Someone sent me an email praising Barry Obama and describing him as "ethical" and "progressive" and also said he was a conciliator. Is a conciliator someone who agrees with anything, and says anything in order to get elected? Perhaps then the man's partially right.
But I don’t know how anyone could use the words “ethical” and Obama in the same paragraph. The devil is always in the details and Mr. Obama seems to have strung a bunch of platitudes and bumper slogans together and mated them with some left-wing ideas from Marcuse. Where the leftist self-styled academic “intelligentsia” really loses me is in the traditional anti-Israel/pro-Palestine cant. It’s not so much that I couldn’t accept a new Arab state called “Palestine” so much as that many left-liberal academics have this rather idealized view of a West Bank Palestine. They have only to look to Gaza to obtain a more realistic picture. Obama tried to make a lawyerly case in front of AIPAC but Farrakhan, Fleger, Wright, and Ayers speak otherwise and it is the traditional left which will hold sway over Obama. He’s been in bed with such people for too long. It seems to me that Obama is very much the type of person to feed America’s friends to the alligators in the hopes of being the last one eaten.
Inasmuch as the original comments were about the economics of an Obama administration, Obama’s generous trillion dollar expenditures in new programs, his intended expansion of government, and his reactionary tax policies are hardly “progressive” and can only considered “conciliatory” by self-loathing Americans. In typical “class warfare” fashion, Obama believes you win the race by hamstringing your fastest runners. Obamanomics will send a massive blood clot to America’s economic heart.