Obama-Clinton conflict is paying dividends for the Republicans and for the media and they therefore strongly desire to keep it high-pitched. But then that doesn’t explain all of the attention that is concentrated on Obama. I’m sure some of that is happening as everyone simply likes a good fight and a good story but additionally, I sense there is more to it. When logically and objectively considering the differences between the candidates, I recognize that Obama is significantly contrasted to the other two. Simply said, Clinton and McCain are products of, embedded in, indebted to and advocates of ‘Washington as usual’ with all that entails. On the other hand, Obama not only advocates real change but he literally exemplifies change in everything about him and in his campaign. Now could that be something that really scares the other two candidates and also some powerful others who just don’t want change?

As to his mention of the word "religion," he might have been trying to call out the 2004 election, where righteous indignation was stirred and channeled by Bush's team to carry him into another term. Regardless, that one word is going to fuel the GOP for a while. It now makes Obama an agnostic elitist -- the kind of straw man the GOP desperately needs.

Was Obama really commenting on his own experience with his own church?

Mr. Ben, I'd like to think that if the local factory were moved to Mexico, townsfolk would be angry at our own government and the free market that has manipulated it to export and import just the right things to keep the big corporations on the top of the food chain. I think on a basic level the typical middle class worker could distinguish this from Mexicans sneaking across the border.

Neither candidate is "one of them." Let's face the facts. How many Americans are top Ivy leaguers? The ability to identify and lead cross-culturally, cross-economically, and inter-governmentally is the kind of leader we need.

I don't care where people came from. What matters is where they are.

What's that sound? ... Do you hear that? Oh, yes, it's the sound of Barack Obama as he comes tumbling to the ground from his lofty high tower...

Ill phrased or not, his statements hold more than a kernel of truth. TheObserver says: Should they be angry that illegal aliens are pushing down wages or taking their jobs? I say, "NO". One, because the likelihood that an illegal alien has taken a well paying job from you is slim. Let's face the facts, illegal aliens typically work jobs Americans no longer want—low paying, strenuous, service related jobs that most Americans, even the working class, prefer to work above. Two, because most of the lost jobs are lost to foreign countries, in efforts for globalization, and seeking larger profits, corporations move the jobs from the United States elsewhere. So the individuals with those jobs are not illegal, and yes they will work for less than you, because that less is still far more in those countries.

American's are growing bitter, and we do blame others, often irrationally. But the fact is, if a corporation or even just one random supervisor takes your job and gives it to someone who's willing to work the same or harder for less, then the problem is generally with the corporation/supervisor or you; not the individual willing to work for less.

I can honestly state, if I were unemployed, I'd be unwilling to take a job that pays $10/hr or less; so why should I blame someone who is. If I was about to become homeless than my attitude would probably change, but typically speaking, if I had to start seeking employment my goal would be to match or improve my current lifestyle. I could be wrong, but I'm betting you can assign the same attitude to workers, willing to accept jobs at $5 or $10/hr. Those jobs will sustain or improve their current lifestyle.

But, that said, I'm honesty with myself about me. I want the things I want. The ability to buy books, DVDs, music, software, tech toys, new computers ever few years, eating out, etc. My living expenses are less than most of my friends, due to no debt, no car, and just rent as a primary concern. But, I acknowledge that those things aren't needs. They aren't essential to my staying alive, just to my mental well-being. They aren't guaranteed by god, the constitution, family or even my employer (which is often me). So my unwillingness to accept a wage $10/hr or below is all about me, and has nothing to do with any individual who will accept a $10/hr wage and accept it as necessary or even an improvement to their situation.

So blame yourself and your wants, needs, and ill-plan debts. SO blame the corporations who attempt to squeeze higher and higher profits by cutting jobs, trimming expenses, so their executives get paid well, and their stock stays high. Blame god, your college, your skills, or even your parents for not placing you in a position were you could be one of those executives or own some of that high rising stock. Blame your purchase patterns, for thinking computers, electronics and other devices should cost less than $100, which keeps numerous corporation in seeking patterns to find locations where wages can be lower, ad lower, and lower. But can you really blame some one willing to accept what you wouldn't.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."--George Orwell

Obama hit the nail on the head, as others here have already pointed out. The current powers-that-be love nothing more than to manipulate the redneck (my words, not Obama's) segment of American society by convincing them that their guns, their religion and even their jobs are in jeopardy--and who's to blame? The Other. In this skewed "ideology," the Other might be the African-American, the Mexican or the Iraqi. I'm sure we can come up with a few more. Yikes! Let's blame the victim, shall we?

Nifty argument. Besides taking the heat off the true criminal elite, this type of insidious propaganda serves to divide and conquer. If you're ignorant enough to believe that the Mexican guy shoveling sh*t for sub-par wages is taking away a job you REALLY REALLY want, then you won't bother asking the government hard-hitting questions. And if you're dumb and vicious enough to want to protect that arsenal of firearms you have stashed in your garage (after all, you may need them if one of those Others becomes President), then that elite has you exactly where they want you.

By the way, the Second Amendment is one of those antiquated pieces of legislation that made sense when it was introduced but has lost its relevance in contemporary society. You never hear these 2nd Amendment nuts complaining about all the other amendments that have been trashed under the Bush administration--amendments that are much more critical to a thriving democracy than the right to own a gun.

As for Hillary pouncing on Obama's remarks? What can I say? She's a privileged, wealthy white woman who wouldn't use an outhouse if she had to. And I'm pretty sure you won't find her rubbing elbows with the NASCAR set.

First of all, some of you should ease up on people that have done more good for this party than any of your first time ever voters have or will have ever done. Hillary Clinton is a fine and respectable woman, who has done more for education and health care for children than any of you know. I have a challenge for any of you with the gonzo's to check out www.hillaryclinton.com and watch the video called "The Hillary I Know" You won't because you are so lemming minded that I doubt if any of you have ever had an original thought of your own. Hillary Clinton is a very fine and internationally respected woman and outstanding leader. She listens and acts. No point in even trying to talk common sense with some of you dunder heads, who I doubt have ever had to worry about mortgages, child rearing. I know that shoe does not fit all of you, but quit trying to pretend you are democrats, when everything you say is out of the republican play book. No one is saying that Obama should quit. No, Hillary will box his ears before she gets him to holler "Uncle" Whoops!

I don't know if I am the exception, but I was a staunch Hillary supporter because of the things she had done in the past. She was the first major player I ever heard of that pushed for long-term medical and insurance rights for the mentally ill. I still operate on the "It takes a village" theory. However, history teaches us that any gov't mandate eventually spirals out of control, financially. How is it that places like France and Canada have free universal health care and all the candidates still propose to squeeze more money from our budgets when some of us are making decisions to either buy gas or food, but not both?

At any rate, i was a huge Hillary fan and take offense to the idea that I have no brain. I didn't drop her..she dropped me. She decided to take the low road in a time when character and role models are sorely needed in this country. She preached against hope. She knows how well documented her history is, and yet she insults us by making excuses for her failures or lying about them instead of representing the values we try and teach our kids - to own up to them and move on. She does have a great history of helping people, but this history is coupled with some serious character deficiencies.

If she is the nominee then I'd love to be up front waving a Hillary sign. Unfortunately for her at this point, there's an alternative that is a better choice. I've only heard of one perfect being that's ever walked the earth, but the morally adjusted folks here still strive towards all things that are right. I'll admit that Obama's argument about the war gets on my nerves. Most of us wanted the same thing but hindsight allows us to denounce it. Most of us were in the mindset to squash anything that threatened our security. I am a decorated war vet who served in the Middle East. I didn't go to kill anyone. I went to save my family.

And so I don't know how many of us will be satisfied with either candidate. The bottom line is that she can be a better president than we've had in a long time, and Obama can be even better. I respect McCain, but he'll never be a presidential candidate I'd support. Most of the candidates had redeeming qualities, but as far as the total package, my choice is easy.

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This is an incomplete thought. What was he referring to that was 'not surprising'?

"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he said.

Yeah, well....he got that part right.

This idiot Obama is reminding me of when Serena Williams loses a tennis match. It's never that she got out-played. It's always that she wasn't up to her best.

Well, Serena, only the mediocre are always at their best. And how many times have you beaten an opponent who wasn't at her best that day?

Barry Hussein Obama, I always knew that you were a jackass, and now you've opened your mouth enough times to draw attention to that fact.

Jackass??

Nicely understated, Brant.

I don't think obama was wrong, when he said that we either cling to guns or religion. He should not be
apologetic, unless his getting votes is greater then one's principles.

Whatever. People can vote stupidly, or vote smartly. In the meantime, here's the truth:

- nearly 10 percent of Americans are resorting to food stamps to maintain an adequate diet

- 4 in every 10 American children are growing up in families that are poor or near-poor

Compare this to FDR's remarks in his 1937 inaugural:

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.... that picture for you.... and we will never regard any faithful law-abiding group within our borders as superfluous. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

(Just a quick reminder - 4 out of ten is bigger than a third)

Folks, it's been a long, long time since we've had a probem as big as today's - and leadership as accountable and responsible as FDR.

He explained his troubles winning over working class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

It's too bad he has to "explain" himself. I think he's right. Too many people choose a candidate based on one issue. If I disagreed with any candidate on ALL of the issues he's listed here, I wouldn't support said candidate; but many people in my small community vote solely on one issue, be it guns or abortion or some other relatively minor issue that is blown out of proportion.

-Rob

He shouldn't appologise..a nd mccain and clinton should if they think economics downturn hasn't hit dperssed areas for a good couple decades and those jobs are not coming back and towns die off looking like crap with empty businesses everywhere. factories rotting away.
Arogant for stating the truth?? that every 4 years politicians roll through there and promiss to change their lives for th better and then it never happens.
heck I am bitter.

OOPS !!
Sen. Obama got caught telling the true facts !!
Hillary and Mccain should try the same thing !!
I am not surprised that Hillary and John 100 yrs. Mccain do not practice Honesty there game is lie and make it sound as bad as we can !!

I think Obama is starting to feel the pressure of the media and politics. Most of america, including people that support him or just everyday persons probably agree with him or understand what he is getting at a lot of the times. It is the media and his political opponents and their supporters that are going to take anything he says and try and blow it out of proportion, spin it or sensationalize it for ratings.

Almost every issue he has encountered I have seen as a huge deal to the media and his opponents(their supporters), yet not such a huge deal for the everyday person in my area and online (in non-political forums).

Obama knows how the game is played. The remark was stupid.

Just stifle the criticism of any persons and/or particular segment of American society and tell the All the People where you stand on the bread and butter issues. That's what they're interested in.

If Hillary attacks, let her attack. Talk past her. The quality of personal character will become evident from the proposed ends and means of the agenda.

(McCain can always be dealt with later. The heavy artillery on his political positions, past performance and peccadilloes haven’t even been brought to bear yet. It’s best to keep them in reserve until the Big Push.)

All the rest is clap-trap for political enemies, the deranged fools of rightwing hate-radio and the cable TV talking heads.

====

Well, given what we all know now, he would of tried to convey his point differently.

But, I think what he is saying is essentially true. I expect the Republican machine to exploit and distort the truth. The Republican machine has proven that they are capable and willing to lie, cheat and kill to keep power. I am disappointed with Clinton, however, and how low she has demonstrated that she is willing to go to keep power. I lose respect for her daily.

But isn't this really the point Obama is making? Politicians on both sides of the isle have been exploiting voters by addressing their message to core beliefs and values of the voter. Yet, this does not seem to result in any tangible benefit to the voter. Voters are voting against their own interests based on a myth presented to them. Obama is trying to point this out. Look at what past politicians have promised, and look at the result now. Voters need to go past simple messages that exploit fears and resentments.

BTW - We need the second ammendment. We do not want the only people with guns - power - to be the state. Economic disparity and lack of opportuity is dangerous. Gun voilence reflects this more than anything else. It is no time to take guns away from citizens when there is Black Water and a police state brewing. The second ammendment was designed to keep power within the grasps of the people.

That's great, Clinton. After the seemingly endless lies, gaffes and various contreverseys surrounding your campaign Obama has completely left you alone and not said a single word to drag you down. So, the moment Obama says something that could be misconstrued as a gaffe? You attack his comments in every way that could be possibly accepted by people as valid, attempt to drag him down as much as possible for every inch that it's worth, all for the sake of making yourself look better and helping your own campaign chug along. You haven't learned anything from this campaign season, have you?

Heaven forbid that a politician say something that insults a few people. I think there's a significantly larger proportion that agrees with what he says but that won't stop the Clinton machine from behaving as if what he said was inherently wrong.

Now for a quick word about the right to bear arms:

I wish that you angry, gun-toting Americans really would ban hand guns. The people that scream owning a gun is an inalienable human right are on the level of stupidity that makes it unacceptable to let them anywhere near a firearm. Seriously, a group of bitter, white men who think that it's OK to capture people as slaves and not even let women of their own race vote are not capable of making a document that details perfect ground rules for a society. The second amendment was there so that citizens could own a gun to protect yourself against the governing state, should the governing state become evil. Your governing state has become evil, as evidenced by it's approval of torture and disregard for habeas corpus. Unfortunately it's the people that shout and scream and stomp their feet in affirmation of the second amendment and their right to own a gun that also cling to the idea that you should stay loyal to the "God Bless America" state, no matter what. So if you're going to stay patriotic despite how evil the governing body becomes and how much they oppress you, the second amendment becomes redundant. You don't need it if you're not going to fight against a governing body that wasn't elected by the popular vote and commits atrocities against human kind.

So when a politician comes along and says something to the effect of - "ya know, seeing so many innocent people are killed in senseless gun deaths, maybe we should restrict access to guns, because in other places in the world where gun access is restricted, people don't die this way" - he's not trampling on the second amendment. He's just trying to protect citizens the in a similar way and by the same motive that the constitution itself was designed to protect them.

Obama hasn't helped his case much by claiming he was only saying what 'everyone knows- that there are many bitter people in small towns/rural areas.'

I think Obama's frame of reference is nothing more than standard Democrat beliefs. Everything he's said on this matter has been droned on for many years by the Democrat base right up through Democrat professional pundits, and Democrat politicians in safe districts. His First take was the more honest one.

Judging by the reaction he got from the audience, I'd say his comments were on target and on message. People do feel this way. It's not condescending at all, it's honest. He ought to stick to what he said and not retract it.

He didn't retract it, he merely pointed out that he didn't word it very well. This is wrong but he only said this out of the assumption that people weren't jumping on him for the sake of jumping on him. Given that he did assume their objections to the comment was valid, it logically follows that it was his wording that was flawed. The essence of the comment has not bee rejected though.

Posted to Salon.com

Obama's Dialectic

Obama's wordy approach to cover his ass won't be read by many. It's a long introverted attempt to get his point across. It's an explanation by a guy who says he has an approach to fix the damage to the working class. I'm also a working class Irish guy who made $62,000 when I worked for the government as a hard working bureaucrat for 24 years (three in the U.S. Army, including a stint in South Korea in 65-66; volunteered for Vietnam (all the time as a grunt); badly and permanently wounded in Vietnam; one year in hospitals; 70% permanently disabled. PTSD much of it.

My basic view is best stated in "Lions To Lambs:" the rich always find ways to avoid war. It's b.s. for Obama to stereotype blue collar folks as ONLY bitter, with antipathy, anti-immigrant, anti-trade pact biases." They have these attitudes also because they have & always will, compete against various immigrant groups & racial minority groups the capitalist system has explot white blue collar workers -- including western & eastern white Europeans, too.

Cosby commented that he's sick losing to the "white man" & that saying what he says can't be any worse than what our [white] grandfathers said to Blacks: i.e., the "n" word. He doesn't know my grandfather. If he used the "n" word, he would have never said it to an African-American. It was an expression of frustration and bigotry, yes, but all of my Irish Catholic male ancestors were functional alcoholics, too. They always got up & worked, no matter how hung over. All died of alcoholism related illnesses. They provided at all costs. My Dad changed that behavior by the end of the 60's. He used "black people" v. "n's."

Obama will get the coverage he's seeking ... even from Ms. Walsh, with his grander statement. So why was that line used? Because he defined a class of people. Those "people" in PA, IN, KY, WVA, NC, ND, SD, OR mill and factory towns won't care about his long winded explanation given to the elite. The Ultra Liberal Elitist Intellectuals will preen that the longer explanation works. WE absolve him. Michelle recently made disparaging remarks about fat, indolent, complacent Americans: notions elitist in the extreme. Snobbery. I - go to the gym! I worked hard!! I rose above!!!

Obamistas will continue to back him. But many blue collars who aren't that stupid. They know an elitist snob rich when they see one. White OR Black. They'll entwine Obama's remarks with Rev. Wright's anti-Americanism, and the "n" word Hillary's never been called and Michelle's fat ass America, and see SNOBS.

Huckabee caught on but he wasn't a millionaire. Ron Paul caught on, & he's not a millionaire. Modern politics require millionaires.

The intellectual, Elite, Ultra Liberal, Starbucks, College Educated, Buppie/Yuppie Movement backing Obama have computers and they know about overwriting text, oops, adding a "save my ass" sentence in the next iteration. The computer ignorant only will have heard the first part of Obama's dialectic.

Obama's wordy explanation was for elitists. WE educated know how to save our asses when we're talking & realize we just committed a faux pas. That's thinking on our feet. If Hillary Clinton has the discipline to know ... "this is what I have thought; this is what I have observed; but I'm not going to say that" she's a monster. I suspect she has grown in her run for the Presidency, She's learned more about the fat, the plain, the poor, the blue collar, the uninsured, the people who want a hero INE, not another HER O. The UN GYMED. She's learned what happens when people don't have health care coverage. She learns the educated elitist Ultra Liberals call her story a lie, and then upon checking, find the story closer to the the truth about what Clinton said about that Ohio tragedy.

THEY'RE the people a Democrat needs to represent.

I'll never vote for Obama. I'll write her name in.

I'll suggest she spend every hour proving Obama and McCain wrong with this question: "How, indeed, can I find a way to bring jobs BACK to PA and MI? And IN, and KY, WVA, SD, ND, OR, and NC. And Puerto Rico, too. How can I analyze what's happened, and make it my mission to bring back jobs to those states." And, by the way: fight to get all of those votes in FL and MI represented.

That's what a real Democrat should dot.

The Ultra Liberal Elitist MSNBC "look at me, I'm a rock star journalist" song & dance troop will ALWAYS send the poor to war. Check out "Lions To Lambs," Joan. And don't miss the mysogony in a George Clooney movie named "Michael Clayton," where the word "c..t" is used in the first five minutes, but if Jane Fonda uses the word to describe the rationale behind the Vagina Monologue, oh, Lord. . By the way: Clooney does in a really "nut-cutter" woman in the denoument of "Michael Clayton." Wonder what that's about???

Something's happnin' here, Ms. Walsh, & it's the failure of American women to grab the reins and say: screw putting another man (albeit, African-American), in the White House. Given all other factors, I'll support the first competent woman's arrival to the White House. THAT'S change, and sure as hell H I S T O R Y. My wife could certainly have done a better job than George Bush. And John McCain. I'm not sure about Hillary, though. Hillary's good.

I don't regret volunteering for 'Nam. It has been with me for 42 years. It's what white, Irish-American, blue collar, high school educated kids did. I regret the war, but not what I experienced. I hope to be buried under one of those white veteran tombstones. Jerry E ... Purple Heart; Combat Infantry Badge. Barack Obama won't ever get buried that way. Nor Keith Olberman; Chris Matthews; etc. All bull@!$%# artists.

Sen. Obama is a good American, a good christian and a good man. He would make a wonderful President. Those who have formed a negative opinion of him will always choose to interpret what he says in a negative way. He is trying as hard as he can to make the government work for the people the way it was designed to do. For Sen. Clinton and John McCain to call him an elitest is unbelieveable, considering the fact that both of them are millionares many many times over. Sen. Obama was speaking on behalf of those who need help in this country and it is true that we cling to our religion and other things that give us comfort. He is for the second amendment. He is for all the amendments and believes in protecting the constitution. If we do not recognize what is happening to our country and act now when we have the chance to change it, I guess we deserve what we get. I am praying for Sen. Obama and the country that we all love.

Lets get real. What is the real difference between Hillary�?s “misspeak�? and Barack�?s “bitter blunder�?? Hillary attempted to get undeserved credit and Barack expressed excessive concern; Hillary repeatedly lied and Barack over emphasized the truth. Then why is Barack taking any flak? It should really be obvious that the media loves to keep all of these conflicts going not to mention that Hillary wants to attack Barack on everything and McCain/Republicans simply want Hillary to win the nomination. It would be naive to think that their self-interests don’t affect their objectivity. Some may disagree but I think it is really important to determine the candidate’s true personalities and their demonstrated character (or lack thereof), which, when the subterfuge is set aside, will tell exactly how they will perform. With that in mind the following brief descriptions are offered.
John McCain is the easiest as he tells you right out that he will support, continue to promote and maintain GWBush & Co policies. In 2004 he abandoned his independent leanings and everything else in order to strongly and completely back the Bush administration in all of their positions, likely to get the support and backing he is now getting. He has been firm and stubbornly loyal in that and it is simply what we can expect from him, “more of the same�?.
Hillary Clinton has demonstrated over and over again that she will say/do anything she feels will benefit her, without hesitation and without conscience. She is arrogant, aggressive, obnoxious and belligerent, showing a real divisiveness that inhibits her ability to get things done, yet she attempts to present that as strength. She is persistently focused on her own private agenda and displays the very same sociopathic personality as GWBush. That is what we can expect from her, “more Washington as usual�?.
Barack Obama is considered an unknown quantity yet any intelligent and objective viewing dispels the irrational claims, offered to justify outlandish biases, that he is a Muslim, or prejudiced to favor African-Americans or even too inexperienced. He has demonstrated a personality that is calmer, more objective, easier to deal with, seemingly more honest and with some humility, all of which should make it easier for him to get cooperation, get things done and have strength without being divisive. We are then continually told that there is little difference between his and Hillary’s proposed policies and positions. Barack strongly advocates that he is for change in order to benefit the average American. Then that is what we can expect from him, change from “more GWBush�? and change from “more Washington as usual�?.