But in this case it is more a choice of "lesser of two evil figureheads." It is only a slight exaggeration to say (from the American point of view) that caring who's president of Iran is about as useful as caring who's queen (or king) of England.

Unless the theocracy is booted by all of this, regardless of who ends up in the presidency things will change as much as Ayatollah Khamenei wants.

Mousavi's hotter. Looks more professorial.

It's all a matter of degree. Certainly the president is all but (yet not quite fully) a figurehead in Iran.

But the president of the U.S. is so beholden to corporate interests, I've never considered that position much less of a figurehead. If you're not acceptable to the corporate power structure in America, there's no chance of becoming a major presidential candidate in this country ... and Obama is no exception.



(Except that Obama's way hotter than McCain.)

Well, Mousavi is way hotter than Jon. He certainly has more hair.


I think what is happening in Iran is interesting, but I'm not that excited about it. Mousavi is not a lot better than the lunatic running the asylum now, and the clerics are the real power in Iran. I am happy to see people there refusing to give in to corruption- it seems like the stranglehold of apathy has been broken in yet another nation- but I don't think it's going to bring about any real change.

Plus, we've seen a lot of massive popular protests in recent years that have come to nothing much even when they changed those in charge (the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, Tibet, Georgia, and Kyrgystan have all had relatively non-violent revolutions in recent years without significant short term change).

So while I'm rooting for the protesters in Iran to accomplish something of significance I don't yet have any strong feeling that they will.

Hey, if it distracts them for a moment from their hatred for the US and Israel, then that's better than nothing, right?

I'm fascinated with the story as well. The demographics of the country are so young, so it is interesting to see what this generation wants and is willing to do. The Internet/Social Networking aspects are also interesting to me, thinking how totalitarian regimes maintained their control over the monolithic broadcast mediums, on wonders how anyone can cut or block these communication ties without damaging themselves.

Of course the fear is another Tienanmen Square - China is the one totalitarian regime that seems to have mastered these things at the moment, though one wonders about her growing youth culture that has come of age in a much more materialistic society than their parents. The world is changing, and I hope it works out okay.

I still think it's important. Snips from Wikipedia:
I don't think you can change Iran overnight. If you get things like freedom of information, freedom of expression and even slight governmental transparency truly going, it can cause all kinds of other things to fall.

Oh, and recognizing the Holocaust? That's pretty f'n amazing right there.

I don't think the president of Iran can change Iran at all, let alone overnight.

He may wish to see the constitution changed but he has no power to get it done. If there is some indication that the ayatollah supports such changes then they're lost in the fact that he likely supported election fraud to ensure Mousavi's defeat.

As soon at the unrest looks like the theocracy is at risk I'll start to get excited.

I understand that the president does not have these powers. What matters is that the people support these ideas, and if they can elect someone who actually says these things, the country can move in that direction.

Yes, Tianamen and other events have not lead to more freedom, but what other hope is there for oppressed people? They have to start somewhere and hopefully the momentum will gain traction.