Obama and Chavez

This is the problem with freedom of speech, some people really don't need to spread their ideas. Mike Whitney is an pigheaded, uninformed blight on the Global Research web page, he has not considered the contextual applications of the very different presidents. Barack Obama has the misfortune of being in charge of a government where the balance of power is held by his opposition; this greatly limits how much he can do in terms of is party policy. Meanwhile Chavez presidency is in a country which is mostly homogeneous, furthermore if we wins a majority he can begin to 'rule by decree' something democracy opposes. Furthermore, Chavez can be reelected and infinite number of times. Can we agree upon the fundamental differences here? Did you know what Chavez's past political involvements have been? Multiple Military Coup D'Etats. He tried for years to kill the president of Venezuela! The man was a violent revolutionary. Meanwhile Obama was an editor for the Harvard Law Review in his first year, this is the most prestigious position in the ivy league schools.

     In terms of Chavez's opposition of major companies; this is because he is able to do so while Obama cannot. Venezuela is still growing and therefore it is an easy time to root out companies getting major influence in your nation. Meanwhile the oil industries and Coca-Cola have been rooted in the USA for decades, to remove any of these industries would shake an already unstable economy. One needs to be aware of the circumstance and political climate of a nation before they can even begin to  make claims like this, I am not doubting Chavez's ability as a president but I am doubting how informed Whitney is in writing this article. When we begin to toss ideas like this one around we need to realize that some individuals' opinions are more pertinent and more valuable than others, for example my opinion on evolutionary biology (a field i know little about) is not pertinent compared to say that of Richard Dawkins. I would contend that Whitney's opinion, although informed on Chavez, is not contextually informed on both sides of the argument and is not even worth further discussion.

In terms of Chavez being a good man and an ardent guardian of democracy I would just like you to observe who he is speaking to here: