I loathe Hillary and her smug, arrogant, royal air. Chomsky says that "dynasty" successions (eg the Clintons and the Bushes) are a sign of a failed state, the absence of a democratic process.

I've heard Hillary talk about how she has no regrets regarding her pro-war votes, despite all the Bush/Cheney lies, the use of war allocations to make republican contributors wealthy, the destruction of international legal norms etc. Hillary is a calculating liar, and is just as interested in catering to corporate interests for her own self aggrandizement as any of the other "leading" candidates.

She and her husband Bill have colluded with moneyed interests to stop any form of progressive/socialist challenge to the status quo. Think NAFTA, Kosovo, welfare "reform" etc.

I appreciate MaxheMust's post regarding the corporate-media-described "marginal" and "extremist" Dennis Kucinich in fact representing the values and interests of over half of US citizens. What the f*** does this tell you about the agenda of the financial elites and what political views they want to push and why?

For me it's Nader #1, and Kucinich #2. I am open to supporting another candidate, but it sure won't be today's corporate endorsed front runners.

When we take the lesser of two evils, we get__evil. Of course, perhaps a lesser evil.

So our choice is really, "The evil of two lessers".

FYI, here's a report that Senator Clinton will appear after all:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070803/cm_huffpost/059109

If true, YearlyKos will achieve ecstasy after all.

Which lying, pro-war, pro-corporate Democrat do you support?

We need to provide the 'troops on the ground' to the Green Party or some other party besides the Dems.

We can support a candidate like us who will lose, or we can support a centrist like Clinton and take power away from the Republicans.

I think the time to protest the corrupt political system we have is every day other than on election day.

I also think we need to protest the corrupt monopoly media every day.

She's making the same mistake Gore made in trying to out-Republican the opposition so that she seems more "tough". That's a great way to alienate progressives, limit the spectrum of political voices and lend even less credibility to the ballot process.

GWB is a terrible president (and that's an understatement), but his worst effect on domestic politics is he makes Bill Clinton look so wonderful. Does anyone REALLY remember Bill Clinton? He was to the right of many Republicans on issues from Nafta to "welfare reform" to his bombing of seven countries in six months. And this is what his wife is actively campaigning on as her legacy and a return to these good old days. Had the internet boom not happened, there's no Clinton legacy.

With choices like these for dems makes me think Edwards! Truly though, I think the only way to get our vote across is to vote with a rock. Vote for them all!

It would seem that Madame Nominee-in-Waiting only regally relented due to outcry from the peasants which, of course, makes for bad PR at a stage in the campaign where her denizens are still worried about it. So she will grace the minions with her presence today.

In reality, if she gets boo'd or heckled it matters not. The Big Money which rules this two party Punch and Judy show have already anointed her with a shower of hard cash and media exposure and got Obama to cut off the last refuge of the anti-war miscreants (invade Pakistan, anyone? That's real 'anti-war' for you!). What? You think you live in some kind of DEMOCRACY or something?

Might as well get Gruppenfuhrer Giuliani in there and bring the boil to a head and let it explode. Prolonging the misery makes no sense to me. I'll take the fast road to fascism rather than the slow one. We're going there anyway.

No rocks - violence only lurches the general population away from us - and the monopoly media will have a field day discrediting our ideas and movement.

Be active for peace in non-violent ways.

Yeah she's going, and so is Obama, and somebody there better ask him this (because nobody anywhere else will):

How long can our species endure if american presidents consistently defend unilateral action in other countries?

Anyone here put the figure over a century?

Why are people complaining? For one, Hillary is terrible and shouldn't be allowed to attend any candidate forum. Two, she's a democrat, nobody intelligent cares what they have to say, they're sellouts, get rid of them.

And if Hillary is like any other major candidate, she'll try to do what Bush did. Hell, it worked twice in the last seven years. Find a way to win the election without being elected. If she wants to win, she needs to focus all her attention on THAT.

Nathan Andover August 4th, 2007 11:49 am

"We can support a candidate like us who will lose, or we can support a centrist like Clinton and take power away from the Republicans."

According to the polls, Clinton would lose to both Giuliani and, of all bizarre people, Fred Thompson. Nominating her is tantamount to suicide. And how dare you call a far right wing opportunist a "centrist"?

What (other than being told so by the nightly gossip, er news) makes you think Hillary is electable Nathan?

I know for a fact that the Republicans view her as a mike between a crack-whore and Pontius Pilate. Many MANY left-of-Hitler people think that she is a sell-out shill and deserving of nothing but derision.

Let's fix your post and make it more realistic:
We can support a candidate like us who MIGHT lose, or we can support a centrist [*snicker*] like Clinton and retain the power of the Republicans, whether she wins or not (highly likely not, she's too hated by groups people of every political spectrum).

Just because the lying talking heads in the idiot box tell you she has the best chance of winning, well, do they often tell you either the truth or what's in your best interests?

In conclusion, take your self-destructive advice and look at it carefully, you'll find that it's so full of wholes that it's embarrassing.

"Nathan Andover August 4th, 2007 11:49 am

We can support a candidate like us who will lose, or we can support a centrist like Clinton and take power away from the Republicans.

I think the time to protest the corrupt political system we have is every day other than on election day."
_____________________________

That might be the most often heard, least intelligent bit of cowardice going

Corporations run an extremist right winger against a slightly less extreme corporate Democrat....AND THEY OWN YOU

and the corporations cycle it out every 4 years until we've lesser-eviled ourselves into an Orwellian nightmare

Coward ! People like you have no right to say anything about the Republicans....you're the same sheep...same fear...same ignorance

I'm supporting Kucinich in the primaries, but I'm preparing myself to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is.

The problem is not with the candidates. The problem is with the corrupt political system and monopoly media.

David Brooks and his fellow anti-American travelers (HEART) HRC. What's that tell us? In a country of 300+ million, one Clinton pres per lifetime is more than enough. Let's move on and find us a REAL leader, like Feingold, for example...

I, on the other hand, am not ready for a corporate Democrat for president... Being JUST softer on us enough to let us start to think the totalitarian bullshit is in our past, so that we'll let them dig a little deeper next time a Republican gets in, and then softening us up again with another JUST soft enough Dem... until we're left with the choice (as so aptly demonstrated by the show Futurama) between Jack Johnson and John Jackson.

John Jackson thinks his opponents proposed 0.5% tax increase on titanium goes too far...

Jack Johnson thinks his opponents proposed 0.5% tax increase on titanium doesn't go too far enough...

Hillary and Obama (not completely sure about Edwards, honestly) are the John Jacksons to the entire GOP line-up full of Jack Johnsons (except Ron Paul, who in this analogy reminds me of Mom from Futurama).

The actual differences are nearly negligible already, and I will not be party to such an obnoxiously obvious cycle of control-building.

Everyone supportive of a party because of it's name or historical affiliations is fooling themselves by believing in some similarity to the current political landscape and the landscape of 20 years ago. It's a different world, and both major brands have been 'consolidated' under one banner.

The only hopes are with the individual people, voting for party is a vote for totalitarianism because it makes it very easy to subvert a republic if said republic is always in the hands of the same 2 parties. Hell, all you have to do is pay off or blackmail a few powerful people in each party (those who can set the party agenda) and poof, you've got yourself control of a multi-trillion dollar asset.

I do not understand how people don't see this already, that a vote for a (D) or an (R) are really both a vote for (C)orporate. Sometimes you get lucky and the (D) or (R) is really a (P)rogressive but that's so damn rare... If you don't ACTUALLY go looking for them, and satisfy yourself with the fact that there is a higher percentage of (P)s in the (D)s than the (R)s you'll find out that 5% isn't much better than 2% after all... The party 'filter' doesn't work, we need a new search criteria.

Fortunately the new search criteria is there, and in fact trumpeted every day on this site. Progressive politicians CAN be found, but not just by picking a whole group that likes to have a D by their name instead of an R.

Survey of public attitudes makes Kucinich the frontrunner

http://www2.kucinich.us/node/4871

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/

CLEVELAND, OH – In the political equivalent of a "blind taste test" taken by more than 67,000 participants, an independent website surveying public attitudes on various issues is reporting that Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is the first choice of a phenomenal 53% of respondents.

No other candidate, Democrat or Republican, even reaches double digits.

The website (http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ ) has been asking respondents to express and rank their opinions on 25 different issues – the war in Iraq, health care, the environment, Patriot Act, etc. -- that have been raised and debated among the Presidential candidates in both parties. Those taking the survey vote only on the issues, not for or against any individual candidate. The 67,000-plus responses were then correlated with the positions of all of the candidates as reported on

www.2decide.com/table.htm

The results are here:

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

As of this morning (the survey is recalculated every five minutes), more than 35,600 respondents were "in sync" with Kucinich on the issues. Democratic front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton was the first-place choice of only about 2,400 respondents (3.6%). Other leading candidates fared even worse: Senator Barack Obama (3%), and former Senator John Edwards (1.3%)

Treacherous bunch they gave us to pick from.

She's got nice legs.

*shudder*

I think Kem has officially made me throw up.

A vote for Hillary is avote for much of the samein Iraq,if you want the same keep Bush a least you will know Satan is not giving us peace Hillary is the same in a skirt.

"Mrs Clinton is regularly lambasted by anti-war bloggers on major Left-wing sites such as Daily Kos, Huffington Post and MyDD for her 2002 vote authorising the Iraq invasion - in contrast to Mr Obama, who opposed it."

I get sick & tired of hearing how Obama didn't vote for the war when he wasn't even part of the US Senate. He has, however, voted for every bill except one to finance it. That's how he authorizes the war.

I'm sorry ARA. ___ I'm easy to please.

Is that comment, Obama was not a U.S. Senator in 2002 correct?

Why would we want this bombo eruption singing her theme "You and eye for an eye" at a progressive forus? Switch to Kucinich, indeed.

Oh ffs KEM...

Sometimes you're probably right, other times you're probably wrong, but you always seem so damn SURE of what you're saying.

Go read! I mean, not TODAY's news, but for the past 7 years at least, find out HOW we got to where we are today instead of relying on the media to tell you where we'll be tomorrow. They don't have a good track record, which you'll see if you follow my advice.

I'm not trying to be a dick, your heart seems to mostly be in the right place, but it also seems to me like you're too trusting of the TV's version of reality, which is entirely inaccurate.

Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, sorry. Hey, at least I'm not on some Ivory Tower looking down upon you, I'm poor folk, trying to help figure out and implement what's best for the rest of my unwealthy brothers and sisters.

Oh, and while I'm at it, I'd like to sat that MaxheMust's post above is the single most relevant post on political affiliate this blog has ever seen, specifically the poll he points to.

Go check that out, and of course fill out the form for yourself, then look at Kucinich's numbers (hard to miss they are once you hit the stats page) it's insane.

I've known for a while now that Kucinich is the actual most mainstream candidate, but I didn't realize it was such a landslide.

I read it again, You told me to shut up about her legs and not to joke about them. The please came too late, "So shut up already!!" was your comment. I'm sorry I wrote an answer though. So, please Forgive me.

I do happen to have a good sense of humor, been married to the same gal for 51 years. that shoud be proof enough. My gal has great legs.

Neomunk, I joked abut Hillary's legs and then asked a fair question. I thought Obama was a senator when they voted on the war, because he always says he was and none of the other candidates correct him on that statement. I just was surprised to learn he was not telling the truth and wished for someone to insure me of it.

As far as being sure of what I'm saying? I always try to be sure and if I am corrected, I check any facts I've written and if I'm wrong I admit it. What is your problem?

Man, Max. Don't get my hopes up unless it's legit. Folks, be sure to hit "Go" at the dehp site BEFORE you answer the questions. And "support or oppose" wiretapping is dumb.

Hope that ww2.Kucinich site makes more sense or the 2decide thing.

Media has been mentioned. Let's get down to brass tacks. Here goes (can you relate?):

The message boards at my local newspaper are now places where THE STAFF start the threads, and oh how innocuous they are! You have to WAIT for your post to get reviewed, not a bad idea but overnight and over 24 hr is crazy. This paper serves a HUGE area, lots of military. I should know the population of the 5 city area...but at the moment I'll say 1 mil.

KEM: I think Obama was elected in '04. He and Hillary voted against the last war funding bill in the last 15 minutes of the vote. They slid in and out of the chamber to vote after they knew the funding bill would pass. Cute trick if you ask me.

Mrs Clinton is regularly lambasted by anti-war bloggers on major Left-wing sites such as Daily Kos, Huffington Post and MyDD for her 2002 vote authorising the Iraq invasion - in contrast to Mr Obama, who opposed it.

Lots of people remain confused because they rely on writing such as the above for "facts" -- while the author doesn't say specifically that Obama voted against it, there is the "suggestion" that he did.

He may have opposed it, but he didn't vote one way or the other, because he wasnt elected to the U.S. Senate until 2004!

But, since his election to the Senate, he has voted EXACTLY the same way as Hillary Clinton has on all issues related to Iraq.

Also, it gets so tiresome to see that old, tired canard that Hillary Clinton is a rightwinger.

If one would look at her overall voting record in the Senate, it would become rather obvious that she's in the moderate/liberal category.

Grow up.

For gawdsakes, when people focus on such superficial things as the perceived perfection (or not) of a candidate's legs, it plays right into the hands of the "dumbing things down" brigade.

Think about Max Cleland -- a triple amputee Vietnam vet, lost his Senate seat because of the take-no-prisioners, dirty, rotten approach to politics perfected by the GOP.

A disabled veteran -- WITH NO LEGS -- was smeared as soft on terror because he didn't back Bush's version of homeland security legislation.

So shut up already about Hillary's legs. (I realize some people joke about this, but it's playing right into the hands of the Hillary-haters. So please refrain. Please!)

In addition, when Clinton was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, she did a super job. Check her voting record there and see that she did more for the employees and for wemons rights than anyone else has before or since. Wal-Mart started sliding when she resigned that positon.

Did Obama vote to fund the war on the last vote for funding it? Almost afraid to ask, might piss someone off and of course I'll display my ignorance. I do that often anyway, so I asked.

It was a joke Micki, where is your sense of humor, up your butt? Who the hell are you to tell me shut up?

Kem, please look at my post again.

And no, that's not where my sense of humor is?

Where's yours?

In fact, I was just going to give you a thumbs-up on your post regarding Hillary's tenure on the Wal-Mart board. You do have your facts correct on that, contrary to most people.

While on the Wal-Mart board, Hillary also worked tirelessly to try to convince the ALL-MALE board and Sam Walton to incorporate sustainability programs as part of the Wal-Mart culture.

They listened. But went back to their old ways after she left the board.

Thank you Rebel.

I wonder if Obama voted against the war when he was a state senator and uses that vote for his comments? Could be, lots of city and state representatives have votes on important issues that are just sending their opinions to congress.

I dunno, yeah it was a cute trick, but when they get up there, they dance the dances or they don't last.

Yeah peace will win the vote in palistine too.

#
Nathan Andover August 4th, 2007 12:45 pm

I'm supporting Kucinich in the primaries, but I'm preparing myself to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is.

The problem is not with the candidates. The problem is with the corrupt political system and monopoly media.

I hate to give a fellow progressive crud but it doesn't sound to me like voting for the wal-mart swear queen will win any points for the non corrupt politicians. If we cant agree here on CD to not vote for a two party candidate then we have no choice but to bend over and give up our ass. This country need to get thrown for a loop, politically. I don't mean violence, I mean some ethical cleansing of the government system. As a people we are smart enough, I think/hope. We won't get anywhere until we find some basis of trust in our leaders and trust in the laws being up to date. No lobbying, shady earmarks, plenty of watchdogs and fail-safes. Our government is not in control of the corporations anymore. If it ever was. Everything is privately owned and nothing is public and our education is poor due to media control. We need trust and its not there.

So, how do we level the playing field? By playing the same rigged game?

Do you all think keeping in the same two potty system will do any real good if your heart isn't in it? "The Devil vs.Cthulhu, then we have David Johnson as a last runner up in third." I dunno, it your vote. It's all speculation anyhow.

Politics is just turning into another form of entertainment.

I'd vote for, in order of choice:

1) Ralph Nader

2) Dennis Kucinich

3) Mike Gravel

4) John Edwards

5) Barack Obama

6) Hillary Clinton (you notice she's my last choice)

For the past and present, she's in first place with the polls.

I agree with much of your opinions there Jungleboy, and if we can make lobbying illegal, we'd have a fair shot at becoming a democracy. Of course another Bush and our shot won't hit the target.

Hilary is the favorite candidate of the flying monkey right, which will be in pig paradise if she's the nominee.

Dick Cheney concealed the energy task force? Hilary demanded secrecy for the insurance industry/'healthcare' taskforce without even holding office. Ten million people march against an invasion? Didn't matter to Hilary, who stayed away from Iraq until Cindy Sheehan & relentless bad news made it impossible to avoid. She's absolutely riveted hand & foot to AIPAC. She refused to filibuster or to persuade others to filibuster Roberts & Alito, terrified of the fascist strategy of Bill Millionaire-Video-Diagnostician Frist. And she's always there braying about the importance of her faith, just like Edwards and Obama.

Kegbot1: I think you may be onto something.......Let the damn mess come to a boil!!

It really doen't matter if a Repug gets the White House. If Hillary gets in, it will just be a slower death for all of us. At least ALL Dems, Independents, Progressives, and probably even some pissed off Repugs would ban together against Guilliani. It may be the only trigger to get everyone on the same page about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, workers rights, the environment, etc. Boy, this could be a real show!!

In the meantime.....

Vote Kucinich in the primary. I'm still waffleing on the impact on Edwards. I'm still on the fence about him.

Next, when (not if) Kucinich doesn't get the Dem nomination, we need to draft an independent. I'm thinking Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He has a proven track record for the people. Maybe Kucinich could be his running mate. Or Nader?

Anyway, my mind is made up. If the Dems put up Hillary, I won't vote for her to make sure that a Repug doesn't get the WH. Period. NO MORE LESSOR OF TWO EVILS! I might as well not vote at all if it only means keeping the corporatocracy in power.

I feel better now. Thanks kegbot for helping me see the light.

"jungleboy August 4th, 2007 12:07 pm
With choices like these for dems makes me think Edwards! Truly though, I think the only way to get our vote across is to vote with a rock. Vote for them all!"
__________________________________

That's right Mr. JungleRot, AIPAC Edwards is the cure-all

Where do you people get off accusing Republicans of fear mongering and ignorance ?

You think your fear and ignorance doesn't stink ?

You say the same crap they do...and you sell it with fear just like they do.

Here we go again with the MySQL syntax nonsense again.