Honest and aware people should always note the feedback they generate from those around them. It's how we make those social corrections necessary to achieve desired goals without causing new problems. Few go to the extent I do to see what the rest of the world is saying about America, and generally, the picture of We, the People isn't too shabby.

But the image of our so-called leaders leaves a lot to be desired. This does, of course, reflect upon we voters as making poor choices, but assuming that no lasting harm is done, we seem to be getting a generous helping of benefit of the doubt anyway.

For instance, Alan Cochrane of London's Daily Telegraph reports that he finds Americans are hospitable, but seldom gullible. But then Gabor Steingart, writing for Germany's Der Spiegel, observes Seventeen percent of Americans consider themselves part of the 1 percent of American society deemed rich.

In fact, some Americans are so self-absorbed and deluded, as newly-elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has learned, that you can't tell a wannabee Texan from Connecticut that there is anything bigger than Texas. Comparing the land areas of both nations' second largest states, Texas [with a land area of 261,797 sq. miles]would almost fit inside Queensland [715,309 sq. miles] almost three times.

The fact that the so-called leader of the Free World is suffering such educational exhaustion isn't lost on most of the world, especially now that US plans for Iraq have been seriously stemmed by the Iranian intervention in the Basra Crisis. Veteran Indian Foreign Service diplomat M K Bhadrakumar observed in The Asia Times:

Both Maliki and Bush look very foolish. Out of the dramatic developments of the past week, several questions arise, the principal being that the Bush administration's triumphalism over the so-called Iraq "surge" strategy has become irredeemably farcical, and, two, US doublespeak has become badly exposed.

"It was almost unbelievable that Washington was so dense as to imagine that cleaning up its reputation was as easy as selling a soft drink. It is this sort of bone-headedness that has put the US in its present rut in the Middle East."

Maybe in the twilight of his presidency, George W. Bush is realizing the degree to which the Israelis have played his administration for a sucker. It is the Americans who are being made to look weak and foolish in this process.

Meanwhile, the Israelis are showing no gratitude for the decades of financial and military support given by the United States to keep the nation of Israel viable. Their sneering characterization of the Bush administration says it all:

No wonder that America wants to change the rules. That's what losers do, they change the rules and declare: New game.

If only the Congress had such gonads!

The military power of the United States has been squandered by the fools on Capitol Hill, and you don't have to take my word for it. Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen announced in a statement given at a Pentagon briefing that too many troops are tied down in Iraq to send needed reinforcements to Afghanistan this year, while other senior Army and Marine Corps officers admitted that staffing Iraq and Afghanistan have put unsustainable levels of stress on U.S. ground forces and has put their readiness to fight other conflicts at the lowest level in years. It is such a drain on American military readiness that General William Odom told The Senate Foreign Relations Committee On Iraq that rapid withdrawal is the only solution:

We have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.

Dominique Moisi, a senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations, can see reality much better than George Bush can. Writing in Maylasia's New Straits Times, Moisi notes:

In the immediate aftermath of World War Two, most Europeans viewed the United States as both its defender against the Soviet Union's expansionist aims and the key external actor for their deeply wounded continent's moral and economic reconstruction.

This is no longer the case. The collapse of the USSR, America's self-inflicted wounds -- particularly in Iraq -- and the spectacular rise of Asia have changed European perceptions of the US. America is no longer the protector or model that it used to be, nor is it alone in terms of influence and power.

France's Le Figaro sees this situation as a golden opportunity, provided by the incompetence of George W. Bush:

During the Bush years, the Americans witnessed a double decline of wealth and the international reputation of their country, without precedent in history. At the time when America prepares to turn its back on President Bush, will Europe know to propose a new era of Euro-atlantic relations?

Across the Rhine, Stefan Kornelius of Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung comments on how Europe has already turned its collective back on George W. Bush:

President Bush’s demand for a rapid assimilation of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO has failed. Bush was driven by the simple, egotistical desire to make one last attempt to deliver his message of democracy and freedom to the world. Bush did this in a confrontational and undiplomatic manner... He was prepared to deceive important allies, but now must feel beaten.

At some point, practical matters must intrude into the lofty realm of geopolitics. It's all well and fine to discuss the finer points or international strategy and diplomatic maneuvering, but when push comes to shove, will the buses run on time?

Aluko-Olokun of Nigeria attended the 52nd Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York this last March. Her experience shouts out, "No! They Don't!"

I bought a Greyhound ticket to Detroit, Michigan to visit a friend. I was booked to travel from 10.15pm on Friday. By 9.00pm I was on the queue, [there were] whispers that the bus will be delayed. It was not until about 11.00pm that a lady came to explain that there was no bus going to Cleveland until 3.00am. They were sorry and offered all passengers waiting a meal ticket worth $6.50.

At 3.00am, no bus came.

At 7.00 there was no information.

The next bus [to Detroit via Cleveland] is scheduled for 5pm, and the only bus at 8.30am is for Pittsburg. I just agreed to board the bus and leave where I was to prepare for the longest journey I have ever made in my life.

After eight years of the "leadership" of George W. Bush, I feel the same way.

The Elecion of 2008 was already one for the history books with the first female and former first Lady candidate, the first partly non-while candidate, and the oldest corrupt candidate. Now, thanks to the entry of Ralph Nader into the contest, it's been transmogrified into a four-ring circus.

One has to wonder about why Nader is attempting to run again. Sure, he takes his positions seriously, but the focus is essentially personal. As he announced his candidacy on Meet The Press this morning, I didn't hear a single thing he wants to do FOR this nation. Every point he raised this morning was in opposition to the two major parties and their common corporate economic support system (not that I have a specific problem with exposing that fact).

What Nader should be doing IMHO is to act as an impartial senior statesman, taking on and possibly refuting the wilder claims of all the candidates. He could act in this manner - and not disrupt the already delicate balances between a semi-civilized election and mass chaos - only if he had no partisan axe to grind for himself. His effectiveness in taking up this quest is seriously weakened due to his wanting to be a part of the mess and not a part of the clean-up crew.

Think of how much better people could be informed if Nader was discussing the news instead of making it. Think of the possibilities if Nader were to discuss the numerous fallacies of Hillary's, including claiming that Bush I was responsible for NAFTA and not her husband; of holding Obama's feet to the fire over his plans for the nation so that he stays on track and not get distracted into joining Hillary's food fight; of presenting detailed information concerning the golden chains embodying McCain's slavish connections to the media owners. If Nader were to act in such a manner, without benefit to himself, he would be acting as the crusader he likes to believe he is.

But that isn't going to happen. Not now.

Instead, we will travel back to yesteryear, rehashing the Nader effect on the 2000 and 2004 elections, and whether 2008 will now follow a similar path. We will have to endure his attempts to get the attention of the other candidates - and the media - regarding his take on the issues facing this nation. Nader has some interesting takes on today's issues (Read the transcript!), but he has yet to offer anything resembling a contrete proposal on how he proposes to achieve these lofty goals (he's not alone - it's a common candidate failing!). The position statements offered on Nader's website are seriously sparse, considering that he's starting late and has a long way to go to match the output of the other surviving candidates.

Ralph, you took us twice already. I doubt we are going to flock to you in the numbers you've become accustomed to seeing. Too many of us think we need change, but we aren't willing to accept another pig in a poke. If we were, Hillary would have put Obama to bed already. You (and Obama, since I'm on the topic) need to be more expressive about what you intend to do about all these pressing national problems. Merely laying down platitudes (as Obama tends to do) or pointing out yet again what the problems are doesn't solve anything.

Obama appears to many voters to be coming closest to this desired behavior, even though he hasn't yet convinced me that he deserves the job. He certainly has no one who can push him like you could - IF you weren't in the middle of the muddle. Rethink this, Ralph. Drop out now before you damage what chances the nation has to recover from Bush.

It's an interesting news day in Gotham City this morning, as the major New York dailies are shelling all the camps of the remaining viable presidential candidates.

The New York Times goes into detail as to why the Lincoln Savings debacle makes viable the current scandal over John McCain's relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman even if there was no sexual aspect to it.

Considering how a story about Cindy McCain's drug use coverup was breaking just before this latest tale of misbehavior came out, one has to wonder if this alleged affair isn't just a salacious smoke screen intended to bury a real scandal - the use of political connections to not only squelch a felony drug investigation of Mrs. McCain, but to assassinate the character of the DEA informant who forced her to go public with her abuse problems. Wikipedia has a concise summary with links of the situation here.

Meanwhile Maureen Dowd excoriates Hillary not only for using Obama's speeches as an uncited source for her latest campaign slogans, but also for digging up ammunition for the Republican campaign to use against Obama should she falter in her effort to bend the DNC delegate rules in her favor. As MoDo puts it, "we’re only moments away from Hillary asking Obama: 'Can’t you control your spouse?' " referring to Michelle Obama's recent ill-considered commentary about national pride. This appears certainly to play into the jingoist entrenchment of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Speaking of the VRWC, it appears to have switched sides regarding Hillary. Instead of following MoDo's lead and going after Hillary, both NYT columnist and VRWC card-carrying member David Brooks and The New York Observer ride hard to Hillary's defense. Brooks seems not to have noticed that Obama has won the last eleven Democratic primary events against Hillary, presenting instead the tired broadside that Obama is too young and inexperienced to handle a "seventy-something" Congressional Chair delegation which he implies that la Clinton would have wrapped around her little finger. But, hey, David! Whatever works to keep the weaker of the Democratic candidates - the only one McCain can beat - in the race, right? Who cares if your facts aren't necessarily correct (which they rarely are)?

With that in mind, the low-brow The New York Observer is attempting to aid and abet the attempted theft of the Democratic nomination by spreading the meme that Obama's successes are due to the Cult-of-Obama. At least The Observer is willing to present a counter-view from Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign manager and former senior adviser to John Edwards’ presidential campaign, who noted that the cult slander is a last ditch attempt to rescue a "last of its kind" campaign, and would result in the loss of millions of Obama votes in the general election, promoting a McCain electoral victory.

That is the point of the exercise to rescue Hillary. McCain - despite all of the rancor he engenders in the so-called conservatives - is seen by the corporatists to be the only one they can trust with power. After Lincoln Savings, he isn't about to rattle his cage lest sensitive information about his real involvement were to emerge. Therefore, Hillary has to be Lame John's opponent.

All of this electoral hoopla is well and fine, but the real devil that requires his due is escaping notice.

Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers, asserts that it would be "Better to go into 2009 without wearing our usual rose-colored glasses" because "Obama and Clinton are centrist Democrats who are beholden to many of the same corporatist forces that pull the strings in Washington and have done so for decades." This can be seen in the desperate attempt by the White House to rescue the Protect America Act. Blogger Mike Kuykendall opines that this effort wasn't intended to protect the nation as Bush bloviated, but was instead intended to protect big American corporations from being found liable for damages in lawsuits. Bush's Supreme's are performing judicial activism in defense of manufacturers of lethal products against those they have harmed, so the strategy isn't limited to the false national defense sector.

Kuykendall continues, pleading: "Can we all get past the fear-driven politics and try to use a little reason in our national discourse?"

Abandon fear-driven power mongering??? You ask much, Mike!

I used to work with former Nazi German citizens. It wasn't hard to bring out the fascist programming in them, especially when they were caught up in an action before they could think. It's amazing how quickly they can still snap out that stiff right arm when they think others are doing so!

It's no different with Bush supporters today. There is NO thought going on between their ears, and they are proud of it. Attempting to reach such people using logic is a waste of effort. After decades of striving gain total control of the American people, do you really think that the corporofascists who back Bush would surrender those hard-won advantages just because they make sense for the survival of the nation? You have a higher opinion of our fellow citizens than I do!

The effort you propose, however, does have value if it is directed at those who are allegedly on our side. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are two specific examples of whom I write. While they aren't lily pure of corporofascist taint, they are at least closer to the ideal than the Republicans are - yet they vote as if they are still in the majority. Despite this obvious bias, there is no good reason why the electorate cannot reclaim them for the benefit of the nation.

Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term and later Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, is willing to cut Reid, Pelosi & Associates more slack than I am. "For one reason or another, they have let the Orwellian-named Protect America Act expire. Perhaps the Democrats have finally caught on that they cannot function as a political party as long as they continue to permit Bush to spy on them."

Male Bovine Excrement, says I. I see this move by Reid, Pelosi & Associates as merely another limp campaign strategy to gain a tenuous political advantage rather than a reasoned defense of the Constitution against the corporofascist excesses of CheneyBush. Without a serious turnover in the makeup of the Congress, the Republicans will continue to run things from the minority side of the aisle. Going along to get along doesn't qualify as change, nor as qualification for higher office.

But what of our current national situation? Is there hope? I don't know. I don't see anyone out there that I would trust with the kind of power Bush has assumed without opposition or consequence. He's established a precedent which is going to require someone of much higher integrity than anyone public today has to reverse it.

It is my firm opinion that we have reached the end of the line for the two-party duopoly if the health of the nation is to be restored. We have reached the condition against which George Washington attempted to warn against. Americans need to abandon party politics and return to an active role in the governance of this nation, but with a new season of Dancing With The Stars about to begin, there is little hope of that.

Far too easy to let the corporate news decide.

Check out my other web pages at American Realistan and Blogcritics.

I'm not a supporter of Barack Obama. But if, as it now appears, the people select him to be the next president, then he would be a choice I could abide - provided he is saying what he really means.

This has been my problem with Obama since the 2004 Democratic Convention. His keynote address was a very stirring performance, causing my prior blogger incarnation to rave about him being a future president. Unfortunately, his votes to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State despite her blatant incompetence and some of his other pro-Bush botes has cost him my support - and me my enthusiasm for him and his ambition.

But that doesn't mean it's the end of the world for Obama. Not yet anyway. But there is a growing concern that, for Obama, that time is drawing nearer with each speech and with each primary victory.

David Sirota is patting Barack Obama on the back for taking a more populist stance in his campaign:

In his victory speech last night, Obama hammered the North American Free Trade Agreement, previewing a major economic speech today. Here are some excerpts:

"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years...So today, I'm laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity. It's an agenda that focuses on three broad economic challenges that the next President must address - the current housing crisis; the cost crisis facing the middle-class and those struggling to join it; and the need to create millions of good jobs right here in America- jobs that can't be outsourced and won't disappear.

If Obama sees his opportunity in voicing a progressive, populist message on trade, then that's a good thing. That means that we have a leading presidential candidate who sees being a populist and a progressive as a major opportunity. Obama is sure to be berated by national pundits for going populist - it's precisely the kind of message that drives well-heeled Establishment propagandists across the partisan spectrum crazy.

People may say it is time for change but when it comes down to it, I don't think America is ready for that type of heat. [Obama's] life would be in jeopardy. If he gets the nomination they won't let him become president, but if they do, it will be for a short time, maybe less than a month or two...

I see the image I don't want to see. I see the image that is the terrible sickness in the great republic. I see Barack Obama one minute smiling, the people crying his name. I see Barack Obama grab his chest and his eyes widen and his mouth opens and the crowd screams as Barack Obama, black candidate for the presidency of the United States of America, falls to the ground dead, an assassin's bullet inside him.

I see the consequences of the sick and unsound because Barack Obama is black and to be black, and catapulting towards the presidency on charm, intellect, and popularity is unacceptable to the racist paranoid and scary in America the beautiful, their hatred exacerbated by the fact his middle name is Hussein, his stepfather was Muslim, he was once educated in a Muslim school.

America's sickos on the right and the left assassinated presidents Abraham Lincoln, John Garfield, William McKinley, John Kennedy; they tried to assassinate presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan; they did assassinate presidential candidate Bobby Kennedy; they did assassinate black leaders Malcom X and Martin Luther King; they attempted to or did assassinate a number of senators, governors, mayors.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long lifeâ€"longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. And so I’m happy tonight; I’m not worried about anything; I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

No doubt right now in America some person, some group, is thinking of how to assassinate Barack Obama, and no one should be surprised at one of the demented reasons given for fearing him: That Barack Obama is the new "Manchurian Candidate," that Barack Obama -- as captured Korean War U.S soldier Lawrence Harvey in the 1962 movie was brainwashed by the communists and programmed in his subconscious through a playing card to assassinate a right-wing presidential nominee -- is a plant by America's Islamic enemies to destroy the nation from within.

They do not want to hear that Barack Obama is as much an American as they are, and who has had to explain more times than he should have that he is not a Muslim, but a secular Christian. They do not want to hear that he is a better American than they are, these right-wing extremist fascists in the land of America who no doubt believe it's God's will Barack Obama not get to the White House, no method of deterrence out of bounds, in their zealotry to protect and perpetuate Roy Rogers, John Wayne, Mom's apple pie, and the cross of Jesus in every home.

When I first began blogging back in July of 2003 on a now-defunct site, one of the reasons I gave for my doing so was that I was already aware that the news media was clearly biased in favor of George W. Bush and the Republicans. I was concerned at the time that the GOP policies would cause great harm to the nation, and that the mainstream media was ignoring this probability. Events since that time have shown that in general, I was right - not that this earns me any special distinction as I'm barely a footnote in blogging history. I'm no Kos, no Atrios, nor am I as well-known as the late Steve Gilliard.

Despite this lack of Web stature, I felt that every little bit would help, and it looks like I was correct. An ABC News/Facebook Survey has found that, for the first time in polls since 1996, Internet news sites are rivaling newspapers as Americans' sources of presidential election news. We bloggers are also the only election news source to show growth.

This is good news, as buggy-whip sources of news are closing down due to necessary changes (mostly at the top of the masthead) delayed too long. The Cincinnati Post has ceased printing already, and in Chicago, both hometown dailies - the Tribune and the Sun-Times - are facing serious cutbacks.

New Tribune Co. CEO Sam Zell plans to wring additional profits from company assets, which include Chicago's WGN-TV, the Los Angeles Times, New York's Newsday, the Baltimore Sun, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Orlando Sentinel, the Hartford Courant, The Morning Call in Allentown, Pa., and the Daily Press of Southeastern Virginia will "serve as his lab". Employees of those papers are extremely concerned about termination.

Up the Chicago River from Tribune headquarters, the Sun-Times staffers fear the shutdown of their paper, which would make the Tribune the sole printed daily. There are suggestions that maybe both papers could merge while maintaining separate staffs, something which has already occurred in Detroit, Denver, Seattle and Cincinnati, but I wouldn't hold my Windy City breath on that idea.

A major owner of Sun-Times Media Group Inc. - Boston-based K Capital - is pushing for Media Group execs to be paid entirely in stock shares. Board members have since agreed to accept 100% of their compensation in shares, and the active publishing execs have agreed to accept shares as a large portion of their packages. If I had my way, all corporate executives would have to accept this condition. That way, they would directly share in the pain they cause when they screw up.

The print media isn't the only victim. Tribune media columnist Phil Rosenthal reports on some cutback efforts in television:

At NBC, they're talking cutbacks everywhere but at CNBC, which has to be able to compete with the Rupert Murdoch's nascent Fox Business Network. At Dow Jones & Co., which Murdoch's News Corp. expects to take over next week, the executive exodus began in earnest Thursday, a prelude to the new era from top to bottom.

At the Chicago Reader, the free weekly that has been shrinking in every aspect from page size to payroll since its takeover in July by Florida-based Creative Loafing, four positions were sacrificed Thursday in what Editor Alison True said in a memo to staff could be attributed to "the financial pressures of our industry [that] continue unabated."