I appreciate the Real News' attempts to retain a bipartisan, objective view by doing hard-hitting reporting on both Democrats and Republicans, and pointing out the shortcomings of both.

However, they always seem to have "experts" who vastly overreach in their conclusions. Yes, the Democratic party leadership made the Machiavellian decision to feign powerlessness to stop the war so they could use it again in 2008.

Yes, Rahm Emanuel cracked heads and kept the Democratic party in line with that strategy, even down at the electoral level.

However, there's no reason to assume that Rahm agreed with the Iraq war. Now that there's no strategic advantage in continuing it there's no reason to doubt that he will be cracking the heads of pro-war Democrats to get them to help stop it.

Further, there's no reason to assume that Obama picking Emanuel means that Obama is in favor of continuing the war -- it just means he wants a Machiavellian ball-breaker as his Chief of Staff.

As someone who's been reading/watching/listening to almost every piece of news about Obama for nearly two years, I gotta say this guy is talking out his ass when he moves from the facts into speculation. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

As for holding Obama to his promises about restoring justice and the Constitution, he's absolutely right. I'm watching for his Treasury Secretary at the forefront right now, but I'm going to be watching who he picks for AG just as closely, once we start hearing noises about it.

What on earth gives you the impression that Obama has any choice in the matter?

>> ^Fade:
What on earth gives you the impression that Obama has any choice in the matter?


haha 7ru7h