The only 'evidence' that I have been able to find is hundreds of repeated quotes from Petras... no quotes at all from Obama. I think that you need to dig deep to find anything... if at all.

It would appear that the effort has been expended already... in trashing Petras. Highly respected? Well that just went down the toilet. From Eternal Hope James Petras: 12 Misrepresentations of Obama's Stances posted Saturday, 1 November 2008 James Petras ironically frames his misleading essay as an exercise in speaking truth to power. It is ironic that he frames his 12 misrepresentations of Obama's foreign policy in that manner when Obama is not even in power yet in the first place and it is George Bush who has been President for the last eight years. But from reading this piece, if one had gone into hibernation, they would have thought that Barack Obama was the President of the United States from 2001 to 2008. When one speaks truth to power, one must be able to get the basic facts right about where one's opponent stands on the issues. For instance, it would do no good to speak truth to power by calling Bush a Nazi. But that is exactly what Petras does. If one is going to criticize Obama, or any other politician for that matter, one has to be able to understand where they are coming from before running their mouths off. Misrepresentation #1 -- Obama promises to escalate Afghanistan: While it is true that Obama would send two more brigades to Afghanistan, this misleading assessment does not tell the whole story about Obama's policies in that region. Obama, unlike McCain and Bush, understands that the solution to Afghanistan's problems is not military, but political. In that regard, he would increase non-military aid to the region by $1 billion, especially geared towards creating an economy that is not based on opium. This kills two birds with one stone -- since Afghanistan is the Opium capital of the world, it would alleviate the drug problem in this country. The second is that it would facilitate a political solution in that country and undermine Al-Qaeda's power there. Misrepresentation #2 -- Obama would escalate ground and air attacks against Pakistan: False. From the same speech: I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. The only time Obama would act in that regard would be if he had actionable intelligence against terrorist targets. Now, one can question the merits of Obama's plan by raising questions about the likelihood of error. In other words, if I lived there and I wanted to take out some tribal rival, who better to do the job for me than the US military? Or, what if I wanted a nice cool million worth of reward money? But for Petras to claim that this would constitute a systemic attack on civilians is totally misleading; that implies that Obama would try to create a Vietnam-style conflict in Pakistan. PLease read the rest on the blog, it is worth it!

From Misrepresentation #10 Petras likes to style himself as an "intellectual," yet I fail to see how it is intellectual on his part to conveniently ignore those parts of Obama's plans which do not fit his preconceived notions of where he stands on the issues or to use free market logic when it supports his case while claiming to be against free markets. Says it all... Petras is spinning like a top.

And on the bottom of your suggested blog site, Tony, one finds a block ad "Vote Obama!" So it's not biased then............... :wink: Personally, I would want more compelling evidence from one non-partisan source which hinestly analyses each candidate's utterances both scripted and off the cuff. I gather that much of what Obama has said has emerged from ad hoc comments to the media. On the other hand, perhaps Obama is that rarest of rare animals, an honest politician! Perhaps he also knows where to unearth a Lodestone..........

The response quotes the actual events and speeches, not a dishonest and deliberate misinterpretation without quoting the source. Petras's diatribe is utterly pathetic and is typical of negative campaigning which is essential when backing a loser. Put the other's light out to make yours shine brighter. The fact that the blog I posted was in support of Obama is absolutely no surprise at all... who did you expect to see being supported? McCain?

I gather that much of what Obama has said has emerged from ad hoc comments to the media. No evidence to support that then? Just 3rd hand reporting? Or is it 3rd hand attribution? In other words (to use Petras's phrase) junk. On the other hand, perhaps Obama is that rarest of rare animals, an honest politician! Why not? It is possible. When I first saw him come to the fore in April when I was in the US, I was more in favour of Clinton because I thought she could beat McCain and I admired what she was committed to doing. When you see as many people as I have in the US who work to pay medical bills first and everything second you have to support someone who is prepared to make changes. My sister-in-law, while not struggling financially, has been told bluntly that if she becomes uninsurable, because of her health history, that she will no longer be allowed to remain in the US. They have lived there for most of the last 30 years with a few years in the far east, but always owning a home there. Obama wants also to make the necessary changes. I don't think that anyone is going to give America a quick fix after the way that Bush has poisoned the well, but I do believe, in spite of being sceptical initially, that Obama is more than likely up to the task, if anyone is, and I do believe that he is fundamentally honest. There is nothing in his background that has come out to suggest otherwise and I would imagine that a very large sum of money has been spent trying to find something! Every stone that has been thrown at him has missed... that has to say something.

Tony, Pulling out of Iraq will save America $100 Billion a year. Obama wants to do this, McCain doesn't. That gives Obama a lot of extra money to sort out America's Medical Insurance problems!

I agree, it will help, but the whole system needs reforming or that money will end up in a pharmaceutical and insurance black hole with nothing to show for it.

Oh goody! We're saved. Hallelujah! Let's have this discussion a few months on................... :wink:

... and you call me cynical? Just because you don't like Obama doesn't mean he isn't the best choice.