Sorry, but Bill Clinton is correct. Even though it is true that Obama did not agree as did Ms. Clinton that going to Iraq was a good idea, the two of them are still fundamentally on the same home plate in regard to their position as war mongers. The key here is the REASON that Obama gave for not approving of the war in Iraq back in 2002. It was NOT, as was Mr. Kucinich's reason ("because it is immoral and wrong"). No,the reason Mr. Obama gave was because it was "not winnable." If you read some of Obama's statements regarding war in Iran, for example, you will see that he is on the same page as Ms. Clinton with his thinnly veiled threats such as "war with Iran is not off the table". Well they can both go to heck as far as this Democrat is concerned. Hillary lost me in September of 2006 when she crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans against an amendment that would have made cluster bombs illegal. Obama lost me when he gave his reasons for not going to war with Iraq. Count me as one American voter who says NO to any continued support in any way of the Mid East Conflict and this includes supporting Zionists as well as Muslims. No more American enablement for religious civil wars of other Nations. Enough! As long as we continue to interfere, these people have no pressing reason to settle their own differences. I look at American involvement as nothing more than enablement of dysfunctional behavior of other nations. I want a president who will stop this nonsense. And that is not a Republican, it's not Edwards, Clinton or Obama--all of whom are watered down republican war mongers. Kucinich currently holds the most promise for Americans, and even he is not perfect.

Presidents don't make history if they don't wage war. The Clintons, the Bushes, the Obamas all seem to agree on that.

When we stop expecting our politicians to be anything but politicians we will be getting somewhere, I think. It is not up to the president, it is up to us, if we take democracy seriously. Does anyone seriously think that an anti-war candidate will get elected? Follow the money! It is not in the interests of the corporate class to reject war. Until we reverse the Supreme Court's decision that gives corporations the status of a person and therefore have speech rights the same as citizens, we and our "elected" "leaders" will be subject to corporate control. For me, Obama inspires people, especially the younger generations, to be involved in politics, and to look to their better natures. I would be able to vote for him while holding my nose; but I'm afraid I would pass out first before I voted for Hillary.

I don't think Obama is thought of as a hero to the online anti-war community in the first place...

http://www.dreamingearth.net

That Obama "think[s] very highly" of both Clintons--both prowar, with Mr Clinton a major war criminal in his own right--ought to trouble everyone reading this. He is proving to be no better than any other corporate flack, and is certainly undeserving of ANY anti-war support.

There was never any "decision" regarding corporate "personhood." A clerk of the court wrote in the header to a decision the words that have morphed into an "actual" SC decision. A vote for Obama is a vote for more Empire, more war, more business as usual.

Yeah, theres no real distinguishment between Clinton and Obama. Theyre both prowar. They're both for handing concessions to the Bush administration in the form of a war supplementing bill that chips away a "timetable" for withdrawal or any other progressive legislative measures against the Iraq war. They both dont want to, in Obama's words "play chicken with the troops". They both want to "get tough on Iran". And they both favor implementing benchmarks that the Iraqi government is suppose to adhere to, therefore, in other words, clearing Bush of any responsibility for the failure of Iraq and putting the blame solely on the Iraqi people and government. This is a bipartisan imperial project that both democrats and republicans are wholeheartedly dedicated to employing. They dont want to play "chicken" with the troops? They already are by using the whole "not funding the troops" scheme just to justify keeping them in, sacrificing more American and Iraqi lives, while at the same time retaining their votes to win the 2008 election. How barbaric. We will never find salvation in the so-called "antiwar" democratic party, i.e. Plan B for corporate America. Its time to fight back and end this war ourselves. March in the street, shut down campuses, workplaces, anything you can to end the war, but do it now!

Obama isn't antiwar. Progressives and liberals are deluding themselves into thinking this guy represents something more than just a new look on an old game. He might appear new and refreshing, but he's still part of the bigger circus. My bet is he will end up VP for Clinton. Clinton/Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if this was in the cards from the get go.

Follow the money?! That reminds who's in Obama's hip pocket: Penny Pritzker (see Hyatt, see AIPAC) is his finance chairman, and AIPAC treasurer, Lee Rosenberg, is a member of Obama's finance committee!

Follow the money! Follow AIPAC!
Oh, the audacity of power!

I am glad that, from the antiwar activist dogging him on one side, and Hillary Clinton's truthful statements, Obama's so-called antiwar creds are being shown up for what they really are. Someone who wants to wind down Iraq (but not all the way) and wind up attacking Iran is not my idea of an antiwar candidate. We Democrats can do much better-such as Gravel or Kucinich for example.

Can we stop hearing about "foul-mouth" Hillary? She is running out of steam, so now brings meandering Bill to support her with his half-truths. God save the country if she gets in. Have any of you read "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler or "Inside" by Joseph Califano or "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson or "Unlimited Access" by Gary Aldridge or "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein? Quite revealing as to what she really is. And do you know how much they are charging the Secret Service for renting the small quarters provided them? Almost enough to cover the mortgage on their huge mansion.

Throw all the bums out! This is no different than stopping Viet-Nam, Democrats and Republicans up to their eyebrows.

Gravel, Kucinich and Nader; run independent on a platform of MEDIA REFORM. Any source of NEWS has to include public interest viewpoints from NGOs etc.

There are many others I would like to see as advisors to the party.

Dear karlof1,

Regarding Supreme Court decisions giving corporations the same free-speech rights as citizens:
"In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), the Supreme Court "found" corporations in the First Amendment when the Court threw out a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporations from spending money to influence legislation unrelated to their business. The ruling nullified the laws of thirty states that had adopted similar legislation." (from the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy website)
Isn't that it?

Interesting! Yesterday I received a call from the Obama camp wanting money. When I questioned the Senator's pro-war proclamations the solicitor on the other end of the line abruptly hung up on me. Credibility? Appropriate response? I think not.

Dear Rob Price,
Re: "That reminds who's in Obama's hip pocket: Penny Pritzker (see Hyatt, see AIPAC) is his finance chairman, and AIPAC treasurer, Lee Rosenberg, is a member of Obama's finance committee!"
Yes, it's in Obama's pockets too. That's my point. Just that candidates can't get a running start without the taint of rich donors. That's why I think, along with Bill Moyers, that public financing of elections is maybe THE issue. I'm as sick of it as you.

Obama is not anti-war. His position seems completely pragmatic with regard to winning votes. He tailors his positions to the audience he's addressing. In a speech he gave this year at the Chicago Council of Global Affairs, a speech that was referred to and quoted from in an article appearing on CommonDreams (5/6/07 - "Republicans Defect to the Obama Camp") neocon Robert Kagan reports approvingly of Obama's stated positions. The quotes were disturbing to me, and I questioned the authenticity of the story. My son fact-checked the event and the text of the speech. It was, indeed, very neoconservative in tone and content. So, Obama was correctly opposed to this particular war -- it didn't take a genius to arrive at that conclusion -- but, in principle, he is right behind the notion of the US's right to dominate and dictate global issues, and to protect US stakes (read corporate interests) at the expense of humanity in general. Not a very progressive or enlightened point of view.

Hillary Clinton is just another Republican-lite type corporate hack..who is using her marriage to Bill Clinton to raise money and get votes. In the event that she get the nomination, I think that every single progressive should send the Democratic party a message by voting for a third party (i.e. Nader or Gravel)...even if it means that they and Hillary lose the election. Only when progressive abondon these sell-outs will we ever be taken seriously...if we do cost them the election, next time around they will have to take the "Nader" vote into account.

In the meantime, I'm suppoting John Edwards. While he did vote for the war, he saw the disaster looming ahead and vetoed every bit of funding for it when he was in the Senate. And, he was the first one, and the only one to publicly admit that he was wrong. Yes, Kucinich is a better candidate, but he'll never be nominated. Edwards is pro worker, pro union, and has repeatedly called on America to be the moral leader of the world. Maybe not the perfect progressive candidate, but a prince compared to Hillary and Obama..and he's "good enough" for me.

The only candidate who has a proven record of opposing, protesting and putting forward alternatives to the unjust and illegal war in Iraq is Dennis Kucinich.

And yes, Laura, your kind of reasoning is exactly WHY he will never be nominated. Unless people follow the wisdom and compassion in their hearts, they will get stuck with the best democracy money can buy -- which means more of the same old media-induced hypocrisy.

Do not expect any change if it doesn't come from you. Or, as Mahatma Ghandi put it more actively: Be the change you want for the world.

This might not be a popular opinion, if Nader had not run in 2000, Al Gore would have probably been President the last eight years. We probably WOULD have invaded Afganistan to go after Al-Quida (making him a war-monger for many of you), but we definitely wouldn't be in Iraq, our troops would not be in that morass, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's would still be alive, and the region would be much more stable with terrorism waning, as opposed to its present expansion under Bush's policies.

It's true that the US is not equal handed in its handling of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but Arafat had a chance to level the playing field a bit. Instead, he wanted East Jerusalem to be his capital...he did not want to compromise. Al Gore would have certainly been more fair handed to the Palestinians.

Does this seem familiar to you Perfectionist-Progressives who thought Gore was too embedded in the corrupt political culture and was no different from shrub to warrent your vote? Before I get accused of being a Zionist, please note: The population of Jews in this country is roughly the same as Muslims. I got this info from an unbiased source...the CIA Blue Book on countries of the world. When was the last time Ramadam was recognized as a holiday in this country? Maybe in Paterson, NJ and other concentrated areas of Muslims.

Further, the rich elite and the corporations from which they reap profits from wouldn't have had the tax breaks that shrub gave them. And MOST importantly we would have had a president who understood the importance of global warming and would have been a global leader for the environment, as opposed to the coward in the White House, who has his poor excuse for a head shoved all the way up his ass.

I agree with Tom Morello, the guitarist of Rage Against the Machine that shrub, that bastard Cheney and the rest of that rotten bunch of Neocons should be hanged as War Criminals. They waged a war of unprovoked aggression against a relatively defenseless state (when compared to us), illegally kept people in concentration camps (Gitmo), violated the Geneva Convention, allowing torture of captured combatives(and also innocent civilians). They also eroded the civil rights of their citizens, allowing widespread spying of their communications. Kind of reminds you of the Nazi's, doesn't it? This is my version of a rightous justice. However, America is not ready for such measures, as much as I'd like to see them happen.

So you Progressives want to skewer Obama for recognizing what it takes to be elected(ie; not appear to be too "extreme" and orienting his speeches to the group he's addressing), and his "Realpolitik"? You'd rather cast a protest vote for Gravel, Kucinich and/or Nader? No big deal if a Republican gets in? Do you really want Bomb-bomb Iran McCain or that power-mad nut Guiliani as President? However if you are pulling for Ron Paul....well I thought he was okay, he is the only Republican candidate to tell the truth about the price of our interventalist foreign policy, until I Googled and read a favorable article from the John Birch Society. Either I need to re-evaluate the JBS and/or Ron Paul.

I personally feel that Obama would be a fine president, as long as he surrounded himself with wise people who would disagree with him when they thought he was wrong. I think his mind and his heart is in the right place.

Our political system was and still is to a certain extent, based on compromises, checks and balances. The rich elite have always had the playing field in their favor. It's just that now that unbiased investigative news reporting has shrunk so drastically due to corporations purchasing media outlets and the ratings game which has marginalized "news" into entertainment.

That coupled with the cost of political advertising and the pandering of politicians for money to get elected, has made them extremely vulnerable to quid pro quo to the power elite, especially if they seek re-election. This has corrupted our political process even more, as politicians have lost their moral compass, taking advantage of lobbiest's junkets and free plane rides around the world to so-called "conferences".

What could and should be done, in my opinion, is that contributions be limited to $200 and no PACs, unions or corporations be allowed to contribute to their campaigns OR political parties. No loopholes allowed, no lobbiest junkets and if the candidates have to advertise in the newspapers and write something intelligent instead of mindless soundbites, so be it. Also the contributions of average citizens would have more impact and the politians would be more responsible to the majority.

The Republicans would actually have an advantage....Fox News was founded and run by Roger Ailes, a Republican stratagist and is the worst example of biased yellow journalism, in terms of its widespread reach, in decades. It also true that most reporting in The Nation can also be biased towards Progressive goals, but the difference is one of scope.

Well, that's my idea of a reachable goal. But for any type of change to happen, the people have to demand it. And this comes from grass roots organizing. It's not perfect or a progressive's utopia, but I think it would contribute to our country's wellbeing. The biggest hurdle would be the judicial system and the entrenched players, but I think it could be done.

I'd like to know what you think and would you like to be a part of a grass roots movement.

Obama's reluctance to directly criticize the clintons. I had a horrible vision. The worst of both worlds. A Clinton-Obama ticket. He's aiming for the VP spot!

They are both candidates of the Money Party and do not deserve progressive support. Damn to hell all the DLC hacks and their clones.

The route of all this is the long term US Middle East policy. What is required is a complete rehabilitation of foreign policy when it comes to Israel. And yet when I listen to Obama's condemnation of Israel, all I hear is the soft scurry of tumbleweed and a distant Mexican church bell. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. He is justthe same as all the rest unless he stops the ludicrous support of apartheid in Palestine and the arming of different camps - especially Israel and Saudi - in the Middle East.

D'oh! That should say root, not route. It was very early in the morning when I wrote it...

What the hell, let Obama and Clinton dance and slash and slice at each other, and when they've bled each other out maybe we can get a good candidate for the Dems. I lean towards Gore and I'd like to see him in the race, but I doubt he'll sign up.

Realist progressives also think Big Money's nominees will win. So they will again support whomever is their lesser evil. If they win, they lose. Then the cycle goes from bad to worse. So although Kucinich talks the talk, he can't change the system. Only Gravel has the lasting solution: let the people decide.

Mke Gravel has a lousy idea, direct democracy, which didn't work in the ancient Greek city state of Athens when the conditions were much more ideal for such to work, it not only failed but brought in a brutal tyranny. Direct Democracy is the direct path to absolute and brutal tyranny being consolidated. Gravel is also too old to be starting out as president at 77 now. Give me a break. Dennis J Kucinich with a progressive running mate from the Midwest would win by a landslide, and that would prevent the GOP from stealing it. Furthermore, he actually is the only one running for president who's even close to qualified to be president and who would do the job right.

AD:

If you will read through Senator Gravel's site and click on his National Initiative for Democracy, I can almost guarantee that you will change your mind. Direct democracy has given the Swiss 150 years of peace and among many other benefits, the highest per capita income in the world. It failed in Athens because it was sabotaged by the ruling class.

Direct democracy is not favored by the ruling class and politicians of any stripe who are afraid to lose their power and influence. They will rail against this real democracy in its purest, most lasting and incorruptible form. Gravel is no longer a professional politician afraid of losing his job and has therefore no personal interest in furthering his career and feathering his nest. His only interest is in restoring our lost democracy for good.

Kucinich is a great candidate but he and all other candidates lack Gravel's experience, charisma and the wisdom that comes from being a healthy, intelligent 77 year old person. They also lack his solution to restoring democracy by letting the people make the decisions, not Big Money. Vital elder statesmen are national treasures whom we should learn from, not discriminate against.