tics wrote: "This thread points out the weakness of the left..."

I have to disagree. This thread if nothing else sheds light on how, paraphrasing Kucinich, some of our candidates see themselves as imperialistic in their attitudes towards those who don't buy into corporate support. And it reinforces the need for drastic changes in how we select and elect our candidates for higher office.

And ARA Charleston:
Does it matter in the least how we "frame" our national electoral debates or who's in charge if our citizenry is denied access to alternative voices at the state level??? It's not the national debates...it's how candidates get there in the first place. And if the entire system is rigged from state to state to ensure that the status quo two party candidates are not challenged for votes by third parties or independents, then what's the sense in worrying about national debates??? Progressive voices will never be heard nationally because they were never able to get on enough state ballots in the first place. I've worked for independents and third party candidates in my state. I know first hand how the deck is stacked and the incredible odds alternative candidates are at to simply give people a choice. Ballot access from state to state is where everyone should focus attention. Fair and equitable access to the people for all candidates should be primary to anything else.

I was going to ask for a translation of Clinton's and Edwards's remarks, but Io Q. Lellity did so wonderfully. Thanks for that.

Looks like ABC News has finally covered the "vast center-wing conspiracy":

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3373890&page=1

certainly an interesting development...

we shall see.

"Where do you think NAFTA came from?" asked Gravel. "From the Trinity? It came from a Democratic administration."

NAFTA on steroids comin right up -- just in time for the 2008 election. We'll see just who's serious about taking a second look at it. In Canada, we're not even allowed to protest it: the US army won't let us:

MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 11, 2007

RCMP, U.S. Army block public forum on the Security and Prosperity Partnership

The Council of Canadians has been told it will not be allowed to rent a municipal community centre for a public forum it had planned to coincide with the next Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21.

The Municipality of Papineauville, which is about six kilometres from Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the municipality to rent the Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public forum on Sunday August 19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders Summit.

"It is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians," said Brent Patterson, director of organizing with the Council of Canadians. "Meanwhile, six kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada will have unimpeded access to our political leaders."

As well as being shut out of Papineauville, the Council of Canadians has been told that the RCMP and the SQ will be enforcing a 25-kilometre security perimeter around the Chateau Montebello, where Stephen Harper will meet with George W. Bush and Felipe Calderón on August 20 and 21. According to officials in Montebello, there will be checkpoints at Thurso and Hawkesbury, and vehicles carrying more than five people will be turned back.

Founded in 1985, the Council of Canadians is Canada's largest citizens' organization, with members and chapters across the country. The organization works to protect Canadian independence by promoting progressive policies on fair trade, clean water, safe food, public health care, and other issues of social and economic concern to Canadians.

Democracy Now reported this morning that, in presumubly this same conversation, Clinton and Edwards also talked about coordinating their efforts to exclude Kucinich and Gravel and other candidates from any debates.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/13/1513209

Why isn't ABC reporting this?

Looks like the fascists are creeping into Canada.

Mr. Zoya, I quote some other American citizen who said this first: "Be nice to us or we will bring your country democracy." I think you've just gotten a taste of the kind of democracy this government exports.

"Why isn't ABC reporting this?"

Because they don't want the people to see there are
other alternatives to the corporatocracy.

So that is what they were talking about. They have no right to try to exclude other people from the debate, especially not Kucinich who is very serious about his positions and campaign.

"We've got to talk because they, (our weak, blurry centrist positions) they are, just being trivialized," Clinton said to Edwards.

"They (Kucinich and Gravel) are not serious," Edwards responded.

"No," Clinton said in agreement. "You know, I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that (use our power and money to control the debates in our favor). We got somehow, you know, detoured (by engaging in a fair debate in which everyone had equal time). But we've got to get back to that . . ."

Aside from the obvious collusion that takes place from the frontrunners; encouraged by main stream media, I have a problem with John Edwards contributors. To understand who these charlatans really work for, examine their campaign contributions.

John Edwards has invested millions in, worked for, and gets contributions from Humana. Humana is just another big money corpo with it's heavy hand on health care insurance, HMO's and big pharma. Not unlike Hillary Clinton. No wonders main stream media keep force feeding the same front runner names into people's consciousness...it's status quo. By so doing, they minimize the voices of Dennis Kucinich, Gravel, Nader and make damn sure that Ron Paul's message is only heard in a whisper. "Lower tier" candidates compete with a whisper to a roar.

A mini-Leftwing conspiracy.

OUCH!!

I have Edwards stickers on my car, in hopes that he will help fend of Hillary Klinstone's attempt to keep the korporatists in power through the back door. I had hoped that, maybe, he and the other prog's would drag Obama back from the korporatist dark side and join with him to form a true progressive ticket.

This is an indication that Edwards may be slipping into the korporatist grip himself.

Boo-hoo...

Ditto that warning about the Security and Prosperity Partnership between the governemnts of US, Canada and Mexico.

Is this a leak to the press or what?

I thought big campaigns always did business like "I'll have my guy talk to your guy". I can hardly believe media savvy politicians would break impromptu news like this in front of a "turned off mike".

Hillary is now a political hack. She has joined with Fox news owner Rupert Murdoch in her efforts to become president and that should tell you something. Can she be trusted after this slip up?, I think not.

It seems that she is on the path to political subversion in attempting to limit the voices in presidential debate to Edwards and her own
(does this remind you of someone in office now?)

Once again we have another political hack who will do anything to be elected to office, even at the expense of our core Democratic value such as freedom of speech.

Question: Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up.

After thought: Reminds me of two mob bosses trying to control their turf on some television show.....Not funny.

Is the Republican NAFTA the same as the Democratic NAFTA? That questioned needs to be answered... while keeping these in mind:
1) The Peace Corps was started by Pres Kennedy to empower poorer countries and promote goodwill, but by the time Nixon got hold of it, it was sometimes used as CIA covert operations fronts (moreso by Republicans Reagan and Bushdaddy) and for promoting American corporate interests overseas, and was subsequently thrown out of some countries.
2) What we commonly call 'welfare programs' were initially started by the Roosevelts to empower disfranchised economic and racial minority groups, but by the time Reagan was in office, employment retraining (CETA) was eliminated, and food dispensations turned to cash dispensations that could be used for other things, like drugs, which the Republicans' CIA/Mafia friends profit from. In short, the Republicans sabotaged welfare programs to create more chaos and take access to power and health AWAY from the disfranchise, and essentially promote genocide among people They Don't Want in the system, like the Nazis did.

These could be important questions in this debate, and also just where is Gravel really coming from and what is his objective in making some of the random statements he does? Alaska was for a long time a staunch Republican state. So how radical can Gravel really be?
Are there de-facto-Republican 'plants' in the Democractic debates? They have indeed existed in other times and situations, as the Republicans excel at covert operations (as Teapot-Dome, the Willkie Campaign, Watergate, Ronald Reagan, Iran-Contra, and the 2000-2004 elections illustrate).
At least one of our brighter Democratic candidates must know this already.
The Republicans will try to create as much chaos and infighting inside the Democratic Party as they can.... it has been and continues to be one of their more effective covert 'tactic' s.

Vic says "A mini-Leftwing conspiracy." Ha, what nonsense my right testicle is further left that either of them.

Hillary is no better than her husband. Bill Clinton and the DLC did more to pull this country to the extreme right than any of his Republican predecessors.

John Edwards is a corporatist pretending to be a populist.

And don't even get me started on Obama.

Who benefits from excluding from 'serious candidate' status anyone who can't raise a gazillion $$ to spend on (here's a clue...) AIRTIME?

Why is it, exactly, that we have these dialog-restricting, tough-question-avoiding, sound-byte spectacles ('forum' my tush!), rather than debates?

I voted for Johnny Edwards when he ran for the Senate in N.Carolina and said all the things we progs wanted to hear. He spent his entire tenure in the Senate running for president. He missed votes on everything he promised to do as N.C.'s representative in the Senate.

I guess he was probably better than the GOP opponent would've been, but I wouldn't vote for him again if he ran for dog-catcher.

I'm relieved there's no higher job for him to groom for if he gets selected Imperator (or are we still calling it 'electing Presidents'?)

Johnny E. also, as I recall, joined Al Gore in PROMISING the electorate that the votes would ALL BE COUNTED in the 2004 election. Remember that one? They caved like cotton candy in a thunderstorm.

Now I hear some progs (Michael Moore among them) hoping Al Gore will announce HIS return to the ring. Please, y'all, try to remember history just THIS MUCH BETTER than the fascists we're fighting, ok?

Why not shake them all up and vote KUCINICH in the primary?

Peach McD in Durham NC
Hasta la democracia...

There are two possible scenarios here. If you go with saywhat and the whole mafia deal, here was the real discussion:

Clinton: "Take Kucinich on an airplane ride, and push him out the door, and in the meantime, I will take the old man (Gravel) out for dinner in downtown Manhattan and push him down a manhole."

Edwards: "Sounds good to me. My people will talk with your people."

Scenario #2

The Democratic caucus has now become "Survivor" and the candidates choose who they want to vote of the floor. The first to go will be Kucinich and Gravel. Richardson does not know it, but Clinton and Edwards are conspiring to lock him out of the building.

Either way, this whole thing is disgusting and stinks to high heaven. As far as I am concerned, Clinton, Edwards & Co. all can go to hell!

Sorry, proofreading is everything... my previous thread should say "...the candidates choose who they want to vote off of the floor."

fatfreddyscat July 13th, 2007 2:33 pm
"Ha, what nonsense my right testicle is further left that either of them."

Ouch.

God, let's not fool ourselves--all three of our leading candidates are charlatans of the highest order and I find Edwards' falsity the most egregious. We'll end up holding our noses and voting for one of them next November, unless Gore/Clark comes along. Per usual, anyone left of center has crappy options. Enjoy your pipe dream during the primary (for me, Bob Kerrey, Bill Bradley, Dean among them). Perhaps Kucinich this time. Then in November go vote for your favorite corporatist, or, worse yet, stay home or vote for Nader. It will never change. But please stop fooling yourselves. The Moveon embrace of Eddie on climate change was really hard to take. Like watching his debate in '04 on foreign policy--the guy is a nimrod.

It's not surprising that Clinton and Edwards have been caught explicitly scheming to exclude their own fellow Democrats, Kucinich and Gravel, from the debates. It's perfectly consistent with their and their party's actions in the past to actively exclude interesting, critical, and alternative voices rather than debate them on their merits (which, of course, they desperately want to avoid because Gravel has repeatedly made them look terrible). The Clintons and Edwards of the Democratic Party have been actively trying to silence independent and third-party candidates like Nader for years. The only thing new is that it has been caught on tape and that they are now so afraid of their own bankrupt positions being challenged that they are willing to go after their own party's candidates.

I just yesterday posted the following on a blog about the Democrats' efforts to silence Nader, but the same analysis applies to the Clinton-Edwards scheme to exclude Kucinich and Gravel, so I will post it here, too.

One aspect of all of this that I have found so perplexing and troubling is that many people who support the Democrat's efforts to keep Nader and other independent/third-party candidates (now even their own party members) off the ballot (either expressly in the case of Nader or effectively in the case of Kucinich and Gravel by excluding them from debates) actually consider themselves advocates of voting rights and free speech. This continues to amaze me as it seems so obvious that preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot (by whatever means) is as antithetical to voting rights and free elections as censorship is to free speech. Preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot is, after all, nothing but censorship of the ballot.

To be sure, some of these people fighting so hard to keep Nader and other candidates (including members of their own party) off the ballot (as opposed to championing their own candidates on their merits in free and open elections with real debates) are nothing more than hypocritical tyrants of various sorts hiding behind democratic-sounding rhetoric. There is really nothing to do with these people except expose them for the political bigots that they are.

More interesting and hopeful are the people who appear genuinely to believe in democracy, the right to vote, free elections, and free speech, but nonetheless support keeping Nader (and Kucinich and Gravel) and others off the ballot (by one means or another). If they truly believe in these values, how can they actually support censorship of the ballot?

Voting rights are usually thought of in terms of the right of an individual to cast a ballot and have it counted—i.e., if everyone can vote and every vote is counted, then voting rights are secure. Viewing voting rights in this manner allows the very people who expend tremendous time and energy removing Nader and others from the ballot (or excluding "not serious" candidates from the debates) to feel, at the same time and without any sense of hypocrisy, genuine outrage when minority voters are kept from the polls in Florida or voting machines do not accurately count votes in Ohio.

This notion that we have voting rights if everyone can vote and every vote is counted is fundamentally deficient. The right to cast a ballot and have it counted is necessary, but not sufficient for voting rights and free and open elections.

Voting rights and free elections require both the ability to freely cast a ballot that is counted and the ability to vote for the candidate of one's choice (which necessarily depends on the ability of that candidate to appear on the ballot). (And, the value of appearing on the ballot is necessarily dependant on the voters knowing the candidates and the candidates being able to communicate with voters.) If either element is missing, the right to vote is a sham.

Consider, for example, an election in which 100% of the people have the right to vote, 100% of the people vote, and 100% of the ballots are accurately counted, but only one candidate appears on the ballot. Under the usual conception of voting rights (everyone can vote and all ballots are counted), it appears that the right to vote is perfectly in tact. But this does not look anything like democracy. Indeed, dictators have repeatedly exploited this (deficient) conception of voting rights. Is it really qualitatively different when the field of political choices is limited to the same two parties again and again and again?

Why we continue to put up with this is amazing. Would we repeatedly (if at all) eat at a restaurant that offered the "choice" between one of the same two tasteless and stale dishes over and over again? Would we tolerate cable television that offered the "choice" between one of the same two boring shows over and over again? There would be open rebellion in the streets. It occurred to me at the store the other day that we have more choices in the type of deodorant and toilet paper we buy than we have for the type of candidate running for President of the United States.

To bring more people around to the idea that preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot is not consistent with their genuinely held views of the right to vote, freedom of speech, and democracy, I think we must develop a way of talking about voting rights in this dual context—the right to vote and the right to vote for the candidate of one's choice (i.e., ballot access). If we're interested in seeing additional candidates and ideas, we need language and frames to make this the issue explicit.

As the Republicans have shown recently and what my civil procedure professor said long before that, he who frames the argument and controls the language wins the debate. I just Googled "ballot censorship" and it returned only 3 hits! A search for "censorship of the ballot" produced none! Censorship is very difficult to defend if you support free speech. Why not take a lesson from the Republicans and call action designed to prevent Nader and other independent/third-party candidates from appearing on the ballot or to prevent Kucinich and Gravel (and others) from participating in the debates what it really is—ballot censorship.

ross.dreyer@comcast.net

This sounds to me as if Edwards and Sen. Clinton are agreeing that the forums and debates are straying from the path of seriousness into ad hominem attacks and inconsequence. From the few fragments reported, I see very little upon which to hang a conspiracy theory.

On the other hand, Clinton and Edwards have already conspired against the American public when they voted to hand Boy George and Darth Cheney a loaded weapon in the matter of Iraq. Neither of them is stupid, which means they voted for the Resolution in full knowledge that the case for war was bogus -- and that Bush was a conscienceless upperclass soundrel -- as a means of holding their places in the Presidential queue.
Do we take this woman OR this man for our lawfully elected leader? I don't think so.
Al Gore. Name another.

Edwards-Clinton would be a team I could really support. For months I've had a John Edwards for President sticker on my car. They are both compassionate, intelligent, accomplished, individuals, a far cry from the lame brain running this country for far too long.

If Edwards were the presidential candidate, he would temper Hillary's rather rightest philosophy, which she has on too many issues...flag burning, Israel, her early support of the war, etc. They both are in favor of universal health care. With their leadership, the US might finally provide its citizens this basic human right.

Let's hope their conversation to meet wasn't just to do lunch.

The only better team would be some combination of Gore, Edwards or Hillary, even if the same as in '04.

Well wolfytoo, we certainly wouldn't want new facts to get in the way of your bumper sticker. I mean, once it's on the car, it's hard to get off. I saw a guy the other day with an old Dukakis sticker on his car. Poor guy, I guess he's forced to write in Dukakis every election until the sticker comes off or he sells the car.

Well, I've got a Jon Stewart for President sticker on my car. Does that count?

Any legimate announced candidate should be able to be in the debates or forums. If any Democratic candidate moves to narrow the field and exclude someone else, they will have lost my vote.

Who is in charge of the debates? Are they rigged like the Presidental ones (see the Open Debates web page if you want that story) have been since the League of Women Voters stopped running them? Power brokers whether parties or media want to control the debate. The people want a real debate and have to demand it.

Gravel and Kucinich raise points that are worth pursuing. Shutting them up is completely unacceptable. Kucinich's plan for peace in Iraq is comprehensive. Where is the equivalent plan of the other "front runners"? Let them debate their respective plans.

people first... looks like the fascists are creeping into canada.... it started in our last election, when we elected a prime minister with his head up bush's axx.

Yes, democracy is more than two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for breakfast.

If the wolves allowed Kuchinich to win the election, how long would it be before they ate him for breakfast? They didn't allow Bobby to even get to the table.

There's a well organized community, some might call it a gang, who've been calling the "shots" on multiple levels since 1941, and probably before. They've been working together as a "community" for over fifty years, and they don't give a fig about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Everything we find reprehensible, like murder, fraud and torture, are in their bag of tricks. This community is the foot soldier of Money, and it's the Servants of Money who certify who gets to the breakfast table . . . and who doesn't. It's pretty clear that Hillary and Edwards are running with the wolves.

Nothing very unusual about that private conversation. All of the candidates likely talk to one another in private. Isn't there some real news to publiish? Maybe big news that some beauty queen had some pictures taken of her having a good time, or Elvis was seen in Michigan at a McDonalds.___ I hate the press.

Contract Telephone # 202-456-1111 and take a moment to ask that President George W. Bush resign the office of the President of the United States effective immediately

I agree with Evelyn. What is the real news here? Of course they talk to each other. I also don't know that the speculative between -the -lines interpretation of their conversation is accurate. I really think some of you who respond with the same cliche anti-corporatist jargon had better wake up to the truth of the matter that the reality of the situation is what it is concerning money's hold on power. Nothing new about that. The difference in the upcoming election is that we need to make very sure that another Bush-like scoundrel is not elected because if that happens, we will be silenced, imprisoned or worse for our points of view. Even phoney progs allot an opportunity for us to persist in voicing our points of view. Perhaps at least long enough to get truth out to more people a little longer. I prefer that to a total shutdown of free speech, which I fear the current administration is on the brink of instituting, especially if they and their supporters are given eight more years. Nader? Gravel? Kucinich? They are sadly so far from electable that they really don't count for anything but a haven for those who have truly given up the fight to the enemy. If you think for one moment that the Bushie types are as far right as we can get, or that their policies so far are as totalitarian as they would like, think again. So we hold our noses again. It's better than being suffocated once and for all. The truly subversive thing to do, in my opinion is to work within whatever Democratic administration we can pull out of the ashes. We have a far better chance of keeping their feet to the fire than having the fire snuffed out totally.

Use the phone in a church when you call. just in case wedo end up with an Emperor, don't want theemporers mercenaries kicking our door down. Well, they likely will anyway.

John C,

Three things:

1. I hope you don't pick your friends, partners, job, education, doctors, and other important things in your life with the same "least-worst" strategy as you pick your representative leaders. I thought America was supposed to be a great nation, not the least-worst. If you picked your friends and relationships this way, you would lead a sad, mediocre life indeed. I don't know anyone who wants to live in a sad, mediocre country.

2. You fail to appreciate the role of independent/third-part candidates throughout US history. Such candidates have historically been responsible for pushing progressive change on main-stream duopoly candidates.

3. You fail to understand the power of making your candidates earn your vote instead of giving it away for free. If you give them your vote without demanding anything in return (which is the same thing as letting them know that you have no intention of ever withholding it), they will ignore you because you simply don't matter. If you have the credible threat of withholding your vote, they are forced to listen to you. If you behaved this way at a car dealer, you'd pay at least sticker every time and would quickly be marked by the sales guys as a sucker.

I agree with everthing you say, but the bottom line is that when the election comes, I will not vote for the third party, knowing that my vote will in fact aid the explicit enemy that is far worse than the phoney liberal candidate.

ross dreyer--Hear! Hear! Well said on BITH posts!

woolfytoo--Haven't you learned anything here today? Go to the corner and on with the hat.

Bottom Line (Beyond hype, dollar horseracing, and "image":
1.) Edwards and Clinton showed their true dark colors into live mikes.
2.) Obama needed notes/cribsheets to participate in today's forum. NOT ENOUGH EXPERIENCE!
3.) Eliminate the two corporate cliche's and the cliche' wannabe and you get---Dennis Kucinich as "FRONT RUNNER"!
4.) If a candidate is pushed by the media, the rule is that you look elsewhere!

P.S. John C.--your last post's logic is as sound as a fart in a hurricane.

You people need hobbies... Clinton & Edwards can't talk to each other? Sheese :-)

Why not to vote Democrat. The Party is not interested in Democracy. From their point of view, I guess it's fair to suppress the upstart riff-raff who might have something to say about the way things are going in this country. They've got the money, and, as we well know, money talks. Ask Bush about that.

There are many people who like Kucinich the best yet are supporting Edwards because they feel he is the most progressive candidate who is electable.
Perhaps now is the time to rethink that position. And now may be the time to cancel TV and what passes for mainstream media news these days.

Much ado about nothing. Let's talk about what they think of SiCKO, instead.

saywhat asked: "Question: Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up."

Oh she did that a long time ago when, as first lady, she said, "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."

If she was that presumptuous of her power simply by being married to the president - and before ever holding an elected position - just imagine how she'll be if she makes it to the Oval Office.

She is not to be trusted as far as she can be thrown from the podium, which actually applies to most of the presidential candidates... Democrat or Republican.

There's not enough there to cry "conspiracy" amongst these two. Let's not overreact to imaginings of what they may have meant.

There is way too much REAL shit happening! Let's keep our eyes on the ball, heh?

WOW, This is the smallest tempest in a teapot I have ever seen!

Two candidates and their people are talking strategy and they would like to eliminate other candidates.

I didn't hear anything illegal or immoral here.

The media should talk about war crimes, crimes against humanity, corruption and unconstitutional actions by the current administration and the failure of the Courts, Congress and the media to deal with it.

TV news nowdays is nothing but a bought and paid for infomercial. They only tell you the things they want you to hear. I am done throwing my vote away on the least worst candidate. I am starting to think a Kucinich, Gravel third party is what I would like to see. It may be too late at this time to save our country but I will try till my last breath to never give up and always try to move things in the right direction.
Dennis Kucinich is a brilliant and courageous man and it may just be a pipe dream to think he can ever be elected. Screw the Oligarchy I want this to be the country I used to think it was.

I am so damn sick of seeing Hillary Clinton. If she gets the nomination, I'm casting a protest vote. And it will be for a Republican so as to keep her out of the White House. I would love to vote for a good independent, but that would be lost in a futile effort to defeat her.

Several years ago, I warned my Canadian Friends to watch out for Bush. One of these days, I told them, he is going to look at Canada's resources and consider that you are just a minor barrier between the lower 48 and Alaska. Look up "Anschluss." Then Canada elected a Bush wannabe for a leader and now we have this "SSP" program starting up which will allow US Big Money to rape Canada's resources for their profit using cheap Mexican labor. I think it should be called the Greater America co-prosperity sphere. Similar to Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." If you are old enough to remember WW-II, you'll remember what that was all about, and who got the prosperity.

I think Clinton and Edwards are just two more team players for the shadowy "Sugardaddy Bigbucks" characters that are actually running the show for their own profit. Naturally, they will try to marginalize anyone who is trying to change the well established system.

Remember, with rare (and often assassinated) exceptions, the American Politician has but one interest. To shoulder his way up to the public trough, and then to remain there at all costs. Once elected, what is the first and last plea? For money for the next election. When the ballots are counted, or not, as our last few elections have shown, the plans start for the next election. Favors are called in and paid back, promises made, and, oh yes, occasional legislation is thrown to the public as a sop. Rarely is there any real reform, real change. It is just business as usual.

I think the people are starting to wake up to it after the last election and the Bushit that has gone on since, but unless we can get some real statesmen in office, the only change will be for the worse, unless you are veddy, veddy rich.

I can't believe this bs ! Who the H cares ??All these people (politicos) "talk" all the time - geesh! I can't believe this is considered news - even by some people here ??
and for those from OZ -
Hillary Clinton is not responsible for NAFTA