Chucking a dictator like Mubarak does not effectively mean that his shoes will be filled by a swell guy. In fact, history shows us the opposite to more likely be true.
I think part of the reason the word "revolution" is seen more sweet than sour is that people associate it with the American Revolution instead of all the other world revolutions. Unfortunately, too many Americans know little about what made the American Revolution unique. What makes the American Revolution different from most revolutions is that the foundation for the American republic was established prior to the Revolution. In other words, all other revolutions attempt to wipe their chalk board completely clean before starting over. This leads--to say it lightly--to a bit of trouble (ever wonder why the guillotine was absent from the American Revolution?). When a dictator has been chucked--as in Mubarak's case--another likely scenario is that the "change" will be compounded with more despotism (read: Iran '79).
Liberals and other dreamy-eyed-dreamers imagining all the world living in harmony assume positive qualities will most always accompany the future because they assume man (read: themselves) to be inherently good. All the Ayatollahs taking over for the Shahs of the world does nothing to taint their
MSNBC's Mika--like many liberal Democrats--not only believes there is a progressive Fantasyland out there if we'd only leave it up to man's inherent goodness to solve problems, but her incredible ego thinks she can do battle against one of the smartest guys on TV, Niall Ferguson. As a historian, I've read a lot of history books, and although Ferguson is not a Francis Parkman or a Fernand Braudel, his intellect, writing skill, and research are unusually superior. All this does not matter to the overbearingly choice superhuman progressive mind, and Mika shows us what happens when self-esteem is six miles wide while intellect and humility are two inches deep.