Meanwhile, what we really need is a president like FDR, who was not afraid to take chances, an aristocrat who couldn't have cared less about his donors, who is willing to swim upstream and make radical changes. Obama has already shown himself to be completely beholden to his donors. His first two cabinet picks, Emanuel and Hillary Clinton, reflect this. Obama will have his army of Stan Greenbergs, taking hourly soundings of the populace, to make sure that his brand stays fresh and marketable. Nothing has changed except the brand, Phil.

I'm usually pretty anti-elitist, and I thought FDR's collaboration with Stalin was reprehensible, but I think you are very right about this. Both Bill Clinton and Obama are, deep down, very insecure people, which is a major reason each did, has, and will, dance for the Jews. Bush, theoretically from aristocratic stock, was just plain dumb. A real aristocrat that would look down his nose at the Zionists and the other shallow, selfish and short-sighted moneyed interests for what they really are might be the last hope of actually salvaging this country before it sinks completely into bankruptcy and oblivion. Obama is just too damn nice, and wants too much to be liked by everyone, to ever take the Zionist and Wall Street chicanery crew down a few pegs.

"our policies haven't changed yet, so what is everyone overseas so happy about?"

It's easy, and works just like so much else: The newspapers and talking heads tell us to be happy and "feel good" because of Obama, like another comment put it. The media of course won't mention important stuff like Emanuels appointment or how the Democrat leadership is just as corrupt as the Republican leadership. All the tell us is "he's young and black and he wants healthcare for all, plus he is NOT a Republican, so applaud him and shut up".