Sounds like he's spewing a whole lotta BS to me...

I've got your critical perspective hanging right here, blanky:

I certainly agree that the military industrial complex, the Israel lobby, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc holds way to much sway over this country, but Obama is the most progressive candidate I've seen in my lifetime. I'd love to see a Nader, Kucinich, Paul or Gravel-type take the reigns (actually, I do have some serious reservations about Ron Paul's 'Free Market Economy', which is useless when it comes to education, healthcare and other social issues), but that just isn't going to happen. If any of those folks got elected, they wouldn't be able to get anything done. A leader has to compromise to some degree if s/he hopes to accomplish anything.

This is the first presidential nominee I've ever seen who is willing to talk so frankly about class, race, healthcare, corporate influence, etc., and while I don't think he'll storm the Bastille or anything, he is a much needed breath of fresh air after the Bush/Clinton/Reagan years. Can't you see the opportunity we have here with Obama?

One thing that gives me hope about Obama is that he made a point to formally sever ties with the DLC, which is the official home of the corporate-imperialist-neocon Lieberman's of the Democratic party. This is certainly a show of independence.

That said, Obama is definitely jumping through some hoops here and tiptoeing around some very expensive tulips, and while I'd love him to tell the influence peddlers to fuck off, I understand that that's probably not an effective way to challenge these institutions and make any kind of meaningful change. I mean, openly insulting the school bully leaves you having to constantly watch your back. Better to track his movements and study his behavior for weakness to be exploited later.

Beyond strategy, your only other options are McCain - who makes no bones about his blood thirst - or writing in a candidate - which is basically a stealth vote for McDeath. So what's it gonna be? GWB part II, or take a chance on an extremely progressive and popular mainstream candidate who pays some lip service to the elites when backed against the wall. Seems like an easy choice to me.

If, in office, Obama strays from promises, we'll hold his feet to the fire, but in the meantime lets give the man a chance. Don't forget that a candidate who thrives on small-donor grassroot support will be expected to deliver, or those millions of individual donations will dry up.

Idealism fails without pragmatism.

High-profile doesn't automatically make it anything more than a forum for discussion, does it? That only makes it in the spotlight at the moment.
And regarding ad hominem, that's the phrase of the year now, isn't it? However, everything he says that you don't agree with isn't an ad hominem attack. Neither is dodging the question.
Also, he's not belittling the guy's question. He explained what the CFR is, what it does, what the conspiracy theory is and his thoughts on it. If you think he's lying about what he said then that's a valid point to make, he's a politician after all, but what he said isn't an ad hominem attack. If he made light of anything, it was the conspiracy theory that there would be a North American union and merging of currencies, and not the guy asking it. He did eventually adress the conspiracy theory aswell as the CFR part of the question though.
If you don't think he put enough emphasis on the answer, then consider where he was and the audience's level of knowledge on the topic. This wasn't exactly a forum for debate, nor was it the Q&A session of a lecture on US trade agreements.

The idea of the CFR as an evil cabal trying to railroad through a North American Union without the consent of the American people is a ludicrous conspiracy theory with no credible evidence to back it up.
=Disagreeing with someone's false premises is not an ad hominem attack.

Though if North America were to copy the European Union (and abolish USA's unfair agriculture subsidies) that would be fabulous.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is the first presidential nominee I've ever seen who is willing to talk so frankly about class, race, healthcare, corporate influence, etc.,

I thought you were old enough to remember Carter.

Other than that, I agree with you on just about everything else you wrote. (Is that a hole in reality I see out of the corner of my eye??)

I think Obama is sometimes a little too willing to make compromises with the corporates. But I've come to view most elections in a similar light as the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1991 - Edwards vs. Duke. Just pick the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, you've got a typical politician, and on the other hand, a neo-Nazi.

No, I don't think McCain is a neo-Nazi, but given his support for Bush's unprecedented assumption of executive power over the rights of individuals, he might as well be a fascist. (Wow, is that two invocations of Godwin's Law? naw - Duke really was/is a neo-Nazi, so that doesn't count.)

^I was still in elementary school when Carter left office, but I am a big fan of Jimmy.