Above average. Not real pleased with the Treasury appointments, nor the extension of the never-ending Afghan and Iraq wars.

Well, where is this change? What has changed? Make it clear to us – what has changed? Has your hostility to the Iranian people changed? Where is the sign of that? Have you released the Iranian assets? Have you lifted the unjust sanctions? Have you stopped the mud-slinging, the accusations, and the propaganda against this great nation and its leaders, who rose from among the people? Have you stopped your unconditional defense of the Zionist regime? What has changed? Obama uses the slogan of change, but in fact, there is no evidence of change. We have not seen any change. Not even the discourse has changed. The new American president, from the very first moment – when he entered office and made his speech – insulted Iran and the government of the Islamic Republic. Why? If you are right, and there really is change – where is this change? Why can't we see anything? I say this to everyone. The American officials and other people should know that it is impossible to deceive or intimidate the Iranian people.

Ali, a question...

Do you support the persecution (including stonings/death sentences) of members of the Baha'i faith by the Iranian regime?

Screw the change!! SHOW. ME. THE. MONEY!!!

Michelle... in Condi's boot's 'n leather duster? Oh yeah!

"Your thoughts on this grave milestone?"

Bury it.

The Wall Street Journal guy tried to tag President Obama at the press conference tonight, with a question about the government being a shareholder of car companies, banks, etc... I felt it was part of the right wing message of the first 100 days, that President Obama is a socialist, blah, blah, blah.

   The President's response was such a complete home run that it not only refuted the allegation, but it made these right wing accusers look ridiculous. This is not a George W. press conference. You throw one out over the plate with this President and he's going to go yard with it.

Bill, naturally. That wasn't a press conference, it was a beauty pagent with one contestant. It was "enchanting."

He hasn't closed Guantanamo, hasn't ruled out wire tapping, hasn't got any plan for peace and is worse than Bush on spending and corporate handouts.

Pretty wild.

This is not a George W. press conference.

Please. Talk about setting the bar low. I could put a sock puppet up there and top a GWB press conference. I’m looking for a lot more from Barry than besting W.

100 days is nothing. Ask me in September.

Most of Obama's first 100 days have been spent on public relations where he has been very persuasive among people whose interest is superficial and knowledge is limited to what CNN, Fox, MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media feed them. He has set a good tone overseas in many ways, but as Ali K indicates a show-me attitude is not the sole province of Missourians and, not surprisingly, there is much deep-seated distrust of American policy.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch who is pulling the levers behind the curtain while the wizard is on his agenda-selling tours? Agents from the Wall Street banking community and other corporations.

Then there are Iraq-nam and Afghanist-nam. Lotsa luck there. On foreign policy a critical point will come with a visit from Binyamin Netanyahu. Will the Israeli tail continue to wag the American dog, or will Obama say, "Enough"? I doubt it. He's already running for re-election in 2004 and believes he needs that AIPAC money.

The Naderite trolls are out in full force again. Oh, you're just not happy unless you're unhappy. Life on the margins is so great!

Buckman Res, If I had just said President Obama had done better than George W would have, your comment would have made some sense. Obviously, just by speaking English without making up new words he did that.

 I went out of my way to say his response to the one question was a homerun. Here's part of his answer:

"I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector, if — if you could tell me right now that, when I walked into this office that the banks were humming, that autos were selling, and that all you had to worry about was Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, getting health care passed, figuring out how to deal with energy independence, deal with Iran, and a pandemic flu, I would take that deal. And — and that's why I'm always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government. No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that's not the hand that's been dealt us. And, you know, every generation has to rise up to the specific challenges that confront them. We happen to have gotten a big set of challenges, but we're not the first generation that that's happened to. And I'm confident that we are going to meet these challenges just like our grandparents and forebears met them before. All right? Thank you, everybody."

A plan is in place for withdrawing from Iraq. A 750 Billion stimulus was passed to bring economic recovery. The banking system has not collapsed ( as predicted by some). Health Insurance has been extended for low income children. Executive orders reversing stem cell research and environmental protections have been enacted. There is a plan in place to keep the American auto industry from collapse. America's standing in the world has changed overnight for the better. A budget that includes funding for universal healthcare, and lower cost loans for college students under filibuster busting rules is in place. And we have an outstanding Democratic president with an approval rating of two out of three Americans. The Republican Party ID is now reduced to 20% and the Senate is now approaching 60-40 split in favor of Democrats.

But none of this matters. The only thing that matters is prosecuting Cheney and Rumsfeld for torture. Looking at the comments here, and reminding myself where we were in, this country a year ago, I have to conclude this site has become a place for rampant petulance and narcissism, dedicated to spite and free floating hostility for all, but especially for the Democratic party and contempt for its representatives, absent any constructive thought or advocacy. The place should be renamed from Blue Oregon to Nader Dead Zone.

1/2 the readers see his performance as magnificent. That should tell you everything.

Kari,

Bush continued to be against nation-building. He was very effective, though, at nation-destroying.

Mmmmmmm, Michelle in a tight-fitting ninja suit....

...what was the question again?

I give him high marks for tone, composure and a measured, reasonable approach.

He receives low marks for his multiple appointees that have had to withdraw due to some type of tax problem or other disclosure. You all jumped on McCain for not probing deeper into his VP choice; where is the probing of people that are supposed to lead important parts of the US?

He receives good marks for engaging many issues that are important, even if I don't always agree his goals. He is bringing up the subject and there is great value in honest debat.

He receives low marks for throwing tons of money at the auto companies. This morning, Chrysler announces chapter 11 so this money is down the drain. It is time to stay out of industry and just focus on the bedrock banking system.

Ali, a question...

Do you support the persecution (including stonings/death sentences) of members of the Baha'i faith by the Iranian regime?

This comment is typical of what some commentators resort to here on Blue Oregon and helps to explain why so much political discourse (or attempts there at) go nowhere. "Ali K" made some points critical of the United States and Obama. They should have been acknowledged, refuted or been responded to with a combination of both, as appropriate. Instead we get tit for tat that is more appropriate to children in elementary school.

The Naderite trolls are out in full force again. Oh, you're just not happy unless you're unhappy. Life on the margins is so great!

This is another reason political discourse degenerates. Can't make a valid response so resorts to name-calling. The author of this second citation did get around to a rant addressing issues, but it was all one-sided touting the positives (fair enough) but in denial about the negatives.

Jeff good poll; I would be interested in knowing how/why the first 100 days became inportant. It has been around for at least the past 3 presidencies.

Obama is my president. I didn't vote for him; but think he is off to a fairly good start given the many challenges. I do wish he hadn't fired the Chairman of GM.

The BO trend: Right is better than Far-Right. As usual. Don't you people ever read anything to your left? (e.g., Obama's First 100 Days -- The Black Agenda Report Card - [War and Peace, zero out of nine points])

Furthermore, in March, Obama allowed the delivery of more than 300 containers of munitions to Israel, before the State Department completed its investigation into Israel's violations of the Arms Export Control Act during its recent Gaza slaughter. (And NO, it's not the "Israeli tail wagging the U.S. dog"; when has the U.S. EVER supported the legitimate aspirations of any Third World people? There is such a thing as anti-Semitism, and this is one continuing example.)

This is another war crime and another violation of U.S. law for Obama, whose record of vicious lawlessness and deceit does not yet equal Bush's, and that's all that counts for most BO posters. How many must die before outrage ensues? If Obama had killed a million people in his first 100 days, BO posters would still be saying, "Give him a chance. It's only a hundred days."

Bill Bodden:

Rubbish! If Ali had just questioned US policy under Obama towards Iran and Israel, I would have had no problems with it. Instead he sung praises to the Iranian government. I know lots of Persians and none of them support the Iranian government. You can sample some expatriot opinion at www.iranian.ws check out their polls...

I asked a completely fair question. If he supports the Iranian regime, then me must support it's barbaric acts towards some religious minorities and if so, then he loses any moral foundation for criticizing the zionist regime.

Old Drucker: How did you come up with this: "Instead he sung praises to the Iranian government."

The only thing "Ali K" said that came anywhere in the ballpark to justify that statement was this: "The American officials and other people should know that it is impossible to deceive or intimidate the Iranian people."

Which brings up another point for the degeneration of political debate - hyperbole.

Bill, how are you at reading comprehension?

Ali writes, "Has your hostility to the Iranian people changed?"

Me: Since when have "we" ever exhibited hostility to the Iranian people?

Ali writes, Have you stopped the mud-slinging, the accusations, and the propaganda against this great nation and its leaders, who rose from among the people?

Me: Ali is equating the political leadership with the people. What would you say if he equated the american people with Dubya, had he said so a year ago?

Ali writes, "The new American president, from the very first moment – when he entered office and made his speech – insulted Iran and the government of the Islamic Republic...The American officials and other people should know that it is impossible to deceive or intimidate the Iranian people.

Me: Here we go again. If the islamic republic and the people of iran are "one," why do Persians have a proverb that they are, "muslims by day, zoroastrians by night?" Aren't Iranian Baha'is "the iranian people" too?

Actually, I had a friend [won't name him], an engineer at a local service Bureau who once was part of the Islamic youth cell phenomenon. He told me of being part of that imported mass of international Islamic students who rioted to overthrow the Shah and install Khomeini. They did so on the direction of those handling them. He spoke also of the terrible disappointment many felt later at the what the radical Islamists did with all the students gave to them to bring about that leadership change. They felt betrayed and used.

So.... Ali, I suppose one must be clear as to what one means when one uses glorious phrases such as "rose from among the people". Which people, from where. Arose how? And now what?

This man was finally released from his membership in the cells when his managers came to understand that my friend had seen too many companies, too much of life and had experienced the kindness and good of the Infidents among whom he'd been sent to silently live till he was called.

They could "no longer use" him, they said, "You are free to go".

I miss B/C: Ol' Possum Eyes' distraction potential allowed for more fun, he was more stupider. More latitude for the accustomed faux intelligentsia "better than" I adore.

Hehehehehehehehe.

From www.iranian.ws

"After 1400 years Islam's presence in Iran, how do you rate it?

Don't know 4% Not Good 86.9% Good 9.1%

Total Votes 17,628

http://www.iranian.ws/poll/poll-4.php?action=results&poll_ident=4

Surprised?

Bill, how are you at reading comprehension?

Old D: It looks like my reading comprehension has the edge on yours. You said, "Instead he sung praises to the Iranian government," when he was almost completely critical of the United States and its policies. Two entirely different and opposite factors.

Me: Since when have "we" ever exhibited hostility to the Iranian people?

Boy, oh boy!! This suggests that you know very little about U.S.-Iran history, so let me give you a clue. In 1953, the United States acting in unison with their counterparts in skullduggery in Britain overthrew the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed Shah Reza Pahlavi whose Savak, the Ministry of Security, was just as inhumane as the present-day practitioners of barbarism that had you so justifiably upset in your first comment. The Shah, our accomplice in Iran, therefore "exhibited hostility to the Iranian people" with American knowledge and acquiescence until he was overthrown in 1979. Since then, there have been sanctions imposed on Iran for reclaiming their own country.

Then there was the policy of going along with our then-man in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, and his war on Iran. Need any more data to clarify your question?

Do yourself a favor before you make any more comments on Iran and do Internet searches for "Mohammed Mossadegh Iran" and "Shah Reza Pahlavi Iran Savak"

You might also check some recent polls that suggest a majority of the Iranian people seek favorable relations with the United States.

And NO, it's not the "Israeli tail wagging the U.S. dog"; ...

Harry: Your position on this is that Israel is a creature of the United States installed to serve as something of an outpost for the benefit of United States policy. I have no quibble with that. However, this relationship has changed to be like that of a couple who gave birth to a child that they thought would develop into some preconceived image. But Israel, through its Zionist and right-wing leaders, has grown like an unruly teenager testing his parents so that the tail does wag the dog on occasions. I recall Ronald Reagan on one occasion saying in frustration that there were times it was difficult to be a friend of Israel, or words to that effect. There are times when the United States does lay the law down or Israel feels a need to get Washington's okay, but Israel's right wing keeps pushing the envelope. Witness the expansion of settlements. And it takes a lot to get our leaders in the White House and Congress to do the right thing when they also seem to have a need to think about their next re-election campaign dollars. It is those bucks that help Israel keep a grip on the American tail.

Bill, you have stated a contradiction. If the US has abused the Iranian people for decades, why would they want favorable relations with Americans?

FWIW, I am well aware of the history of Iran, both modern and ancient. I participated in a pro-revolutionary group led by persian students (Iranian-American Friendship Committee) prior to Khomeini's return to Iran, while in college. I would quibble a bit with your interpretation. I am not a fan of monarchy, but you would be hard pressed to find a Persian who wouldn't LOVE to have the Shah back, warts and all, if it liberated them from the Mullahs.

If the US has abused the Iranian people for decades, why would they want favorable relations with Americans?

My source was a poll that indicated a majority of the Iranian people would like to have a good relation with the United States. Presumably, they prefer peace to war, they are less than pleased with Ahmadinejad, and their economy is down. They may also be thinking of their concept of the American people which may be more benign than their opinion of the American government and policy makers. That last point should be easily understandable.

FWIW, I am well aware of the history of Iran, both modern and ancient.

In that case, I'm at a loss to comprehend how you could have written "Since when have "we" ever exhibited hostility to the Iranian people?" when it is perfectly clear the overthrow of their democratically-elected prime minister in 1953 was a hostile act.

If the US has abused the Iranian people for decades, why would they want favorable relations with Americans?

My source was a poll that indicated a majority of the Iranian people would like to have a good relation with the United States. Presumably, they prefer peace to war, they are less than pleased with Ahmadinejad, and their economy is down. They may also be thinking of their concept of the American people which may be more benign than their opinion of the American government and policy makers. That last point should be easily understandable.

FWIW, I am well aware of the history of Iran, both modern and ancient.

In that case, I'm at a loss to comprehend how you could have written "Since when have "we" ever exhibited hostility to the Iranian people?" when it is perfectly clear the overthrow of their democratically-elected prime minister in 1953 was a hostile act.

It took from the dawn of history until 1930 to have a billion people on the planet. Since the turn of THIS century, in our inaugural decade, we have added another billion.

How does the latest billion compare to the first:

A). People get better every day; B). Will Rogers might be able to find someone he doesn't care for in this batch; C). There is no difference; people never change; D). Most of these billion are "blanks"; E). Everyone alive now, and for the next 200 years would benefit immensely if the last billion disappeared overnight.

Votes?

Bill is spot on with this one. The people of Iran have an amazing capacity to blame the Brits for everything. There have been comedies made about it. It really is remarkable. Any intrigue, they are CONVINCED, has to be British meddling.

Given that, and that they see the US as the "rebel colonies", you really, really have to work long and hard, and have a gift for screwing up relationships, for the US and Iran to be enemies.

"Yes, we can"!

Ali Babble,

Absolutely right. The Iranians do blame the British for all the ills in the world and for what it's worth, I tend to agree, (since 1919 anyway).

Ali Babble and Old Ducker: Congratulations. You have each found a soul mate that you can agree with. Happy May Day.

President Obama & Israel: Problems and the Lobby

How do we categorize the fighters of the wars of 1775-1783, the wars of American Independence? The forces from the 13 colonies assembled and fought an asymmetric war against the organized forces of England. When the members of these American forces were captured by the English forces, often they were killed and labeled as terrorists.

How do we label the defense-liberation forces of Lebanon and Palestine? Do we call these terrorists because they have been fighting those who have occupied their land, killed their families and children? As Americans would we fight for the defense of our homeland? Those who help the people of Palestine and Lebanon are called the sponsors of terrorists. France helped our forces to fight the British forces. Were French sponsoring the American terrorists?

The success or failure of the administration of President Obama with Israel would determine the nature of future stability for the Middle East. Any rational and humanistic resolution of Palestinian dilemma has been non-starter with Israel. The problems of Palestinian subjugation to Israel occupation are the seeds for an unstable world including the Middle East.

The Palestinian issue, over 40 years of baffling by Israel throwing one excuse after another to derail any prospect, is independent of any other world concern for the US administration. Secretary of State Clinton should not allow Israel to dictate the foreign policy of the United States. USA can’t afford war after war to support failed attempts to stabilize the region. Palestinians have paid a high price for failed attempts to consider the human side of the Palestinians struggle for peaceful life.

The problem of Iranian nuclear fuel cycle is just a diversion from the real problems in the Middle East, the problem is a humanistic resolution of Palestinian dilemma.

Saint Traveler:

I agree, in principle. In my opinion, the two state solution is unworkable. Gaza is nothing but an open-air prison. The West Bank continues to be carved up by Jewish settlements. Neither (or both) are viable as an independent state without massive infusions of foreign welfare that itself would accomplish nothing except funding dissent and dependence.

The proper solution is a single state that incorporates the palestinian areas into a federation. Although this would actually work, it is opposed by everyone because:

a) Jews hate it because it means the end of a Jewish State

b) Palestianians (and Syria, Iran, Hizbollah, etc.) hate it because it means surrender.

So...the most likely outcome is what we have today; an unstable "peace" interrupted by periods of sporadic violence and mini-wars. That is unless Israel attacks Iran and then who knows what would follow...

Ratty: I like your style.

Bill R. posted about the "Naderite trolls being out in force" and that they "aren't happy unless they're unhappy".

Well, I worked for Nader in '00 and I remember him as being the only candidate who was making a big deal during that campaign about the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which had happened in '99.

Who was right about Glass-Steagall, Bill R.?

About relations with Iran, I'll give Obama credit for being more open than Bush. Obama isn't requiring that Iran not continue enrichment of uranium as a precondition to talks.

If I were Iran, though, my position begins with: you (the U.S.) has HOW MANY nukes and you want us not to enrich uranium? Are you nuts?

And, as regards Iranian veracity on this topic: I believe what Ayatollah Khamenei says as regards Islam. I think the Pope believes what he says when he speaks of Catholic doctrine.

So, when Khamenei says nuclear weapons are un-Islamic, I have to take him at his word. I believe they're just trying to build a nuclear-energy industry.

Stephen: You are joking about believing that religious figureheads are devoid of politics? Why did you not also cite the Dalai Lama? He is recognized as a combination political/religious leader - that's his role. I'd love to see a citation where Khomeini says nukes are not Islamic.... must have been back in the seventies? Drop that in if you would. Curious.

rw: Khomeini died in 1989. The current Supreme Leader is Ali Khamenei.

There is a well-known statement of Khamenei saying that either producing or using nuclear weapons is un-Islamic. There is some question as to the literal translation (as there is question about the translation alleging that Ahmadinejad said he want to "wipe Israel off the map").

Here's one link:

www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1433,2043328,00.html

But if you google:

Khamenei nuclear un-Islamic

you'll get lots of links.

Anyway, I think the Dalai Lama is a sincere religious leader. I bet we can't find one statement he's made concerning Tibetan-style Buddhism that he wasn't sincere with. Same for the Pope as regards Catholicism and for Ali Khamenei as regards Shia Islam (at least I believe Khamenei is sincere; I have no reason to believe otherwise).

Of course I didn't mean to say that a sincere religious leader can't also hold political office; all I meant to say is that a sincere religious leader doesn't misrepresent his or her religion.

"The success or failure of the administration of President Obama with Israel would determine the nature of future stability for the Middle East."

Perhaps we will get some clue as to what that future may be like after Obama meets with Netanyahu on, I believe, May 15th. Will there be a change we can believe in?

comment to Old Ducker: I agree with your comment. Would you please read my take on the same issue:

"Federal States of Israel and Palestine as One Nation" http://straveler-myamerica.blogspot.com/2008/05/federal-states-of-israel-and-palestine.html

I concluded that:"I suggest that only as one nation, Federal State of Israel-Palestine, the peace may endure. We, Americans, have failed to see the both side of the struggle for a lasting peace. The two cousins may have to kiss and forgive for all the hurt they have caused and endured. As Semitic people, they have common historical and religious heritage."

Traveler, re: your blog post

In regards to ancient history, I am most likely not as versed as you. My understanding is that no Jewish state lasted for longer than a few decades, mainly due to it's location between various empires. I don't know about the lost tribes. I am aware that because Jews opposed annexation by Babylon, Nebuchadnezzer II (Saddam's hero) took I think around 50,000 (the elites and wealthy) to Babylon where they served as forced labor. Upon the bloodless conquest of Babylon by Persia (Cyrus), they were liberated and most returned to Judea/Israel. Some remained in mesopotamia and others migrated to Persia.

As for the modern era, I am totally opposed to any formal or commonwealth relationship between Israel and the US. I am also opposed to economic/military aid, except as a temporary ameliorative.

The comment from a jewish person on your blog typifies the hardened stance. I find it laughable that an Israeli/Palestinian federation would "destroy 4000 years of history." Israel under whatever regime over the past 60 years has become an economic engine that the immediate region needs and has become dependent upon. However the tribal attitudes are intractable (and endlessly annoying).

I would like to get as far away as possible from them.

test